Technical Essay # 86 - Flemming Funch 6 May 1992

Why

"Why .." questions have some special properties, both as regards to clearing, and otherwise.

Generally speaking, asking "Why?" with the pre-supposition that people must have a reason before they do something, is kind of meaningless. It implies that something must have occurred in the past before one has the right to do a particular action in the present. That reinforces the lie of time and it tends to make aberration more solid.

Ultimately the reason for anything is the thing or action itself. There doesn't have to be a good reason. Original cause had no reason, except for the joy of creation. If there is a reason beyond that, then it isn't original creation.

Why-questions do have some usefulness in uncovering aberrations. To be precise, the only place I've found them useful is in uncovering service facs. If the client appears to be fixed in some area, asking why would tend to produce a deeper fixed idea. This could be continued repeatedly and usually the client will end up being forced to come up with something really illogical and will get a realization about it.

Example:

This works by gradually cornering the person by repeatedly asking for a "better" or deeper reason, until she has to come up with the hidden computation that is behind it.

If we are not in service fac territory then Why questions would tend to make a client figure-figure instead of ITSAing. If she said "I have trouble with men", and you ask "Why?", then you wouldn't really get anywhere. There probably is no ONE reason, and if there were and she knew it, then she wouldn't have the problem.

Generally speaking there are two kinds of Why's:

A. a past reason that prompts the present situation
B. a future outcome that the present action helps create

The first one is the aberrated one. If you have to act based on past "reasons", then you put yourself at effect. The second one is done from a cause viewpoint. You do something because there is something you want from it.

Examples of Past Why's are: service facs, somatics and postulates from engrams, ARC breaks, problems, withholds, identities, etc.

Examples of Future Why's are: enjoyment, game playing, admiration, communication, creating, mystery, fascination, exploration, realization.

"Now I will do XXX because then I get more ZZZ" is a much more causative level of awareness than "Now I must do XXX because YYY happened earlier". It doesn't really matter if this happens consciously or sub-consciously, the same principle applies.

The most high level attitude would probably be to cause something in the present just for the sake of the effect in the present. If that is entirely practical in this level of reality, I don't know. The game in this universe appears to be rigged so that one causes effects through a spacetime lag. You postulate something, and if you do it cleanly enough, the automaticities of the universe will provide it to you relatively soon. That differs from the full and instant cause/effect one could use in one's private universe.

But, whatever the time lag involved is, it is more sane to cause something to GET an effect, than to cause it BECAUSE of some other effect.

The word "Why" is ambiguous. It could refer to past, present, or future, and mean quite different things. It should only be used cautiously in clearing.

Examples:

"Why is that?" - when used about a statement of generality, usually in the third person, it is pretty safe. It is likely to produce more basic fixed material. It would be appropriate for a statement like "People are strange", but not for "I hate women" which states a feeling. Asking why about feelings might amplify the feeling, but doesn't get any closer to a resolution of it.

"Why did you do that?" - will introvert the client and promote figure-figure. Any inquiry as to reasons for past actions is dangerous. We could ask HOW the action took place, that would be much more useful.

"Why are you doing that?" - if used about an apparent deliberate action, would tend to focus more on the future. It might produce the intention or expected outcome, which can be useful. It would probably be more productive to ask more directly what the person hopes to accomplish from his action. If the question is used about an unwanted reaction occurring in present time it would certainly not be a helpful question. "What are you experiencing?" would be better in that situation.

In summary, Why-questions are useful in certain limited situations in clearing. Only in service fac finding do I see a need for using them directly. Otherwise they should either be rephrased or avoided.

Usually, HOW? is a much more productive question for clearing purposes.

However generally speaking, it is a good idea to know why one is doing what one is doing in the present. What I mean is, its a good idea to do things with a purpose, to cause things deliberately. Again, that is the present or future oriented Why, not the past oriented Why. If there is no desirable benefit in what you do, there is no point in doing it. Being aware of what one is accomplishing is probably more desirable than not being aware of it.

Language is always imprecise and misleading. It is wise for a clearing practitioner to know the possible ambiguities and pre-supposition in the language he uses. Then he can use language as a tool to help a client in a more beneficial direction.

Technical Essay # 87 - Flemming Funch 11 May 1992

Repetitive Processing

 

Most repetitive processes work by repeatedly putting attention on a certain subject or activity, noticing the restimulated phenomena that happen as a result, and continuing the repetitive activity until no more phenomena appear. That will usually correspond with a realization of increased perceptions or ability in the area.

The repetitive process focuses on a very specific area and stays with it until the available restimulation is taken out of it. That accomplishes something that would be difficult to do out in the noise of everyday life. It takes a safe space, a limited focus, and the intention to carry through with it.

The repetitive activity can be any of a number of different types. These are some of the things that can be repeated as a process:

See, there are many more possible processes than what we have traditionally regarded as repetitive processes.

Repetitive processes are by their nature essentially solo processes. The person needs to repeat the same action and notice the feedback from his mind until he has gotten as far as he can get with it and there is no new feedback to inspect. There is not much need for an experienced practitioner to analyze the situation and take decisions about what to do. Some experience and analysis might be useful in picking the right process to start with, but otherwise the only decision to take is really when to end the process.

Other reasons for needing a practitioner to run repetitive processes might be that the person lacks the discipline to finish a simple action, or that he is unable to perceive that things are going on in his mind. That is a pretty common state of humanity, so that can be expected. But, shouldn't a skilled practitioner be able to address these inabilities more directly in an interactive manner? We could work intensively on locating the charge that keeps somebody from doing something consistently until they are done. And we could coach them into noticing that responses happen in their mind.

In other words, I don't think repetitive processes are the best prescription for getting somebody to continue cycles of action and to notice what happens. Objectives would do that to a certain degree, but in a very brute force exhaustive manner. I think repetitive processes would be much more pleasant and productive if those matters were dealt with directly first.

Noticing the restimulated phenomena would have to be something the client does himself, nobody can really do it for him. The practitioner could help him to get started. That is for example what happens on objectives where the client would have some kind of physical change, and the practitioner would ask "What happened?". However, it could probably be done a lot more directly than that. Otherwise there are a lot of responses that some people never learn to recognize.

The responses might be physical feelings, pictures, thoughts, etc. There are a lot of possible distinctions in these. Temperature, pressure, movement, vibration, sounds, colors, etc. The ability to recognize these can be brought up with the help of a practitioner who will insist that there is something more to perceive, and who will insist on getting a description of what is there.

Those responses are the kind of stuff that comes up if you sit down to do TR0. Thoughts, discomforts, change in eye sight, etc. Any repetitive process produces such responses if one will just notice them. The more phenomena one goes through, probably the greater the benefit from the process. If one just ignores it or gets rid of it without noticing, it isn't very beneficial.

