Technical Essay # 73 - FAF 9 April 1992

Free Style Clearing

 

Over the past year I have found myself more and more using a somewhat different style of clearing. It is not anything very new and it is not really anything I invented. It is rather what the most effective clearing always has been: operating out of the basics, without rote commands, and being flexible enough to handle whatever comes up.

Of course these ideas might seem novel to some, if compared to the rote auditing styles many people have been taught for years now. But they are really the oldest ideas, going back to the original basics of the subject.

I have noticed that more and more practitioners have been talking about, searching for, or experimenting with ways of better handling their clients. There now seems to be more people willing to be responsible for being source and for thinking with their tech. What I am presenting here is some of my thoughts on how best to do change work with people.

First of all, it must be clear why we as practitioners would work with a client. It is suspect if it is for any other purpose than to help the client change for the better in the most effective, profound, and/or fastest way possible. Doing sessions for the sake of following steps on a piece of paper, for the sake of satisfying your fixed ideas, for the sake of making the most money, or whatever - all of these would lead a practitioner way off the track. For that matter they would place him in what we used to call the condition of Treason; pretending to be doing something you aren't.

But, we don't have to be that serious about it. It is simply that if you focus on the actual client at hand and what she needs, rather than on your fixed model of what she SHOULD be and SHOULD need, then you might possibly get better results.

The way I see the simplicity of a session is:

The practitioner's tools can be regarded as a smorgasbord of things she can do. All of them are available at any time IF they fit the job. Instead of fitting the client to the technique the practitioner would fit the technique for the client.

Instead of using a fixed sequence of processes as one's stable datum one could base everything on addressing the client where she is at and using whatever process that will best get her to a better state.

If we allow the practitioner to make more choices, she can much better be able to take responsibility for getting the client to a result faster. The practitioner is not just waiting for the client to reach EP, but will actively work on it by always picking the best method.

Being more aware of the starting and ending points on processes can make the session much more effective. If the practitioner starts out by observing where the client is at, establishes where the client would want to be, and then chooses the best tool for getting her there - then the whole process is much more controllable and success is more assured.

A session can be regarded as a series of cycles of action:

When we start session there might be an obvious thing to work on, usually something the client would mention. The practitioner analyzes the situation by herself and chooses a method of dealing with it. She applies it in the direction of a resolution. Some sort of change or result takes place. It might or might not be the full result we would want, but something happens or doesn't happen. The practitioner notices what happened, and uses that information to determine what to do next. She can pick another technique to apply to the same issue, or she can determine that another issue would be more appropriate to handle first.

When the practitioner has to notice the exact starting and ending phenomena, it forces her to be much more aware of what is actually taking place. The current method of running any process that will give a meter read and ending when the client is satisfied and the meter floats, is quite workable. However it is a rote method. It tends to dull the practitioners perception of what is actually going on, and it doesn't give her many choices on how she could actually help the client best.

A key component of free style clearing is flexibility. The practitioner needs to be more flexible than the client, always one step ahead and always having a technique ready.

In cybernetics there is a rule called "the law of requisite variety". It says that in any system, the part that has the widest range of movement is the part that is in control. Applied to a session or any other two-way communication, the person who is the most flexible as to what one can do and say will be most in control. A person who has to do things a certain fixed way and who has a limited number of choices, can easily be controlled. You just need to find out where her fixed behavior is and you can start and stop it at will.

For example in a clearing session, if the client notices that the practitioner always asks her for a missed withhold when she is nattering, or that she always ends a process when a cognition is voiced and the client smiles - well then the client can use that knowledge to control the course of the session. It might not be totally conscious, but she will start controlling the session like that. And, she will be out of session to that extent, and the practitioner plus the client will no longer be bigger than the client's bank.

A practitioner who is trained more rotely on standard tech might at first glance regard a free style clearing session as Q&A. The practitioner changes when the client changes and does not always stay on a certain question until a full EP.

However, taking the above data about flexibility into consideration, the picture looks quite different. The rote style practitioner might actually be the most likely one to be pulled around by the nose.

Let us examine what Q&A is about. The most basic definition is the failure to finish cycles of action. And sometimes it has been expressed as changing when the client changes. That last definition I find somewhat misleading. Often, if you don't adjust for the client's deviations from the course, then you won't get your product. The client escapes from the process just be changing a little bit and then you are stuck with a process that is no longer the best method, and you are forced to run it to EP or you will get in trouble with the C/S.

The cycle of action is not the technique, it is the client's desired change. It is not the process that we clear, the process is not an entity that becomes more happy by being run to EP. It is the person in front of us we are working with.

Continuing with an inappropriate process becomes a Q&A in itself, in that you aren't finishing the cycle of handling the client's case. However, a "well-indoctrinated" client will usually notice that the practitioner keeps asking the same thing, and will eventually give in, will change herself back to fit the process and will get some sort of result on it. In that way the rote way works fairly well, but it does it to some extent by being an endurance race, and by indoctrinating the clients into going along with the game as written.

If the client is not free to change and if she can only give statements that fit in with the process, then she is not quite in session. Granted, the practitioner would listen to any statement and would write it down, but many statements would not be accepted as valid or important, because they don't belong with the current process.

Notice, for example, how clients who get rote style sessions often have a great need for talking before or after the session. There are a lot of things that didn't fit in the format of the session and that they therefore didn't feel free to say. That is actually a sign of out-of-sessionness.

A free style session would usually begin with a two-way comm, a dialogue. And with two-way

comm I don't mean a rote asking for Considerations? Thoughts? etc. I mean actually talking with and working with the client to find out what is going on. There are many useful tricks that can be applied, but in its simplicity it is just talking WITH the client. Don't just talk TO her, don't just get HER to talk, it has to be a two-way interchange. YOU need to be interested and involved. Most people know how to do that, but many forget about it while they are being clearing practitioners.

