Reality Design Essay # 13 by Flemming Funch, 21 September 1992

Roles as Limitations

One way of looking at an actor's role, particularly in a comedy scene, is as set of limitations. The character and its behavior is defined by the borders of its world, by the lines it doesn't dare cross, by the things it desires but doesn't have, by what it tries to hide but can't, etc.

Much comedy, and drama too, comes out of the interplay between characters with different limitations applying them to each other. One person has to be boisterous, another has to be shy; one is dumb but thinks he is smart; a person is vain but doesn't think anybody notices; one person is in a hurry, another has to tell his life story, etc. When the limitations are exposed in unexpected ways it becomes funny.

Games are created by choosing some limitations that you then play with, or try to overcome or transform along the way. Out of the infinite possibilities that exist you divide things up into two piles. One is the stuff that IS, or that one IS, and the stuff that one can DO, and the stuff that one HAS. The other pile is the stuff one considers ISN'T, that can't be done, and that one doesn't have. In other words, we set up some artificial limits that can't be crossed. The exploration of life within those confines is what makes games interesting.

The role of a player in a soccer game is defined by the limitations of the rules. For example, he has to stay within the field, he can not touch the ball with his hands, he has to cooperate with his team mates, and he must try to get the ball into the other team's goal.

Of course, within the limitations is where one can exercise one's freedom. The limitations limit the total number of possibilities into a smaller, more defined set of things that can be done. Within those limits one can do whatever one feels like.

To design a game one starts out from a level of total freedom, infinite possibilities, anything is possible. So, there is no point in adding specific freedoms to create a game, they are all there already. What doesn't exist in advance is the limitations, the barriers. By deliberately excluding or forgetting about most of the possibilities one starts to carve out a role, a specific identity that can be assumed and played.

Any identity is designed to be playable and to provide some entertainment and learning by experiencing what it goes through. But, any identity, any role, is by definition imperfect. There will always be something left out, some limitations, some inadequacies built into the role.

If you are playing a certain role, this information is useful to know. Remember too that you are never really the role you play, it is just something you are playing. And realize that an identity is always imperfect. There might be some change and development in the life of a certain identity, it might get better. However, it can only get better within the boundaries of its definition. It can never be absolutely perfect. It can never be YOU.

Realizing, accepting, and appreciating the imperfections of the role you are playing is quite therapeutical. You can play the role much better if you know what it is. If you know what the imperfections are and you play them well, then you are better off than somebody who doesn't know what their role is or who tries to ignore it.

The real YOU is unlimited in awareness and creativity. That is separate from any role you might play. By keeping both in mind you can get the best of both worlds. It is really the unlimited You playing the role of a limited You. Don't fall into the trap of trying to make it the other way around. Limited identities aren't very good at suddenly playing God.

Other stuff that is brought into being is designed through limitation also. Most perceptions are based on limitation. Eyes work by limiting a very wide spectrum into just a narrow band, and they filter out zillions of other dimensions and universes and so forth to only see one specific one at a specific time.

You see a wall because you don't see through it. You limit your eyesight to not go further than the wall. You limit certain bandwidths of light and you see the wall in a certain color.

The funny thing is that identities, objects, games, etc., are created by subtracting something from all-that-is, not by adding anything. You interact with these things by limiting your awareness to a certain narrow band. You perceive things by not perceiving everything else.

Realize that there is not necessarily anything WRONG with something that is limited. There can be fun and learning and aesthetics and challenge in it, and that is the whole point.

Reality Design Essay # 14 by Flemming Funch, 21 September 1992

Existence

Looking at the many possible realities the question might come up of what really exists. There might be many universes, many dimensions, many alternate realities, many probably pasts and futures, and anybody can imagine stuff and maybe share it with others, or maybe keep it to themselves. So, what constitutes existence?

A workable definition would be:

Something exists if it can be experienced.

In other words, if somebody, anybody, can experience something in any kind of way, then it has existence. It might only exist for one person at one time, or it might exist for many at many times, that doesn't really matter. Degree of agreement with the existence is a different subject.

Ultimate truth is the totality of all that is. A nothingness with infinite potentials. However, when we narrow the scope from there to specific realities, then we have moved away from absolute truth. Anything that is established as a reality is only a relative truth. And it gets existence simply by somebody experiencing its existence. A reality is not by itself more or less existing than any other reality. If somebody experiences it, it is there. If more people experience and agree upon a similar thing, then it becomes an agreed-upon reality. It doesn't have more right to exist for that, there are just more people to agree with that it is very real.

So, conversely, if you want something to exist, all you need to do is to start experiencing it. The better you can experience it, the more you can get it to exist.

Experience consists of a number of perceptions with many sub-divisions and many qualities to them; it consists of responses and thoughts about the perceptions; it consists of dimensions and perceptual positions; it consists of association and sequencing of different elements in relation to others; it consists of an awareness of what one is experiencing; it consists of previous experience and learnings, and of dreams and intentions about upcoming events.

All of those elements become building blocks to build a reality. By combining them in a specific way we create a unique reality to experience. Notice that is doesn't require permission from any authority, it doesn't have to correspond to any other "more real" reality. You can experience any reality you want.

The reason the present physical reality might seem more real and more existing than your "imagination" is that all the elements mentioned above are present and that they are being maintained automatically. That took quite some work to make that feat possible. But nothing stops you from doing something else all by yourself.

Some people will discount imagination as a way of creating reality because they only try casually and lazily to create something that really takes a lot more attention to detail. If you just think "car" and you see a vague picture of a car, that doesn't count for much. You are doing a great many more things to experience a car in the physical universe. It will be 3D, it will have a certain mass, it will feel a certain way, have a temperature, it will have complicated machinery under the hood, you will respond to it with certain feelings, and you will have certain intentions about it, you will know in a very specific way that it is real. If you really plan on making a car in your mind real, then you need to do all of those things.

To experience starts with being causative. You need to put something there to experience. Then later on you can put it on automatic and pretend to be the effect of the experience. But, it always starts with cause.

One can easily get stuck in a catch-22 as regards to this. If you are unwilling to experience anything that isn't already real to you, then you will have a hard time getting into anything else. Something has to come along and bite you in the nose in order for you to admit that it exists. That is the effect way to go. The cause route is much easier.

To really get into the field of exploring realities all by oneself, one needs to be willing to make a quantum leap of imagination. If you can imagine something and then immediately start experiencing it, then there are infinite worlds out there to explore. And you can make infinite more worlds by yourself.

If you don't develop the willingness to be cause and to make the leap of imagination, then you will be cannon fodder for electronically created artificial realities. Realities imposed upon you by forceful means will remain the most real existences, and anybody who manipulates them can drag you around by the nose.