Most people would focus almost exclusively on the verbal responses when running a repetitive question process. Practitioner asks a question, client gets an answer from the bank, and states the answer. However, that is only a small aspect of the whole picture, and the verbal stuff isn't particularly the most important. Of course the client does other things to bring forward an answer. He might look at pictures, notice feelings he has, and so forth. But people have a very varying awareness of these things, and therefore different people can get widely different things out of the same repetitive process.

By an increased emphasis on what repetitive processes really do and who does it, it should be possible to increase their benefits and general usefulness.

As I said, if a person has the discipline and perceptions to run repetitive processes well, then he could probably do just as well on his own. If people can do processes in their own time, it avoids a lot of logistical and monetary problems.

The activity done in a repetitive process doesn't have to be a question. It could for example be a desirable thought. Since thoughts have the power to shape your reality, i.e. postulating, you might want to pick something you would like to think and run it as a repetitive process.

We could take a typical affirmation as "I deserve to be prosperous and wealthy". That would be kind of nice to firmly believe to the point where the universe will oblige you. However, if you think that statement, and whatever it implies, you will probably notice some kind of mental feedback. The file clerk mechanism will tend to come up with all the counter examples to it and the reasons and feelings why not. Particularly if you think it again, as a repetitive process, you will quickly notice that it brings about some sort of restimulation. If you continue it, and you notice what is happening along the way, the responses will probably gradually change to positive responses, and your "file clerk" will supply you with supporting information for what you are claiming. Eventually it will go flat and you will just feel good about it, an EP in other words.

The statement given is just an example. Any kind of desired positive thought that one would like to have right now can be used. How about "I have full exterior perception", or "I am an all-knowing being", that would probably work.

You could run a given affirmative process beyond a mere "feeling good" EP to the point of having something happen in the physical universe. Similar phenomenon as the Suppressed Person RD, if you continue until something actually happens, it will.

A process like that can be run as several flows, and it might also work well to throw in your name in it. Such as:

That is a standard tech for doing affirmations, I didn't invent it. However, if you can set aside any fundamentalist biases you might have, you will realize that this kind of thing follows the basic principles of processing. And it is very safe to do on one's own. Of course, the many people who do affirmations don't necessarily know about the technical basics we might apply to it, and they might well Q&A and not run things to EP. However, processing still works even when imperfectly done.

There are a million other things one could do repetitively that would bring about some phenomena of restimulation, that one could work through as a process. For example, along the lines of TR0, instead of being there while putting attention on another person, one could put attention somewhere else. You can probably build up exterior perception by putting your attention in different places in the environment and keeping it there regardless of what happens, until the phenomena stabilize.

There is no reason to let repetitive processing be something proprietary and exclusive that you can only do if you pay a lot of money to a highly trained and carefully supervised practitioner. Repetitive processing is fairly harmless. It can certainly be done wrong, but that doesn't make it dangerous.

Repetitive processing is a simple method or spiritual improvement that almost anybody can do almost anywhere with minimal instruction.

Technical Essay # 88 - Flemming Funch 11 May 1992

Body Masses

The body is an excellent indicator for one's state of case. Unhandled case will influence the body, and if severe enough will lead to illness or death. Probably before it gets that far it should be possible to spot some kind of energy accumulations in the body and deal with what they indicate.

It should be possible to have a body that is free of any stagnant energy, where the life force just flows through it without resistance, a transparent vehicle for the spiritual being.

The transparent body was the EP of entity running on NOTs. I am not sure I believe that any NOTs completion really got that, I've seen too many seriously ill people who did NOTs. The Excalibur method of entity handling, hierarchies of entities organized along certain subjects, improved greatly on the technique, but didn't necessarily have much to do with body condition. For that matter there is no reason that stuck energy in the body should be just entities. I think the person will have to take more responsibility for it than that.

The problem is also that it is too easy to mistake a subjective win for actually having dealt with what is there. What is a transparent body anyway? If you don't have full exterior perception and you can't see anything different in the mirror, then it is a little hard to know. Most people would attest to a transparent body if they feel good and light and they can't think of more to run at the moment.

To evaluate the state of the body requires some thorough and detailed perceptions of it. You aren't gonna have that if you just try to get out of your head and ignore the body. I am afraid that one will have to take complete responsibility for the body to achieve any higher level of freedom than just being a body.

The idea of the transparent body appears in different places. It is basically the same as the Light Body that various channeled space people talk a good deal about. The concept is that the next evolutionary step for mankind is to evolve out of the need for having a physical body and instead using a somewhat similarly looking, but immortal, body of light that one can operate much more freely with. The way of getting there should be to clean up thought fragments one has lying around, to re-connect with higher levels of awareness, and to take responsibility for creating one's own reality. Sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

To use the body as a measuring device for case, and also to generally take good care of it, it is probably a good idea to start with some better perceptions of it. I suspect that a lot of people ignore a lot of what is going on in their bodies.

I noticed yesterday that when I internally "felt" around in my body and put my perceptions into different areas, I found that I had some somatics that I had been largely ignoring. Or, maybe they turned on when I put my attention there, but it still add up to some kind of mass that needs handling.

One can go through an exercise of systematically checking over each part of one's body, for each part feeling from inside what is going on in that area, reaching and withdrawing until one is in good comm with it, get some more perceptions on it, such as temperature, pressure, movement, vibration, weight, and size and shape of any energy masses in the area.

Some areas will be perceived as light and flowing, and those are probably in good shape. Others might contain ridges, be heavy, or dense. Those will probably lead to something worth handling.

A mass might be resolved simply by perceiving it and reaching and withdrawing with it. That is sort of a solo touch assist. The mass might just need to be noticed, or appreciated, or communicated with, and it will free up.

Any simple communication process could do. Certainly Hello and OK, but you could also talk back and forth with the mass more extensively, and ask it questions and so forth. If might free up or as-is from a simple 2WC.

Just because you can get a mass in the body to talk back to you doesn't have to mean that somebody has been trapped there by gruesome implanters. If you use that as a preconceived idea then you will end up not-ising a lot of things. It is probably a better starting point to take responsibility for it yourself, and then sort out what it is about.

It is a rather limiting idea that the thetan would only be the current conscious mind and that anything that appears foreign or that talks back is something or someone else. Really, a being is much more resourceful than that. Haven't you ever heard of spiritual ventriloquism? It is a much more liberating model that beings can operate at many levels of consciousness at the same time, and in many dimensions simultaneously, and your current conscious awareness by no means represent peak performance.

At any rate, you can communicate with masses. That is only ONE of the ways of dealing with them. They don't have to be personified, you can also as-is them in different ways. But often it is more simple and direct to treat them as people. Don't mistake the map with the territory, though .

Communication doesn't have to take place verbally. You can't necessarily expect all your body parts to speak fluent English, even though they might respond to your intentions. But, well, maybe they speak Body Language? .. But, jest aside, masses in the body might be more likely to communicate in feelings of various kinds.

