Turbo RC
What I want to do is set up a system of prompting the presentation of chronic patterns for discharge.
Applying the Human Standard to the primary relationships is a remarkably thorough method of flushing the chronic patterns to the surface to be discharged and eliminated.
The Human Standard is: Free speech, free assembly, liberty, right to private property, privacy, right to worship as one sees fit, freedom from involuntary servitude.
Primary relationships are: mate-mate, parent-child.
Very few of us apply these human standards in our child-rearing technique. Many of us who have the most righteous certainty about what we are doing in regards to our children are NOT applying these standards, and in so doing, we are not treating our children like real human beings.
These Human Rights are fundamental to keeping the human part of the human being alive. Patterns will not adhere in the presence of full human rights. Fundamental human rights are a system of immunity to inhuman patterns of being.
The Human Standard is an objective and universal treatment we can use to contradict the inhuman ways we have assembled in our deep selves, which show themselves as the inhuman ways we treat the people who we are closest to and care about with the most intensity.
We will always pass our chronic patterns to our loved ones. Like a virus that is passed only through intimate contact, that is the nature of the inhuman beast. Because the chronic is necessarily founded in the unconscious, (if it were bathed in consciousness it would cease to be a pattern) we will be unconscious of the ways that we are hurting our loved ones by passing our patterns. When we present the chronic pattern to our loved ones, the machine that drives the contagion itself is the intensity of pain we still retain in the subconscious.
So, applying the Human Standard to the child rearing experience means never making laws (rules) that prevent our children from having free speech, free assembly, etc. Try this for one hour with a five year old and start to feel what comes up. There will be all sorts of rationale and reasons (GOOD reasons) for why the human standard does not and should not apply to actual human children.
Allowing the child liberty and free assembly brings up fear in the parent. What becomes flushed to the surface is the adhesion crisis, the trauma that installed the chronic pattern. The first element is usually a sense of impending doom or panic. The emotions that attend the pattern, present themselves in feeling, before the conceptual content of the pattern presents itself in words.
Example: allowing the child liberty in the society at large prompts fear. Plain, alarming fear. The mind will present the avoidance systems, what we are trying to prevent. "I am afraid my child will be kidnapped by a maniac who is driving by, and then be raped or murdered".
Statistically speaking, the chances of a child dying at the hands of a violent parent are about 200 times more than dying at the hands of a violent stranger. Certainly the sexual assault statistics are similarly proportioned.
What is often happening is that people who have unconscious memories of being sexually assaulted by a parent, or someone very close to the family, may only be able to contact the deeply felt threat at all, by projecting it onto a stranger.
What we are trying to prevent with our reactive control patterns over our children, is exactly what we are also trying to keep buried in our subconscious minds. When we limit the human options open to our children, to protect our child from being at risk from "having some experience", we are displaying a map of our own mind protecting our own inner child from feeling something.
Failing to give space to the reactive "protective" controls does not mean we are going to absolve ourselves of all responsibility in creating a safe life for our kids. A full conscious response to real danger is not the same as reacting to danger. The fuller a child's life is at home, the less likely they are to want to leave home at all. The key to creating safety for children, with full liberty, is by expanding the home life to include a full extended community.
We can put off granting full liberty (such as legally) to our kids for a while, while we put things together, but ultimately liberty even to leave the "safe life" we create for our children is the only real and reliable check and balance we have, to receive feedback on how well we are doing to actually meet all the needs of our children.
As always, we must remember that our unconscious patterns are necessarily invisible to us. Too much "safety", becomes a hazard in itself, and one that we who are overprotective cannot see and identify objectively. We need an objective, even mathematical feedback system to get through to our real conscious minds. Our chronic patterns will always try to fool us by presenting some glowing picture of what it is we are really doing to our children, while in real life the kids feel and know that what is happening is certainly something bad.
Exceptions: Allowing liberty to violate marriage contracts can bring up chronic patterns about "possessing" one another. But what is more likely to happen when liberty from marriage constructs are granted is that chronic patterns to practice addictive intimacy gets going full swing, and so intimacy becomes more of an avoidance than a healing process.
I am proposing that we assemble a trial basis live-in community like a summer camp, to implement and test the Human Standard. I propose that we do not identify this as an RC function. If we do this, we are not RC.
