The Little Purple Notebook On How To Escape From This Universe
Copyleft � 1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.
Subscription Information: Maria Loren
[email protected]
Website:
http://transmillennium.net/pnohteftu/
Agreeing To Agree Or To Disagree
Can there be truly a disagreement with anything that is going on?
The world presents itself to the spectator as an interference pattern of
the diverse realities of all currently present spectators.
Because of the truth in Heisenberg's observation of the 'Uncertainty
Principle', a spectator changes the course of events just by witnessing it.
In other words, reality changes depending how people are perceiving it.
A _true_ disagreement would break up reality. The event just wouldn't be
there anymore. Just like if a movie-goer would leave the theater, the show
would happen without this particular spectator, and the movie-goer would
not have the coming scenes in his 'past'.
There are agreements, of course, and there are disagreements in life.
From a broad perspective however, these are really agreements to agreements
and agreements to disagreements.
A player joins a team by sharing its arguments. The player agrees to the
agreements of the group. Automatically, then, the player has to agree to
disagree to any opposing party.
Beings are around since a very long time. And from the beginning, they were
continously agreeing to agree and, implicitly or explicitly, agreeing to
disagree to opposing terminals.
Every time a Being agrees to agree or to disagree, it has to compromise a
little bit, since there are no absoluta in this world. There is no absolute
truth in this world and every part of the world contains at least a small
piece of a lie.
With each such compromise the Being sacrifices a small fraction of its
integrity.
Over time, the collection of past agreements constitutes a considerable
load. It is 'case', in the modern usage of this word. In Gotamo's words, it
is 'dukkha': the alienation of a person with its own integrity.
'Agreements' are an instance of the class of basic items. A basic item is
an item that, if completely resolved, would result in a complete liberation
of a Being.
If a Being would not have any agreements whatsoever with this Universe, it
would be completely free.
Another examples of a basic item is communication. If one could perfectly
communicate with anything in this Universe, one would also be completely
free.
The same is true for another basic item: 'goals'. If one would not have any
goals, there would not be any attachment to this world.
Unfortunately, basic items cannot be resolved in an isolated way.
Nonetheless, they have to be addressed in order to tone down the
compulsiveness of playing the game of life.
PNOHTEFTU is not a collection of processes except for those who are not
available elsewhere. There are now a couple of superb collections out
there, most notably by The Pilot, F. Funch, G.Filbert, and L.Kin, and all
of them are completely free in the public domain except for L.Kin who
shares selected excerpts of his (very affordable!!) books on the 'net.
Processing of agreements works as an undercut to processing in general but
is not specifically mentioned anywhere (to my knowledge) and is therefore
an exception.
With a bit of experience, anybody can design the appropriate process
him/herself, of course.
For starters, and to give an example how such a process would look like,
consider the following:
{begin agreement-process}
"Recall a time when you agreed to agree?"
(on all such commands, always get the complete Who/What/When/Where
of all involved parties)
"Recall a timne when you agreed to disagree?"
{end agreement-process}
In case of bad indicators (negative moods, upsets, etc),
an overt/motivator or a failed purpose has been touched.
Repair with:
{begin repair}
"Was there an agreement that you broke?"
"What agreement did you honor?"
{end repair}
Basic items have to be rerun at any major step on the path to one's
liberation. They are not a 'been there - done that' process.
Special care should be taken to exclude currently active agreements.
Addressing those _without_ a thorough clean-up of past agreements (and
there are a lot!!!), is a recipe for havoc.
Neither should it be used as a short-cut out of existing responsibilities:
in this area there are no short-cuts that wouldn't backfire.
It seems superfluous to mention that agreement processes are an ogre of
cults and cult-like institutions. After all, cults feed on the
restimulation of past (and unconfronted) agreements.
Any resolution of past agreements to agreements or disagreements directly
increases the level of individual responsibility of a person.
Any process to achieve such resolutions should therefore be in the tool
chest of any true liberator!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyleft � 1998 by Maximilian J. Sandor, Ph.D.
