Technical Essay # 40 - FAF 4 May 1991

Intentions

.. and things like that

Terms like intention, goal, purpose, postulate, and consideration have often been used without a clear distinction of their relationship. It is a matter or words, but it would be useful to have some consistency and some kind of hierarchy. Here are some of my thoughts on the subject.

Intentions, goals, purposes, postulates, and considerations all signify a thought of something being or becoming a certain way.

Intentions, goals, and purposes allow for time to pass while the aim is being accomplished.

A postulate includes no time, it says that the wish is already fulfilled.

A consideration is a postulate continued over time.

A pure postulate is the highest level concept. It is the product of a static and is in itself a static. It doesn't persist and it doesn't have to. It is a complete manufactured truth. Pure postulates are external to MEST and not dependent in any way to MEST.

Upon making the postulate that postulates ought to persist on their own we introduce the idea of considerations. That implies the idea of consecutive moments of postulation, the basis of time. To make a postulate stick around as a continuing consideration it has to be altered, the static has to differentiate from it somehow. The static has to step down from total source and grant independent existence in order to do this.

When we postulate that we ought to make events happen in a certain sequence we get into intentions. An intention is a carrier wave that pushes a certain gradual accomplishment. It implies that the static is not creating the result directly within himself (that would be postulation), but he is promoting its creation outside himself. He has thereby implicitly granted existence to an outside world he isn't direct cause over. An intention could be said to be a directed consideration. It is a persistent flow of postulation in a certain direction. In its highest form an intention has a source but no starting point. In its lower harmonic within the MEST universe it starts from a certain point, and can be symbolized as a vector: a starting point, a direction, and a magnitude.

Entering the physical universe, certain rules are introduced. One can only play if one is operating from one or more viewpoints. Everything in the universe is perpetually changing, through time and space. Any desired effect must be produced by engineering viewpoints and dimension points into a sequence of events.

Actions within the universe are produced by viewpoints. Viewpoints are monitored and controlled by the external considerations and intentions of the static they are operated by.

A viewpoint can have a purpose. From the static's perspective that is the reason for creating the viewpoint, what it is intended for, the function it is meant to serve. A viewpoint might have a whole complex of purposes and properties. That is particularly the case with central viewpoints, and might be recognized as the personality of the thetan. From the viewpoint's perspective its purpose is what it is trying to do.

A viewpoint doesn't have to, but often will take on properties of MEST. It will confuse itself with one or more dimension points. That makes it into a terminal. A terminal is sort of a solidified viewpoint.

Since a terminal embeds a viewpoint it also inherits a purpose. It is what that terminal is working towards. The terminal might also have assorted kinds of additional baggage.

A goal is an intended future scene. It is really not inherent to terminals. Terminals work more along the lines of purposes. But, a viewpoint or a terminal might set and work on goals as part of working on the purpose. What has traditionally been called the goal of a terminal is more accurately a purpose. It is a continuous effort rather than a cycle of action.

Terminals also have intentions. They are sort of a lower harmonic of the intention of a static. For a terminal the intention is the continuous flow along the lines of a certain purpose. It is directed thought or effort. It is more of a flow than a purpose, it is the actual carrier wave that carries out the purpose.

A viewpoint or a terminal might also make postulates. They are a lower harmonic of static postulates. Those postulates often become a sticky affair. The reason for that is that the universe is dynamic and a postulate tries to keep it static. That works well outside the universe, but creates trouble inside it.

Most case can be said to be based on the principle that a dynamic situation was deemed too dynamic (a confusion, traumatic incident, plus-randomity) and that an attempt was made of making it static (a stable datum, picture, SerFac, identity). An attempt was made of solving a situation with a postulate, which is not the correct approach in this universe.

A postulate made on top of un-confronted original postulates tends to compound the persistence of things and doesn't amount to as-isness. It is these "blind" postulates that are a major target in clearing. They might appear in a number of different types of incarnations.

The word postulate is commonly used about what is really a wide range of actions. "Let there by light", "I am going to be rich", and "I can't succeed" are really very different things. The last two might more precisely be called a goal and a computation.

The definitions of the words have been quite thoroughly muddied up by imprecise use. A complete overhaul and new definition of terms might very well be in order.

From the way I have used the words here one could attempt to illustrate seniority by aligning them with different dynamics. For example like this:

This is merely speculation, however. A more well-defined model needs to be constructed of all of this.

Technical Essay # 41 - FAF 13 May 1991

Triads

The representation of universal principles in triads (triangles) is very useful. The triangular structure is very fundamental to the universe and observation of it can provide guidance in understanding phenomena.

This universe is built on polarities, it is a two-pole universe. The polarities, or dichotomies, can manifest as plus-minus, outflow-inflow, good-evil, beautiful-ugly, yin-yang, male-female, and as a whole bunch of other things.

The opposites are attracted to each other, but are inherently in conflict because they are different. This is what creates all the drama in the universe and what makes it interesting.

The opposite polarities are created by splitting something that is whole into two different parts. They really complement each other, but if they are not allowed to re-unite they will engage in an interaction, battle, or game of some sort.

The discharge or flow between the two polarities create the third possibility: dynamic interaction. This is the third state, the interchange.

The polarities and the interchange is what can be represented as a triad. Together they represent the possibilities in a particular view on life.

The most well known triad is the ARC triangle:

The separation of the two subjects of affinity and reality create an interchange which is communication. It might not be immediately clear why affinity and reality could be considered polarities. They symbolize a separation of theta into that which has a closeness to or liking of something (affinity) and the subject matter itself (reality). That is ultimately a false division, but one that allows the game of life to take place. It introduces the idea that one has to communicate in order to get reality

Same thing with Be-Do-Have

By separating beingness from havingness we accomplish a flow which is doingness. That is, a beingness has tdo something in order to get a havingness. That is really only true in this universe, a static can "have" whatever it wants without doing anything.

A more generic triad would be:

meaning that if we split up plus and minus we get a difference in potential that will cause a discharge, a flow, to occur. The flow is not necessarily one-way. The natural discharge in this universe is alternating current, a two-way flow

We could also see it in terms of the tone scale, or as a life cycle:

None of the three states are the true state of theta. Two states are artificially separated and the third state is the result of their interaction

Out of this we get cycles of action, we get infinite degrees of variation between the two poles, and we get a necessity for balance. See, this whole thing only works well if the two poles are of comparable magnitude and if they are allowed to exchange with each other.