The ability to experience is a very useful one for clearing up mental issues. If there is something you can't experience, then it can't possibly influence you. However, if something does apparently influence you, then you can also experience it. You can perceive its qualities in more detail and find out what it is about and how the experience is constructed. Any experience you don't want can be re-designed or taken apart if you wish. That is done simply by combining its elements differently, or by adding or subtracting some.

Notice that if there is something you perceive or experience somehow, then there is no question that it exists. There is no reason to brush anything off as something you are "just imagining". There is no need to either defend or invalidate what you experience. If you experience it, it exists, period.

If you put your attention on some other place, let's say a house across town that you know of, but never has seen the inside of. You can put your attention on perceiving what is inside the house and you will probably experience something. If you experience a red couch, well, then that is what you experience, so it exists. However, there is no guarantee that there physically is a red couch in that particular house right now. Maybe the red couch was there 10 years ago, maybe it will be there 2 years from now, maybe it is in the house next door, maybe it is in the mind of somebody who lives in the house, maybe it is in a house a million miles away that just happens to look similar. If you experience it, it exists. Narrowing in one's attention on a specific time, place, and event is then quite a different skill. First step is to be able to experience things in a great variety of different spaces. Next you can work on improving the ability to focus more precisely.

Insisting that everything must be precisely known before one would be willing to experience it, is the wrong sequence of going about it. One has to be willing to make a leap of imagination: just start experiencing things and then figure out what they are afterwards.

Reality Design Essay # 15 by Flemming Funch, 6 October 1992

The Reality Expansion Path

We could say that there is a type of path going towards the mastery of reality design. It does not consist of any finite sequence of steps, or any exactly predictable approach. It is more like a direction and an intention. It is a journey with the destination of Everywhere. It is a quest with Everything as its goal.

The same direction applies to any type of reality design, but it makes the most sense to discuss it relating to human spiritual development. In that context the path is towards increasing awareness of the creation of one's own multi-dimensional reality.

The key thing to do is to develop and exercise flexibility in the use of any of the elements of realities. That mostly means perceptions, including vision, sound, touch, smell, taste, space, time, mass, energy, identity, position, distinctions, associations, etc.

Anything that is part of a reality can be identified, studied, modeled, and exercised. For example, one can notice that there is a quality to sound such as pitch. One can then study it, find out what it is made of, i.e. frequency; and one can study the behavior of waves, harmonics, etc. One can develop the ability to hear very fine differences in pitch and to recognize different pitches. One can then practice making sounds with different pitches in one's mind, and one can do it with one's voice. One can try to match the exact pitch in the voice of somebody else. One can keep the exploration up until pitch becomes just a tool that one can use totally freely.

In the course of this kind of exploration one will confront and overcome one's own limited and fixed realities. The way you are, your body is, and your environment is, is not just the way it IS, it is a set of limitations. If you become flexible in handling any aspect of it you will no longer be trapped by it.

It is easiest to start with flexibility in the more human qualities. It would be reasonable to expect that you will be able to model the range of behavior that other humans can display. If others can use different tones of voice, then you should be able to master that too and speak with any voice you choose. The range and patterns of physical movements that others do should also be something you can do. We are not necessarily talking about circus tricks, but rather about the more common things that people do.

Usually one has to start by freeing up one's mental and emotional flexibility. If one has fixed ideas about what one should or shouldn't do, or if one has emotional blockages or compulsions, it is difficult to explore behavioral flexibility freely.

The general rule is: anything that is fixed should be flexible. Anything one person can do, others can do as well if they know how and they are flexible enough to do it.

Once one is in command of a wide range of human behavior and once one can think freely in gradual-scale logic -- it is time to expand the quest to more fundamental elements of reality. It is nice to be a well-balanced and versatile human being in tune with the surrounding world, but that in itself is quite a limited reality.

Next is the exploration of more fundamental perceptual elements. Expansion of perceptions into more ESP-type perceptions. No perceptions are really "extra-sensory", they are just a little outside the typical human experience.

But, more important than just added perceptions is the increased awareness that perceptions are something one is putting there, it isn't just input. You can perceive things in different ways depending on what you put your mind to. Perception is just as much creation as it is reception.

So, how can you change what you perceive to get something else out of it? And, what else could you imagine and then perceive?

There are many alternate realities ready at hand that can be explored. That is what you do when you dream. You can develop the ability to do that at any time, and to have the realities be increasingly real and solid while you still remain perfectly conscious about yourself.

First off you need to be willing to travel in other realities. You need to regard it as possible, you need to be willing to use your imagination as your vehicle, and you need to phase enough out of the physical reality to phase something else in.

Just follow along with whatever develops and work on expanding your perceptions and your sense of detail. Notice what is missing in the picture, or which perceptions you don't have yet, e.g. weight, texture, temperature, and then start perceiving those.

Once you are proficient in traveling in the realities that offer themselves, you can start getting more involved in the writing of the script. You can work on making totally new realities completely from scratch.

The continuous intention is to be flexible in exploring any possible reality, whether it is physical, an existing other dimension, a shared reality, a reality of your own design, or whatever.

As stated, there is no rote way. It is an adventure, a game, something to do for fun. There will be surprises and obstacles, but that is part of the game.

Reality Design Essay # 16 by Flemming Funch, 7 October 1992

Where and Who

A reality is made more real the more distinctions one can make in it.

The more different types of distinctions, that is perceptions, the more real the experience can be. And the more detailed the distinctions are, the higher resolution they have, the more real the experience is.

So, one can add more perceptions, or one can increase the resolution of the perceptions that one has.

Actors use these kinds of principles to get into a role or a scene. Particularly in improvisation does it become very useful to be able to fill in a lot of detailed perceptions very quickly.

In actor's workshops improvisational exercises are often done. Usually a few people are put on a stage without any props, or at the most with a couple of chairs. Somebody suggests a location or situation out of the blue. e.g. "You are in the waiting room on a train station". It is then up to the actors to improvise a meaningful scene taking place in that location.

There are two categories of reality that the improvisational actor must be able to make up with a moment's notice. That is the WHERE and the WHO.

The Where is the detailed perceptions of the environment. It is not enough to think "I'm in a train station". One would have to actually know with some detail what is there. Are there benches or chairs? Posters on the wall? Where are the doors? Is there anything on the floor? What particularly becomes interesting is more personal or unexpected details. Do you have a suitcase standing somewhere, or a coat lying over a bench? What do you have in your hands - a ticket? an ice-cream? an umbrella? a violin case? Also, what time of the year is it? Is it warm or cold? Is it day or night?

