Technical Essay # 113 - Flemming Funch 3 December 1992

Future Incidents

 

The running of future incidents is an interesting part of incident clearing. They can be run in a very similar fashion as past incidents, but with some typical differences.

First of all, time is just a dimension, an artificial, imaginary separation of experiences. Experiences aren't necessarily really separate, but dimensions make them separate, and generally speaking that is very practical. That is in part what makes game playing possible, that we can separate things from each other, put them in different places. So, we don't really want to get rid of dimensions.

Time is a dimension that has some built-in fixed ideas, particularly on this planet at this time. There is general agreement about time being a sort of stream that moves in a certain direction. But most advanced races have realized that there are many probable time streams, all in some state of existence. And they have realized that time is a dimension one can move around in and manifest in different places. Some of them do this with technology, others just spiritually.

The idea that each person is just one person with one time track constituting a linearly ordered sequence of events from the far past up till the present, is rather limiting. It works fairly well for doing introductory incident clearing. Most people would accept the idea of a time track fairly easily, and the other stuff about probable events and simultaneous dimensions and so forth would be too weird anyway. However, sooner or later the over-simplified perception of time will break up and more stuff will become available.

One possible expansion to the traditional time track ideas is that there are future incidents. Actually I wouldn't try to convince anybody that there is a future track, but I might bring up the idea that there could be future stuck incidents.

What is typically the scenario is that people will keep unconfrontable events in their future. Stuff that they don't want to happen and that they are resisting. They don't want it, but since they can't quite confront it, it sticks.

Many of the same principles apply as with a past traumatic incident that is stuck. The future incident is stuck because its contents haven't been fully processed and evaluated. It can cause emotional responses and aberrated reactions in the present. By running it we can clear out any negative effects it has.

Let me give an example. A new client of mine mentioned last week that she was fearful of things that could happen, she worried about the future. When I asked for something specific, she mentioned that she is afraid of the big trucks at her work. Every day part of her job is to wave in delivery trucks to the loading dock. She has to walk behind them to get back into the office, and she worried all the time about the truck suddenly backing up and squashing her.

Now, I could of course have asked her to specify the somatic of fear that she had, and I could have looked for a chain of past incidents. However, that would be very likely to go to past lives and she wasn't quite up to accepting that idea. It was a lot easier to explain that she was putting something in the future that she might want to change. That puts her at cause, and it doesn't require that she believes that something like that DID happen; it is agreed that it is just a mock up.

But there is an incident there alright. I asked her what it is that would happen. Once she looks at it it becomes clear that there is a complete incident already there. She is not making it up, she is just looking at what is there in her future. She has an incident of being crushed to death by a semi truck in great detail. She runs through the first part with ease, but when she gets close to the traumatic part she can't get any further. We change to seeing it from a distance, and she is surprised to find that she does have a viewpoint seeing it from a distance. She can see more of it when she isn't experiencing it from inside. She can see the body lying on the ground, she sees people coming out, she can look through the office windows and see and hear somebody calling an ambulance, etc. Gradually she experiences enough of it to become comfortable with the whole thing. After running through it a few times the plot changes. She no longer gets crushed. She gets past the truck and gets into the office, and happily continues her work. The added perspective of seeing things from a distance made the probable event change, so that the probabilities are now stacked up differently and she isn't afraid of it anymore. She feels very light. She is exterior, as a matter of fact, and it takes a little while to get her grounded again afterwards. The exterior perspective and the lightness from the incident stayed with her and she was very fascinated by it.

One thing that appears to work differently from a past incident is the way the incident changes. It doesn't necessarily just disappear, it turns into something else. When it turns into what you would want to have there, then the running is complete.

I would say that for any kind of incident, the end result is that something changes. You add or take out something about the incident which frees it up and causes it to no longer be stuck and give unwanted reactions. For a past incident what we typically do is that we add the perspective and evaluation of the person today. The incident happened without sufficient consciousness there to evaluate it, so now we go back and add the conscious evaluation and the incident is then no longer a problem.

Typically one wouldn't change the past event itself. One would allow it to be whatever it was, and just understand it better, but change one's mind about it into that is happened for a good reason by one's own causation. One COULD also change the event deliberately, but that is a different technique, not the typical incident running approach.

So, typically we let the past be whatever it was. We just make sure that we get the most out of it. But there is much more reason to change the future. The common agreement is that the future is what you will be doing later on, so you damn well better be sure that it is something you want to do, not something you would hate doing. So, when running a future incident it is usually not enough to just change one's mind about it so that the event is now OK. Just accepting one's fate. No, while we are at it we might just as well make it into something else.

Consider that the future is the co-created reality of everybody involved in it. It basically is what people agree that it is. That is no different from the past; the only difference is that we agree that the future is the part that "hasn't happened yet". But now what if a bunch of people agree that there is a lot of bad things that will happen in the future. Well, if they make it real enough and agree well enough, then they are right. It doesn't mean that they were good at predicting things. It just means that the future is what you make it.

There is nothing that IS the future. It is whatever you are making it now, and if you change your mind about it, the future changes. If a group changes its mind, even better, the future might be greatly different.

It is not that the future doesn't exist. We might for simplicity's sake say that is hasn't happened yet. But actually it is very real. It is just that you change it quite easily, by changing your considerations about what it will be. It might be most comfortable to keep pretending that it is ONLY a mock-up and hasn't happened yet. Otherwise people might start taking the future too seriously, just like they are taking the past too seriously.

I've had several people run out large catastrophes they had in their future. Nuclear holocaust, earthquakes, etc. If enough people do that the future will necessarily change for the better. Particularly the events that there is wide agreement about, like prophesies from Nostradamus or the Bible, would be a prime target of incidents to run out.

It would be reasonable to say that one person who is running out a future group incident is to some degree doing it for everybody. That is, if 100 million people have a nuclear armageddon incident located in 1999, they don't all have to run it out. If enough people run out the incident, the 100th monkey effect will set in. The incident will change for everybody.

As with most stuck, traumatic incidents, the best way of getting access to them is through a somatic. That is usually also the reason we would want to handle them in the first place. There is some undesirable feeling or reaction in present time. The theory says that this is because a frozen incident is being carried forward in present time, instead of just being an event in its own proper time and space. The incident has a mass, a charge to it, which is basically the unfinished but unconfrontable business in it. There is an unfinished cycle of action, a flow that hasn't been delivered.

The future incident works much the same as the past incident. Its charge is being carried forward in present time as an anxiety of some sort. We might not choose to call it an unfinished cycle of action, but in a way it is. It is a cycle of action the person wouldn't be able to confront or allow to complete. It is the kind of event that, if it happens, he would go partially unconscious and get an engram about it. He is just now doing it in advance.

Ideally speaking one would be able to allow anything whatsoever to happen, but would choose only that which one prefers. If there is something that the person can not allow to happen, and he has some stuck attention on it, it might form a future traumatic incident. I guess it could also form other troublesome constructs, but at least in certain cases it becomes a specific future incident with a date and time and location and everything.

