From: Clearing Archive Roboposter Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology Subject: HelpBracket.txt Date: 15 Aug 2000 03:13:13 -0400 Organization: ART MATRIX - LIGHTLINK Lines: 300 Message-ID: <8naqi9$es2$1@emerald.lightlink.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.12 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.34.14 Path: 212.18.160.197!212.18.160.139!rccn.net!news-ge.switch.ch!isdnet!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.lightlink.com!news2.lightlink.com!not-for-mail Xref: 212.18.160.197 alt.clearing.technology:31599 Help Bracket Processing Bill Maier June 10, 1999 I. Introduction Over the past few months I have been solo auditing a clearing program using help processes from Eductivism class VIII. Although these help processes will look very familiar to Scientologists, their application to clearing GPMs was originated by Jack Horner, the founder of Eductivism. His original handling of GPMs was similar to standard Scientology methods, but he later decided that these help processes handled the same things, with less auditing skill required for their application. The idea for me personally running these came from one of Jack's former students, who became a sort of mentor for my clearing progress. II. Processes There are two basic processes used. The Clearing Help Bracket is 1. In relation to _____, how could you help another? 2. In relation to _____, how could another help you? 3. In relation to _____, how could another help himself? 4. In relation to _____, how could you help yourself? 5. In relation to _____, how could another help another? 6. How could _____ help you? The process is run as a bracket, meaning that the questions are run 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, etc. The Participant Bracket is 1. How could you help a _____? 2. How could a ____ help you? 3. How could you help yourself? 4. How could a ___ help himself? 5. How could a _____ help another? 6. How could another help a _____ ? 7. How could a ___ help a ____? Various items can be inserted into the blanks. The Clearing Help Bracket is most useful when the item is a concept. For example, to run the item "winning", the first question would be "In relation to winning, how could you help another?" The Participant bracket is used to run terminals (people or beings), and is most often used on different kinds of game participants. For example, running "unwilling participant" leads to the question "How could you help an unwilling participant?" etc. It's necessary to recognize the variety of subjective definitions of help that may come up when running these processes. For example, a soldier might help an enemy by killing him. Perhaps the soldier was helping by showing the enemy the justness of the cause for which the soldier is fighting. In any case, the interpretation of what constitutes an answer is entirely up to the PC, but he does need to be hatted on this so he doesn't invalidate his answers if they don't fit the textbook definition of help. Here are some items that can be run in the Help Brackets: · Being a source / Not being a source · Intending / Not intending (or Intention / No intention) · Creating / Not creating · Pleasing people / Not pleasing people · Winning / Non-Winning · Participating / Not participating The items are listed in dichotomous pairs, both of which should be run. For example, first you would run the bracket 1-6 on "being a source" with the questions "In relation to being a source, how could you help another?", "In relation to to being a source, how could another help you?" etc. You would then run the bracket 1-6 on "not being a source" with "In relation to not being a source, how could you help another?", etc. In all there would be 12 questions in the bracket that would be repeated to EP. Here are some items to run in the participant brackets: · detached participant · involved participant · winner · loser · non-winner (someone who doesn't win or lose, but stays in the game) · willing participant · unwilling participant · degraded participant · solving participant · rejected participant · different (and better) participant · failing participant · constant (or determined) participant · obsessed participant · automatic participant · compelled participant · committed participant · faulty participant · begrudging participant · perfect participant · excessive (or overwhelmed or overrun) participant · regretful participant · unsolvable participant · refusing participant · bothered (by others who are doing what you are trying to give up) participant · changing (to a new solution) participant There are 18 participants which are supposed to address specific items common to GPMs, that can be run in the Participant brackets. They are: 1. Ex-participant = one who no longer has the desire to participate. Just doesn't have the desire anymore . . . Doesn't want to be involved anymore. 2. Changing participant (or change-desiring participant) = one who has desire to pursue the next goal. The key is desire - he's not actually doing the new thing yet. 3. Bothered participant = having problems with those who are still doing the thing that one has just given up. Example: quit smoking cigarettes and now have problems with cigarette smokers. 4. Refusing participant = one who has determined to not do it at all, ever again. Try not to think of a pink elephant. Quitting once and for all. Actually "quitting partcipant" might work very well also. 5. Discouraged participant = one whose goal has become an unsolvable problem. "Unsolvable participant" might work also. 6. Regretful participant = is hoping not to, but is doing it anyway. "Sorry I keep stepping on your foot . . . I'd like to stop smoking and I hope to give it up some day, but . . ." 7. Excessive participant. Or: overwhelmed or overrun participant. = having too much of whatever it is. 8. Begrudging participant = one who HATES what he is doing, but goes on doing it. Hating is the solution! 9. Faulty participant = suffering from criticisms, his own and others'. 10. Committed participant = one who is doing what has to be done. Justifying and rationalizing why one has to do this. 11. Compelled participant = someone or something making you do it. 12. Automatic participant = setting up automaticities to carry out an intention 13. Obsessed participant = obsession, fixation, can't get your mind off it. 14. Determined participant = doing it over and over, constantly. 15. Failing participant = having failures to achieve what was intended. 16. Better participant = doing it differently and better. Generally has attitude of "I'll show them" (This also true of determined participant). Could say "different and better participant." 