The whole game in this universe is to explore the infinite variety of possible interaction between poles. It is the polarization that is making the game, but it is between them that it is played. Therefore the optimum, most important, most interesting corner of the triangle is the top one: communication, doingness; but it does not in itself provide the resolution to the game.

Each triad also has a unified aspect; what the three corners add up to. For the ARC triad, for example, it is understanding. It is the purpose of the triad and it is what we get if the three aspects are in harmony. It is what we had to split up in order to create the triad. When we add up the three parts again we get what we started with. It might not be easy to put words on what the unified aspect is for most of the triangles. Really it is "theta" or "static" for all of them because that is what we started with.

We persuade a static to split himself up into plus-static (his viewpoint in the universe) and minus-static (the universe itself) and we get a game like the one we are playing.

If we "finish" the game we get back to the static state we started with, but with the added experience of having played the game

The game is basically to harmonize the polarizations, to work out the conflicts. There are two ways, two directions, we can go in doing that. You can either allow the poles to become more the same and thereby lessen the conflict. That could be called an identification of the polarities. Or you could work out a way of allowing the poles to persist, but without conflict. That could be called differentiation.

That means, we can either bring the three aspects so close to each other that they are the same and won't be in conflict. Or, we can bring them so far apart that it is very apparent that they are different and don't have to be engaged in conflict. The in-between zone of association is where the lines are blurred and conflict takes place because of confusion.

Note that Identification-Association-Differentiation is in itself also a triad. The optimization of triads is an activity with triadic properties. Or said differently, there are at least two dimensions of triads, and probably more. 3 dimensions would be likely. I still have a hard time conceptualizing that

All the triads and triads within triads are inherently traps, or said more positively, a way of making a game persist.

Technical Essay # 42 - FAF 14 May 1991

Beingnesses

There are various labels that describe types of beingness: valence, identity, terminal, viewpoint, and so forth. As with the types of intentions their definitions and differentiations aren't always clear.

To clarify what we are talking about we must look at the basics. The concept of the triad as described in the last essay gives us a tool to look at it.

The assumption of any kind of beingness implies the admission that you aren't being something else. As a matter of fact if you are being one thing you aren't being everything else. You are splitting a whole into "this is what I am" and "this is what I am not". Each section might be simple or complex, that doesn't matter.

This is the concept of polarization, one of the key aspects of this universe. In here you've got to be something and not be something else in order to play. That might seem sort of strange to folks from elsewhere, but that is the way it is agreed upon here.

The polarization of Being / Not-Being produces a difference in potential. That potential will manifest as some sort of an interaction. The label we put on it depends on the type of beingness we are talking about. At any rate the third corner of the triangle symbolizes thinterchange between what one is being and what one is not being.

This might appear to be just be-do-have but it is more than that. That triangle brings up some interesting points, though. You can only have what you are not being. Doingness is what you do to interact with what you are not being.

When you assume a viewpoint it implies that there are points you are not viewing from. Those are called dimension points.

The separation of viewpoints and dimension points creates space and it allows an interchange to occur. The viewpoints can have considerations about the dimension points and the dimension points provide something for the viewpoint to experience

It usually gets more involved than that. Various viewpoints and dimension points get grouped together and the being decides to be all of it and pretend that it is one thing. That is what we could call an identity. One is being that and not being everything else. The "not being" part is the outside world that the identity is dealing with.

Note that this being / not-being phenomena happens within a specific universe. That might or might not correspond to the whole physical universe. It might just be a localized area or subject. It depends on the starting point, what is the "whole" that we are splitting into "be" and "not-be" parts.

Specifically, for an identity, it is made for a certain frame of reference, to deal with a certain limited world. The not-be part is the challenge to the identity, the resistance that it is up against. The identity has a certain intention towards the resistance. Together these three aspects form a complete context.

Opposition isn't necessarily the best word. Really it is the object of the identity's actions. It is the matter you are engaging in some sort of game. If you are being a "tourist" then your object might be "sights & experiences". You will direct some intention towards the object and it will provide you with some sort of challenge in getting to it. The context of the game might be a "vacation spot"

An identity package could be said to have three parts:

1. The identity one is being. The part one is responsible for.
2. The purpose of having a polarization. The objective of the game we are playing.
3. The part one is not responsible for. The opposition or friction in the game.

Note that the 3rd part is not necessarily somebody working at the opposite purpose of the identity. It is really his own denied responsibility. Of course, that might very well cause him to get into struggles with other identities that actually have the opposite direction, but not necessarily.

The out-of-valence phenomena is when one is forced into being part of the opposition to something one was already being. Mostly it is when the identity fails too badly in its mission and one then assumes the approximated identity of a representative of the opposition.

What makes a valence different from an identity is that it isn't real. There wasn't an identity opposing you, but you figured that there was, and then you assumed that fictitious identity. That is how people get to be "evil". They thought that somebody else was and that they were surviving better and then they assumed that valence.

If one is being the identity required to play a certain game against resistance, then we can say that one is in-valence. The purpose would always be constructive and never directed towards another specific terminal. If one is being a personification of resistance or opposition directed towards oneself or others, then we are talking out-of-valence. That might not be immediately apparent from the make-up of the identity in that it might often look quite positive. Finding the purpose would make it more obvious, though.

Providing opposing identities is a common trick in implanted GPMs. It tends to create unsolvable problems and it puts something there for the person to be out-of-valence in. In real life it doesn't necessarily happen like that.

A terminal is an identity in an identity package. The goal, or more correctly the purpose, is the objective of the game the terminal is trying to play. An opp-term is a synthesized opponent working at the opposite purpose.

The subject of being versus not-being is very central to the philosophical concepts in clearing. Everything we are doing could be explained within that framework. We are adjusting what he is being and optimizing his relationship to the stuff he isn't being.

To perceive something one has to not-be it. In order to clear something the pc is being we first need to get him to realize he isn't it and then we can work on it. To expand a pc's abilities he must re-arrange what he is currently being or he must learn to be something new that is useful to him.

Technical Essay # 43 - FAF 17 May 1991

Confusions

Confusion and the stable datum is probably the principle that best explains how aberration and case comes about.

You run into a situation you feel you have to deal with, but it is too confused, too much randomity, and you can't immediately duplicate it. You then apparently handle it by selecting or introducing stable data that seem to align the confusion or at least to keep it away. You then keep these fixed data. Because you use fixed data you are then a little more likely to run into trouble and you will meet more confusions. You handle those by selecting or inventing more fixed data. That is the dwindling spiral.