As part of the Where is the actual perception of the stuff that is supposedly there. For example, things have weight. If you lift an umbrella, it weighs something. If you swing it around, it takes it some time to pass through the air. That will make a sound. If you are reading a newspaper, it has a texture. It takes some maneuvering to turn pages and so forth. If you are reading you need to actually see something there and take the time to move your eyes across the lines, and have some idea about what you are reading.

Almost as important is the Who. That is, who you are and who the other people are. That includes your names, but also personality characteristics, history, relationship, and so forth.

For the other people present one would at least have to figure out what one's relationship is to them, what their names are if you are supposed to know them, what history you've had together, and what attitude you have towards them. Then you can let them figure out their behavior and personality characteristics by themselves.

For one person there is a large number of details that can define the person. To formulate personality characteristics one can use existing systems of categorization, e.g. astrology. So, you could decide this character is a "Libra" with whatever that implies: objective, indecisive, etc. You can establish what the person's emotional state is: bored, angry, ecstatic, etc. The person has a certain attitude towards the other people, maybe a different one for each person: repulsed, condescending, mystified, etc.

A person has certain characteristics in use of language, tonality, etc. One will move one's body in a certain characteristic way. One might have certain mannerisms and habits. One can have a variety of virtues, compulsions, addictions, and other traits.

Much effort can be well spent in exploring the many distinctions of Wheres and Whos. One should aim at total flexibility in creating a richly detailed environment at a moment's notice out of nowhere, populated with richly detailed characters, having interesting interactions with each other and the environment. That is largely the skills necessary to create and explore alternate realities.

Technical Essay # 103 - Flemming Funch 9 October 1992

Paradoxical Polarities

Many people would look at techniques like polarity clearing and say "Yeah, that sounds like a nice thing to run on new people". And sure it is. However, I would regard the idea of polarities as one of the most basic and far-reaching principles to base clearing on. I think it is a key thing to do at any level. As a matter of fact, we could say that it is a high-level concept that, because it is so simple, lends itself very well to "new" people as well.

I am sure the idea exists that more complex techniques are needed as people get more "advanced". That ain't necessarily so. Rather it should be the other way around.

Beings are basically simple. Complexity often comes out of case. What at first might appear as a big mass of un-related complex phenomena in one's life might later resolve into very simple principles.

There are some twists on this though, and again language gets in the way. It is so to say not as simple as just "simple" or "complex". The "simplicity" of an advanced state of awareness really encompasses a lot of "complexity". An advanced being of some sort might come by the physical universe and say "Oh, what an interesting universe!" and totally perceive everything in it without being disturbed the least bit by the randomity in it. He can keep a simple state of mind about it while still dealing with the complexity.

A not-so-advanced human being on the other hand might wake up one morning and find a gray hair on the pillow and immediately get himself overwhelmed by a zillion reactions and implications and thoughts and emotions. Faced with a simplicity he responds with a complex state of mind.

We could then say that a person with a low level of case state can handle very little randomity and has very complex reactions to things. A person with a high level of case state can handle a lot of randomity while maintaining simple responses.

Maintaining a simple attitude in a fixed environment with no randomity does not constitute any high case state. Having one's carpet spotless and keeping the same job for 40 years is no particular virtue if you do it by keeping everything unchanging around you.

Being in a lot of randomity and being very confused and complex about it doesn't give too many merits either. That might just mean that you can't hold any kind of a position and are just blown around by circumstances.

No, an indicator of high ability is rather that one is involved with a lot of randomity, but one is making things go right and getting something done despite it and one isn't getting very perturbed by it. The test of a thetan is not that things ARE right, it is that it is MAKING them go right.

The ability to operate freely in dynamic multi-dimensional realities is where it is at. Complex fixed conditions one is dragging around will hinder this of course.

A new client might be so entangled in case that we would have to deal with rather vague generalities at first. That is basically what we do on grades. We key some bad stuff out, bring back some good stuff, and generally add some more flexibility in some important areas. We talk rather simple generalities and avoid getting too specifically into what is causing what.

When the general confusion has quieted down and the client is able to look at one thing at a time without having ten other unrelated reactions at the same time, then we can get more into specifics. Incident clearing makes more sense at that point. Or specific identities or intentions or viewpoints or ridges or entities or whatever.

Stepping up from generalities to specific reasons and viewpoints and so forth could be said to be a step forward, and advancement of the case. However, it is not particularly the end.

You don't really have a pain in the shoulder because somebody cut you with a knife 300 years ago, or because there is a malicious entity sitting in your shoulder blades. First of all, the final answer is never going to be an effect situation, it is never going to be coming from "somewhere else". Secondly causation happens on many levels. You would need to include all of them to be thorough.

A more advanced level than addressing the precise specifics of incidents, identities, etc. would be to take the wholeness of causation into consideration. That is, to always get back to how and why You (your highest level of Self) is causING (not causED) your condition right NOW. And to get ALL sides of the whole situation with full responsibility.

A high level way of thinking is likely to be confused with vague generalities when put into language. Somebody might come out of a session and say "I've got it, all problems in life come out of not looking!" or some such thing. He might suddenly have realized something that now aligns a zillion different phenomena for him, and it is all now very simple.

A person with a stuck resistive case might also say "I must see what is going on, or there will be problems", but to him it might be some kind of service fac that gets him into all kinds of problems. He walks around with staring eyes, and whenever there is something he doesn't know about everything goes wrong for him and he gets terrible headaches.

The untrained eye will not know the difference. One might even complain that the guy with the big cognition isn't confronting his case, he is just getting some thetie-weetie realizations instead of running some implants. Well, it might or might not be better depending on where the guy is at.

This is also why the general population sometimes has a hard time noticing the difference between truth and delusion, between spiritual leaders and con-artists. If you only listen to the words and if you evaluate them with fixed ideas then you don't necessarily get anywhere.

What I am trying to get around to discussing here, is polarities as a more advanced phenomenon. So, what I would like to do first is to dispel the idea that polarities is just for beginners, the serious stuff is when we get into listing for precise identities and intentions, and when we get specific entities with big implants and so forth.

There is possibly a band of case where it makes very good sense to find a lot of specific viewpoints, identities, beingnesses and so forth. We could say that is when the lower grade composite case breaks up.

Theoretically speaking, below Clear the person is not yet ready to take responsibility for his own case. His condition still appears to him to be a generality of stuff caused by others and by circumstances and so forth. He reacts in ways that he doesn't understand and he is unable to do anything about it. As he progresses he becomes gradually more able to be responsible for his case until finally - BAM - he realizes that HE is the cause of his case, he is just mocking it up, and he doesn't have to.

