Technical Essay # 54 - FAF 12 July 1991

The Wall of Fire

 

Between humanity and divinity is a wall of fire.

The wall is made of fragmentation.

In many other parts of the universe there seems to be a gradient scale between different levels of awareness and one can gradually move between them. On this planet several rungs of the ladder have been disintegrated into zillions of fragments. Spanning the gap requires a quantum leap.

There doesn't seem to be anybody on this planet who isn't quite insane by external standards. However, the insanity of human life is nothing compared to the insanity one runs into by gradually moving into the next bands. The sanity on the other side is not reached smoothly and gradually.

Being firmly anchored in the physical human reality creates at least an apparency and stability of sanity. Being in present time, dealing with the apparent environment here, and following the agreed-upon laws here can have a relatively happy and enjoyable stay. One can make money, take vacations, eat good food, watch movies, and work on worthwhile causes. One can do all of that without much thought to spiritual matters or other realities. In some ways one can fare better and experience the scenery more fully if one doesn't care about too much else.

Or can one really? Everything here seems to include some trap. Rich people don't seem particularly happy, people with lots of free time get bored, people with lots to do get stressed, good food is bad for you, etc. Even if you fully play the game here it doesn't seem to fully present it's rewards.

One could assume that one can better enjoy the game if one can experience it from several levels at once. Chess is not as fun if you are a pawn as if you are the player, or maybe if you are both. Experiencing the game from any or all levels at once might provide the maximum enjoyment and the least entrapment.

Looking up from being humanoid on can see many desirable spiritual abilities. One could leave one's body and look around, one could communicate telepathically with other beings, one could know things one wants to know.

However, what happens when you succeed in leaving your head? Do you see everything clearly that is happening around? Probably not, except by an uncontrollable fluke. Just about anybody on the planet can "exteriorize" easily, that is not the problem. The problem is what you see. You might see a million things at once, a foggy or black mishmash of stuff. You might then decide that you can't really go exterior very well at this point. Or you might mock up what you plan on seeing and have a somewhat useful experience seeing it. But, despite all the talk about exteriorization and claims of out-of-body experiences I haven't seen anybody demonstrate consistently full exterior perceptions. Oh, I can perceive all kinds of things in all kinds of places myself, but don't ask me to prove it.

The thing is, when you stick your thetan-head out into the world of spiritual phenomena you enter a world with multitudes of deceptions, illusions, fragments, machines, and multi-dimensional mishmash. You might seem to have access to infinite wisdom and fantastic abilities, but you will seldom gain much of practical use for your game. On the contrary you might very well be led off into a never-never land of futile labyrinths with mirrored walls.

This world of confusion could be called the lower astral plane, or the realm of entities or whatever. It could be called your own universe, but that would probably be a mis-leading over-simplification. At any rate, it seems to be filled with screwed-up dead people, circuits, machinery, pictures, organizations, perceptions and all sorts of other stuff.

The real infinite knowledge and OT abilities are not found there, but on a higher level or vibration. The trouble is in getting there through the lower, very fragmented bands.

There obviously are beings there at the higher levels of awareness. If there are any walking around here in human bodies, I don't know. But, one can talk with them through various forms of channeling. And also, more able hands are noticed in the shaping of history of this planet. And there are beings actively overviewing things like evolution and the general order of things in the universe. I don't see any human beings taking care of the balance of nature or the evolution of planetary species and things like that. Don't tell me that these things are all random, that's what the fundamentalist materialists think.

The practical application of what we gain on existing OT levels doesn't amount to much compared to what is out there. Don't tell me that we already have completed the bridge and there is nothing left. There are people who have bodies that don't die, that they can teleport where they feel like, who do have infallible telepathy, full exterior perception, total recall, access to the universal records, who can travel in time and in other dimensions and things like that. Some of these people are even of dubious morality and could most certainly harm you if you allowed them to. Luckily you are always in full control of your personal reality, if you know it or not.

Despite that there is a lot we haven't mastered yet, there isn't the slightest reason to despair about that. What we move around with on this planet is luckily not all of us. It just happens to be the aspect of us that we are currently focused on. You already have the full ability of any higher or lower level of awareness. You might have shifted your focus, gotten confused, and pretended to forget a few things, but nothing was ever really lost.

What mostly needs to be done is re-integration. Re-connecting your lower parts with your higher parts, re-uniting parts that have been split apart, re-distributing parts that ended up in the wrong place, sorting out the correct coordinates and ownership of parts. That is roughly what clearing of any kind is about.

A key obstacle is the excessive fragmentation of lower level spiritual abilities. This is sort of the wall hindering the integration of your higher level OT abilities with your human manifestation. It has to be overcome somehow. We know that it can be bypassed, e.g. by channeling. However, that doesn't really bring the integration we are after. The wall has to be dissolved or encompassed in order to re-gain the wholeness of one's awareness and abilities.

The wall is not just entities, that is an over-simplification. OK, we can call just about anything a being, or entity. But we can also call it pictures, identities, viewpoints, parts, connections, dimensions, creations, awareness units, universes, and other things. It depends on how we look at it. A too limited model will not get the desired result. E.g. if we regard it all as entities and we try to blow them all, then we will end up disowning parts of ourselves we should have re-integrated.

An endless amount of strange phenomena can be found in the wall of astral deception. You can be the effect of loads of apparently electronic implant machinery, vast organizations of bad people out to get you, billions of insane entities being anything that could be imagined, connections to times and places where you might have been, subjects you have been interested in, universal deja-vu, forgotten creations, run-away thoughts, postulates with minds of their own, body snatchers, telepathic telexes, and galactic space fleets.

The trouble is sorting out which plane these things go on in and what they really are. It is easy to get confused and draw hasty conclusions.

Ten years ago I was exchanging telepathic messages with an intergalactic space cruiser circling the planet. I was the former commander of the space fleet of which it was the flag ship of. The crew was very happy to hear from me and supplied me with very elaborate status reports and requested instructions. I was very excited about this and had extended conversations with my crew. Finally I had them amass a major portion of the fleet around the planet and asked them to send down a landing party. Repeated tries and many excuses later I realized that it wasn't gonna happen, no space craft was gonna land, somebody was just pulling my leg in a very convincing manner. A number of years later I realized that this was an organization of entities and I dissolved it. It existed alright, but probably on the lower astral plane, not on the physical. Or it was just in my head, however you wish to describe it.

After a series of that sort of experiences I have learned to take things with a grain of salt. Not that "incredibles" don't occur. Several almost as incredible events do seem to have occurred to me. But things aren't always what they seem.

There are various auditing levels addressing these various phenomena. One can get to various points of stability of having dealt with some of them, with good gains. However, I must admit that I haven't really seen anybody break through the un-reality barrier to the other side. To the best of my knowledge there is a wall of fire there. But nobody I know of can really be said to have gotten all the way through it. On the contrary it seems to have consumed some of the most promising pioneers venturing through it.

