NO OKness SOME Okness revisited (fwd)

HomerWSmith at lightlink.com HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Wed Jan 16 15:06:48 EST 2013


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> Hello, Homer, I showed this process to a fellow auditor who runs power
> processes frequently, without giving your name out (I guess I suspected
> :-) ).

      This is all public knowledge, My name and phone are free to anyone.

> A fellow auditor writes:
> 
> "Spot some OK-ness/Spot some Not-OKness,

      This is the SOME side of the dichotomy, for someone who is an
isness case it will run fine.

      But for those who are not-isness cases, all their OKness is
not-ised, so the above won't run, it will produce loss after loss for
not being able to do each command.

      For example a not isness case can not run ARC straight wire, you
ask him for a moment of affinity and he will say 'there aren't any' and
go REAL SAD EFFECT on you.

      Remember the E/P of straightwire is the preclears remembers
he WITHDREW his affinity on purpose.  Total cause.

      Later he rues how he is getting worse, so once he sees he did it,
and deterines to not withdraw his affinity again no matter what,
it was a ploy after all that didn't work, of course he knows he won't
get worse any more.

      But down in the darkness, he doesn't know he not-ised his affinity,
running NO affinity/SOME affinity breaks that open fast.  Once the
preclear spots himself not-ising things, that he didn't know he was
not-ising, it will stop as an ongoing compulsion and the remaining
not-isness will start to lift on its own.

      So run get the idea of NO affinity, get the idea of SOME affinity,
and things start to loosen up for him, because he can run that process
even if he has never loved or been loved for a single moment in his
entire life.

      A not-isness case cannot answer questions, or spot anything except
the effort to make nothing out of everything, and he won't be able to
spot WHAT he is making nothing out of!

      So the only way to bring the not-isness case up to an isness case
is to get him to as-is his not-isness.

      One does this by spotting not-isness and the effort to not-is,
NEVER WHAT is being not-ised, which will come up eventually on its own.

      For example running "What are you not-ising" is a high crime as the
preclear hasn't a clue.  You see?

      Making him create MORE not-isness by hook or by crook is the
only route out for him.

      Also Spot is impure as it implies the preclear will actually spot
some not-isness, even that is too much.

      All these 'spot' commands should be changed to 'get the idea of'
which gives the preclear nothing but wins because he always can.

     Get the idea of not-ising something, of NO Okness. etc

> What is really being addressed here is havingness, in terms of acceptance,
> as total acceptance vs no acceptance.
> I think the concept has good processing validity, and could make for quite
> a shift of viewpoint, even possibly split a valence."

      Yes, it can be explosive because it opens up the catestrophic NOT
OKness that people are hiding from, and then the catestrophic OKness
that is too good to be true and makes everyone else want to crucify you
etc.  So it runs out glibness as much as the being can stand and feel
safe with.

      Most people couldn't stand knowing what their true condition is in
one sitting.

> How important is the wording, except for consideration of what gradient and
> mindset the PC has.

> Did you run this process solo?  I assume you did.   And I will work
> it out, the two of us  :-)

     Solo is possible, but really dual is addicting, being able to TALK
to someone else really brings up stuff.

      AS long as talk is not enforced.

      Also auditing this on others is almost as good as getting it done
to yourself, maybe better.

      People who are terrified of being audited or who are NCG, can make
marvelous gains running things on others and winning with them.

     Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Jan 16 15:06:48 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore925.memo
Send mail to archive.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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFQ9whYURT1lqxE3HERAlTMAKCq+HJcE0UEIOr2/jWmqR3WU2eFOwCdE4gq
B7vQ1QWBHHU3LjMwkWJKLx8=
=gn+4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the HomerWSmith-L mailing list