From that point on, the person can easily resolve stuff that he is conscious of. He has a clean focal point of attention from which he can as-is things. That is, he can as-is things from his main viewpoint that are created FROM that main viewpoint.

Stuff that isn't resolving is then being held there from different viewpoints. All the person needs to do is really to locate and assume those viewpoints and experience from there what is going on and resolve it.

Several things can make this activity much more complex than it should be. Specifically there are a couple of lies that people often are taught or that they pick up implicitly. The first lie is that your main viewpoint, the "thetan", is ALL that you are. The second lie, that follows from the first, is that you are NOT cause over the actions of those other viewpoints.

These mis-understoods have caused many people to do strange things on their "upper" levels. You can quite easily walk in circles and get very confused about what you actually are doing. Often it gets down to trying to unmock yourself which is kind of a weird thing to do.

There is no reason to limit one's existence to one viewpoint. You aren't a viewpoint anyway, but if you'd like to use them, why have only one. That is scarcity thinking. If you are trying to have only one, it is of course nice if it is a very clean one, but all that scarcity limits what you can do.

And all those viewpoints one can be effect of? That is a big logical mix-up. Viewpoints are something YOU put out to be able to perceive from different positions in a universe. You can play the game of pretending that the viewpoints are somebody else and then you can make some things persist very nicely. But, if you get tired of it, you need to reverse the process and re-assume your responsibility for the viewpoints. The axioms and factors were very clear about this stuff. It is just that somebody verbally introduced a destructive arbitrary that sort of threw things off.

Back to polarities. A very fundamental characteristic of spirit is to subdivide itself. That could happen in many different ways, but the most common one appears to be the division into polarities. IS versus NOT-IS, or I versus NOT-I. Polarities are what creates games. When it is an unwanted, forgotten game, we would tend to call it "case".

An enormous amount of other case phenomena can come out of a basic polarity. Which exact phenomena depends completely on what the polarity is. We could keep handling those phenomena forever, but if the polarity is not handled, they would just be recreated.

I wasn't sure at first if polarity clearing principles would work on advanced levels. I was inclined to go along with the idea that later on one would need more precise stuff. I now think that polarity clearing works perfectly well on advanced levels. Possibly it might not be a good idea somewhere in the middle where one is confused about viewpoints and entities and stuff (the non-interference band). But before and after we should be able to hold the person responsible for his own condition and address him as cause in a more simple manner.

I have had quite good success using polarity clearing concepts on advanced cases. I must admit that the best successes were on myself and on people who haven't done scientology upper levels. Many "OTs" ridge up very quickly at the suggestion of the idea that there might be different "parts" of them or that they might exist at several levels of awareness at the same time.

This is a little akin to the phenomenon of the person with heavy past life overts who scoffs at the suggestion that there might be past lives. He has so much to hide that he is frozen with terror by the thought that it could be revealed. And he hides it so well that he isn't consciously aware of that.

The "OT" who is being "just one viewpoint" also has a vested interest in not looking. He has worked hard on attaining his fairly clean state where things work out fairly well for him, and he can attribute it to his good postulates and his lack of case. Now, the thought that there might be other parts of him operating at a sub-conscious or super-conscious level all by themselves opens up a whole new can of worms, a scary thought indeed.

What if all the stuff you "as-ised" over the years didn't really disappear? What if you just pushed it out somewhere beyond the edge of your theta vision and then you got rid of the viewpoint that was looking at it. I don't particularly see a problem with that as long as it made you feel better. However for some people that would be a terrifying thought. "What if all the stuff I've swept under the rug for years suddenly came back?" That is the ostrich with its head in the sand of course, doesn't have much to do with confront.

It was a surprise to me at first that new "raw meat" clients would happily comprehend high-level spiritual truths and make permanent changes in their lives in a short period of time, whereas seasoned OTs would only accept changes that happened in a certain standard way and would lock themselves out from anything that didn't fit the pre-conceived idea.

I am not saying that clearing doesn't work or upper levels don't work. They are very useful. And they were never meant as an excuse for not looking, as a replacement for thinking, as a rote system to follow no matter where it leads.

Using technical data as service facs and as a reason for not looking is not much better than using any other arbitrary data that way. Actually it is worse. It is much easier to spot "All men are pigs" as an aberrated fixed datum than it is to spot "I am an operating thetan" as an aberrated fixed datum. Of course anybody but a scientologist would find the second datum more wacky.

But generally speaking, watch out for anything that is THE truth, watch out for anybody who has gotten IT. The truth is not an "IT", no matter what words or pictures you attach to it. If you adopt an "IT" as THE truth that IS, then you are at the same time relegating everything else as NOT existing. In other words, you are ignoring a great deal of the whole picture.

The real truth is not one side of a polarity. The real truth is always a wholeness and it is always dynamic. If you find yourself using a truth that implies that the opposite is untrue, then it isn't the whole truth.

Anything anybody ever wanted is everything.

Don't give people words and half-truths and pretty mock-ups pretending to be the truth when really what they want is all that they can get.

Of course somebody introduced the idea that nothing is better than something. "If we just get rid of everything that is there then it will be much better and we will be free". Hubbard never said anything like that. He said that "auditing is a game of exteriorization versus havingness" and many other clever things. He didn't say that you should go and unmock yourself.

Personally, I like the idea of integrating things back into wholes much better than the idea of getting rid of everything. Somehow I think it is better for my havingness to have a whole everything than to have a zillion bits of gone nothings.

Some form of polarity or "parts" clearing applies whenever something that should be whole is broken. The technique I have described previously is not by any means the only thing one can do. Particularly noteworthy is the soul retrieval type of technique where one finds a "missing" piece of the person wherever and whenever it got lost and brings it back to PT including all its qualities.

The polarity approach is very useful when there is a paradoxical type of behavior that continues but that doesn't fit into any other type of case.

Here is one that I had: I was puzzled why people always told me how calm and collected I looked even at times when my mind was buzzing with confusions and I felt anything but calm. I realized that I had just such a polarity. Keeping randomity internal and keeping calm and order externally. That is kind of upside down. It would be more convenient to keep inner calm and let the randomity take place out in life. I integrated the polarity and the situation changed. There are still some remnants of what I wanted to handle, but nothing that really bothers me. There is more outwards randomity and more inward calm.

The integration (the EP) is often kind of subtle. It is just that you notice that now there is no longer a polarization and you are kind of calm about it. Usually there isn't any big blowout, it is a more smooth and gentle thing. And often the person doesn't notice anything very different at first. But quite often the whole thing is handled and stays handled permanently out in their lives.

The changes are sometimes easier for other people to notice. Because the person doesn't get a big blowout cognition or anything. The conflict just vanishes as if it was never there. In a way that seems to change reality so that there isn't even anything to remind the person of what the problem was. Often he can't remember at all what it was that was handled.

