faf34.scr

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Wed Nov 30 00:06:02 EST 2016


.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 # 34 - FAF 9 February 1991

.ce Clearing and Programming


There are three main ways of dealing with charge:

¥ Remove it.
¥ Paste it over.
¥ Optimize it.

The first method is the traditional focus of clearing. We try to erase or release any way we can
charged material. That is what Clearing has its name from. That usually works fine at least
initially. However, if that is the sole approach we might end up removing something that we
actually needed to keep.

Pasting over the charge, suppressing it and putting a band-aid on top of it, is the approach of
many other practices. For example that is typically what would be done in hypnosis. In stead
of finding and clearing the causes of things, a new pattern is installed to override the
unwanted one. That approach has some success, but is very limited. It can have a limited
keying-out effect on existing charge, by at least pushing it out of sight. It is often also what we
would do by applying ethics tech.

The third approach is to convert the charge to work in a more optimum way. Re-routing the
flows to work for you instead of against you. Channeling the existing energies in a different
direction. That is done with greater or lesser success in various types of therapies, such as
Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) or psychology. It is also to a large degree what we
would do by admin tech.

None of the three approaches are necessarily right or wrong for all situations. Each one has
its use, also in our field. Depending on the charge, the area, the situation, the case level, and
so forth, different approaches could be taken.

A piece of charge that is wholly unwanted and unnecessary would need to be removed.
Determining if it falls into that category isn't always self-evident, however. Just because
something is there doesn't condone removing it. Just because there is something unwanted
about it doesn't mean immediately that it must go. Maybe the removal of it is not practical at
that stage. Maybe it is just a twisted symptom of a very desirable underlying mechanism.

An unwanted behavior can come into being different ways. It might appear as the result of
misunderstoods, confusing un-evaluated data, and mind overload. Following it back to its
source we might realize that it doesn't have any reason for existing at all, and we would
erase it as thoroughly as we can. Engrams are in this category.

A behavior might also start as a well-intended solution to something, a mechanism that does
some work for us. It might have been an imperfect solution, or it is has become corrupted
along the way, or it is now out-dated. If we erase that without looking too closely at it we might
be left without any method of dealing with that part of life. It will often be more useful to track it
back to its desired outcome, and it it is really desirable then direct it in a more optimum
direction. Attention units, anchor points, and goals are often in this category.

The issue comes up if clearing should play a part in re-programming the mind. If the goal of
clearing was to totally leave all games, everything would need to be erased in the
appropriate order. However, if the goal is an optimized life-game there is a definite need for
leaving mechanisms in existence. Some things need to persist in order to play the game
effectively.

In that light clearing could be said to have a responsibility for removing unwanted
programming or converting it into useful programming. And possibly even for creating new
programming.

Abilities in the physical universe sense are something created, programmed, and persisting.

When you are able to speak English it is because you have learned sub-conscious
programming that keeps track of the method of doing that. You wouldn't want to erase that, at
least not while you haven't erased your need for operating in a human society. You would
rather want to channel more abilities in that direction so you could speak better English. But
when it really comes down to it the program for speaking English is made to persist in much
the same fashion as unwanted mental charge is: the as-isness is altered to make it into an is-
ness. The main difference is that it is a desired program.

When you put out anchor points or attention units to keep track of your space and the people,
areas, and subjects you are associated with you do that to help you play the game better.
You would do more poorly if you couldn't keep track of these things. But these anchor points
and attention units might be misplaced, there might be too many of them, they have been
altered and so forth. You would probably want to be cause over them and to optimize the way
you use them.

There are situations, even in clearing, where the pasting-over method might be most
appropriate. If a pc doesn't want clearing, and the reason for that is too far out of sight, you
might very well handle the situation with PR or ethics and get him to agree to do it anyway.
That doesn't clear anything, but it allows the process of clearing to take place. Likewise, the
practice of disconnection in PTS handling doesn't really clear anything. But it might
submerge the issue long enough so that the real charge can be cleared.

What I would like to suggest here is more awareness of the types of charge and the
approaches for dealing with them. A much more optimum result can be accomplished by
identifying charge correctly and doing the optimum action on it.

More understanding is needed about the area of positive programming. Drilling, exercises,
and admin fits in here, but more subjective methods seem to also be needed.

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Nov 30 00:06:01 EST 2016 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/flemming/faf34.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.



More information about the Clear-L mailing list