http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?17164-Keeping-Alan-C.-Walter-In-View/page61 Ted, post #601: -------------- I suggest not going earlier than the 1998 issue above that you noted. My suggestions were simple although not totally duplicated by Eric and/or the boss. The original Clean Slate procedure directed the client/seeker/looker's attention to the past. Alan himself echoed Hubbard's written thoughts on the matter of past, present, future when each said that a person fixated on the past is psychotic, neurotic if fixated on the present, and healthy if wholly concerned with the future. (I do not remember the exact wording of that observation/sentiment.) When on course and presented with the then Clean Slate procedure directing my attention to the past, my response was simply, "I'm fine with that." In other words, nothing to run, my attention being on the future and what might be as differentiated from what was. In asking always for what was, the procedure itself invited digging up psychosis. BTW, that past, present, future thing came from Freud or Jung or one of those guys much earlier. I suggested that the Clean Slate questions be reworded so that the client/seeker/looker could determine for themselves the timeframe to pick his answers, i.e. past, present, or future. In truth, the only real time is now. Forcing a client to the past can create a false time track. Been there, done it, seen a lot of that. ----- Paul, post 602: -------------- Thanks very much, Ted. You seem to be the right man in the right spot at the right time. Below are the Robot commands I currently have. There are some conditional thingies that I have not indicated, but they should be obvious (like not clearing mis-u's if you don't have any). The alternate/repetitive processes are marked [A/R]. There are some pairs of questions that look like A/R processes but are just repeating the question until the client runs out of answers. What do you think of them, especially in terms of what you said about not dredging stuff up from the past? My thoughts are that whatever from the past gets brought into view by doing steps that look at the present or the future should be addressed (discharged), but don't go off looking for stuff that hasn't been so triggered. I really don't like those #8 "From where could a spiritual being . . ." processes. "From where could you . . ." is bad enough. And #11 seems a bit convoluted. Couldn't one just ask straight out for a part the client is afraid of being responsible for, then willing to be responsible for, rather not etc rather than addressing what part of that first afraid-to-be-responsible-for *aspect* to run responsibility on? 0. "OK. Select the topic on which to run this Clean Slate procedure." "All right. Permeate this topic with your attention." 1. "Good. What is your comprehension of this?" "Fair enough. Grab a dictionary and sort out the meanings of any terms you don't fully understand." 2. "OK. Does that bring anything to view?" "Thank you. What came to view?" 3. "Fine. What precepts do you have about your topic?" "All right. Pick a precept to work with." 4. "Good enough. Did that precept create a vision?" "All right. Describe the vision." 5. "Great. What have been, or could be, the consequences of having that precept?" 6. "Thank you. Have there been, or could there be, any other consequences to having that precept?" "Fine. Have there been, or could there be, any other consequences to having that precept?" 7. "All right. Do you have, or could you have, any other precepts about your topic?" "Good. We are now going over the earlier steps again to make sure you are no longer being triggered by, or have any unviewed precepts on, this topic." [goes back to 3b and 7 until all the precepts have been put through steps 4/5/6] 8. "OK. Connected to your topic, is there — or do you foresee — any unpleasant sensation?" [A/R] "All right. From where could a spiritual being experience that unpleasant sensation?" "Good enough. From where could a spiritual being experience that unpleasant sensation?" [A/R] "OK. From where could a spiritual being create that unpleasant sensation?" "Thank you. From where could a spiritual being create that unpleasant sensation?" "OK. Are there any other unpleasant sensations, actual or foreseen, connected to this topic?" 9. "All right. Connected to your topic, do you have any misdefined terms?" "Good enough. Grab a dictionary and sort out the meanings of any terms you don't fully understand." [Repeat as needed] 10. [A/R] "OK. Connected to your topic, what have you done?" "Thank you. Connected to your topic, what have you restrained?" 11. "OK. If you fully cleared your topic, what aspect of it are you afraid you would have to be responsible for?" [A/R] "Fine. What part of that aspect are you willing to be responsible for?" "Fair enough. What part of that aspect would you rather not be responsible for?" 12. [A/R] "OK. If you fully cleared your topic, what ability would you recover or gain for the first time?" "Thank you. What would be the consequences of having that ability?" 