Re-Experiencing Procedure

This is an overview of the way I do Re-Experiencing of incidents. It is not intended to be THE correct way, it is simply the principles and steps I have found to work best.

The goal in re-experiencing is the transformation of undesirable feelings into more desirable feelings. That is, we start with a feeling that isn't working very well for the person, and we end with a feeling that she would rather have.

The theory behind re-experiencing says that inappropriate feelings in the present time would be associated with unresolved incidents from some other time. An event is taking place somewhere else that hasn't quite gotten completed or that hasn't quite been digested.

For an incident to hold a persistent feeling in place it must have some physical content related to the feeling. You don't get headaches from worrying about things. You don't get anxiety from what people say to you. It might seem like that, but that would only be surface incidents where more basic material got triggered.

An incident that holds a feeling in place would contain a proper context for the feeling. Not a figure-figure reason like "Of course I got seizures, she said bad things to me", but an objective, physical context. If a tree falls on your head, then a headache is an appropriate response. However, words people say or stuff you look at can not objectively hurt your head. If you get shot in the back by your best friend, a feeling of betrayal is very appropriate. If you have a spot on your jacket it probably isn't.

In part what we are handling is the confusion of symbols with the real thing. Strong emotional or physical responses that might fit into dramatic events with violent physical activity, might not fit at all in situations where only a symbol of that activity is present. The sight of a car is NOT the same as being in a car accident; the word "idiot" is NOT the same as being stoned in the town square; the thought of the future is NOT the same as dying violently.

If people would just respond to what is actually there in front of them, instead of to symbols of events that aren't there, life would be much easier. That is what we are trying to help them with by doing re-experiencing.

There is only a reason to handle incidents that are imposed upon the present, as evidenced by a persistent unwanted feeling. There are lots and lots of gruesome events one could start going through, but that have no bearing on this person's life. A process facilitator that connects the client up with specific traumatic incidents that weren't already activated, is doing the exact opposite of her job.

The starting point is always a present unwanted feeling. It is never any specific incident, even though we might know that the client had a traumatic incident. It doesn't matter if we know she broke her leg 10 years ago. Unless it somehow bothers her now, there is no point in taking it up.

Also, there is no point in processing anything that was an unwanted feeling in the past. Unless it is available now it doesn't need to be addressed. And that means right NOW. The feeling should be somewhat available in the session in order to be taken up. Not the name of the feeling, or the memory of the feeling, but the ACTUAL feeling. Not necessarily full blown, but there needs to be something there that the client can FEEL.

A clumsy facilitator can easily put a lot of things there for the client that weren't already there. She can convince her to dig up stuff that she didn't have any problem with and then get a problem with it. That doesn't prove anything, except that the facilitator needs to know her basics better.

The past doesn't influence the client. There is no reason to try to convince her about that theory, it is unnecessary and inherently incorrect. What we are handling is the incidents that are here in the present, but that SHOULD be somewhere else, some other place, some other time. The past isn't hurting anybody. But if the person copies some overwhelming incident out of the past and energizes it now, then she can easily give herself problems. What she puts in the present becomes the problem, not what the past really was or wasn't.

So, we need to start with something that is there in the present. Not a symbol, not something she thinks, but something she actually perceives in the present. The best type of perception to use is feeling. This is for several reasons. Visual and auditory perceptions are too easily changed and too difficult to pinpoint compared to feelings. That is because they are more high-frequency, localized perceptions. Feelings are lower frequency and are much less localized. That is exactly what can make them a problem. Feelings spill into the present from other places and times because they are harder to differentiate. The anger you feel might appear quite appropriate, and only after some investigation would it be shown to be an anger from 30 years ago. You wouldn't be fooled as easily by pictures. The difference between pictures from the past and pictures from the present are quite obvious to most people.

A feeling is what we need. All sorts of techniques can be devised to evoke unwanted feelings. We could give all kinds of suggestions of stuff people might not want to have and see if the client has anything on them. But the most simple thing is to just ask.

"Do you have any unwanted feelings?"

Most people would be able to come up with some answers to that. Also unwanted feelings might surface by themselves from just talking generally with the client. I would usually grab the chance to clear incidents whenever a well-defined unwanted feeling shows up. I would use the opportunity while it is there.

