Technical Essay # 62 - FAF 5 November 1991

Expected Cogs


Why do we do negative clearing?

Do we need to systematically put attention on negative material, even when the pc hasn't brought it up as being a problem?

To shed light on that we should look at one basic of processing that might come as a surprise. What are we really expecting the pc to cognite on?

We might address a subject matter in order to get the person to cognite that there is no such thing and he doesn't have to be effect of it.

Take engrams and the time track. Time is basically an illusion, there is nothing but NOW. So, walking around being affected negatively by something that happened in the past is rather aberrated silliness. However, a lot of people walking in from the street would not agree to that just off hand. Therefore, we take them on their word and track down what it is they say that they are being aberrated by, and we proceed to show them that there really is no reason to be aberrated by it. We do it in a non-evaluative way and we let them draw their own conclusions.

After running a certain number of chains of engrams and finding that the effects could be removed just be changing one's considerations the pc would at some point catch the drift. He would decide that he is really creating the effects himself and he doesn't have to do that anymore. That is the clear cognition, and that is pretty much the time when the running of chains has served its use.

The pc was of course never really affected by the past engrams. He just considered that he was. Now he changed his consideration, and we don't have to run engrams anymore.

As a matter of fact, if we continued running chains of engrams where he was being effect, we might force him to change his considerations back and we would have wasted our time.

The problem enters in when the practitioner doesn't know these things and thinks that the pcs actually are affected by all these chains of engrams and that they can only be saved by running them all out in a very precise manner. He will then miss the whole point and run chains on people who don't believe in them, and miss the point of completion, and put people's banks back.

The theory of 'erasing' engrams, and the time track, and the bank is just a metaphor for getting the pc to change his considerations to that he doesn't need them anymore. It is just a model that makes it easier to persuade the pc to change. Mix up the model with what is actually there and you will keep on having problems with time tracks and banks.

The running of entities falls into the same category. You couldn't possibly have other beings in your universe unless you put them there. You are the cause over your own universe. So is any other static. The other guys aren't going to get stuck in your universe. They might consider that they are and they might have a problem with it, but that has very little to do with what is going on in your universe.

The EP of handling entities is that you realize that you don't have to have them if you don't want them, and you don't have to be effect of them. It is the clear cog again: you are cause, you are mocking it up, you can take responsibility for it.

If you think that because you can perceive some entities then they have to be processed and 'freed' in a certain way, and you have get rid of all of them, otherwise you aren't free yourself - well then you will probably keep having problems with them. The goal is to have you change your considerations, not to 'run out' all entities everywhere.

A lot of people don't have any problem at all with entities. Convincing them that they do so that we can run them is a rather questionable activity. Particularly if we never let them in on the secret that they certainly don't have to have them. If we leave them better than when we found them I guess if could be beneficial, but only if we take apart the lies that we convinced

them of after we are done.

The subject of exteriorization is in a somewhat similar category. There is no such thing as far as a static is concerned. A static is not inside or outside anything, it is not stuck or trapped in anything. For that matter, it isn't aberrated at all.

But, a static can make considerations, it can consider things. If for some reason it considers that it is stuck in a head, then it might be a good idea to change that consideration. On the other hand, that is all it takes, the changing of a consideration.

You are 'outside' if you consider you are outside, you are 'on the moon' if you consider you are on the moon. Just about anybody can do that right off the street. The only people who can't would be certain catatonic schizophrenics who aren't aware of the outside world at all. Anybody who drives a car can certainly be 'exterior'.

Many people, after hearing about the wonders of 'exteriorization', try frantically to move their eyeballs or their brain out of their skull, and think that that is exteriorization. That is again a consideration. If they can be helped to change their considerations they can realize that they

aren't really having a problem, their eye balls are most appropriate in their sockets.

Again, if we hadn't brought it up most people wouldn't have considered themselves as having a problem with exteriorization. And presenting it as a sky high goal throws them off and they don't realize that they can already do it.

Processing on the subject of 'exteriorization' is only meaningful until the person realizes that he can put his attention in all sorts of places and that is exteriorization.

The key things to know about beings and their case is in the first two axioms:

1. Life is a static
2. A static can make considerations.

Anything else in the field of cases and processing is junior to this.

A static isn't something, it can't be described, there is nothing wrong with it, it is the cause of things.

Any kind of case is a consideration. If you don't want it then you need to find what the consideration is and change it to something you'd rather have.

Any tech has the sole purpose of pointing out to the static that is really is cause and assisting in the starting, changing, and stopping of considerations.

Any theories and ramifications of tech is just tricks and stories that make is easier, faster, or more entertaining to do the above. Some models and theories and rules work better than others and might deserve more attention.

But, don't mistake the map for the territory.

Technical Essay # 63 - FAF 10 November 1991

Degrees of Clearing


If we clear a certain subject there are varying degrees to which it might be cleared. That is, we might achieve varying degrees of as-isness.

There is only one absolute as-isness. That would be a complete simultaneous understanding of all that is, any universe, any viewpoint, any location, any time, any datum. Because all-that-is is the only real truth, since it is all inter-connected, and any isolated datum or viewpoint is only an apparent truth. So, for practical purposes, any as-isness is only a partial degree of as-isness. It is however still useful to talk about as-isness in various ways.

In clearing we are trying to move people from effect to cause within specific areas. We start with some sort of mass that exists in a non-optimum way, and we try to get as far back towards the consideration that put it there so that it can be changed.

We can pretend that there are three degrees to which we might like to take it:

1)Getting what the mass is
2) Getting what the significance is
3)Getting the exact consideration

PT Effect PT Cause
  Getting what the mass is Getting what the significance is Getting the exact consideration
e.g. "I have a problem with cats" "I'm afraid they will scratch me" "I want to feel safe"

First degree is to get what is going on on the surface, what the situation or problem is. Just realizing that can provide a relief if it was previously unknown or one didn't take responsibility for it. It is some sort of existing effect that is not considered optimum. There is not much point in taking up anything that isn't in PT. An effect situation from the past would only be taken up if it relates to an undesirable situation now.

Second degree would be to find significances (ideas, postulates, considerations) behind the situation. It is finding what the situation is in terms of considerations. That might come off as prepcheck buttons, as cognitions etc.

The Third degree would be to get the exact consideration that you are causing the situation with. That would be your cause on the matter. That is your positive and desirable intention that lies behind the situation. You will always get to that if you go deep enough.