I want to retain MOST of RC, but make a few important changes. Because we are talking about creating a full-time, live-in community, we must necessarily drop the No Socializing rule.
Since this rule has been central to RC, this is a very big change. We have to establish that, as such, in doing this project we are second generation RC, a child of RC, not RC. It is as if Harvey and his organization, his groundrules, all of that are our father, and we are the child. So we retain many of his "genes", as it were, in keeping many of his rules and systems, but we are going to just experiment a little with varying some important points.
As far as I know, there are two reasons why the "no Socializing" rule has been important. One is that the objective positive regard of the counselor becomes compromised when confronted full force with the live-in patterns of the client. A person loses their ability to BE that delighted, all-supportive counselor, when they are immersed in quagmire of the client's actual life.
If we start by postulating that it is the client's rightful position to be in charge of their own healing, we can take the burden of perfection off of any who would be counselor. Those who can accept God as their perfect co-counselor, or who have any method of being in charge of their own healing process, are most eligible for this project, as they have a back-up system of self-healing to rely on when the co-counselor position breaks down. And without the "no socializing" rule, we can expect that it will.
We can bear in mind the statement on the back page of "Present Time": "Any young person would recover from such distress spontaneously by use of the natural process of emotional discharge" and set that as the wellness standard. We can trust that our discharge process is now set in motion and we are no longer stuck behind the programmed decision to fail to discharge.
We can set as our new bottom line standard for being an adequate co-counselor is failing to interfere with the discharge process. Also, with full rights to privacy, any person can maintain their own "no socializing" or "no whatever" standards for their own private self, and withdraw from any contact within the group, should it feel like what is going on is compromising their true identity or real self.
The second reason for the "no socializing" rule in RC is that the intense positive bond that builds because of the discharge experience can compete with and collapse existing primary relationships within the family, marriages and parenting relations. By limiting socialization, we greatly reduce the risk of infidelities occurring, and the equally disruptive problem of blowing apart primary families by taking the children along the path of healing faster than their parents are ready to assimilate and support.
We can adapt the "no socializing" rule a little, by making general rules about bonding transactions within the group. We can recognize that building bonds that are competitive to the primary bonds of marriage and parenting is ultimately destructive, and just set ourselves in the direction of failing to build competitive bonds.
Transactions between people build bonds. Bonds can become highly charged with attraction. Simply sharing goods enhances the bond between persons. But transactions of discharge exchange can become highly charged, very quickly. We can simply decide to act as counselor to one another within peer groups only, outside of the primary bonds of marriage and parenthood.
It is true that we may "miss out" on some high intensity and high quality counseling experiences by deciding to fail to enter into that arrangement with anyone from the opposite gender. But we can hypothesize that peer-group only counseling will generate long term gains that can be sustained gently and without stressing primary bonds. We can expect this to build a long term cohesion within the entire community that will act as a very thorough and deep contradiction to all isolation, generally. This is going to be more valuable than short term gains by high risk relationships between hot shot opposite gender counselors and their clients who may be in weak marriages.
The "no socializing" rule has been very good at keeping the RC experience free of the contaminants of being exposed to the chronic patterns in all of their glory, but it is exactly by immersing the discharge goal in the actual life of the person that we eliminate deep chronic patterns.
There are some things we can logically expect. Anytime people get together in a new positive bonding experience there is a "honeymoon" phase. After the "honeymoon" phase, there is a let-down and a bottoming out of emotion. It gets "lousy", real fast.
So, if we set up a living system, we could expect it to be wonderful at first, and then that good feeling may trickle away, or may just crash out of existence, when people start presenting their chronic miseries.
We may have defined the good relationship as being one wherein the honeymoon phase never ends, and the "no socializing" rule in RC accomplishes a pretty convincing semblance of that. But it only when the honeymoon ends that the really good part of the relationship begins. This is the part where people begin to present their chronics to be contradicted and discharged. The more intense the positive element in the honeymoon, the more a feeling of safety has been generated, which contradicts chronic pattern, and then as such invites them to the surface to be healed.
How well a relationship weathers the lows, the healing crises, the discharge exchanges, is the strength of the relationship, not how "high" a set of people can go.
So, we can really enjoy it if, at summer camp, we get miserable and start to feel like we despise each other. Because then we know that something real is starting to happen. We can dredge up all the sludge and clean the deepest part of our selves.