Again, no cause for alarm. Clearing is after all just a game we are playing. The real, real you isn't stuck anywhere. But as regards to the you that maybe is stuck, I think there are still some things that need to be worked out to provide a complete path.

I bet the wall is best crossed from both sides at once. On both sides there is fairly solid ground. The physical reality is pretty solid and has a certain agreed-upon stability. The high spiritual awareness levels also seem quite clean and simple and can be contacted without undue hazard. Having those two separate poles discharge against each other might lead to the dissolution of the forbidden zone in-between. Techniques for doing that might be more productive than trying to unravel a load of insanity. Or, there might be techniques that actually can encompass and clear all that will be found. There are some promising candidates.

Or, well, maybe I don't know at all what I am talking about. Maybe the real scene is quite different. But this is what it looks like from here. Anyway, it is a fairly high ability to admit that one doesn't know.

Technical Essay # 55 - FAF 13 July 1991

Polarity Clearing

 

Polarity Clearing, or clearing of opposite parts, is a very effective way of handling case. It has produced very impressive results on new pcs and has cracked several cases that were otherwise resistive. It appears at this point that it can be run also at high case levels, and that it will address case that has otherwise been left untouched.

Polarity Clearing is based on the principle that if one fixes on one way of being one is also creating the opposite way of being. An unwanted way of being or doing is likely to be the flip side of a wanted way of being or doing. If the person doesn't take responsibility for both sides he will have created an unwanted games condition between them. The solution is to encompass both sides and integrate them as necessary.

It doesn't seem possible at this point to make a completely rote procedure for using this technique. It might or might not require a high level of practitioner skill, that is not quite clear. The theory is however very simple and the technique could probably easily be taught.

This is a type of Identity Clearing. However, it contains some subtle points that seem to make it more direct and potentially more effectful for certain types of case phenomena.

The basic idea is that if the pc has an unwanted behavior or aspect of himself, then there is a part of him that does it and a part of him that doesn't do it. The unwanted aspect persists because it hasn't been reconciled with its opposite part.

If the pc recognizes that he has an unwanted behavior, then he has already to some degree separated out the two. The part of him that regards the behavior as unwanted is not the same as the one that does it. If it was, he wouldn't have much trouble changing it.

So, we start out with an unwanted behavior. That doesn't mean a somatic. A somatic is better handled with Incident Clearing. This would be something he does, or a way he looks at things. A beingness or doingness rather than a havingness such as a pain.

The pc notices for example that he has a problem with getting angry. By 2WC we determine that it is more a way of being than it is a somatic he gets as a reaction. Or, said differently, it seems more oriented towards cause than towards effect.

First we get the pc to differentiate that he actually has such a part of himself:

"Is there a part of you that (gets angry)?"

That makes him sort of isolate it, and it makes him realize that it is not all of him. He differentiates from it at that point. He will usually have a small cognition on that actually being the case.

We are not after a fancy label for the part. We are not trying to L&N for a precise terminal. That would be an entirely different action. In this context, making abstractions and labels would tend to lead away from the simplicity. They would provide a way for the pc of not confronting what is really going on.

The part should preferably not get a label at all, except for the obvious statement of what it does. An attempted more elaborate label would most likely invoke the laws of L&N and lead into more complexity.

When the pc is "being angry" all kinds of things might be going on in his case. He might have a dozen identities relating to this: "a concerned citizen", "a radical terrorist", "a spurned lover", and so forth. And he might have implanted goals: "to create anger", "to destroy anger", etc. And he might have any number of incident chains including anger. Entities might be angry. And he might have all sorts of other things relating to anger. Those are not what we are after here. We are trying to get him to face and take responsibility for the simple fact that he is sometimes being angry, and the part of him that does that is here right now.

We are addressing the issue here in present time, and we don't give the pc any escape of placing it in the past or assigning it to some other identity. That forces him to deal with it now. On the other hand, we must avoid giving him mis-ownership phenomena by assigning too specific tendencies and labels to him.

The reason we assign the behavior to a "part" of him instead of to "himself" is to establish the differentiation that makes it possible to clear it. That opens the door to some actions a new pc might not otherwise go for.

If we don't make the distinction that it is a "part" doing it, the pc might insist that he has "every right to be angry", or "that's just the way it is", or "she made me angry", and it doesn't resolve easily. That might indicate service computations of course, but they don't run well on new pcs. By separating it out the pc is likely to begin itsa'ing instead of defending himself or wondering what is wrong with him.

So, by the simple action of getting the pc to recognize that a part of him is doing something unwanted, we have accomplished several things:

Now, the next step is to get the part that is at odds with the first, unwanted part:

"Is there a part of you that is opposite to (the angry part)"

The pc will also answer that quite readily. We get a simple label for that part, e.g. "The calm part of me". Avoid going into L&N. We don't want a very precise label, we just want the general area.

The pc has now isolated the other side of the coin. He has to some degree recognized that that is also an isolated part of him, he has taken some sort of responsibility for it, and he has differentiated it from the self that is watching all of this, the self that we are currently clearing.

Differentiating this second part might take a little bit more work than the first part. The pc might insist at first that it is simply "me". No problem, we just need to isolate which part of "me" that is. A little 2WC should produce a little bit more definition, such as "the calm part of me" or "the rational part of me". The pc will naturally feel that this second part is closer to his "true" self, and that is quite fine. This second part is probably the one that feels that the first part is unwanted. Either one of them might be dominant, though. Also, both of them might be more or less unwanted.

Our underlying philosophy here is that something that was whole has been split up into a dichotomy of two parts or polarities. That split creates an ongoing games condition between the two parts. Our objective is to re-integrate those two parts with each other. Our plan is to first recognize that they are there and then working out what it is that is keeping them apart.


Neither Part A or Part B are whole or perfect. The pc might initially feel that Part A is completely unwanted and he wants to get rid of it, but Part B is his own true self. Well, that is one of the reasons he has the problem he has. The parts are separated by lack of ARC. The situation will persist as long as he can't accept both parts and as long as they can't accept each other. Despite the pc's initial opinions, Part A will be found to have qualities that B doesn't have and Part B will have qualities that A doesn't have

Having differentiated the two parts, we can start working on them. A good place to start is:

"What is (Part A) doing?"
"What is (Part A) holding back?"

Notice that it is expressed in PT. We want to know what the part is, and does, not what it was, and did. This is again to address what is there now, and to avoid going off on a tangent.

We aren't particularly trying to get perpetrations. We are trying to get a picture of what the part is reaching and what it is withdrawing. That will establish further distinctions for the pc of what that part is about and what its inherent difficulties are.

We aren't going to ask for any goal or basic purpose of the part. That would get us off into L&N. The part is most likely a composite case, it doesn't have one single purpose. Trying to find one would misown a bunch of things and start out-list phenomena. However, the pc should get a good idea of the general line of activity for the part.

When we have gotten all the answers available for Part A, we can switch over to Part B and do the same thing.