"Feeling" is a somewhat imperfect word in that it covers several different meanings. Be aware that what we are after is mainly bodily feelings and sensations. It isn't words and secondary feelings and thoughts. We need the client to connect with an actual reality that can be felt. Just because the client says "a nagging anxiety" it doesn't necessarily connect with anything. Even worse with broad generalities like "upset", "depressed", "offended".

We need tangible perceptions. The point is not to get a good description, it is to perceive something. It is fine to describe it, but make sure that it is in words that relate to actual distinctions of feeling and kinesthetics. Detail perceptions to notice might be:

body part, pressure, weight, heat, movement, vibration, consistency, viscosity, structure, friction, acceleration, hardness, sharp, dull, rotation, exploding, imploding, pulling, stretching, elastic, bending, burning, sparkling, bubbling, boiling, tight, loose, solid, gaseous, liquid, limp, taut, dense, open, enclosed, buzzing, shape, location, balance, oily, dry, suffocating, crushing, flat, tall, round, edgy, sticky, stiff, soft, etc.

The key thing is that the sense is FELT. This requires of course that the person has some kind of inner awareness of feeling. Most people do. However a few people trap themselves so much in symbols that it takes a little work before they are able to know that these aren't always the real thing.

The work spent in specifying the feeling precisely is well spent. It will make the subsequent location of an incident much easier.

When we have the feeling specified enough, the next step is to find the incident. There could be many ways of asking for the incident, but there are several key things to keep in mind.

We are using a FEELING to guide us. The feeling will be the red thread that will lead us to incidents that need resolving. Therefore, don't ask the client to LOOK for an incident. That asks for visual accessing. We need to get the incident through the kinesthetics. "LOCATE an incident .." is not much better. It would also tend to imply that one would be able to see it before one enters it. The stuff the person can see from a distance is generally NOT what is bothering her.

Also, we are after the stuff that the person does NOT consciously know about already. If she knew what it was, she would not be having a problem with it. We need to engage the auto-answer mechanism to give us something previously hidden out of sight. So, we want to avoid that she thinks about it, trying to figure out which incident to pick. She shouldn't be figuring on anything, she should just take whatever comes up. Whatever you say to her should promote that she lets an incident just appear. I would usually say something like:

"Close your eyes, and now as you are feeling the feeling of ___ float back in time to an incident that has that feeling in it."

Any talk of "going back" or "moving" around in time is just to accommodate the client's belief that the incident will be found "somewhere else". It won't really be found anywhere else. The incident we are after is the one that is right here, connected to the feeling that is right here. One doesn't really have to move anywhere, but just needs to notice what is there. That might be a little more foreign to most people than the idea of moving back and finding an earlier incident.

A good analogy is that of the film strip. You can hold a strip of film in front of your eyes. You can move it up or down so that you will see different parts of the movie, or you can have it run continuously by your eyes and you would see the movie happening. That is what "running" the movie is. You aren't moving anywhere, but you move the movie and create the illusion of motion and action in different places. The "real" world is not much different. You aren't really moving, but you slide different parts of reality into your central focus.

For that reason, it might be better to give a direction to the client that keeps her stationary and keeps the action in the present. Like for example:

"Holding that feeling of __, let an incident appear that contains it."

The client needs to be willing to let the incident appear a little at a time. She might not get a full blown clear picture, but just scattered fragments. That is perfectly fine. She should be discouraged from thinking about it, trying to figure out what the most logical incident should be. What we want is the illogical, out-of-place stuff, not what is logical.

The facilitator would help piecing an incident together by asking questions about what is there. The client might say "I just see a green wall". Then we would ask for other perceptions: "Is it warm or cold, night or day, inside or outside, what is it a wall of, what is the distance to the wall, how does it smell, any sounds", etc. There will usually be answers to these questions even though she didn't notice them at first. As we piece together more detail the incident will become more clear.

As we get a more full picture of what is there, there still might not be motion. We would then inquire about what is before and after. How did you get to that place, where were you going? Gradually you would then get a sequential plot going.

A new client who is uncertain about this whole thing will need help like that. A more experienced explorer would jump right into it and have a full blown incident right away. But the first few times, most people would need a lot of guidance to get incidents. Various concerns would need to be sorted out along the way, such as whether they are imagining it or not.

No attempt should be made of convincing the client that this is REAL, this is really pre-natal, or this is really past lives, etc. That is not the point. Actually, the more willing the person is to imagine stuff, the more easily she will allow useful material to appear. Incidents aren't automatically presented to her, she needs to imagine them there. She might do that through a mechanism that supplies answers, but she does need to imagine them there somehow. Just sitting, waiting for something to happen, doesn't do much good.

