Technical Essay # 79 - FAF 23 April 1992

Objective Awareness

 

One branch of clearing deals with objective processes. Presented most simply, objectives are processes that encourage the person to confront the physical universe around him better. They are extroverted processes.

The definition becomes considerably more muddy if we look closer. See, the physical universe isn't really as solid as it seems. It is just an illusion that appears solid because it is perceived through sense organs that are part of the same piece of illusion.

The inner awarenesses a person has might for that matter be more real. And, the surrounding "physical" universe might actually just be a projection of one's inner state. An agreed-upon illusion constructed from one's considerations.

And the idea that the physical universe is "outside" is kind of shakey also. It is outside the body allright, but not really outside the being except by his considerations. That the physical universe exists within the being might be more correct.

So, the whole idea of outside/inside, subjective/objective, easily leads to confusing paradoxes. Which, again, points out that life is what it is. No way a couple of slick statements with well-chosen words will suddenly explain everything. But, I wouldn't want to let that hold me back, so let's see how objectives fit in anyway.

Objective processes and exercises deal with PERCEPTION. And that is primary, present time perception, not second hand perception from memory or hallucinations.

Having to use physical perceptions is not a terribly high state. It is below the ability to know what is behind the physical illusion, the real world beyond the hologram. However, the ability to use physical perceptions well, is above the state of hallucinating about what is there, without realizing that there is an agreed-upon world there.

In other words, we have a rough sequence of three case levels here:

There are more levels, but this is pretty much the range we have to work with at this time.

Objective processes and exercises would tend to get a person out of hallucinating and into contact with the surrounding world through his senses. They might also provide glimpses of the fact that there is something even beyond that which is there to perceive.

What we are talking about here is Sensory Acuity, the ability to make precise and minute distinctions in the sensory input, that corresponds well with what is going on outside one's body. And for that matter it should include more precise perceptions of what is going on inside the body.

The available senses are mainly seeing, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling, and time and space. We could argue about the last two, since there aren't any known organs for perceiving time and space, but I don't think we can get somebody stably into present time without them. Is present time something you see, hear, or smell? Well, neither, it might possibly be something you feel. Or, a certain vibration, I don't know. Space might be a visual, and time an auditory, that is possible. However, they are important, so I'll consider them separate for now.

Each sensory modality has many finer distinctions. These sub-modalities, such as color, focus, pitch, tempo, weight, pressure, temperature, etc., could be regarded as individual perceptions, but more appropriately they are distinctions within the major perceptions.

Traditional objective processes have served several purposes. They have been successful in putting lower grade clients in better touch with the physical world, overcoming the effects of drugs, get into present time, and get better reaction time. The other set of purposes is more advanced: handling the body from an exterior viewpoint, cogniting on the true nature of MEST and bodies, and so forth.

I would find it wise to concentrate on the first set of purposes with new people, and save the other ones for more advanced or adventurous clients. The thing is that the whole set of the traditional objectives might be too much to swallow on face value for people.

I love getting the objectives myself, I've done them all through three times. And I've many times seen them give really good results on others. However, now, without any organization to indoctrinate people with religious dedication, I don't find it easy to sell people on the idea of walking back and forth between walls until something happens.

Generally speaking, I try to avoid using repetitive processes on people who aren't ex-scientologists. These processes are based greatly on the client's prior agreement to go through with it no matter what, and on a sales job having been done convincing him it will produce a positive result.

That is not a problem with most types of processes other than objectives. I can usually get faster and better results with techniques that aren't rote. However, the traditional objectives have been designed as the ultimate endurance race. You drive the pc up the wall with the repetitiveness, and he has to change in order to stand it. We force him into present time, by making anything else unbearable.

Without all the sales and indoctrination being done in advance I can only see it being done effectively by locking people into a room over a weekend and not letting them out before they've EPed. But, that makes it into some kind of EST seminar, and that is not exactly what I want to run at this point. Not that it is a bad idea, it just takes more logistics.

So, what do you do with a new client who has had his major case areas handled, who comes in for an hour session a week, who needs to be more in PT, but who doesn't have the commitment to spend many hours doing something that doesn't appear to him to be beneficial?

Well, it needs to be divided into smaller chunks first of all. A client you haven't evaluated for, needs to have more wins per unit of time. He must frequently notice a gain, and must certainly get a noticable result in each session. But then again, you can get much faster and more lasting gains than you can with a rotely indoctrinated client.

Remember also, I don't keep it a secret to my clients that they are cause. I don't persuade them that I have a big secret they don't have, and that they could only get up from the mud with my help. I try to stay in ARC with them, and with their reasons for getting sessions. When they are in-session and winning I know we are on the right track. If they aren't, I don't force them with the mechanics of the session, but I change to something that works.

Objective processing can fit in fine in this scheme as long as we do relatively small cycles of action that relate to something the client wants.

