Homer Wilson Smith
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Wed Dec 26 15:15:04 EST 2018
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
FINAL PROCESS II
This is brilliant with the one exception that "What?" questions
Run NO and SOME on all items mentioned below.
Oh, and yeah, there is a lot of sorrow on a case, enough to
fill the atlantic ocean, so this process will run for a while.
Ship tears to Japan to cool the nuclear reactors that blew up.
FINAL PROCESS II
The final process is hardly the final process and makes no claim to
be the one and only needed process. It is just a name. Hey I write
what I am told.
In looking over The Final Process (TFP), it shows many similarities
to UCP, the Universal Clearing Process.
UCP also runs past, present and future, but adds comparisons
which the final process does not.
TFP also runs both sides of the dicom which UCP does not.
The wording of the commands are also subtly different.
UCP: Where have you been? Where are you? Where could you be?
TFP: What has been? What is? What will be?
The greatest difference of significance is in the future set.
What could be is as different from what will be, as what could
have been is from what has been.
UCP's rendition is more creative postulating, while TFP tries to
get at fixed postulates about the future.
It occurs to me that one might as well conceed the difference and
run could, would and should, along with did.
Would has two different meanings in english. The first is the
subjunctive, what would you do if...
The second is the absolute meaning of want or desire, what I would
have be is what I want to have be.
We are trying to run this last one, but the grammer is hard.
Also could can intimate good possibilities, but also other
determined and thus bad possibilities.
What was? What is? What will be?
What was not? What is not? What will not be?
What could have been? What could be now? What could be in the future?
What could not have been? What could not be now? What could not be in the future?
What should have been? What should be now? What should be in the future?
What should not have been? What should not be now? What should not be in the future?
What would you have been? What would you have be now? What would you have be in the future.
What would you not have been? What would you have not be now? WHat would you have not be in the future.
The final process asserts that the past will not run, only the
future will run.
This is echoed in the idea that one should not run ARCX processes,
and that running the positive pleasure moments will bring up the
negative painful moments.
Just so, running the future will bring up the past but running the
past alone will produce a jam.
The theory behind these assertions comes directly from Hubbardian
The pc has tried to solve the future by withdrawing into the past.
Specifically he either accidentlly or was provoked into committing
an overt act, but in over doing it, he regretted it, and tried to
withdraw back to before the event happened, in order to make it never
Thus the pc is already in the past, prior to the incident he needs
to run out.
That's why he can't remember his anger/regret cycles.
Ostensibly auditing then tries to get the pc to withdraw into his
past again in order to spot the place in his past where he withdrew to,
in order to unmake the postulates he made that being in the past is a
This approach might sound good on paper, but the more direct way to
get the pc to spot the past is to get him to walk forward into the
Then he will remember why he wants to hide in the past!
Emotion and all.
Here is the reason why.
The pc is already earlier in the past than he needs to run, and
he is more than happy to withdraw even deeper into the past in order
to 'go looking for' the incident he needs to run, which of course he
will never find. Relative to the pc's position on his own time track,
the incident he needs to run is in his future!
He HAS no existence at or after that incident, so when you ask him
to locate anything in his past, what he finds is always earlier than he
is stuck, and thus produces nothing but missed or bypassed charge from
the incident in his future that he is backing away from.
So the only way out of the past is to walk forward into the future.
Even if that future is still in the past of every one else!
Now it would be nice to ask the pc to mockup a future he would
want, but he no longer has a clue what a future could look like.
Its not that he knows what he wants but thinks he can't have it,
that would be high tone. No, the pc has no clue what he wants, or could
want. Can't even imagine it, no idea what ARC or pleasure really are.
Sometimes a guy just has to spend a few years with a few cats to
learn what love is all over again.
So by running what will be, the pc will be spotting the effects
of his own postulates, and they can be pretty grim, but the EMOTION
will come off it and the effort. He can't cry about past deaths, but
he sure as hell can bawl projectile tears about future deaths.
Sorrow is love in loss.
So by recovering his sorrow for him, you recover his love, then
you can start to build a new future with 'would be' and 'could be'
rather than 'will be.'
Once the pc cognites how this all works, and it won't take long,
they will be able to solo the process with life as the C/S.
Look to your future, and you will find your past.
Thu Jul 16 22:07:02 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 26 12:00:03 EST 2018
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L