One of the parts might appear to be only holding back and not doing anything, or only doing things and not holding back. That is fine, that might be the way it is.

Depending on the resistiveness of this pair we might skip to the final integration step or we might do a whole lot of more actions. The practitioner would have to determine what is appropriate for that individual pc and the dichotomy at hand.

We can ask the pc what sort of a game or interaction occurs between two parts like that:

"What kind of a game would develop between (Part A) and (Part B)?"

or any other wording that fits the pc's reality. He might describe the game in great detail and get good cognitions about that. Or, he might insist that there is no interaction whatsoever between the two parts, they are completely separate. In the latter case we have some ways to go, we need to interject some more steps.

We would now ask the pc to mock up the two parts in front of him:

He doesn't have to do it visually or in personified form, he can do it whichever way suits him. The pc will usually have a pre-determined position for A and B, so don't choose it for him. Like, he would be sure that Part A had to be to the right and Part B to the left, or vice versa. Note what he puts where if you plan on pointing at them in the air along the way.

If the parts aren't too ARC broken with each other, the pc would probably be able to have them discharge against each other at this point and they might get re-integrated with each other to an EP. Or, he might be able to do that after a couple of simple actions, such as looking at the differences and similarities between the two parts.

Otherwise, we can run a variety of things on the pair. Communication is a good place to start:

"Is there something (Part A) and (Part B) should communicate about?"

or

"What could (Part A) say to (Part B)?"
"What could (Part B) say to (Part A)?"

The parts could ask questions of each other, shout curses at each other, or whatever seems appropriate for the pc.

Sooner or later the parts should become accepted or liked:

"Is there something (Part A) can like about (Part B)?"
"Is there something (Part B) can like about (Part A)?"

You can use "accept" or "love" instead of "like" as appropriate. You can also turn it around and look at what they reject or hate about each other.

Problem processes could be applied to the problem between A and B, such as:

"Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to (A versus B)"

or any others. Also, help and responsibility:

"How could (A) help (B)?", "How could (B) help (A)?"

and

"How much of (A) could (B) be responsible for?"
"How much of (B) could (A) be responsible for?"

or

"What aspect of (A) could you be responsible for?"
"What aspect of (A) would you rather not be responsible for?"

The two parts will have some sort of ARC breaks, so that can be addressed. It could be assessed with ARCU-CDEINRF. A BPC assessment could also be done. It should be worded as being in PT.

Each part is likely to have some sort of service computations. The pc might accidentally voice them and they can be run on brackets when they appear. Or one could look for them in various ways, like:

"Does (A) have a main principle of life?" or "What is (A) using to be right?"

One could also run power processes on the parts.

Usually the parts will start re-integrating well before one has gotten very far into the list of potential processes.

Various things can be done creatively. One can mock up extra pairs and have them discharge against each other. If they seem to be personified one can have them do all sorts of things: fight, shake hands, hug each other, etc.

The EP is that the parts re-integrate with each other. The pc will realize how each one has its place, how they are different, how they are similar, he will accept each one, and he will become willing to encompass them both. They will probably seem less separate and might actually melt together into one whole. The pc might be perfectly satisfied with having started the process of integration and might feel that the rest will take place in life. That is fine, we just wish to re-establish ARC and to create as much integration as the pc wishes.

The pc should become able to pick the aspects of any of the sides that he wishes to use. He might wish to keep the two separate sides there to use in different situations. Or he might wish to dissolve them and have their component features be available for general use.

There are a lot of things that could be done under the heading of this Polarity Clearing. However, it is really a very simple action. Two parts are separate and therefore perpetuating an aberrated condition. We do what it takes to re-integrate the parts and the condition can change.

Remember that this approach is not applicable to all types of case. However, for the types of case phenomena that it is made for, it can produce very satisfactory results.

Very importantly for new pcs, this results of this approach are very visible for the pc. He will not be wondering "when the actual clearing starts", or "what this has to do with me". The pc's cooperation is implicit and he demonstrates the result for himself. All pcs I've tried it on caught on to the idea very rapidly and were very aware of the result they got at the end. It doesn't require any indoctrination, and his questions afterwards are mostly about "why nobody told him before that it was that simple".

When used consciously, the principle of polarization can be used by the being to set up games he wants to play. Used sub-consciously, or if one tries to create a one-sided game, one will create an on-going games conditions with one self.

We will only attempt to clear a set of polarities if a part of the set is unwanted for the pc. There would be no point, and it would actually be detrimental to try to take apart desirable games that the person has set up.

Technical Essay # 56 - FAF 19 July 1991

Life is a Ride

 

Life is like a ride in an amusement park. A lot of machinery and activities have to be in place in the background in order for the experience to occur.

As a matter of fact an incredible array of stuff is going on in the background of the game you call life. You are ultimately the master of all of it, and you have obviously gone to great lengths to craft a very varied and convincing illusion you can walk around in and play games.

First of all you have convinced yourself that you now are this one being who is intertwined with this alleged body that you are now using as a game piece. The body is a vastly complex piece of machinery in itself. And you pretend to have this thing called a mind filled with all sorts of experiences and ideas. And you relate to these things in many complex ways.

And around you you've put a vastly more complex scenery that you can travel around in. Dimensions upon dimensions of spacetime stretched infinitely in all directions.

Just your supposedly immediate surroundings are complex enough. If you accept the concept that you are creating this reality, take a look at what is involved. Just the piece of paper you are holding in your hand is extremely complex. It is built of a vast amount of subatomic particles in constant motion, organized into quadrillions of atoms and molecules moving wildly around. These particles all happen to be in the right place at the right time to form an apparent piece of paper of the shape you see with black ink forming letters corresponding to the letters I wrote on my computer when I wrote this. And all this despite all the other complicated things in the universe that might stop this from happening.

How are you doing that?

If you tell me that it is easy, then try to make another one like it. Let me see if you know how many atoms of which kind you need for a piece of paper, and let me see if you know how to put them together. Take 5 minutes and see if you can work it out. You can make a picture of a paper in your 'mind' of course, but let me see one in the physical universe.

The catch is that the 'you' who is reading this paper isn't the same 'you' who is constructing it together with the rest of the universe. That ought to be kind of obvious, since the incarnated 'you' probably hasn't had much success in materializing things out of thin air. I am sure you have tried, as have I. However, it is sort of the same class of problem as trying to go exterior by 'exteriorizing' your eyeballs from your head.

The part of you that can exteriorize has no problem whatsoever exteriorizing. The part of you that is creating your physical reality has no problem either, the physical universe is here isn't it? The 'you' who is wondering about these things might not be in good communication with these other 'you's, but that is an entirely different matter.

Your abilities have many harmonics. Take for example 'postulation'. A person incarnated in a body might bring about success in his life by postulating that he is doing well. He might attract the elements of life that he is focused on. That is what is often called 'creating one's own reality', or 'having good postulates'. However, one can easily get confused as to which reality he is creating. The only reality that person might have control over from where he is at is the reality in his mind. The physical universe will then allow the person to attract what he is focusing on in his mind. The external reality is therefore more correctly attracted rather than created. For daily life purposes the difference is insignificant. But when somebody expects that just because he can attract certain conditions into his life he should also now be able to materialize matter out of thin air, well then a few things need to be sorted out.