One way this can happen is if one somehow gets attention on the possibility that a certain traumatic event might happen, but one can't bear to think the possibility completely through. It could be that somebody would die for example. If just once one realizes that Uncle Joe might die, but then one blanks out and becomes unable to think it through. It creates a frozen half done incident somewhere in the future. One wouldn't do it unless one already has some sort of limitation or reaction. The future incident probably doesn't get created before one starts thinking about it, has an adverse reaction to it, and then leaves the frozen incident there.

I realized that I had an incident of my wife dying in a car accident. The incident had a specific future date and time and location, I could date/locate it very precisely. I ran through it with all its gory details, from all viewpoints I could find, including the time afterwards for me and the kids, and so forth. I realized how that could be a useful experience, what we could all learn from it and so forth. After running it through a few times the incident changed. The truck didn't hit her car after all and she made it to her destination without incident. And then I didn't have the anxiety I had earlier.

Probably the most key thing to include is finding out which lessons one can learn from the incidents. What would you need such an incident for. The only reason an incident would really happen to you would be that it is the best way for you to learn a certain lesson. Now, lessons can be learned without anything traumatic happening, and that is usually more fun. But, if you aren't quite getting it, you aren't quite listening to your own signals, then the gradient gradually gets stepped up. If you are missing some major points in your life, then you might need a major jolt to wake you up. We can avoid the really unpleasant wake-up calls by getting the point in advance.

When you run a future incident you can get the point that you would learn from the incident. You can learn it and change your life accordingly right now, and you don't have to go through the actual incident. For example, if you run a future incident of somebody dying, you might realize that "I should have told her I love her", or "We should have had more fun together". Now, if you take responsibility for that and act on it, you change the future. You learned the lesson, you don't need a violent reminder anymore. We are not talking just a cognition, one would have to really GET IT and act on it.

It would probably be a good idea to run out deaths and accidents for all of one's close family members if one is at all concerned about it. Don't mock it up if it isn't there, but if there is the slightest anxiety, there is probably something to run. Run the incidents until you realize what you would learn from them and until they change to something better.

There is no reason to take future incidents too seriously. Just because one has a little anxiety about a possible future incident doesn't mean that it will happen. There are many other factors, and if you generally have positive intentions for your life, they are likely to prevail. A future incident is just a probable event. It competes with many other probable events to become your reality. But you might just as well stack the odds in the direction of a future you would prefer to live.

If your future is open and fluid, without fixed negative events, and you have positive intentions and flexibility enough to deal with what comes up, then you are sure to have a bright one.

Technical Essay # 114 - Flemming Funch 3 December 1992

Multi-Threaded Processes

 

In computer terminology a process that is happening in several streams at the same time is called multi-threaded. That is that you divide a task into several sub-tasks, threads, that can take place simultaneously. A computer that can do this can also be called multi-tasking. It does several things at the same time. For example, if we wanted 10 files alphabetized, we could divide the job into 10 threads that were all happening simultaneously, rather than having them done sequentially one by one.

Traditionally processing has been done sequentially. You restimulate one subject at a time and you run through the things that are happening one at a time until the process is done. However, this isn't really how people work. People do billions of things at the same time. To run a process standardly the pc would have to force most of his internal processes to stay the same for the duration of the process and only to change in one specific area.

I have noticed for myself that it has become increasingly difficult for me to do only one thing at a time over the last few years. For example, I can not run a regular process without getting a lot of other things out of it at the same time. I would get into a bunch of subjects simultaneously and quickly get into different areas than what we started with. I don't have a problem with that, I get much more out of it that way. But it would drive a traditional auditor nuts. According to traditional auditor wisdom it is a bad indicator if the pc doesn't stay in the same groove. But there might be a reason to re-think that a bit.

For me personally I could say that because I have done a lot of processing I have gotten free enough to get into more stuff at the same time. That might be so, but there is also a wider phenomenon. Many of the people I have in session, also new people, are much less likely to stay neatly on one cycle at a time than they were just a few years ago.

This fits quite well with the changes that seem to be happening on a mass-consciousness level on the planet currently. People are getting more multi-dimensional, and linear time is breaking up. That might be disturbing to some, but basically it means that people are "going up the bridge" all by themselves, just by living their lives. Of course there must be some big beings out there helping us out a great deal for this to happen, and that is perfectly alright with me. Exactly how this is being done, I don't know, it is way beyond me. But it is quite obvious that wide scale changes are happening, and I think it is wise to adjust to them.

In the sessions I do on people I have found it necessary to adjust my style over the last few years. I still finish the cycles of actions I start. But I find it necessary to be able to juggle several or many open cycles at the same time. You start cycle A, but before you get very far cycle B starts and you have to deal with that. Before you get to finish it cycle C starts. They might be running at the same time. Eventually they all get finished, but probably not in the order they got started in.

For example, I might start a simple repetitive type process on a client, like "What would you like to look at?" After running for a little while, the process turns up a somatic with attached incidents, a service fac, and a polarity. I could do it the old fashioned way and just continue running the same question until everything goes away. But that doesn't work as well as it used to. And certainly, "What would you like to look at?" is not really a good way of handling service facs or polarities. What I would probably do is to switch over to the process that would be most effective for the most available piece of case at the moment. That is, I would handle a service fac with service fac brackets, I would handle a polarity with polarity clearing, a persistent somatic with incident clearing, etc. Often the more effective technique would at the same time handle the thing we started with, but sometimes it wont. I then go back to any incomplete cycles and complete those with the best tools I have available.

This might seem a lot more messy than traditional rote processing. I'd actually say it is a lot more thorough and precise, in that you handle a lot more of what comes up. It is more difficult to do than just repeating the same command without variation, but it is much faster and more effective.

I would claim that the days of linear processing are numbered. The people who still work perfectly standardly as pcs are mostly the people who have thoroughly agreed that they are supposed to. New people who haven't been indoctrinated usually work differently.

If we allow processes to work on many levels at once I dare say that we should be able to get more gain per unit of time. Obviously we are moving faster if the client gets to finish 10 case cycles simultaneously in the same time that it would take him to finish just one in a linear fashion.

I find myself in life also having many more threads running at the same time. For example, I am usually writing on about 5 or 10 different projects at the same time, and I am reading about 10 books at the same time. I used to think that there was something wrong with that and that I had a problem finishing my cycles of action. Not necessarily. I get much more done if I have many threads to choose from and I can always choose the one that is most advantageous at the time.

Same thing with processing. It used to be a very bad thing if people were doing several types of case action at the same time. Nowadays it is practically impossible to avoid and I don't see much of a problem with it. We can't expect a client to come back a week later and not have done some kind of case action in the meantime. Clients no longer stay the same from session to session, and I think that is great. It just takes a different kind of thinking to be of help to the client. We need to continuously get him where he is at, and not where some arbitrary program says that he should be at.

Technical Essay # 115 - Flemming Funch 4 December 1992

Holons

Various philosophies have discussed the subject of what happens when a whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts. We can address this from a spiritual angle, a psychological angle, or a physical angle, the phenomenon is roughly the same.

Gestalt Therapy, Holism, Holodynamics, and Holonomics are some of the disciplines that primarily focus on this idea. Here are a couple of dictionary definitions to start us off:

Several pieces put together can form a new whole with some kind of independent existence. We can break a whole into several parts and each part will have some kind of independent existence. It is all relative to where we see it from if we are talking about wholes or parts.