The client is cause, both in the incidents themselves and in the activity of re-experiencing them. We aren't going to stuff that idea down her throat, but we certainly aren't going to hide it from her either. If she expects re-experiencing to be something she is effect of, it is not going to work as well. It works for some people, but it sort of sets the wrong direction. If the client is sitting waiting for something to happen and says "I can't see anything", then the idea we would like to get home to her is "Then see something!!" We aren't going to say it that directly, but that is pretty much the idea. You see something by seeing something. It is not something that is being done TO you. We would discuss that as necessary, with good rapport, until she realizes that SHE has something to do with it. Don't validate her existing reality, just guide her along gently.

It is not necessary to force the person to view the incident from "her own" position. There is nothing particularly noble about suffering through a lot of pain in the incident. Actually what is wrong in the first place is that the person identifies with one of the characters in the incident and the feelings she is having. That is what we would like to get her out of, not further into.

If something in the incident is painful, we would probably start experiencing it from some distance. It is desirable to continuously view the incident from a comfortable perspective, rather than from the most painful position. As we run through it, the whole thing might become more comfortable and what was painful before might be no big deal.

The gain from clearing an incident doesn't necessarily come from discharging a lot of pain, by experiencing it until one no longer cares. That does work, but it is somewhat crude.

What we are trying to do, is to establish more freedom and flexibility, so that the person doesn't have to be stuck with only one choice that doesn't work. Instead of having to have a certain feeling, we would like to bring in some power of choice about the whole thing. We might end up changing the pain into something else, but more likely we will bring about the ability to comfortably NOT be in it.

Once we have gotten an incident, we need to experience it. The client might regard this as "going through" the incident, as her moving through it. That is fine. However it would be preferable if she can let the incident happen in front of her, rather than taking herself through the incident.

I usually wouldn't use very formal directions to get the person through the incident. The main thing is to get her to perceive what it is, including its sequence. If she does that by herself, fine. If not, I will guide her through it. What happens next, what do you see, where are you going?

The client would usually tell what it is she is experiencing. Talking about it tends to make it more real, but also maintains a certain distance to the incident. And you can better help her along if you know where she is at all the time.

Information about the time, duration or location of the incident might surface. However, they aren't essential for resolving an incident. These data might be available and the client might state them, but I wouldn't push for them. An emphasis on date and time would tend to encourage figuring what the logical answer should be. Also it would perpetuate a rigid concept of linear time that isn't necessary.

So, you get the person to go through the incident from whenever it seemed to start to whenever that particular event seems complete. That is usually fairly straightforward for the person to know. It just no longer seems to be the same story after a certain point. We just need to be sure that she isn't stopping because there is something in the incident stopping her.

Often the scene will freeze just before something violent and unconfrontable happens. That might seem surprising to the person. Often the incident gets moving again by a simple inquiry about whether there is something happening next that she doesn't like looking at. If that doesn't do it, there is maybe a more safe viewpoint from which to experience it, where it isn't quite as unconfrontable. Otherwise we might just go through the first part of the incident again, or we might see if we can jump to the part after the "bad" part.

After we have gone through the incident once, we have several different options depending on how we are doing.

It might be very apparent that the incident is not a core incident, just some kind of triggered reaction. In that case we would probably want to get to a more fundamental incident right away.

If she hasn't quite sorted out what happened or fully experienced the incident from the main viewpoint, then we will go back to the beginning and go through it again.

If that viewpoint seems fairly tame, we can try experiencing it from another viewpoint from the beginning.

The point is that we find an incident that contains some kind of original, un-processed commotion of some magnitude. We straighten out the incident by "trying it on" in different ways, by understanding it, evaluating it, by adding some positive qualities to it, by finding the hidden meaning, and so forth. By doing that, we change a sub-conscious program that was influencing the person adversely, and she is now more able to enjoy present life in an optimum way.

The facilitator has to evaluate if we have a good chance of accomplishing that aim with the incident we have on our hands. If not, we need to find something better. There is no reason to waste time with incidents that don't lead to an improvement of some kind. There are no incidents that HAVE to be resolved for their own sake. We resolve them for the sake of the client, and because something positive can come out of it.