A simple issue might be resolved with the 2WC alone, or with closely related techniques. Maybe the client just hadn't quite looked at the issue, and its resolution becomes apparent just by talking about it. The practitioner's questions will usually bring some material to light that was otherwise hidden.

So, through 2WC the issue will either resolve, or it will become apparent what the situation is. That allows the practitioner to determine which of the available tools would be best suited for the situation. The available tools depend on training or inventiveness.

Personally, I have integrated quite a few processes from NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) into my repertoire, and I have invented others myself, so my tools aren't necessarily just the traditional techniques. But the rule here is: the more choices you have available the better, the more likely it is that you will have one to fit the task.

There would probably be some main categories of techniques that would be common.

The ones I currently mostly use are:

¥ Illogic Tracking: Following a path of illogic in the client's speech or behavior. Looking for service facs, hidden assumptions, false data, contradictory postulates, deleted or generalized material, unevaluated consequences, etc., and then establishing more freedom of choice in the area.
¥ Fragment Clearing: Addresssing "parts" of the person, such as identities, valences, sub-conscious circuits, compartmented theta, etc. They might be in polarities that need to be integrated, they might need more choices, might need to be brought into PT, be as-ised, or whatever.
¥ Incident Clearing: Following an unwanted feeling back to incidents that appear to contain it, discovering hidden material, experiencing it from different viewpoints, finding the point of overwhelm, finding the person's own cause, learning the lesson in it, etc.
¥ Perceptualization: Changing external or internal perceptions by working directly with the way they are represented for the person. Discovering the way the person uses sub-modalities (finer distinctions in perception) and developing more optimum ways of using them with creative processing.

Don't worry if some of this seems unfamiliar. The point is not to use the exact same tools I happen to use, but rather to start a collection for your own tool box.

If at any time it becomes obvious that a given tool is no longer the best, I would switch to a better one, and keep working with the issue in the new way. For example, if I planned to resolve something with light 2WC, or a repetitive questioning of some sort, but then a somatic appears that is closely related to the issue. I would probably work on the somatic with the more powerful tool of Incident Clearing and then re-evaluate the situation afterwards. Why use a paper clip if a crowbar would work better?

We can find good metaphors for different styles of clearing in the computer world. Completely rote clearing by an inexperienced practitioner would be like operating an old-fashioned mainframe computer. You prepare the instructions on a batch of punched cards before the session. You let the machine go through its paces, and an hour later you pick up the printout at the other end, and you can evaluate how well your program worked. Depending on the result, you make a new batch of cards and prepare for a better result in the session tomorrow.

Free style clearing is more like an interactive graphical screen such as on a MacIntosh. All of your tools are visible as little buttons on the screen. You pick one that looks interesting and you see what it does. If it doesn't get the best result you pick another button and use another tool. You can make dozens of choices and adjustments during a session and can much faster get a result, that also looks much nicer, because you were observing the effects of your actions at all times.

The way I would start new clients is as I described earlier. Have a dialogue with them about what they are there for, pick a suitable technique, and work with them. Handle always what is most available and important, and with the strongest and fastest tool available.

After a number of sessions the issues will start thinning out and we have already handled the major items in the person's life. That is when I would start on more general grade-type processes. However, I would always consider the client's own originations or trouble in life as a better indicator of what we should work on. I wouldn't even run ruds, I would use any out-rud kind of item to find some more basic case that caused it. And whenever there is nothing obvious to work on, is when I would pick the next grade process.

To keep track of the more long term cycles I am working on with the client, I am keeping a form in the left side of the cover of the folder where I record incomplete cycles. I call them 'Loops'. A loop would be some bigger subject that came up or that you started, but that wasn't completed in one session. A loop was opened and then we need to close it at a later date.

A loop could be that the client mentions that she would like to handle "Insecurity", and it appears to be a somewhat more long term thing than just one session. We note it on the form, and every time I do a process that addresses insecurity I would note it alongside the subject.

Starting a major grade would also be a loop. So, I would write 'Communication' or 'Problems' and the day it was started. I might start other loops in the middle of another major loop if something else seems more appropriate and available. E.g. we could open a 'Suppression' loop to handle PTS-ness. Then we would get back to the previous unfinished loop when appropriate again.

I should note also that I don't use a meter or model session with new people anymore, and I don't do worksheets during the session. Mostly because I found that they impeded my flexibility and my ability to observe the client. I will rather spend my attention units on finding out what the client is doing than on looking down and writing what he says and so forth. And, incidentally, I found that I then became a lot more aware of both what I was doing, and what the client was doing. I now write just a one page session report after session, noting the major cycles that took place in the session.

Some people would say that it is a lot more difficult to do free style sessions than to do a more rote style where you know in advance exactly what you will do. Possibly it does require more knowledge. Traditional rote styles were invented to make it easy to train people with limited knowledge to audit. However, I think that if the practitioner takes on a different attitude he or she will find that free style will feel the most natural and not nearly as difficult as one might think. As I said, most people already know how to talk with other people. We just need to polish the skills somewhat and add some more ways of doing things with people.

What would be different also would be an increased emphasis on understanding basics rather than just memorizing procedures. If you understand the basics well enough you can always make up some procedures on the spot.

Session Report

Client: _________________________



Practitioner: ____________________		 Date: __________________

Session #: ______________

Fee: _______ Recd: ______

Situation

Process

Result

   
 

 

 
   
 

 

 
   
 

 

 
   
 

 

 
     
 

 

 

Next______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

______________________________________

 

Loops

Open Subject Change Close


 		      
 

 		      
 

 		      
 

 		      
 

 		      
 

 		      
 

 		      
 

 		      
 

 		      
 

 		      
 

 		      
 

 		      
 

 		      

 

Technical Essay # 74 - FAF 10 April 1992

Illness

 

I have long believed that illnesses are caused in the mind and that the physical symptoms are only indicators of one's state of being. However, not until recently have I seen much tangible "proof" in that regard.

