ucp9.memo

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Fri Dec 21 00:06:02 EST 2018


Scorpio (mudrunner at eudoramail.com) wrote:
>You're not the only one for whom "Classic" UCP commands and their
>variants proved too constrictive.

     I been thinking more about this.

     For me there are 7 basic questions about an event:

     Who, How, What, Where, When, Why and Which.

     When whos don't run, whens might, or wheres or whys etc.

     It's amazing what going around a black mass with these 7 can
bring up.  Loosen up one, and the others start to run.

     If one won't answer, find the one that will, and the others
start to respond.

     The UCP command "WHERE have you been", stuck me in the where's
which made an instant ridge of resentment as it acted as
a wrong indication 6 out of 7 times on average.

     It doesn't matter if KP wants us to interpret the word 'where'
differently, the bank and BT's and the whole composite has automatic
reactions to words and the efforts to think them.

     Remember the very effort to think or say a word permeates the
whole space of the pc and his bank.
 
     Even 'Who have you been in relation to' sticks me in the who's.

     So in general I tend to try to use the most general question
possible, maybe something like "Spot something."

     But linguistics tend to limit what I am actually doing,
and I don't recommend any particular phrasing.

     Then we have the words BEEN and ARE.  These are BEINGNESS words,
and stick a person in space and time.  KP admits that as a person goes
up tone, there will be a need to change these words to 'viewpoint'
etc.

     But I would suggest that it is more subtle than that.  Basically
I would suggest that each pc needs to find his own wording to best get
him to spot things in the past, present and future.

     This could even be run as a pre process itself, just to find his
wording.  When he finds a set, then he runs that set, until he needs
to find another set.

     If UCP has dried up on someone, maybe all they have to do is
run the wording pre process again.  Or start auditing the others
in his vicinty screaming for auditing :)

     Then there is the matter of what exactly we are auditing.  KP says
we are auditing 'YOURSELF', but that is highly introverting and in
fact wrong as there is no 'YOURSELF'.

     But given that people think there is a 'YOURSELF', the truth is
that what we are auditing is charge.  Charge results from failed
desire.  Desire relates the self to something else.

     So we have SELF - DESIRE - SOMETHING ELSE.

     The point is you have two terminals, self and other, and the
relationship between them which is desire.

     Now it might seem simplistic to boil down all relationships to
desire, but any relationship that has charge on it, has desire and
failure inter woven through the fabric of the relationship, both
intensity of desire and considered probability of failure which
results in tone amplitude and tone frequency.

     Intensity of desire    = tone intensity.
     Probability of failure = tone frequency.

     Thus any spotting of the past, present or future, needs to evenly
cover all these aspects of self, desire/relation and other.
 
     The basic fundamental of UCP, which is to spot something in the
past, present, and future and compare ALL OF THEM TO EACH OTHER, can
be brought about by many different wordings and approaches, both in
rote session and in backgrounding throughout the day.
 
     If you are only comparing the past to the present and the future
to the present you are missing out on comparing the past to the future
and leaving one leg of the triangle unaudited.  That will also cause a
bog.
 
     A more thorough analysis of exactly what is worth spotting about
the past, present and future is also in order.

     There is vast richness in between self and other.
 
     Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Dec 21 00:06:02 EST 2018 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/ucp/ucp9.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