One can establish sub-conscious communication methods with body masses. We can make an agreement that one specific change in a somatic means "Yes" and another change means "No". That bypasses the person's conscious figure-figure on the subject and can give direct contact with the piece of case that we are addressing. The person will realize to his surprise that the somatic will change as a respond to questioning, and in a different way than he would consciously have predicted. This technique is out of 6-step reframing, from NLP. If the person doesn't yet perceive somatic changes well, the same thing can be done by assigning "Yes" to one finger, and "No" to another, and have them move up automatically depending on the answers.

Now, a mass of the personified type that you can communicate with, can answer up in different ways. It can go along with being regarded as a part of the main person, with only the best of intentions towards him. In that case it would mostly need to be listened to, have its ruds put in, maybe get supplied with some more ways of helping. Maybe the part is no longer needed and can be re-integrated with the main person. Maybe it is needed, but it just needs some acknowledgment.

Most body masses, somatics and so forth, could be regarded as being symptoms of incomplete cycles and incomplete communications that have been ignored. If you stop ignoring them and let the cycles be completed, then there is no point in having the somatics any more. Illnesses are more consistently or grossly ignored messages from yourself to yourself.

Some body masses would protest at being regarded as part of the person and will insist on being separate beings. That is what we could regard as more complete valences or entities. For those we can ask what they are, who they are, we can run them through incidents they are stuck in and so forth, and they will usually end up "blowing" and the mass is gone. It is not important if it really was a full being there, or if it was just a set of copied attention units. At any rate, the difference is less than you might think.

Some masses would respond better to being treated as incidents that need to be run, rather than as beings. If you put your attention on the area, pictures would appear that somehow correspond to the feeling or what it represents. Those incidents can be run of course. It is important to run them multiple viewpoint, and not just regard them as yours or somebody else's. There will also be postulates connected with those incidents, and lessons to learn from them.

There are other types of case that masses could be, but most of them are less likely. Like, potentially masses could relate to created theta machinery. However, that kind of stuff is usually much lighter.

Body masses are most likely to relate to stuff with emotional content. They can be addressed through communication, incidents, viewpoints, etc., whatever gets us to some kind of uncommunicated emotional charge.

More important than any of the incident and entity kind of phenomena would be the actual emotional issues that the person hasn't confronted and the ways it has been directly caused. The other stuff accumulates for a reason of course, it is by no means random fallout.

We could say that somatics, body masses, illnesses and so forth all come from intentions and desires the person has, but that he isn't letting out. He is both trying to do something, and then he is trying to stop himself from doing it. That creates a ridge, and it is to that ridge that the other stuff would attach itself. Since only stuff of a somewhat similar nature would attach itself, running the incidents and entities and so forth would give us a good hint about what the person himself needs to take responsibility for and change. He might just get the point and change himself accordingly.

So, the person has an original desire to do something, something he really feels like doing. That would generally be something good, desirable and pleasurable, such as "to make art" or "to be safe". Then there will be secondary counter-postulates that somehow make the original desire impossible. The unexpressed emotional desire will stack up as a ridge and will somehow let its presence be known by manifesting some sort of symptoms.

I don't have a pat answer for how to locate and address the suppressed emotional desire. Knowing that it needs to be done might be enough, I don't know. It smells of GPMs. A basic goal that is suppressed enough so that the whole thing mutates into something else. I need to look into that.

At any rate, there is a lot of valuable material that can be addressed based on perceptions of masses in the space of the body. Lots of people have run that sort of stuff on advanced levels. However, I think the scope can be broadened and it can be brought more into the responsibility sphere of the individual. It can also be run more objectively to the point of the body certifiably being radiantly healthy, not just to a subjective cognition.

Technical Essay # 89 - Flemming Funch 12 May 1992

Pretending

The ability to pretend can be one of the most powerful forces in personal development. Basically, whatever state you can pretend convincingly enough, you can have.

With pretending I mean the fabrication of as many component parts of a desired reality as possible. That can be done more or less completely and more or less convincingly to yourself and others.

Obviously, if you walk around telling everybody that you are "cause on all dynamics" or "exterior with full perceptions", but you have no idea how to actually do it, then it is not very good pretense. That is more like not-is and self-deception and is pretty low on the scale.

But how about if you learned all the component parts of "being exterior with full perceptions". What would one actually perceive, how would one think, how would one feel, what would one do, etc. A state is not just a word, it is a set of perceptions. If you could duplicate all the aspects of the state, well then its the same as having it.

If you wanted to be a "salesman" and you printed up a business card that said "Joe Blow, Salesman" on it and you thought that would make you into a salesman, you would probably be disappointed. But, if you found out how salesmen think and talk, what mannerisms they have, how they operate, etc., and you fully assumed all those aspects and completely played the role and thought of yourself as a salesman, then very quickly you would be one. That is what every other salesman did.

Beings aren't titles or states. Nobody's truly a "salesman" or "happy" or "exterior". That is all made up beingnesses or states that are essentially packages of perceptions and thoughts.

If you are seeking absolute states that you expect to suddenly materialize when you do another rundown, then you will probably have a long journey, and at worst you will just be chasing your own tail indefinitely. You become happy by being happy, you become exterior by being exterior. It will work much faster by being cause over it than by waiting for the right kind of effect to come along.

That might appear disappointing at first. But if you think about it, it really means that you are total and unlimited cause. Whatever you create is valid.

A lot of research could be done to establish some useful states that one could model. What do people do who have reliable telepathy? How do beings on planes above the physical actually think and operate? What do people with photographic memory actually do? What do people with limitless energy actually perceive?

Also, we can use the concept of pretend to explore different scenarios and bring forward fundamentals in people's case. Here are a couple of sample processes:

Get the idea that your current waking state is really a dream. Put a lot of detailed perceptions on it, represent it the way you would truth, convince yourself that as a matter of fact you ARE asleep now. Once you are really confident that this is a dream, then start WAKING UP. Do what you would normally do to wake up from a dream once you realize you are dreaming. See where you wake up to. If you want you can repeat it a few times and wake up even more.

Pretend that you are an OT missionaire who just arrived from Galactic Central and temporarily took over the body you are occupying at this moment. Your job is to use the resources at hand in the best possible way. What would you actually do? Realize what wide range of action you actually have.

Or, lets pretend that you had just been told that you had an incurable disease and you had precisely one year left to live. Get the thoughts and perceptions that would go along with that. Now, what would your priorities be in the next year? What would you actually be doing? You might realize that there would be things you hadn't let yourself get around to that would suddenly become much more important. You could decrease that period and realize what would really be important for you if you would die in 5 minutes. Would you call someone and

tell them you love them, would you go get a drink, or what? Your forgotten priorities would tend to appear. That might teach you to remember them, regardless of how long you will be here. You could also extend the period. Lets pretend that modern science could guarantee you a 200 year life span from now on. What would change? Would you start some projects you otherwise wouldn't?

Pretend that time doesn't exist. Other time periods are just places one can travel to, just another dimension of space. How would you perceive that? How would that immediately change your "case""? Where would you go?

