.ll 72
.fo off
.co on
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))

.ce GRADIENTS OF TRUTH
.ce EVALUATIVE OR NON-EVALUATIVE

.ce FAF - 2
.ce 8 March 1990

.ce Copyright (C) Flemming A. Funch
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes


     The purpose of clearing is to view on a gradient whatever one is
unknowingly creating and thereby get back one's ability to create or not
create it at will.

     Ultimate truth is, and can never be anything but, the static and
it's ability to postulate truth.

     ((The static is conceived to the be the source of space, time,
motion and energy, the unmoved before the moved, the motionless before
the motionful.))

     Anything else is to a greater or lesser degree a lie.  Anything can
be found somewhere on the gradient scale to truth, being part truth and
part lie.

     A truth is basically a known, an as-is ness.  A lie is a gradient
of unknown, that is alter-is ness or not-is ness.

     Now, lies lead to more, worse, lies.  That is the mechanism of the
dwindling spiral.  If one has already accepted some lies, and one has
trouble because of that, one is likely to accept some more lies to
explain the situation.  And so on ad infinitum.  One would build up a
greater and greater collection of almost truths, half truths,
not-very-truths, untruths, lies, damned lies, and so forth.  And one
would be more and more in trouble, one has painted oneself more and more
into a corner.

     That is the story of the gradual fall of an all-powerful,
all-knowing static down to the sorry state of humankind.  And it is also
on a smaller scale the story of any human suffering.

     That is what happens if the subject of Clearing is not known.
Clearing is the reverse vector:  gradually peeling away un-truths and
thereby getting access to higher and higher levels of truth.

     The ultimate end result of clearing is a static who has cleared
away all unknowing creation AND who knows the principles of clearing.
That last thing is the way the quality of static can be improved, and it
is the whole point of the aberration/de-aberration game.

     ((The implication is that the being is going to hold on to this
knowledge forever as if it never new these principles before it chose to
lose them in the first place.  I would suggest that the quality of the
static can not be improved as it is the source of any possible
improvement, and that perhaps within the framework of the present game
we can all take this knowledge with us into the future so that our
futures can be better.  But one day this game will end completely, at
which time we will ALL be returned to our Native State and all memory
and existence of this game will be as-ised and vanished forever.

     Thus during the next game creation cycle, everything will be as if
no game had gone before.))

     But at this stage of the game, what we have to work with is a being
who is in the middle of a large number of lies on many levels.  That is
important:  the lies and truths are on many different levels.

     We are talking about an illusion within an illusion within an
illusion and so forth.

     Upon peeling away one layer of illusion one sees the next layer
out.  A pre-clear who gets rid of charge gets a cognition, which is a
re-alignment of data or postulates.  He will usually align things in the
direction of more truth than he had before.  Also he might not.  That is
why a trained pre-clear will gain better than an un-trained pre-clear,
he is more likely to pick a better truth.  ((That depends on his
training, if he is indoctrinated heavily along any lines he will pick a
truth that is more along the party lines.))  At any rate the newfound
truth is still part truth, part lie.

     For example a person who has a hard time with his physical
surroundings might be run on objective processes.  He might find out
that the walls really are there, that they are very real to him, and
that he can control his body better.  That is great, that is what we
would want to accomplish.  But actually it is just one step up in
relative truth.  We don't then tell him that the walls are just mocked
up illusions ((hologram)), and what is he doing there with a body
anyway.  He will sort those things out in due time.

     So, clearing is the gradual process of producing a better and
better relative truth.  ((I would say a better an better absolute
truth.))

     The truth found along the way, how wonderful it might seem, is not
the ultimate truth.  The road to truth has to be travelled all the way.
Otherwise one might become lost in yet another illusion along the way.

     For the process of clearing to occur one has to accommodate
((patronize, humor the pc)) some of the illusions the preclear is stuck
in in order to clear some of the other ones.  One has to facilitate the
process through means that are real to the pre-clear.

     When we find the pre-clear in a body we would naturally use that to
communicate with.  And we would bring him into better reality with his
surroundings, and ease up the trouble he has with those surroundings.
And then we would move up through higher level concepts still using
bodies, ARC ((Affinity, Reality, Communiction)) and some outlined plan
to facilitate the process.

     Really, any of the elements used in clearing are to some degree
forcing some non-truth on the preclear.  We are using bodies even though
we want him to go free from the need of using bodies.  We are using
words and language even though they can't approximate truth very
exactly.  We are basing the clearing session on ARC even though that is
also an illusion.  (ARC would be meaningless to someone who didn't have
a beingness located in space ((space-time)) ).

     We are using certain programs, procedures, techniques, and steps to
make the clearing take place.  And we need to play some trick on the
preclear to get him to bring up (restimulate) some area of unknown
(charge) so that the can look at it and as-is it.  Remember it is
unknown, he doesn't know what it is before we make him find out.