Simply put we can say that anything whatsoever is made out of consciousness (theta) and we can regard anything as either part of a whole or as a separate existence.

We can regard any portion of the universe as either a conscious self-contained unit, a being, or we can regard it as just an aspect of the whole universe. And that goes for thetans, bodies, entities, MEST, attention units, thought-forms, etc.

If we start with any arbitrary piece of existence we can go in two possible directions with it. We can integrate it into a bigger whole, or we can fragment it into smaller parts or aspects. Or, we could leave it alone, of course.

If we take a being, we can divide it into smaller somewhat autonomous units. Some people will vehemently refuse this theory, but I don't really care. It is practical to pretend that we can divide a being and it does make a lot of things easier to explain. For one thing beings usually have what they call a mind. That is a part of themselves, but they pretend that it is something else. The mind can have different portions to it, such as a conscious mind and a sub-conscious mind. It could have a reactive mind if you decide that it does.

There are attention units. You can basically leave a piece of yourself in some location, or time, or on some subject, or person. That piece will basically stay there and perform some simple function for you, like reminding you or keeping you informed. You might leave a small or bigger portion of yourself, a smaller or larger number of attention units. They aren't necessarily quantifiable, but it makes it easier to talk about them. And you don't necessarily have a limited supply of them either.

One might leave pieces of oneself around that act more or less as full thetans. Captain Bill called these MOCOs (Moment Of Creation Of viewpoints = Created Viewpoints). These might also potentially go off an become other people's entities.

Probably the bigger a piece of the whole we are dealing with, the more powerful and the more conscious will it be. But basically any being of any size or kind has the same right to exist and possibly the same right to self-determinism.

Then what if we go the other way and combine stuff into bigger wholes? See, it doesn't have to be the parts that "originally" went together. Put any set of pieces together and some kind of whole will come out of it. We can take a random collection of different people and put them together with some kind of common purpose or reality. They will then not just be some individual people, there will be a group reality that will start forming. That group reality will have a life of its own, a mind of its own, and a case of its own for that matter.

There is such a things a mass-consciousness. Large groups of people will together create consciousnesses that are alive in themselves. They will get to influence their members beyond what can be explained by individual connections.

A body is a whole consisting of cells. Each cell is a separate unit, but when they are all together they form something much more impressive than just a bunch of cells. A billion amoebae in one place just don't form a human brain. But something can take place that makes a bigger whole out of the component parts.

An anthill full of ants become much more organized than one would expect from its component parts. A bunch of apparently aimless little ants running around and bumping into each other, and together they end up being an amazingly effective machine.

A specific 2nd dynamic, or 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th dynamic, all of them take on a life greater than the sum of their parts. And each dynamic represents a greater and greater conscious whole, all the way up to the 8th dynamic which would be basically infinite consciousness as a whole.

So there is an incredible range of consciousness, going towards ultimate wholeness at the top, and towards ultimate fragmentation at the bottom. The scale is probably infinite and it probably encompasses anything and everything. A grouping of consciousness can occur on any level or combination of levels. A grouping will be an integrated whole that can function as a unit. Any such grouping will always be part of a bigger whole, and it will always have smaller parts or aspects to itself.

We are in lack of a name that would cover all of these groupings of consciousness. Thetans, attention units, MEST particles, mass consciousnesses, dynamics, thoughts, valences, archetypes, entities, creations, etc.

Words have been used like Gestalt or Holodyne, but they are mostly addressed to the aggregate groupings and don't quite fit smaller units. We need a new word I think. The best suggestion I have heard is "Holon", a word originally coined by Arthur Koestler. It covers both the idea of being whole and of being one unit of something. It can be used about a Thetan, an entity, any created structure, thoughtform, group agreement or whatever.

A Holon is an aggregate of consciousness working in some fashion as one unit. It might consist of smaller units with independent activities. It might be part of a bigger unit. What makes the holon a holon is that it has some kind of commonality of purpose with itself, and it has a game of its own. It has freedoms and barriers and purposes.

What we have called a Thetan is a Holon, a body could be regarded as a Holon, your bridge club could be a Holon, your thoughts on a certain subject could be a Holon, Mankind is a Holon, God or the Devil are Holons, Santa Claus is a Holon.

It all depends on the viewpoint one takes. If we just say "everything is Holons" we haven't accomplished much. It is all relative to what aspect of life you are studying and what you are trying to accomplish. If we are looking at the relationship between individual people we would probably regard each person as a Holon and their relationship as one Holon or maybe a few Holons depending on which kind of relationships they have in different situations. We wouldn't bother about the cells in their bodies or about mankind or the Andromeda galaxy.

In a way this can be regarded as a logical tool, a way of systematically studying or analyzing things. Korzybsky, who invented General Semantics, talked a lot about wholes and parts and different logical levels. He was trying to get people to take the whole into consideration and to think in infinite scales. He didn't intend this spiritually at all, it was purely in the realm of logic.

NLP deals a lot with different levels of logic also. One talks about chunk size, that is how big a chunk of everything that you are dealing with at one time. E.g. "Vehicles" is a bigger chunk than "Bus" which is a bigger chunk than "Wheel". One can "chunk up" to seeing things more generally, more globally, the bigger, broader, more simple all-encompassing picture. Or one can "chunk down" to study more detail, more practical, down to earth matters, more precise intricacies, complexities, special cases, exact application, etc.

One could probably base a business consulting approach on some technology of dealing with Holons presented in logical business language. There doesn't have to be anything metaphysical about it. One could work out what the logical conceptual units are that are involved in a business, e.g. "Customers", "Management", "Sales people", and the interesting ones would be the more hidden constructs like "The reorganization last year", "The Future", "The business climate". Holons could have been formed by group engrams, by some kind of common agreement, superstition or whatever. By then running some kind of process that aligns the relationships between these Holons one could probably create miracles.

If we regard a Holon as an alive spiritual entity or as a logical unit doesn't really matter much. Actually it is probably best to not make too many agreements on what it IS. It is whatever it is.

Now, in processing this could be used for making more of a unifying idea of what we are really addressing. See, it will always be some kind of Holon that will be the target of a clearing process. There is no point in just generally doing a process, that easily gets lost in significance. It is run to benefit somebody or something. It is too glib to just say that it is for the Thetan. That easily becomes a service fac, a way of not looking at what is actually going on.

The thing is, the actual You isn't really a Holon. You aren't really anything that is limited, that has any kind of categorization or fragmentation to it. We defined a Static as a potential without any location, mass, wavelength etc. That is probably quite close. But as to the word Thetan it got degraded over time to be something IN a universe, IN a body, AT a certain time. You might be operating such a thing, and it is a Holon, but it isn't the real You then. The true you is the observer that makes things happen, who is infinite potential, but who has no limited qualities.

For practical reasons you might identify with Holons. You might say, "I went to the store", or "I went exterior", etc. talking about your Body/Mind/Thetan unit or about your Thetan. That is not a problem out in life as long as you don't take it too seriously.

But in session, it can easily become confusing what we are talking about when we say "Me" and "You" and "I". Those words really have no meaning in themselves, it all depends on what they are related to. If you don't connect them with a specific Holon you can get into all kinds of mish-mash of cross restimulation and confusion.