Or, pretend that you have 1 hour of time in your mind whenever everybody else has just 1 minute. Really get the perception of how that would be to the point where you can fully believe that you will do that. What will you use that extra time for? Will you make better decisions?

There is nothing that stops you from exploring any kind of reality. You can learn more about your current reality, and you can learn more about what other options you have.

The key is the manipulation of perceptions. Can you really construct convincing illusions with all the right perceptions? I can imagine a crocodile or a pot of gold on the floor of my office, but to be honest, they look kind of thin at the moment. They would not convince me or anybody else. But if I worked at it I could probably create much fuller perceptions.

As long as the current physical universe is the most convincing illusion around, that's where you'll be. If you are good enough at creating, you can start modifying it and influencing it. If you are an expert, you can create your own reality completely and go wherever you want.

It would be wise to start on a gradient. If your plan is to pop out of the physical universe, then you'd better work up on a gradient to the point where you, personally, could create something of comparable magnitude. If at present you can't even create convincing crocodiles on the floor, even just for yourself, then there is some ways to go.

On the other hand, there is no particular equipment you need that you don't already have. You ARE creating your life and environment right NOW. All you need to do is to find out HOW the hell you are doing that, then you could create all kinds of other things. It just takes some practice.

As Ron stated in the beginning of the 50s when he came out with creative processing, the more skilled you are at mocking things up, the better you would be able to perceive and deal with the physical universe. The better you are at deliberately creating lies, the better you are at dealing with reality. Cause the physical universe IS just an illusion, it wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

It is all just something we are playing. So, let's play.

Technical Essay # 90 - Flemming Funch 3 June 1992

Association

The ability to associate is a most important skill when traveling in multiple dimensions. Unless one is very flexible in creating and uncreating associations it is not very possible to move through widely different alternate realities without losing consciousness.

Anything in "existence" including universes, bodies, personalities, relationships, etc., can be regarded as a holographic structure of associated components and attributes forming a whole. Each part will reflect any other part, each attribute connects with any other attribute.

A hologram is an illusion created by the interference pattern between two separate waves. Those waves and particularly their origin could be said to be more real than the apparency

of the holographic picture. But notice that it takes two simultaneous sources to create a hologram.

How does that apply to the physical universe, or more correctly to the multiverse or omniverse, that constitutes the playing field of existence? We need two source "points" at least, to create such a thing.

We could take the two end points on the scale of differentiation:

ZERO differentiation = total identification, everything and everywhere and everywhen

is the SAME. That could also be called ONEness, in that everything would be regarded

as the same one unit.

INFINITE differentiation = total difference, everything and everywhere

and everywhen is DIFFERENT. Nothing is in any way the same, so all is separate

without any interaction possible.

Those two end points are incidentally the most common traps in terms of understanding the eighth dynamic: either thinking that we are all ONE, or that we are all totally separate. None of those are true, it is a polarity. If you integrate the two, then maybe you have the truth.

Between the two extremes, total identification / no differentiation and total differentiation / no identification we can string out a multiverse of association.

In one end of the spectrum we have an infinity of possibilities. Everything is possible, and in a fashion it already exists as a distinct possibility. However, with total differentiation nothing is emphasized. Every possibility is there, but nothing is more important than anything else. This infinite sea of possibility becomes the basis for actualizing some actual existence.

By letting a limited beam of sameness play over the infinite possibilities, we can assign various degrees of sameness to various combinations of possibilities. That creates associations.

Anything in life consists of a structure of association. That is, some possible component parts are linked with each other. Matter, energy, space, time, and a wide assortment of qualities, and perceptions, are among the possible building blocks. By associating them you can create just about anything.

So, to create something, you don't necessarily invent the component parts totally from scratch. And you don't just "postulate" it either. You find or attract the necessary component parts from the infinite sea of possibility and you associate them with each other in the desired fashion.

For example, if you want to materialize a coke can, you would need to associate a large number of sub-atomic particles into molecules of different kinds, you need a space to put it in, you need to associate some shapes, some colors, some weight, temperature, some time for it to exist in, a certain life cycle of growth and decay, a past history of how it was manufactured,

an association to other similar things in the world, a complete set of different associations in a different space that you can call your "mind", and so forth.

All of these things already exist potentially as possibilities as do everything else. All you need to do is really to associate them. That would be much easier if you already are making similar associations. That is, it is easier to make a coke if you already have associated that you are in a space where there are coke machines and quarters, and ready-made cokes come out when you put the quarters in the machine. Really, you are still doing all of it right now in present time, but you might have chosen to place most of the associations outside your awareness in order to pretend that they are really solid.

If you can change your associations the world around you changes. And you might want to take into consideration that what you perceive the world with, your body, perceptions, and mind, are all just associations in themselves. All of it can change if you change the associations.

Time is just another association, a way of organizing other associations. You could decide to do it differently, and have time run backwards. That would take you out of association with other people who organize time differently, but there is nothing impossible in it.

The more flexible you are in creating or allowing different associations, the bigger a playing field you have. We could say that the size of your space is proportional to the number of possibilities you could tolerate.

A human in good condition will survive well under very varied conditions and will accomplish his purposes with a sense of humor and without too many preconceived ideas. A more stuck human being will try to impose a lot of fixed mental associations on the world in a very serious manner. For example that "anybody who says certain words is a bad person", or, "what the newspaper says is actually what happened". The most common sign of aberration is mistaking symbols for things.

In the human sphere of existence aberration is when one doesn't know the difference between a symbol for a thing or experience and the experience itself, and you even get the symbols mixed up. Like if somebody says something and you react based on your picture of somebody else reacting in that way to a similar occurrence 30 years ago. The picture is a symbol.

The best one could get in terms of human sanity would be to experience the physical world as it is in present time without ever mistaking one's mental and emotional processes for actual experience. That is, a table is a table, a word being said is a word being said. One would have control over which mind-associations one super-imposes over the physical reality.

However, the physical is already not the real thing. It is simply a set of association that form a somewhat coherent illusion. The associations will be different for different people, but there is some common agreement of an objective reality.

If one has gotten up to the point of being comfortable with objective reality, then one could assume the challenge of going beyond that. If you can change associations in your mind you should also be able to change associations around you. You already do that going through life, but you might be able to take it to a different level, and explore totally different realities.

If you can at this moment totally change your associations about the physical reality and create some other ones instead, you could easily go somewhere else. That is, you could travel to another dimension, or alternate reality. Going to another time period for this time stream would be the same kind of thing. If you could associate into it you would be there.

You do this partially in dreams already. However, for most people the only parts they remember are the experiences that are very close in nature to physical reality. That doesn't mean you didn't travel around during all of your sleep. It might just mean that the realities were too different from physical reality for you to tolerate it consciously.

The truth of the matter is that you can't NOT exist in many dimensions simultaneously. It is just that if you don't quite admit it, then all the stuff you don't admit to becomes the hidden functions of your "sub-conscious" mind. It just means that you are having experiences you aren't confronting.

