faf8.scr

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

.ce OPTIMUM RESTIMULATION

.ce FAF - 8
.ce 19 April 1990

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


     The cycle of Clearing is:

     1. Restimulate something,

     2. Run out the restimulation.

     That is the most basic thing there is to say about it.  Anything
that does those two things can be called Clearing.  Anything that
doesn't isn't.  It applies to processes, parts of processes, grades,
rundowns, and anything else.

     In #1 we bring up some subject, make the preclear do something, or
ask a question, with enough impact or done often enough to bring a piece
or category of aberration forward.

     In #2 we continue doing something about the aberration until it
disappears again and the preclear is better off than he was before we
started.

     Now, there is a limited number of things one can do wrong in
clearing:

     TOO LITTLE                        TOO MUCH

.co off
-1. Not restimulating anything         +1 Rest. more than can be run out
-2. Not running any restimulation out. +2 Run out more than restimulated
.co on

     -1 is when the practitioner is afraid to create an effect on the
pc, or when he is trying to bring up something that is not real for the
pc, or if the pc is feeling too good to look at it, or if the pc doesn't
duplicate the question, or if the pc doesn't want to communicate with
the practitioner, or any of a million other variations.  They all add up
to not reaching the preclear's bank.

     -2 is when the practitioner doesn't know what to do about the
restimulation, he might not know what it is, or which process to use, or
he might just not do it, he might just end off without running the
restimulation out.

     +1 is when we bring up more than we know how to get rid of, when
the preclear is forced into a heavy area before he is ready for it, or
before the practitioner knows the right tech.

     +2 is when we continue beyond running out what we restimulated.
That is an overrun and one might get into some other charge that one
doesn't know what to do with.

     The bright reader will easily conclude that the thing to do is to

     1. Restimulate a suitable amount of charge that could run out,

     2. Run the charge exactly until we have run out what we ran in.

     That is what any good clearing practitioner will know about and try
to do.  However, they don't restimulate the same amount of charge, and
they don't run it out with the same efficiency.  It depends on the
practitioner's skill level and which tech he has available.

     To get through with the clearing and get somewhere as quickly as
possible we would want to run out as much charge per unit of time as
possible.  The limiting factors on that are again:

     1. Knowing how to restimulate a lot of charge,

     2. Knowing how to get rid of a lot of charge,

     but possibly there is one more:

     3. How much charge is the preclear willing to give up per unit of
time?

     Because really the session is just a trick to coax the pc into
getting rid of the aberration himself, he is doing it all himself.  But
the question is if with a high enough skill level on 1 and 2 would there
be any top limit on 3?  Do different preclears have different standards
for how quickly they can get things off?  They do, but it is not known
if that is because of limits in the techniques used.

     Practically any problem with overrestimulation is a problem with
lack of technique.  Certain techniques are limited to only handling one
"thing" at a time and under certain conditions.  If we have more things
at a time and the conditions have changed and the practitioner doesn't
know what to do, then we have overrestimulation.  However, if the
practitioner does know what to do it might be a chance to get more case
out of the way than expected.

     Optimum restimulation is the maximum amount of charge we can get
rid of within a practical session length.  If the practitioner has more
tricks up his sleeve he can allow more restimulation.  The best
practitioner has a full overview of how best to handle any kind of
restimulation.

     There are certain rules presented in the training of clearing
practitioners on what one can run on which pcs and what one shouldn't
run.  These rules are practical in keeping things simple and making sure
that practitioners aren't getting into things they aren't trained on,
and that preclears then aren't left with things that can't be handled.
But these rules might not apply if one knows how to deal with any of the
restimulation.  There shouldn't really be anything that couldn't be run
on anybody as long as one would know what to do about it.  There are
practical gradients of running things, but that is a different matter.

     Rules like that one shouldn't run Engrams or Power on Clears is a
good example of this.  That you can't run them because the Clear no
longer has this case is a non-sequitur explanation.  If you run
something and it creates restimulation there is obviously something
there.  The thing is that the type of restimulation changes and one can
no longer handle it the old way.  That doesn't necessarily mean that one
shouldn't do it, it just means that one needs to come up with some
better tech.  The solution is to find ways of dealing with the
restimulation that can be created.

     An old true rule is that the remedy must exist at the same time as
the bullet.  If a process is to be used we have to know how to handle
anything that could happen.  So if we can handle what comes up let's
squeeze everything out of a subject we can.  If we can't handle it we
better leave it alone, but somebody should figure out some new tricks.

     As described clearing is a terribly simple proposition of
restimulating as much as we can handle and then running it out
completely.  The optimum amount is what gets the most done in a
comfortable way.

     Flemming

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat May  6 00:06:01 EDT 2023 
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/flemming/faf8.scr
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to [email protected] 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.