In different contexts one might stop at a different degree of as-isness and take corrective action or leave the subject there. For example, realizing that one has a problem with cats one could avoid cats and use dogs as pets instead. Or, realizing that what one is worried about is that they will scratch, one could handle them in a way so that they aren't likely to scratch. Or, one could decide to overcome one's fear with determination. However, it is the third degree of as-isness that would produce much more lasting clearing.

By finding out how one caused the current situation one will realize how and why one ended up in a non-optimum situation. One might then decide that everything is actually fine and one doesn't need to do anything. For example one might decide that one can perfectly well feel safe even though there are cats around and one's fear was really ungrounded. Also, knowing what one is after one can establish some better ways of accomplishing it than one has used before.

Only rarely would one want to get rid of the original consideration or intention. It is usually something that is desirable. If it is somehow superfluous one can go further and as-is the way it was created.

An original consideration or intention couldn't possibly be wrong. If you consider something is wrong with it it is because you compare it with some previous, more basic consideration or intention.

There is usually no point is going further than a positive intention behind the given phenomena. If you go further with the clearing you start erasing the positive intention which wouldn't be desirable.

Also, it can be a loss in havingness if we don't supply an alternative outlet for the basic positive intention. We remove an aberrated outlet for it. We should generally replace it creatively with some better ways of accomplishing the intention without conflicting with other aspects of your activities.

The establishment of something to put instead of the removed aberration can come under the heading of havingness, or positive clearing. It can also be regarded as programming, installing some new patterns that better get you what you want than the old ones.

The goal of clearing is not to remove you from experience, it is to optimize your experience. To partake in life at all requires a large amount of considerations, programming, etc. What we would like to accomplish is that you have the stuff there that gives you the results you want, not the results you don't want.

There is a cycle in clearing that goes from an undesirable experience (effect) to underlying considerations and intentions (cause) and back again to a more desirable experience.

Clearing has traditionally been most involved with the process of getting from an effect situation back to the as-isness of it. However, the other side is just as important

To assume that one is always better off without stuff that is there is too limited a view. If you as-is everything that is there you no longer have a game. To change stuff that doesn't work into stuff that works better is a much more desirable goal of processing.

Technical Essay # 64 - FAF 10 November 1991

Two-way Comm


Two-way Comm is general communication to get an as-isness of something. It ends up in an agreed upon resolution of what is there.

2Way comm can be used in different ways:

1)      To get any item that can be run
2)      To find out what an area really is, so we can pick the right process to address it
3)      To as-is something in itself.

The first method is when we just start with very general questions and we end as soon as we have anything that can be run. We are just fishing for any charged item, not for any kind of resolution of anything.

In the second method we already have a charged subject. We do 2WC to find out more about it, so that we know what to do about it. We end when we know how the case in the area is put together. For example, when we have a service fac or a well defined somatic. Then we switch to the appropriate subject for that kind of case.

The third way is when we try to resolve the subject with 2WC alone. We keep working with the same subject until it is as-ised and no longer an issue.

In 2WC the practitioner will use questions that will help the client to learn more about the subject and see what it really is. Practitioner and client are working together to find out what it is. It is not just a method of getting the client to talk, the practitioner must be actively interested in finding out too.

There are different methods of questioning that the practitioner can use:

Promoting itsa: Asking for thoughts, considerations, feelings, etc on the subject.
Taking charge off: Prepcheck buttons, non repetitive.
Promoting looking: "How does it seem to you now?", "What is it?", getting specifics.
Challenging outpts: Fishing for service facs: "Why is that?", "What is behind that?"
Asking for specifics when they are missing, vague, or general.
Questioning anything that is "impossible", or that one "has to do"
Questioning beliefs: "Who says that?", "How do you know that?"
Echoing: Giving back one's understanding and asking if that is what is meant.

It is important not to Q&A by getting off the subject and not to invalidate or evaluate. The skill in 2WC is in coaxing the client into looking in the right places without violating the code.

Any one of the questioning methods can be done in a distracting, invalidative, evaluative way that wouldn't work. What makes the difference is probably how well the practitioner is in ARC with the client. The practitioner shouldn't oppose or judge, but only assist looking and understanding.

FAF 23 Nov 1991



Clearing can be regarded as a special case of an activity called Processing.

I am using "Processing" here in a wider meaning than as just another word for Clearing. Processing is any well-defined communication activity that is promoting change towards a positive outcome. A Process is the specific activity that is taking place.

Communication Exercises (TRs) are a type of processes. If you sit down in front of another person and look at him/her and go through the various phenomena that happen until such a point where you can be there comfortably and confront - then you have just completed a process. That is not Clearing per se, but it is a process.

You might put together a group of people in a room and deliver a dynamic and exhilarating speech to them, and they might all get inspired to go out and do wonderful things afterwards. That has nothing to do with Clearing, but a type of process did take place.

What it comes down to is that you can make people change their minds for the better by communicating with them. If you do it in a well-defined way, based on some sort of rules, then you are doing processing.

Be aware that there are many more ways of changing people than by sitting down with a meter and asking them questions in a non-evaluative way. Clearing is probably one of the most profound ways, but it is not the only one.

Some types of processing will even violate the code for clearing. Like with doing bull baiting in the Communication Exercises. Invalidation and evaluation are perfectly fine there. But they are used with the intention of producing a positive outcome.

Different types of processing employ different degrees and combinations of as-isness and programming. In typical Clearing we try to as-is things as thoroughly and non-evaluatively as possible and we don't propose any new patterns to adopt. In training, such as Communication Exercises, we dictate the exact outcome that is required and we ignore all the reasons (case) the client has for not being able to do it.

It is interesting to note that "Processsing" is now a commonly used word between therapists of many different kinds. If you proclaim that you are doing Processes with people you will meet agreement and understanding from most modern therapists, particularly the ones with a more progressive or new age orientation.

FAF 23 Nov 1991

An Introduction to NLP


Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) is not clearing per se. However, it is a related subject that provides many tools useful to clearing practitioners and many processes that can supplement and expand the ones we already have.

NLP was developed in the mid seventies by two professors at Santa Cruz university: Richard Bandler, a mathematician and computer programmer, and John Grinder, an expert in linguistics and semantics. It is based on the desire to chart out the factors involved in good communication and particularly the type of communication that promotes positive change in oneself and others. The approach that Bandler and Grinder used was to study highly successful communicators and therapists and to model exactly what it is they do to be successful.