What also could improve the effectiveness of objective processing would be for both the practitioner and the client to be more aware of the starting and ending points of what we do. We do a process because there is something there to improve. The process is finished when we realize that it has improved. It is not just something we do blindly, because it HAS to be done, and everybody needs it.

Saying that objectives are just about perception might be a little too broad. I see several main types of result we might want to get with objectives:

We should start with a stated area where change is needed. It might be an origination from the client, or, more likely, it would be based on some sort of general questioning from the practitioner. Like, if we ask how they are doing with the body, most people would have something they want changed, or there would be some obvious areas where they are limited. If there weren't there wouldn't be much point in trying to handle it.

To inquire about their current body awareness we would ask how they feel about their body: do they always have energy, do they get sick, is it difficult to get up in the morning, would they like better reaction time?

One way of improving body awareness could be to go through every body part and have them perceive it from the inside. Sort of like an internal touch assist, contact it and withdraw, contact and withdraw. He should get a distinct feeling of the body part from inside. Describing it out loud might help. Also one can put attention on getting the flow of energy going in the area. Contact and withdraw until the energy is flowing freely.

Another process would be to perceive specific sub-modalities, like temperature, position, movement, vibration, pressure, weight, tension; and then to change them. Like, the client will try to sense through the body which parts are warmer than others, he can feel the temperature of specific limbs or organs from the inside. Once he can do that easily, he can then start changing the temperature. Can he make his left hand warmer or colder than the right hand, and so forth. He should become able to change even small areas, like a part of the hand. Do the same kind of thing with other possible body senses.

People who already do other body awareness practices, such as Tai Chi or Yoga might do these things much more easily, or might not particularly need them.

For people who are ready for it, one can also have them communicate with the body to get feedback on what it needs. Most body parts will answer up and will supply information on what they need in terms of care and nutrition, etc. That is not even a very advanced thing, most people can do it if they try.

We can also have the person use the body in different ways and notice how that feels different. Like, have them do things like walking, standing, and sitting in a different manner than they otherwise would. Have them become more conscious about how different postures make them feel differently.

More subjective charge that come up can be handled as such. The person might be embarrassed about certain body parts, or might have fixed ideas.

Increased objective awareness of the body will make it easier to run many other types of processes. Incident clearing, for example, is kind of difficult if the person can't perceive the feelings in the body. The body is an excellent meter. If the person can make precise distinctions on what he feels in present time, then we can change things much faster.

Ability to keep things in the environment in order, is a totally different subject, a different kind of objective. We find out that it is needed by asking the client about the state of his MEST. Does he enjoy cleaning up, how does his desk look, is it difficult to find things, does he finish what he starts?

A locational would probably be appropriate with somebody who has a lot of disorder around, preferably if it can be on their own area. Walk around and get them to touch and withdraw from things. If would probably also be good to have them describe what they see and feel.

Disorder is also likely, more likely for that matter, to be based in subjective mechanisms. They need a different strategy for doing things. It is an indicator of which method the person uses for thinking.

Also, simply going through the motions of finishing cycles, putting things back where you found them, etc., will tend to establish different patterns. If you get somebody to start, change, and stop a physical object repeatedly, they will probably get the idea eventually. It might not be very fast, but it is workable if the person is willing to do it.

Doing communication exercises works as objective processing also. If you can sit for a couple of hours and look at somebody, then you should do pretty well with staying present under repetitive conditions.

Being flat on repetitiveness might serve a person well in terms of being able to stay in PT and being willing to confront what goes on. I don't know if the only way of doing that is to do something repeatedly until he is blue in his face and decides to change his mind to that he can handle it. It works, but it is kind of crude, and it can only happen if the person is committed to staying there for the duration.

It might work to deal with repetitiveness subjectively before objectively. Like, we could find fixed ideas about repeating actions, somatics that would appear, etc. And we could work more directly on putting the person in the state of mind that would be comfortable with repetitiveness. It has something to do with being able to produce one's interest and comfortableness internally, instead of expecting that the external environment will always entertain you.

If we can change the person's considerations to the point where he can get something out of anything, any future case gain will come much easier. All the secrets of the universe can be found in a pebble on the beach, I believe somebody said. But that is only if one is in the frame of mind that one can keep looking and cogniting despite an apparent lack of randomity.

Sensory acuity can be heightened through many different exercises. The need for improving it would probably be a wish of responding more appropriately to other people. It might not be immediately obvious to most people that their lack of success with others relate to their own lack of sensory acuity. The idea might be easier to sell to them after they have handled the majority of their own stuff, and, by themselves, put their attention farther out.

An increase in recognition of perceptual distinctions might start with a definition of what they might be. There is a great many sub-modalities one can get skilled in recognizing. They are improved simply by practicing them. E.g. if you want to be better at recognizing different pitches of sound, you repeatedly listen to them until you can identify them with certainty. For example, on a touch tone phone there are 12 different tones signifying different keys pressed. If you practiced a little you would be able to identify them to the point that you could recognize the sound of a phone number without looking.