If the incident is too light to provide much action, we would want to get on to the next one as quickly as possible. Usually the incident we got will have a clue that leads back to a more fundamental incident. Our target is core incidents that contain an appropriate context for the stuck feelings and that will be able to change them.

Sometimes we need to go through a chain of trigger incidents to get to a core incident. However, you shouldn't particularly go looking for chains. It is, in my opinion, much preferable to go directly to a core incident and work that over thoroughly, rather than going through many different incidents before you "find" it. The latter approach is more messy, possibly creates more cross-reaction, and always takes longer.

I find that, if you get the person well in touch with the feeling, if she is using her auto-answer ability, and if you expect to get a core incident, then you usually will. If you don't get a core incident, we can usually use whatever we do get as a stepping stone to something more juicy.

An incident that only contains an irrational reaction, a triggering of unpleasant feelings from somewhere else, gives us additional information needed to find an incident. The trigger incident might contain the unwanted feeling we specified, but only as another push-button response. The feeling doesn't objectively fit in the incident, but it just appears and then gets rationalized afterwards.

The interesting part of a trigger incident is not the whole thing, it is only the moment when the feeling gets triggered. There is no reason to waste time listening to all the other complications that might be involved. We only want to know exactly what it was that triggered a latent reaction.

One way of dissecting the reaction is to ask the client to go through the incident and freeze the frame exactly at the moment when the feeling starts. We can then examine what perceptions and thoughts were available at that moment. There will be something in that situation that sub-consciously reminded her of some other incident. If we get what the reactivating trigger was, we can more easily find the core incident. If we find that it is a red car or the word "idiot", then it tells us something useful.

So, for a trigger incident, find what pushed the button, and then ask the client to again hold on to the feeling and let a more core incident appear.

Preferably, avoid getting into any endless chain of incidents. There shouldn't have to be more than a couple of stepping stones before we have the core, at the most.

When we have an incident that appears to be a core incident, we will stay with it until we either resolve it, or we find that it wasn't fundamental enough. A core incident contains overwhelming activity, that hasn't been faced and resolved, and its cause is available in the incident itself.

A core incident can be experienced through from any of the available viewpoints. First we will probably see it from what the client regards as "her" viewpoint. We will stay with that and run through it several times while it is still producing change. If it no longer produces much change in content or feelings, or if it is too overwhelming to confront, we can switch to another viewpoint. You might ask:

"Is there another viewpoint available in the incident?"
"Experience the incident from the beginning from that viewpoint."

Other viewpoints would be anybody participating in the incident. It could also be any possible perspective, i.e. from above, as a fly on the wall, from a neutral bystander, etc. Even if there supposedly weren't anybody physically standing there in the incident. The idea is to address the viewpoints that are significant or beneficial for the client. It might include group viewpoints like, "all my friends", "society", etc.

Experiencing it from different viewpoints doesn't mean that one should rotely work through all imaginable viewpoints, just the ones that are significant, or that are obviously loaded.

Just going through the incident should provide some relief for the person. New material will appear, negative aspects will become more tolerable, she will understand it better, and so forth.

When it seems that the responses during experiencing start subsiding, and the client hasn't by herself resolved the whole thing, then there are more steps we can take.

We can ask for decisions. That means self-created truths, evaluations, conclusions, statements of direction. "Decisions" probably covers these things well for most people. What we are after is a cause perspective. Whatever she decrees while being cause is what will stick the most. Asking for decisions gets her to look at cause rather than effect. It doesn't have to be what she perceives as her own decisions in the incident, it might be somebody else's. Don't ask about decisions before the emotional reactions in the incident have subsided. But when they have, ask something like this:

"Are any decisions made during this incident?"

We would also like to know what lessons there are in the incident. What is she getting out of it, what is she learning? That pre-supposes of course that she somehow is at cause over what happened, and that is exactly the point. That is why we are processing it in the first place: so she can realize that she is cause, and how and why she caused what she caused.

"What can you learn from this incident?"

This really hammers home that nobody is effect. What otherwise might have appeared as a gruesome and unwarranted aggression against her, becomes a self-created positive learning experience. That changes the whole perspective of it, of course.

Lessons are particularly necessary to ask for if she hasn't yet assumed a point of cause about the incident. If it just seems that she is effect. OK, maybe she is effect, but what would she get out of that, what is the point? If she argues that she wouldn't possibly choose something like that, ask her to just imagine benefits from the event. Let her think up some wacky things to get out of it. "After the accident I learned that I really love chocolate", "A cast is great for keeping legs warm", or something. She might realize that there is something good in anything, it all depends on how one perceives it.

