************************************************************************
The following first appeared in the private email list IVy-subscribers,
which is available to all those who subscribe to the
printed magazine, International Viewpoints.
************************************************************************


Someone maketh me to lie down in green pastures
by Phil Spickler
14 Dec 1998

Dear Anyone,

It seems as though one of my main alter egos (definition: another 
"I"), namely Algernon, the chief guard sheep, the one that has the 
large "M" carefully sheared into his beautiful coat (as the beginning 
of "Merry Xmas") that is customarily sheared into my Praetorian 
Guard, has once again wandered down to my sleeping raft deep in the 
Dismal Swamp, awakened me from the delirium that is my constant 
companion during the holiday season, and requested that we say a few 
more words about acknowledgment -- that apparently lowly piece of 
tech that turns out to be the Genghis of all Basics, the undercut of 
all undercuts, the universal solvent, if you please, that, along with 
admiration, is one of the scarcest commodities on this beautiful dirt 
ball called Earth.

Yes, acknowledgment, the thing that all creators and their creations 
desire, and in many cases exist to receive.

Well, with that modest preamble, let us speak of acknowledgment -- in 
fact, let us acknowledge acknowledgment, by saying that it possesseth 
a gradient scale that in human types runs all the way from the merest 
grunt or snort up to and including perfect duplication and 
vanishment.  Along the way, in terms of TR-2, it had been pointed out 
in the past that if acknowledgment were adequate in the auditing comm 
cycle, it would bring an end to that cycle and prepare the pc freshly 
(if you were doing some form of repetitive- command question) to the 
point where said pc would be ready for a new auditing comm cycle in a 
new unit of time.

Let's face it: acknowledgment is more of an art than a science, and 
without a doubt and over the years, it has been extremely obvious 
that some folks had more talent for this art than others.  But 
nevertheless, the broad and general range of people could learn this 
ability and practice it and cognite on it and improve it to the point 
where the artist within could get pretty darn good at the art of 
creating and delivering acknowledgment.

Once folks fully understood Cause, Distance and Effect, and could 
perceive clearly what took place at the effect-point, they were 
practically home on becoming great acknowledgers.  Auditors who were 
very good at Listing and Nulling, or correcting listing and nulling, 
clearly had to have the skill to be able to notice the enormous 
difference between wrong items, wrong indications, and right items 
and right indications, and the gigantic difference between very bad 
indicators and very good indicators.  And so it is true with 
acknowledgment, which is truly a scale of duplication: one must be 
willing, able and responsible for the indicators that appear at 
effect-point when acknowledgment is delivered.  And just to keep it 
simple, if the indicators are not good, it is necessary, particularly 
in an auditing session, but in life as well, to quickly point out to 
the receipt-point of your acknowledgment something on the order of, 
"Say, what I just said there didn't do a very good job of 
acknowledging, did it?" or "I guess that didn't really duplicate what 
you were talking about, or being, etc., etc., etc.  Let me see if I 
can do better," and whether you're working telepathically or using 
sonic verbalizations, in order to get the correct indicators and the 
correct indication, you've got to fool around while maintaining 
communication with your pc (or your girlfriend, or your boyfriend, as 
the case may be) until the indicators of a successful acknowledgment 
appear.  And don't go on to some other cycle of auditing or 
communication until that has been achieved.

Now since we're talking about gradients, it doesn't mean that you 
have to cause the other person to vanish every time you acknowledge 
them.  Nor do they have to go Clear-OT 100 either, unless that's what 
you're aiming to do. It just simply means that you've got to get good 
enough indicators and expressions from your receipt-point for the 
person or whatever to feel adequately acknowledged to the point that 
they're ready to go on to something else.  That's pretty simple now, 
isn't it?  And once you get comfortable with the idea, especially in 
auditing, that you can be that responsible, and you stop rushing to 
get to the next thing, question, command, or whatever, you can take 
the time to make sure that each auditing comm cycle is very well 
done, and then you and the person or whatever you're working with 
won't be making a time track that is filled with unacknowledged 
creations, which usually end up persisting in a way that is not to 
your mutual benefit.

Well, that's enough for now -- I can hear the bell ringing, whose 
knell summons me to heaven or to ______ (please fill in the blank) -- 
but Algernon insisted that these things be said.

To all a good night -

Best,
Phil

P.S.  It is well to remember that for want of a nail, the battle was 
lost, and for want of an acknowledgment, the unhappiness between 
communicating viewpoints and their creators persisteth.