Having the conscious ability to explore many varied realities is not a requirement for survival as a being. The conscious you is a very small and insignificant portion of you anyway, so you would survive very well even without it. It would truly be a disaster if all you had was what you are currently conscious of, but luckily that isn't so. You are much, much more than that.

It had become common to believe that all you are is your conscious mind, and that is really you as a thetan. That puts you very solidly at effect, albeit with the hope of being cause in the future. That is a trap. Assuming that you are cause, right now in present time, opens up a whole lot more doors, and explains much more. You don't need to be dependent on other-determinism to get you out of the mud, you can do it yourself.

Anyway, it would be interesting to have more continuous conscious awareness of experiencing different realities. That requires not only a flexibility of association, but also a continuous self-awareness independent from any surrounding associations.

As long as you identify with something that is part of the associations in one reality, you will have trouble moving somewhere else. If you identify yourself by a certain feeling in your body, the sound of your name, or a picture of your home, then it would be very confusing to go to some reality where those symbols are meaningless.

You aren't any of the associations you make. To be mobile, an operating static, you need to be able to leave the associations behind and make totally new ones, and still maintain some kind of association between the old experiences and the new ones.

The awareness of making associations might be enough. If you are always aware which experiences you connect with each other, and you don't try to take any of them with you, then you could be 100% conscious under any circumstances.

If you can release yourself from the identification with previously made associations and become presently aware of all associations you are making, again without identifying with them, then you would have about the highest state of case I can immediately think of.

Increased ability to operate requires the ability to confront and change large numbers of associations instantly. That means a large confront of randomity and a lack of fixed data. It doesn't so much mean the manipulation of zillions of individual data, as it means the ability to think holographically.

Technical Essay # 91 - Flemming Funch 4 June 1992

Structure

 

Hubbard stated that function is senior to structure, or, function monitors structure. I didn't really realize before now how little sense that makes.

What he probably meant was that the mind is senior to the body. The contents of the mind will determine what can be physically observed in the body. Likewise, with the expansion of the statement into: Thought monitors function monitors structure, it becomes a statement that the spirit is senior to the mind which is senior to the body. That is how I understood it, and it made very good sense to me.

However, if we look at what the words actually mean, those statements can be the cause of considerable confusion. They are in my opinion not particularly well chosen, and could just as well have been put in reverse order implying the same meaning.

Function, according to the dictionary, is "the normal or characteristic action of anything", or, "a specialized duty or performance required in the course of work or activity". Mathematically it is "a value that varies with and depends on something else".

In other words, Function is the output that is or should be taking place. It is implied that it is the result, the effect, of someone or something else.

Structure is "the arrangement or interrelation of all the parts of a whole; manner of organization or construction". It can also mean "something that has been built or constructed".

Extrapolating from the dictionary definitions, Structure would be how something is internally constructed, Function would the external result of it being there. That would according to my model of the world place structure as more important, more causative than function.

Hubbard used the words the other way around. He used Structure to mean basically "Some stuff that is there", Function to mean "What it is there for", and then Thought as meaning "Who put it there".

The biggest problem there is Structure. By mis-understanding structure one would tend to leave out HOW to do things. And indeed, from my observation, it has been a common crashing misunderstood amongst scientologists. The idea that you just need to make a positive postulate about what you want to happen (function) and then it will magically appear fully assembled (structure), is somewhat limited in scope.

Thinking positive thoughts works well. One would tend to attract the stuff one is thinking positively about. Affirmations and praying are pretty much in the same category. No matter what you call it, you have left the cause somewhere else. You let it be known what you'd like, and you wait for some unseen agency to create that effect on you.

Thinking that your "postulate" actually directly caused the effect will in a fashion put you deeper into delusion than someone who is praying to the gods for help. That person at least doesn't kid himself that he knows what he is doing.

Don't get me wrong; it is very good to assume that you are cause. But for many scientologists, what they imply by the word "cause" is actually effect. You become an operating being by finding out how to do it and doing it, not by waiting for it to happen to you.

I am not sure if Hubbard had a crashing m-u on Structure, or if he just didn't explain exactly what he meant.

Korzybsky talked a whole lot about structure in the sense of "interrelation between parts of a whole". LRH took at bunch of basics from General Semantics: infinite valued logic, identification-association-differentiation, aberration vs. sanity, A=A reactions, etc. However, he carefully left out anything about structure and the concept of "the map is not the territory". Those omissions, whether done deliberately or not, became the key built-in traps of the subject of Scientology.

Structure might be best regarded as a blueprint for some kind of manifestation. That is, to make something appear physically, e.g. a body, you need some kind of energy blueprint that will shape the physical form and keep it functioning. There might be a whole hierarchy of blueprints going towards spiritual static in one direction and towards physical solidity in another.

The structure would be the detailed HOW. All the relations between component parts that would form the desired whole. Depending on what you would want to manifest, there would be a certain composition of component parts and relations between them that would accomplish the result.

Mocking up a red ball is not just thinking the words "red ball". There is a certain structure needed. Component parts of material, color, time, space, etc., need to be associated with each other to form the desired red ball.


It is somewhat easier to create structures in the space we call the Mind than it is in the physical universe. More simple structures with less layers to them will do fine in the mind where more associations must be accommodated physically. E.g. a physical ball must be composed of trillions of little atoms of different kinds that must all have come from somewhere. In the mind's space that doesn't matter, you can pretend that the ball is made out of uniform material that was just created for the purpose, and you can concentrate on the external characteristics such as color and shape. You can also leave things out in your mind, a ball doesn't have to have weight or temperature.


To accommodate the idea in the original thought-function-structure hierarchy, we could put it like this:

Intention - the desire to have something exist
Structure - how it is being done
Manifestation - what is made to exist

This can be very useful in resolving case by working it from down to up. Let's say that somebody has an experience and some responses that he judges undesirable. Like, he feels depressed and doesn't have success with his work. If we dig into it we would find out how specifically that is done, which is the Structure. E.g. "I take a lot of pictures of failures in the past, I make them very big and very close, then I tell myself I'm no good in a slow tone of voice, and then I get a tight pressure in my stomach, and then I don't go to work". And behind that we could find an Intention, e.g. "to explore the mechanics of failure". Above that would of course be the Being as cause who is creating all that stuff.


The way these subjects is seen to be in that order or seniority is that if we only handle something up to a certain level, then the higher levels would tend to put something similar back. If you just take Prozak and decide that you aren't really depressed, then the Structure would create a different Manifestation as outlet. If you found out how the depression was made and you changed that, but you didn't address the Intention, then it would find a different way of exploring failures through a different Structure. Of course, the higher you go the more likely it is that the phenomenon is permanently handled.

Manifestations are changed by changing the structure behind them. Structures are changed in correspondence with the intentions that created them.