A basic skill in NLP is Sensory Acuity. That translates quite well into Obnosis. It is the observation of what people are really doing, what their indicators are, and what that tells us about their state of mind. It is vastly more refined than just a list of good and bad indicators. Just by observing a person you can get a lot of detailed information about them. You can know if they are stuck in something, or released; if they are in or out of valence; if they are remembering or mocking up; if they are accessing pictures, sounds, or feelings; if they are talking to themselves, etc. The body posture, rate of breathing, movement of the eyes, skin color, mode of speech, selection of words, etc, will tell you all these things quite reliably. It doesn't just tell you that something "reads", but also how and what it probably is.

Equally important are skills for the establishment of Rapport. Rapport means about the same as ARC. So it is how you get into ARC with somebody and how you get them in-session. The NLP rapport skills are centered around duplicating the other person. You can duplicate somebody with your body posture, rate of speaking or breathing, choice of words, etc, and you are likely to achieve better rapport. There is no good reason for not being able to get into rapport with anybody, as long as you notice where the person is at and approximate it.

Pacing and Leading is the equivalent of our: first you get into ARC with the person then you do something for him. Pacing means that you match and duplicate the person in order to establish rapport. Once you have the rapport you would want to do something with it, that is the Leading. For a salesman it might mean convincing the person to buy something. For a therapist it would mean helping the person to change his mind for the better. Pacing and Leading is also the way we get a person up the tone scale: first you approximate where he is at, then you lead him to a higher level and he will follow.

NLP uses somewhat different pre-suppositions about the mind than what is common in clearing. For one thing the sub-conscious mind is not regarded as something bad and undesirable that one needs to get rid of. The idea is rather to adjust it to do things that are useful for you. Changing responses of feeling bad or stuck into the ability to feel good and be resourceful whenever one wants to.

Most of the processes of NLP will appear to someone familiar with clearing as creative processing. Creative processes are being used to get the client to change his considerations for the better. A basic pre-supposition is that the person is cause over his own mind and that he can change any non-optimum condition if he knows what it is and he knows how to do it.

As I see it there is no point in being stuck with any particular system of therapy. Each system seems to have its own belief system that you use as a model to get the client to change. However any model is only a model. Any tool you can learn that makes you more able to change people's lives improves what you are doing. The business we are in is basically to get people to change their minds and be better off for that.

Technical Essay # 65 - FAF 27 November 1991

What Clearing Does


The main action that takes place in a clearing process is that the client is exposed to a specific subject matter repeatedly or long enough for him for him to discover that he can handle it, understand it, confront it, do it, or whatever.

We are actually prescribing the symptom. Whatever the subject matter is, we will get the client to put his nose directly in it.

If a person is scared of horses and he would like to handle that, then we get him to deal with it on a gradient. We would talk about horses, see it from different angles, make pictures of them, bring up negative feelings about horses, run through incidents with them, and so forth.

In other words we give the person exactly what he has a problem with. But we do it in a safe environment and on a comfortable gradient. By doing it this way the person will gradually realize that he CAN indeed handle the area, he does not have to have a problem with it.

In the artificial environment of the session and of his mind we give him a win on handling something that was too intense for him in real life. This fills in the proper gradients that often are missing in the real world.

Both positive and negative subjects fit into the idea of clearing. If the person has negative reactions concerning a subject we make him look at it a little at a time from different angles until he realizes that he can be comfortable with it and doesn't have to react negatively to it. We do that on incident running, prepchecking, and in many other processes.

With a positive subject, say a new ability that the person wants, we do the same kind of thing. We expose him to it a little at a time on a gradient until he feels that he can go and do it. That is for example what we do on many grade processes, for example on communication.

Clearing is gradual, systematic experience. You experience an area systematically until you can see/hear/feel clearly what is there. Since truth is always good it will generally mean that any negative feelings will evaporate along the way.

The principle can be expanded to many different types of processes. Particularly there is more that can be done in the field of DOING the thing we are handling. Talking about something does not give the same freedom about it as actually being exposed to it or doing it would.

For example, if a client wants to be better at public speaking. We can look at it and talk about it in session and that would be very useful. However, it would probably be a better process to actually do it on a gradient. Putting the guy up in front of a group of people and having him talk. The same basics of processing apply: we wouldn't over-restimulate him, we would run the process flat, and so forth.

The DO part has traditionally been weakly represented in clearing. It is considerably easier to feel great talking about something in a session room than it is to go out and confront it for real. The first gradient would be the session room, but we are missing some gradients if it doesn't end up in the real world.

Processes that get a person to expose, look at, and explore real or imagined material concerning a certain subject promote change in a person for several reasons:

One purpose of clearing would be to bring new experiences into awareness. That can be experiences about a subject one has trouble with or it can be totally new experiences one never thought of before. Bringing up these experiences and exploring them will give one more resources that one can use in the future.

The only experiences that are worth keeping are the ones that one gets something positive from, or that represent positive abilities. There is no point in itself in exploring pain and suffering. What there might be a need to explore is the POSITIVE abilities to confront and handle negative situations. A client does not get more gains the more pain and grief we get hold of, he gets gains at the rate he creates or recovers abilities to know, confront, and handle situations he wants to handle. That does not have to be hard.

To recapitulate, clearing works in creating change because:

1. We get the person to look at what is there
2. We demonstrate that change is possible
3. We provide experience to back up the change


Technical Essay # 66 - FAF 28 November 1991

The VAK Triangle


As discovered in NLP there are three main systems humans use to perceive the world and to represent their experiences: Visual-Auditory-Kinesthetic.

These representational systems actually have a relationship similar to the various triangles we use. This relationship can also be expressed as either an Ascension, a Cycle, or a Balance as discussed in TE24.

As a triangle it looks like this:

V+A+K add up to Experience. If they are in balance one has a more full experience. One can increase any of the corners by going through one of the other corners

It is also a scale. V has the highest vibration, then comes A, and K has the lowest vibration.

This is not unlike a scale like Aesthetics(V)-Thought(A)-Emotion(K)-Effort(K).

Interestingly this is observable in body phenomena. A person using V breathes fast, an A slower, and a K slowest. A V looks up mostly, an A looks to the side, and a K looks down.

There are certain phenomena that go together with varying frequencies that are of use in clearing. For example, the higher the vibration the more precisely it can be located and directed. Visual pictures are easy to move around, to move in and out of, and to see several at the same time. But low frequencies are difficult to locate and directionalize. It is more cumbersome to move in and out of feelings, or to put them in different places. And you can only hardly have more than one at a time.

