faf52.scr

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Sun Oct 4 18:06:02 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 # 52 - FAF 24 June 1991

.ce Clearing Parts


Most pcs respond very well to addressing aspects of the case as 'parts of yourself' and
handling dichotomies of these. By engaging the pc's sense of responsibility right away we
can get him to run identity material where he would otherwise dismiss it as 'too intellectual'. I
have found most people right off the street quite able to run dichotomies of 'parts of
themselves' with excellent gain.

If the pc has some continuing pattern of behavior that he wants to handle, then we can
address the part that is doing it. It has to be a fairly simple attribute. If, for example, he is
always regretting things then we would ask:
	"Is there a part of you that is regretting things?"
He would be unlikely to answer anything but "Yes" to that, but it gets him to make the
distinction that he actually has a part of him doing that. The part usually doesn't have to be
defined further than that.

We would then unburden that part with:
	"What is the regretting part of you doing?"
	"What is the regretting part of you holding back?"
and when that is getting flat:
	"What is the purpose of the regretting part of you?"

Then we would look for the other side of the dichotomy that has got to be there:
	"What would be the opposite of regretting?"
and he says maybe "accepting", and we would do the same thing there:
	"What is the accepting part of you doing?"
	"What is the accepting part of you holding back?"
followed by:
	"What is the purpose of the accepting part of you?".

Then we would look at the the interplay between the two sides:
	"What would be the interaction between ___ and ___?"
or
	"What kind of game would develop between ___ and ___?"

And if they are still charged we would do a little creative processing:
	"Visualize ___ and ___ next to each other"
	"Is there something they need to say to each other?"
	"Do they have any differences?"
and whatever else it takes to discharge them against each other.

The pc might say that the two sides are now integrated or he might say that it will take some
time but that he is now working on it. Whatever he says if fine as long as he feels done with
the pair for now.

A new pc would be most likely to be willing to address general attributes: beautiful / ugly,
regretting / accepting, victim / in control, and so forth. If he comes up with more full characters
or with actual people he knows it would have to be treated somewhat different. It might be
more appropriate to unburden with "What has __ done/withheld?", addressing the past
instead of the present. Instead of asking for opposite attribute it would be what the identity is
"up against" or "opposing". An actual person might be better handled with PTS RD type of
steps or 4 flow O/W depending on the circumstances.

The 'part of yourself' approach is very simple, doesn't require much explanation, and doesn't
take much searching. It is unlikely to get into L&N, the answers are usually right there.

Another advantage of addressing 'parts or yourself' is that it is in PT. We are addressing
something he has right now. When it changes he will notice. That is similar as with the
'feeling' method for incidents described in essay 51. That we are addressing something the
pc has here and now makes it not only easier to get into - it is also an excellent way of
'proving' to him that something changed about him. Many new pcs need that. They otherwise
feel sort of disassociated from the clearing, not realizing yet what it has to do with them. If
you've ever done a prepcheck on a new pc with good reads and TA action and afterwards
heard him say "Yeah, I answered the questions, but when does the actual clearing start?",
then you know what I mean. We have to get him to feel that he, himself actually changed for
the clearing to be considered successful.

Dichotomies of parts is more basic than identities from GPM scenarios. The basic principle is
that you split some part of yourself into two: the part that is and the part that isn't. And the
catch is that you can't do that without still being both of them. GPMs are a special case
involving be, do, and have at the same time and pretending that the parts are opposing,
which is really a manufactured lie.

A lot of complexities can be avoided by:
	1. Addressing present time.
	2. Addressing what the pc actually feels and does now.
	3. Addressing both sides of any two-sided matter.

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct  4 18:06:01 EDT 2020 
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/flemming/faf52.scr
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
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