Ted
Gold Meritorious Patron
Re: author unknown
Carmelo: I wanted to say that the picture of your granddaughter looks like the little impish you on the farm that you have posted a number of times. She is blessed.
You wrote:
I might even start on what was...
"What have you loved about yourself (another, others)?" etc.
"Could" suggests ability.
"Might" suggests possibility thinking. I prefer "might."
I would suggest an assessment list. Add to the items that Roger listed.
knowledge, truth, creation, relationships/alignment, harmony, understanding, God, ... Conjugate to fit the sentence structure. If metered, run reading items if pc/client is interested. If unmetered, check for interest or physical reaction or mental reaction no matter how subtle.
Above and beyond that, there would be no substitute for understanding processing basics, your client, and being able to roll a process specifically for him/her as was done in the days of scientology-yore.
This looks very much like a John MacMaster piece.
For sure, I didn't write it.
Not that the item is no good or wrong. I just know that I didn't write it.
He too was big into LOVE as being the most important aspect/thing/action of existence. And I well remember his speaking of the issues of co-existence and co-create and the upsets at the loss and departure from them. We had private chats on these issues.
Love is an important item for many folks: for some it is THE most important . . . . but not so for all folks. Others have as their most important "thing" in the game of life as being other items such as knowledge, truth, creation, relationships/alignment, etc., etc.,
Hence, the error in the above piece is that it tells everyone what is true for them . . . and that is always a wrong move . . . Hubbard made that egregious error.
It is wiser to present one's personal discoveries and "importances" as relative. This way others can relate to the datum and fit such correctly in relative terms in accordance to their order of importances.
It is for this reason that when I write what I have to say on "tech" issues, I preface them with "in my observation" . . . for I well know others likely observe differently!
Rog
Carmelo: I wanted to say that the picture of your granddaughter looks like the little impish you on the farm that you have posted a number of times. She is blessed.
You wrote:
Any processing directed at removing valences should be complimented with ARC processes in the direction of rehabilitating the being’s ability to experience love.
Possible techniques: F0, “What could you love about yourself”,
F3 “What could another or others love about another or others?”
F2 “What could another love about you?”
F1 “What could you love about another?”
(In this “reverse order”).
It could be run using specific terminals in one’s environment, e.g., “What could you love about yourself in the presence of ______?”
“What could ______ love about another”, “What could another love about _____?”
“What could you love about ____?”
“What could ____ love about you?”
Possible techniques: F0, “What could you love about yourself”,
F3 “What could another or others love about another or others?”
F2 “What could another love about you?”
F1 “What could you love about another?”
(In this “reverse order”).
It could be run using specific terminals in one’s environment, e.g., “What could you love about yourself in the presence of ______?”
“What could ______ love about another”, “What could another love about _____?”
“What could you love about ____?”
“What could ____ love about you?”
I might even start on what was...
"What have you loved about yourself (another, others)?" etc.
"Could" suggests ability.
"Might" suggests possibility thinking. I prefer "might."
I would suggest an assessment list. Add to the items that Roger listed.
knowledge, truth, creation, relationships/alignment, harmony, understanding, God, ... Conjugate to fit the sentence structure. If metered, run reading items if pc/client is interested. If unmetered, check for interest or physical reaction or mental reaction no matter how subtle.
Above and beyond that, there would be no substitute for understanding processing basics, your client, and being able to roll a process specifically for him/her as was done in the days of scientology-yore.
