In all of what we call “negative gain processing”, that is, the resolving of our negatives, we are processing energies. L. Ron Hubbard did say it well in his “Case Supervisor Series #6″, in that the client is looking for the significance- “Why?” “How?”, etc; those responsible for conducting the processing direct attention to the digesting and disintegrating of mentally experienced forces. As this is accomplished, the realizations readily emerge.
Call these forces, energy, conflicting efforts, ridges, etc, sub-categorize it as thought, emotion and effort, it is simply energies toward which one has remained in a state of resistance (counter-effort), the resultant impasse manifesting as wall of solidity. There are endless variations on how to process these energies, such as any of the variations of Dianetics, Black and White Processing, Unpleasant Sensation Handling, Power Processing, Effort Processing, Alan Walter’s and other’s techniques, etc.
Some people do well on, for instance, Dianetics, others happen not to resonate with that approach (which is NOT necessarily about being “above that level” or “below that level” at all!). I believe that it can simply be a matter of affinity or interest in or for a particular approach, but one should work with whatever seems to work well, or work best for them, which is not to say that there is ever only one “right way” to work, or that what will work best for one won’t change as the being evolves. One thing I’ve noticed is that a PC tends to process accordingly with whatever they were first indoctrinated in. I have seen some (but not most) PC’s previously run on some form of Dianetics have difficulty accepting the validity of other approaches, simply on the basis of their indoctrination, whereas those clients I’ve had who were new to processing have done well with whatever technique I chose as being appropriate for what they were manifesting.
I’ve had PC’s indoctrinated in, for instance, “Book One Dianetics” take 4 or 5 hours per session to fully process an incident or chain of incidents, largely because they believed they had to find and examine every consecutive detail of every event. As I enlightened them to simply process whatever forces or events emerged for them (as presented by their “file clerk”, or as I like to call it, their “spiritual compass”), rather than putting energy into scanning for a complete record, the client would gradually gain speed in exhausting all the forces successfully to where the average session time dwindled down from 5 hours to under an hour. In all cases, once the forces have been exhausted, the realizations of how the experiences were created, and recreated, and the effects they have had, rose to the surface effortlessly (the efforts obscuring them having been processed).
As revealed in John Mcmaster’s “Story of S&D” research, we generate “magnetic fields” that attract sensations and conditions that will later register (be created as) unwanted, unpleasant, undesirable, and through resisting these, we solidify and perpetuate them. Thus, we have the need, and various means, to process those sensations and conditions as a package with processing that resistance (counter effort) to them…
But underlying these are those magnetic fields. Let’s say we’ve each got our own particular “magnets”, or say we are “being magnets for”, our own particular phenomena. Therefore, to break the cycle of “pulling in”, or attracting these, we need to process our own particular magnets.
This is the line of thought that led me to develop the “Have attraction for” and “Create attraction for” steps to augment Roger Boswarva’s original Unpleasant Sensation Handling, as my “Unpleasant Sensation Handling 2.0”
Next, “Have an attraction for” step:
- “What part of (item) are you willing to have an attraction for?” (acknowledge)
- “What part of (item) would you rather not have an attraction for?” (acknowledge)
- “From where could a Godlike spiritual being have an attraction for (item)?” (acknowledge)
- “How does having an attraction for ________ seem to you now?” (acknowledge)
Alternate these questions until the person has a win along the lines of gaining causativeness over having the attraction. This is particularly effective and important with items recognized as having a “craving” or “addiction” aspect.
And then, “Create an attraction for” step:
- “What part of (item) are you willing to create an attraction for?” (acknowledge)
- “What part of (item) would you rather not create an attraction for?” (acknowledge)
- “From where could a Godlike spiritual being create an attraction for (item)?” (acknowledge)
- “How does creating an attraction for ________ seem to you now?” (acknowledge)
Alternate these questions until the person has a win along the lines of gaining causativeness over creating the attraction these “attraction” steps have proven to be hugely effective in bringing about a more pronounced realization of spiritual freedom, and restoring one’s Godlike spiritual qualities.”
(That isn’t the entire USH 2.0, just the parts I’m referring to here; the preceding steps are one means of processing the experiencing, and then processing the creating, of the particular sensation being processed. The final step, having fully processed the unpleasant sensation, is positive processing, of the goal of the underlying desirable state or ability relative to this area.)