The average person would not have much motivation to do things like that if they are more concerned with their every day problems. Since these often deal with other people, it might be more attractive to train sensory acuity of noticing the indicators of other people. There are a lot of NLP exercises that increase obnosis and they can be very useful here. It would be exercises in duplicating or deliberately mis-duplicating another person's body posture, tone of voice, use of language, etc. That sharpens the senses and makes it easier to establish ARC with other people.

People who are willing to explore things for more philosophical reasons, fall sort of in another category than the average client who asks for clearing because there is something they want to have handled. I don't particularly think it is right to simply turn the second group into the first by indoctrination and PR, like it was done in Scientology. That makes much case go unhandled, because the person not-ises it and it never gets addressed. I'd rather be non-evaluative and go with the case that comes up until it is taken care of and nothing more comes up. And that is probably the point to turn the person on to training and the more philosophical or altruistic pursuits of higher dynamics.

The realization that one is not just the body can come in just about any clearing action. I wouldn't actually say that objective processing is the best way of accomplishing it, except for the very repetitive kind that makes it so unpleasant to be in the body that one has to exteriorize.

Awareness beyond the body might be accomplished by putting attention on anything BUT the regular body perceptions. If you deliberately avoid sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell -- well what DO you pick up. You are then much more likely to contact your more REAL senses, instead of the illusory body perceptions.

But until one starts having enough awareness of the world beyond the physical plane to not be dependent on the physical anymore, it is very worthwhile to increase one's ability to use present time body perceptions.

 

Technical Essay # 80 - FAF 24 April 1992

Solo Processing

 

A solo process is a simple, clearly defined activity that a person does to reach higher levels of awareness or ability. To qualify as a process if would need to bring up some barriers or difficulties that the person works through by continuing the process.

The old equation of "auditor plus PC is greater than PC's bank" still holds true. I would go as far as claiming that it applies on any level, at least as regards to humans. The average human being doesn't seem to be able to keep conscious attention on more than 5-7 pieces of information at the same time. I haven't seen this change much, from doing any amount of OT levels.

If we assume that the practitioner is the person who observes the client, analyzes the situation, picks techniques from his repertoire, and communicates them to the client; and the client is the person who receives questions and instructions and then executes, perceives or recalls appropriate responses -- well, then that is altogether too much to keep track of consciously for one person.

This necessitates that solo processes are typically pre-planned, simple procedures. The solo-practitioner doesn't have to think with the procedure, he just has to keep doing the next step. The process has been put on automatic.

As long as a solo-practitioner is able to put the thinking about the procedure on automatic, turning it into a circuit, then he doesn't need to have another person there.

Typically that means that it will be some sort of repetitive process, where one just needs to repeat the command, or pick the next question. Potentially, it could be done with any procedure, if the person was trained thoroughly enough so that the procedure became a sub-conscious circuit, but that would usually take quite some work.

On some flavours of advanced levels, the same principle is being used the other way around: we put the PC on automatic and we pretend that the person in the chair is only the auditor. All the case is regarded as "somebody else", i.e. entities, creations, viewpoints, etc. That means that the person doesn't have to take direct responsibility for them, but can "audit" them. That works perfectly fine, except for when the preOT forgets to take back the responsibility, and actually starts believing that it is somebody else doing him in.

So, in short, either there has to be both a practitioner (the person who decides what to do) and a client (the person who does it), OR, if there is only one person, then one of the two functions must be made automatic somehow.

Repetitive processes could in general be done well solo. If the mechanics of a session could otherwise be drilled into the PC, then a repetitive process should work almost as well solo as if somebody else is sitting there saying the questions. That means that potentially most of the grades could be done solo. I wouldn't recommend it, though. I rather think the practitioner should be taught to do a bigger job than he is used to with rote style.

I think the interactive style can be much more effective than what is possible with solo. An observant, analyzing other person there can help the client get around the hurdles he can't see himself. If he is by himself, or if there is only a robot auditor with him, he will have to push through case the hard way: by wearing it down slowly.

However, a solo-pracitioner can work in his own time, without paying anybody by the hour, and he can maybe concentrate better and go deeper into the subject matter, because he doesn't need to keep another person up-to-date.

There are a great many more activities one can do solo than what has traditionally been called solo-auditing. People have done solo-processing for millenia, and just called it "meditation" or "contemplation" or whatever.

OT TR0 and TR0 is meditation and can be considered processing, albeit not entirely solo as it works best with another person there.