13. [A/R] "All right. What dream or goal does clearing your topic contribute to or support? Describe it." "Good. What dream or goal does clearing your topic contribute to or support? Describe it." 14. [A/R] "All right. What problem does clearing your topic solve? Describe it." "Thank you. What problem does clearing your topic solve? Describe it." 15. [A/R] "OK. What vision does clearing your topic create or reinforce? Describe it." "Good enough. What vision does clearing your topic create or reinforce? Describe it." Paul ----- Ted, post #606: -------------- My longstanding objection to the wording of process commands/questions is that they might not reflect how I would speak with a real person thus becoming an impediment to communication rather than a facilitator. The command/question itself is never going to be a fair substitute for the actual intent and vision that rides along with the words from the processor. Likewise, the client/seeker/viewer has his own language. It is important that he feels understood, even at times when understanding simply isn't possible. Assuming the purpose of Clean Slate has been defined, including what possibly constitutes a dirty slate, and given the specifications of Paul's Robot as limiting factors I might suggest... 0. "OK. Select the topic/subject on which to run this Clean Slate procedure." "All right. Now focus your attention on that topic." 1. "Good. At this point, what is your comprehension of (thing being viewed in real time or studied)?" "Fair enough. Grab a dictionary and sort out the meanings of any terms you don't fully understand." 2. "OK. Does that bring any feeling or consideration to view?" "Thank you. What came to view?" 3. "Fine. What precepts might you have about your topic?" "All right. Pick a precept to work with." 4. "Good enough. Does that precept connect with a vision or mental image picture?" "All right. Describe it." 5. "Great. What have been, or could be, the consequences of having that precept?" 6. "Thank you. Have there been, or could there be, any other consequences to having that precept?" "Fine. Have there been, or could there be, any other consequences to having that precept?" 7. "All right. Do you have, or could you have, any other precepts about [edit] topic?" (Reworded. The client could very well be running someone else's precept.) "Good. We are now going continue to clean the slate by going over the earlier steps again. We'll move on when there are no more triggers or hidden precepts on, this topic." [goes back to 3b and 7 until all the precepts have been put through steps 4/5/6] 8. "OK. Connected to [your topic], is there now — or do you foresee — any unpleasant sensation?" [A/R] "All right. From where could a spiritual being experience that unpleasant sensation?" "Good enough. From where could a spiritual being experience that unpleasant sensation?" [A/R] "OK. From where could a spiritual being create that unpleasant sensation?" "Thank you. From where could a spiritual being create that unpleasant sensation?" "OK. Are there any other unpleasant sensations, actual or foreseen, connected to this topic?" 9. "All right. Connected to your topic, might you have any misdefined terms?" "Good enough. Grab a dictionary and sort out the meanings of any terms you don't fully understand." [Repeat as needed] 10. [A/R] "OK. Connected to your topic, what have you done?" "Thank you. Connected to your topic, what have you kept yourself from doing?" 11. "Is there any aspect of [topic] that you would hesitate to be responsible for?" [A/R] "Fine. What part of that [topic] are you willing to admit causing?" "Fair enough. What part of that [topic] would you rather not admit causing?" 12. [A/R] "In cleaning this slate, is there an ability that you might recover or gain for the first time?" "Thank you. What might be the consequences of a being having that ability?" 13. "All right. Do you have a dream or goal that clearing [topic] contribute to or support? Describe it." Another? ... 14. "All right. Is there a problem that clearing [topic] solves? Describe it." 15. "OK. What vision does clearing your topic create or reinforce? Describe it." [/COLOR][/INDENT] I think I can make a case for not using the term "spiritual being." If a spiritual being is experiencing an unpleasant sensation isn't that being less spiritual in that context? How about "causative being"? Use the good old-fashioned definition of being to include spirit, human, or any living thing. A causative being can certainly create and experience unpleasant sensation as well as pleasant sensation. As far as alternate/repetitive, I prefer run one to a flat point of no more answers then shift to the alternate, back and forth. Answers can come so quickly that shifting back and forth slows the session down. On people who are not so quick, shifting the command too soon doesn't give them a chance to dig in and look. I have seen a client dig, dig, sig. They get their first answer, and a few more are sitting right there, but the auditor is now asking a different question that they have to dig for thus putting answers to the first question on hold. I went through this quickly with no thought of fine-tuning. I was just trying to be a bit more conversational. Brit conversation would be