Any type of case can be explained like that. Engrams are when you keep fixed pictures of earlier high randomity scenes. Identities are what you assume a certain way of being to handle situations in life. Service computations serve to handle confusions in a fixed way. ARC breaks are there to justify that you didn't handle something right. Withholds keep you from looking at what you actually did. Entities are there because there are things you don't confront. All of this adds up to that there are confusions that you are not confronting or that you didn't confront.

The only complete way of dealing with a confusion is to confront and duplicate exactly what it is. If you have a high volume of force and moving particles - that is exactly what you have. "Solving" it by picking a datum that makes it seem less threatening is never an as-isness. You would have to see it as it is to as-is it.

Choosing stable data that align the confusion is a quite appropriate way of starting to deal with a confusion. The problem is that if you don't keep looking at it and aligning it until you can duplicate it completely - then you are creating aberration.

It is the partial confront of a confusion that gives trouble. If you take a glance at it and decide something about it that seems to align it and then you look no further. Or if you just take a picture of it and then never look at the confusion again.

To end cycle on a confusion you need to see it for what it is. If you get involved with it you will have to duplicate it - otherwise you will be stuck with it in the future.

The universe might seem to have order and rules in it. However when you accept statements of what that order and those rules are you are limiting yourself. Really the universe is what it is: an enormous continuously changing jumble of motion and force. One has to confront that fully before one has a chance of resolving one's relation to it.

Looking for the fundamental principles of the universe can be quite useful. But the principles are not the truth. The universe is what it is. Understanding its principles might help you confront it, but it is no replacement for the actual confronting.

The path to spiritual freedom is really one of becoming able to confront increasing amounts of randomity in wider and wider areas. It is to a much lesser degree the search for the principles that will align everything. Things aren't particularly aligned here and finding the right theory is not gonna change it a whole lot. And the path is much less the search for the magic button that will allow you to escape without confronting the randomity at all.

Chaos or randomity is something one can be able to confront. One can see it for what it is and one doesn't have to have a problem with it. One could change it of course, but one doesn't have to. Many randomities just need to be duplicated.

The reason a chaotic situation appears confusing is because some of your previous stable data are being shaken. Otherwise it would just appear to be a lively scene. If you don't have any previous stable data or if they aren't affected you wouldn't be confused.

For example, let's say you are looking at a swarm of flies outside. There is a lot of action going on, a lot of random motion. However, you are not likely to be confused about it, because it doesn't have much to do with you and it doesn't touch your stable data. If you saw all your personal belongings being whirled around in a tornado you might very well become confused. Or, if a meteor hits you in the head you would probably be overwhelmed. You didn't expect it and you were sort of depending on that body that just got killed. It is really only confusing, overwhelming, or traumatic if your stable data are affected.

In other words, a confusion is based on the existence on previous fixed data or solutions that are being affected.

We can also say that there is a confusion because you are being part of it. Something that you are being or believing or using or holding is involved in random motion. If you weren't being anything you could just observe randomness without being affected by it.

A way of handling plus-randomity or confusion case-wise is to track down why you find it confusing. What is it that is being shaken. Which part of the confusion are you being.

Running incidents in connection with a plus-randomity situation is quite appropriate. The incident can be regarded as a narrative incident and we can run through it until it is confrontable. We can also get reactions/somatics and run chains on it. However, both are addressing mainly the confusion in the situation. One could imagine other processes that would address the fixed data that is shaken and clear those.

Service computations or identities lend themselves well to this, but there might be other possible angles. "Why would you get into that situation?", "Who or what would do that?", "Why was that situation un-avoidable?", "What should be stable about this situation?".

One could also run a kind of confusion / stable data chain. Before the confusion there is a stable datum and before that there is a confusion and so forth.

GPMs are an example of this theory. You assume a fixed identity and start playing a game, the identity doesn't succeed and it ends in confusion, you assume another identity to handle that, it ends up being confused, and so forth.

It has been said that this is how you get to control an area:
1. If it is confused, put in a stable datum.
2. If it is stable, create confusion.

This is the way of managing or manipulating people. It is also to a certain extent how life treats you and how you become aberrated.

Clearing could be described as doing the opposite:

1. If there is confusion, learn to deal with it.

2. If there is stability, introduce confusion.

That is another way of saying that if the case is already restimulated, then handle the restimulation. If it is not restimulated, then restimulate it so that we get something to run. When we clear people we increase their ability to confront and deal with the confusions of life. If they don't have any going already, then we create some artificially and work on those. That is running the TA into and out of a process.

Note that we aren't trying to introduce new stable data. We run a process until the pc can deal with the randomity in that area. He is likely to get cognitions then. The cognitions aren't intended as stable data, they are simply an indicator that the pc can now see what is going on, an increased level of looking. However, sometimes the cognitions are new less aberrated stable data. That might be acceptable at that time, but it is not optimum with any kind of fixed data. In clearing we try to get rid of aberrated stable data and increase the ability to handle situations without them.

The best attitude for both the pc and the practitioner is to continuously search out confusions that the pc aren't able to duplicate and to increase his ability to confront them.

However, many pcs reach a plateau where they become less willing to do that. They have developed a system of dealing with life, they have assumed new better stable data, they've found a way of avoiding confusions in life, and they are quite happy with the result. That is very nice, and that is roughly the state of clear. However, that is only the beginning. It only means that the person now has a choice of being confused or not in his own universe. Most of the confusions in the physical universe are still intact and un-confronted.

Handling these next areas out require more effort and determinism. They need to be searched out and confronted, they don't necessarily present themselves anymore.

The optimum state would be to be able to confront and duplicate any level of randomity. And to be able to selectively pick limited stable data when you wish to get involved with a particular randomity as a game. And to let go of both the stable data and the confusion when you are done with the game.

Technical Essay # 44 - FAF 17 May 1991

Time

Time is based on cause and effect. It is the idea that cause and effect aren't in the same space and you need to do one before the other one happens.

In the native state of being there is no need for that, there is no separation. If you think something - it is there, of course. You don't have to do something in order to accomplish something.

Space is the idea that things can be separate. That is a little more basic. Time is the added idea that things happen in a sequence. You only get something over there if you do something over here first.

Time is a variant on space and can be treated as a dimension. It postulates that the contents of one space is dependent on the contents of another "earlier" space.

