>which apparently undercuts everything else but objective processes, and
>includes all other cognitive processes.

     Off hand I would say there are three kinds of processes, namely
objective processes, and two kinds of subjective processes.

     The first kind of subjective processes are question asking
proccesses, spot and poof, "Whats It?  / Itsa" kind of stuff.  Locate
an incident, tell me what happened kind of stuff.

     The second kind of processes are not know processes, sometimes
couched in questions "What could you not know about ...?" but also
runnable as "Not know something about ...!"

     Pure permeation processes also come under this heading.

     It is not clear to me that "Not Know something about that ..."
and "Where have you been, describe it" are in the same category.  I
would say UCP is more in the first category of subjective processes
and leaves the 2nd category untouched and unrun.

>If you can have a REAL conversation with them, you can run UCP
>with them.]


>processes do.   It lets you look at WHATEVER your attention is on, and keep
>looking until your attention comes off.

     This is highly desirable if workable.

     However I have found that merely looking at what my attention is
on, endless invisible black nothingness, force and pain, tar, amber
and crazy glue, actually does NOTHING to produce change and never has,
which is why I rejected UCP in the first place.

     It would be nice if simple looking and describing would release
the blackness, but I find that it does not.

     I have also found that the black nothing and force fields etc in
my space can be so strong that I simply can't look into the past or
make creative mockups, my attention is 100 percent on the present and
that's the end of that.  Thus it becomes impossible to do the compare

     Otherwise sounds good.