The idea of a lesson implies that somehow the incident is staged to create a positive learning experience. The dramatic contents of the incident might just happen to be the best available way of creating a learning environment. One might need a certain level of necessity before one will change one's awareness. For example, you might not realize that one ought to be kind to others before somebody you were rude to pulled out a gun and shot you in the head. That is not pleasant of course, but a spiritual learning might be more valuable to you than a bit of physical pain and suffering. The thing to look for would be: "what would be important enough to me to make it worth it to suffer through this incident?"

There can be several different manifestations of lessons.

We might find that the incident was learned at the time, but the person didn't notice. Like, she DID start enjoying life more after the accident. The incident worked, she got a positive benefit from it that was more valuable to her. Just by realizing this, she would change her idea about the incident from a tragedy that just happened to her, into a positive development.

Another possibility is that there might have been an intended or available learning in the incident, but it didn't take place and still isn't realized. What we can do is, we can find that lesson and learn it right here in session, and thereby complete the cycle. Maybe the incident was that she fell off the kitchen table and banged her head while she was trying to steal cookies. She didn't learn anything from it, but grew up to become a skilled con artist with a bad conscience, and a long string of incidents where she got in trouble for being dishonest. But now, by re-experiencing and re-evaluating that incident in session, she might realize "Hey, it works best to be honest" or something to that effect. She might finally learn her lesson and any negative effects from the incident(s) would transform into something else.

The client doesn't have to believe that the lesson was something deliberately intended in the incident. It is fine if she just makes up something that fits the bill and allows her to benefit from the incident. The key thing is to change the incident into a positive experience and to allow it to be closed.

There are more things we can do to clear any negative effects of the incident. Another very effective approach is to bring in new resources.

We could say that the incident became overloaded and stuck because the person did not have enough resources at the time. With "resources" I mean: useful abilities, empowering feelings, perceptions, viewpoints, good judgment, etc. Mental, emotional, spiritual qualities that make it easier to handle things. If the person doesn't quite have what it takes to handle a situation well, then she might become overwhelmed, get off in a direction that doesn't quite work, and she might get stuck with some unwanted side-effect. If we can retrospectively reverse that by applying the needed resources to the incident, the effects could change.

To some degree, anything we do to clear an incident adds up to applying new resources to it. If nothing else, we are applying the ability to consciously inspect and evaluate what went on, an ability that was more or less missing at the time. We are also adding time if necessary, in that we can spend any amount of time necessary in the session to sort out something that maybe only took a few seconds in the first place. We are also to some degree adding the accumulated wisdom of the person today, who is now more experienced and probably more resourceful.

But, we can go further than that, and more deliberately introduce additional resources into the incident. We can have the client look at what it was that was missing at the time. Have her look at that from a distance, not from inside her "own" viewpoint at the time. She might realize that the traumatic part of the incident happened because she didn't have enough compassion, persistence, she didn't have a big enough perspective, she wasn't flexible enough, or whatever.

The person will generally always have the lacking resources available somewhere else. That is, she has had them before, she has developed them later, she knows how to get them, she knows somebody who has them, she left them somewhere and can bring them back, or whatever. If nothing else, she can imagine how it would be IF she had the resources in question. If she has just some kind of awareness of how to bring about the lacking resources then they can be connected to the incident.

It might do the trick just to contact some applicable resources and then to realize that, with those present, the incident would never have happened like that. That is basically what we are trying to accomplish: that the person is in a shape so that the incident doesn't have to be repeated any more. She has learned from it, it doesn't bother her anymore, and she has a greater capacity for handling things.

We could also take it further and actually rewrite the incident. IF she had those additional resources, HOW would the incident have been then? She might realize that, with the added perceptions, she doesn't hit the banana peel and the incident is now different. That should be the end of any negative effects from that incident.

There is nothing particularly illegal about rewriting the incident. The person is free to keep in her past, present, and future whatever she feels like. She has no obligation to carry around traumatic incidents represented as faithfully as possible. If she is better served by changing her car accident into a walk in the park, that is fine.