Most of the useful work in resolving case is in finding and changing structures in the mind. Cognitions occur when structures are discovered, new abilities appear when better structures are generated.

Technical Essay # 92 - Flemming Funch 11 June 1992

Fun and Games

Games are supposed to be fun. If you are playing a game that isn't fun, then there are really just two sane options:

1. Start having fun playing it
2. Stop playing it.

Any case can be explained as an undesirable incomplete cycle of action. That would be a game that was created, but which is no longer fun, but it isn't uncreated.

A game has a purpose, it has freedom and barriers, and it often has multiple players. A game is created by intentionally creating a polarity, by splitting some theta into two opposite factions and then having them interact with each other. You need to pretend to give up some knowingness, responsibility and control to start playing a game. The general purpose of doing this is to have fun and learn. We could go as far as saying that this is the purpose of life:

To have fun and learn

The games one is currently playing will necessarily have some unknowns, some lack of responsibility, and some out-of-control stuff -- that is what makes them interesting. That is perfectly desirable, as long as it is desired games.

The trouble is with the games one is no longer enjoying or that one forgot about. By continuing to play them one is perpetuating things one doesn't really want. That is stupid of course, and that is why we would want to do something about it.

Case is not a mysterious, evil thing that somehow controls you and gets you to do the wrong things. It is something YOU are doing RIGHT NOW. If you don't want to do it, then you must either change your mind or stop doing it. That might require a process of re-discovering what it is that you are doing and what the point was in the first place. But, as soon as you have that information you can change it. It doesn't require a lot of hard work, it doesn't require anybody's permission, it doesn't have to be done in any particular order.

This is the rights of a thetan again:

1. Right to one's own sanity.
2. Right to leave a game

They aren't just a philosophical idea, they are fundamental rights. They apply to any situation and any piece of case. I interpret them as meaning that you have a right to have a good time, and if you don't, you have a right to stop doing what you didn't enjoy. And that means RIGHT NOW. If you believe that you need 200 hours of auditing before you can stop doing something you don't like doing, then somebody has taken away your right.

I would word the rights like this, for more applicability in everyday life:

1. You have the right to have fun and learn at any time
2. You are free to uncreate anything that you don't enjoy

With "uncreate" I don't mean not-is. Not-isness would be to keep yourself connected to something but to use force to keep it down, or to keep creating it while you pretend that it isn't there. To uncreate something effectively there should no longer be any kind of connection. Instead of "uncreating", we could say "clearing", which is again as-isness.

When you as-is something it doesn't disappear as a possibility. You just stop doing it in present time. You no longer play it as a game of irresponsibility. To accomplish that, it is generally wise to first discover what purpose it serves you in present time. There is fun and learning embedded in anything. It is a good idea to find out what the point was before you uncreate something. If not, you might be missing out on something you would really enjoy. But the second right still stands -- you are free to get rid of it in any case.

The power formula applies here. If you are occupying a position (playing a game) you better act the part fully and enjoy the action. If you don't want to do that anymore, then you must disconnect completely and cut ALL lines. Trouble only enters if you think you disconnected, but you left some hidden lines. Therefore it is wise to "write up your hat", that is, discover what you were really doing and why, before you disconnect.

Stated imperatively, as the prime directives for the game of life, it would be:

1. Have fun!
2. If you aren't, quit!

or, more colloquially, in contemporary English:

Have fun, or get the fuck out!!

That is sort of the ethics angle of case. You are cause over the games you play including the ones that you don't want to play that you call "case". There isn't any good excuse for doing something you don't want and blaming it on external circumstances. The path starts with responsibility of being cause.

The one major obstacle to case gain and spiritual development in general is the attitude that life isn't fun and there is no choice. That is a very effective way of painting oneself into a corner, by insisting that it isn't a game and the cause is somewhere else. That is a major out-ethics across all dynamics.

The solution is of course to realize that life isn't serious, it is just a game, and you are the cause of it right now.

The amount of fun in your life in present time is the best indicator of your state of case.

Technical Essay # 93 - Flemming Funch 13 June 1992

Collapsed Spaces

There are some phenomena regarding space that constitute potential pitfalls if they aren't taken into consideration in a balanced way.

I had wondered what had happened to my sense of space since I did certain advanced rundowns a few years ago. I used to be able to sense space and had a good sense of how big "my" space was, or how big "I" felt. That is, I could do that until I went along with the idea that one was supposed to pull all one's remote viewpoints out of the physical universe through an "exit point". I sounded like a pretty good idea at the time, and the process to accomplish it worked quite effectively.

I didn't realize before much later that what I had done was to collapse all my physical universe anchor points into one point, a black hole basically. That is basically the opposite of the 8008 idea, I had collapsed my own space to zero. The physical universe was obviously still there, but it was no longer my space. We could call that exterior to the universe, but unfortunately it is out the bottom, down the drain if you will.

Still having a physical body, but not having any space to put it in is not such a good idea. It is kind of a claustrophobic idea -- no breathing space. And interestingly, that is exactly the effect it had on my body. I shortly developed pneumonia, then bronchitis, and finally asthma. And interestingly, I noticed at least 3 other people who developed pneumonia after doing the same action. That ought to ring some sort of alarm bell.

There are basically two directions one can exteriorize from the physical universe. One can increase one's space to infinity, encompassing everything in the universe, get bigger than it, and go out the top. Or, one can get rid of any attachment one has to it, until one no longer occupies any space in it, and go out the bottom. In hindsight I think the first option sounds the most appealing to me. Also, that is how I understand Hubbard's vision of OT.

You can create space in two directions, outside yourself, and inside yourself. That is a somewhat erroneous way of describing it, in that the real You isn't inside space in the first place. But, for practical purposes we can talk about space created outside or inside the sphere of influence you have mocked up as "you" in the physical universe.

Captain Bill erroneously concluded that bad guys mocked up stuff inside themselves and that good guys mocked it up outside themselves. A better explanation would be that if you operate from an awareness level of cause you mock things up inside yourself, and if you operate from effect you place them outside, beyond your control. Placing anchor points around you and then getting rid of them doesn't make you bigger -- it makes you smaller.

The trick of placing things outside yourself, beyond your control, is very useful in entering games. The stuff you place inside your space is the side of the game you are in charge of, and the stuff you place outside is the stuff you leave on automatic and play a game against.

The way of taking a game apart is to re-integrate the parts that you split apart in the first place. You need to re-assume cause over all parts of the game. That is a much more graceful way of doing it than by deciding that none of it had anything to do with you and by severing all connections to it. That would get you out of the game also, but leaving a lot of garbage around. The exit-point approach does the exact opposite of what it was intended to, it leaves all the garbage in place, but now beyond your control.

Having collapsed one's space to zero it is not very effective to try to make space again by putting out anchor points outside oneself. There isn't particularly anything to put them in. Space created by spacation would tend to collapse again as soon as one takes one's attention off of it again.