The real You doesn't need any clearing. Clearing is always addressed at some specific unit, a Holon. If you want to address it to a viewpoint in your head, that is fine. If you want to address it to a certain Body/Mind unit, that is fine. If you want to address it to "Joe, the scuba diver" or some other specific Holon, that is fine. But, there needs to be a specific Holon we are dealing with.

It is not that you have to mention it every minute. The key thing is that the person must connect with what it is we are dealing with. Not just talk about it, but connect with it. That is a little hard to explain in words, but there is a certain quality of connecting with something rather than just with the idea of something.

We find the same concept in the difference between assigning a label to a somatic and actually FEELING the somatic. You might know that you have a certain feeling sometimes and you might call it "An anxiety in my stomach". But if you don't actually connect with that feeling and feel it in PT we aren't going to process it very well. Many people have a hard time recognizing the difference between the actual thing and a symbol for it. One of the key objectives in Clearing, in my opinion, is to get people to connect with what is actually there instead of with some idea of what is there. Aberration is observed when people act and react based on facsimiles, symbols, valences, ideas, and so forth, instead of what is actually there.

One of the ways of knowing the difference is that when you connect with the real thing it is beyond words. You might describe it with words, but it isn't words. It is specific perceptions, not any kind of precise label.

OK, there will be degrees of that also of course. It is doubtful if we can ever say that one connects with what is REALLY there. The best we can probably do is to connect with the actual present time perceptions, rather than with symbols, memories of old perceptions and so forth. Instead of getting secondary and tertiary representations we want the first hand information.

So, I am saying that whatever it is that we want to address or deal with in a session, there is something quite tangible and perceptible we can connect with in present time. There is a Holon there. That Holon is kind of an alive structure or entity that we can communicate with. It is a dynamic construct. If we get a fixed idea we also know that we don't have the real thing.

Let me give another example. I talked with Rowland Barkley about the subject of being an author and writing books and he put my attention of an angle of it that I had overlooked. See, I know the datum that to write a book it is a good idea if you visualize what kind of audience you are writing for. I had thought of that as just something you mock up and label, sort of a demographic profile. "New age professionals who want to be more successful" or some such description. What I realized is that there is a big difference between doing that and actually connecting with an audience out there. It is not just an idea. If I want to write a book, there is a potential audience out there. They are actual beings, or Holons if you will, that are there in present time. I can spiritually or psychically connect with them, link up with them, find out what they are about and what they want. Not guess at it, or calculate it, or mock it up - actually reach them and establish a connection. There needs to be an actual exchange of energy. When I put out my perceptions I realized that there was an actual audience there and that changed my whole sense of what I was doing. That is similar to what is done on certain advanced rundowns, such as the Phoenix. I have done that, but I didn't think of linking it up with a real life project I wanted to do.

This is something to explore more, but I think there is a basis of very practical uses of this theory and it can make clearing more simple and effective in some areas.

Technical Essay # 116 - Flemming Funch 5 December 1992

Resistive Factors

 

There are certain factors or characteristics of a client that might cause processing to work poorly or to not work at all. I would like to give my updated list of what they are.

First of all I must say that there isn't really such a thing as a resistive client or a resistive case. We only use words like that to cover up that the clearing practitioner sometimes is lacking ways of helping certain types of people. It is really a fault with the practitioner, not with the client. Well, really it is nobody's fault, it is simply that sometimes we have to handle certain specific factors before processing in general will work. It is a function of the overall model of clearing and its limitations. It is not that certain people are bad people.

We could say that there is a certain ideal scene for how people will work in session. There is a certain list of characteristics of an ideal client. If they can do these things then a relatively skilled practitioner can always help them. This is what I would call an ideal client:

1. Knows that he can change.
2. Knows that his progress is found in areas he doesn't consciously know about yet.
3. Realizes that he is the cause over his own condition. (but might not know HOW yet)
4. Can connect with the actual perceptions he has in present time, particularly feelings.
5. Realizes he has multiple aspects and levels of awareness, some of them sub-conscious.
6. Is willing to let go of his conscious control and let his file clerk mechanism provide answers.
7. Believes that he should be able to experience anything.
8. Admits that he has non-optimum conditions in his life.
9. Will value improvements to his condition.

If the person agrees with those points I can help him very quickly and very profoundly. Notice that I am not necessarily talking about a high level of case. All I need is some agreement in those areas. For all that matter he might have read these ideas in a book and thought they were a good idea. He might be very screwed up and have all kinds of problems and aberrations. He might not have the foggiest idea how or why. But if he realizes those basic points I can very quickly help him find out.

I don't really care how the person got to realize those points. He might have been forcefully indoctrinated with them by some authority, or they might just have come to him some morning. The more thoroughly he realizes those data and the more he is really aware of them the better. They don't do much good if they are just fixed ideas, we need some kind of dynamic awareness of them.

It is not that those rules are ultimate truths. It is more that they are pre-suppositions to processing, at least to the kind of processing that I do. They make the processing work. If they are out I have a hard time knowing what to do, some cogs in the clearing machine are missing.

If we reverse these points, we represent them as resistive factors in a client:

1. He doesn't know that he can change.
2. He already has solutions, knows best, and rejects possible new avenues.
3. Thinks he is effect, and somebody is doing it to him.
4. Figure-figure case, is living in a facsimile, out of touch with objective reality.
5. Thinks that he is only his conscious mind and nothing else.
6. Must stay in control, must know in advance exactly what will happen.
7. Refuses anything unknown, unfamiliar, or unpleasant as a safe solution in life.
8. Doesn't perceive anything non-optimum or doesn't admit it.
9. Has a vested interest in being generally screwed up.

These lists are just off-the-cuff, they aren't particularly complete. However they do include most of the traditional "seven resistive cases" albeit from a different angle. Let's elaborate and make some examples.

1. Most people who come in for a session already think that they can change. Otherwise they would probably have stayed home. However, some people come for different reasons, possibly to prove that indeed they can't change. It might be a very solid belief that change just isn't possible. Usually it is handled by proving otherwise for them, but sometimes they have their mind rigged so that it always comes out the same. The fixed idea must be found and changed before anything else is possible.

2. Some people want to change but they already have a fixed way of doing it. Interestingly that applies to many scientologists. They will only allow change to happen through a method they recognize as "standard tech". Basically that means that the client insists on controlling the practitioner's work based on some fixed ideas of what is "correct". The client is of course out of session then. If the practitioner does the "right" thing, the client will go along with it and get some results, but the progress is much slower than if he would be willing to let the practitioner guide the process. To get better results we must handle the service fac'y ideas about what is right. This is basically the former-practices case, and scientology might be a former practice.

3. Being fixated in effect conditions is basically PTS-ness. The EP of just about any process is to be more at cause over the subject. The client starts out as effect and becomes cause. That generally works fine except for when the client believes it isn't possible to be cause. Often that is handled easily with a bit of philosophical discussion. He might just not have thought it possible that one could be cause, and if somebody with a bit of authority tells him so he might get very relieved and go along with it. However some people will be so overwhelmed by one or more effect conditions that they can't accept the idea that they are basically cause. We might have to handle those situations before they will do well in processing. Increasing their responsibility on a gradient is another avenue.

