Clearing Archive Roboposter
roboposter at lightlink.com
Thu Jul 30 00:06:02 EDT 2020
The following first appeared in the private email list IVy-subscribers,
which is available to all those who subscribe to the
printed magazine, International Viewpoints.
'Tis the season to be jolly
by Phil Spickler
11 Dec 00
My earliest memory of what came to be called Objective processes was
that they first appeared in the last century, shortly before the mid-1950's,
that previous century being of course the one called the 20th century that
always has "19" in all of its dates, and I'm sure that that is as idiotic as
But anyway, the objective processes came into being because a certain
number of people who arrived at places where auditing and training took place
were deemed to be too crazy, too nuts, too bad off, to be run on processes
where you didn't actually see exactly what the pc was doing because the
processes were mostly taking place subjectively in the mind and might be
called "thought processes." These people were often very difficult to train
as auditors, but surprisingly, even though they might be crazy as pcs, some
of them turned out to be excellent auditors. This is one of the reasons why
it was and remains true in present time that you don't have to be Clear, nor
even particularly sane, in order to be a really excellent auditor; thus, as
Ron would say, auditing has always been possible, 'cause there surely weren't
any Clears to start out.
But to carry on the story, there were a certain number of people who
were not in what we called "good enough shape" to be audited that way, and so
Ron in his less-than-infinite wisdom came up with a number of processes that
allowed you to observe physically exactly what the preclear, who has evolved
over the years into something now called the "client," which is what I always
think is what you called the customer of a lawyer -- anyway, nowadays people
have clients, rather than preclears -- what the preclear was doing when
he/she/it received a command or question. It became possible to see just to
what degree the person was actually carrying out what the command or question
asked for, whereas when you were using "think processes," there's no telling
what was really going on in the guy's head that would make it most difficult
to get any case gain from what you were doing.
But objectives quickly heal this, because if you say to the guy
something like "GIve me that hand," or "Touch that wall," or "Pick up that
bottle," if he does something else at the command of his valences or circuits
or whatever, you can instantly see it happen in front of you and deal with it
on the spot, so that he eventually has the win.
Take a process like good old fashioned 8C, which before the Tone 40
era was without question run with lots of 2-way communication, meaning
however much 2-way communication it took to ensure that ARC was maintained
throughout the session, and here's an example of seeing what the pc does with
a simple question. Having gotten a preclear into session in the first place
using 2-way communication, you might ask him if he'd be willing to walk over
to a wall and touch it. Now that simple command can tell you quite a bit
about the person you're working with. It will give you an opportunity to
observe where this soul falls on a number of different scales, and it'll
certainly give you a pretty good idea about how the person feels about being
controlled or being able to accept direction, or even (dare I use the
expression) how well they do with orders.
The Army, as anyone who's ever been in the service will attest, is
also an excellent place for culling out folks who go psycho over the idea of
being controlled, given direction or orders, etc. etc. It's also a good
place, on the other hand, for making people become psycho by a poor or
dangerous use of control, direction, or orders. In auditing, of course, the
cycle of communication between the auditor and the pc is cause, distance,
effect, with ARC. In the military, it's generally cause, distance, effect,
and compliance or else, and skip the ARC.
But anyhow, coming back to objective processing, it was then and still
remains a wonderful way in the hands of an auditor that knows how to use
these processes to really help all kinds of folks in all kinds of conditions
to greatly improve their lives and the dynamics that they operate upon; and
along the way, if you know what you're doing, you will pick up the valences,
the circuits, the identities, who are nuts, loonies, and psychos, and/or
disturbed in any number of ways and help them through their difficulties,
much to the benefit of your pc.
One of the really fine results that is well within the realm of
attainment has to do with control, which is a subject that will get spoken
more about in another posting. But to conclude for now, a very fine result
from objective processing is a person who is willing to be controlled, who is
willing to control others and has no problem with others controlling others,
and also has the capacity to control "self," and demonstrates said ability
across the dynamics.
Control has gotten a bad name, possibly because so many abuses pile up
under its banner. Objective processes poorly run and overrun add further
woes to this area, but great possibilities exist for the correction of
poorly-run objective processes, and the overall area should be re-viewed, not
as simply a remedy for folks in really bad case state but rather as
activities that can greatly enhance aspects of what is referred to as OT-hood.
I hope you have kept in mind in reading this, if you didn't delete it
by now, that the source of this communication is also the founder of
Idiotology and someone whose life contains an exceptionally large amount of
idiocy, enough to act as a role model in that department; and you may wish to
use this information to evaluate the previous information in this posting.
Au revoir --
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jul 30 00:06:02 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