Applying the Human Standard to the primary relationships is a remarkably thorough method of flushing the chronic patterns to the surface to be discharged and eliminated.
The Human Standard is: Free speech, free assembly, liberty, right to private property, privacy, right to worship as one sees fit, freedom from involuntary servitude.
Primary relationships are: mate-mate, parent-child.
Very few of us apply these human standards in our child-rearing technique. Many of us who have the most righteous certainty about what we are doing in regards to our children are NOT applying these standards, and in so doing, we are not treating our children like real human beings.
These Human Rights are fundamental to keeping the human part of the human being alive. Patterns will not adhere in the presence of full human rights. Fundamental human rights are a system of immunity to inhuman patterns of being.
The Human Standard is an objective and universal treatment we can use to contradict the inhuman ways we have assembled in our deep selves, which show themselves as the inhuman ways we treat the people who we are closest to and care about with the most intensity.
We will always pass our chronic patterns to our loved ones. Like a virus that is passed only through intimate contact, that is the nature of the inhuman beast. Because the chronic is necessarily founded in the unconscious, (if it were bathed in consciousness it would cease to be a pattern) we will be unconscious of the ways that we are hurting our loved ones by passing our patterns. When we present the chronic pattern to our loved ones, the machine that drives the contagion itself is the intensity of pain we still retain in the subconscious.
So, applying the Human Standard to the child rearing experience means never making laws (rules) that prevent our children from having free speech, free assembly, etc. Try this for one hour with a five year old and start to feel what comes up. There will be all sorts of rationale and reasons (GOOD reasons) for why the human standard does not and should not apply to actual human children.
Allowing the child liberty and free assembly brings up fear in the parent. What becomes flushed to the surface is the adhesion crisis, the trauma that installed the chronic pattern. The first element is usually a sense of impending doom or panic. The emotions that attend the pattern, present themselves in feeling, before the conceptual content of the pattern presents itself in words.
Example: allowing the child liberty in the society at large prompts fear. Plain, alarming fear. The mind will present the avoidance systems, what we are trying to prevent. "I am afraid my child will be kidnapped by a maniac who is driving by, and then be raped or murdered".
Statistically speaking, the chances of a child dying at the hands of a violent parent are about 200 times more than dying at the hands of a violent stranger. Certainly the sexual assault statistics are similarly proportioned.
What is often happening is that people who have unconscious memories of being sexually assaulted by a parent, or someone very close to the family, may only be able to contact the deeply felt threat at all, by projecting it onto a stranger.
What we are trying to prevent with our reactive control patterns over our children, is exactly what we are also trying to keep buried in our subconscious minds. When we limit the human options open to our children, to protect our child from being at risk from "having some experience", we are displaying a map of our own mind protecting our own inner child from feeling something.
Failing to give space to the reactive "protective" controls does not mean we are going to absolve ourselves of all responsibility in creating a safe life for our kids. A full conscious response to real danger is not the same as reacting to danger. The fuller a child's life is at home, the less likely they are to want to leave home at all. The key to creating safety for children, with full liberty, is by expanding the home life to include a full extended community.
We can put off granting full liberty (such as legally) to our kids for a while, while we put things together, but ultimately liberty even to leave the "safe life" we create for our children is the only real and reliable check and balance we have, to receive feedback on how well we are doing to actually meet all the needs of our children.
As always, we must remember that our unconscious patterns are necessarily invisible to us. Too much "safety", becomes a hazard in itself, and one that we who are overprotective cannot see and identify objectively. We need an objective, even mathematical feedback system to get through to our real conscious minds. Our chronic patterns will always try to fool us by presenting some glowing picture of what it is we are really doing to our children, while in real life the kids feel and know that what is happening is certainly something bad.
Exceptions: Allowing liberty to violate marriage contracts can bring up chronic patterns about "possessing" one another. But what is more likely to happen when liberty from marriage constructs are granted is that chronic patterns to practice addictive intimacy gets going full swing, and so intimacy becomes more of an avoidance than a healing process.
I am proposing that we assemble a trial basis live-in community like a summer camp, to implement and test the Human Standard. I propose that we do not identify this as an RC function. If we do this, we are not RC.