This is sometimes frustrating to beings because it is contrary to higher level truth. You only get something today if you prepared for it yesterday. Your future is determined completely by what you do right now.

Any part of time can be accessed. The being can travel to past or future as he wishes. You can interact with what is there.

¥ You can change PT by running past incidents.
¥ You can run out negative incidents in the future that you are worrying about.
¥ You can go to past times and see things from any viewpoint available in that universe.
¥ You can talk to the participants in past incidents and ask them questions.
¥ You can even interact with yourself in a past incident.
¥ You can freeze the frame at anytime and analyze events at your leisure.
¥ You can go to a future time and analyze PT from there.
¥ You can go to a desired future and remember what you did to get there.
¥ You can go back and forth in time on the track of any identity or entitiy.

There are probably many more things one can do with time, timetracks, and incidents. There is a whole field of potential research. I guess this comes under the heading of Advanced Incident Running.

There are of course various blocks that will stop one from doing these things ease but that is just something to work on in clearing.

Accessing past or future incidents is close akin to exterior perception in PT. You need to assume a viewpoint and mock up what you see from there. PT has the added complexity that what is here is what was caused just before. It is much harder to hold on to for an exterior being because it is continuously moving. A past incident you can freeze and hold on to while you look at it. That is more difficult to do with PT, it is by definition always moving.

Technical Essay # 45 - FAF 17 May 1991

Power of Choice

This universe is big and complicated, there are a great deal of things to understand. One might be inclined to search out allies that seem to be worthwhile to align with. There are many systems of belief, organizations, subjects, and so forth that one can consider aligning with.

Particularly in this local area of the universe it seems very confusing to try to evaluate the consequences of different commitments. Who are the good guys, who are the bad guys, which choices should I take, what should I believe in, who should I work with?

On this planet there are many different games being played at once. Many different influences are being exerted here. It is easy to get a loss on trying to simplify it and decide who are the white hats and who are the black hats.

What I am particularly referring to here is the confusion between who is working for spiritual freedom and who is working on global enslavement. Paradoxially the same groups that have been preserving and teaching knowledge about spiritual development over the centuries are roughly the same ones that have taken center place in conspiracies to suppress and control populations. There is no clean division at all between who works for freedom and who works for enslavement, and at any rate any person or organization can subtly change from one moment to the next. The Church of Scientology is an excellent example of these contradictions.

If I had to suggest one single method of evaluating groups, subjects, philosophies, politics, principles, theories about life and so forth, it would be:

Power of Choice

That is, do you get more or less freedom of choice by aligning with the subject or idea at hand?

That can be used as a single, continuous evaluation of which choices to take and which ideas to accept. How does it affect your power of choice on all dynamics? The choice that honestly brings about the most freedom of choice on the most dynamics is the best choice. The choice that limits freedom of choice or provides the least increase in it is not the best.

You might accept being sub-ordinated to an organizational structure, and thereby limiting your 1D power of choice, if it produces increased freedom of choice on 3D, 4D, 7D or whatever. If it doesn't you probably shouldn't.

In evaluating an idea there is no reason to accept anything that limits power of choice. If somebody give you an idea, say "God created you and you must obey his laws", how do you know if that is true? Well, if it increases your power of choice on the most dynamics it is a useful truth. If it doesn't it is a false truth probably intended to control you. In this case the statement would limit your power of choice if you accepted it, so you don't have to. Conversely, a statement like "Infinite awareness is available to you and you can know all the laws of the universe" would increase your power of choice.

It is a common trick to give you something that seems to be a great truth and that aligns and explains a lot of things but that has a twist that limits your choices. You might accept it because it seems to explain a lot of confusions. That is alright, but watch out for the power of choice thing. You can take the part that explains things and convert the limiting part to something else.

Like if we tell you that Scientology explains life, the universe, and everything and therefore you have to do what you are told by the organization. You would have to add up the benefits pro and con power of choice to see if you would accept that. The best thing to do would of course be to take the explanations and not accept the control aspect.

If we tell somebody "God created everything and he is in control", well that certainly aligns a lot of things. Life can be quite simple and safe if you believe in that. But does it increase your power of choice? Certainly not, it limits it severely.

Examining the status of your power of choice is more important than any amount of convincing explanations of how things are. If it limits your choices then somebody didn't tell you the whole story.

If you keep guarding your power of choice you can't be fooled for long.

Good and evil, right and wrong are of course completely relative terms. You can really only evaluate that from your viewpoint. If it is workable, if it does the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics, then it is good. That might look very different for anybody else, because you can only evaluate it for your dynamics. We could maybe say that your 8D is also everybody else's but the other dynamics aren't. At any rate the evaluation will be different depending on who makes it.

You can expand the idea of power of choice a little wider to more flows. Not only looking at the power of choice on your dynamics, but what does the subject at hand to for the power of choice of everybody else's dynamics. That is really an 8D view of things.

For example, if might appear to support the power of choice on your dynamics to exterminate another race of perceived lesser people if they are in your way. That is if you are an alien or a Nazi or something. But, viewing it objectively it would seem more positive if the other people's dynamics were taken into consideration also.

You could for that matter divide people into those who are seeking power of choice only for their own dynamics and those who want it for everybody's dynamics. If we should put a label on it we could call the first guys "negative" or "contractive" and the latter guys "positive" or "expansive". That is also the difference between purely self-determined and pan-determined ways of operating.

Technical Essay # 46 - FAF 20 May 1991

Clear and looking

Clearing is about looking. We put attention on something that isn't fully being looked at and we keep looking at it until we achieve an increased ability to look at that area. That is about the most basic thing one can say about the process of clearing.

The pre-requisite to looking is the ability and willingness to look. A new preclear only has this partially. However, if he is sitting the chair on his own volition we can safely assume that he has some willingness and ability to look - enough to get started.

The first thing we usually do in clearing is to handle the things the pc can't help but looking at. That is, his current major restimulated areas of charge. That is a life repair.

The structured part of the lower grades deal with the various aspects of case that stop the pc from freely looking. That is exactly why we run those grades first and not all sorts of other things. Each one addresses a major area not just of no-looking, but of inability-to-look.

