4249. Agreeing To Agree Or To Disagree

 
Can there be truly a disagreement with anything that is going on?

The world presents itself to the spectator as an interference pattern of the diverse realities of all currently present spectators.

Because of the truth in Heisenberg's observation of the 'Uncertainty Principle', a spectator changes the course of events just by witnessing it.

In other words, reality changes depending how people are perceiving it.

A _true_ disagreement would break up reality. The event just wouldn't be there anymore. Just like if a movie-goer would leave the theater, the show would happen without this particular spectator, and the movie-goer would not have the coming scenes in his 'past'.

There are agreements, of course, and there are disagreements in life.

From a broad perspective however, these are really agreements to agreements and agreements to disagreements.

A player joins a team by sharing its arguments. The player agrees to the agreements of the group. Automatically, then, the player has to agree to disagree to any opposing party.

Beings are around since a very long time. And from the beginning, they were continously agreeing to agree and, implicitly or explicitly, agreeing to disagree to opposing terminals.

Every time a Being agrees to agree or to disagree, it has to compromise a little bit, since there are no absoluta in this world. There is no absolute truth in this world and every part of the world contains at least a small piece of a lie.

With each such compromise the Being sacrifices a small  fraction of its integrity.

Over time, the collection of past agreements constitutes a considerable load. It is 'case', in the modern usage of this word. In Gotamo's words, it is 'dukkha': the alienation of a person with its own integrity.

'Agreements' are an instance of the class of basic items. A basic item is an item that, if completely resolved, would result in a complete liberation of a Being.

If a Being would not have any agreements whatsoever with this Universe, it would be completely free.

Another examples of a basic item is  communication. If one could perfectly communicate with anything in this Universe, one would also be completely free.

The same is true for another basic item: 'goals'. If one would not have any goals, there would not be any attachment to this world.

Unfortunately, basic items cannot be resolved in an isolated way. Nonetheless, they have to be addressed in order to tone down the compulsiveness of playing the game of life.

PNOHTEFTU is not a collection of processes except for those who are not available elsewhere. There are now a couple of superb collections out there, most notably by The Pilot,  F. Funch, G.Filbert, and L.Kin, and all of them are completely free in the public domain except for L.Kin who shares selected excerpts of his (very affordable!!) books on the 'net.

Processing of agreements works as an undercut to processing in general but is not specifically mentioned anywhere (to my knowledge) and is therefore an exception.

With a bit of experience, anybody can design the appropriate process him/herself, of course.

For starters, and to give an example how such a process would look like, consider the following:

{begin agreement-process}
 "Recall a time when you agreed to agree?"
 (on all such commands, always get the complete Who/What/When/Where
 of all involved parties)

 "Recall a timne when you agreed to disagree?"
{end agreement-process}

In case of bad indicators (negative moods, upsets, etc),
an overt/motivator or a failed purpose has been touched.

Repair with:
{begin repair}
  "Was there an agreement that you broke?"
  "What agreement did you honor?"
{end repair}

Basic items have to be rerun at any major step on the path to one's liberation. They are not a 'been there - done that' process.

Special care should be taken to exclude currently active agreements. Addressing those _without_ a thorough clean-up of past agreements (and there are a lot!!!), is a recipe for havoc.

Neither should it be used as a short-cut out of existing responsibilities: in this area there are no short-cuts that wouldn't backfire.

It seems superfluous to mention that agreement processes are an ogre of cults and cult-like institutions. After all, cults feed on the restimulation of past (and unconfronted) agreements.

Any resolution of past agreements to agreements or disagreements directly increases the level of individual responsibility of a person.

Any process to achieve such resolutions should therefore be in the tool chest of any true liberator!
.