Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Sun Aug 30 06:06:02 EDT 2020

.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 # 67 - FAF 21 December 1991

.ce Incident Clearing Summary

There are many improvements of incident clearing that can make it be more efficient and
beneficial. It is also important to understand what we are really trying to accomplish with it.

All clearing attempts to move the client from effect to cause. Practitioners who don't fully
understand this will often fail to accomplish it on incident clearing.

In incident running and other negative clearing we start with an unwanted effect condition,
trace it back to how the person is actually causing it, and we allow him to cause something
better instead. That is in contrast to pure positive clearing where we drill the person in
different ways of looking at and dealing with a subject without concern about what is in his

Notice that to avoid adverse effects of the negative clearing process itself it should always
end with a positive step. This is to re-establish havingness and put the person at cause in
present time. Omitting the positive action will leave the lie there that the pc is effect now and
that the cause was in the past.

The truth of the matter is that nobody is really effect of things that happened in the past. You
only appear to be effect now because you are causing just that now, and you have forgotten
how you are doing it. I repeat, you are causing it now. We only address the past to
accommodate the pc's reality and because we get a story that "explains" things, making it
logical for the pc to change his considerations.

Incident clearing is complete at the point when the person fully realizes the truth of creating
any effect he has right now. From that point on he doesn't need to look into the past to get an
excuse for changing now.

Incident clearing is intended to correct some lies about time, not to perpetuate them. Time is
in itself an illusion. There is no reason at all in being effect of something that happened
earlier, except for aberrated considerations. Time is just a dimension. Being nervous
because you were beaten as a child is no more logical than falling over a stone that is lying a
mile away.

The error that the pc makes is to carry around some incidents as "now" when they really are
sometime else. Correcting that error by running the incidents we can return them to the
spacetime coordinates where they belong.

Events are what they are. We aren't going to change what actually happened somewhere in
spacetime. We are just clearing up the pc's misconception that is is here and now and we
return the event to its proper place.

The "earlier similar" phenomenon is an aberration in itself. We might use it if it is expedient
but only with the aim of getting rid of it as soon as possible.

We can start off on finding incidents in a variety of ways. We can start out as effect with
something like "Locate a time when you had a pain in the back", or we can start out as cause
with "Locate an incident where you are causing a pain in the back". Or, we can take
something in between like "Locate an incident that would cause a pain the the back".

The ideal is to put the pc as much in cause as he is ready to handle. Never make him more
effect than he is. The correct order of processing is from effect to cause. If he has realized that
he himself is causing the incidents to aberrate him, then don't ever go back to pretending he
is effect of the incidents themselves.

It is only important for a low level case that the incidents are "his own". That the incidents are
"his" is just another way of saying that he is effect and his havingness is low. You can really
run anybody's incident anywhere if the pc is up to it, and the less he is identified with it the
better. Of course that doesn't change the low level inversion of out-of-valence: the incident is
his, but he is below an ability to be responsible for it.

The entry point to incident running is unwanted feelings. That is negative emotions or bodily
feelings, also known as somatics. Feelings have a lower frequency than other perceptual
systems. They are more difficult to locate precisely, and that is what makes them stick.
Auditory and particularly visual information has higher frequencies and are much easier to
locate and more around. Therefore we preferably use visuals to "run" the incidents.

To repeat: we use feelings as an entry point and we run by visuals. Doing it in any other order
wouldn't produce the expected result. Starting off with a picture is not likely to do much for the
person, he doesn't have to have a picture at first, just a feeling.

Past feelings won't lead to stuff that is useful to run. The only material that needs to be run is
what seems to affect the person now. If he doesn't have the feeling any more there is no point
in doing something about it.

If the pc is worried about a past somatic and he can't bring it back, it isn't what should be run.
The "worry" he has now would be much more fruitful to run.

Somatics aren't anything theoretical or academic, it is something you feel. He should be able
to feel it right now, and that would be our starting point for running. We want to be sure that
we get a specific feeling, so therefore we put precise words to it, like "a buzzing pressure in
my right shoulder". However, it is not the words that will run, it is the feeling that he has. The
reason for specifying it is to make sure that he stays on that feeling until it is handled and to
make sure that we can remind him and check it again later.

The EP of a somatic is that he can no longer bring it back and feel it. It should be by actual
test, he can no longer be restimulated that way. That might very well take several chains
before it is completely handled. The somatic might change after each chain and will
eventually be impossible to bring back in any form.

Going through and experiencing an incident will allow the person to digest the experiences
he didn't get in the first place and to evaluate the contents. "Getting" the lesson in the incident
and getting his own cause will clear the incident.

The value of running an incident is not in the amount of discomfort he has to go through in
running it. It doesn't have to be hard. Running it only from a comfortable viewpoint is fine as
long as we get all the material.

Clients who have done other practices such as Rebirthing or Reevaluation Counseling will
often run incidents more dramatically and emotionally than a Dianetic practitioner would
expect. That is not necessary. For that matter one doesn't have to run it as strenuously as in
Dianetics either. Comfortable viewpoints are perfectly fine. Running an incident from an
exterior viewpoint produces just as much useful experience or more than running it as effect
of the situation. When we have sorted it out and the pc has regained the faculties he was
missing at the time he can go through it from the apparent effect viewpoint and find that that is
quite comfortable also.

As previously stated, multiple viewpoints on an incident are preferable. Don't convince the pc
that he can only run it from the effect viewpoint. The cause viewpoints are much rather where
it is at.

All parts of an incident aren't equally important. The "learned" aberration doesn't occur from
the incident as a whole, but from a very precise part of it. There is an exact point where a shift
occurs. Going directly for that instant where the shift occurs is much faster and more
productive than just going over the incident again and again.