Previously it has been said that all illness come from PTS-ness. Possibly, if we modify it to mean that it comes out of making oneself effect somehow. I've never seen more than minor results on illnesses by addressing suppressives in one's environment.

However, if we go a little more basic, and regard illness as a symptom of something that is being not confronted, not accepted, or not communicated, then it opens some more doors.

I discovered, sort of incidentally, recently that it can be very effective to address an illness head on, and go directly for what it is about.

I found that one can work directly with the somatic or the location of the illness in a number of ways.

I had a client with a long list of serious illnesses, having had several operations for tumors, still seeing doctors every day. I asked her which one currently bothered her the most. She said, a heart attack somatic, a pain in her heart going into her left arm and making it numb. She would get it every time she ate something. I had her put attention on the area and describe the shape, color, temperature, vibration, and so forth of the pain area. Then we did hello & ok on it. It answered back quite well, so I figured we could talk some more with it. I then did a variation of a technique called 6-step reframing from NLP. It is basically establishing a method of communication with a part of the person or a circuit and then giving it more choices. We established that the pain being a little lighter would mean 'Yes' and another difference would mean 'No'. Then we proceeded to clear that part. It was not willing to let her consciously know the specific content of what we talked about, but it was willing to provide the Yes/No answers. Many of them were a surprise to the client. Anyway, it protested about being called a "part" of her. On questioning it affirmed that it was a separate being. I changed to an entity type of handling on it, still without knowing the content of incidents and so forth. But we had it in session, and eventually it got freed up and blew. Sitting across from the client I myself felt it zipping past my ear, and right after that she originated that it seemed to have left and the pain was gone. This was session number 6 or so for this client, and she was as surprised as I was to find that it was an entity. She had no previous exposure to that kind of phenomena. The somatic never came back after that. There were some other handlings related to eating, but nothing more was needed for that.

The same client had a seriously inflamed esophagus and often had serious breathing problems. Two sessions were done while she had an attack of this and couldn't breathe. The first one, done over the phone late one evening, uncovered an entity in a similar fashion. The entity had evil intentions and she absolutely hated it and refused to deal with it. However, I asked her to "put it out behind a thick glass wall", and the it was ok. She got a visio of it as an ugly snake-like monster, in great detail. She was willing to pass commands on to it at a distance, and gradually became willing to tolerate its existence there. Eventually the ugly monster turned into a little prince. The prince got a little more handling, and an orientation, and off he went. Her breathing somatics disappeared at that point.

However, three days later she was brought into the health center where I do sessions sometimes, as an emergency. She couldn't breathe and was hysterical. The holistic doctor there didn't know what to do with her, but incidentally I was there, so they interupted the session I was in, and brought me in. It was probably the most demanding environment to do a session in I've experienced so far. This lady appeared to be choking to death and several people were standing around not knowing what to do. I didn't have time to doubt that I could do something for her. However, I was prepared for at least making her death a little less painful. I got her to relax enough so that she could at least answer. But there was no way I could establish signals for communicating with her sub-conscious like in the last two sessions. I addressed it then from the angle of being willing to accept her current condition as it is, learn from it, and being willing to flow with it. She was totally unwilling in that regard at first, it was totally unfair, her being such a nice and loving person didn't deserve a thing like that. "Who would deserve it?" I inquired. Well, it would be appropriate for her ex-husband, for sure. The ex-husband had come up before. She had a very traumatic incident where he had tried to kill her by strangling her and stuffing food down her throat. She escaped and he then was stalking her for years, despite restraining orders and so forth. I had tried to get her to run the incident itself, but it was much too charged and unavailable. But I noticed of course how her symptoms fit the incident very well. However, now she is lying there, with all the medical diagnoses to back her condition up, and she is in very real pain. She felt she didn't deserve it because she is so nice, but that other guy should have it. Well, it made instant sense to me right then how come she had those symptoms. She totally doesn't accept that man, and she totally doesn't accept the feelings she have for him. Therefore, those parts of herself were separated off from her conscious self and were running on automatic. She didn't admit to at first having any negative feelings at all. But when I pursued it, she gradually admitted that what she would really want would be to torture this guy to death, cut him into little pieces, and feed them to his parents. She had split off into a polarity, where her nice loving self was the only side she would admit to. The other side has violent, vengeful emotions, and would take pleasure out of hurting people. Since she didn't take responsibility for that part of her at all, it was running on automatic. And the obvious target becomes herself. So, she needs to learn to accept that, and to accept the person it was based on. I gradually got her to do that, with tricky 2WC questions, and so forth. When she finally accepted responsibility for it, the symptoms subsided and she could relax for the first time. It took about an hour and a half. Her breathing problems gradually vanished totally over the next week or so. She hasn't had those physical problems since.

This lady also had edema, which is abnormal aggregation of water in the body, relating to inflammation. "What does water mean to you?", I asked her. "Life, I love water, I can't get enough of it." Hm, that provided some clue, if she is maybe holding on to it, because she likes it. I was considering doing something with service facs, but decided for Remedy of Havingness instead. I had her mock up glasses of water, buckets of water, rivers of water, etc. Interchangably pulling them into her body or letting them disappear in the distance. She started having trouble pulling it in when it got bigger than a bathtub. After some practice she became willing to even pull in tanker trucks and so forth. Eventually we visualized a whole ocean that would just wash in and out of her body, realizing that there would be no scarcity of water, whatever she let go of could come back. She became a bit worried about the pollution in her mockup, but we changed the meaning a bit so that the ocean would be a cleaning force that would sweep away impurities and bring back clarity. Eventually she became totally willing to do that, and very relaxed and comfortable about it. Edema has not been a complaint since then.

