ADORE831 (fwd)

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


THE GENERAL AND THE SPECIFIC

In alt.clearing.technology dapperdobbs <GeorgeCFL@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You brought up a number of interesting points, and I don't really do
> them justice here with this reply. I'm all for anyone getting to the
> truth about life. I believe that no matter how one arrives,the truth
> will be found to be the same. From all I've seen Scn is the only
> subject that encompasses the basics of life, and it is the fastest way
> to arrive at the truth.

Fastest is unclear.

One has to distinguish between fundamentals and approach.

We can all agree that finding the truth of the matter will cause its
vanishment.

That's the axioms.

One can nitpick the axioms, but they are basically right.

But HOW to find that truth is quite another story.

Scientology is a brand of auditing, although LRH liked to think that
auditing belonged only to scientology, any one trying to find the truth
about an unwanted condition in himself or another is auditing: listening,
asking, and computing.

Although LRH made much of not evaluating for the pc in session, the
entire bridge is one huge evaluation of how to audit and what to audit.

Adore breaks it up this way, The auditor asks the questions, and the
preclear gives the answers. That's called being in session.

What LRH forbade was for the auditor to answer the question for the
preclear, and for the preclear to ask the question (about himself) of the
auditor, that was defined as evaluation and out of session.

But the preclear EXPECTS the auditor to know what to do, namely what
question to ask.

The preclear may hope the auditor can then also answer it, but that's
out of session again.

So evaluation of what to run, and how to run it lies in the auditor's
lap, every Case Supervisor who wrote a program, does an evaluation of the
preclear's case and then directs the auditor to run it as written.

Is this telling the preclear what to think about his case in session?

Yes on the question side, and no on the answer side.

LRH never clarified this.

For example in dianetics we list for attitudes, emotions, sensations
and pains, we DO NOT tell the pc WHAT attitudes, emotions, sensations or
pains to list or run. But we do insist that he list and run AESP's.

Why? Because we know they glue the track together with charge on
them.

Part of the problem with just asking the preclear what he is
interested in talking about is generally he will hide behind surface
stuff, blame and pain and suffering etc, and never get to the deeper stuff
of personal responsibility for condition.

Adore handles it this way, the auditor is expected by the preclear to
know in GENERAL what is wrong with him, but not the specifics of it.

The auditor knows there is some attitude that is munging up the pc's
bank and causing him to feel sick all day long, but the auditor hasn't a
clue what it is. If he thinks he does he is out of session.

That it IS an attitude is the same for all beings, WHAT attitude it
is, is different for all beings.

Thus it takes the auditor to know one needs to find the attitude, and
it takes the preclear to find it.

The evaluation by the auditor to the preclear that it is an attitude
that is being looked for IS EXPECTED by the preclear, and he will ARC
break with the auditor if that indication is not forthcoming when it
should be, even if the preclear doesn't know what the indication is going
to be before the auditor starts the process!

If the auditor indicates (evaluates) the next level of the bank to the
preclear correctly, the preclear will be very happy and start looking and
finding answers.

If the auditor gets the next level wrong, the preclear will spin.
That is what happened to me.

The preclear is expected to know the specifics but not the general
until he is better trained.

But the preclear can not get at the specifics unless the auditor
directs him to the area with the general.

Thus we run problems, withholds, computations, engrams, secondaries,
GPMS and the rest, which are in fact wrong with everyone, and are ALL that
is wrong with anyone, but we do not push any specific items off on the
preclear.

Personally I do not believe that Hubbard got this clear enough to
make it work well.

He missed some of the generals, and make up for it by forcing
specifics.

Homer

Sat Dec 11 00:07:01 EST 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Sep 1 03:06:01 EDT 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore831.memo
Send mail to archive@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.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFSIudaURT1lqxE3HERAhRwAJ9i6bE89bVxlkzRSQTT4lq4GaOJrwCfSpq1
zPCrcyalGnRtQgdsTb2We3Y=
=brIN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l