17. Rejected participant = having rejections/difficulties/disagreements with those who have the same general goal. 18. Solving participant = One who has the only solution for everything. Solution could be positive or negative. For example, he could be solving everything by avoidance. A person dramatizing this item usually is trying to get the solution to manifest on all flows. Example, trying to be agreeable, get others to be agreeable = total solution for everything. III. Prerequisites I would recommend that a person have completed at least some prior auditing before attempting these processes. The traditional course is to have a person complete the grades through Power processing before attempting these clearing processes. However, I have found that many of the assumptions currently extant for auditing are quite arbitrary -- e.g. you must do grades before power, power before R6EW, etc. I would say use your own judgement. The only real "danger" is that the person would fail to get significant results, then write off the processes without recognizing they might be applicable later on. Personally I had only perhaps one hundred hours of processing with an auditor before starting the help brackets, but I had also completed several hundred hours of solo processing including about the first half of the Pilot self-auditing program, through the Power processes. One prerequisite I would not compromise on is the excellent use of TRs. Personally, it wasn't until I began to adhere strictly to the use of TRs in my solo auditing that I began to get consistently good results. Prior to this I would frequently bog down and simply abandon a process, without knowing why it didn't work. The correct handling is just simple TR4: Auditor: How could you help an unwilling participant? PC: (starts to feel groggy) Auditor: What's happening? PC: I feel groggy. Auditor: OK. Is it all right to continue with the process? PC: Yes. Auditor: OK. I'll repeat the auditing question, how could you help an unwilling participant? The groggy feeling is treated as an origination. The auditor gets the PC back into session and continues. You must train yourself to keep your auditor identity in place, even when the going gets rough. It's really not that difficult. IV. Personal Experience These processes are simple to run and make few assumptions. You don't have to have any reality on GPMs to run these. You don't even have to run whole track, though they undoubtedly run deeper if you do. Despite the lack of assumptions, I frequently found myself involved in the interaction of identities and goals - GPM material. The absence of assumptions is appealing to me. It's clear by looking at the diversity of opinions in the Free Zone about running NOTs and OT III that there is no consensus for handling cases beyond the grades. I think it is best to stick to those processes that allow the PC to come up with his own answers, rather than those that feed him assumptions about his case or his history. I always use a meter when auditing, though this is not strictly necessary. I would recommend you use one if you have one, but don't let a lack of a meter stop you. My main use of the meter during these processes is to confirm the EP, and to a lesser extent to monitor progress. The position of the TA is the most important indicator, though the looseness or tightness of the needle is also useful information. I have seen more TA action while running these processes than any others I've run. It is not unusual to see the TA rise as much as a division or more, then blowdown, rise again, blowdown, etc. over and over again during the session. I've had TAA of 35 divs per hour or more. The processes can also cause "high TA, stuck needle" situations as masses move in. I have had a stuck needle at TA 5.5 for more than half an hour in a session, but after continuing to run the process the needle eventually freed up, the TA blew down, and I ended with a floating TA. Incidentally, floating TAs have been a common result for me running these processes, and once I have one there's no point in trying to run anything else for a day or two until it settles down. There's just one more point I'd like to make about the meter. You can use it to assess items to run, though again this is not necessary. You could formulate a question such as "What kind of participant am I being" and look for reads on your answers. I tried this once and did not have much luck with it. (I have not had much success with solo assessment in general, however - I rarely get reads on any of the items). Personally, I just went ahead and ran all of the items. Those that were not heavily charged ran to an EP in 10 or 15 minutes, while those that were more heavily dramatized took longer. One of the greatest difficulties for me in solo auditing was determining when to end the process. When I first started soloing (prior to running these help brackets) it was not unusual for me to run a process for 3 or 4 minutes, have a cognition, and then end the process. Several auditors in the Free Zone told me it was OK to end the process here, that the important thing was to keep having wins. Well, perhaps this is true for some people, but for me personally this was not right. The quick cognition was a sort of non-confront mechanism which kept me from getting into the real heart of the process. I needed to push ahead and run processes to a true flat point. It's hard to put a run time on processes since they run differently from person to person, however the above brackets frequently required at least an hour for me to flatten one item when I first started this processing. As I progressed the times tended to shorten as the bulk of the charge was handled. The meter can also be used to help confirm when to end a process, by watching for the TA in the range 2 to 3 with a loose needle. Although these processes are unlimited and can be run for a long time with benefit, I do not recommend them as a "one-shot" technique, to be done to the exclusion of all else. There are those who find some process to be particularly effective, and then narrowly focus on that process as "the answer". I cannot agree with such an approach. No one process can cover all aspects of a case. I think it is important to take the gains one can get from a process and then move on to something else. V. Results My results with these processes have been outstanding. Flattening an item frequently leaves me in such a keyed-out state that it is impossible to continue further processing for at least a day or two. A floating TA is a common end result. So is this processing an effective way to handle GPMs? Quite honestly I cannot say for sure one way or the other. I do know that the processes tend to address identities and the interaction of identities, and that running them does exteriorize me from these dramatizations. This, along with the huge quantities of charge being handled, makes me think that I am indeed erasing or keying-out GPMs. However, until I have direct experience with a more traditional GPM process, I have no real basis for comparison. Nonetheless, I find that I am becoming quite detached in my view of life as a result of this processing. I am far less bothered by the ups and downs of daily living, and feel that I have gained a considerable ability to act on life, rather than react to it. Life is less serious. My own personal space has also expanded. In short, the help and participant brackets have been some of the most effective processing I have ever had. ================ http://www.clearing.org ==================== Tue Aug 15 03:13:13 EDT 2000 ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/maier/HelpBracket.txt Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink (607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com