4. Some people have themselves pasted so thoroughly into a network of symbols and facsimiles that the idea of connecting to objective reality is foreign to them. What makes that tricky is that they usually have no idea and will eloquently outline how they are perfectly well in contact with reality. It is the intellectual, all significance, figure-figure case. Drugs, former practices, out-valence, and out-lists can produce this, but don't necessarily. Objectives would in principle handle this, but usually this kind of case would find objectives ridiculous and wouldn't do them on their own determinism. Valence handlings could work well in bringing them to be there as themselves so they could start perceiving that there is something else there also.

5. Thinking that they are just ONE viewpoint is common amongst scientologists also. Regarding everything but what you are conscious of as something foreign to get rid of. That is a little akin to out-int, not being comfortable with the possibility of having several viewpoints that are all you. It mostly comes out of former-practice fixed ideas that are fueled by non-responsibility. Often it is handled simply by locating some sub-conscious part of them that is found to be doing some positive and necessary function for them. Or by a certain amount of multiple viewpoint processing.

6. If the person is very afraid of losing control it can be hard to get very far. This is often a skeptical person who doesn't feel comfortable just giving in to the process. They would give answers they already know and would be very skeptical about past lives and stuff like that. It is usually handled on a gradient by tricking them into getting some kind of file-clerk answer that turns out to be useful.

7. A person who maintains a delicate balance in life by only surrounding themselves with known, familiar things is difficult to move anywhere else. Processing will necessarily get into unfamiliar territory. We would need to free up the fixedness of the client's current condition before we could expect to get other change.

8. To start a process the client must have some kind of awareness of something to handle and some kind of wish for it to change. He has to take the first step to some degree and hand out something we can work with. If he doesn't we can't very well handle it. Usually this is taken care of gradually by indoctrination and by making the person feel comfortable enough to offer his imperfections.

9. For some people a state of generally being messed up is safe. If you handle one aspect they create another one. The state of being free or clean is too scary or too unfamiliar for them. This would be some kind of continuous overts or PTS situation. There would be too much bad stuff to take responsibility for if they really got better. But we will have to handle that situation first before we really get anywhere.

I haven't found physical illness in itself to create a resistive case, except for in the form of the other resistive factors or because the person is pumped full of drugs and is out of reach. Sometimes a person might be sick as a safe solution and that would have to be addressed.

I haven't noticed past drug use in itself creating a resistive case. Only when the person has then adopted other resistive factors also, then the drug use only makes it worse. But some people process perfectly fine despite a heavy drug history.

Former practices are only a problem if the person has adopted them as fixed solutions or gone to a fixed extreme in some direction. Some people who have meditated a lot process wonderfully. Other people have used meditation to go totally out of touch with reality into a facsimile world.

So, I don't find it to be useful to automatically categorize cases as resistive based on their past history. It all depends on what they are doing right now.

The resistive factors given above overlap a good deal. We could probably simplify matters and group them into these main categories:

A. (1,3,8,9) Must stay effect. Using a no-change, effect condition as a safe solution.
B. (4,5) Must stay disconnected. Out of touch with perceptions of self or the world.
C. (2,6,7) Must stay at cause. Terrified of the unknown or of losing control.

All of it adds up to some fixed safe condition that keeps the person where he is at and makes it unsafe to reach into new unfamiliar territory. In that light service facs and their handling becomes the central theme. I would say that no case is resistive except for the one that has to be right about something that is contrary to the principles (pre-suppositions) of processing.

In processing we move around between different positions and free up that which is fixed and non-optimum. The client must be willing to be both cause and effect. He is effect of the process and the practitioner to some degree. He is cause when he looks in his mind and responds. We address areas where he is effect and when we are done with them he is cause. We connect with different areas, or disconnect from them, or stay unconnected to them.

A person who has very fixed conditions in those areas doesn't process well. If he HAS to be effect, or he HAS to be cause, then of course he can't just switch back and forth between them as is necessary to run a process. If he HAS to be disconnected from things, then of course we have a hard time getting him in touch with stuff to process. If he HAS to stay connected, then it is of course hard to get him out of anything.

Just about everybody has some element of these resistive factors. That doesn't make them resistive. Also, a case that would appear resistive to one practitioner can work very smoothly with another practitioner. The more flexible and skilled the practitioner is the less important resistiveness is. There is nothing absolute about resistiveness. If the practitioner is good enough any case will run perfectly fine.

We could say that the grade chart is to some degree just the handling of the factors that would hinder clearing. That is, everybody has resistive factors. At the moment we have handled all of them they are Clear and they don't really need the practitioner any more. They can handle case on their own in life.

Technical Essay # 117 - Flemming Funch 7 December 1992

Exteriorization

This is the definition of Exteriorize from Webster's New World Dictionary:

I had never looked it up in a regular dictionary before. That is actually a very useful definition. You exteriorize something by giving it an external form or objective character. When you have succeeded in doing that, that something is then exteriorized.

Notice that we have been using it the other way around. No wonder people have been confused about exteriorization. If you are BEING a Thetan then it is kind of tricky to exteriorize it. It makes a lot more sense to exteriorize something by realizing that you are NOT it.

So, you would exteriorize the BODY, not the Thetan. If you can assign an external objective quality to the body then you have exteriorized it.

This thing of exteriorizing Thetans is too much like the extraction of souls to not be confusing. That is not what Hubbard intended. He made sure to clarify that you ARE the Thetan, it is not something you HAVE. That is fine, but it creates a bit of a problem in exteriorization. It is a lot easier to exteriorize something you have than something you are. Actually that which you are is per definition not exteriorized. Only that which you are NOT is exteriorized.

The original idea was that a Thetan was a Static without mass, location, wavelength, etc. However the word was never really used that way. "Theta" was used much more as a Static. But "Thetan" was used as a unit that could move around in space, go through implant stations, get stuck in heads of bodies, be big or small, etc. Obviously we are then talking about something with space, time, and energy. This makes it rather confusing to figure out what one really is.

Starting with the pre-supposition that you are a static is a splendid idea. Let's not stray too far away from that. That means for one thing NO LOCATION. You don't need to move anywhere and you can't get stuck anywhere. The moment you think that YOU need to move then you have identified yourself with something MESTy that has location.

Stay where you are and move the stuff in and out of your space that you want or don't want there. If you want a body to be external then you give it some external objective qualities and right away it is. You don't have to GO anywhere to accomplish that.

You are the one in charge of your reality. You are not just a guest in somebody else's reality. There is no reason you shouldn't regard yourself as the center of your own reality. You are much more than any THING so you don't really have to identify with anything.

It is not that there is anything wrong with becoming stuff, that is, interiorizing it. That is often what one does in a game, one identifies with some piece of the game, or at least with some attitude or state of mind. You might keep the pieces exteriorized, but the desire to win and the concentration interiorized.

But you can't very effectively change something you are identifying with. Certainly you can't be very rational about it. To adjust something well you need to exteriorize it from yourself first. Self-auditing never worked very well. You need some kind of distance to what you are dealing with.