In order to provide the world you have around you a lot of matter has to be materialized in a very complex way. It might be correct to say that 'you' are doing it, but only if we define which 'you' it is. The 'you' who is doing it is vastly more powerful than the 'you' who's reading this page and who has been getting auditing to get better.

You are most used to focusing on a certain central viewpoint from which you play and experience the game of life. This could be considered your conscious mind. It is your window to the world.

The advantage of a limited view is that it can keep things relatively simple and enjoyable. All the boring or revealing details are hidden from view. That keeps the conscious reality more believable and potentially more enjoyable.

If you are watching a movie in the cinema you just want the experience, not all the detail that went into creating it. You don't want to see the scriptwriters 117 discarded versions of the script, you don't want to see the actors memorizing and rehearsing their parts. You don't want to see the microphone boom sticking into the picture, or the shadow of the camera man on the floor. You don't want to see that the space ships are really small plastic models. At other times you might find interest in those things, but when you sit down to enjoy the movie you probably want the simplicity of a believable illusion.

Life is like that too. You usually want the detail hidden away. The internal detail making up your individual 'character' is hidden away in your subconscious mind. The external detail creating the scenery is hidden away in what we could call your superconscious mind.

You are at one level or another doing all of that and fooling your limited conscious self into having the experience of life. One of the hardest things to accept is probably that you are from a certain level actually playing all the parts in the game.

Now, you've got to use quite a bag of magic tricks to create this experience for yourself. The tricks by nature have to be deceptive. If your player self could see through the tricks immediately then the illusion wouldn't work.

The background machinery is intended to create the elements of life. If all you want is to enjoy life, then in principle you would just want to leave the machinery alone.

However, apparently some bugs have sneaked into all this machinery. Particularly the sub-conscious machinery seems to behave less optimally than what would be expected. We might have to debug some of this machinery.

It seems that the majority of the bugs are in the sub-conscious section. As a matter of fact my suspicion is that there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the generation of the physical universe. The unwanted physical conditions are only there when they are attracted by a group agreement of subconscious factors. The physical universe is quite stable and dependable and only seems to be doing what it is set up to do.

There wouldn't be much point in trying to take the superconscious machinery apart unless we happened to be done with it. Tampering with it would be the equivalent of loosening the screws in the rollercoaster you are riding in. If you don't want to ride it then you can just leave and go to another amusement park and try some other rides. Or you can construct your own somewhere else.

If you somehow believe that you can't get off the ride, then that is a subconscious problem, not a superconscious. You might be mixing yourself up with the characters you have been playing. What you would need to do to leave is to realize that you actually aren't any of them. You don't even have to take anything apart in order to leave. Particularly it is unwise to try to take the ride apart while you are in it.

The factors that need handling are mainly:

¥ The subconscious aberrations that keep you from playing and enjoying the game you want.
¥ The inability to shift focus between different levels of awareness.

The first factor is the main target of Clearing. Its resolution is a bridge between the current state of you as a player and the optimum state of all dynamics of playing. It could be called the horizontal bridge.

The second factor is of a different nature. It is based on the idea that all levels of awareness exist right now. You don't really need to change one to the other. All you need to do is to focus at a different level. That doesn't have to require time and hard work, it is available right now. This could be called the vertical bridge.

The confusion between the two types of bridges brings unnecessary complexion and frustration. You can't exteriorize with your eyeballs, and you can't change a human being into a static. The horizontal bridge can make your life optimum and bring you success and happiness. The vertical bridge can make you see that you've been a tone 40 static, cause over all dynamics, all along.

The two bridges might or might not be intertwined. They do correspond to the havingness and exteriorization factors which we previously have postulated should be in balance.

In cleaning up the subconscious it is important to discern between the wanted and unwanted part. A lot of work has gone into creating your character and your subconscious mind. If you plan on staying to play, don't dismantle the vital parts. Dismantling the mind doesn't get you out of the game if that is what you think. It will just leave you with a broken engine. The way to get out of a stockcar race is simply to leave, it isn't to dismantle your car in the middle of the track, you will just be hit by the other cars.

That is important enough to repeat. You don't free yourself from the game by removing parts of your mind. You free yourself by shifting your focus somewhere else. If you can't it is because you think that one of the pieces is the real you.

Desirable parts of your mind you would want to keep. The ones to work on are the undesirable parts. And it isn't as simple as just getting rid of those either. They might be distorted versions of something you actually need.

You do need experience, circuits, and polarities to live a life around here. You don't need false or mis-evaluated experiences, redundant circuits doing things you don't need, and polarities holding you back instead of driving you forward.

Any type of case phenomenon is an aberrated occurrence of a basically desirable feature. You wouldn't want to have no problems, you would want to choose your problems. You wouldn't want to have no circuits, then you couldn't speak or write or walk. You would want to remove unnecessary circuits. You wouldn't want to have no identities, then people couldn't recognize you. You would want to have no redundant or undesirable identities.

Even apparently insidious case phenomena like GPMs or entity organizations are likely to be based on some needed functions. Maybe GPMs would be a type of game plans and entity organizations would keep track of one's areas of interest, I don't know. At any rate, a distinction should be made between the parts you need and the parts you don't need. You might be left with all the jobs that you would rather have performed automatically for you, and you will find that that isn't that much fun either.

Get the bugs out of the machinery and remove the extra parts. But don't scrap the machinery itself or you won't have a ride.

 

Technical Essay # 57 - FAF 24 July 1991

Negative Beings

 

There is a definition of negative/positive that has been used as a categorization of people. Particularly it has been used about alien extra-terrestrials involving themselves in the affairs of this planet.

A negative being would be somebody who acts based on his own or his group's interests exclusively without regard for others.

A positive being would be somebody who acts based on the greatest good for all concerned, all dynamics.

This applies of course not only to aliens. It is a useful model for looking at people in general. And also, it gives some clues about pitfalls in spiritual development.

The negative behavior is based on the idea that you can make things right just by taking your own needs into consideration and going for what you want. You are of course closest to yourself and you can't expect anybody else to take care of you. You or your group can be full cause. Anybody else aren't you or your group so it is up to them to take care of their needs. In the mean time they are fair game when you work on your own purposes. You've got to fight for your rights and get what you want before anybody else screws you.

The positive way of looking at it would be that we are all theta. Anybody and anything around you is part of your dynamics. Any part of the universe is tied to any other part. If you don't take responsibility for the whole you will in the long run hurt yourself. One dynamic can't be enforced to the exclusion of all other. If you empower others and give others their power of choice it will benefit both you and them. You don't need to oppose anybody.

The negative way is basically self-determined, win-lose.