Final example, with the same client. Her last major symptom was Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. It is diagnosed by the doctors as Epstein-Barr virus and incurable. She is usually very tired, and spends most of her day just sitting around without energy to do anything. Has been like that for a couple of years, supposedly because she ate some contaminated fish. "Well, I don't buy that", I think. "If she doesn't have her energy here, where is it then?". I assume that she has just misplaced the energy, there is no such thing as losing it. So I proceed to question her as to where it might be. Did she ever have a lot of energy in the past? She certainly did, and the story quickly began to surface. Before the short-lived marriage to the man who tried to kill her, she had had a sexually all-consuming relationship with a man. They were totally obsessed and ecstatic about each other. However, except for that the relationship was a disaster. She felt it was so destructive and out of control that she had to get away. She got away at first by marrying the guy who then tried to kill her. But even more seriously, she got away by isolating the part of her that had all that passion and energy, and by pretending it didn't exist anymore, because it was destructive and unwanted. She particularly did that when she married her current husband, because she doesn't think it is ok to think about anybody else then. And the passion and energy was tightly linked with the memory of the guy she only wants to forget. We worked on the polarity of that, and it made a big difference. However, we are not done yet, that was the last session we did, a week ago. Even though it is incomplete, it is an excellent example.

This particular client might be unusually accessible or unusually psychosomatic. However, my suspicion is that similar types of case are the foundation for a great deal of illnesses in people. As long as they can be willing to be in session and talk about it, something can be done.

With some clients one would first have to overcome belief systems that tell them that they couldn't possibly recover through mental or spiritual means, illnesses are strictly physical. The client needs to have enough of a willingness to admit being cause to go ahead with handlings like described. Some people first need to be brought up to that. Thinking about that right now, it might have something to do with 'horrible' overts one has committed. If the idea of admitting to being cause is more scary than illness or death, well then that has to be handled first.

So, what has worked for me as regards to illness is to approach it very directly. Having the attitude that it is some kind of mis-understanding, illness is not the natural state. Specifying or communicating with what is there to find out what it is really about. Not believing for a moment that the physical diagnosis is anything but a indicator of some unfinished business.

I suspect that illnesses appear in direct relation to specific issues. It is not just that one pulls in the first the best illness because there is suppression around. The selection of type of illness seems related to the type of unconfronted/uncommunicated case. The illness gets to make sense once the underlying case becomes known. There are therapists who have correlated common illnesses with specific mental or emotional issues, and there might very well be some validity to that.

Overall, I would tend to believe that the appearance and state of the body is indicative of one's state as a being. If one was in good enough shape the body would always be well. The body works as a meter, giving reads on existing charge. Many sources claim things like that. However, it is somewhat at odds with the view that the body is a totally separate thing from the being, he just happens to be occupying it for the moment.

There are kind of two different ways of looking at it. Is the body an independent organism that is used to trap you, and you just need to get out of it as quickly as possible. Or, is the body a part of yourself, an indicator of your current state, and you need to bring it up with you.

I would tend to favor the last possibility at this point. But it takes further investigation.

 

Technical Essay # 75 - FAF 12 April 1992

Polarity Examples

 

The technique I call Polarity Clearing is probably what I've made the most remarkable and permanent changes with on my clients over the last year or so. However, in teaching it to others I realized that it might be a little foggy which exact situations it would apply to. So, I'd like to give a few examples from sessions I've done on people recently.

First of all, Polarity Clearing is about integrating opposite parts of the person. It is part of a bigger group of techniques that pre-suppose that the person has as part of him smaller somewhat conscious units. These units can be regarded as valences, identities, entities, circuits, parts, viewpoints, or attention units. Sometimes one of these choices seem more appropriate then the others, sometimes you can just pick any approach.

Polarity Clearing becomes appropriate when there is a type of behavior the person does that has a whole personality package to go along with it, and that appears to exclude or compete with another type of behavior and personality. It would be a recurring thing, something the person does either all the time, regularly, or in certain situations. It should include feeling and/or action, it shouldn't just be a thought or idea. It must somehow appear as being causative, something the person does, not just an effect situation or somatic.

What will be available first will often be the part that the client currently perceives as unwanted, inadequate, or annoying. It is not always like that, but often the person will have the idea that that part of them needs to go. They don't like it, so they come to you to "get it cut off".

An important rule here is then that any part of the person is useful for something. It must underneath the surface have some sort of positive function it tries to perform for the person. He might not realize it, but some of his positive qualities and abilities are locked up in that part. However, because the part is lacking other qualities or because its purpose got sidetracked or outdated somehow, it currently does something that isn't particularly welcome.

The philosophical basis here is a variant of "People are basically good". We could say that any part of them would also be there for basically a good and positive reason. If we can get down to those good and positive reasons, then any conflicts would tend to dissolve or become very easy to manage.

Also, we assume the person's natural state to be whole, complete, balanced, and free. We assume that he can't really loose that, he can only temporarily fragment himself and forget about some of the fragments. So, if he has a part of himself that is not quite optimum, and that has limited qualities, then we know right away that the lacking qualities are found in the "opposite" part that will inevitably be there. If we get them to work better together or to integrate completely, then he will probably be better off.

A client yesterday complained about always being a "Victim" and wanting to get rid of that aspect of herself. I asked "So, you have a part of yourself that is being a victim?" She says yes, and that creates a little separation that makes it easier to clear. We discuss what the victim part of her is doing. Then I ask "Is there a part of you that is opposite to the victim part?" She says she isn't victim in certain work situations. We agree on calling that the "Creative" part of her. We then discuss the qualities that each side has or is lacking. The Creative side has great ideas and knows what to do with them, but isn't persistent. As a matter of fact the first thing she had said in the session was that somebody had suggested that she needed more discipline, and she tended to agree. Now, it took some work to have her realize the Victim part had anything good about it. However, she had said that she had had it practically all her life. I asked her if that didn't mean that it was persistent, at being victim? She admitted that. And I inquired if that wasn't a type of discipline. After a moment she realized that, yes, indeed we could say that was a kind of discipline. She is kind of surprised to realize that. We then work at what each side can use its other's qualities for. She finds that if the Victim side is more creative it can use its experiences constructively, and if the creative side knows how it is to be victim it can be more effective. She realizes that this dichotomy is very valuable for her work, and she wouldn't really want it collapsed. She prefers to keep them as two sides, but in much closer communication. She is very happy about it, has several new abilities, and is certain that she will make big changes in her life. This whole thing took 40 minutes. It was her fourth session, with major life changes after each of the previous sessions. She is very good at visualizing things in detail, and that opens the door to very quick results with processes like this.

