act50.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Sat Mar 25 12:06:04 EDT 2017


 
 
 
 
 
 
             ((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
 
                          SESSION NOTES 3/3/94
 
                                ACT - 50
                              3 March 1994
 
                 Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
 
 
     Ran solo, on meter, effort mostly,
 
     "Is there a Rage/Regret Cycle?"
 
     "Is there a withhold on a Rage/Regret cycle?"
 
     "Is there a missed withhold on a Rage/Regret cycle?"
 
     "Is the missed withhold a CLOSE CALLS, a WONDERS or a STILL KNOWS?"
 
     "Is there a Mutual missed withhold on a Rage/Regret cycle?"
     (Meaning both Parent and Child have it at the same time.)
 
     "Is there a Co Excused missed withhold on a Rage/Regret cycle?"
 
     Meaning, as a son in this life, and as a mother in a past life:
 
     1.) "Did you have a Rage/Regret cycle on a son as a mother, in a
past life?" (DED)
 
     2.) "Does your mother have a Rage/Regret cycle on you as a son, in
this life?" (DEDEX)
 
     3.) "Did your son have a Rage/Regret cycle on you as a mother, in a
past life?" (MOTIVATOR)
 
     4.) "Do you have a Rage/Regret cycle on your mother as a son, in
this life?" (OVERT)
 
     Then PRIOR to any Rage/Regret cycle,
 
     "What is the Basic Crime between Parent and Child?"
 
     "Is there something between Mother and Son?"
 
     "Tell me about you as a son."
     "Tell me about your mother as a mother."
     "Tell me about you as a mother."
     "Tell me about your mother as a son."
 
     All terminals were run, Mother, Father, Son and Daughter in all
combinations, with concentration on those given above.
 
     Case consists of an encysted Rage/Regret Cycle, preceded by an
Overt Provocation against the one enraged.
 
     Specifically a CO EXCUSED Missed Withhold on a Rage/Regret cycle,
which means what the child suffered at the hands of his parents he did
as a parent to his own children in a past life.
 
     The parent does something crass.  The child is enraged.  Later the
child regrets the rage and either does or does not make up with the
parent.  If he does, then its over.  If he doesn't, then he will develop
case.
 
     The Rage is certain, the Regret may be doubted, leaving the person
in a quandary as to whether or not they ought to feel regret.  Until
they are sure they should feel regret, they won't.
 
     Regret that isn't felt is held in around the heart area, producing
heart attacks.
 
     "Who do you still want to murder?"     (Rage)
     "Are you withholding an apology?"      (Regret)
 
     If the regret is doubted, the person may wonder if the other person
knows that they are withholding a possible apology, the withhold of
apology thus becomes missed.
 
     Prior to the Rage/Regret cycle, there will be a moment of Total
Irresponsibility on the part of the preclear towards what provoked the
Rage in the first place.  It's a "How did this get into MY game?" kind
of feeling.  Very very deep and very serious.  It breaks the Sovereignty
and Equanimity of the Child, and the child breaks the Chalice with the
parent, and then later regrets it, sometimes instantaneously afterwards.
 
     The Parent can have Rage/Regret cycles towards the Child too.
 
     The parent can also be withholding regret and doubt about apologies
towards the child.  Both parent and child can be in this state towards
each other, they will tend to orbit around each other looking to see if
the other knows that they may have an apology coming to them all the
while trying to GET the one they want for themselves.
 
     It is unclear whether Parent or Child develops the first
Rage/Regret cycle towards each other.
 
     If the child feels the parent owes them an apology for an earlier
Rage/Regret cycle on the part of the parent, an apology which is not
forthcoming, then if the child develops his own Rage/Regret cycle, he
will withhold his own apology to his own detriment from the parent
because the parent is withholding theirs.
 
     The parent will do the same thing to the child if the child has the
prior unadmitted apology.
 
     The Rage/Regret cycle hangs up in the unadmitted apology because of
the earlier point of Total No Responsibility for the provoking party and
the loss of Class when the Chalice is broken during the moment of Rage.
 
     It's the first time you decide to not love the other party for ever
and to destroy them or ruin them permanently rather to merely teach them
a lesson and bring them around to rights.
 
     The intention towards repair of friendship is GONE.
 
     "Class is an attitude, that ALL should live forever and be my
friend."
 
     A child who is wronged will often ruin HIMSELF first to show his
parents he means business, such is the love of the child.  When the
parents respond with further crassness, the child will then try to ruin
the parents.
 
     No matter how bad the parents have been, the child will ultimately
regret what he did.  If he fails to get off the apology in good order to
SOMEONE, he will develop justifications and case.  Case IS merely
sticking, persisting and accumulating justifications.  It's all those
horrible things everyone ever did to you and more that fully accounts
for why you don't have to give up that apology.
 
     The fastest way to ruin a person is to refuse their apology when
they mean it.
 
     It is an overt act which itself is later regretted, and the person
later often suffers the motivator of having his apology refused for
having refused an apology.
 
     Refusing to give or receive an apology that is due is No Auditing.
 
     The way to happiness is a true confession.
 
     Why oh why doesn't Chris like me?
 
     Homer
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith           This file may be found at
homer at rahul.net              ftp.rahul.net/pub/homer/act/act50.memo
Posted to usenet newsgroup:  alt.clearing.technology
 
Date:         Sat, 05 Mar 94 00:19:40 EST
From:         CTM at CORNELLC
Subject:      Session Notes 3/4/94
To:           clear-l at ualtavm
 
 
     Ran solo, on the meter, mostly efforts,
 
     "Tell me about you as a son."          (me as a son.)
     "Tell me about your mother as a son."  (me as a son.)
     "Tell me about you as a mother."       (me as a mother in past)
     "Tell me about your son as a mother."  (me as a mother in past)
 
     with emphasis on visualizing beingness of son looking at
beingness of mother, and then AS a mother, the beingness of the mother
looking at beingness of son.
 
      Unbelievable.
 
      Someday I may actually be able to breath again.
 
      Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Mar 25 12:06:03 EDT 2017 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act50.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