¥ Drug handling gets the pc out of being stuck in drug incidents and the need of drugs to be able to look. He is more likely to look at what is really there after that.
¥ Recall processes establishes for the pc that it is safe to recall the past and that it can even be good for him.
¥ Communication addresses the inability to interact conceptually with certain people and subjects.
¥ Objectives re-establish the ability to look at what is actually there in the physical universe.
¥ Problems resolves the ability to finish looking at something and not be stuck in it.
¥ Withholds addresses the unwillingness to look at things one didn't think one handled well.
¥ Changes are addressed so that the pc can be able to change based on what he sees.
¥ Service computations are a direct method of not looking, so they also have to go.
¥ Power is run to blow apart stuckness in looking from some other place and time than here.
¥ Incidents are run to get the pc to look at what is going on instead of using old programs.
¥ Valences are also something the pc uses to avoid looking from his own viewpoint.

Most of these things are likely to be out on a new pc. He hasn't run them yet and hasn't had his reasons for not looking handled.

To put it a different way: Most of what we do on lower grades is to handle the reasons why clearing wouldn't work on the guy. He is not likely to be a model pc before we have handled all these things. We address what is wrong with the guy in terms of ability to be cleared.

The state of clear is basically when the person realizes that he can freely look for himself. There are now no blocks to the actual clearing process. It is sort of ironic that once we get him able to run real well he is clear.

The grades are put together in such an order and with such styles of clearing that the pc's blocks won't present much of a problem. His overts won't kick in if we only ask him to remember nice things. His service facs aren't likely to cause much trouble if we just ask him to talk, and so forth.

This illusion will however only hold for a typical pc. It is the ideal arrangement for the average of all cases. But there are many exceptions. Skillful use of those major resistance factors in clearing will produce much better results than a rote application of grades.

A pc might very well not communicate because of service facs, or not recall anything because he is out of touch with physical reality, or he might not want clearing to work because he is afraid of changing.

Any of the grade subjects or other resistive points might have to be applied right away to get the pc going at all. They might also have to be applied as necessary anywhere else to get him completely through it.

It is sort of a catch 22. If the pc did have service facs that kept him from communicating he might not finish the communication grade completely before they are run. But, he might not be up to taking responsibility for service facs yet because he hasn't run the problems grade, which he can't run before communciation is complete.

All that really means is that the practitioner is required to think with his tech. He must observe what is in the way and use the correct process for the job. Clearing practitioners have to look too and they don't have any excuse not to.

So, one way or another we get the pc through all the major areas that stop him from looking and clearing what is there, and then we have a clear.

The state of clear is that the person can freely look, that he is willing to experience whatever is there, without involuntary reactions. This doesn't in any way mean that we are done with clearing. It just means that now we can really get started. Now we can really hunt down some things to look at without worrying much about if the pc can handle it.

A clear should be able to get gains on just about any process question. With a pre-clear we have to be more careful to ask the right questions. Many processes would hit against his unhandled resistive points and therefore "don't work".

Technical Essay # 47 - FAF 31 May 1991

Dimensions and Case

Here are a few wild guesses about some of the history of case around here.

The main problem with this part of the universe is its limited number of dimension and the fragmentation of beings here.

Dimensions roughly correspond to dynamics. That is, this is a 7 dimensional universe, or 8 dimensional if we include the 8th dynamic which really isn't part of the universe but which hides the key to its resolution. To be at your best in this universe you need to operate in 7 dimensions, and to resolve it you would need 8.

Limiting the number of dimensions further than that provides some interesting games. The most common variant is to limit space to 5 or 4 dimensions. In 5 dimensions you quite naturally have full exterior perception without even trying. In 4 dimensions you don't necessarily, but you don't have the slightest problem knowing you are an eternal being and not just a body.

In this local area there are only three dimensions, or we could maybe say three and a half. Time is also a dimension, but here you can't move in it except for in a very fixed pre-determined way: forward at a fixed rate.

To enter this area one loses one's automatic perception of the dimensions above 3. One leaves ones faculties for dealing with them outside. The higher dimensions don't stop working here, but they are not directly observable.

The life forms available here are also only geared to a limited number of dimensions. In other areas they would support the use of higher dimension abilities. That is, bodies have facilities to aide exteriorization, psychic perception, telepathy, and things like that. Here these aspects are suppressed and even if one starts to develop these abilities the equipment is not very cooperative. There seems to be a correspondence between the number of strands of DNA and the dimensions that a body will work well on. Human bodies here are built upon 2 strands of DNA, the double helix, and therefore only perfect for 2 dimensions of operation. They are not made to withstand drastic space changes such as in hyperspace travel. And they are certainly not made for time travel.

To get into this area of space one had to leave higher dimensional parts of oneself outside. That is in itself a drastic decrease in ability. What makes it worse is that these parts have since then been fragmented considerably and have been scattered all around. So that if you start reaching out and trying to encompass them again you will get an entangled mess very different from what you left behind. Implanting has a lot to do with that.

So the difficulty in expanding to encompass more dimensions is two-fold. One, this space doesn't naturally accommodate it, and two, the higher dimensional parts of you have been fragmented. One can re-develop one's sense of the higher dimensions. However, one has to do it by one's own creative force, the universe doesn't help automatically. And one has to re-integrate the fragments that have been scattered around.

Be aware that bodies are an integral part of at least the first 4 dimensions. Only after mastering the fourth can one be free of being a human. The body or at least one's interface with bodies has to be brought up also. It is not quite workable here to just exteriorize and not worry any more about bodies. That would be an attempt to go from 1D to 5D directly, and that isn't practical. Bodies are very much agreed upon around here.

Because faculties for understanding the dimensions from 4 and above are lacking here, those are exactly the areas we have trouble with. Space (the first three dimensions) doesn't provide a whole lot of aberration. However, time, the fourth dimension, provides loads of it. We can easily be fooled into believing that things have to happen in a certain order and that we have to be dependent on what happened "earlier". That provides all the aberrations of the time track. They are caused by the inability to comprehend and freely move in time. The time aberration centers around the inability to discern different points in time from each other. Other points in time are where they are, it is really kind of silly to think you have to act on them here and now which is another time. That is like trying to say that the telephone pole on the other side of the street is out to get you.

The same things would apply for they higher dimensions. I can't quite comprehend the 5th, but I think it is related to viewpoint or beingness. Trouble with that one causes the confusion of what is you and what isn't you. That is valence issues, entities and so forth. If you could see in the 5th dimension there would be no reason to be confused, it would be crystal clear what is "you".