Meditation has a very process-like cycle of action. One would sit relaxed and just be there, or one would focus on some concept, some sound, or picture, or on some location in one's body or elsewhere. Thoughts and feelings would then bubble up from the sub-conscious (restimulated charge), one would allow them to do so, but one would gently move back to the primary action. Repeating this action one would gradually dig deeper into the mind, or get higher in awareness, and eventually the change would be flat. At that point one could start another meditative process.

This is what one does when one sits down to get one's TR0 flat. One sits down in a relaxed manner and concentrates on just being there. Thoughts will come up, one's perceptions will change, one's body gets uncomfortable, etc., one continuously moves back to the purpose: to be there, and eventually it stabilizes and one can comfortably be there. The TR is in!

There is no good reason for passing up all the many possible solo processes as a source of case gain, just because they aren't called auditing.

The idea that it is dangerous to do solo processing, and that it can only be done under tight supervision with a fixed list of commands, can hardly be valid. I have only seen it be dangerous when involving authoritative, evaluative materials and when the person has been convinced he isn't cause. Someone who regards himself as cause is much more difficult to screw up.

However, there are ways of going off the track with solo processing, and getting undesirable results. That is not much different from interactive processing, that has similar risks. If anything, the risk might be less for solo processing, because one's own protective mind mechanisms can determine when it is time to stop. When there is another practitioner there he might succeed in overriding one's protective mechanisms while one is vulnerable.

The things to watch out for are:

¥ Indoctrination - If you are told in advance what you will find, you might easily get out on deep water. However, if the indoctrination was workable for you, you might also find out something you wouldn't have otherwise.
¥ Introversion - Solo processes can be used to escape physical reality. Excessive introspection can make one withdraw from the outside world and be less interested in it. That is a quite common sight in people who have done a lot of meditation, without otherwise handling their case.
¥ Irresponsibility - Some people don't get around to realizing that they are cause over the contents of their mind. Instead they project it onto the rest of the world, thinking it is physical fact.

No matter which path we lay out for people, they will eventually have to walk it by themselves. They will also have to find out HOW by themselves. All we can do is to patch them up so that they can see which way is forward, give them some guidelines and techniques, and maybe give them a push. The worst favour we can do is to omit telling people that they are their own source.

Technical Essay # 81 - FAF 27 April 1992

Diversification & Elimination

 

Processes that demand repeated answering of the same question seem to get the result in one of two ways that we could call:

¥ Diversification, and
¥ Elimination

Most repetitive grade type processes ask for more choices, more true answers. E.g. "From where could you communicate?" All the answers are considered true, and we are encouraging the PC to come up with more and more true answers. That would get him to diversify his way of looking at the subject. He will realize that there are many choices, and he will find some new ones. Also, by giving many answers, from different angles, he will get a more complete picture of the subject at hand. Each answer is an aspect of the truth and eventually he will experience a bigger portion of the truth.

The other method is to regard answers as wrong or inadequate answers and to gently reject them. That is what one does with listing and nulling. By elimination one ends up with a better contact with the truth. It is also what one does in TR0, in meditation, or in doing objectives. Reactions and thoughts come up, they are not the "correct" answer, but the process of eliminating them makes it possible to get to a more "correct" answer.

By bringing up an answer and by gently realizing that "it isn't it", one can differentiate oneself from alter-isnesses that one had mistakenly identified oneself with. The final end result of that kind of activity is the static that one really is.

A more aggressive rejection of what comes up wouldn't work well. It would tend to throw one into the opposite of what one is rejecting. The idea is simply to realize that it isn't it, not to label it as "bad" or "wrong".

The answer we are left with, after elimination of "not quite it" answers, is an as-isness. Note that anything expressed in language can't be anything more than an approximation. The words aren't the thing or the feeling, they are only symbols. That makes "the item" in listing and nulling kind of questionable. Is the "right" answer really made out of words? I don't think so. The best we could do with symbols is to find the most basic ones, which can only be lies approximating some kind of truth.

So maybe the item in L&N would also be something to reject. Getting the most original alter-is in the area would produce an as-isness (of the lies, not of the subject), which would make the lies vanish.

Non-repetitive processes can be categorized similarly. E.g. incident clearing would tend to eliminate wrong answers and would leave the person with a better truth by elimination. Same with valence handlings or entities. Creative processing would establish more diversification in one's choices. So would exteriorization processes.

If the PC mistakes one type of process for the other one, it will create some problems. Handling entities should lead to the realization that "it isn't it", you don't have to identify with phenomena like that, you can be cause. But some people use it as a reason to worry a lot more about entities and implanters. Same with incident clearing. It was intended to bring about the realization that past incidents don't really affect your present, you can be cause NOW. Being the effect of incident chains is the WRONG answer, not the right answer. But some people use their experience with incident clearing as a reason to grant a lot of attention to past lives, who they were, and what that means, and so forth.

If you run a process of the diversifying kind, and you reject the answers, you wouldn't do too well either. Like, if you are looking for the perfect answer and none of the answers are perfect, so therefore you can't use them. A PC who hasn't yet been conditioned to run repetitive processes "right" would tend to do that. Try running a repetitive process with somebody off the street without indoctrination and see what happens.