So, what disappears in this kind of clearing is the conflicts, the misunderstoods, the unwanted barriers. It is not the intentions, qualities, and viewpoints that you made.

An interesting thing I've also observed is that in a really effectful session the problem also often disappears for the practitioner. That is, the practitioner can't remember either what it was that was handled, unless he wrote it down, but it is obvious that something big was cleared or integrated. Not that there is anything very noble about forgetting, but here it is kind of an indicator that reality changed.

A client had somewhat of a fixation on exteriorization and a can't have on the body. I did polarity clearing with the thetan and the body as the two parts. That was kind of weird at first. But they got some communication going and sorted some things out that otherwise were ignored. We ended off with a much increased level of ARC with the body.

I had the problem of being creative at times when it didn't matter, but sometimes not when I really needed it. I found that to be a polarity where one side was sucking up creativity and the other was spitting it out and they weren't really in the right place. I integrated them and it became a lot more simple.

A polarity could to some degree be said to be held apart by a paradox. Splitting the wholeness into pieces is not a natural state, so we need to make up some kind of self-contradictory fake truth to get it to persist. The paradox isn't necessarily words. Just something that appears to make sense but inherently doesn't.

Paradoxes are the fuel that make games work. They are a whole study in themselves.

Technical Essay # 104 - Flemming Funch 29 October 1992

Cause and Effect

Much confusion comes out of mixing up the areas where one is cause with the areas where one is effect.

For the purpose of playing games and operating in this plane of existence, a certain arrangement has been made the basic rule here. It is the idea of polarity. This universe is built very solidly on the foundation of polarity. You can only be here if you are polarized. If you were not polarized you wouldn't be here at all.

Endless variations of polarities provide the fuel for games and learning here. A set of polarities create a difference in potential that becomes the driving force in a game. If the polarities are in an optimum balance, the game is the most fun. If the polarities are integrated the game can be ended. Many polarities can be made and unmade in many different ways and that creates the variety of life.

There is one polarity that is the basis for all the other ones. It can not be casually made and unmade. If it would be unmade it would mean the end of one's existence as a being IN the universe. That would not be bad, it would be a much higher state, but it is not necessarily desirable at this point. This realm of polarities was made because there is a lot to learn from it, and we might not be done learning yet.

The basic polarity is the split into a Being versus the Universe. It could also be called "I" versus "Not-I". It is that one adopts one section of all-that-is and says "This is Me" and to all the rest you say "That is NOT Me". None of these statements are true. It is simply a way of dividing things up.

With that arrangement you can be someone inside a universe who can explore it and play games, and learn, and have fun. There is something there to explore (Not-I) and someone to explore it (I).

The I might also sub-divide multi-dimensionally. However, that complicates matters further, so we don't have to include it in this discussion. Any sub-division of the I or Not-I basically has the same kind of properties.

So, the basic setup is that things are neatly divided into two piles. One pile you are responsible for, you are being cause over it, you are being it, doing it, having it. The other pile you are not responsible for, you are effect of it, you are not being it, not doing it, not having it.

That is the basic agreement. Things work according to plan if it is being kept and the game is kept fairly well optimized. However, if the two piles are mixed up things start getting weird.

We could figuratively speaking regard the part that the being is cause over as the area covered within a circle. We could call that the Inner World. The area outside the circle would be what the being isn't cause over. That we could call the Outer World

The deal is that you are complete cause over anything in the inner world and you are complete no-cause over anything in the outer world. You can of course play and influence the game by using your game piece (your inner world) well, and by adjusting well to what goes on in the outer world. But the agreement is that you aren't directly cause over the other parts of the game.

If we use the analogy of a chess game, you are cause over your own decision making and responses, and you can control your own pieces. But you agree to follow the rules of the game, they are outside your control. And what the other player thinks and does is outside your control too. If you are a good player you can use the part that you DO control to influence the part of the game that you DON'T control. That is what playing a game is about. But remember, you aren't directly in control of the stuff you agreed not to be in control of.

Now what often happens, at least on this planet, is that people get confused and they start invalidating themselves and thinking that somebody else is cause over their inner world. And they might also start getting in over their heads by thinking that they are supposed to be cause over the outside world and over other people's inner worlds.

In comparative terms, the first ailment is called being non-clear. The second one is being co-dependent. None of them make for happy living. At least 95% of the population do it, including most "OTs".

You have the full right to be cause over your own inner world. As a matter of fact you are cause over it whether you admit it or not. You create your own reality. Any perception, thought, intention, personality trait, feeling, memory, etc. is in your control. If they are made in response to some external event makes no difference whatsoever, you are still cause over them.

If one starts thinking that there is inner stuff one can't control, one starts down the track of unsolvable case. It doesn't make a difference if there is a good excuse either. One can construct elaborate models for explaining why one has to be effect. The most common "reasons" are implanting, the past, entities, other people, etc. None of them are valid reasons for not being cause over one's inner world.

Anything that would look like a problem in the inner world is resolved by realizing that you are cause over it and then making it what you want it to be.

Most people instinctively have the feeling that they are supposed to be cause. That probably comes from their hidden inner awareness that on a higher level they really ARE the creator of everything. However, the datum can be applied on the wrong logical level, and often is.

When it comes to the external world and other people in it, the inner beingness is NOT the cause of it. The WHOLE un-polarized infinite static IS direct cause over all of it. But the awareness unit that we've called a Thetan is NOT. It is only one half of a polarity.

A human being does not by far have the horsepower to create the whole universe with everyone in it. It will only lead to failures to try to be responsible for it.

What makes it easy to mix things up is that one human being can indeed influence the whole universe and everyone in it. The universe can reflect his inner world and supply him with what he wants. But an indirect influence is different from a direct control.

You can influence the external world, by creating what you want in the inner world, the part that you DO control. If in the inner world you create what you want, then the external universe will tend to reflect it and give it to you. However, you must let the external world do its job by itself, you can not control it or threaten it into doing your bidding.

To make the whole system work you need to allow the external world to be outside your control, doing what it needs to. And you need to allow other people to have their own worlds the way they want them. That is all part of the agreement in the game. You would violate your own original agreements if you think or act otherwise.

Anything that would look like a problem in the external world is resolved by allowing it to be whatever it is.

If you want something to happen in the external world you need to organize your internal world to match what you want. That is, you would think, feel, act, perceive, and respond in agreement with what you want. It doesn't just mean thinking positive thoughts and hoping that things will be alright. You need to believe in what you want, but you also need to DO the things that would bring it about.