The K band is the most sticky in terms of case. In running incidents we are primarily going for the unwanted K, somatics. And notice that we handle it primarily with V, by looking at the incidents. The visual system is the most useful to get an overview and be able to release (dissociate) material.

VAK is also a cycle of action. V would be the postulation & visualization of something to do, A would be the sequence of actions, K would be the reward.


A new cycle can then start of course. One can use a good feeling as a basis of seeing something else to do and so forth.

Various sequences of V/A/K constitute different types of strategies that people might have cencerning deciding things, motivating themselves, etc. One person might use K-V-A, another A-K-V, and so forth. That is simply different starting points, and probably the order can also be running backwards.

The concept of strategies could probably be transferred to other triangles. For example, different people might have a CRA strategy, or an RAC strategy to create understanding (ARC) with someone. And different people might use Do-Have-Be, or Have-Do-Be strategies in life. All strategies would needless to say not be equally effective.


Technical Essay # 67 - FAF 21 December 1991

Incident Clearing Summary


There are many improvements of incident clearing that can make it be more efficient and beneficial. It is also important to understand what we are really trying to accomplish with it.

All clearing attempts to move the client from effect to cause. Practitioners who don't fully understand this will often fail to accomplish it on incident clearing.

In incident running and other negative clearing we start with an unwanted effect condition, trace it back to how the person is actually causing it, and we allow him to cause something better instead. That is in contrast to pure positive clearing where we drill the person in different ways of looking at and dealing with a subject without concern about what is in his way.

Notice that to avoid adverse effects of the negative clearing process itself it should always end with a positive step. This is to re-establish havingness and put the person at cause in present time. Omitting the positive action will leave the lie there that the pc is effect now and that the cause was in the past.

The truth of the matter is that nobody is really effect of things that happened in the past. You only appear to be effect now because you are causing just that now, and you have forgotten how you are doing it. I repeat, you are causing it now. We only address the past to accommodate the pc's reality and because we get a story that "explains" things, making it logical for the pc to change his considerations.

Incident clearing is complete at the point when the person fully realizes the truth of creating any effect he has right now. From that point on he doesn't need to look into the past to get an excuse for changing now.

Incident clearing is intended to correct some lies about time, not to perpetuate them. Time is in itself an illusion. There is no reason at all in being effect of something that happened earlier, except for aberrated considerations. Time is just a dimension. Being nervous because you were beaten as a child is no more logical than falling over a stone that is lying a mile away.

The error that the pc makes is to carry around some incidents as "now" when they really are sometime else. Correcting that error by running the incidents we can return them to the spacetime coordinates where they belong.

Events are what they are. We aren't going to change what actually happened somewhere in spacetime. We are just clearing up the pc's misconception that is is here and now and we return the event to its proper place.

The "earlier similar" phenomenon is an aberration in itself. We might use it if it is expedient but only with the aim of getting rid of it as soon as possible.

We can start off on finding incidents in a variety of ways. We can start out as effect with something like "Locate a time when you had a pain in the back", or we can start out as cause with "Locate an incident where you are causing a pain in the back". Or, we can take something in between like "Locate an incident that would cause a pain the the back".

The ideal is to put the pc as much in cause as he is ready to handle. Never make him more effect than he is. The correct order of processing is from effect to cause. If he has realized that he himself is causing the incidents to aberrate him, then don't ever go back to pretending he is effect of the incidents themselves.

It is only important for a low level case that the incidents are "his own". That the incidents are "his" is just another way of saying that he is effect and his havingness is low. You can really run anybody's incident anywhere if the pc is up to it, and the less he is identified with it the better. Of course that doesn't change the low level inversion of out-of-valence: the incident is his, but he is below an ability to be responsible for it.

The entry point to incident running is unwanted feelings. That is negative emotions or bodily feelings, also known as somatics. Feelings have a lower frequency than other perceptual systems. They are more difficult to locate precisely, and that is what makes them stick. Auditory and particularly visual information has higher frequencies and are much easier to locate and more around. Therefore we preferably use visuals to "run" the incidents.

To repeat: we use feelings as an entry point and we run by visuals. Doing it in any other order wouldn't produce the expected result. Starting off with a picture is not likely to do much for the person, he doesn't have to have a picture at first, just a feeling.

Past feelings won't lead to stuff that is useful to run. The only material that needs to be run is what seems to affect the person now. If he doesn't have the feeling any more there is no point in doing something about it.

If the pc is worried about a past somatic and he can't bring it back, it isn't what should be run. The "worry" he has now would be much more fruitful to run.

Somatics aren't anything theoretical or academic, it is something you feel. He should be able to feel it right now, and that would be our starting point for running. We want to be sure that we get a specific feeling, so therefore we put precise words to it, like "a buzzing pressure in my right shoulder". However, it is not the words that will run, it is the feeling that he has. The reason for specifying it is to make sure that he stays on that feeling until it is handled and to make sure that we can remind him and check it again later.

The EP of a somatic is that he can no longer bring it back and feel it. It should be by actual test, he can no longer be restimulated that way. That might very well take several chains before it is completely handled. The somatic might change after each chain and will eventually be impossible to bring back in any form.

Going through and experiencing an incident will allow the person to digest the experiences he didn't get in the first place and to evaluate the contents. "Getting" the lesson in the incident and getting his own cause will clear the incident.

The value of running an incident is not in the amount of discomfort he has to go through in running it. It doesn't have to be hard. Running it only from a comfortable viewpoint is fine as long as we get all the material.

Clients who have done other practices such as Rebirthing or Reevaluation Counseling will often run incidents more dramatically and emotionally than a Dianetic practitioner would expect. That is not necessary. For that matter one doesn't have to run it as strenuously as in Dianetics either. Comfortable viewpoints are perfectly fine. Running an incident from an exterior viewpoint produces just as much useful experience or more than running it as effect of the situation. When we have sorted it out and the pc has regained the faculties he was missing at the time he can go through it from the apparent effect viewpoint and find that that is quite comfortable also.

As previously stated, multiple viewpoints on an incident are preferable. Don't convince the pc that he can only run it from the effect viewpoint. The cause viewpoints are much rather where it is at.

All parts of an incident aren't equally important. The "learned" aberration doesn't occur from the incident as a whole, but from a very precise part of it. There is an exact point where a shift occurs. Going directly for that instant where the shift occurs is much faster and more productive than just going over the incident again and again.