In other words, dimensions you can't perceive develop case. The solution is to regain the ability to operate in those dimensions. The first couple of dimensions are of course more basic than the higher ones. For the first dimension you basically have to realize that you are there. That is symbolized by a point. For the second dimension, which is more like a line, you must realize that you are "here" and somebody else is "there", basically to grant others beingness. For the 3rd dimension you have to allow more degrees of freedom, that is being able to flow with activities in many directions, handling many variables at the same time. 4th dimension is then freedom from the time constraint. And so forth.

The path of development goes through regaining the ability to perceive and work with higher dimensions that have been not-ised and fragmented.

Technical Essay # 48 - FAF 31 May 1991

Wholes and Parts

The most simple but also highest level basic for case is that a whole has been separated into parts.

You take something that is whole and you separate it into parts that aren't whole. This provides the potential for an infinite amount of variation, games, and exploration of interaction between parts.

The ultimate whole is All-That-Is which is the 8th dynamic. That is most truly you in the highest possible state. It is the supreme state of being and encompasses an infinity of infinities and there is nothing it doesn't include.

The ultimate whole separates into smaller and smaller fragments to form the scope of the dynamics and any phenomenon in existence. Each fragment is from a certain perspective a whole that can fragment further into parts.

Any part is conscious to some level. It is also a holographic reflection of the whole it is part of. Any part has the potential of developing back into the whole. Any part has an urge to do just that. However, it is inhibited in doing that by the fact that it is only a part.

The path back to wholeness goes through re-integration. That is, re-combining parts that had been separated.

The basic separation method was a separation into IS and ISN'T. That is, you kept a part that you recognize as you, that is the IS part. But then you fragmented off many other parts that you are pretending aren't you, that is the ISN'T part, the not-ised part. The cycle has been repeated many times over in many different ways. What remains is that there is a complex of things you are, which you might consider being yourself. And there is a complex of things that you aren't, that is the world you see around you. There are many added complexities to this such as things you are but you pretend you aren't, and things you aren't but you pretend you are. That gives us sub-conscious minds, valences, entities and a multitude of other phenomena.

The most practical path of development is to address the IS part that you consider You, and to allow it to re-integrate its lost parts. That is what the path of Clearing is about. We address a being and we help him recover lost data and abilities so that he can become more himself.

Considering yourself as a part is not untrue. However it is not very conducive to development. It is more productive to consider yourself as a whole in search of its lost parts. That subject has been the subject of much religious disagreement. There are those who consider themselves not-ised parts waiting for their creator to call them home. And there are those who consider themselves the being the whole searching for its not-ised parts. The first group have for a while been the majority, but the consensus is broadly shifting towards the second view. Clearing is aligned with the second view.

Note that just because two parts are part of the same whole doesn't mean that they are the same. There is a subtle difference that, when missed, produces an infinite amount of confusion. The ultimate whole is not infinite same-ness, it is infinite differentiation. The path is the integration of differences and that never makes them the same. Same-ness is a trap.

A basic classification of separation around here is into parts you can BE, parts you can DO, and parts you can HAVE. That classification is itself a separation of a whole.

There are things you are being and things you aren't being. There are things you are doing and things you aren't doing. There are things you are having and things you aren't having. The combination of these factors in different ways provides much variety.

Clearing is the process of finding and re-integrating your lost parts. There is a certain sequence to that. Certain parts you can't re-integrate unless you have re-integrated other parts first.

Part of the path is sorting out which parts are you and which aren't. Ultimately they are all you, but it is not always practical to see it like that. For any level below the top 8D look there will be parts that belong with other wholes than the whole that is you, and it is necessary to realize that and to stop being them. For example, you might be using parts that really belong with other beings and you might have to return them. That is the issue of ownership. Ultimately it is all yours, but that is at a level above individuality.

The parts we would wish to address in clearing are either
1. the unwanted parts you are being, or
2. the wanted parts you are not being.

That means that either you've got an aspect of yourself you don't like, and we will address it with negative clearing. Or you would like to add an aspect to your repertoire that you currently don't possess, e.g. an ability or some knowledge, that is called positive clearing.

An unwanted part you are being can fall in two categories: Either,
1. it is part of a whole you have all the parts of, or
2. you only have that one part.

In the first case the resolution is to integrate the parts with each other. E.g. that would go for a dichotomy or opposing identities. In the second case you would either find and re-integrate the missing part or you would discard the unwanted part. You might do that with an entity or an unwanted emotion.

A part can be considered either yours or somebody else's. If you erroneously assigned it to you when it was somebody else's, a thorough inspection of that fact should remedy it.

For positive purposes you might do the opposite things and introduce separation in order to make something persist. For example if you want a new ability. You could not-is any reason for not having the ability and thereby get it. Or, you could find somebody who has it and copy them.

A thorough understanding of all the ramifications and variations of wholeness and separation could provide a very solid foundation for the technology of clearing. Further definition of this theory can provide a red thread through all the different theories and procedures of clearing.

Technical Essay # 49 - FAF 2 June 1991

Meaning

One of the basic elements of human nature is the need for meaning. For that matter it might be one of the most basic impulses of life.

Meaning is significance. It is ideas as separate from mass. The ideas signify data, value, or importance. Meaning is usually used in connection with mass, it is the significance of the mass. It is mostly used as the positive value or importance of something.

Mass is anything that persists. You create a mass by making a significance and altering it. The mass is an alter-ised significance.

To search for meaning is somewhat paradoxical. It could be a manifestation of the drive to find the significance that a given mass is based on. However, if you uncover the precise significance then the mass as-ises, it vanishes. You cannot find the significance without losing the mass.

The only meaning you can assign to mass without vanishing it is an arbitrary one. It is not something you search for, it is something you assign.

To find the true meaning of life would mean the vanishment of life. If you want to maintain life you need to manufacture the meaning you need. It won't be the true meaning, it will be arbitrary. However, for practical purposes, the "true" meaning of life can be whatever you make it.

In practical life all meaning that is assigned to anything is arbitrary and artificial. However, few are the people who will readily admit that. It is difficult to maintain meaning if you are aware that you are manufacturing it. As with anything else one needs to make it persist by altering it somewhat.

The universe is constructed as a playing field for the game of life. It has been carefully designed out of significances that have been cleverly disguised so as to make the resulting mass persist and to make its vanishment unlikely. The original significances aren't important for the actual playing of the game, they aren't the rules. They are the secret code for the self-destruction switch. You don't need to know how the playing field was made or how it is destroyed in order to play the game.

Understanding the game is a different activity from creating or destroying it. You can understand the game by observing it and developing the rules that seem to apply. You can then go on and play the game. Understanding the game is basically an observation of the mass that is there. What is there is what is there. For practical purposes, there is no hidden meaning beyond what is there.

