faf60.scr

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Thu Dec 3 00:06:02 EST 2015


.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce Copyright (C) Flemming A. Funch
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
Technical Essay # 60 - FAF 11 October 1991

.ce How Clearing Works


Traditionally there has been various explanations included in the theory of Clearing as to
how and why it works. We have been talking about "erasing" engrams or "moving them from
the reactive to the analytical banks". We have talked about "getting off mass", "TA", "EPs",
"F/Ns" and so forth.

However, all of this is just words. They only explain things when they go together with a belief
in a certain theory. For example, if we believe that there is such a thing as a "reactive mind"
and that it is totally unwanted, and it we believe that when the intensity of an incident seems
to diminish when we look at it, then we can talk about "erasure". But it is a circular reference,
all the pieces are defined by each other.

You can't show me a "reactive mind", it is only a word invented to make it easier to talk about
what we do. Likewise there is no objective way of demonstrating that anything disappears
when we "erase" an engram.

However, our clients do seem to feel better when we do these things, so obviously they are
workable theories in producing subjective changes for people. But notice the distinction: they
are only models; theories.

A basic pre-supposition for clearing is that the person is mocking up his case, he is right now
creating it all himself. That is basically the clear cog. Unfortunately the depth of this has not
been understood widely enough, and some people mistakenly claim that it doesn't apply on
the advanced levels. I'd say it applies just about anywhere.

If we assume the simplicity that the person is putting his case there right now, the remedy
also becomes very clear. Obviously, if we can get him to not put it there anymore, then our job
is done. And basically that is what we are doing on a gradient.

The most fundamental clearing is changing of postulates. Hubbard once said that the most
basic session would be to start the session, ask the pc what he wants handled, then ask him
to change his mind about it, and then end the session.

I'd say that this is senior to any of the models for how case is supposedly structured. Anything
that gets the person to change his mind to the better is valid processing.

We might lose track of the big picture of what we are trying to do if we become too involved in
the details of application of different processes.

Why does, for example, a repetitive process work?

Is it inherently good for people to do the same thing over and over? Not particularly. Factory
workers do it for years without getting any apparent case gain from it. Repetitive questioning
appears at best tiring out in real life. So why on earth would it provide great benefit when we
do it as a process?

First of all there is a factor that most clearing practitioners would be most happy to deny,
namely suggestion. If a certain outcome is suggested, or implied, or just expected by the
client, then a process works quite differently than if there was no framework of expectation at
all. The simple expectation that this is going to give a positive result can be enough to get
nice EPs. But without any expectation at all most repetitive processes would not work and
would only upset people.

Look at what we are doing: We repeat an action or a question until the pc becomes charged
up about it, and then we continue. If the pc has agreed that he is going to do this, and that it
will produce a positive result, then he will have to shift at some point into a position of not
being affected by the charge that came up. That will generally be a better position. He can
see things more clearly from there and will give a cognition to demonstrate that.

Really what we did was to focus attention repeatedly on a certain area so as to make it
unbearable for the pc to stand without shifting, and sooner or later he will by necessity level
shift to a better postulate about that area, and that is the EP.

The process itself, of going over this unpleasant change doesn't do anything good for the pc,
except indirectly because it makes him shift as a result of it. Actually it is a situation of 2 steps
back and 3 steps forward. We make him feel bad, but he ends up having better postulates
and that is usually worth it.

My explanation here might be somewhat at odds with the theories of the benefits of "taking
mass off the case". But I think that, more correctly, the target of clearing is postulates. When
we bring up some mass and them remove it again the net result in terms of mass is rationally
speaking zero. The result comes from the postulates one has shifted while doing this.

A release or erasure is really just a change in relation to something. A release is a temporary
betterment of the relation and an erasure is a permanent change.

If a person has a fear of elevators and we have it drop away without changing the exact
postulate about it, then it is a release. If we find a postulate about having a fear of elevators
and we change it to something else, then it is an erasure.

Incident clearing is a way of getting to a negative postulate about something connected with
a reasonable explanation for what it was made. Seeing the situation (the basic incident) and
the postulate, the pc can re-evaluate it and change it to a postulate that doesn't give him
trouble.

Notice that I'm talking about changing postulates, not just getting rid of them. Traditionally
clearing has been slanted towards getting rid of things, without much attention on having
anything instead. Ultimately that can lead to long-term detrimental effects from clearing,
particularly after Clear. Just because we find that people have aberrated relations to things
doesn't mean that they would be better off without any relations at all.

If the pc puts nothing in stead of what he takes away, he will have a loss of havingness. If he
puts something else instead it might very well be some other aberration, chosen at random.

There can be several reasons for clearing not working right if we look at these basics.

If we start a repetitive process on a pc we are basically applying some pressure to him in a
very focused area. If we choose the process right it will bring up some unpleasant change he
will have to deal with. The first thing that could go wrong is if the process doesn't bring
anything up, an "uncharged" question. Second thing would be if it brought up more than we
could expect to key out again. Thirdly it is only going to work if the pc has some idea that he is
going to shift for the better, he must be indoctrinated. And finally the shift he makes is made at
random and might not put him in a totally desirable place. For example, he might pick a
service fac or an evil purpose as his cognition. He might feel great about it, but might become
obnoxious to other people.

Knowing about these factors one can better determine what is going on and ensure a
desirable outcome.

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec  3 00:06:02 EST 2015 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/flemming/faf60.scr
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but 
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth, and Peace,  Internet, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask?   http://www.lightlink.com


More information about the Clear-L mailing list