So, you DO whatever you can within your sphere of control. And then you let go and let things happen the way they will happen. You must be willing to accept the outcome as it is. That doesn't mean you will give up if it doesn't work. You take the feedback and adjust your sphere of control to make it more likely that you will succeed the next time.

Let's say for example that you wish to own a successful restaurant. You would need to first of all believe that it is possible and you need to internally start creating that future reality for yourself. You then need to do the right things a prospective restaurant owner would do. You need to assume the beingness and doingness.

But you can only do so much all by yourself. There will inevitably be a major portion of your plan that is left up to the external world to supply to you. If you need a loan, you have no direct control over whether the bank will give it to you or not. You can do the things that have been known to work before and probably they will again, but you couldn't really know for sure. You can place your restaurant in a busy area and advertise well. But you couldn't know if people would come to eat there, that is outside your control. You couldn't know either if the building would go on fire, or be hit by a meteor the morning you open. You can make approximate predictions based on probabilities, but you can't directly control the stuff that is outside your control.

This might rub people the wrong way who think that they make everything the way it is directly by their "postulates". I think "new car" and a new car materializes, made by my postulate. That isn't really so, unless you know how to make atoms and you know how to put trillions of them together one by one to form a working car. Somebody obviously knows how, otherwise cars wouldn't exist. But it is not likely to be the person you have recognized as "I". It is much more likely to be in the "Not-I" portion. If we integrate them we get the real whole You of course, but that is beyond our typical conscious awareness.

The external world handles the details of how things actually happen much better than the internal world for most people. If you insist too heavily on HOW things are supposed to happen, you are much less likely to get them. The most reliable approach is to just let go and let things happen once you've done your part. If for example you wish to "make some money". If you put yourself into the frame of mind that it will happen and you start doing things that lead in that direction, and you are open to opportunities, you probably will make money. But if you sit down in a chair and postulate "somebody will ring the doorbell in 5 minutes and tell me I've won a million dollars" then you'll probably be disappointed. In trying to control the external world into one specific way of doing things you've actually given up on the trillions of other ways the external world could help you out.

So, make your sphere of control the way you want it. And then let go and let the external world do whatever it chooses. Flow with whatever happens and don't try to resist it. However, if it wasn't what you planned, then you need to take that as feedback and adjust your internal world according to what you have learned.

If you make whatever is inside your control the way you want it, and you leave everything that's outside your control alone, then things work much more smoothly.

Most problems with the external world come from a failure to allow it to be what it is. That gets you mixed up in things you don't need to be mixed up in and it puts responses in your mind that didn't really need to be there.

Engrams are an example of this. Something happened in the external world that was dramatically different from what the person expected. Instead of just allowing it to happen externally, he copies it to his internal world and lets it influence the way he feels and responds. Clearing of that sort or case is done by gradually getting the person to accept that what happened is exactly what happened, nothing more or less. At the same time he realizes that he is the one is in control of the internal world of his mind, and he doesn't have to respond in any way he doesn't want.

A Clear would ideally be someone who fully recognizes that he is cause over his internally world, and who fluidly allows things to happen around him without having to react to them in any particular way.

To fully have that would be an absolute, of course. But within reason it is quite attainable with the traditional tools we use. Or through any other approach for that matter. It is really a very simple state of mind. It doesn't require a very complicated methodology to get it, one just needs to have it.

Any state of mind, including being Clear, is within the sphere that you already are cause over. To have it you just need to think, feel, perceive, act, and respond as if you have it, and you actually will have it. Nothing particularly needs to happen externally to accomplish that. It can of course be fun to play a game of accomplishing the state through auditing, but it is not required.

The Clear state could be said to be the ability to keep the internal and the external worlds apart, and to recognize that you are full cause over one and full effect of the other one.

The step up from there is to use these principles more knowingly and fully to accomplish what you want. Recognizing that you are cause over your mind is nice, but unless you know HOW to cause particular states that you want, it might not have much practical use. Knowing that you need to allow the external world to flow is good, but it gets much better if you know how to get involved in some really interesting, fun, and pleasurable things.

A great range of ways of being cause over one's own reality is possible. There is a zillion things one can be and do, and one is free to invent new ones. Multi-dimensional realities on many different levels of awareness can be explored. Imagination and flexibility are keywords.

It might still be puzzling to some how one get what one wants without directly being cause over the external world. The best explanation is probably that one attracts what one wants rather than make what one wants. The external universe will provide you with experiences that are similar to what you create for yourself.

We could regard the external reality as an infinite sea of possibilities. You steer around in it by creating the internal reality you want, and you will be attracted in the direction of similar events in external reality. You have full freedom of choice, but on the other hand you have to go with the flow. That might appear as a paradox at first, but it doesn't have to be.

Imagine what you want and stay in the flow of the moment and life becomes so much more enjoyable.

As mentioned, the inner reality is not just one's mind. It is basically the sphere of influence you can be said to control. That can include your body, your actions, your belongings, and so forth. There is actually degrees of control within these things. Within certain limits you could be said to be in full control of your body. However, if for some reason it hasn't gotten any food, or if somebody suddenly removes all the air in the room, then the body is no longer in your full control. Your mind is very much under your control, but if somebody puts LSD in your coffee, then you might think strange thoughts out of your control.

It is difficult to give any ironclad rule for what is within or outside one's sphere of control, partially because this changes dynamically. Basically it is an ability one needs to develop: being able to know the difference between whether you are cause or effect.

If something is in-between cause and effect a game situation develops. A game is the experience of the interplay between partial cause and partial effect.

If you wish to avoid a games condition you need to keep the separation between control and no control very clean. That is sort of the Power/Power-Change condition formulas. If you control something, then control it, don't just let if float around. If you leave a point of control, then fully leave it, don't leave some threads of control in there.

To give an example. If you buy a pet you need to feed it every day and take care of its needs otherwise. You can't get a dog and then not feed it. It will die or people will get mad at you or something. However, if you don't buy the dog in the first place, it won't be your problem. Somebody else will feed it or not. But if you are in-between it creates a Q&A games condition.

There is not much reason to have any other games than the ones you choose yourself. If you want a game, then you need the 50/50 control/no-control scenario. If you don't want a game, you better go for either 0% control or 100% control. Anything you leave in-between is likely to turn into a games condition that pops up and bites you sometime.

If you want the excitement of trying to figure out how to repair your VCR yourself then you probably want a game. You would decide to do it without really knowing how. You might know a bit about electronics, but not particularly how VCRs work. You might or might not be able to do it. You might fix it and get everybody's admiration, or you might destroy it and lose a $500 VCR. That is a game, and if it is fairly 50/50 it can be fun to play.