The only caveat about changing the plot in the incident is that one might lose out on some deeper meaning. It might be too easy to just change a "negative" incident into a "positive" incident. But it might just glaze over what actually was there. An apparently "bad" experience might turn out to be something completely different upon close examination and it might be beneficial to keep the original plot intact as a symbol of past experience. For example, a traumatic time on combat duty while in the army might have become an important character building experience for a person. He might be better off leaving it as a rough time than to rewrite it so drastically that it was just a tame picnic trip.

Personally, I would only get a client to rewrite the incident if more deep gains appear to be unavailable. That could be because of limited time available, or it could be because the person is not yet up to confronting too much bad stuff. Generally I would just make sure that additional resources have come in contact with the incident so that it wouldn't happen that way again. I would otherwise let the incident stay the way it was, but now with a positive meaning, and with new flexibility.

We can say that we are clearing incidents when we use this procedure. But with "clearing" we don't really mean that we get rid of the incident. We transform the unwanted emotional reactions into desirable emotional resources and learned lessons. What disappears is the stuck reactions that aren't useful. The incident gets transformed, or completed, or re-evaluated. When the incident is complete for the client, when there is no longer any stuck attention on it, that is the time to end the processing of it.

When the incident is complete and the client seems ready to move on, I would ask her to come back up to the present moment, or, if she does that by herself, I would check if she is back. It would be useful with a small grounding process to refamiliarize her with the present environment.

If you are trained in using sensitive bio-feedback devices, such as a galvanic skin-resistance meter, they can be quite handy tools in grooving a client in on re-experiencing. Steering them based on the reactions on the instrument can be useful in giving them more reality on their own responses, and showing them what to look for. I would show them first that the instrument reacts on their unwanted feeling, and then, if they say they can't get any incident, I steer by the reactions they are inevitably getting, by saying "What is that?", "What do you have there?", etc., when it reacts. I wouldn't have to do that more than a couple of times before people get the point that there is actually stuff in their minds. Without an electronic instrument to "prove" it to them, it just takes a little longer to build up their confidence.

Now, after we have completed a core incident, I would go back and check how the unwanted feeling is doing. See, usually it takes more than one core incident to hold a persistent unwanted feeling in place. I would expect to find several sets of incidents with similar, but slightly different, feelings in them.

I would ask the client to feel how the feeling is now. I would NOT ask her to feel the same, very specific, perceptions as before. I would rather ask for the more general description of it, e.g. "How does the anxiety feel now?". I would NOT say "Try to feel a buzzing pressure in your stomach".

What we need to find out is how the feeling has changed. If first it was: "A heavy rotating tightness in my chest", it might now have changed into: "A rotating tightness in my shoulder". And after we process another set of incidents on it, it might change to "A slight pressure in my shoulder", and then it might finally be gone.

When the client notices that the feeling has changed, it re-confirms the results we got from the re-experiencing of the incident. It is more of a solid proof of what happened. It shows that we are making progress and it shows what is still left. It keeps the result fairly tangible and objective, rather than subjective and intellectual.

Whatever the feeling now is, becomes the feeling to base the next set of incidents on. Each set has a slightly different feeling to it. Eventually there is no unwanted feeling on that subject and we are done with that theme.

It is important of course to stay on the same overall object and not mix up a lot of different things. If she said that she wanted to handle "anxiety", then that is what we will stay with until it isn't there anymore, or until she is happy with what is there. Even though she might have "fears", "pains", "stress", and all kinds of other things, we won't mix them up with the item we start with. Therefore, the overall item should not be too broad. And it shouldn't be too sensory specific either. We want to stay on the same subject, but at the same time we expect the structure of the feeling to change after each turn.

I would not put much attention on who's incidents we are dealing with or on exactly who is the responsible party in the incidents. What makes a chain stick together is the feeling, not the apparent flow of cause-effect. It is somewhat misleading to put much attention on whether the incident is her "own" or "another's". If she is connected with the incident, she is connected with the incident, period. What needs to be sorted out IN the incident are the different viewpoints. She is in trouble if she can experience only one viewpoint in the incident, no matter if it is cause or effect. Any incident has a number of different viewpoints and vectors in it. Leaving any of them untouched might leave unhandled stuff behind. The person's flexibility, in assuming different viewpoints and in taking responsibility for them, should be increased.

This should about cover the whole procedure I use. Re-experiencing of incidents can produce very powerful and permanent results. It can be done at any level, from beginning to advanced, as long as the underlying mechanisms are well understood.

With a clear mind you can see forever.

Previous / Next / Contents