HelpBracket.txt

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Sun Dec 9 06:06:03 EST 2018


Help Bracket Processing
Bill Maier
June 10, 1999

I. Introduction
Over the past few months I have been solo auditing a clearing program
using help processes from Eductivism class VIII. Although these help
processes will look very familiar to Scientologists, their application
to clearing GPMs was originated by Jack Horner, the founder of
Eductivism. His original handling of GPMs was similar to standard
Scientology methods, but he later decided that these help processes
handled the same things, with less auditing skill required for their
application. The idea for me personally running these came from one of
Jack's former students, who became a sort of mentor for my clearing
progress.

II. Processes
There are two basic processes used. The Clearing Help Bracket is
1. In relation to _____, how could you help another?
2. In relation to _____, how could another help you?
3. In relation to _____, how could another help himself?
4. In relation to _____, how could you help yourself?
5. In relation to _____, how could another help another?
6. How could _____ help you?
The process is run as a bracket, meaning that the questions are run 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, etc. The Participant Bracket is
1. How could you help a _____?
2. How could a ____ help you?
3. How could you help yourself?
4. How could a ___ help himself?
5. How could a _____ help another?
6. How could another help a _____ ?
7. How could a ___ help a ____?
Various items can be inserted into the blanks. The Clearing Help
Bracket is most useful when the item is a concept. For example, to run
the item "winning", the first question would be "In relation to
winning, how could you help another?" The Participant bracket is used
to run terminals (people or beings), and is most often used on
different kinds of game participants. For example, running "unwilling
participant" leads to the question "How could you help an unwilling
participant?" etc.

It's necessary to recognize the variety of subjective definitions of
help that may come up when running these processes. For example, a
soldier might help an enemy by killing him. Perhaps the soldier was
helping by showing the enemy the justness of the cause for which the
soldier is fighting. In any case, the interpretation of what
constitutes an answer is entirely up to the PC, but he does need to be
hatted on this so he doesn't invalidate his answers if they don't fit
the textbook definition of help.

Here are some items that can be run in the Help Brackets:
· Being a source / Not being a source
· Intending / Not intending (or Intention / No intention)
· Creating / Not creating
· Pleasing people / Not pleasing people
· Winning / Non-Winning
· Participating / Not participating
The items are listed in dichotomous pairs, both of which should be
run. For example, first you would run the bracket 1-6 on "being a
source" with the questions "In relation to being a source, how could
you help another?", "In relation to to being a source, how could
another help you?" etc. You would then run the bracket 1-6 on "not
being a source" with "In relation to not being a source, how could you
help another?", etc. In all there would be 12 questions in the bracket
that would be repeated to EP.

Here are some items to run in the participant brackets:
· detached participant
· involved participant
· winner
· loser
· non-winner (someone who doesn't win or lose, but stays in the game)
· willing participant
· unwilling participant
· degraded participant
· solving participant
· rejected participant
· different (and better) participant
· failing participant
· constant (or determined) participant
· obsessed participant
· automatic participant
· compelled participant
· committed participant
· faulty participant
· begrudging participant
· perfect participant
· excessive (or overwhelmed or overrun) participant
· regretful participant
· unsolvable participant
· refusing participant
· bothered (by others who are doing what you are trying to give up)
participant
· changing (to a new solution) participant

There are 18 participants which are supposed to address specific items
common to GPMs, that can be run in the Participant brackets.  They
are:

1.  Ex-participant  = one who no longer has the desire to participate.
Just doesn't have the desire anymore . . . Doesn't want to be involved
anymore.

2.  Changing participant (or change-desiring participant) = one who
has desire to pursue the next goal.  The key is desire - he's not
actually doing the new thing yet.

3.  Bothered participant =  having problems with those who are still
doing the thing that one has just given up.  Example: quit smoking
cigarettes and now have problems with cigarette smokers.

4.  Refusing participant = one who has determined to not do it at all,
ever again.  Try not to think of a pink elephant.  Quitting once and
for all.  Actually "quitting partcipant" might work very well also.

5.  Discouraged participant = one whose goal has become an unsolvable
problem. "Unsolvable participant" might work also.

6.  Regretful participant = is hoping not to, but is doing it anyway.
"Sorry I keep stepping on your foot . . .  I'd like to stop smoking
and I hope to give it up some day, but . . ."

7.  Excessive participant.  Or: overwhelmed or overrun participant.
= having too much of whatever it is.

8.  Begrudging participant = one who HATES what he is doing, but goes
on doing it. Hating is the solution!

9.  Faulty participant = suffering from criticisms, his own and
others'.

10.  Committed participant = one who is doing what has to be done.
Justifying and rationalizing why one has to do this.

11.  Compelled participant = someone or something making you do it.

12.  Automatic participant = setting up automaticities to carry out an
intention

13.  Obsessed participant = obsession, fixation, can't get your mind
off it.

14.  Determined participant = doing it over and over, constantly.

15.  Failing participant = having failures to achieve what was
intended.

16.  Better participant = doing it differently and better.  Generally
has attitude of "I'll show them"  (This also true of determined
participant).  Could say "different and better participant."

17.  Rejected participant = having
rejections/difficulties/disagreements with those who have the same
general goal.

18.  Solving participant =  One who has the only solution for
everything.   Solution could be positive or negative.  For example, he
could be solving everything by avoidance.  A person dramatizing this
item usually is trying to get the solution to manifest on all flows.
Example, trying to be agreeable, get others to be agreeable = total
solution for everything.

