CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:

>>The processor takes the person into a railroad station or park, or has him
>>sit in a car on a heavily used street and says to him, "What do you think
>>is wrong with you?" He has the person name some specific thing, and having
>>named it, the auditor then says, "All right, pick out one of these people,
>>and have that thing wrong with that person," and when the person has done
>>so, "Now pick out another person and have this same thing wrong with that
>>person." The processor continues to have the person place into these people
>>this thing that is wrong with the person only so long as the item is wrong
>>with the person, for this is a very rapid process and a very rapid change
>>takes place. 

>What is the desired outcome of this process?

     As stated, "only as long as the item is wrong with the person."

>Why postulate undesirables into other persons?
>Seems unethical to me.

     The person is suffering from things he has tried to wish off on
others, but having failed that, took them on himself.

     This process is an effort to get at the central core of that
action and reaction.

     It says in the original 'Don't worry, be happy, no harm will come
to the people the pc chooses'

     While the pc is still suffering from his own kick back, which
happened because he FAILED to get another to accept an ill wish, he is
also below actually making it happen again to anyone else.

     Presumably after he runs the mechanism out in himself, he will in
fact be able to hurt others, and will have to deal with the ethics of
doing so.

     There is an alternate command little mentioned along the same
lines, "Spot a person, postulate perfectiion into them".


>?? what am I missing about this process?


Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com

Tue Aug 14 22:49:54 EDT 2007