Another client this morning. She originated that she is "Nervous" most of the time. I noticed that it seemed connected to work, and things she otherwise was excited about or good at. Does she have a part of her that is nervous? Yes, but that is most of the time. OK, but she does have a part of her that isn't nervous? Yes, but it is very small and weak. Still she was actually asking to get rid of the nervous part of her! I didn't oblige her on that, but I inquired about what good qualities was in the nervous part. After the customary initial resistance to the idea, she confesses that it has her strength and power and it really gets things done. The relaxed part is feeling more calm, but isn't strong and doesn't get much done. We have them communicate with each other, learn to accept each other, teach each other something. The parts become much more friendly and exchange information. I then have her hold out her hands with the palms up and visualize a part in each hand. Then having her tell about the difference between them now. Then I ask her to put her hands together and fold them. And immediately I change my use of language to pre-supposing that they are now integrated. Now, with the parts integrated so that she can be both strong and relaxed, calm and powerful, how is that different now? That usually works well if the person is ready for it. Here it did bring in better indicators, but it didn't totally click for her. She still had some trouble thinking of the qualities as integrated. She has a somatic of nervousness also that would tend to keep it from fully working. We did some other work on that, and will continue to do that in the next session. I include this here to express that it doesn't always work perfectly in the first shot, but that is in no way a failure. It fit the polarity model, we worked with it and got a much improved result, but there is more to it.

Sometimes you go through the polarity steps and get ready to integrate the parts, but something keeps them apart. If it is not apparent what, I would ask: "What is keeping them apart?" Most often it would be either a service fac or a somatic. The service fac would be some sort of computation that would imply that it wouldn't be correct to integrate the parts or have them get along. That could be a more than usual insistence on a type of behavior being "bad" without apparent ability to look at it. You 2WC for the computation, it is usually quite readily available. Handle with standard brackets. The other common case is that it is a somatic that appears when the sides are moved closer to each other. For example I had a client that got claustrophobic nausea when she tried to push the sides together. The somatic is then dealt with with incident clearing. Then you re-check if they can integrate. Sometimes one chain will take care of it, sometimes it is a more long term thing that requires a number of incidents or chains. The client with claustrophobia took a number of chains over several sessions, with much improvement, but the sides are still not quite integrated. It happened to be a major focus going through all parts of her life.

One person said he felt he held himself back, that he somehow had a bad boy inside, and therefore he didn't deserve to do too well. He quickly admitted to having both a "Good" and a "Bad" side. That is not the perfect titles, but that is how he saw it at first. If we can avoid labelling any of the sides in negative terms, that is best. However, that is usually not how the person sees it at first. Anyway, his "Good" side was creative, open, angelic, in tune with God. His "Bad" side was aggressive and powerful, getting things done in a direct manner. He wasn't aware of visual perceptions on these parts at all, but we could get them to talk to each other, getting them to accept and love each other, and learn from each other. When they were pretty well in ARC I used the trick of putting the hands together as above. The two parts integrated and he felt a strong rush of energy. He felt that he could now use all the qualities together or as he chooses. This was his very first session.

Another client was very fragmented and has various kinds of addictive behavior, such as overeating. That fits in with polarity clearing, but often isn't a quick resolution. With an addictive type of person it is often the problem to get opposite parts "in-session" at the same time, since they are more forcefully separated. We did a polarity of Vulnerable and Masculine. She actually had a totally different beingness to go with each side. Each one had a different voice and different mannerism, bordering on multiple personality, but not quite. There I was actually talking with the parts directly, instead of through the separation we can usually establish at first. However, gradually as we got the parts to get along better, she became able to separate from them instead of being them. Eventually they integrated into one way of being, with the qualities from both. The result produced immediate positive changes in her life. However, she had much more where it came from to work on in the following sessions.

Another person had a Humble/Aggressive polarity. She had regarded anger as being bad and unwanted, and had tried to be just a sweet and loving person. However, a lot of her power was in the aggressive part. She gradually realized that and started taking responsibility for that side too. They integrated, and since then she has become able to be angry when necessary and to face up to it, instead of suppressing it.

Most people will readily accept the philosophy of integrating polarities once they try it the first time. It usually takes some 2WC persuasion to get them to accept the "negative" parts, but once they realize that their qualities are split, it quickly makes sense to bring them more together. However, a few people might need some discussion of the theory before they are ready to do it. So, a quick explanation and drawing of wholes splitting up into polarities would generally do it. I haven't met anybody who had anything against the idea once they understood it. Personally I find it to be best form to do it without any kind of prior indoctrination, but there should not be a big problem in going through it first. Anyway, understanding the philosophical basics here usually gives a big realization in itself, and is very empowering for people. It makes them realize that they are cause, they are whole, and they have a lot of abilities and qualities.

The people I have mostly used Polarity Clearing on are new people. However, I have found it to work very well on advanced people also. The principle here is actually a very high level spiritual basic along the lines of the factors. I have used them solo on myself with good results. The parts I have integrated have been taken care of permanently with no side effects of restimulating anything else.

Technical Essay # 76 - FAF 13 April 1992

Philosophical Basics

 

In the sessions I currently do with new people I find myself using very few fixed stable data about what will be going on. I try to be as flexible as possible, and only use the case in front of me as a reference point, not a long list of rules and Now-I'm-supposed-to's. The tools I use are generally flexible tools that can adjust to the situation.

