Technical Bulletin of 22 April 2000

It seems that there are considerable problems with remailers at the
moment so the headers will vary on posts.

On 4 May 2000 15:59:38 -0400, in alt.clearing.technology
Robert wrote:

>>Here's the point where you want to shift the person's space out to
>>include others and other dynamics involved in the incident - this
>>gets an aspect of their beingness in the session.
>
>What would you propose as a first command?

Ask for other individuals and dynamics involved in the incident and
have the PC extend session space to include them

>Any suggestions you give me I will try it on my clients and report
>the results

Good. Thank you.

>>Pre-MEST incidents may have duration and time as there are a few
>>universes before this one.
>
>LRH had mentioned the existence of "theta time".  What prompted me
>to drop asking for time and duration is that the people I would use
>that on would get a puzzled reaction to it, as though it didn't
>compute for them.
>
>One Pc would always reply "No time" when asked for an earlier
>incident that got her to looking at the pre-MEST era.  These were
>also extremely agonizing incidents for her to run as she had such a
>clarity on them.  But they resulted in such expanded space that to
>this day she thanks me for those sessions as having changed the
>course of her life (the sessions took place about 4 or 5 years ago.

Its going to vary from person to person. I would work with the
individual's reality.

>Interesting concept!
>
>Would that not be covered as the "all being" viewpoint, or should I
>make an extra command to specifically cover all dynamics?  Would you
>suggest the command "From the viewpoint of all dynamics together."?

I'd ask the question separately for each dynamic involved.

>>You may also have NOTs cross copying and restim to handle.
>
>What would you add to handle this?  I've been relying on running the
>session out in order to show up any loose ends.  But this is not a
>perfect system.

I would ask for somatics remaining after the incident has been run.

>>After that's handled I'd expect the PC to be blown out. If they've
>>extended their space and run the incident across the involved
>>dynamics then going further might well collapse their space and
>>havingness and act as an invalidation.
>
>Are you talking about running havingness as having that effect?

Yes. You might contract the person's space if the process directs the
person's attention into a smaller space.

>>>"How is the incident now by comparison?": This is more of a
>>>two-way-comm question than a rote one. You might need to add
>>>something like "Is it lighter or flat?". Other terms besides
>>>"lighter" include: less charged, erasing; less serious, better,
>>>etc. Asking "Is it erasing or going more solid?" is geared toward
>>>moving the Pc on to another incident after a couple of passes
>>>through. The theory that command operates on is that the incident
>>>will not erase if the charge comes from an earlier incident.
>>
>>It could also be missing viewpoints that need to be included in the
>>session space.
>
>Can you elaborate on that?  What would you recommend as a remedy?

You could just ask "Are there any additional individuals or dynamics
that should be included in the session space?

>>>The whole idea is to disconnect the incident from the charge.
>>>Every incident can and should be run in the manner the narrative
>>>incident is run in the R-3R materials.
>>>"Is there another (or "an earlier") incident where you had the
>>>feeling of (item)?" Normally I use "another" for MEST universe
>>>lifetimes and "an earlier" for pre-MEST.
>>
>>That seems the wrong way round. You could actually circumvent the
>>time aspect by asking for a more basic incident or an incident
>>restimulated in the current one.
>
>But would you do that for every step, or just the pre-MEST area?
>How would you structure that aspect of the rundown?

It's probably a matter of getting what works for each PC.

>>>Shock or shift?: I have used both terms, and both work. However,
>>>the term "shift" is more cause than the term "shock". They usually
>>>occur pretty much simultaneously, but sometimes the shock occurs
>>>after the person creates the postulates and then shifts. The end
>>>result can still be erasure of the item, but the responsibility
>>>level tends to be higher when "shift" is used. The shift is what
>>>the Pc considers to be the single most significant part of the
>>>incident - at least by the end of the handling.
>>
>>I'd try and work with this at the level of beingness across the
>>dynamics.
>
>Could you elaborate on what you mean by that?  What would I have to
>do that is not already on the writeup?

Asking for shifts of beingness on each relevant dynamic. For instance
if it were a group engram you could ask for the identity as a group
before and after the shift.

>>This term "personal GPM" could get confusing. We're dealing with an
>>engram that's significant in the Actual GPM and could be a joining
>>of several chains on several dynamics. It's a point of significant
>>valence shift in the living of the GPM.
>
>I used the term "personal GPM" as a substitute for the term "actual
>GPM" because I didn't want to presume, for the sake of the old
>timers, that LRH and I were talking about exactly the same thing.
>Are we, or not?

The procedure gets into the GPM area but isn't really getting at the
whole thing.

>Thanks for all your help on all aspects of the project, of which
>R3XD is only one, as well as for your input and your impetus.
>
>I hope you'll be sticking around for a while (no implant phrase
>intended :-)   )

ok. I should be around for quite a while yet.

Love,

Revenius