In any aberrative incident there is a point of either postulation, overwhelm, or restimulation, or any combination of those. In a typical engrammic basic incident there is point of overwhelm where the person is "forced" to accept a more limited way of being. In later lock incidents each incident has an exact point where the restimulation occurs.

Going over an incident we can get the person to freeze the frame right at the time when the restimulation occur. Analyzing exactly what occurs there, what the situation is from different viewpoints will bring important material to light. We will find out what exactly it is that triggered the shift. If it doesn't quite make sense, that is, there is no externally induced overwhelm and no postulate there, that means that there are earlier incidents.

In the basic incident, when we freeze the frame where the feeling starts, we get an actual explanation of how it was created: an overwhelm or a postulate. That will resolve it very quickly.

It is only an apparency that negative or positive change happens gradually. Actually they happen instantly in a moment of shift. The more precisely we can locate that time of change and as-is it the more effective we will be. Also, the positive change from the clearing is not really a gradual process, even though it might seem like it. When it gets resolved, it gets resolved instantly, not gradually. Of course we can build up bigger or more lasting gains by a succession of smaller positive shifts, but that is only apparently a smooth gradual process.

Change is digital, not analog. It takes place by discrete shifts, not by a gradual, continuous curve.

For a pc who still believes in the earlier similar phenomenon we can ask for "an earlier time when ___". However, it would be more correct to ask for "a more basic incident" since that doesn't perpetuate the lie of time.

Having gotten the basic aberrative shift of an incident we would expect a postulate there. It is also very useful to ask for which lesson he learned there. That is really two sides of the same thing, but it might get the pc to see the bigger picture better. "What is the lesson to learn from that incident" is a good way of asking it.

Lessons from an incident might be of two sorts. It might be a useful lesson, in that the incident served some purpose for the pc and he really created it for himself from some sort of "higher self" viewpoint. E.g. he might have pulled in an accident in order to tell himself to slow down or to be more aware or something. Finding that lesson makes the whole thing make sense and the pc will be quite happy about it and will finally learn the lesson and realize that he is done with that cycle and he doesn't need the negative effects of it anymore. He postulated the incident for himself and now he got the point.

The other possibility is that the incident was simply an overwhelm that taught him a limiting lesson. Because he was overwhelmed he was forced to adopt an aberrated way of dealing with things. E.g. he was under severe emotional and physical stress and decided that the best solution would be to shut off all feelings, which he then proceeds to do from then on under all conditions. Running the incident and uncovering that fact he might realize that that isn't a universally applicable solution and he can discard it or change it.

After getting the lesson from the incident we can ask: "Is that a useful lesson?". We could even have him come back up to PT and take a look at if it is applicable to him in his current life. If not we can encourage him to reevaluate it and to come up with something better.

Whenever the pc had accepted a bad solution and now is rejecting it, he should creatively come up with another way of doing it. If we don't ask him to do that he will sub-consciously do it anyway and might pick another useless solution. It is better to ask him consciously to pick a better way of doing it.

The better way of doing it could be another postulate or a way of being that would have worked better at the time, or that would be more useful to him now. We could also have him come up with several ways of handling the situation better than he did. That would leave him with more and better choices than the one aberrated choice that he had. And it will demonstrate that he is in charge.

We could also ask the person to creatively rewrite the previous incident into something that would have been more useful to him and that would teach him better lessons. That gives him some havingness instead of the incident that we have "erased" and again it demonstrates that he is cause.

Another way of looking at what happens in an aberrative incident is that the pc drops a part of himself and adopts only a more limited beingness after the overwhelm. After processing the incident he should be ready to bring that part of him back again. Re-integrating the lost part will make him whole again and he will have his full faculties a learning experience richer. The part had gotten separated from the rest of him at the exact moment of overwhelm/postulation mentioned before. If we only "run out" the incident without bringing back the alienated part we aren't getting the actual result we are after. A pc might very well do this by himself if we address it explicitly or not, but he might just as well not.

Running of entities follow many of the same rules as regular incident clearing. It is really just some more variations of ways of shifting or limiting oneself in times of overwhelm or postulation. Parts of oneself have been separated off, identities have been mixed up and so forth. Sorting out the viewpoints involved and re-integrating the parts that the person lost will bring the gains.

Also, in entity running, there is no point in running anything that the person isn't actually creating now. That somebody else was effect of something sometime in the past has absolutely nothing to do with our pc, unless he happens to be creating being effect of that right now. The basic rules of clearing don't get changed just because we are dealing with entities. We are still moving the person even more towards being cause over the phenomenon at hand. And we start out assuming that he is cause. Any other orientation will just serve to make the person the effect of some things he really has no reason whatsoever being effect of.

Lastly, there is the subject of the time track. A time track is a constructed creation. It will be aberrative if the pc believes that he has to have one. For starters we might go along with him and pretend that he has one. But really, he doesn't need one. Or rather, he can organize it any way he wants. He can arrange it in loops or rings, he can have several of them, he can have it indexed in any way he wants, and so forth.

The traditional "time track" perpetuates the lie that one has moved forward through time at an even ordered pace in one time stream, and that one has been present all the time. However, that is not necessarily how beings operate.

Beings can manifest anywhere in spacetime, in multiple dimensions, several places at once, and so forth. The experiences are sometimes sequential, but don't have to be. The belief that you do things the time track way is a key element in keeping yourself trapped. That is simply something to run out, to change considerations about, and to find some more appropriate ways of organizing experiences.

You are operating at cause. Any process that addresses being effect only does so to allow you to discover the lie in it, to discover the way you are actually being cause, and to adjust it as necessary.


Technical Essay # 68 - FAF 11 Feb 92

Quantum Change

I have recently come to the conclusion that change is more likely to happen as a sudden shift than as a continuous motion. Specifically I am talking about the change of mind in positive or negative direction.

What is aberrative about a traumatic incident is not just "all the charge" in it. There will be an exact point in an incident where a person either:

or 1. Gets overwhelmed and gives in to some external force
2. Shifts to another position that appears to handle the situation better.

In either case, if the shift becomes a fixed solution that the person uses from then on, then it is likely to limit his choices in life, and it would be something to take up in a clearing session.

Eddie Mace in Australia made some excellent taped lectures recently where one of the things he stresses is the importance of addressing the point of overwhelm in incidents.

Shifts in identity have been explored extensively by John Galusha with Idenics procedures.