There needs to be a balance of course. We need both to diversify into new choices, and to eliminate inadequate solutions. It is the concept again of positive and negative clearing.


We could also call it Divergent and Convergent clearing. Divergent clearing would explore different expressions of the truth and thereby expand the ability to use it. Convergent clearing would try to get a glimpse of what the truth IS, by peeling away the layers of what it ISN'T

 

Technical Essay # 82 - FAF 27 April 1992

Evaluation & Duplication

 

Evaluation, of the judgmental kind, has a lot to do with mis-duplication

Anything you say or do, or don't say or do, as a response to something the client said or did, will work as an evaluation, IF you are not IN SYNC with the client.

If you lift your eyebrow in a certain way after your client tells you something he wants you to believe, then he might get insulted and think that you don't believe him. However, if you lift your eyebrow when he talks about something that is puzzling to him, he might find that you understand him.

It is impossible to be absolutely neutral. A well-trained clearing practitioner who "has his TRs in" might think that he is. But, if you look closer you'll find that, if he is good, it is partially because he has developed a subtle way of tracking with the client, and changing when he does. He does not look the same when the client is laughing as when he is crying.

Even the most "standard" practitioner will also have to respond to things the client says or doesn't say. He will have to handle originations, prompt the client to talk, inquire as to what he is doing, and so forth. In doing so, the practitioner will inevitably impose some of his understanding on the client.

"How does that SEEM to you now?" is not the same as "How does that FEEL for you now?". Each question will judge the client's issue to be in a certain format, either a picture, or a feeling. If it happens to match the way the client thinks about it, then he will feel understood. If it doesn't match, he will go out of session and get a little confused.

Werner Heisenberg, a theoretical physicist, investigated a phenomenon that is now commonly expressed as "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Theorem". In simple terms, it states that you can't observe anything without influencing it to some degree. If you stick a thermometer in a cup of tea the temperature will be a little different from what it would have been without the thermometer there. You can't find out if a match works without striking it. You can't take a picture of something without having the thing behave in a slightly unnatural way.

Similarly with the clearing process. The mere fact that the practitioner is there will make the client be different than he otherwise would have been. That the practitioner doesn't have nervous twitches and doesn't insult him might dampen the adverse influence, but the practitioner is never going to be invisible.

What the practitioner CAN do, is to take this principle in consideration. As a matter of fact he IS there to help the client change. The better he can duplicate where the client's at, and where he would want to go, the better he could help to create a desirable change.

Rapport, ARC, or In-Sessionness is essential to get somebody to change in a useful way. You need to duplicate the client as well as possible, in order to meet him where he is at.

You don't want to leave him where he is at, so next step would be to influence him to go somewhere else, in a way that he will go along with. That means that you must continuously observe what the status of the client is, and you must make the ways you influence him as useful as possible.

The evaluation occurs when you have mis-duplicated where the client is at. If he is just feeling good from EPing on some process, and you ask him how it LOOKS to him now, then you might kill his EP by getting him to make a picture of it. You would as a matter of fact be telling him how to think about his case. But if you asked "How does it feel?", you would probably strengthen his good feeling, and he would feel even better.

So, it really isn't so much a matter of evaluation, as it is of duplication. If you use the wrong expression, the wrong tone level, the wrong timing, the wrong words, etc., then it will appear evaluative for the client.

By being flexible enough to duplicate the client's way of experiencing things, and by chosing any deviation from that carefully, so as to always give the person more freedom and more choices, the practitioner can be most effective in helping somebody change.

Technical Essay # 83 - FAF 28 April 1992

Big Games

 

The principles of polarization and integration establish a foundation for the subject of games and for understanding the development of society better.

Let me give a little historical background on this first. The concept of creating and integrating polarities has been used for a long time to shape the course of history. The principle is that if you polarize society into different, opposing groups, then you get a lot of action and confusion. And then later you can re-integrate the opposing groups or causes with each other, and you get a new situation that none of the two sides expected.

The German philosopher Hegel called this the Dialectic principle. It says that any idea, a Thesis, evokes its opposite, the Antithesis, and these two combined would result in a unified whole, the Synthesis, which in turn becomes a new Thesis.

Karl Marx applied this principle to social and economic conditions. Communists in general have been very aware of it and have deliberately used it expand their territory. This might account for a great deal of the success communism had in spreading across the planet until recently.

Also, it is widely recognized amongst adherants of the conspiratorial view on history that Dialectics has been used deliberately to control or guide world history for centuries. Artificially created conflicts has been the order of the day and has accounted for most major changes on the planet. Behind wars we can usually find that the same financial institutions have financed both parties, and we can usually find somebody who created the 3rd partying that started the war, and so forth. This is all quite well documented, and fairly well known amongst clearing practitioners, so I don't see any need to go more in detail.

