.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce Copyright (C) Flemming A. Funch
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
Technical Essay # 77 - FAF 14 April 1992

.ce Evaluation


Evaluation has not been an altogether clearly understood term. It has been widely agreed
that one shouldn't evaluate in a clearing session, but what does that mean?

Evaluation is first of all not the best word, in that it has several different meanings, and in
common usage it would be more positive than we have used it.

The term Evaluation covers several distinct subjects:

	1. Analysis
	2. Judgment
	3. Suggestion

The most common usage of the word evaluation out in the "real" world is as analysis or
computation. You observe something and you try to evaluate what it means and implies and
how valuable it is. This is what a good clearing practitioner does during a session. He
observes the client's indicators and communication, analyzes the situation, and decides what
to do next.

Judgment is mostly what we meant when we said that one shouldn't evaluate. It is the
attachment of a value or identification to the client or his case, in a way that limits his freedom
of choice. People can change, but when you put a label on them it would tend to hinder
change. We could just as well  call it "Labelling" for that matter.

Suggestion is when you feed somebody ideas on how to think or what to think about. This
can be done more or less forcefully. Clearing has traditionally been associated with a fair
amount of covert suggestions. The way sessions are promoted, the model session
environment, the indoctrination, the practitioner's attitude, etc, all add up to covert
suggestions that encourage the client to think that the whole thing is going to work. The
practitioner then gives questions and commands which are more direct suggestions to think
about a certain subject in a certain way.

Suggestion is an important element in making clearing work. Traditionally that has not been
recognized. However, if you omit the suggestive parts you might be surprised to find that the
processes don't work as expected. If you take responsibility for the phenomenon you can
probably use it with more integrity. Suggestion is only appropriate to the degree that it helps
the client improve his current situation. If we fool him into believing in something that wasn't
there in the first place, then we are doing him a disservice.

So, the two types of Evaluation that can have an adverse effect are #2 - Judgment, and #3 -
Suggestion. However, there are gradient scales. Most judgments would be undesirable, but
some might be appropriate. Many suggestions are there to help the person, but some will be
detrimental.

The determining factor, I think, is whether or not we give the person more or fewer choices, if
we help him become free or if we limit him further.

A suggestion of new choices is usually helpful. That is what we do with many clearing
questions; we suggest a new angle to things and suggest that the person tries it out. Like,
"Recall some hidden eating!". We are introducing an unexpected idea and asking the client to
think about it for the duration of the process, and most likely he will learn something new.

Suggesting more limited choices is rarely beneficial for the person. Like, if we convince him
of a certain model of reality to the exclusion of all others as part of the indoctrination. It might
make it easier to do subsequent rundowns that are built on that model of reality, but it might
make actual as-isness more difficult. For example, if we suggest that "all somatics come from
engram chains and we can only resolve them by erasing the basic engram". That might make
it easier to run an engram chain, but it might be more difficult for the person to handle
somatics any other way from then on.

The trouble with judgment is that it tends to fixate things, to identify them. If we tell a person
that he is "Stupid", then we make it a little harder for him to change. We put the false idea
there that he "IS" something. That violates axiom 1 of the person being a Static. He ISN'T any
kind of quality, that is a lie, and to the degree we convince him that he IS something we will
be holding him back from realizing his true nature.

So, the trouble with evaluation seems to be identification. If you use judgment or suggestion
to imply that something or someone IS in a certain limited way, then you sabotage the
clearing activity.

Judgments that don't fixate anything are usually fine. Many of them are part of polite
language. You could say "That's very nice of you", or "That's great!" without harming the client
in any way. ARC is also a key element in clearing.

Suggesting that someone or something IS some way might be permissible if what you
equate with is something more unlimited, with more choices. Such as: "You ARE cause!", I
can't see much limitation in that. But it is somewhat dangerous to do. I find it safest to always
leave multiple choices in there, always letting the client make up his own mind.

If you need to suggest some particular model for the purpose of running a process, if would
be most respectful for the person's integrity to introduce it as a possibility, rather than as a
fact. "How about this for a theory?: If you can find the positive in something, it will cease being
a problem". That lets the client know that he always has a choice, and the process will run
just as well for that matter.