OrgDynS0.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Tue Nov 1 06:06:02 EDT 2016


        Organizational Dynamic Stops by Awareness Level

        This little jewel of a rundown works similar to a full data and
sit analysis with handling across the dynamics at case level. (Note:
Here, I just started in on the first dynamic, but it might run better by
assessing the dynamics for the biggest read. preface the question "Which
dynamic do you have the most trouble with?, dissagree the most with,
etc."). 

        The body is a dynamic organization, you run it as such. Process
to be run with attention on the body and self. 
        Take the plus awareness levels, comm, perception, recognition
all the way across to source. Those are the division sections, the 21
department awareness levels.
        Assess for biggest read, that will be the part of the org that
is most in need of repair. It is like a data analysis by emeter read.
        L/n to get the Terminal and purpose in that department. Blow all
the entities and mass in the section, r3r the purpose if discreditable.
Check failed purps, r3r that out as well.You can also find the prior
confusion and handle that.
        Run arcx, problems, withholds, overts of long duration, then
prepcheck on the awareness level. 

        This will blow the hell out of the main body org stop.
        Next, beef up this department.

        Take the 21 plus awareness levels, assess them for largest read,
and then assess that against the negative. For example, say Source read.
The question then would be:
        "On source is there:
         catatonia
         shock
         etc etc, ruin, fear of worsening, hope, help?

        Say on source, ruin read best.

        Then l/n Who/What would be the ruin of source? (ex: A Evil
genius)

        This will be THE reason for the body orgs departmental failure
in the past. If it is a beingness, run it directly, with b,c, etc.
         If it is not, find the terminal (W/W would represent an evil
genius).
"Bill the destroyer"
        Spot diff/ similarities between you and "Bill the destroyer", to
big f/n, fta, cognition, ability regained.
        Reassess the positive awareness levels, take the best reading,
say "communication" read. Assess against the negative, say
"disconnection" read. The listing question would be:
        W/W would represent (would be) 'disconnection of communication'?
        (example: "A telephone Operator")
        Find the terminal, blow all identifies out, then Spot
differences/similarites until exteriorization from that universe or
viewpoint, big f/n etc.
        
        Continue this process until you have a f/ning assessment of the
positive awareness levels.
        This will totally pop the CO (you) out of "being pulled down the
org bd".

        Result should be something like "Return to acting with full self
determinism upon the first dynamic." May be something even higher. It
will blow the main stop and counter intent/ other intentions from cells,
organs, and other beings by the tens of thousands.

        You could repeat the process with attention on all dynamics, one
ata time. Result would be "Eradication of primary stops to full self
determinism along all dynamics". 
        Now, I think that would be of some use. :)

        Perhaps on a non-clear, the process would only produce a key out
or release. Dunno, but it sure as hell will cook on a nots completion.

        All the best.

Tommy
-- 
"A being is only as valuable as he can serve others."
http://recyclerhome.com/community/spellsinger/index.html
http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Campus/2058/
pthorn1 at pacbell.net
http://wwp.mirabilis.com/232039 (icq pager)

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Nov  1 06:06:02 EDT 2016 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/ra/OrgDynS0.memo
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.



More information about the Clear-L mailing list