The universe can be regarded as a playing field without meaning. You put meaning into it in order to play games in it. If you don't introduce any meaning there is no game. A basic rule of the overall life game is that there are no rules, you make the rules yourself. The skill with which you do that determines how much you enjoy it. Happiness is proportionate to the achievement of meaning. You don't necessarily have to invent the meaning yourself, you can agree to the meaning that somebody else has manufactured for you.

A games maker is someone who can manufacture meaning. He doesn't find it, he creates it. His success as a games maker lies in how well he can convince players that the game is meaningful. He does that either by appealing to an existing agreement or by creating a new agreement.

The person who can add meaning to other people's lives is a leader whom they will follow anywhere. As has been demonstrated many times, people will happily devote their whole lives to hard work with little reward as long as they are convinced that it is meaningful.

If you believe that what you are doing is meaningful and you are making progress, then you can be happy. If the activity is "objectively" meaningful has nothing to do with it, there is no such thing as absolute meaning anyway. All that counts is what you believe is meaningful.

To play any sort of game you have to convinced that it is meaningful. That can be looked at as fooling you into believing a falsehood. But since it can be said about any game it is not very productive to see it that way. There is ultimately no game that is absolutely important and meaningful. Any game can be made important and meaningful if you believe in it.

There is a phenomenon of disappointment that usually goes with the discovery that a game was manufactured. However, only for people below an understanding of games making. When a scientologist discovers that the church was just a game he might become very disillusioned and drop anything associated with it. Showing people how they were fooled into playing a game, without teaching them some of these basics or showing them how to play another game, is a rather suppressive activity.

The best guarantee of a happy life is to assume control of the assignment of meaning. Somebody might come along and give you a fun and important game to play. On the other hand they might not, or somebody might come along and "expose" the game you were playing and destroy it for you. Only if you can make things meaningful by your own force can you be safe.

You manufacture your own responses. The search for something that will make you feel good is somewhat futile. You ultimately get positive emotions by creating positive emotions. You might just as well start right there. If you can create positive emotion at will you can accomplish just about anything.

The key to success is to establish something as meaningful, generate positive emotions about it, and then go for it. Somebody might apparently do it for you, but you would be best off if you could do it by yourself. This is the secret of success and it is the basis of most success seminars. It is also a fundamental principle of life.

Don't look for meaning in life, create meaning in life.

Technical Essay # 50 - FAF 10 Jun 1991

The Way to Infinity

The Way is your individual path towards enlightenment and re-integration with the lost parts of yourself. It includes anything you can find desirable. It is the expansion of your awareness to include all parts of existence. It is not just the path out of existence, it is the path towards the experience of existence in all dimensions

Only you can travel the Way, nobody can do it for you. Only you can actually take the steps required, and only you can ultimately determine what they are. Don't let anybody tell you that they have the only path or that they can do it for you.

There is no status to gain from personal development. If you think you are enlightened, then you are not. Likewise you can't achieve advanced development to gain personal advantages.

These are some of the major milestones on the Way:

0	Security	The ability to be secure enough from the negative effects of life to be able to actually develop in a positive direction.
1	Responsibility	Assumption of full responsibility for own mental and emotional responses. Having a stable life.
2	Harmony	Harmonious relations with any individuals in your environment. Responsibility for the responses of others. Personal emotional and physical health.
3	Actualization	Accomplishment of your external goals. Harmony with groups in your environment. Advanced mental, emotional, and physical self-control.
4	Unity	Ability to encompass the needs of mankind. Actualizing your global aims. Freedom from the need of physical embodiment.
5	Wisdom	Ability to take whichever form that will serve your aims. Encompassing the needs of all living beings. Direct access to any records of existence. Free to travel in time.
6	Creation	Universal consciousness. Ability to fully understand and cause any condition or object. Freedom from a need for the physical universe.
7	Wholeness	Encompassing all of spirituality. No need for individuality. Ability to return to original state.
8	Infinity	Return to full command of all possibilities. Full integration of all that is.

These levels of awareness have co-existed all the time. The path is basically to recover what has been forgotten. Grasping that any one of them exists is not the same as accomplishing it. Each level has to be mastered.

Feeling the somatic

A possible expansion on Incident Clearing is to get the pc more into the somatic, to feel it.

There are several reasons for that:

1. The somatics will be more real and accessible to the pc if he starts out by feeling them, rather than if he is just trying to figure out which words to attribute to them.

2. The somatics it would be valuable to go after are the ones that are still partially with the pc here in pt. If he can only analytically describe it and not feel it in any way it would not produce much gain and he might even misown something he doesn't really have.

3. If the pc really gets into the somatic, fragments of incidents related to it are likely to appear and it will be easier to find them.

4. Feeling the somatic gives an indicator for how well it is erased. If he tries feeling it again after running the chain he will notice the result and it will be validated for him.

5. The pc might notice that it is erased, but another somatic appeared in its place. Therefore we can clean up an area more completely.

6. Creating the feeling and then running the incidents connected with it would make the pc more at cause in terms of feelings. He will sooner realize that he is doing it himself.

Let's say the pc is nervous about public speaking. We can start out by asking him to feel inside himself the way he feels in front of a crowd of people. He should recreate and experience the feeling as if he actually was standing in front of a crowd. He should really get into it and get as many nuances as possible.

He is likely to notice that there are several different parts to the feeling and he is likely to notice how they affect different parts of the body or his space. We would pick the one that is most noticeable and get it described. It would read of course. We then run a chain with that somatic.

Then we again get the pc to feel how he feels in front of a crowd. He will probably notice that the feeling we just ran isn't there or it is less. We then again pick the most noticable feeling and then we run another chain. And so forth until there is nothing left.

After Clear the incidents might of course be his or somebody elses.

Technical Essay # 52 - FAF 24 June 1991

Clearing Parts

Most pcs respond very well to addressing aspects of the case as 'parts of yourself' and handling dichotomies of these. By engaging the pc's sense of responsibility right away we can get him to run identity material where he would otherwise dismiss it as 'too intellectual'. I have found most people right off the street quite able to run dichotomies of 'parts of themselves' with excellent gain.

If the pc has some continuing pattern of behavior that he wants to handle, then we can address the part that is doing it. It has to be a fairly simple attribute. If, for example, he is always regretting things then we would ask:

"Is there a part of you that is regretting things?"