The positive is pan-determined, win-win.

The philosophical justifications for each of the patterns probably lies in a basic disagreement about what beings are.

The negative view would be that the highest level of spiritual development that could be attained would be you being full cause, that is, in full control of yourself and your environment. Increasing your personal universe to infinity and decreasing any other universes to zero.

The positive view would on the other hand be that you can't reach your full potential without taking everybody else into consideration. Everything else is part of you when looked at from a higher dynamic or a higher awareness level. You can only be the highest level "you" by encompassing "others" also.

It basically comes down to the discussion of the origin of beings, what is the eighth dynamic, are we all one, etc. That is kind of touchy to discuss in that it can easily become a wrong indication and bring up by-pass charge.

However, let me again risk my good reputation by giving my view.

You are ultimately an infinity of infinities. That includes any possibility of beingness, doingness, havingness, any viewpoint, any level of awareness, anything that is created, anything that could be created. You can focus on any part of this. You can become "a single static being", a "viewpoint" in a "universe", a "hole in the ground", or even a "human". What you are currently focused on being is probably far from the highest state.

If you insist on being a human being you are excluding yourself from being "full cause over the universe" and many other things you might think of as OT abilities. A human per definition has certain limitations. You could even say that as a human you have been "created" by somebody else, because obviously you don't know yourself how to create bodies out of thin air. The catch is that who created you as a human is again just you, just at a higher level.

No matter which level you go to you will only find you. Any confusion of identities can be resolved by assuming a higher awareness level.

At a higher level you are also the source of both "yourself" and "others" on lower levels. That higher level would be above a need for individuality, in that it can encompass all possible individuality and be it all at the same time. That is the "before the beginning" of the Factors, or the "separation from Theta" that many pcs find in the beginning of a track if they haven't been otherwise indoctrinated.

"All is One", or particularly "We are all One", is rather mis-leading when applied to the current 3-dimensional human reality. Different individuals are obviously different individuals, they are not the same person. If you thought that you would be me you would be out of valence. And if you thought you were a spot on the wall or a planet, you would also be having some problem.

The "All is One" concept is however not far off when we look at a higher level. I would rather call it "All is Infinity" or "All is All" or something like that to avoid confusion, but the idea is about the same. The truth in the matter is the concept of pan-determinism or of the eighth dynamic. You would be limiting yourself if you refused to be able to see the totality of everything. It is just a different focus of attention.

The negative way of being is connected to a refusal to see the whole picture. It is an attempt to take a part of the picture and enlarge it to become the whole picture. That is an interesting experiment to see if that is possible, but I am afraid it won't hold in the long run.

It comes down to how one puts something into being. It seems to mostly happen by a 2-pole system. If you become one thing you at the same time categorize everything else as being "not you". To become "Flemming" I mark off a certain area of beingness and say "That's me".


The negative view would be that the 'Flemming' bubble is all I am. I could then work on expanding that to become all that is

As a matter of fact it isn't all that is. I couldn't do that trick without 'being' the whole thing to begin with. There would be no 'Flemming' unless there was something to compare it to, the 'Not-Flemming'. It adds up to a whole.

The positive view is that 'Flemming' needs 'Not-Flemming' and it wouldn't serve much purpose to get rid of the 'Not-Flemming'. It is kind of sawing off the branch you are sitting on.

Refusing to accept the whole situation can give rise to all sorts of case phenomena. As part of the 'Not-Flemming' there might be all sorts of things and ways of being that I absolutely despise. "I would never want to be like that", "I want to be as far away as possible from those kinds of people". That is fine, that makes it possible to play games and to have a varied life. However, ultimately for the sake of your spiritual development, you would have to be able to accept and admire anything and everything. Anything or anyone that you can't accept and admire is something you aren't taking responsibility for and it will come and haunt you sooner or later.

There is nothing particularly wrong with the negative beings. If you assume the positive way of being you would have to be able to accept and admire also the negative way. But if you can only see the negative way and that is the only way of doing things, then you've put yourself in a trap.

Scientologists fall in both categories. The philosophy of Scientology can be interpreted in different ways. In that Hubbard never really committed to any particular way of looking at the eighth dynamic the references to these things aren't totally clear.

I would say it is perfectly clear, just by looking at the dynamics. You can't bet everything on one dynamic and forget about all the others. All the dynamics have to be balanced, and the optimum behavior is the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

However, other people interpret things differently. Some people try to go "OT" on just the 1st dynamic, or just the 3rd dynamic. I would claim that that is a contradiction of terms, but that is a matter of discussion.

As far as the CofS is concerned, it has turned into almost exclusively the negative view. It attempts to create negative OTs who only work for their own and their group's (CofS) aims with utter contempt for everything else. It hasn't always been like that and the practice isn't particularly justified by the philosophy of Scientology.

As an aside, there are now a great many vectors aligned with positive spiritual development on this planet. There has been an explosion of activity in the direction of getting people up the "bridge". It is called all sorts of other things, but if you look closely we are talking about very similar things. The goal of OT is being quite widely disseminated, not by the CofS but by a wide variety of different philosophical, self-help, or New Age groups.

These people use different terminologies and frames of reference, but that doesn't have to be a problem. If you look at the big scheme of things, spiritual development is spiritual development. Particularly if it is positive. And we still have some of the best tech around to accomplish that.

 

Technical Essay # 58 - FAF 25 July 1991

The Answer

 

I have found that the answer to all the great questions about Life, the Universe, and Everything is 2.

Honestly, I think that I have cognited on what the common denominator for all phenomena is. The idea is not particularly new, but I had overlooked its importance in explaining things.

I had been trying to figure out what the most basic axioms are and how they relate to each other. You know, we have some philosophical basics such as infinite scales, the 2-pole universe, triangular relationships, harmonics, the holographic universe, reach and withdraw, waves, as-isness, and so forth. But I couldn't quite see how any of them could explain all the other ones or how they could be transformed into each other.

The highest state or the highest truth there is is an indescribable unlimited infiniteness that we could call "All-that-is". No label will give it justice and any explanation of it could only subtract from it. It is what it is and it encompasses all possibilities. Unfortunately that doesn't explain any detailed phenomena, because none of them are it. But ultimately it is what you are and what I am and what everything else is. However, it is beyond individuality and personality and character. It is neither static nor dynamic. It could be represented by a zero, or a one, but probably better by an infinity. The feeling most approximating it might be an unlimited infiniteness of nothing.

What will explain all more detailed phenomena is the division of that impossible absolute into two polarities and any subsequent division into polarities of any kind.

If out of the infinite sea of possibilities you decide that a smaller sub-set of it is what is, then something interesting happens. The infiniteness didn't change, it couldn't, it is what it is. But you postulated that now part of it is, and whether you realized it or not you simultaneously postulated that the rest of it isn't.

That doesn't necessarily mean that you are unaware of the isn't part. It just means that you have postulated or implied that it isn't the is part, it is different. You might or might not notice that the isn't part exists, but you are creating a distinction that didn't exist before.

