Cause is your own decision, command or postulate of action. As long as this precedes action, a person is self determined. As soon as one's postulate begins to succeed action, he is other determined, because his postulate is being caused by other determinism than his own. He reaches out here and shifts the ash tray and then he looks at it and wonders why he shifted the ash tray and he says, "It's a good thing I moved the ash tray." That's an automaticity. Automaticity is only strange and peculiar because it interferes with the barriers of time.
With ease, you can pass through any other kind of barrier. By pulling on yourself the trick that we will all agree on the appearance and disappearance of space. Then we will depend upon some symbol which we put up which is spelled T-I-M-E to symbolize this appearance and disappearance of new particle positions.
Then we will agree that these particles do not move except in this pattern of our agreement, according to certain laws and when we all hook into the same regulator on the same subject and then depend utterly upon time, we can't have the past again. Neither can we have the future again. Nor can we have the future in advance. It becomes a horrible, hectic context on the part of the individual where he pantingly is keeping himself somewhere in the vicinity of these particles in present time. He is trying to coordinate with their motion consistently and continually and that is the strain that he's undergoing.
He's in advance of all his automaticity when he's in what we will call causative instant. Causative instant is being just a split second ahead of the actual change of the particle, because you're actually assisting their change. Effect instant is being always, with postulates, a split second after the shift.The stimulus response bank is a faction of an instant back of a shift of these particles called MEST (matter-energy-space-time). The observational, analytical mind is the causative instant, just a fraction of a second before the change.
I found this process rather uniformly effective if carried out long enough on the person that he finds himself fighting time so much and so impatiently that he’ll drop back into stimulus-response several times.
Simply seat your client in the midst of a bunch of MEST objects (dolls, toy cars, etc.). You give him the steer the first time or two and then deliver it into his own hands what he's doing.
You say: "Now you decide to move that (object) to a position." And he does so, and you say "Now do it."
His automaticity is being junior to your automaticity throughout, so you've got to get this up to a point where he is doing the whole thing, and you just leave him there doing it.
We say, "Get the idea that you're going to move that (object) to a new position." He gets the idea. And you say, "Do something else." His wheels will kind of go screech, skid, and he will do something else. But he will get wise to this after awhile; he'll realize that he did something else on a stimulus-response.
You say, "Now you, yourself, decide to move this (object) to a new position, you decide it and decide when to do it." And then he'll sit there and do it.
About this time, he may start to protest. He's liable to have all kinds and varieties of protest. Why? Because you are making him actually push up that fraction of a second and he feels like he's been speeded up beyond the point that he can tolerate it.
That intolerance of pace will not actually take place. It's not upsetting. There's nothing to that. You just get him to push on through it.
"Decide to move that (object). Now move it to a new position."
"Now pick out the new position it's going to move into." He does so, and you say, "Now decide to move the (object) again to a new position." And he will and you say, "Now having decided, get the idea that you suddenly have to move the ashtray over on your right." He will.
What you're working with there is interference and interruption of action and what you're working with is basically automaticity and the interference with the cycle of action. So that we can't finish cycles of action. What we're working with is trying to return into his mind the idea that he makes up his mind to do something and then does it. That will key out all of his machinery.
"Now make up your mind you're going to move the (object) to a new position." He selects the new position, and you say, "Now don't do it."
You are only trying to move him ahead maybe a billionth of a second. He'll get the idea that he should think of all these things and do them instantaneously. This is upsetting to him that he doesn't do all these things instantaneously. He's just trying to make a postulate work. This is his own laziness showing up with him. Now, instead of that, we force him to take it carefully, maddeningly, and to make up his mind to do something and put it to a new position and then not do it. Make up his mind to do something and change it to a new position, and then have the idea that he's got to change it and move something else instead, without moving the object, and merely make up his mind to change it to a new position and do it.