See the problem of getting a Thetan cleared? It is less of a problem on lower grades where the person hasn't yet fully identified with being a Thetan who is cause, is separate from the body, etc. But once you are really a Thetan, what do you handle then?

This is a good explanation for why many advanced levels have degraded into attempting to handle "Other Thetans". See, if you are BEING your own Thetan, you can't do much for it. So, to do something at all you start concentrating on everybody else. That is a little silly since it was probably yourself you wanted to do something for in the beginning. It works as a technique, but if you never realize that your own case is the target you might get way off the track.

If there is any quality you wish to handle in session, the obvious first step is to exteriorize it. It must become separate from you to some extent. It must get some kind of objective quality so you can perceive it. You can't perceive what you are being. So, you exteriorize what you want to handle first. That doesn't mean that it is "not yours". It just means that you are currently not identifying with it. While it is exterior to you you can adjust it, optimize it, get rid of it, add to it, or whatever you wish to do. If it still has use to you, you would then again interiorize it, become it. And, voila, you have apparently changed yourself.

There never was a problem exteriorizing You. Except for the problem you are making by trying to exteriorize that which you identify with. There are lots of things you are exterior to or that are exterior to you. Don't tell me you can't look at a Coke can from a distance without becoming it. Of course you can do that, that's easy, because you probably don't have any desire to BE a Coke can. So, you exteriorize very well already.

The ability to exteriorize specific pieces of one's mind in order to adjust them is essential to clearing. It might sometimes take a little work, but there is no reason to make it impossible by rigging the definitions so that there are things you can't exteriorize from you. You can exteriorize anything, including the unit you might call a Thetan.

The words Externalize and Internalize cover a similar concept, but not quite the same. But they could be spare words to use if necessary. It might be hard for many to get out of their accepted idea of what "exteriorization" should be, so other words might be required.

Association and Dissociation are again words covering a similar concept. Association is when you are connected up with something. Dissociation is when you are disconnected from it.

These words are often mixed up with each other, but there are distinct differences between them. Interiorization/Exteriorization is if you are BEING it, or considering it as different from you. Association/Dissociation is if you are CONNECTED with it or disconnected from it. Internalizing/Externalizing refers to if you have something INSIDE your mind or OUTSIDE your mind.

Exteriorization isn't really anything very mystical or metaphysical. It is simply the ability to perceive something as separate from you. You are the one who does that. It doesn't depend on anything else but what you decide.

Technical Essay # 118 - Flemming Funch 8 December 1992

Resociation

 

What we are doing in processing is to help people optimize their realities.

A reality is some kind of aggregate structure, an association of many different components, that constitutes the world that the person perceives.

Any component of a reality can be regarded as a whole in itself or as a part of some bigger structure. It has both independent existence and is dependent on other circumstances. It is what we can call a Holon, something that is both a whole separate unit and a junior part, depending of how we look at it.

So, a reality consists of a lot of Holons with associations between them. We can say that the Holons are in themselves associations. That is, we decide to group a certain chunk of stuff particularly closely together and pretend that it is one thing or concept.

Before we get too deep into abstraction, let's have some examples. Joe is a person with a certain reality. That is, Joe has past experiences that have taught him certain things, and given him certain types of behavior. He has considerations about what the world around him is, and he sees it through certain perceptual filters. When Joe drives by the golden arches of McDonald's on the street certain associations in his mind become active. It triggers memories of the many times he has enjoyed a meal at McDonalds. It connects the taste and feel of a hamburger with his current state and he becomes hungry. Certain bodily movements have been associated with each other to mean "drive a car", so Joe turns the car into the parking lot quite automatically. And it seems perfectly real and normal to him to go through the actions that gets him a burger in his hand. After eating it he concludes: "That was nice", which is another set of associations.

A great number of things are associated in the mind. Perceptions, concepts, memories, words, feelings, considerations, identities, etc. But it is not just limited to what one has stored up inside one's "mind". One can associate other people in various ways, any part of the external world can be associated with any other part, and with any part of your inner world. Past, present, and future events in multiple dimensions can be associated with each other in an endless number of ways. A tremendous complexity is possible.

But, in all simplicity we are only talking about associations.

A person associates things a certain way. That is how he maintains his reality. Now, if the person comes in for processing it is probably because he wants to change something. He is not quite enjoying his reality as much as he would like to, and he would like for it to change.

There is nothing wrong with having a reality. All that might be needed is for it to be reconfigured a little bit. That is just a matter of optimizing the associations.

A person considers himself to be associated with certain things (people, places, subjects, behaviors, feelings, thoughts, etc.). And he considers certain things to be associated with each other in various structures. Other things he considers to be dissociated from himself, or dissociated from each other. And what he considers to be "things" in the first place are associations of certain qualities and symbols.

If Joe comes in for a session, maybe he wishes to handle that he gets "nervous" when he is "under pressure". First of all he associates some symbols with each other. "Nervous" is connected with "pressure". That doesn't tell us much though. Next step would be to find out what kind of package is behind each of those two entities. What package of perceptions constitute the state of "nervous"? What package of events, perceptions, thoughts, etc. constitute the package of being "under pressure"? Gradually we find out more and more about what Joe has associated with what. That will most likely give us a clue about what should be associated differently. To simplify things, maybe we find that Joe associates "pressure" with somebody saying words like "rush", or "hurry" to him. We can rewire those associations so that Joe might consider himself an active, valuable person because people give him responsibility for important matters. As to the nervousness we might find that the state Joe was talking about was one he had 20 years ago when he had a stomach ache. When we do some incident clearing on it the two things become dissociated. And we might help Joe to associate with some more useful feelings as a replacement. After we have done these things Joe will probably consider that his situation has been handled. What we did was to rearrange his associations.

This rearranging of associations we can call RESOCIATION. I just made that up, I couldn't find it in the dictionary, but it is pretty obvious. So, processing is basically about resociating stuff so that it is more optimum.

That is about the most simple and elegant model I have ever bumped into. It covers not only clearing, but anything that works (or doesn't work) in any therapy or practice whatsoever. It doesn't require you to believe anything weird in order to change. Actually anything you might believe would just be an association anyway, so it is also subject to change if it doesn't serve you.

Usually it is your internal reality that you would want to change, even when it might seem otherwise. Like, if you have trouble with "cars" it isn't really the cars that is the trouble, it is the associations you have made internally between perceptions, incidents, feelings, symbols, etc. In order to change this stuff you must first exteriorize it so you can consider it separate from yourself. When you have the associations clearly in view exterior to yourself you can then see what they are and you can change them to something better. Then you can again interiorize the associations and get on with your life.

This is a very simplified sequence of steps for change, then:

Or more simply:

Exteriorize --> Resociate --> Interiorize.

Technical Essay # 119 - Flemming Funch 8 December 1992

Holarchies

 

Arthur Koestler invented a model and some words that can be quite useful for our purposes in studying the philosophy behind processing. Bob Thomas brought the concepts of a Holon and a Holarchy to my attention in this context. He is using Holon to mean basically a being of any kind, and Holarchy (or Holoarchy) as meaning a hierarchically organized structure of various types of case, beings, entities, etc. I am probably twisting the words around further here. Bob also coined the word "Holosophy" as a name for the overall study of life, the universe, and everything.