The two static poles of what is and what isn't will establish a difference in potential that will produce a dynamic energy interchange of some sort between those poles.

The highest purpose of that is probably to create some action, variation and adventure, within an all-knowing something that otherwise wouldn't distinguish their existence. It creates an effect.

The system of the two poles and their interchange explains anything we can observe about existence. The repeated and progressive use of it forms a complexity of different phenomena, but it still comes down to the same principle. It covers everything from the birth of a god to why you can't get up in the morning.

The insistence on one group of things existing and the implied insistence that the rest doesn't exist is the basis for all case. The "un-existing" part does exist and that is the one you would have trouble with. It will be running on "automatic" and the interaction between the two parts produces all sorts of interesting phenomena. It is inherently unsolvable, because neither the is-part or the isn't-part is the truth. The only way of recovering is to realize the whole picture again.

This set-up produces all the triangular relationships: ARC, KRC, Be-Do-Have, etc.

A triad is made by dividing things into an is (+) part and and an isn't (-) part. The third corner is the interaction between them. The first two corners are pseudo-static, that is, we arbitrarily consider them static. The interaction is dynamic and tends to be of more infinite character.


The third corner is where we find the infinite gradient scales. We could say that the first corner is an arbitrary ¥, and the second corner is an arbitrary - ¥. Between them we have an infinite gradient scale.

The + and - corners are always the most finite and most easily understood. But they are also the most arbitrary and false. The ¥ interaction is the most indefinite and elusive, but is the one closer to ultimate truth. In a way the two lower corners exist exclusively to produce this dynamic interaction in the third corner. That is why Communication is the most important part of ARC, Do is the most important part of Be-Do-Have, and 20-22 being the optimum point on the tone scale.

A high level polarity is the one that allows a static being to exist. We take a part of All-that-is and say that this is now a source, a static being who is total cause. The catch is that we also made some other statics that the first guy isn't. They are also total cause, but not over the first guy. That creates all the possible interactions that beings can have between each other.

This universe goes a step further by requiring that you assume a viewpoint, a beingness separate from the universe, and you agree that you aren't the universe. That produces a polarity between you as a thetan and the universe around you.


This in turn allows you to enjoy the infinite variety of life in the physical universe

Viewpoints (+) and dimension points (-) is another way of representing it.

The two poles are always going to need each other. They are actually defined by each other. One couldn't exist without the other.

That is why you might have trouble exteriorizing your "Thetan" from the universe. "You" at a higher level never were "in" the universe, and the part you are trying to get "out" of the universe would make absolutely no sense without it. That is the exteriorization of the eye balls again.

The two poles are always in a symbiotic relationship with each other. They might be exact opposites, they might be deadly enemies, they might not know of each other's existence, that doesn't matter. They are defined by each other, they need each other to compare to, and they are made out of the same stuff to start with.

This gives us the important fact that one can't study something without studying its context at the same time. We have to include both what is being looked at and who is looking at it. You can't study the thetan without the universe or the universe without the thetan. That's why both religion and science have had trouble at times when they have been artificially separated. You've got to have data of comparable magnitude.

Each part contains a mirror image of the other side. It is defined both positively and negatively. Each part knows inherently what it is and what it isn't. The comparison is built in.

That is what gives the universe its holographic nature. Every piece of it has a reflection of everything else. Clearly enough it is because it is defined by everything else. And everything else is defined by it in the same way.

That phenomenon tells us that you can start the study of life and the universe anywhere. The tiniest grain of sand on the beach contains the story of the whole universe. By comparison it would tell you all you wanted to know if you cared to look.

Every part of the universe is both reaching and withdrawing. It is reaching for what it is and withdrawing from what it isn't. That causes the continuous vibration of everything in existence. The higher the vibration, the more in tune the plus and minus parts are with each other and the more easily could their differences be resolved if so desired.

Vibration takes the form of waves. Any piece of the universe could be regarded as either a pseudo-static particle, the plus part, or as a wave, which is the dynamic interaction and vibration between the plus part and the minus part. That is one of the peculiarities of quantum physics.

Harmonics are vibrations within vibrations. It comes from the holographic relationship between plus and minus again. A part that divides further will still have the aspects and vibrations of what it divided from. That can go on to any number of levels.

Energy is found in the three forms: dispersal, flow, and ridge. The ridge is the minus part, the barriers and opponents of the game. The plus part is the dispersal. The interaction between them gives us a flow. The minus part being a ridge kind of tells us that it is more fixed than the positive part. The positive part will see its role as one of freedom, and it will see the negative part as the restrictions, the barriers that it is up against. So, in a way the beingness (+) is defined in a negative way, by the barriers (-) encircling it. That is kind of tricky because the negative parts are often the least known, and therefore it might be puzzling to try to figure out who or what one really is.

The universe of spacetime is an exercise in spatial polarity. "I am here, but not over there" is the basic idea. That makes a fascinating game board. You can travel around through many dimensions and be genuinely surprised about what you find there.

As-isness is the realization of the whole. That doesn't persist. But if we split it into is-ness and not-isness then it will persist and the two will generate some interaction. That of course takes some alter-isness of the real truth.

Self-determinism is operation as the plus part. If you get overwhelmed by the minus part, and your actions become dictated by it, then it is other-determinism. Encompassing both is pan-determinism.

One-valued logic pretends that there is only the plus part. Two-valued logic pretends that there is only the positive or negative, either-or. Three-valued logic pretends that the in-between plus and minus is static instead of dynamic. Infinity valued logic works the whole range of dynamic interaction.

The dynamics are expansions of the plus part to higher harmonics of is-ness with gradiently higher levels of pan-determinism and inclusion of other parts.

The relationship between positive and negative poles can be regarded as a balance, as a definition of a gradient scale, or as a cycle of action. It adds up to the same thing.

The reverse vector phenomenon of the universe is also explained here. The more you energize one pole you more you will automatically energize the opposite. What you reach for will withdraw from you, what you withdraw from will reach for you. That happens if one only looks at one side of the puzzle. A pan-determined view will overcome it.

The part that you are, or have, or know, is never what gets you into trouble. It is the negative part that you energize but don't take responsibility for. If you changed sides and became that, well then you would have trouble with the first side now. This is the continuing paradox of existence. It can be an ongoing frustration or the makings of an interesting game.

The real trouble is if you can't make and unmake these polarities at will. They are nice to have for playing games, but they are a trap if they are stuck.

The highest purpose of clearing would be to regain the ability to make or unmake polarities. Any technique of clearing could be described in terms of how it relates to this theory.

Problems, Overts/Withholds, ARC breaks, Service Facs, engrams, identities, GPMs, entities; all of these phenomena can be explained in very similar ways.

The primary vector in the universe has for a long time been continued separation into parts. For a time now you probably have had yourself disassembled and disintegrated into more pieces than you would easily find amusing.

The time has come for assembly and integration.