However, there are some philosophical models that I base my actions on, that never change. I use them as pre-supposition for any clearing action I do, and also I explain them or discuss them with the client as necessary.

First of all I assume that the person is, or can be, CAUSE over his situation. If he isn't, I know that there is a lie somewhere. Whatever is bothering him, he isn't it, but he can change it.

That is basically the old axiom one and two. The person is really a static and he can make considerations. If things aren't the way he wants them he needs to change his considerations. I assume that he can, and that things will then change for him.

A great many things follow from that concept: the person being a causative static making considerations. One is that whatever labels the person might put on people, behavior, situations, etc, aren't the truth. They are just considerations. So, if something is identified as bad, limited, right, wrong, or whatever - that isn't the truth.

I will use any given chance to show the client that he is at cause. And any work we do in session is intended to help him change considerations, and maintain the ability to do so after session.

I would not push these data on the person, I wouldn't word clear them or check him out on them. I would readily discuss them whenever he is reaching for a philosophical discussion. But mostly, it is an underlying foundation that is behind the clearing work.

I would expect the person to get a big cognition on being cause, and being able to change considerations, during the first couple of sessions. It is a little (big, rather) Clear cognition that is really empowering for them to have. I see no point in keeping it secret or trying to keep them at effect. Most people will readily make the cognition by themselves if you get good enough results in the first sessions. Only a few will insist on being effect and won't allow themselves to admit to being cause just yet.

Gaining awareness of being cause happens on a gradient scale of course. Any major action on the clearing chart has that same cognition as EP, applied to different or wider areas. All I expect from a brand new client is to get the idea of being cause, and having had some success in changing considerations.

The next axiomatic truth on my list is about Wholeness. It is actually another angle of the truth of the Static, but it is useful to express it separately. The natural state is harmonious, complete, without conflict, without need for categorization or judgment. If a person or situation is found in a different state, then we know that it is not the whole truth, there is a part missing. Whatever positive or negative aspect of a person we examine, we will have to compare it with

ALL THE REST, and when we add the two sides together we always get a whole. Likewise, each part will be a mirrorred reflection of the other side.

Wholes polarizing into plus/minus, Is/Isn't, or whatever, is a basis for any case phenomena I can think of. It you got just one piece of the puzzle, the other one will always be there for the equation to balance. You can't have an is-ness without a not-is-ness to balance it out, and each one is a reflection of the other.

The wholeness idea safeguards that we don't throw pieces of the client away, but that we rather reconcile them with the rest of the person. That is the only valid as-isness anyway.

Most clients are very satisfied with the wholeness/polarity idea and intuitively find it to be true. When they cognite on that, it makes subsequent clearing much easier. The only people I've noticed having problems with the idea are interestingly all ex-Scientologists, mostly of the Fundamentalist observation. I suppose also other religious convictions could make the idea of integration frightening, but so far no Born-Again Christians have asked for a session from me.

The next basic is that whatever you can accept, admire, or love cannot give you any kind of problem. Whatever you resist or dislike or try to forget, will come back to haunt you. That corresponds to the old Taoist saying "What you resist you become" that we all know very well. It also goes along with "admiration being the most valuable particle, who's absence alone will make things persist". That part of LRH's Factors is one of the least understood. I understand it to say that whatever you can admire, or love, you can resolve. If you fully observe and love something unconditionally, it will vanish. If you withdraw admiration from something, it will persist.

Another way of working this principle is to try to see the positive in anything. If the client has an unwanted condition, he usually dislikes it and has labelled it in some negative fashion. If we can get him to see the positive aspects of it, and appreciate them, things will change. He might either change his mind and decide that the condition can actually be used as an asset, or he might admire it so well that it totally vanishes.

Most people will hesitate and protest about accepting a "negative" condition, or seeing anything positive in it at all. But, that is why they have it of course. Once they realize that, negative conditions can be resolved much faster.

I would never waver on these points. I would insist on the truth in them, albeit in a flexible, non-judgmental manner. I will not get into any kind of argument about them, but I will just bring them up again and again and base my questions on them. I wouldn't say "You have to accept this!", I would say "What else could you possibly accept about this?", or "If you imagine a little bit, how could this quality be regarded as positive?". I would sidestep any argument about it, and try a different angle. If the client says "That part of me is LAZY, that couldn't possibly be good!", I would say "Well, but it is very good at being lazy, isn't it?", and he would say "Oh yes! it is an expert".

There are many variations, sub-divisions, and extensions to these basics. However, it would be useful for a practitioner to be able to summarize his basics into just a few principles. Otherwise he might lose track of the most important ones and might violate them, even though he thinks he is adhering to some minor rule.

A technique that in the hands of one practitioner would create integrated, lasting gains, empowering the client to be cause in life, might for another practitioner produce short-lived gains, making the person more at effect and more fragmented. On paper they might appear to do the same things, but a difference in which basics they operate out of can be very important.

So, to recapitulate, these are some valuable basics that can make clearing work better:

¥ Cause - the person is cause over his own situation right now
¥ Wholeness - the natural state is to be complete and integrated
¥ Love - admiration resolves any conflict

They serve several purposes. For one thing they make it more clear what is "wrong" with a person, and points out a way of dealing with it. Secondly, they give us an indicator for how far a person has gotten. A person who happily cognites that he is effect, might be ok for now, but he is not quite there yet. A person who happily forgets his darker sides might get by better for now, but he will have to go back and confront them later.

You can find these basics in a great many places, including at the heart of most successful religions and philosophies. I hesitate to call anything "The Truth", but these principles will tend to strike a chord of truth within most people who are at least partially aware.

 

 

Technical Essay # 77 - FAF 14 April 1992

Evaluation

 

Evaluation has not been an altogether clearly understood term. It has been widely agreed that one shouldn't evaluate in a clearing session, but what does that mean?

Evaluation is first of all not the best word, in that it has several different meanings, and in common usage it would be more positive than we have used it.