In any aberrative incident there is a point of either postulation, overwhelm, or restimulation, or
any combination of those. In a typical engrammic basic incident there is point of overwhelm
where the person is "forced" to accept a more limited way of being. In later lock incidents
each incident has an exact point where the restimulation occurs.

Going over an incident we can get the person to freeze the frame right at the time when the
restimulation occur. Analyzing exactly what occurs there, what the situation is from different
viewpoints will bring important material to light. We will find out what exactly it is that triggered
the shift. If it doesn't quite make sense, that is, there is no externally induced overwhelm and
no postulate there, that means that there are earlier incidents.

In the basic incident, when we freeze the frame where the feeling starts, we get an actual
explanation of how it was created: an overwhelm or a postulate. That will resolve it very

It is only an apparency that negative or positive change happens gradually. Actually they
happen instantly in a moment of shift. The more precisely we can locate that time of change
and as-is it the more effective we will be. Also, the positive change from the clearing is not
really a gradual process, even though it might seem like it. When it gets resolved, it gets
resolved instantly, not gradually. Of course we can build up bigger or more lasting gains by a
succession of smaller positive shifts, but that is only apparently a smooth gradual process.

Change is digital, not analog. It takes place by discrete shifts, not by a gradual, continuous

For a pc who still believes in the earlier similar phenomenon we can ask for "an earlier time
when ___". However, it would be more correct to ask for "a more basic incident" since that
doesn't perpetuate the lie of time.

Having gotten the basic aberrative shift of an incident we would expect a postulate there. It is
also very useful to ask for which lesson he learned there. That is really two sides of the same
thing, but it might get the pc to see the bigger picture better. "What is the lesson to learn from
that incident" is a good way of asking it.

Lessons from an incident might be of two sorts. It might be a useful lesson, in that the incident
served some purpose for the pc and he really created it for himself from some sort of "higher
self" viewpoint. E.g. he might have pulled in an accident in order to tell himself to slow down
or to be more aware or something. Finding that lesson makes the whole thing make sense
and the pc will be quite happy about it and will finally learn the lesson and realize that he is
done with that cycle and he doesn't need the negative effects of it anymore. He postulated
the incident for himself and now he got the point.

The other possibility is that the incident was simply an overwhelm that taught him a limiting
lesson. Because he was overwhelmed he was forced to adopt an aberrated way of dealing
with things. E.g. he was under severe emotional and physical stress and decided that the
best solution would be to shut off all feelings, which he then proceeds to do from then on
under all conditions. Running the incident and uncovering that fact he might realize that that
isn't a universally applicable solution and he can discard it or change it.

After getting the lesson from the incident we can ask: "Is that a useful lesson?". We could
even have him come back up to PT and take a look at if it is applicable to him in his current
life. If not we can encourage him to reevaluate it and to come up with something better.

Whenever the pc had accepted a bad solution and now is rejecting it, he should creatively
come up with another way of doing it. If we don't ask him to do that he will sub-consciously do
it anyway and might pick another useless solution. It is better to ask him consciously to pick a
better way of doing it.

The better way of doing it could be another postulate or a way of being that would have
worked better at the time, or that would be more useful to him now. We could also have him
come up with several ways of handling the situation better than he did. That would leave him
with more and better choices than the one aberrated choice that he had. And it will
demonstrate that he is in charge.

We could also ask the person to creatively rewrite the previous incident into something that
would have been more useful to him and that would teach him better lessons. That gives him
some havingness instead of the incident that we have "erased" and again it demonstrates
that he is cause.

Another way of looking at what happens in an aberrative incident is that the pc drops a part of
himself and adopts only a more limited beingness after the overwhelm. After processing the
incident he should be ready to bring that part of him back again. Re-integrating the lost part
will make him whole again and he will have his full faculties a learning experience richer.
The part had gotten separated from the rest of him at the exact moment of
overwhelm/postulation mentioned before. If we only "run out" the incident without bringing
back the alienated part we aren't getting the actual result we are after. A pc might very well do
this by himself if we address it explicitly or not, but he might just as well not.

Running of entities follow many of the same rules as regular incident clearing. It is really just
some more variations of ways of shifting or limiting oneself in times of overwhelm or
postulation. Parts of oneself have been separated off, identities have been mixed up and so
forth. Sorting out the viewpoints involved and re-integrating the parts that the person lost will
bring the gains.

Also, in entity running, there is no point in running anything that the person isn't actually
creating now. That somebody else was effect of something sometime in the past has
absolutely nothing to do with our pc, unless he happens to be creating being effect of that
right now. The basic rules of clearing don't get changed just because we are dealing with
entities. We are still moving the person even more towards being cause over the
phenomenon at hand. And we start out assuming that he is cause. Any other orientation will
just serve to make the person the effect of some things he really has no reason whatsoever
being effect of.

Lastly, there is the subject of the time track. A time track is a constructed creation. It will be
aberrative if the pc believes that he has to have one. For starters we might go along with him
and pretend that he has one. But really, he doesn't need one. Or rather, he can organize it
any way he wants. He can arrange it in loops or rings, he can have several of them, he can
have it indexed in any way he wants, and so forth.

The traditional "time track" perpetuates the lie that one has moved forward through time at an
even ordered pace in one time stream, and that one has been present all the time. However,
that is not necessarily how beings operate.

Beings can manifest anywhere in spacetime, in multiple dimensions, several places at once,
and so forth. The experiences are sometimes sequential, but don't have to be. The belief that
you do things the time track way is a key element in keeping yourself trapped. That is simply
something to run out, to change considerations about, and to find some more appropriate
ways of organizing experiences.

You are operating at cause. Any process that addresses being effect only does so to allow
you to discover the lie in it, to discover the way you are actually being cause, and to adjust it
as necessary.

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Aug 30 06:06:02 EDT 2020 
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