I want to retain MOST of RC, but make a few important changes. Because we are talking about creating a full-time, live-in community, we must necessarily drop the No Socializing rule.
Since this rule has been central to RC, this is a very big change. We have to establish that, as such, in doing this project we are second generation RC, a child of RC, not RC. It is as if Harvey and his organization, his groundrules, all of that are our father, and we are the child. So we retain many of his "genes", as it were, in keeping many of his rules and systems, but we are going to just experiment a little with varying some important points.
As far as I know, there are two reasons why the "no Socializing" rule has been important. One is that the objective positive regard of the counselor becomes compromised when confronted full force with the live-in patterns of the client. A person loses their ability to BE that delighted, all-supportive counselor, when they are immersed in quagmire of the client's actual life.
If we start by postulating that it is the client's rightful position to be in charge of their own healing, we can take the burden of perfection off of any who would be counselor. Those who can accept God as their perfect co-counselor, or who have any method of being in charge of their own healing process, are most eligible for this project, as they have a back-up system of self-healing to rely on when the co-counselor position breaks down. And without the "no socializing" rule, we can expect that it will.
We can bear in mind the statement on the back page of "Present Time": "Any young person would recover from such distress spontaneously by use of the natural process of emotional discharge" and set that as the wellness standard. We can trust that our discharge process is now set in motion and we are no longer stuck behind the programmed decision to fail to discharge.
We can set as our new bottom line standard for being an adequate co-counselor is failing to interfere with the discharge process. Also, with full rights to privacy, any person can maintain their own "no socializing" or "no whatever" standards for their own private self, and withdraw from any contact within the group, should it feel like what is going on is compromising their true identity or real self.
The second reason for the "no socializing" rule in RC is that the intense positive bond that builds because of the discharge experience can compete with and collapse existing primary relationships within the family, marriages and parenting relations. By limiting socialization, we greatly reduce the risk of infidelities occurring, and the equally disruptive problem of blowing apart primary families by taking the children along the path of healing faster than their parents are ready to assimilate and support.
We can adapt the "no socializing" rule a little, by making general rules about bonding transactions within the group. We can recognize that building bonds that are competitive to the primary bonds of marriage and parenting is ultimately destructive, and just set ourselves in the direction of failing to build competitive bonds.
Transactions between people build bonds. Bonds can become highly charged with attraction. Simply sharing goods enhances the bond between persons. But transactions of discharge exchange can become highly charged, very quickly. We can simply decide to act as counselor to one another within peer groups only, outside of the primary bonds of marriage and parenthood.
It is true that we may "miss out" on some high intensity and high quality counseling experiences by deciding to fail to enter into that arrangement with anyone from the opposite gender. But we can hypothesize that peer-group only counseling will generate long term gains that can be sustained gently and without stressing primary bonds. We can expect this to build a long term cohesion within the entire community that will act as a very thorough and deep contradiction to all isolation, generally. This is going to be more valuable than short term gains by high risk relationships between hot shot opposite gender counselors and their clients who may be in weak marriages.
The "no socializing" rule has been very good at keeping the RC experience free of the contaminants of being exposed to the chronic patterns in all of their glory, but it is exactly by immersing the discharge goal in the actual life of the person that we eliminate deep chronic patterns.
There are some things we can logically expect. Anytime people get together in a new positive bonding experience there is a "honeymoon" phase. After the "honeymoon" phase, there is a let-down and a bottoming out of emotion. It gets "lousy", real fast.
So, if we set up a living system, we could expect it to be wonderful at first, and then that good feeling may trickle away, or may just crash out of existence, when people start presenting their chronic miseries.
We may have defined the good relationship as being one wherein the honeymoon phase never ends, and the "no socializing" rule in RC accomplishes a pretty convincing semblance of that. But it only when the honeymoon ends that the really good part of the relationship begins. This is the part where people begin to present their chronics to be contradicted and discharged. The more intense the positive element in the honeymoon, the more a feeling of safety has been generated, which contradicts chronic pattern, and then as such invites them to the surface to be healed.
How well a relationship weathers the lows, the healing crises, the discharge exchanges, is the strength of the relationship, not how "high" a set of people can go.
So, we can really enjoy it if, at summer camp, we get miserable and start to feel like we despise each other. Because then we know that something real is starting to happen. We can dredge up all the sludge and clean the deepest part of our selves.