 

Technical Essay # 59 - FAF 30 July 1991

Connections

 

There is a model of the mind that potentially might be very useful.

Usually we would claim that the mind is a storage place of pictures of experience. Some of these pictures would be traumatic and would be organized in chains.

This gives us a system of dealing with the mind initially. It seems to be a useful approach for a non-clear person.

However, when a person goes Clear, we tell him that now he doesn't have any pictures. We might even tell him that they have all been erased. Or worse yet, we might imply that his sub-conscious mind has been erased.

It doesn't take much experimentation to show that a Clear still has some sort of mind and that most certainly he has a sub-conscious mind. I mean, he speaks, he walks, he chews gum, all without much conscious thought to it. I haven't yet met a person who has full conscious awareness of how he speaks.

A Clear has good reason to be confused about how his mind works. We have sort of omitted explaining what it is about. The theory that he is now just permeating and penetrating what he needs to know doesn't hold water for very long. And sure, he might have entities, but what is left when he is done with the entities?

The universe of spacetime is full of experiences you might or might not have had. Since time is basically an arbitrary illusion we can't expect it to be ordered by time. There is just a bunch of dimensions there. It seems to be indicated that there are more than the 4 dimensions of space and time. In principle one can travel anywhere in the dimensions of spacetime.

This is not necessarily an esoteric philosophical discussion. Relativity theory and Quantum Mechanics introduced these ideas more than 50 years ago, and it is now the accepted model for physics. There are a lot more concepts there that apply very well to the field of life and the mind.

Let's take a certain event in spacetime, for example "The battle of Hastings". It happened at a certain time and a certain space. However, it would be more correct to say that is is happening at certain coordinates in spacetime. It is what it is, and it is right there in its designated location.

You might consider yourself having been present at the battle of Hastings before you got here. One way of keeping track of that is to keep a complete copy, a picture, of what you experienced and take it with you. Apparently one does something like that under certain conditions. However, the basic principle isn't necessarily like that.

All you need in order to "remember" the battle of Hastings is a connection to that location in spacetime. You need a link, a mental wire, that connects your current location with some other location. It would be a gateway in spacetime, a warp in the fabric of the universe.

I don't quite know if that would be the aberrated or the sane way of doing it, or both. But, at any rate, if you have a link like that then stuff can travel over that link. You might automatically replay some of the contents and therefore behave now in some outdated fashion.

It isn't the incidents that there is anything wrong with. There is nothing wrong with the battle of Hastings. But if you insist now of having the somatics that somebody had in that incident, then there is a problem in the "wiring" of your mind.

When, in Clearing, we somehow cut an aberrated link we get a release. If, before we do that, we make the person able to deal with what is happening at the other end, then we might say we have an erasure.

Entities and organizations of entities fit in well here also. You might have links to other beings in other times and spaces, and they might be connected to each other in various types of chains. There might be some useful purpose to that, but it mostly appears to be unnecessary and undesirable.

The existence of links doesn't have to be unwanted. A person's sub-conscious patterns are wired somehow. Like, when you remember your name when somebody asks you, you get it from somewhere. You didn't walk around thinking of it consciously, you got it somewhere without knowing how. That might be a similar spacetime warp, or it might be another mechanism, I don't know.

One should be able to get any information without having a link to it. In principle one can just go and look at it. One can look at past tracks, one can use exterior perception and so forth. That might mean that one is creating a temporary link, a channel to the information required, that is not quite clear.

A "track" would be some sort of path through spacetime. There is really no requirement that it can only be linear in time. That would be no more logical than requiring that one can only travel west on the planet, and never east, or north, or south. The track would be the sequence of where/when one went. It is a track of sequence, not of time. There also seems to be no particularly reason why several tracks shouldn't cross over in one event or one lifetime.

Interestingly, the brain might have some justification for being in the scenario of connections. As we have held true for a while, it is some sort of switchboard. A little arithmetic quickly shows that the brain couldn't possible store the memories one has available. However, experiments can also show that one can access past memories in detail by stimulating parts of the brain.

Well, if you let experiences stay in their appropriate location in spacetime, all you need is a switchboard. A few billion connections (cells) to other places, times, and dimensions should be enough to provide a human being with the means of a meaningful existence.

The being can most certainly link to things he needs without a body. But he is inherently a lot more simple. A body, a brain, a mind and so forth can provide him with complexity enough to make things really interesting. The being is of course doing all of that himself at some level, but those vias are useful to create persistence.

A being probably keeps a basic set of connections that he carries around with him from body to body. They define his core personality and the continuity of this long term activities. Then, when he takes a body he inherits many more connections that are overlaid his own basic connections. The body/brain connections are the result of genetics, astrology, engrams, upbringing, and so forth. Together all of it forms a human being. When the spiritual being leaves, he dumps most of the body connections, but might have copied some of them to his core personality connections.

The other locations that one might be linked with can also be non-physical locations and dimensions of course. Like, one can make a copy of part of the physical universe and wire oneself to that somehow. One one can construct one's own universe and link that up in various ways.

Clearing can be viewed as the process of straightening out wires, fixing broken wires, removing extraneous wires, and installing new wires to produce an optimum life experience.

Technical Essay # 60 - FAF 11 October 1991

How Clearing Works

 

Traditionally there has been various explanations included in the theory of Clearing as to how and why it works. We have been talking about "erasing" engrams or "moving them from the reactive to the analytical banks". We have talked about "getting off mass", "TA", "EPs", "F/Ns" and so forth.

However, all of this is just words. They only explain things when they go together with a belief in a certain theory. For example, if we believe that there is such a thing as a "reactive mind" and that it is totally unwanted, and it we believe that when the intensity of an incident seems to diminish when we look at it, then we can talk about "erasure". But it is a circular reference, all the pieces are defined by each other.

You can't show me a "reactive mind", it is only a word invented to make it easier to talk about what we do. Likewise there is no objective way of demonstrating that anything disappears when we "erase" an engram.

However, our clients do seem to feel better when we do these things, so obviously they are workable theories in producing subjective changes for people. But notice the distinction: they are only models; theories.

A basic pre-supposition for clearing is that the person is mocking up his case, he is right now creating it all himself. That is basically the clear cog. Unfortunately the depth of this has not been understood widely enough, and some people mistakenly claim that it doesn't apply on the advanced levels. I'd say it applies just about anywhere.

If we assume the simplicity that the person is putting his case there right now, the remedy also becomes very clear. Obviously, if we can get him to not put it there anymore, then our job is done. And basically that is what we are doing on a gradient.

The most fundamental clearing is changing of postulates. Hubbard once said that the most basic session would be to start the session, ask the pc what he wants handled, then ask him to change his mind about it, and then end the session.

I'd say that this is senior to any of the models for how case is supposedly structured. Anything that gets the person to change his mind to the better is valid processing.

We might lose track of the big picture of what we are trying to do if we become too involved in the details of application of different processes.

Why does, for example, a repetitive process work?