     All clearing is to some extent evaluative.  We have to get the
pre-clear to agree to something in order to make it possible.  He must
agree to be here during the duration of the session.  He must agree to
be the effect of the practitioner's control.  He must agree to look at a
certain subject in a certain way.  He is acknowledged for the things he
finds out (which involves ARC which in turn includes agreement).

     As the purpose of clearing is as-isness, any part of the setup that
involves persistence (alter-isness) is pulling a bit in the other
direction.  The catch-22 is that we must provide persistence (of the
road) long enough for someone to get to total non-persistence.  You
really can't get them to travel the road without lying to them in some
fashion.  For example you might have to provide a game (which involves
unknow and persistence) to keep people interested.

     Clearing can be more or less evaluative in terms of the subject of
the session.  It is a scale going from providing the PC with the actual
material and cognitions he should find up to just providing the
administrative background for as-ising whatever is there.  Ultimately
that shouldn't be necessary either.

     ((Many people try to clear others by FEEDING them the clear
cognition.  This is an extreme example of providing the pc with the
actual material and cognitions he should find.  This is highly
destructive to cases and doesn't work, but sometimes the pc does need
some instruction as to what is going on because he can be so far south
he just has no clue, and you can audit him until the cows come home and
he won't cognite and he won't win.  SOME instruction is helpful.

     I prefer to NOT let the pc flounder around in his ignorance that
the world is a dream.  I tell him outright, the world is a projection,
you can believe it or not, if you insist I will prove it to you but you
might die if I do (because I almost did) and that is usually enough to
get them to say 'Well no I don't want the proof right now, but I can see
how the world MIGHT be a projection' and away we go, he is accessible
and open to case gain because he is no longer fixated in the total false
certainty that space and time are real and he is made of meat.

     What it does is open up the possibility that he is responsible for
his own universe because that is all he ever saw was his own pictures,
and clearly the source is within not without if its true, so he is FREE
to cognite on responsibility whereas before it was out of the question
that he had anything to do with being born, or the creation of the
universe.

     You could just choose to audit and audit and audit the raw meat
case, and perhaps he will have lots of cogs, but until he realizes that
the world MIGHT be a dream, he won't get any stable gain because he will
always be on death's row.))

     As little evaluation as possible at the given time is the ideal.
Realistically a relatively high level of evaluation and control is
needed at the beginning of the road, and gradually the control will be
handed over to the preclear and he will more and more make his own
evaluation of what is there.

     Ultimately the PC is the only person who can evaluate which
subjects are there to handle.  In the beginning we can get away with
handing him general areas of expected case, but the further we go the
more important it becomes to get the PC's exact case viewed and we must
allow him freedom to find it.  The last most important stretch of the
road can only be travelled by the preclear himself.

     And eventually the aberrative effects of the clearing process
itself must be let go of and cleared.  The ultimate truth is the static.

     ((Yep, the last thing to do is clear the incident of being cleared!
In dianetics this showed up as, you run the engram and then you run the
engram of running the engram!  Running an engram creates a NEW lighter
engram in present time that needs to be run too!))

     Interestingly enough, similar principles apply to training.
Training is a process going from a highly evaluated parrotting of
materials, up through a command of different kinds of material, through
an understanding of underlying principles, up to the ability to be
source in that field.  The amount of evaluation is lessening through
that process and more and more control is given over to the student of
the subject.

     Early in training we force a person to duplicate a mechanical way
of doing something, we give him a step-by-step list of what he should
do.  That is not THE truth, but it is workable truth on that level.
Providing the student with philosophical principles like ARC,
Be-Do-Have, the Scale of Emotions etc is also not ultimate truth, but
just workable truth.  Some of them are for that matter invented just for
that purpose.  Gradually we replace the illusion with a more and more
basic workable truth.

     Truth is relative.  It is used as the basis of finding a relatively
truer truth.

     ((Dangerous wording.  Is it an absolute truth that truth is
relative?  If you say yes, the some truth is absolute.  If you say no,
then again not all truth is relative and so some must be absolute.
Clearly then not all truth is relative.  The point is that at the level
of the dream, down here where we are all involved in it heavily and
don't remember where we came from and where we are going, and least of
all we don't remember why or how it all works, then what ever truth we
know is surely only somewhere on a scale that goes from totally untrue
to totally true.

     In this sense much of what passes for truth in life and in clearing
is only relatively true, meaning not that it is true only for some
people or some viewpoints, but that it is only an approximation of the
Ultimate Truth at the top.

     There IS an ultimate truth at the top.  You do exist don't you?  It
is true for all places and all people and all times that you exist now,
right?  So the fact that you exist now is an absolute truth.

     That's true regardless of what anyone thinks.  Certainty of
existence is the standard of PERFECT CERTAINTY by which all other
certainties can be compared.  If you doubt you exist, then at least you
can be certain that you doubt.  If you doubt that you doubt, well then
maybe its because you DON'T DOUBT and are CERTAIN!  If you are certain
and don't know it, then boy are you in trouble.

     That's called being an 'I don't know if I am certain' case.))

     Flemming