If you don't wish to play the game of "do I fix or break my VCR" then you would need to stay closer to the 0% or 100%. You could either let somebody else fix it who knows how (0% cause on your part), or you could study VCR repair until you are sure that you can fix it without any problems (100% cause).

In terms of ethics conditions, it produces a lower condition to be involved with something that you aren't fully doing. If you are not doing it you are fine. If you are really doing it you are find. But, if you are in-between, pretending that you are doing something, but you aren't really taking responsibility for it, that puts the activity at risk.

In acting workshops actors are taught to "commit to their choices" as regards to what they are doing or the character they are playing. Half-baked, wavering choices aren't much fun. Either you do something or you don't. If you decide to do it, you DO it, no matter what. If the actor decides that the character he is playing is afraid, then he must go with it, and show it go everybody else. If he decides in the middle that it was a bad choice and he Q&As and communicates a mixed message, then it will be clear to everybody as bad acting. It doesn't matter so much if it was a good or bad choice, it matters that you commit to it or not.

Life is pretty much like that too. It doesn't matter all that much what exactly you do, as long as you do it. If you really fully do what you do when you do it and you enjoy it, then life is a lot more dynamic.

If you find yourself connected with something that isn't quite working, realize that there is one of three viable options:

1. Take full responsibility for it and make it exactly the way you want it to be.
2. Drop any responsibility for it. Cut all ties to it and leave it to somebody else to handle.
3. Leave it in-between and treat it as a game. Find out what you can learn from it and enjoy it.

As an example, let's say that you are driving in your car and it gives a funny sound that seems to indicate that something is wrong with it. You could (1) take full responsibility for it and get the car to the repair shop right away, or you could stop and go out and fix it yourself. Or (2), you could decide to never drive the car again, give it away to the first stranger you meet, and take the bus from then on. Or (3), you could enjoy the gamble on whether the car will keep working or not, and keep it going as long as you feel like.

If you are unwilling to accept any of the three choices you will probably get in some kind of trouble. If you just keep driving and ignore it all, you might get upset when the car suddenly breaks down in some faraway location.

If you are in charge of something, then be in charge of it. If you are not in charge, then don't be in charge. If you want randomity, then stay halfway in charge of something.

These ideas apply both on a very practical daily life level, and also as a high level philosophical principle.

The game of life is made out of cause, effect, and cause/effect combinations. You are full cause over a section of life, full effect of another, and another section is mixed. Keep track of which is which, or all you get is confusion. Keep things balanced and distinct and life is much more simple.

Reality Design Essay # 17 by Flemming Funch, 4 November 1992

Frequency

The faster one processes information, the more flexible one will be in dealing with different realities.

There seems to be a quality of frequency that is important when it comes to reality design. I am not quite sure what it is the frequency of, or if it is really that simple. But for now it is an appropriate metaphor at least.

If the environment you are in has a faster frequency than you have internally, then you have a much harder time changing the environment. However, if your internal frequency is greater you can stay a step ahead and evaluate your choices carefully.

To give an analogy, how about if every time other people went through 1 second of time you had a whole hour. You could spend that hour thoroughly analyzing your situation, weighing different courses of action, planning what to say and do, and so forth. You would then appear to others to have superior perception, intelligence, and power of choice, and you would have a greater command over your environment.

Subjective time is much more flexible than objective time. And even objective time is presently becoming much more fluid. The units of time we use aren't all that finite. The amount of time one has really depends on how much one is doing, not on an arbitrary independent measuring system. And certainly, when it comes to one's inner, subjective time we are talking about a very stretchable quality.

Internal time is not being measured. Nobody would get very upset if you ran off of a different clock than other people. They might be impressed by your skill level, but they probably wouldn't think of trying to regulate how you think. So, you are free to think in any speed you want, really.

There are probably many ways of playing with the internal time sense. The two main ones I can think of at this moment are:

1. Stretch the internal sense of time to be longer than the external time.
2. Squeeze more perception or activity into smaller moments of time

First, one can gradually fool one's internal time sense. For example, one could memorize a short movie or a piece of music. One can then play it back mentally in normal time to check if one got it. E.g. you watch a 10 minute movie and then you take 10 minutes to review it in your mind. Then you can shorten the physical time, by setting a timer to for example 8 minutes. The task is now to internally watch the full movie in the original speed, but to finish it within the external time of 8 minutes instead of 10. The deal is NOT to speed up the movie so that everybody speaks like Donald Duck, but to fully change the ratio between inner and outer time, so that one has more time internally. Gradually one should be able to comfortably watch the 10 minute movie within shorter and shorter physical time.

The other approach is to increase one's intake or outgo within short periods of time. Particularly one needs to be able to notice many more detailed perceptions in a unit of time. One way of doing that is to move in slow motion freeze frames for a while. That is, pretend that you are running a movie one frame at a time, at maybe one frame per second. Go through some simple activity. For each frame notice all the perceptions you have of your body and the environment. Become aware of the position and movement of every muscle in your body. Become aware of exactly what you are in the process of doing. Become aware of what anybody else is doing and what is going on in the environment. When you then go back to doing things in ordinary time you will notice that your mind has gotten used to being aware of much more every instant. It might take repeated practice of this to get permanent results. There are monks in Tibet who do this kind of thing for years, walking around slowly as a meditation. Otherwise it is most commonly known as an acting exercise.

Any of these approaches adds up to an increase in one's internal frequency. It should be noted that both an increase and a decrease could provide an escape from ordinary reality. You could lower your activity rate or you could increase it. In both ways you can go out of sync with regular reality somewhat. That might just get you in trouble of course. However if it is coupled with sharper perception and flexibility it can be very beneficial.

Physical reality is currently speeding up very rapidly. You would need to accelerate your frequency just to catch up. And if you want to stay ahead of the game you need to move faster again.

The frequency level as regards to input could probably be roughly equated to intelligence. A high output frequency in comparison to the environment probably equates to power.

A more systematic program for increasing one's inner/outer frequency ration could probably be made. For now it is enough to recognize this increase as a desirable goal as regards to reality design.

Technical Essay # 105 - Flemming Funch 5 November 1992

Integrity

The subject of integrity becomes increasingly important as a person increases in power.

If one doesn't have very much horsepower it doesn't make a whole lot of difference if one acts ethically or not. At least apparently one might not notice much difference. One can do things that seem the most convenient, if one feels they are right or not, and not receive much backlash.

But as a person gets bigger spiritually, gets more present, and gets more direct about things it seems that there is more of a requirement to do things ethically. The person has a great capability for action, but will also cave himself in just as readily for doing something he perceives to be wrong. In other words, the consequences of one's actions are more immediate. You can do something good much faster, but if you are a little off the mark you suffer the consequences immediately.