He would be unlikely to answer anything but "Yes" to that, but it gets him to make the distinction that he actually has a part of him doing that. The part usually doesn't have to be defined further than that.

We would then unburden that part with:
      "What is the regretting part of you doing?"
      "What is the regretting part of you holding back?"
and when that is getting flat:
      "What is the purpose of the regretting part of you?"

Then we would look for the other side of the dichotomy that has got to be there:
      "What would be the opposite of regretting?"
and he says maybe "accepting", and we would do the same thing there:
      "What is the accepting part of you doing?"
      "What is the accepting part of you holding back?"
followed by:
      "What is the purpose of the accepting part of you?".

Then we would look at the the interplay between the two sides:
      "What would be the interaction between ___ and ___?"
or
      "What kind of game would develop between ___ and ___?"

And if they are still charged we would do a little creative processing:
      "Visualize ___ and ___ next to each other"
      "Is there something they need to say to each other?"
      "Do they have any differences?"
and whatever else it takes to discharge them against each other.

The pc might say that the two sides are now integrated or he might say that it will take some time but that he is now working on it. Whatever he says if fine as long as he feels done with the pair for now.

A new pc would be most likely to be willing to address general attributes: beautiful / ugly, regretting / accepting, victim / in control, and so forth. If he comes up with more full characters or with actual people he knows it would have to be treated somewhat different. It might be more appropriate to unburden with "What has __ done/withheld?", addressing the past instead of the present. Instead of asking for opposite attribute it would be what the identity is "up against" or "opposing". An actual person might be better handled with PTS RD type of steps or 4 flow O/W depending on the circumstances.

The 'part of yourself' approach is very simple, doesn't require much explanation, and doesn't take much searching. It is unlikely to get into L&N, the answers are usually right there.

Another advantage of addressing 'parts or yourself' is that it is in PT. We are addressing something he has right now. When it changes he will notice. That is similar as with the 'feeling' method for incidents described in essay 51. That we are addressing something the pc has here and now makes it not only easier to get into - it is also an excellent way of 'proving' to him that something changed about him. Many new pcs need that. They otherwise feel sort of disassociated from the clearing, not realizing yet what it has to do with them. If you've ever done a prepcheck on a new pc with good reads and TA action and afterwards heard him say "Yeah, I answered the questions, but when does the actual clearing start?", then you know what I mean. We have to get him to feel that he, himself actually changed for the clearing to be considered successful.

Dichotomies of parts is more basic than identities from GPM scenarios. The basic principle is that you split some part of yourself into two: the part that is and the part that isn't. And the catch is that you can't do that without still being both of them. GPMs are a special case involving be, do, and have at the same time and pretending that the parts are opposing, which is really a manufactured lie.

A lot of complexities can be avoided by:

1. Addressing present time.
2. Addressing what the pc actually feels and does now.
3. Addressing both sides of any two-sided matter.

Technical Essay # 53 - FAF 26 June 1991

Love

Scientologists have traditionally not considered love to have much to do with spiritual development. Many would say that it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'going up the bridge'. This is a bit of an oversight, in that just about everybody else knowing about spiritual development would say that it has a whole lot to do with it. That might have a little bit to do with the reason why Scientologists oftentimes are regarded as a cold, unloving bunch of crooks. But well, that mostly goes for the church. We can do things different of course.

There are various definitions of love. For spiritual purposes, love is probably best defined as:

The action of willingly sharing space with someone or something else.

It is basically the more active version of affinity which is the willingness to share the same space. We could say that affinity would be the willingness to love.

Love is permeation. Permeation is a key to knowingness and to resolving unwanted aspects. What you can truly love you couldn't possibly have a problem with.

If you are not willing to share space with someone or something, then you are to some degree resisting it. What you are resisting you are likely to become effect of. Whatever you can love you can't be effect of, except to the degree that you don't love it.

Love provides the space for events to occur in. At a high level it would be creating the space, at a lower level sharing your space, and at a lower level accepting the space of others. Different harmonics of the same thing.

Space is space. It is unconditional. It doesn't really interfere with what is going on in it, it encompasses and permeates anything and everything. Same thing goes for love. Love is the absence of case in a certain area or overall. If you can encompass, permeate, and love everything, then you are free from case.

Space-Energy-Matter is a scale. It corresponds to 40-20-0 on the tone scale. Space is condensed, there is less of it, and it is less shared as one goes down the scale. Also, more complexity and more conditions. Going up there is expanded, shared space, more simplicity and unconditionality. Said differently, the higher you go on the scale the more you are being space. The lower you go, the more you are being matter.

There is no opposition possible to love, just as there is no opposition to space. If you are willing to encompass any opposition, you can't be opposed.

The first place to start loving is with yourself of course. All the parts of you that you don't love are the ones that you are having trouble with - your case. Anything in your space that you can't accept, encompass, or create will be running on automatic. It is in your space but you pretend that it is not. That goes for anything you could possible love: at some level it already is in your space, but you aren't willing for it to be.

If you do something bad that you feel embarrassed about, then you have just created an automatic piece of case. It will withhold, it will get missed, it will pull in motivators and so forth. And it will keep doing that until you fully accept what you did and you grant yourself the space to do it. You could have done that in the first place of course.

Despite what one might think, love has a lot to do with will. One has to be willing to share the space. And when one is willing to accept anything in the space one can really do what one want. You can do what you will only when you are perfectly willing to let anything and everything else happen.

This is how Aleister Crowley put it:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the law, love under will."

You are only totally free to make choices if you would be willing to share your space with anything whatsoever.

Any type of processing can be described along these lines. The object is to be able to accept things you are resisting, to open up spaces you have forgotten, forgive events of the past, bring back parts of you you have denied, and so forth.

It is also a good guideline to monitor the direction of processing. All processing should increase one's ability and willingness to encompass and permeate spaces. It should increase one's ability and willingness to have anything or anyone in those spaces. That goes through the gradient scale of the dynamics, being willing to share space on a wider and wider scale.

Some negative types of processing include the trap of using them to decrease the willingness to share space. That can happen with engrams, and most particularly with entities. If you are just trying to get rid of stuff in your space then you are moving in the wrong direction. What we are really after is the havingness of being willing to have or not have the stuff in your space.

Love is a key part of spiritual development. You could also describe it as ARC, it adds up in a similar fashion. You need to be able to encompass anything and anyone, good, bad, or indifferent, in order to be free to do what you want.