The term Evaluation covers several distinct subjects:

1. Analysis
2. Judgment
3. Suggestion

The most common usage of the word evaluation out in the "real" world is as analysis or computation. You observe something and you try to evaluate what it means and implies and how valuable it is. This is what a good clearing practitioner does during a session. He observes the client's indicators and communication, analyzes the situation, and decides what to do next.

Judgment is mostly what we meant when we said that one shouldn't evaluate. It is the attachment of a value or identification to the client or his case, in a way that limits his freedom of choice. People can change, but when you put a label on them it would tend to hinder change. We could just as well call it "Labelling" for that matter.

Suggestion is when you feed somebody ideas on how to think or what to think about. This can be done more or less forcefully. Clearing has traditionally been associated with a fair amount of covert suggestions. The way sessions are promoted, the model session environment, the indoctrination, the practitioner's attitude, etc, all add up to covert suggestions that encourage the client to think that the whole thing is going to work. The practitioner then gives questions and commands which are more direct suggestions to think about a certain subject in a certain way.

Suggestion is an important element in making clearing work. Traditionally that has not been recognized. However, if you omit the suggestive parts you might be surprised to find that the processes don't work as expected. If you take responsibility for the phenomenon you can probably use it with more integrity. Suggestion is only appropriate to the degree that it helps the client improve his current situation. If we fool him into believing in something that wasn't there in the first place, then we are doing him a disservice.

So, the two types of Evaluation that can have an adverse effect are #2 - Judgment, and #3 - Suggestion. However, there are gradient scales. Most judgments would be undesirable, but some might be appropriate. Many suggestions are there to help the person, but some will be detrimental.

The determining factor, I think, is whether or not we give the person more or fewer choices, if we help him become free or if we limit him further.

A suggestion of new choices is usually helpful. That is what we do with many clearing questions; we suggest a new angle to things and suggest that the person tries it out. Like, "Recall some hidden eating!". We are introducing an unexpected idea and asking the client to think about it for the duration of the process, and most likely he will learn something new.

Suggesting more limited choices is rarely beneficial for the person. Like, if we convince him of a certain model of reality to the exclusion of all others as part of the indoctrination. It might make it easier to do subsequent rundowns that are built on that model of reality, but it might make actual as-isness more difficult. For example, if we suggest that "all somatics come from engram chains and we can only resolve them by erasing the basic engram". That might make it easier to run an engram chain, but it might be more difficult for the person to handle somatics any other way from then on.

The trouble with judgment is that it tends to fixate things, to identify them. If we tell a person that he is "Stupid", then we make it a little harder for him to change. We put the false idea there that he "IS" something. That violates axiom 1 of the person being a Static. He ISN'T any kind of quality, that is a lie, and to the degree we convince him that he IS something we will be holding him back from realizing his true nature.

So, the trouble with evaluation seems to be identification. If you use judgment or suggestion to imply that something or someone IS in a certain limited way, then you sabotage the clearing activity.

Judgments that don't fixate anything are usually fine. Many of them are part of polite language. You could say "That's very nice of you", or "That's great!" without harming the client in any way. ARC is also a key element in clearing.

Suggesting that someone or something IS some way might be permissible if what you equate with is something more unlimited, with more choices. Such as: "You ARE cause!", I can't see much limitation in that. But it is somewhat dangerous to do. I find it safest to always leave multiple choices in there, always letting the client make up his own mind.

If you need to suggest some particular model for the purpose of running a process, if would be most respectful for the person's integrity to introduce it as a possibility, rather than as a fact. "How about this for a theory?: If you can find the positive in something, it will cease being a problem". That lets the client know that he always has a choice, and the process will run just as well for that matter.

 

 

Technical Essay # 78 - FAF 21 April 1992

Reality

.. what a concept

 

To understand reality better, we might for the purpose of investigation divide it into four different categories or levels:

1. Subjective Reality - internal map in the mind
2. Objective Reality - the actual physical universe
3. Inherent Reality - the mechanisms creating the universe
4. Ultimate Reality - total as-isness

As with any model of the world, this is an imperfect representation, made with imprecise words. However, let me explain what I mean.

Most realities are just maps of higher level, more "true", realities. That is, instead of perceiving things the way they really are, one uses a simplified representation as reality. Instead of looking at the territory you look at your map of the territory.

Direct experience of the physical world would be reality level 2. For example, there is actually a table there in the room. People present would make different internal representations of that table. They would have different perceptions, different viewpoints, and they would think about it differently. That would be reality level 1, their subjective experience. If they are fairly sane, their subjective experiences are similar enough so that they can openly agree that there is a table there and they can discuss it. However, not two of them will have the same subjective representation of it. They will look at the world through subjective filters.

Reality level 1 can again be divided into two parts:

1A. Secondary representation of experience
1B. The actual experience and perceptions

1A is what we have mostly recognized as Case. It would be a mistake to regard it all as unwanted, but it is in this realm we would resolve most of what is bothering people.

Secondary representations of experience would include mental image pictures, computations, ARC breaks, valences, GPMs, entities, creations, etc. Some of them might be wholely synthetic, others are just simplified and distorted versions of more real realities. However, all of them the person would use AS reality.

Most humans will insist that they have memories, they have a personality, they feel hurt in certain situations, and happy in others, and they have certain basic rules and understandings about life. Most of this doesn't correspond very closely to what their objective environment and physical perceptions are, there are just vague subjective associations.

Through clearing we would sort out the person's subjective representations. He would find conflicts and limitations and would re-organize them. He would correlate his representations with his currently perceived experience, and he will probably find that many of the old filters and programs are unnecessary, and that it might work better to deal more directly with what is going on. He would realize that responses from old traumatic incidents don't apply now, and that he is better off without service facs, etc.

By straightening out the subjective filters and by familiarizing the person more with experiencing the physical universe, he will gradually become more aware of the difference between subjective and objective. He will become more "in Present Time", and much more aware of what he is perceiving.