different--I suppose. ----- Paul, post #607: --------------- Wonderful! Thanks very much for your experienced answer. On the "spiritual being" question, if I'm going to be stuck with those "from where" questions, couldn't I just use "you" or "one"? I don't know if Alan was trying to subtly get at BTs (sorry, spiritual teammates) causing all of a person's unpleasant sensations or what, but I would prefer the question to be as general as possible if we're trying to discharge whatever unpleasant sensation has been triggered. Excellent point re the alternate/repetitive difficulties. I notice you used "cleaning the slate" in question 12, but retained my somewhat-arbitrary "clearing [topic]" for Qs 13, 14, 15. How important is this? I used "clearing your topic" because it sounded better to me than "cleaning your topic," but then I'm not at all accustomed to using the words "cleaning the slate." Since this is, after all, the NAME of the procedure, I suppose that I have no objection to using the proper words, even if they are not familiar to me. I just want to make sure they will apply to a more general area than a text a student is studying. I use "clearing/cleaning your topic" rather than "clearing/cleaning [topic]" because I can't repeat the person's exact topic back to them and have to use the general word. This is really helpful, Ted. Paul ----- Ted, post #608 (Ted's comments between the ******s): --------------------------------------------------- Wonderful! Thanks very much for your experienced answer. On the "spiritual being" question, if I'm going to be stuck with those "from where" questions, couldn't I just use "you" or "one"? I don't know if Alan was trying to subtly get at BTs (sorry, spiritual teammates) causing all of a person's unpleasant sensations or what, but I would prefer the question to be as general as possible if we're trying to discharge whatever unpleasant sensation has been triggered. ***************************** I believe that Alan was attempting to process from the client's highest point of awareness or imagined capability. Thus his use of "infinite" this, that or another thing. If a person digs it, the concept of "spiritual being" reaches further than "person." At the same time, to always be going out and beyond to the perceived infinite spiritual realms bypasses charge on the mundane aspects of everyday living. In processing, I believe it is wise to cover both ends of the spectrum. ***************************** Excellent point re the alternate/repetitive difficulties. I notice you used "cleaning the slate" in question 12, but retained my somewhat-arbitrary "clearing [topic]" for Qs 13, 14, 15. How important is this? I used "clearing your topic" because it sounded better to me than "cleaning your topic," but then I'm not at all accustomed to using the words "cleaning the slate." ***************************** Tab[u]la rasa. It is not Alan's term. It goes back to at least John Locke. "an opportunity for a fresh start; clean slate." I was lax with my wording of the procedure, and used the name of the procedure to remind the client of what he is doing. I realize what you are trying to accomplish soI have no particulars on how to go about it other than what I have already stated. I just changed your wording because it seemed awkward to me. If this is being run solo by someone with limited experience I believe the commands/questions should be simple and self-explanatory every step of the way. ***************************** Since this is, after all, the NAME of the procedure, I suppose that I have no objection to using the proper words, even if they are not familiar to me. I just want to make sure they will apply to a more general area than a text a student is studying. I use "clearing/cleaning your topic" rather than "clearing/cleaning [topic]" because I can't repeat the person's exact topic back to them and have to use the general word. ***************************** Well you know a person could direct another's attention to an object then clean slate that. I have seen a student just freak over the sight of an meter. Clean slate would have a good process to run. Or a gun, or a car, or blood, or a needle, or whatever freaks a person out. ***************************** This is really helpful, Ted. Paul ***************************** I try. ----- Paul, post #609: --------------- Thanks very much. I'll dump "spiritual being" and use "one" or "you." Personally, the word "person" to me means the whole person including his spiritual aspects, subtle-energy fields, body, mind, the works. But everyone will have their own idea of what is being addressed by the term "you" or "one," so I will leave it pretty much undefined. It wouldn't be appropriate to try and ram a "Parts of Man" explanation down someone's throat at this point. I get the point on the tabla rasa. Yes, I think you've got it right. I'll just try to use something that sounds relatively natural and not try to be too "proper" in a trained Knist (?) sense. Thanks for the "topics" that it would stretch to cover. That is very helpful. I think I've got enough to go on now. It should be up within a week. Paul ------------------------- END -----