Any common case phenomena can be described in terms of sudden shifts. You don't ARC break gradually and smoothly, you are never halfway in the middle of making a postulate. Either you have it or you don't.

Now, the point here is that if you address the exact shift instead of just the generality of a condition or an incident, then you can clear something much faster and more effectively. And you leave the person more at cause, acknowledging that he was indeed the one who changed his mind into an aberrated state. It didn't "just happen".

More controversial might be the idea that positive changes are also sudden shifts. Our idea of "running the TA out of a process" before we will consider it done might possibly be distracting us from observing the deeper mechanics of making changes.

Over the years I have seen people get great gains from thoroughly running a process with a lot of TA action. But, I've also seen people get a lot of TA without noticing any changes in their lives. And more startling, I've seen people make major advances in consciousness or major positive changes in their lives, based on the exchange of just a few words. One well placed question or remark sometimes has the same effect as dozens of hours in session.

I will go as far as to suggest that any action we do in session is done only to achieve the outcome of the client changing his mind in the most positive way available. All the theories and rules and mechanics of clearing would be junior to the purpose of the person achieving the optimum change for himself.

And, a specific change is something you either do or don't. A big change might consist of many smaller changes (e.g. a grade consists of many processes), but they would have to be done one whole change at a time.

I have recently done many unmetered sessions on new clients, and have had more opportunity than usual to notice what people are actually doing. I have found clear sudden changes in indicators when people make such positive shifts and cognite on it. And I have found that if I go directly for the shift I get better and faster results.

This has nothing to do with feeding the pc cognitions or evaluating, which is of little value as a technique. A cognition is only an indicator of something deeper happening - a shift in awareness. The faster you can maneuver the client into a position of being able to make such a shift, and the more and the bigger they are, the more he will gain.

A model of comparable magnitude can be found in quantum mechanics. Sub-atomic particles have some rather peculiar and surprising properties. For example, electrons can shift between different locations or different energy levels without going through anything in between. Sort of like getting from New York to L.A. without actually travelling along the distance between them

For practical purposes the universe can be regarded as being based on infinite-valued gradient scales. However, when we look closely enough all the scales consist of little steps. The universe is found to be digital and not analog.

Energy seems to be available only in multiples of a smallest possible theoretical unit, called a quantum. To relate it back to the mind, that might have something to do with what you call an attention unit.

Now, it could be that there is no continuous smooth gradient to the higher levels that you might want. You might have to make some quantum jumps from where you are to where you want to go. If you try to walk there in a smooth way you might find yourself walking in circles.


Technical Essay # 69 - FAF 13 Feb 92



Null-A is the concept of seeing the world as it is rather than as it is said to be; addressing the whole rather than the parts; thinking in differences and similarities rather than in identities.

Alfred Korzybski introduced the idea of Null-A in 1933 with a subject he called General Semantics.

A. E. van Vogt popularized it in a series of science fiction books elaborating on the possibilities in having Null-A trained people as members or leaders of society.

The "A" in Null-A is for "Aristotelian", referring to the prevalent system of logic according to Aristotle (384-322 B.C.). Aristotelian thinking is very black & white, two-valued logic. Physical phenomena are regarded as very finite, isolated occurrences that can be fully and adequately identified. This was the prevalent way of looking at the world in the sciences until the beginning of this century. It is still the prevalent form of human thinking in the world.

Null-A signifies the negation of the Aristotelian think. It is also called Non-Aristotelian. It replaces two-valued logic with infinite-valued gradient scales, identification with differentiation, and places detail phenomena into a bigger holistic picture.

Physics according to Newton are A. Relativity theory and Quantum Physics are .

Traditional western medicine is A. Holistic eastern medicine is mostly .

Now, the reason I bring up these fancy ideas here, is that Null-A has a whole lot to do with what we're trying to accomplish with clearing. Korzybski and van Vogt talked about Null-A training, the idea being that through study, exercises, and games people could become adept at Null-A thinking. Korzybski proposed exercises, but they never reached a very high level of applicability. The most effective Null-A tools today are probably found in clearing, as well as in NLP. it should however also be noted that several eastern religious philosophies, such as Zen-Buddhism, strive in that direction.

Clearing addresses fixed conditions, identifications, mis-understoods, limited focus and so forth. Through the application of clearing one can become more able to see the world as it is and to be flexible under changing circumstances.

However, there are also elements commonly associated with clearing that pull the other way. For one thing, clearing practitioners have traditionally been taught a lot of identifications. "Engrams are in chains and that's just the way it IS." The rules and the words have sometimes become more important than what is actually there. And the belief has been encouraged that what the words name actually exists and can be isolated. But, really, nobody has yet produced a "reactive mind" that we could study separate from everything else. Or demonstrated that one disappeared for that matter.

Many of the identifications have been passed on to the recipients of clearing under the heading of "indoctrination" or "word clearing". That made many of the clearing processes possible, but it is also evaluation and puts aberrations there that might not previously have existed for the client.

Let me illustrate a little more how a lack of Null-A abilities might be seen. All of you have people around you who will identify people based on fixed detail information. E.g. A and B are having a conversation and apparently getting along well. Then B picks his nose. A "hates people who pick their noses", so from that point on she loses interest in B. If A were Null-A she would look at the big picture and chances are that nose-picking would only be a small distraction from an otherwise positive conversation.

If you find that you have to be very careful when you communicate with a certain person, not to say or do the wrong thing, not to ARC break them, etc, then you are dealing with somebody who identifies a lot, who responds to symbols rather than to reality. They can be helped of course; clearing and training can make them more Null-A gradually.

Looking around at the people I know, I don't really see anybody, including myself, who quite qualifies for Null-A grade. But, well, absolutes are unobtainable (and Aristotelian), so "close enough" might be just fine.

What I am calling for, however, is a more holistic gradient scale, non-identified view of what clearing is about. And a recognition of the true basics of clearing. The basics aren't fixed ideas, they are dynamic principles.


Technical Essay # 70 - FAF 1 March 1992

Confusion Confused


The word "confusion" comes from Latin "confundere" which literally means "to pour together".

One way of looking at a confusion is as a collision between a fixed idea and a dynamic situation (randomity).

There is nothing inherently aberrative or disorderly about particles in motion. Motion is the natural state of affairs in this universe. Problems start when we try to fixate things.