Until recently I regarded the use of that kind of tactics as a purely negative activity that should be stopped and avoided. However, looking more at it in a more philosophical or spiritual light it takes on quite a different meaning.

To have any game at all there needs to be some polarities. Polarities are created by fragmenting something that is whole, or by making a plus and minus something out of nothing. The hat that engineers this polarization is that of the Games Maker.

A game will continue as long as the polarities exist, and as long as the sides are well balanced into an optimum randomity game. When a certain game has been explored long enough, the sides can then be re-integrated, including the added learning from the previous game playing, and a new game can be generated.

There can be many levels of game playing. Above the actual playing is the making and unmaking of games. Game Making is polarization, and Game Unmaking is integration. When one game ends, another must start, so there is a certain art in engineering a sequence of games where the end of one naturally leads into the start of the next, without anybody noticing exactly how.

Somebody is obviously engineering a series of games on this planet that leads towards a one-world government. We can discuss the pros and cons of that, but it isn't necessarily a thoroughly bad thing. Most planets with any respect for themselves have a one-world government. The incredible fragmentation of society that we have here is mostly an Earth specialty.

Humans have obviously taken part in many of the steps of the historical polarization-integration scheme. However, it is altogether too brilliant and too consistent to credit some little humans with the overall design. It has got to be higher order spiritual beings, or at least somebody off-planet. And I don't think it is as simple as some greedy Marcabians dropping in, even though they might be there too. Somebody else is designing and playing really big games.

In any game-playing polarity we can easily label the sides various ways: good/evil, right/wrong, etc. But it all depends on where we see it from, and if we study the scene from a neutral viewpoint, then none of the sides have got it right. Each has some qualities or advantages or truth that the other doesn't have. Only if they were integrated and the game ended would the qualities be whole.

You can only truly end a game by integrating and dissolving the opposites. None of the sides could ever completely win. There could be a series of matches where either side might score points, but nobody is going to totally win. If one side wins a match, then the other side would certainly want some sort of re-match, they wouldn't just cease to exist.

Same thing with the "eternal" fight between good and evil. "Good" is not going to eradicate "Evil", and "Evil" isn't going to eradicate "Good" either. That would be like the sound of one hand clapping, it just doesn't work like that. One side only makes sense in comparison with the other. The only way of ending a Good/Evil game is to reconcile the two with each other. Good needs to become more Evil, and Evil needs to become more Good, and we need to resolve what keeps them apart, and -- PUFF!! -- none of them exist anymore, but consciousness has learned some new and interesting lessons that it will be all the wiser for.

What I am trying to point out here is that if you can comprehend polarization and integration on a big scale, a lot of things make sense, and the universe doesn't have to be such a hopeless and threatening place. It never really was, but you might have gotten myopic by focusing too hard on one side of a smaller scale polarity.

Obviously these principles could be used for something. Some big thetans somewhere are already using them for creating and playing big time games. If codified and elaborated on we too could develop a workable 4D tech.

 

Technical Essay # 84 - FAF 29 April 1992

New Realities

 

Several current trends in society lead towards increased causation and experience of one's own reality. Even though some of these trends might appear negative or might appear to conflict with each other, they might very well converge.

Drug use could be seen as an attempt to change reality into something more desirable. It tends to put you at effect, and it has numerous side effects. However, the use of hallucinogenic drugs awakened a great many people to the existence of different realities, particularly in the 60s of course. Nowadays most of the people who were exploring the boundaries of reality with drugs have probably moved on to other approaches. Today most druggies are probably in it to bear the stress of everyday life better. But it should not be ignored that there is always a positive intention somewhere; to change, to handle things better, to experience more, or whatever.

The "New Age", whatever that is, has as one of its main points of agreement that one is creating one's own reality. One is manifesting in one's life what one focuses on mentally and spiritually. By improving one's state of mind one can create more desirable realities for oneself and others. That is a dramatic advance over the prevalent religions and philosophies people believed in before. Not that new age ideas are new, really. They have been around all the time, they just didn't take root widely like they have done recently.

The "Computer Revolution" is another trend. Just about anybody in the civilized world can own their own computer now. With a computer you can create your own little world where you are completely in charge. It works as a mind amplifier in that you can model your thoughts, try out different possible scenarios, distribute them to others, and so forth, much more easily than in any other medium.

Of particular interest is the Virtual Reality projects. If you haven't heard about it before, keep your eyes open, it is a trend that might become comparable in magnitude of importance to the invention of the telephone or the atom bomb. In brief, in a few years it will be possible to make an all sensory system simulation of reality indistinguishable from the real world.