Is it inherently good for people to do the same thing over and over? Not particularly. Factory workers do it for years without getting any apparent case gain from it. Repetitive questioning appears at best tiring out in real life. So why on earth would it provide great benefit when we do it as a process?

First of all there is a factor that most clearing practitioners would be most happy to deny, namely suggestion. If a certain outcome is suggested, or implied, or just expected by the client, then a process works quite differently than if there was no framework of expectation at all. The simple expectation that this is going to give a positive result can be enough to get nice EPs. But without any expectation at all most repetitive processes would not work and would only upset people.

Look at what we are doing: We repeat an action or a question until the pc becomes charged up about it, and then we continue. If the pc has agreed that he is going to do this, and that it will produce a positive result, then he will have to shift at some point into a position of not being affected by the charge that came up. That will generally be a better position. He can see things more clearly from there and will give a cognition to demonstrate that.

Really what we did was to focus attention repeatedly on a certain area so as to make it unbearable for the pc to stand without shifting, and sooner or later he will by necessity level shift to a better postulate about that area, and that is the EP.

The process itself, of going over this unpleasant change doesn't do anything good for the pc, except indirectly because it makes him shift as a result of it. Actually it is a situation of 2 steps back and 3 steps forward. We make him feel bad, but he ends up having better postulates and that is usually worth it.

My explanation here might be somewhat at odds with the theories of the benefits of "taking mass off the case". But I think that, more correctly, the target of clearing is postulates. When we bring up some mass and them remove it again the net result in terms of mass is rationally speaking zero. The result comes from the postulates one has shifted while doing this.

A release or erasure is really just a change in relation to something. A release is a temporary betterment of the relation and an erasure is a permanent change.

If a person has a fear of elevators and we have it drop away without changing the exact postulate about it, then it is a release. If we find a postulate about having a fear of elevators and we change it to something else, then it is an erasure.

Incident clearing is a way of getting to a negative postulate about something connected with a reasonable explanation for what it was made. Seeing the situation (the basic incident) and the postulate, the pc can re-evaluate it and change it to a postulate that doesn't give him trouble.

Notice that I'm talking about changing postulates, not just getting rid of them. Traditionally clearing has been slanted towards getting rid of things, without much attention on having anything instead. Ultimately that can lead to long-term detrimental effects from clearing, particularly after Clear. Just because we find that people have aberrated relations to things doesn't mean that they would be better off without any relations at all.

If the pc puts nothing in stead of what he takes away, he will have a loss of havingness. If he puts something else instead it might very well be some other aberration, chosen at random.

There can be several reasons for clearing not working right if we look at these basics.

If we start a repetitive process on a pc we are basically applying some pressure to him in a very focused area. If we choose the process right it will bring up some unpleasant change he will have to deal with. The first thing that could go wrong is if the process doesn't bring anything up, an "uncharged" question. Second thing would be if it brought up more than we could expect to key out again. Thirdly it is only going to work if the pc has some idea that he is going to shift for the better, he must be indoctrinated. And finally the shift he makes is made at random and might not put him in a totally desirable place. For example, he might pick a service fac or an evil purpose as his cognition. He might feel great about it, but might become obnoxious to other people.

Knowing about these factors one can better determine what is going on and ensure a desirable outcome.

Technical Essay # 61 - FAF 12 October 1991

Heresy

 

Studying other subjects and earlier basics to clearing, such as Buddhism and general semantics, it becomes increasingly clear to me that there were some artificial barriers installed in Scientology that don't have to be there.

What we are doing is maybe clever and useful, but it is not as unique as we thought it was. There are similarities and connections to a great many other subjects. Some much emphasized differences are mostly constructions of language and don't actually exist.

Hypnosis

LRH admitted that he used hypnosis in the research of Dianetics, but otherwise he emphasized that this was exactly the opposite and he expounded the insidious dangers of hypnosis. I could see some justification for doing that. However, anyone studying a bit of hypnosis can determine that Book One auditing basically is hypnosis.

He subsequently removed some of the most obvious hypnosis elements, such as the counting, the canceller, laying on a couch, etc. However, what remains is that any type of clearing is based on some level of suggestion. Hypnosis can be defined as a relaxed state where one is open to the directions of the practitioner.

When the pc is "in session" he is in a somewhat altered state where he is in a better position to make changes in himself than outside in his everyday life. Experienced pcs go into that state just by sitting down and taking up the cans. That in itself tends to produce an F/N in the expectation of the wins of the session.

Many techniques of clearing don't work unless there is an expectation from the client that they will. The suggestion can be as simple as the practitioner with his attitude implying that this will give a positive result, but it is still suggestion. Most clearing techniques would not work in a completely clinical experiment with completely neutral participants.

None of this is bad. As a matter of fact it is useful to know in order to ensure good results with clients.

Meditation

Most good scientologists would consider meditation a dangerous other practice. This is sort of funny because they do quite a bit of it themselves.

Knowing just the most simple basics of meditation it is quite obvious that TR0 is meditation.

Sitting down quietly, trying to do nothing, and working though the various phenomena that come up, well, that is a basic meditation technique.

Many other drills and processes could also be regarded as advanced types of meditation. Doing a simple thing and them working through the appearing phenomena until a stable state is a meditative technique. There are buddhist monks who do simple objective processes as meditation.

Incidentally, clearing that is over-done can have some of the same drawbacks as meditation, namely that the person becomes detached from life and feels great, but doesn't have much desire to do anything.

Freud

The idea of the reactive mind bears strong resemblance to Freud's ideas of the unconscious. LRH took over his idea of the unconscious being a screwed-up jumble of unwanted material. Freud also had experimented with running of incidents in chains, but gave it up.

It should be noted that the theory of the sub-conscious being unwanted is by no means the only way of looking at it. Other schools of thought hold the idea that the sub-conscious basically does a lot of good things for you, but that it might need some adjustments.

Regression

Except for the obvious parallels with Freud's work, a great many other therapies use incident running techniques quite similar to Dianetics. Re-evaluation Counselling, Gestalt Therapy, Rebirthing, hypnosis, etc. They follow incidents in chains and try to run out basics etc.

Many of these other practices have been inspired by Dianetics. But, whatever their origins, a great many people are running engrams and calling it different things. Many of these approaches have quite useful techniques that we also could benefit from.

Entities

Just as many groups run entities in various ways: psychic healers, neuro-cellular repatterning, the Huna religion, etc.

Channeling

You can't really run entities without channeling. And you can't really get sudden bright ideas without getting them from somewhere, which is a form of channeling.

What very often gets in the way is simply the words. If you close off your mind to what other people are doing just because they call it something else, you are going to miss out on some things.

My attitude is one of integrating what we have with whatever else is out there, so that the most useful principles and techniques can be used as widely as possible. Once I started looking I realized that the other guys weren't nearly as far off the target as I had been led to believe.

The unwillingness to look at what is there is about the most unfortunate attitude that one can have in the field of change.

 

Previous page

Contents

Next page