Shouldn't a grade II rundown of running out the O/W phenomena have handled that? Well, grade II doesn't necessarily run out the O/W phenomena. It more runs out the adverse personal reactions to it. That is, you don't have to feel bad because you are doing something to someone. It doesn't mean that you are free to do anything you don't feel is right without any consequences. You have probably run out the most common moral obligations that aren't relevant to your own ethics. But you would probably still have a mechanism of forcing yourself to agree with your own intentions. The feedback is likely to be more external as responses from the universe, and not just your own bad feelings.

We could talk about this in terms of ethics and morals and good and bad, but that would be somewhat misleading. OK, "ethics" has at times been defined as a personal choice one makes according to the greatest good for ones dynamics. That is a nice definition and a nice concept, but it doesn't quite agree with the general use of the word.

I find Integrity to be a much more convenient word. It means the state or condition of being whole, unbroken, complete, perfect. Particularly it might relate to one's sense of judgment, that one is sincere and honest.

Now, to act with integrity is to act as a whole being. If a part of you is acting out of alignment with another part, then you are out of integrity.

The trouble is that many people think that they ARE their conscious mind and nothing else. That includes most scientologists, they just call it a Thetan.

If you are doing what you consciously want without regard to anything that isn't conscious, that is when the trouble starts. The person might not realize that there is any conflict, because the person that thinks about it is the conscious part only. So, he might think that he is doing exactly what he thinks is right, he has all the right arguments for doing it, he knows is the greatest good for him and so forth, he has the best of postulates, etc. And still he might fall on his nose. Because he is not in agreement with the part of himself that he doesn't know of.

A spiritual being is not really "big" or "small". However, we could say that one's conscious focus has a certain scope or volume. For the sake of illustration we could pretend that a being at any given time manifests through a certain volume of awareness. He has a certain number of "marbles" so to say. These are what we call attention units. He can divide the marbles in various ways between being conscious and not conscious.

Let's take a person who would judge to not have very much horsepower in life, not very present, and not very focused. Really that being doesn't necessarily have any fewer marbles than anybody else. He might just not have very many of them in the conscious category presently. Like this:

Let's pretend that he has 100 marbles and only 1 of them is conscious. That is what he will regard as "Me" when he thinks and acts. However, it will mostly be the sub-conscious 99 marbles that determine what happens in his life by the majority vote. If he uses his 1 marble to do something that doesn't agree with the other 99, it really doesn't make much difference. It doesn't change the course of his life much. The 99 parts of him will carry things out in pretty much the same way as otherwise. The 1 conscious marble might not have much luck in life if he is out of alignment with the other 99. However, he might also incidentally be in alignment with the other 99 and do very well in life without knowing why. Either way his conscious actions won't have much consequence or backlash

Be aware that there isn't necessarily something wrong or bad about a part of you that isn't conscious. It might just as actively and awarely be working for the greatest good as the conscious part. Actually it often does a better job at it. As a matter of fact the vast majority of people's minds are out of consciousness and life would be totally impossible without those parts. You couldn't walk or talk or anything if it wasn't for those parts of you.

Now let's assume that our person with the 100 marbles changes his ratio. He gets some processing or he somehow gets to feel very empowered and present. Now he looks like this:

Now 20 marbles are conscious and 80 are sub-conscious. The guy with the 20 marbles is now going to feel very sharp, very present, and very powerful. The conscious person is now big enough to influence the course of the whole person significantly

If the 20 marble person still thinks that he is THE person and that he is in charge, then he can start doing some damage. He is big enough to get things done with his conscious intention alone. However, he is still a minority part of the whole person. If what he does is out of line with the intentions of the whole person, then the 80 marbles will readily rectify matters.

If you increase your number of conscious marbles you HAVE to find a way of aligning with the rest of them, or you will misuse your newfound power and fall on your nose. Integrity is the ability and awareness of acting as a whole person, in alignment with yourself.

It appears to be a local Earthling specialty to totally not-is the parts of oneself that aren't conscious. And that doesn't just mean one's subconscious mind, but also what we could call the super-conscious, one's higher level awarenesses and intentions.

A being really exists in multiple dimensions and on many different awareness levels.

It would be very limiting to assume that the person has only one true viewpoint and that everything else is "someone" or "something" else that needs to be run out. That is a very big not-is of oneself as a whole being.

Integrity is the recognition of one's whole being. Recognizing it as a whole whether it is fragmented and split up in various ways or not. It is still you. Recognizing what is you and what isn't is an important ability to regain.

It is not necessarily a desirable goal to be 100% conscious all the time. As a matter of fact that would destroy the whole game of life. You would probably rather want to be able to shift your conscious focus to any part of your total existence that you wish to. If you can access any aspect of yourself at any time if you choose, then you don't really have to worry about it all the time. You can just enjoy life and know that you can always get out of whatever you get into.

The dynamics play an important role in integrity also. If you think that you are only a 1st dynamic, then you aren't recognizing your whole being and will easily act out of integrity. The more dynamics you can encompass and regard as your whole self, the more likely it is that you will act in integrity and what you do will come out well.

The dynamics could be said to be more and more broad cross sections of yourself. So, working for the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics means about the same as acting in the greatest possible integrity.

From the viewpoint of the conscious self integrity might make most sense as "serving the greatest good" or "aligning with one's higher self" or something like that. Most conscious minds need to learn that there are more powerful and knowledgeable parts of themselves and that these parts are to be trusted. At the same time it is important not to fall into the trap of regarding these higher forces as some foreign "master" that is controlling you and that you need to fear. These higher powers are indeed God, but that is because God is You.

From the viewpoint of the whole being one is just doing whatever one feels like. There are no rules and no right or wrong. Whatever you want goes. Crowley said it like this:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."

That is seen from the viewpoint of the whole being. It is often misunderstood to mean that any fragment of a being is free to act on whatever impulse. No, we are talking about the will of the whole person. And that will is per definition always good. Because to the whole there is no fragmentation, no ill feelings, no suffering, no mistakes, no judgment. Crowley also added to the first statement:

"Love is the law, love under will."

Any will that isn't carried out with the love of the whole in mind is out of integrity.

Life becomes much easier if one lives it with integrity. The more of a position of power one is holding, the more necessary it becomes to operate with integrity. Any deviation from integrity will cause a reaction with a force that is proportional to the power one is controlling.

Integrity processing could be said to be various techniques for finding instances of acting out of alignment with one's true intentions and re-aligning oneself. That can include traditional confessional processing, but there are probably many more techniques that could be done. Particularly for higher case levels it doesn't make much sense to pretend that past overts are causing one's present behavior, so a more PT oriented approach would be necessary.