The basics of Virtual Reality are already in use. You put on a full body suit with built in sensors that track all your movements. You wear a helmet that provides you with 3D color pictures of what you supposedly see, and you have stereo headphones on also. By moving your body you can "walk" around in a realistic simulation of for example the architectural design of a building, you can open doors with your hands, you can turn your head and see what you would see, etc.

Advances in computer science are moving very quickly. It would be fairly realistic that in 10 years everybody could have Virtual Reality equipment at home. And not too long after that we will reach the point where Virtual Reality environment are completely indistinguishable from Ordinary Reality, including similations of people.

The thing is that with a computer you can in principle make anything happen. That includes anything you can see in a movie, and a good deal more, and you can act in the movie with full sensory input. You can be in 3D Feel-o-rama porno movies with anybody or anything you choose. You can play games where you walk around killing people to score points, but with ALL the right perceptions you would have if you really did it.

Virtual Reality could be THE drug of the next century, unless consciousness advances enough at the same time. Otherwise a great portion of the population would happily and voluntarily spend most of their time in artificially created environments where they can experience whatever they want. There would not be much incentive to go to work or interact with other people, you could get all the things you want right in your living room. If it sounds a bit like implant stations, it isn't far off of course.

But, looking at it from the positive angle, virtual reality is just another trend that leads towards creating your own reality. It is a mechanical way, but you would be more cause over it than with hallucinogenic drugs, with no physical side effects.

So, one way or another, the trends are going towards more alternate realities.

However, it would be wise to ensure that the individual can be more cause over his realities. And that they have means of staying sane in any reality. Otherwise, new interesting realities can easily become traps.

Much points to the idea that reality is already multi-dimensional, and beings are inherently capable of navigating through any number of alternate or constructed realities.

The physical universe as we know it is just one of a great many probable realities or dimensions that can be experienced. Each one is an agreed-upon universe. Because we have been accustomed to this particular universe, and because we have gotten used to perceiving it with perceptions that are part of the illusion, it appears at first to be more real, more solid than anything else. That in itself is a case situation that needs to be resolved.

As long as you aren't able to move in and out of alternate realities at will and to experience any of them at will with full and satisfactory perceptions, then you can be trapped. Somebody just needs to supply a universe with enough variety and enough interesting perceptions, and you'll gobble it up indefinitely. That is probably why you thought you were stuck here in the

MEST universe.

It isn't really a question of somebody forcing you to stay here in the MEST reality. You can leave at any time. It is just that it is so damned interesting here, and there is so much one can see and feel, that you might not want to go anywhere else. If you think otherwise, it is because you have left most of your cause with the subconscious part of you who doesn't feel like going anywhere else.

So, I'd say that one of the prime objectives of clearing, or whatever we will call it, is to re-familiarize the individual with creating, choosing, and experiencing different realities.

It is not that human beings don't experience a lot of other realities. That is mostly what you do when you sleep, and most people receive lots of communications and perceptions from other places also when awake, they just don't recognize it.

Creating one's own reality doesn't just mean walking around in MEST having "good postulates", getting red lights to change to green, and so forth. That is a good start, but you need a lot more to be any kind of free from MEST.

Anything anybody can experience by taking LSD, you ought to be able to perceive, if you choose, but much more stably and with you at cause. Anything anybody could manufacture in a virtual reality environment, you ought to be able to produce yourself anytime you want to, all by yourself.

It shouldn't have to take drugs, hypnosis, and electronics to give you a thrill. As long as you are dependent on external stimuli to entertain you, then you can be trapped by them. Implanting is basically providing compelling enough input, that you believe you can't produce yourself, so that you get hooked on the source of the input, and will accept whatever goes along with it.

If you can hypnotize yourself, and manufacture your own "drugs" and "electronics", and you can create exciting enough universes all by yourself, then you couldn't possibly be trapped or addicted to anything. Anything you can create, change, and be cause over, cannot affect you.

It is kind of the old 8008 idea. Move the power of the external universe from infinity to zero, and the power of your own universe from zero to infinity.

It is probably most fun to share universes with others. Therefore one has go along with the program in those universes to some extent. However, that never has to mean that one does it to the exclusion of all other universes. You can play a game of chess without having to lose the abilty to play basket ball whenever you wish.

Part of the trick will be to use "stable" data that aren't part of any particular reality. As long as you involuntarily use parts of the physical reality, or any other reality, as fixed reference points, then you can't move around easily. Exposure to other realities would bring about confusion, because your fixed data get shaken.

That is one of the targets of clearing, of course. Any inflexible data that you are identifying with need to change. Either you make them flexible, or you stop identifying with them.

Using dynamic, fluid principles of operation, independent of perception, is the only way of staying unstuck. That is what we could call exterior operation. Immortality as a being is also tied to the absence of fixed anchor points. If you insist on physical perceptions, you have to die to change scenery. That is not the real truth.