Luckily one can always create space inside oneself, even if one has audited oneself out of existence. As a matter of fact, that is the only place one can do it. No matter what happens one is still cause and can always cause something new.

Spacation works fine as an internal process also. Instead of creating the corners of a box outside, one gets the idea of encompassing a box that is "inside oneself". One can hold it and create more of a sense of space. One can also populate it with other stuff and gradually build up one's havingness again.

What keeps space apart is largely the idea of difference. One point is differentiated from another and they are considered as different and separate. The better you are at differentiating, the more space you can have. The more you identify, the less space you have. To the degree that you regard the physical universe as "all the same kind of stuff" without considering all the differences in viewpoints and qualities, to that degree will you collapse your space.

The ability to create and uncreate universes is very worthwhile. You create a universe by mocking it up inside yourself, by inventing some new differentiations that otherwise weren't there. You start off with nothing, zero, and you split it up into positive and negative polarities that you then differentiate from each other. You associate these in various ways and you can develop all sorts of interesting complexities.

When you have created a universe you can jump into it, if you so choose. Or rather, you can create a conscious viewpoint inside it, and give that viewpoint full self-determinism. Then the viewpoint can play games, and that is very interesting, particularly if you share the universe with others.

However, the viewpoint inside the universe is not the one that created the universe. However, it might appear like it, because the rest of the universe is a reflection of it, and vice versa. The viewpoint has the freedom of deciding on its own when to end the game. It can do it by re-conquering the universe and expanding its space to encompass all of the universe. Or, it can write itself out of the game by disconnecting from everything in it.

One is free to create new universes within oneself or to collapse ones that are there. None of those options are particularly good or bad, it all depends on what one wants to accomplish. One might want to collapse universes that are no longer needed. They can always be reopened by recreating them internally as a source if one so chooses. The mistake is to assume that the only thing worthwhile is to get rid of universes.

The game of life is played in the space between total cause and total effect. A universe is a hologrammic illusion created out of the collision between infinite possibility and a zero static. One can leave the universe in one of two directions: towards infinite differentiation or towards zero differentiation, total identification. The paradox is that both are just as true and that you end up in the same starting point.

The reason the going out the bottom approach, towards no space, is kind of "risky" is that one might do it in the wrong order and unmock one's tools before one is done. For example if you collapse all your anchor points before you have unmocked the universe they were attached to, then you are left as a deaf and blind effect point. Luckily that can all change again.

Technical Essay # 94 - Flemming Funch 19 June 1992

Mass and Significance

 

If differences aren't differentiated and words are mistaken for the actual thing, then technical basics can easily be lost or inverted without anybody noticing. That is the case, for example, with the relationship between mass and significance.

It is commonly held that the thing to do is to get mass off a case, and that getting off significances wouldn't produce much benefit. But what is left out of that statement is what kind of mass and what kind of significance. The words are meaningless in themselves if we don't make it clear what they refer to. We could say it the other way around and get just as much sense out of it.

Significance can be described as the meaning or value that is inherent in something or that is assigned to it. There is a very important distinction to make there:

Primary Significance is the causative thought that created the thing or situation in the first place; the postulate, the consideration, the intention. That is the reason, the why for whatever is there. It doesn't have any mass, but if it is alter-ised to make it persist, it will create the appearance of mass.

Secondary Significance is a consideration made as a response to something that is already there. It is non-causative, it is rather an effect thought. It is an attempt at solving a mass by thinking more about it. Generally speaking that doesn't do much good, and is likely to just make things more solid.

To give an example, let's say somebody has the mass of a physical illness. He can notice that the illness is there and then make various ideas and reactions to it, like getting irritated about it ("I hate having the flu"), making conclusions based on it ("It must mean that I haven't been ethical enough"), or dreaming up solutions to it ("I will never eat meat again"). All of these are secondary significances. None of them are the exact thought that created the illness, they are just garbage thrown on top to compound matters.

However, if you found and as-ised the primary significance, the illness would disappear. It would be the intention, postulate, consideration that you create it with. If you know what it is, you can change it instantly or find a better outlet for it.

Primary considerations can never be right or wrong, they just are. Or, said differently, they are right per definition. Only a secondary consideration about something that already exists can introduce the idea of wrong. In a fashion all secondary considerations are wrong, they are all lies.

Primary considerations are not anything to get rid of. Any evaluation of them are just secondary lies. The primary consideration is kind of a lie too, it is an idea invented out of thin air without any good justification, with nothing to back it up. But it might be more practical to regard that as a truth, a self-created truth. It is not ultimate truth, but it is the next-best thing.

To rephrase it, the primary consideration that causes something to exist is not bad, negative, evil or anything like that. If it is, then it isn't the primary consideration. This is another way of saying that you are cause, not effect. If you are looking for a negative intention that is caving you in, then you are just asking to be effect some more. If instead you are looking for the good intention you must have to create your current situation, then you are processing towards cause.

All processing should lead towards cause. And that is your cause; positive, desirable intention. There is always an awareness level of your own, a source point, from which you consider that exactly what is going on now would be a fun thing to do. Not a mistaken postulate made in the past that you are now forced to be effect of; but a present time, desirable causation.

Mass is made out of alter-ised significances. The only really workable way of changing a mass permanently is to get to the primary significance and either dropping it, or giving it a different manifestation, a different mass that is more desirable in one's current situation.

Getting rid of mass without taking the cause (you and your primary considerations) into consideration is at best a waste of time. The mass will be back, in a different configuration, that you might be less comfortable with than what you had before.

In terms of an auditing session, getting TA without getting the cause is useless. That kind of TA count is very misleading.

Conversely, you might get great gain without getting any TA. If you adjust a primary consideration, then the whole mass of your life might be different in an instant. But no TA might show on the meter.

So, the idea of mass off being senior to getting significances apply only to the activity of unraveling alter-isnesses (masses) towards a causative consideration, as compared to the futile pursuit of secondary figure-figure without touching either the actual mass or the considerations behind it.

"Getting mass off" is not necessarily the best way of going about personal development. It goes together with a certain band and style of auditing techniques, mostly repetitive processes done on a meter. If taken too literally, to the exclusion of more basic principles, the overall objective might be totally missed. Techniques that would go more directly for the cause when feasible could be much more effective.

We could say that significance is senior to mass if we mean that postulates are more causative than the effects they create, truth is senior to lies, as-isness is senior to alter-isness. So, the words "significance" and "mass" in themselves don't cut it. You need to look at the underlying principle.

Technical Essay # 95 - Flemming Funch 19 June 1992

Levels of Reality

 

The idea of the Intention/Structure/Manifestation hierarchy can be polished off a bit, or be presented in different ways with different words. These words might work better:

Meaning
Structure
Appearance

They can be said to be different levels of reality. Appearance is what something appears to be on the surface, the agreed-upon mass that can be perceived with some consistency. Structure is what is below the surface, how it is actually put there, the internal construction. The Meaning is the primary consideration that puts it there, the significance of the cause. Together they form a hierarchy that can be found in anything that exists, including the physical universe and any kind of case.