Holarchy is a word coined as a combination between the Greek word 'holos' meaning whole and the word 'hierarchy'. Here is an example of a Holarchy, taken from biology:

It is a structure of units or entities called Holons. Each Holon could be regarded as either a whole or as a part depending on how one looks at it. A Holon will look as a whole to those parts beneath it in the hierarchy, but it will look as a part to the wholes above it.

This dualism is a key concept in this universe. Just about anything you would choose to study could be regarded as either an independent whole or as a part of something bigger. A lot of interesting and puzzling phenomena come out of this. It creates dichotomies of independence versus integration, self-determinism versus pan-determinism, competition versus cooperation, cause versus effect, etc.

Neither of the two extremes provide a complete theory for understanding life. We can't just say that everything is separate and doesn't depend on anything else. We can't say either that everything is being controlled by something else. Seems that we have to juggle the apparent self-contradiction of everything being both cause and effect depending on how you look at it.

What becomes interesting for the purpose of clearing is to see how beings fit into this picture. It has been common to regard a Thetan as a totally independent, self-determined unit that can be full cause. But that makes it a bit puzzling to figure out how a Thetan develops a case and how he interacts with other Thetans who are also full cause. It might be more satisfactory to adopt some of the Holarchy/Holon model.

This becomes more clear if we draw a Holarchy along the lines of the dynamics:

One person observed as an individual can be fully self-determined. He can basically think and do whatever he wants. We can regard one individual as a whole. But that person probably has some close interaction with people around him, he probably has family and friends. We find that the individual as a part of some relationship is not just self-determined. He will cooperate with the other individuals and might work at doing what is best for them as a whole. And when we look at a group we find that individuals and particular relationships become even more sub-ordinate. If you are working for a company you have to be there on time, do certain things that somebody else assigns to you and so forth. If you do that well and you cooperate with the other members of the group it allows the group to function as a whole. But that is not the end of it. The group will engage in competition with other groups. But if we go one step up we find that all the groups belong to the same overall race of people. Maybe they will cooperate for the good of mankind and the race can become a whole. And so forth.

The higher we go in the holarchy the more freedom and the more overall range of activity can be observed. If you command a universe there is so much more you can do than if you just move one individual human being around. But then again, a universe is just part of something bigger that it is sub-ordinate to.

We could say that the higher we go the closer we get to a statement of the true basic nature of things. It is much more true to say that the real You is an 8th dynamic than to say that you are just one little human being. We could possibly say that there is an absolute, infinite top of the scale, All-that-is, that isn't part of anything else. But any other concept, beingness, or grouping of any kind is inherently both a part and a whole.

A single person we sit down to get a session is obviously not all there is. There are other people and other stuff around that the person is sub-ordinated to to some degree. But we can still treat the person as a whole and work with the stuff that is sub-ordinated to him.

The processing we do with an individual is to a large degree involved with sorting out the relationships between different parts of him. Parts of him have become independent units that might be in all sorts of conflicts with each other. From the perspective of the individual that is not very desirable. What we would therefore do is to locate those conflicting parts and to bring them into alignment with each other. We would thereby establish more integration. That is, we would make the individual a more integrated person, more wholly himself and not as fragmented.

It becomes obvious that we can optimize a certain whole by re-aligning its parts. And just as obvious that if we want to handle higher level wholes we would move up in the holarchy. We can make one individual more integrated by working with his parts. But if we want to make the group he is part of work better, then we need to move up further. We would have to get the actual group into session, not just one of its parts, one individual.

A Holon is a node in a Holarchy. A Holon looks up for what it needs to cooperate with and integrate with. It looks sideways for what it needs to compete with. It looks down for what it needs to command. Each holon can not be fully explained by or predicted by a study of its parts. It is something more. A Holon is also part of something bigger. But at the same time it has a high degree of autonomy, it has a life of its own.

To sort out a conflict between Holons one needs to take a step up to the next higher whole and to establish more integration and cooperation among its parts. For example, to sort out a conflict between two people we can't resolve it just by looking into their individual minds. But if we take a step up and examine what kind of relationship they have, or what kind of group they are both part of we can then work to establish cooperation.

Likewise, if several parts of a person are in conflict with each other we don't get much resolution from examining just those parts in themselves. We need to take a step up and examine what the whole person is about. Only then can we align the parts with the whole and make them more integrated.

Now, life isn't really a nicely organized hierarchy. A clean model is a useful tool to work with in making sense out of things. However reality consist just as much of cross-associations. Parts of wholes might associate with parts of other wholes, thereby creating new wholes that can again be split into parts, and so forth ad infinitum. That is what makes life a challenging puzzle. But the tool of looking at one holarchy or one holon at a time is valuable in figuring things out. Each Holon can be considered an integral entity. It connects upwards towards bigger wholes and downwards towards smaller parts.

No man is an island. He is a Holon.

Technical Essay # 120 - Flemming Funch 9 December 1992

Exteriorized Indicators

 

If your eyesight is working well you probably aren't noticing your eyes, you just look at things. If your ears are working well you notice the sounds around you, you probably don't notice your ears.

But if your eyes are nearsighted you might feel the muscles straining. If there are small lesions on your eyes you would notice small spots in your field of vision. If your ears are ringing you will notice them.

If your sensory organs are working perfectly you don't notice them. You notice them when there is something wrong with them. It is like that with anything you are BEING. If it works perfectly you don't notice it. When you start noticing it is when it is no longer working the way you would want it.

The body is an excellent meter. If everything is working well you don't notice it much, it is just a tool you are using to do what you want to do. But the moment you start having various strains, sensations, pains, etc., it tells you that something is out of whack. Not necessarily just with the body, it might be an indicator of your wider state of being.

The beginning of a process of change is when you notice that something is not the way it should be. You might not know exactly how things should be, but you will know that something is not right. Something will call attention to itself.

There is a certain separation that takes place when you notice something that isn't the way it should be. Where earlier you had an interior reality that you weren't thinking about, suddenly you notice something. It starts to exteriorize a bit.

If I am out in the world looking at things and my eyes are working fine they are interiorized. They are a part of me, I don't notice them. But if I get a fly in my eye, that changes. My attention will be called away from whatever else I was doing to some degree. Then I can devote more of my attention to fixing my eye, which action "exteriorizes" my eye. Once my eyes are back to normal I probably interiorize them again and continue about my business.

The same thing with anything we would regard as a case phenomenon. It would come to the person's attention because something is not right, something is sticking out.

If Joe comes to session and says "I am depressed" it is because he has already separated to some degree from what he wants to handle. He has separated it enough from himself to notice that it is different and it is not right. If he was fully BEING depressed he wouldn't notice and he wouldn't complain about it. He is a little bit NOT being it and that is what he notices. He notices an indicator and he basically responds with "Hey, that is not right, that is not me!"

To then help Joe we would need to get him to further separate from what it is he wants to handle. We would need him to exteriorize "depression" so that we can find what it really is. The key to its resolution is usually found in the part that he is still being and hasn't noticed yet. Once we get it out in a full exterior view it gets quite easy to change. We then change it to something Joe would rather have, or BE rather, and then he re-interiorizes it.