A state of confusion appears when you enter a dynamic, moving environment carrying an unmoving item. That item can be an idea or a physical object or anything in between. The confusion is the turbulence created between movable and immovable elements.

If you want to resolve the confusion, there are two approaches:

1. Make the moving parts immovable.
2. Make the immovable part movable.

Solution 1 is the way to create aberration. The universe is dynamic. You might be able to momentarily make a small portion of it appear to be unmoving. However as an absolute goal it is impossible. Beings will then respond to the failure in stopping motion by stopping it mentally and then pretending their stopped idea to be the truth. That might appear to solve the confusion, but actually only compounds it by adding another fixed idea.

As far as any mental phenomena go, the second solution is more useful. Find the immovable element that stirred up the confusion and free it up so it doesn't have to resist the movement. Let me give some examples before this gets too abstract.

Let's say you walk into the New York Stock Exchange in the middle of a busy trading day, and you get very confused trying to figure out what's going on there. You are not confused because there is a lot of motion there, but because you resist it somehow. You might have the idea that you should know what is going on, and the idea that people in suits should sit quietly at desks, and that one shouldn't throw paper on the floor, and that people should speak slowly and softly. All of these ideas are in conflict with what you experience and that is what generates the confusion. It isn't particularly the motion. The same person who would be confused about stock trading probably wouldn't be confused about watching a beehive with 10,000 bees buzzing around.

Now the old rule said that you would resolve a confusion by getting stable data. Well, there are two kinds of stable data:

1. Fixed ideas.
2. Dynamic Principles.

The person could generate some more fixed ideas to solve his confusion, such as "I don't care about stocks anyway" or "People are just crazy". That would be a way of not seeing the confusion at all. We "solve" the confusion by replacing it with a fixed idea that sort of summarizes it. But a confusion can never be truly summarized into a fixed idea, dynamic situations can not be fully described with a single fixed datum. So the net result is that the person stops looking in that area, the fixed solution becomes a replacement for looking. When the fixed solution is self-determined it puts it in the category of service facs. However, most types of aberrations can be explained as attempts to apply a fixed solution to a dynamic situation.

A more sane type of stable data are dynamic principles. You can observe something in motion and discover some of the rules by which the motion appears to occur. You can then make sense of the confusion while still observing it, and you might predict future confusions. Dynamic principles might be: "When you drop something it usually falls down" or "People often wear suits in business situations". As long as you are prepared to continuously verify your principles against your experiences then you are in pretty good shape.

When you use fixed ideas you've made a map of reality, forgotten about the reality, and is now using the map as reality. If you formulate dynamic principles you are also using a map of reality to navigate by, but you still observe reality itself and adjust your principles as necessary. The most high level approach would be to always experience things directly and not need any kind of simplified representation. However, part of the fun in life is to explore the different ways of simplifying reality.

Any dynamic situation is what it is. The truth of it is the totality of everything that is there and how it is moving. The only unaberrated way of experiencing randomity is as randomity. Any attempt of condensing it into a still picture opens the door to aberration.

When confronted with a dynamic situation with a lot of randomity and you feel confused, you can go in one of two directions:

¥ Contraction: simplify the situation into a randomity level that you are comfortable with.
¥ Expansion: assume a bigger view of the scene and become comfortable with what is there.

Since the situation is what it is, any attempt of pretending it isn't (Not-is, Alter-Is) starts a dwindling spiral and stacks up more and more unconfronted randomity. The only real way of changing something is to be able to accept it comfortably as it is (As-is it).

This last, rather paradoxical, principle is the key to much progress in session. You can only get rid of what you don't want if you are totally willing to have it. That is the same as saying that case needs to be as-ised, not non-ised. Or you can say that you need to expand out beyond case, rather than contract inwardly from it.

A feeling of confusion is an indicator that you are in a dynamic situation and your stable data are being shaken. It is about the same as plus-randomity. There is more going on than your stable data can confront for you.

A confusion can be regarded as an opportunity or as risk depending on which way you might go with it. You can make it mean that you are going to learn something, you will become able to handle new situations once you've mastered this confusion. However, if you took the contracting approach it would have meant that you were about to become more aberrated.

To overcome a confusion you might have to be willing to accept it until you've mastered it, rather than giving in to the temptation to make fixed conclusions about it.

However, you would only regard a randomity as "confusing" if you put yourself in the middle of it. You don't really have to do that to learn from it. You can study an ant hill from a distance without feeling confused. You are always free to assume a different viewpoint from which you can comfortably study what is going on.

The trouble if of course when you put yourself in the middle of a confusion and you don't know how you make yourself confused. It shows you that you have identified with some fixed data. If you locate and free up those data you can learn to confront the randomity rather than not-ising it.

Randomity is intimately involved with our level of existence. It is most fun if it is balanced, that is optimum randomity. If you can always maintain optimum randomity you can get the most out of life. If you find yourself being confused you've got plus randomity and you need to let go of some minus-randomities to re-establish the balance.

A confusion is plus randomity. A fixed datum is minus randomity. Together they create a sort of aberrated balance. A better choice would be to re-establish optimum randomity by removing the fixed data and confronting what is actually there.

Both "above" and "below" confusion there are calm, quiet states. Above it you become comfortable with any randomity, you see it as it is, and you realize that none of it is you, and you can just be there without any need to get mixed-up in it. Below confusion is the assumption of fixed data that makes the confusion appear to go away and creates an artificial calm.

Another way of expressing this is that there are two kinds of static states. You can get stuck enough in fixed conditions so that the universe appears comfortably unmoving. Or, you can confront the randomity in the universe and realize that you aren't really any of it, but you are rather the infinite nothingness beyond the universe.

Confusion is found between the two poles of:

¥ Identifying completely with parts of the physical universe.
¥ Not identifying with anything at all.

So, when you meet confusion, pick your own choice.


Technical Essay # 71 - FAF 16 March 1992

We are all None

Various explanations abound about the 8th dynamic and our true nature.

One of the most common is "we are all one". The intention behind the expression might be valid and it might serve the purpose well of enlightening people about who they really are. However the expression is somewhat imperfect and might actually further aberration in certain instances.

First of all, truth can never be fully expressed in language. So any expression of truth is not the truth.

Secondly, notice what kind of effect an expression of truth has on people. "We are all one" tends to polarize people. For some it represents a universal integration and brotherhood that is very comforting and explains just about anything. For others, the thought is very repulsive and they will vehemently deny being the same as everyone else. For them ultimate individuality and uniqueness is what is desirable.