It would be a good idea to build up the ability to make convincing illusions. Can you sit down and mock up another different place with full and detailed perceptions? If you can make it more real than the current environment, then you would actually BE there. All it takes to go anywhere else is the ability to make it more real than here. And REAL is basically the fullness of perception and experience.

The action of constructing a reality is in some ways opposite to what we have mostly done in clearing. But if you don't learn to do it you would be missing one side of the coin. Taking away realities (erasing) without providing a way of making new ones, can be just as limiting as providing realities without any method of getting rid of them (implanting).

To construct a good reality you need to know how to make things persist, how to build elaborate scenarios that actually do something without falling apart, how to add as many different kinds of perceptual qualities as possible. To perceive and operate in different realities you need to be able to make and unmake your connection to them, you cannot carry them around when you go somewhere else, and you need to keep a fluid consciousness despite any change in environment.

Note that the concept of creating one's own reality can be expressed well in various systems. You can express it in physical terms through the principles of theoretical physics including quantum theory. You can express it psychologically as how one conditions oneself to have the experiences one expects and how one generates neural pathways in the brain to correspond to one's view on reality. It can be expressed religiously as how the divine powers supply what you pray for. And you can express it philosophically, as we are used to, in terms of how each being creates his own universe and the agreed-upon intersection between created universes forms the illusion of the physical universe. Whichever way we describe it it adds up to the same kind of thing.

If you don't create your own reality, somebody will create it for you.

If you keep your awareness dynamic, beyond any perceptions, you can never get stuck in any kind of reality.

By selectively choosing or designing the perceptions and the environment that will be interesting or useful to you, you can be yourself much more and you can enjoy any reality.

Technical Essay # 85 - FAF 1 May 1992

Goodness

 

People are basically good. Everybody's basically trying to do the right thing.

That doesn't mean that they are "good" as opposed to "evil". It doesn't mean that they are "right" as opposed to "wrong". It means that whatever the behaviour is, whatever the condition is, whatever is on the surface, if you dig deeper you'll always find positive intentions.

The universal solvent is Love. If you can accept something unconditionally and appreciate the value and the positive intentions in it, it cannot keep persisting as something else.

This can be said to come out of the basic building material that any reality is built of: nothingness with infinite potential. Polarities can be made out of that nothingness and we can call those poles all kinds of things, but always, when we get back to the source of it they don't exist. What is IS. Or rather, it ISN'T. Any possible condition is just that: a possible condition, and any evaluation of it is meaningless. By labelling it one only makes the lies persist.

In the resolution of personal aberration, interpersonal conflict, or group disorder, the most workable approach is to look for what the positive intentions are. If you are still left with something or someone that is labelled "bad" or "wrong" then the job isn't done.

"Aberration" refers to deviations from the straight course. The straight course could be said to be clean positive intention. Something is desired, but then it becomes twisted, mis-understood, or submerged. By locating and rehabilitating the positive intention the mis-understanding can be cleared up and more optimum conditions can prevail.

Misfortune, illness, conflict, unsanity, crime, etc., etc., are all a matter of mis-understandings. Cycles aren't completed as intended, communications aren't being delivered, something isn't being accepted.

For example, illness isn't the natural state of life. It is a symptom of something not being recognized, accepted, or communicated. It that is remedied, illness ceases to exist.

Nobody's basically suppressive, effect, degraded, or any other fixed limited categorization. They might appear like that, and might act the role very well, even convincing themselves. However, the positive intentions will be there, and can be helped out again.

No part of a person is basically and completely unwanted and bad. The only way of truely resolving any inoptimum condition is to accept the validity of what is there and to integrate fragmented parts.

It might be practical to temporarily regard something or someone as bad and unwanted. If a burglar is in your house, you might want to get him out. If you have a headache, you might want to get rid of it. However, that can never be more than temporary key-outs, unless you find and resolved the origins of what is there.

Language is imperfect in representing this philosophy. Saying that people are basically "good" is just a label, an imperfect symbol. You need to look beyond that. However, it is a reasonable approximation for now.

If you find yourself inclined to label something or someone as "bad", it is an opportunity for you to resolve a piece of case. There is a mis-understanding somewhere, something that is not what it appears to be.

As a general approach to handling "bad" stuff, this might help:

1. Recognize that whatever you call it, it is just a label -- it isn't the real thing.
2. Look behind it until you find positive intention. What might one gain or learn from it?
3. Accept the "bad" phenomenon as one possible manifestation of the intention.
4. Establish more possible outlets and methods of pursuing the positive intention.
5. Reconcile and coordinate the intention and the method with its environment.

This applies both to personal case, and to broader real life situations.

If you can always recognize the difference between symbols and what they symbolize, and you can always appreciate positive intention no matter the appearance, then the majority of life becomes resolvable.

The only attitude that couldn't possibly be opposed is a total granting of beingness, unconditional love, complete understanding, as-isness, which is all the same kind of thing.

 

Previous page

Contents