A body is an automatic machine. It only requires extra attention when something is out of order. It will give you a signal in the form of some kind of sensation, pressure, or whatever. That provides an opportunity for you to deal with something you otherwise might ignore. Of course a body can also be a source of pleasure in itself, no problem with that. But if you are focusing on stuff outside your body out in life you would usually want the body to not get in the way.

Used optimally as a tool for playing the game of life a body would probably be almost fully interiorized. That is, the whole body would be inside your beingness. You would be able to focus on what you want to do externally and the body would just follow along without requiring any special attention.

That brings up that there are two ways of "getting out of a body". They haven't always been differentiated. In the way I am using the words here you can either fully exteriorize the body or you can fully interiorize the body. As mentioned before it isn't really YOU who has to go anywhere.

If you exteriorize the body you change your perception of it to be something outside yourself, having external, objective qualities. You start seeing the body as something "over there", at a distance. That is very useful if you want to examine the body and maybe adjust something about the way it is configured. But I would dare say that it isn't really the best way of actually operating a body. It is kind of like the difference between sitting in a car driving it, or steering it with remote control standing on a hilltop looking down at it. It can be done, but you miss a lot of the perceptions you would have from inside. If your remote controlled car was having a race with a bunch of guys who were driving their cars from inside, you would most likely do very poorly.

The other possibility is to interiorize the body more. That is, it would be more inside of your beingness, acting more as a part of you than as a separate thing. To do that you would stop perceiving the body through separation. Any part of the body would be a part of you, you would have access to all of its perceptions, and it would respond instantly to your wishes. Instead of being a little thing inside a head you expand the space you consider as yourself to encompass the whole body. You don't worry about what is inside, that is what you are being. You can then focus on what is happening outside.

So you can get outside by moving your body "over there", or you can get outside by expanding your space beyond the body. Both approaches bring you more directly in touch with the outside world. In the first approach you are just being a viewpoint, in the second approach you are being a complex system of machinery and perceptions and so forth. Which one to choose all depends on what it is you want to do.

In order to interiorize the body so that one can operate it smoothly with total control and with full attention on the outside world, might require some work on the body. It doesn't work well if there are a lot of unresolved things going on with it. If it has pains and sensations and anxieties and you don't know why, then it wouldn't work well as an integral part of you. A certain amount of clearing would have to be done to optimize the body. When you have resolved enough hidden conflicts related to the body it then becomes an integrated well-balanced unit. Then you can put your attention further out to bigger games and stop worrying about the body.

There is sort of a growth path of encompassing bigger and bigger areas. For example, if you have mastered being a first dynamic you can then move on to second and third dynamic. You could have a family and you could work on establishing harmony and integration in it to the point where you could operate AS a family. That is, without having attention on internal conflicts in the family, but just trusting it as a unit, and having attention on the bigger world outside it.

With enough integration you could operate AS a group, AS mankind, AS a whole universe, or even AS the Source of Everything. You could BE a bigger and bigger chunk of stuff, have a greater and greater freedom, range of action, responsibility, and ability to cause.

It is not that you basically, inherently ARE any of that stuff. It is not that the truth is that you really ARE a body. You aren't, you are much much more. You can assume and command different spheres of influence. If you assume a big sphere you are cause over a bigger piece of the game than if you assume a small sphere. It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong, but it has all to do with how big you choose to be.

There are sort of two common lines of thinking here. We could call them Exclusive and Inclusive. But they roughly correspond to self-determined versus pan-determined action.

The Exclusive model is that you are one unit in competition with all other units. You are the only one who is directly responsible for your own condition. Other beings and the universe at large might encroach on your space and leave you tangled up. When you discover and rid yourself of those influences you can again assume your full potential. You are better off without influences from others, and you are better off with as little stuff in your space as possible. In processing, the exclusive person would focus on erasing things, blowing things, getting out of things. You improve by becoming LESS, by ridding yourself of excess baggage. The final end product of clearing would be perceived as something like being one very clean viewpoint that has let go of all of its connections into the universe.

The Inclusive model would come from the other side. It would say that you are basically everything. Any non-optimum situations would be handled by integrating stuff, by balancing things out, by looking at the whole. In stead of having in your space what you don't want you would work on adjusting it to being what you DO want. One would improve by gradually increasing the space that one encompasses and by taking responsibility for more. One would get more involved in a more optimum way. The final end product would be that everything has been integrated and that one IS everything.

I am biased in the direction of the inclusive approach. The exclusive approach can work fine as a temporary fix, but as a long-term direction it leads towards going out the bottom. An exclusive person would tend to become smaller, less resourceful, and less involved as he gets more processing. He would become interested in smaller and smaller things and they would seem more and more important. If successful he would eventually have written himself out of the game. The game would still be there, but he has left it by disconnecting from everything and going down the drain. That would work I guess, but it is kind of wimpy. I would prefer to get BIGGER, to be MORE, to be cause over more stuff, to have more space, more resources, more viewpoints, etc. The end product of that would be to go out the top by becoming bigger and bigger.

This relates to the two approaches for going exterior. You can get out of your body by deciding it isn't you at all and you can see it from a distance. Then you can systematically find everything else you can think of that you are being, decide that you AREN'T being it, put it outside yourself, and get rid of it. That is the exclusive approach: make it all NOT-YOU and get rid of it. In the inclusive approach one would rather grow by integrating and encompassing more and more. First the body, then relations with others, then group activities, etc. You would work on being more rather than being less.

The exclusive approach is characterized by having to make something or someone else less in order for you to be more. You will notice that that is basically an implanter mentality. In order for you to be OK you need to suppress everybody else so that they won't harm you. You might not have realized it, but one can take very much the same attitude to clearing without fully knowing what one is doing.

When you have two opposing factions they are really two sides of the same thing. The "Implanters" try to make everybody else LESS so that they themselves can be more by comparison. In the opposite corner we have "The Good Guys" who are going to clear the universe. They will do this by making the Implanters and everything they have done LESS. By handling this "case" they themselves will become more by comparison. So, it is the same game really, just with some different words to it. The funny thing is that you can only see that if you assume a pan-determined inclusive viewpoint, so the opponents in the Implanter game might never figure it out by themselves.

You have a choice of whether you wish to be something or not be it. It is not that one is necessarily more or less true than the other. It all depends on what you would rather have.

Just because you can be something doesn't mean that you can't also not be it. Just because you can be separate from something doesn't mean you can't also be it if it suits you.

If something comes to your attention as being not optimum in your space you have an opportunity. It means that you can make something better. What you see first is just an indicator, not the full thing. If you pull on the indicator you can bring out the full situation. That is, you can exteriorize it and then study it. You could choose to call it "Bad" and send it away. That is your full right. However, first of all you would violate the axiom of basic goodness. Secondly you might send something away that was actually doing something for you. If that is what you want, fine. If not, you might be making a mistake. I am not saying: don't send anything away. It is just that it might become a problem as the fixed solution to everything.

I still find the most satisfying model of processing to be:

1. Notice partially exteriorized indicators that tell you that something is not optimum within your space.

2. Exteriorize the structure that the indicator points to.

3. Adjust it to what you would rather prefer it to be.

4. Interiorize it back into your space again.

5. Put your attention back out on the world.

Previous page

Contents

Next page