homer at lightlink.com homer at lightlink.com
Sun Oct 21 03:06:02 EDT 2012

Hash: SHA1

Robert Ducharme (VoltR at ctinet.net) wrote:
>Some of them are out-of-ARC processes (like from where could God make you
>wrong).  How do your reconcile that?

     I think attention on in and out of ARC processes is bull shit.

     One runs wins and one runs losses, back and forth in and out of

     I think part of the problem some people have with processes that
I post is I post them in standard format and they try to run them in
standard format, but they don't realize that what *I* was actually
doing with the process might be very different than rote auditing

     For example, I never actually ran

     From where could you ruin a future?
     From where could you enhance a future?

     Seemed boring to me.  But the more I think about them, and the
more people natter about them, the more they start to click in.  What
comes up are places and times I can be or could be, places I wish I
could be, that I regret I can't be etc where I would be in a position
to enhance a future.

     Also places I could be and have been where I did or could have or
might have ruined a future, which thus have become very dangerous to

     Before I might have tried to run "Where could you be" to no
avail because there was no purpose or problem there.

     By adding in enhance/ruin into the scene, now there is a reason
to be there or not be there which makes the location alive again with

     So between trying to get into places and 'not being able to' and
worrying about getting into places that are too easy to get into or
that I might get into without realizing it, there is a lot of conflict
going on.

     As a concrete example, as pilot of an ISP in absolute control
over the e-mail, web pages and communication lines of 1300 customers,
there is startling potential to enchance and ruin futures, both
intentionally and totally out of the blue.

     This position leads to a kind of sitting in the corner shivering
in awe and fear lest something happen that is out of control.

     As the day goes by, things come to me, places to be, positions to
attain and to hold, positions to get the hell out of, and now my mind
immediately goes to the enhancement/ruin potential of the position and
can judge quickly whether I want anything to do with it or not.

     Before I was kind of just reacting to unseen and mostly unfelt
tendencies to get near or far from things, now I can see it as
enhance/ruin flows and I can analytically take it apart very fast, its
almost automatic, don't even have to think about it.  Where before it
was a reactive push and pull to who knows what, now its an instant
analysis and decision.

     The *WHY* is clear to what was pushing and pulling me before.
     So am I running FWC I enhance/ruin a future?  Surely.  Am I
running it in any standard sense of the word?  No.  Am I F/Ning the
process?  Hardly.  But each instantiation of the process, each time it
gets forked on a new thing or subject area, tends to get more handled
than not as it was before.

     Same thing for the whole subject of children, having and being.

     So I think this whole yap and natter about out of ARC processes
indicates a serious inability to use one's sailing through the winds
of life *AS* a solo process, while both the negative and positive come
to the surface.

     Loss is aberative.  Running "What have you won?" until the guy
falls into a loss is a useful thing to know, but its still running the
loss which is an out of ARC moment.  In fact you need to run the out
of ARC moment to recover the lost ARC entombed in it.

     You can not clear someone by running pleasure moments unless they
fall into the unpleasure moments and you run them.

     It might be more fruitful to stir up the unpleasure moments by
running the plesaure moments, than by going for the losses directly.
This is a matter of technique and approach.  It probably has its
justification in that the pleasure moments give the person more theta
to face the unpleasure moments.  But really pleasure moments are just
the earlier part of the emotional curve, and as such they lead into
loss moments and act as earlier beginings and that may be the only
reason they work.

     It's hard to run losses without running WHAT was lost, eh?

     Alan's process, running the negative by running the positive,
works along these lines.  For example I go back to the night I asked
my father where I came from.  Being a meatball his answer was the
standard daddy sticks his willy into mommy's wendy, and away we go,
dwindling spiral into hell.

     Now there are a million things he could have said that would have
changed the entire course of my history and probably theirs too.

     "Well little Homie, I have no idea where we came from, but I
think probably we have lived before and will live again, but I'll be
damned if I can remember any of it, how about you?"

     Perhaps my mommy wouldn't have ended up dying in a ditch.

     So one can go back to that moment and relive it many different
ways, not to cover or sweep under the rug what really happened, but to
ferret out what really happened by running what could have happened
instead, which then brings forward the magnitude of the loss.

     By the way, this stuff is totally unrunnable for me on this
incident, but I can see its worthwhileness in theory.


================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 21 03:06:02 EDT 2012 
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.

Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the HomerWSmith-L mailing list