A person in present time, acutely aware of his perceptions, would be operating in the 1B band. He is still perceiving through channels that have built-in filters: his physical senses. Eyes only perceive a fraction of the spectrum, ears can only pick up a certain band of sound, his sense of touch tell him that things are solid, etc. That is not the whole scene, but it is a consistent picture that he can fairly well share with other, similarly equipped, humans.

Next step up is reality level 2, what is actually there, independent of the senses used to perceive it. The first problem here, is that there isn't necessarily such a thing. The physical world can appear very real and solid to the senses, but going beyond that it appears to be just an illusion, a holographic display projected from elsewhere.

So, is there an objective reality? I don't know. If there is, it ought to be what one perceives when one goes exterior. Granted, some people do experience a slightly enhanced physical looking reality, but not with any great degree of objectivity. Most commonly, people experience an overwhelming avalanche of different multi-dimensional perceptions. Some people get access to different subjective realities through psychic means. But most people don't get clear, verifiable, perceptions of the physical surroundings in the right dimensions, colors, etc. And anyway, it would be kind of suspect if they did. Why should an exterior being "see" light in the exact same bandwidth, as with the eyes, that would be kind of strange.

It would be kind of nice, seen from a human viewpoint, if one could at any time leave one's body, and get the same kind of perceptions, just more clearly, and more objectively, from any location one would choose. However, to ask for that is to impose human limitations on higher states of being. It is not just going to be MORE human, it is going to be more and different.

There is not just a physical universe there that one needs to see a little more clearly. The highest level of awareness is not going to be that "Yes! There is a table there, and now I see it REALLY clearly!". I am afraid that that route leads to a dead end, to increased agreement with the fake reality, to be precise.

So, there is the paradoxial situation that one gets case gains from perceiving objective reality better, but if one does it too well one gets stuck.

The trick might be to perceive, but not agree. Somebody stuck in subjective reality has fixed agreements about what reality is, but doesn't perceive very well. Objective reality (level 2) might then be that you perceive well, but you don't necessarily agree with what you perceive, and you don't have to translate it into meaning anything but what it is.

Reality level 3 would then be what is "behind" what is there to be perceived, what it more inherently is. If we went along with the idea that the level 2 objective reality is projected from elsewhere, then level 3 would be direct experience of that which is projecting, experiencing the cause, instead of the effects.

Reality level 4 would then be complete and total knowingness without any separation, an 8th dynamic awareness. Perception and experience would be unnecessary. Everything is as-ised, so there isn't particularly anything there, but at the same time everything possible is there.

Being incarnated in a physical body appears to hinder the direct experience of the higher levels of reality. One can get the concept of them, one can perceive elements of them, and so forth, but as long as one still has a physical body there, one is still insisting on some kind of subjective reality.

I would tend to go along with the idea that the body is part of one's case. So, case could be said to be mostly subjective reality, i.e. one's mind including the body.

We could regard the subjective reality of an individual as a holographic structure that includes a blueprint of the body, as well as all the other elements one could orient oneself by. One's timetrack, one's knowledge, ideas, opinions, abilities, circuits, etc, would be represented as a multi-dimensional assortment of interconnected structures. The structures would be constructed out of any conceivable perceptions put together and laid out over time and space, with added significances.

This kind of structure could be regarded as one's private universe, or several universes super-imposed on each other. Any conceivable combination of location, time, color, sound, feelings, motion, beingnesses, etc, go together to form the circuitry that makes up the person's perceived world. Most of it is probably sub-conscious and running on automatic.

These structures could be called The Mind, or one's own universe, or whatever. If one wants to remain in physical incarnation and play the game of life, then that is what needs to be optismized. One would probably want to clean it up, make sure that the structures are the ones best suited for what one wants to do. For example, a timetrack that is stretched out in front of you, going from left to right, might make you do certain things better than if you keep it behind you, and vice versa. There are pros and cons of having a timetrack at all. The thing to realize is that one is cause over one's personal reality, and if it doesn't work right one can change it.

If one doesn't want a permanent personal universe, one would need to experience everything in it, and reverse the process that it is created by. That would NOT be done by denying responsibility for it, making it more automatic, or by throwing away the pieces. It would rather be done by admitting ownership, taking over control, and integrating fragments. That is what is called as-isness.

The body is an excellent indicator of how far one has gotten in that regard. One might not-is and hide other case, but the body is rigged as a very visible indicator. If it is still there, and if it is in poor shape, well, that indicates that there is still a lot of subjective structures that are at work. The body is like the tip of the iceberg, it shows that something else is there.

Presumably you can transform your reality enough so that a physical body no longer is necessary, and you can then move on. You might still use personal reality structures, and you might still use a body of sorts, but it doesn't have to be physical.

A higher level of operation could be that one just makes up any environment or structure one might desire, and one shares it with others as necessary. That would be very disorienting to a human being, because it conflicts with subjective fixed ideas of how things should be, and that is partially why humans get stuck with physical reality.

We could categorize people into bands of case depending on where their primary focus is:

We could also organize it based on the dynamics in a similar fashion:

.. which gives a similar result as my previous charts, just from a different angle. Again, we have pretty solid technologies that can accomplish 1 and 2 routinely. 3 and 4 we probably can do too, we just need to sharpen our tools and apply them better. 5 and up, we aren't talking human anymore, and I'm not sure any kind of formalized technology could or should give such results. It is evident to me that we are moving in that kind of direction, but it also appears that we are getting some outside help.

Anyway, things might also be a lot more simple than described above. Any kind of reality is simply what you make it to be. You are cause over all of it, and if it isn't what you want, then make it different. If you forget you are cause and focus on one type of reality to the exclusion of others, you might get lost. If you confuse the effects with the causes, you also get lost. The remedy is to discover your own inner reality that is generating the outer realities, and any copies of inner or outer realities.

 

Previous page

Contents

Next page