III. Prerequisites
I would recommend that a person have completed at least some prior
auditing before attempting these processes. The traditional course is
to have a person complete the grades through Power processing before
attempting these clearing processes. However, I have found that many
of the assumptions currently extant for auditing are quite arbitrary
-- e.g. you must do grades before power, power before R6EW, etc. I
would say use your own judgement.  The only real "danger" is that the
person would fail to get significant results, then write off the
processes without recognizing they might be applicable later on.
Personally I had only perhaps one hundred hours of processing with an
auditor before starting the help brackets, but I had also completed
several hundred hours of solo processing including about the first
half of the Pilot self-auditing program, through the Power processes.

One prerequisite I would not compromise on is the excellent use of
TRs. Personally, it wasn't until I began to adhere strictly to the use
of TRs in my solo auditing that I began to get consistently good
results. Prior to this I would frequently bog down and simply abandon
a process, without knowing why it didn't work. The correct handling is
just simple TR4:
  Auditor: How could you help an unwilling participant?
  PC: (starts to feel groggy)
  Auditor: What's happening?
  PC: I feel groggy.
  Auditor: OK. Is it all right to continue with the process?
  PC: Yes.
  Auditor: OK. I'll repeat the auditing question, how could you help
an unwilling participant?
The groggy feeling is treated as an origination. The auditor gets the
PC back into session and continues. You must train yourself to keep
your auditor identity in place, even when the going gets rough. It's
really not that difficult.

IV. Personal Experience
These processes are simple to run and make few assumptions. You don't
have to have any reality on GPMs to run these. You don't even have to
run whole track, though they undoubtedly run deeper if you do. Despite
the lack of assumptions, I frequently found myself involved in the
interaction of identities and goals - GPM material. The absence of
assumptions is appealing to me. It's clear by looking at the diversity
of opinions in the Free Zone about running NOTs and OT III that there
is no consensus for handling cases beyond the grades. I think it is
best to stick to those processes that allow the PC to come up with his
own answers, rather than those that feed him assumptions about his
case or his history.

I always use a meter when auditing, though this is not strictly
necessary. I would recommend you use one if you have one, but don't
let a lack of a meter stop you. My main use of the meter during these
processes is to confirm the EP, and to a lesser extent to monitor
progress. The position of the TA is the most important indicator,
though the looseness or tightness of the needle is also useful
information.

I have seen more TA action while running these processes than any
others I've run. It is not unusual to see the TA rise as much as a
division or more, then blowdown, rise again, blowdown, etc. over and
over again during the session. I've had TAA of 35 divs per hour or
more. The processes can also cause "high TA, stuck needle" situations
as masses move in. I have had a stuck needle at TA 5.5 for more than
half an hour in a session, but after continuing to run the process the
needle eventually freed up, the TA blew down, and I ended with a
floating TA. Incidentally, floating TAs have been a common result for
me running these processes, and once I have one there's no point in
trying to run anything else for a day or two until it settles down.

There's just one more point I'd like to make about the meter. You can
use it to assess items to run, though again this is not necessary. You
could formulate a question such as "What kind of participant am I
being" and look for reads on your answers. I tried this once and did
not have much luck with it. (I have not had much success with solo
assessment in general, however - I rarely get reads on any of the
items). Personally, I just went ahead and ran all of the items. Those
that were not heavily charged ran to an EP in 10 or 15 minutes, while
those that were more heavily dramatized took longer.

One of the greatest difficulties for me in solo auditing was
determining when to end the process. When I first started soloing
(prior to running these help brackets) it was not unusual for me to
run a process for 3 or 4 minutes, have a cognition, and then end the
process. Several auditors in the Free Zone told me it was OK to end
the process here, that the important thing was to keep having wins.
Well, perhaps this is true for some people, but for me personally this
was not right. The quick cognition was a sort of non-confront
mechanism which kept me from getting into the real heart of the
process. I needed to push ahead and run processes to a true flat
point. It's hard to put a run time on processes since they run
differently from person to person, however the above brackets
frequently required at least an hour for me to flatten one item when I
first started this processing. As I progressed the times tended to
shorten as the bulk of the charge was handled. The meter can also be
used to help confirm when to end a process, by watching for the TA in
the range 2 to 3 with a loose needle.

Although these processes are unlimited and can be run for a long time
with benefit, I do not recommend them as a "one-shot" technique, to be
done to the exclusion of all else. There are those who find some
process to be particularly effective, and then narrowly focus on that
process as "the answer". I cannot agree with such an approach. No one
process can cover all aspects of a case. I think it is important to
take the gains one can get from a process and then move on to
something else.

V. Results
My results with these processes have been outstanding. Flattening an
item frequently leaves me in such a keyed-out state that it is
impossible to continue further processing for at least a day or two. A
floating TA is a common end result.

So is this processing an effective way to handle GPMs? Quite honestly
I cannot say for sure one way or the other. I do know that the
processes tend to address identities and the interaction of
identities, and that running them does exteriorize me from these
dramatizations. This, along with the huge quantities of charge being
handled, makes me think that I am indeed erasing or keying-out GPMs.
However, until I have direct experience with a more traditional GPM
process, I have no real basis for comparison.

Nonetheless, I find that I am becoming quite detached in my view of
life as a result of this processing. I am far less bothered by the ups
and downs of daily living, and feel that I have gained a considerable
ability to act on life, rather than react to it. Life is less serious.
My own personal space has also expanded. In short, the help and
participant brackets have been some of the most effective processing I
have ever had.

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec  9 06:06:02 EST 2018 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/maier/HelpBracket.txt
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