These levels can be cross-related with a bunch of other concepts.

Meaning Structure Appearance
Intention Implementation Manifestation
Why How What
As-isness Alter-isness Is-ness
Primary Significance Secondary Significance Mass
Differentiation Association Identification
Space Energy Matter

Meaning-Structure-Appearance can also be regarded as a cycle that can repeat leading to a dwindling spiral. The universe is created based on the meaning of a primary cause, it has a certain structure that produces the appearance of physical reality that we experience. Now, one can then start assigning meaning to the experience one is having, and one can organize that secondary meaning into a structure. That is what we call the Mind. It creates the appearance that one's existence (within the more basic appearance of the universe) actually makes sense as a coherent activity.

The first cycle, the one that creates the physical universe, we could call Primary Reality. The second cycle, constituting the mind, would be Secondary Reality.

Now, so far so good. A couple of levels of trickery is suitable for creating a fun game. The trouble comes in when we repeat the cycle again. Generating meaning based on what is already secondary realities in the mind leads to what we would call aberration. Structures would be created based on one's responses to stuff that happened previously, and new appearances would be created with no direct relation to physical reality. Repeat that a couple of times and you've got screaming insanity.

The primary reality levels are the subject of philosophy or religion, or the realm of OT if you will. Spiritual development, getting closer to primary source, the meaning of existence, other physical realities, those all belong with the primary cycle of reality.

The pursuit of mental health is about weeding away the 3rd, 4th, etc., generations of reality and adjusting the Secondary Reality to create the most enjoyable experience in the present external reality. That is what Clearing does best, and that is what Neuro-Linguistic Programming, or any other successful mental therapy tries to do.

Attempts to adjust the primary reality with clearing techniques have been much less successful. That is no big wonder. Using techniques of the mind to change the foundation for the mind is a rather paradoxical thing to attempt. Sort of like a cartoon character on a TV screen trying to switch channels on the TV set.

Insisting on adjusting the objective primary reality through the subjective secondary mind is enough to leave anybody spinning. It is more likely to lead to continued degradation of reality into 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. That is the "OT" who has "unmocked the universe", but who has trouble with his car in the morning.

Moving out of the mind with the mind is an effective introversion process.

To actually alter the primary reality is a totally different matter from cleaning up in one's mind, at least when seen from the perspective of a mind. It needs to be clear who is actually doing it, from which level of reality.

There is sort of a direction going from the highest levels of source to more and more subjective levels. The road towards increased awareness goes towards the highest source level. It is critical to recognize which direction one is going in or one gets lost.

To expand beyond the mind one would necessarily have to calibrate to what is going on externally, in the objective reality. By recognizing what actually appears to be there, one can then move on to discovering the structure of primary reality, and finally the meaning of it all.

It would probably be safe to say that it is still you who are the cause of the meaning at all levels. It is just which kind of you that we are talking about that it is important to comprehend. The 8th dynamic viewpoint that generates primary reality is much different from a personal subjective viewpoint.

There are probably more trickery and more levels involved. But at least it is practical with some kind of a map.

Technical Essay # 96 - Flemming Funch 19 June 1992

Listing

 

Despite having gotten good results with listing and nulling from time to time, I haven't been very keen on doing stuff like that in the last few years. It seemed to me that there are less risky ways of getting the same benefits. But, it might be in order to examine the subject.

First of all, the idea of listing pre-supposes that there are charged questions that each have one and only one dominant answer which will produce a significant relief when found and indicated. The idea is that the listing process would bypass the general garbage in the bank and go straight for the item that is causing the trouble.

LRH didn't shed much light on why that would be so. Particularly why some seemingly invalid questions would work, such as "What place have you known?" on Power Plus. Or, a 3S&D type "Who or what has attempted to make nothing of you?". To me it seems like those questions should have a great many good answers.

It might be that L&N works by just finding a the first real good answer that BDs well. Even though there might be more good answers. But that sort of collides with the whole ritual of L&N that all gives the heavy suggestion that there is one and only one answer and we indicate the item found as THE item.

The trouble with presenting anything as THE answer is that it very easily leads to wrong indications. The validity of the question/answer combination is entirely dependent on the viewpoint and context they are applied to. Even if the answer seems right from a certain viewpoint, at a certain point in time, as applied to a very specific context, then it is likely to be totally wrong seem from many other viewpoints, or at other times, applied to other contexts.

If the viewpoint and context is explicitly specified, then it would probably be allright. Or, if we just let whatever pops up as-is without evaluating that it is the person's item.

If you tell somebody that "YOUR ITEM IS ___!", then the person will necessarily generalize it somewhat. The word "YOU" will tend to attach it to the person's identity to some degree. It associates YOU with the item. And since any mention of time or place is left out, it would tend to be generalized to a much wider context.

Finding an item would generally produce an as-isness. It does so by hitting on the exact consideration related to the given mass. The thing is that when it as-ises it disappears. Even if it WAS a valid statement of the exact consideration, then it no longer is after it has been found. So, the indication that it IS YOUR ITEM can't be anything but a lie at the time it is given.

Assuming then that there is such a thing as ONE exact consideration for a specified mass, then the end point would be the as-isness of that consideration, which should be accompanied by the disappearance of the mass. After that there would be no point in evaluating anything whatsoever about the item found.

Another problem about listing is that questions and answers are stated in language. By the nature of language and words, any question will be ambiguous and unclear. Any statements the person gives as answers are likely to be only imprecise approximations of the actual answers. No combination of words can aberrate a person in themselves, they can only be an approximated representation of what really goes on.

When I do listing, for example to find a service fac in a given area, I would usually do it in a 2WC style. I don't find that most pcs would dig very deep on their own. But with somebody to guide them along, and corner them so they have to come up with the consideration, then they can get a much better item.

In the type of valence handling I mostly do, polarity clearing, I would avoid L&N at all costs. I find it more valuable to get something general that the pc is using throughout his life and that he will really have to take responsibility for.

So, are there really situations where the best choice is to get a really specific one-shot answer to produce an as-isness. I believe there is when we are talking considerations, postulates, intentions, computations. Finding the right consideration would generally produce a big change right away and avoid a lot of time being spent messing around with less significant side-effects.

Probably the direct search for considerations could be expanded into more ways than it has traditionally been used. It is basically going for the meaning behind the structure behind the appearance. The context must be very well defined in order to search effectively for the consideration. The consideration might be expressed in words or it might not, what matters is the conceptual idea that it is.

A valence is much more of a structure. I would still not consider it wise to regard that as any kind of exact consideration. If it is the simplicity of a viewpoint it might work, but I think a more complex identity is risky to find this way. But there would probably be an exact consideration that would keep one involved with a certain identity, and that could be listed for.

Listing is akin to Date/Locate in that we try to duplicate a specific. When we get a close enough duplication we get an as-isness and an instant change.

 

Contents

Next page