Well, both are right for that matter. It is the definition of oneness that muddies the waters.

In our language oneness implies sameness and same identity. Being the same as everybody else is not attractive to most. Having only one identity is not very desirable either, that is scarcity.

But on the other hand, oneness could also represent integration, wholeness and cooperation. People working together instead of against each other.

The trouble is the math. The best explanation I saw recently in a book on Magic ("Enochian Physics" by Gerald Schueler).

The manifest universe is based on polarities, plus and minus interacting with each other. That is life. However, if a polarity is undesirable the poles can be integrated with each other and the polarity will vanish.

Now, what happens if you take 2 equal opposite charges and integrate them? +X and -X put together gives 0. It doesn't become 1, it becomes 0. In other words, the 2 of the physical universe (polarities) becomes 0 when integrated, and that is the underlying truth. We could say 2=0, symbolizing that the true nature of polarized existence is the underlying Void, Zero. Now, it wouldn't add up very well if you used One. Two opposite polarities don't add up to 1.

So, we can assume the true nature of things to be a static, a zero. This would be what could be termed "Theta" or "the Void". Notice that it wouldn't have identity or existence, that would be a One.

The zero can split itself into two opposite parts, the sum is still zero, and will always be zero. But one of the parts can assume identity and existence and become an "I". And it can regard the other part as "Not-I" and that creates a game situation. The interaction between the poles has infinite possibilities for variety, which is life.

The plus, minus, and the infinity of interaction gives us all the triangles like Be-Do-Have etc. Be is the "I" that you assume, Have is the "Not-I" that you decide you want, and Do is all the stuff that takes place in getting the Be to get the Have. The underlying truth is that none of it really has to take place, it's just a made up game.

Getting back to the zero is accomplished by integrating the opposites. That is the equivalent of as-is-ness, total vanishment. I would like to comment that it is not just making a perfect duplicate, it is bringing the exact opposites together. The polarities aren't the same, and aren't duplicates of each other, they are reflections. So, another way of looking at as-isness of case is that you supply the mirror piece that when integrated with the case produces vanishment. The missing piece will more often than not be your own cause of the effect that was undesirable. The static cause behind everything ( the Zero) can create any amount of polarities and an infinity of interactions between them, and it can uncreate them again by doing the opposite.

The idea of oneness might attempt to communicate the same thing, but easily leads to confusion. Sameness and identification, A=A, is the prevalent aberration of the physical realm. A slight twist of high level 8D truths can be very useful in implanting people. You can persuade beings to stick together by showing them a glimpse of the theta void that we all share and implying that it means that identities and beings are all the same person.

Mr. Jones is not equal to Mr. Smith. That would be bad math. But if each one resolves all his polarities and identities he might get the same result of the equation:

0= static = theta = God = the real You.

Sometimes we've called it Infinity rather than Zero. That is not far off. However what we mean is probably a potential infinity of infinities. The Zero can create all of those and take them apart again. So, the infinity is more the expression of highest truth rather than its true nature. The true nature is the zero.

So, we could say that "We are all None" and that might point in the direction of truth.

However, again those are only words. And through the identifications of our language there are also undesirable implications of the "zero" or "none" statements. Making an identity into nothing is a destructive invalidation. That is not what I am talking about either. What I am talking about is the nothingness with infinite power and freedom. The nothingness for whom existence, identities, abilities, and knowledge are but amusing limitations.

Technical Essay # 72 - FAF 6 April 1992



People ask me once in a while: How come you are so smart? That has always been a puzzling question to me, and it brings up some interesting philosophical points, which is why I would mention it here.

Because deep down inside I know that I am really stupid and confused. I have learned to say "Thank you" and accept the compliment, but really I don't quite mean it.

The thing is that I stay stupid and confused longer than most people I know. Most people, when presented with a new subject, will be stupid at first but will relatively quickly get to a point when they decide that they know what the subject is. From then on they have trouble learning a whole lot more, because they decided that they already know it.

To learn something you must apparently first decide that you don't know it.

I never decide that I know something, and if I do I usually regret it. When confronted with a new subject I will stay confused and fumbling for a long time, even when people around me seem to master it easily. I really don't know how they do that. I can't fake knowing very well.

As long as I am confused I will keep looking and learning to find out what is going on. The subjects I am the most interested in are the ones I will be the most confused about. I would only decide I know something when I grow tired of it and I am ready to give it up. I get very surprised when I find that I do better than many others in subjects that really are great mysteries to me. That really makes me wonder what other people actually are doing when they appear to be learning something.

Does it mean that you can know more by not knowing, that you get smarter by being stupid?

I really don't know - I'm confused.

Now, thinking about it, it appears that Smart/Stupid or Know/UnKnow is a two-pole polarity. You can't really have one without the other. One is meaningless without comparison with the other. The balance or the game between knowing and not knowing is what makes learning possible. The moment you fixate on only one side, like deciding you already know it, or deciding that you couldn't possible know it, well then you can't learn anything.

Optimum learning, as well as Optimum-anything-else in this universe, contains optimum randomity. There has to be a randomity. In learning, it represents the stuff you don't know yet. And you better not fool yourself into thinking the randomity isn't a randomity before you know everything about it.

Plus randomity would be when you think there is nothing you could possibly learn, the subject is unlearnable, and is complete and random motion, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

Minus randomity would be when you decide that the whole subject is already explained in a few simple rules, there is really nothing more to say. The subject is in no motion, because the laws are fixed in stone. Anything that will happen will have to fit the existing rules or you aren't going to deal with it.

I guess that optimum randomity doesn't have to mean confusion. Confusion is rather unpleasant. It should be possible to have a more enjoyable way of doing it. I haven't quite figured it out yet.

Existence and the universe as we know it is a dynamic, fluid, multi-dimensional affair. There is a lot of randomity and motion there. The truth of it is exactly what it is, and that includes all the elements and all the motion. Any simplified model you make of it is just that: a simplified model. No model is the real thing. Models and simplifying principles and theories are very useful to work with, as long as you realize that they are only symbols, and you are ready to revise them when appropriate.

The more sane way of operating is probably to fully realize when you are working with a map and when you are looking at the actual territory. And to be able to do either of them or both of them fully. That would be a wonderful Clear state. Full cause over the subjective representation you make in your mind, and ability to see the world objectively as it is without any kind of biasing filters. That is an absolute of course, but a worthwhile one to pursue, I think.

Previous page


Next page