Fw: [alextech-list] Re: pain from startle reflex

From: "jon" <jon.coolblues@dial.pipex.com>
To: "AlexTech Mail List" <alextech@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 1:14 PM
Subject: [alextech-list] Re: pain from startle reflex

Hi Jim

Michael, After reading and rereading and rerereading Alexander and
participating in 40 hours of lessons, I feel qualified to make a couple
of
comments.

My life has been turned around.

Good - questions...

I would be genuinely interested to know how you get on when you have
had an extended period of say one year absence from your teacher, an
earlier mail of yours indicates that you began lessons Oct last year,
if you have had 40 lessons with reasonable spaces in between then it
suggests that you have yet to see how you get along on your own?

I began lessons last August and ended them in March of this year. Mainly
because I had been helped so much that I decided to resume singing lessons
with a profesional teacher. What the AT helped me with was persuing and
accepting and holding onto desired changes. New perceptual references. So I
have been "on my own" for just a few months. But I really don't feel like
I'm on my own. Not a week goes by That I don't silently say "thank you
Bruce, thank you Robert, thank you Zoana, or thank you Mary. My experiences
are still fresh but I feel strong about them, not like I am in any danger of
losing them.

There
is a distinction between good use under a teacher's guidance and doing
for yourself what a teacher can do for you, I would be interested to
hear whether your approach and understanding through PCT affords you
advantages when it comes to maintaining good use without your teacher?

Hmmm. Good question I do think in terms of changing reference signals or
the controlled perception when I think of moving away from pain or toward
pain. Yes I do I think of pain as a controlled perception and myself as
developing skill in maintaining a perception of ease. I would say this
helps me to get a handle on things. A named experience is easier to reach
than an unnamed one, thats why we name them, so we can find them when we
need them, and so also the process.. It helps to give it a name, helps to
make it more real, for me anyway.

Another key thing for me that I know would help anybody in this work who is
willing to be, is an understanding of systems dynamics. PCT says that all
the conditions in a system are true simultaneously. So when I see people on
this site talking about their complicated experiences and how one thing
causes another, I just pray that I could get through. This is not easy to
grasp but is very powerfull and explains the power of somatic therapy. This
is linked to perceptual control. A closed loop system is a perception. In
a closed loop system no one thing in the loop is a cause of another. Change
a part and you change the entire system so it looks like that one part was
the cause.--- When in reality the entire loop is the cause, the purpose, the
maintained perception.--- What I am trying to get accross is that some of
the experiencings/descriptions which list a series of causes in reality
constitute a sytem being maintained, a controlled perception. Controlling
for pain. Now somebody is likely to jump in and say, I am crazy. Nobody
wants pain. True. But that is why it is called pain. Let me repeat the
entire sentence again

"THE ENTIRE LOOP IS THE PURPOSE, THE CAUSE, THE PERCEPTION".

Change any part of a painfull loop and you will change the loop. You can
truthfully say that that part change was the cause of the change. Therefore
it was the cause.

IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT SENTENCE AS A WESTERN WAY OF LOOKING AT AN EASTERN
UNDERSTANDING YOU WILL SEE MORE CLEARLY WHERE I AM COMING FROM."

Some of the participants here pride yourselves on eastern approach and
catagorize the western approach as unnacceptable. But it is catagorization
which identifies western thinking. In order to make the distinction you must
do exactly what you condemn, you must catagorize, and catagoricaly condemn.

I imagine that that last sentence caused some pain in a few MB units out
there. Maybe some blinking eyes. Or maybe denial or confusion. Maybe some
startle reflexes.

We go to AT teachers for pain reduction. That action of going to an AT
teacher is closed loop negative feedback action. which says that you will
continue that action until the pain is reduced. It would not hurt anyone in
AT to understand this.

In fact it would behoove everyone to read up on some the other theories they
so quickly classify as unworthy because they are "Western". That is a mind
blocking label and a controled perception.When I discover that ATrs don't
even read FM why should they read anything else. Understanding every theory
would enhance your appreciation of AT. It would be great to see a
discussion about how well a persons identity can be changed with AT.

For instance, If you bring about change in someone you have brought about a
change in identity. Identity Control Theory says that people tend to
maintain an identity, tend to create an environment that they are familiar
with because that's what they are sure of. Can you see how powerfully that
relates to what AT does. Table work is effective ego regressive, boundary
reducing action. It helps to change identity. How would you know this if
you classify that languaging as unnacceptable.

My singing teacher said to me, "we are going to change your identity, Jim"".

Would an AT teacher forbid that because it is western thought? Do you know
that actors use AT a lot because of the freedom it helps them to achieve.
Are you going to help them do that by telling them to maintain a certain
head neck chest relationship. They won't get any work. Actors know how to
go from one type of closed loop to another. They control changes in
perceptual signals. Method actors focus on modifying the larger somatic
experience. That is why they are more effective.

There is ACT, Acceptance Commitment Theory, RFT, Relational Frame Theory.
If you familiarized yourself with them you could integrate the insights they
offer with AT. What is interesting is that many of you take pride in
looseness but are not loose enough to look at anything else. How about
being loose enough to read a book, at least FM's. Read some books and talk
about them instead of only your aches and pains.

I would also be interested to read anything that you or any other
PCT person might have written that relates to AT?

There is certainly a lot of literature available. I would recommend Bill
Power"s "Making Sense of Behavior" It is the least technical. But if you
think of a reference signal as a currently held personal value, that is is
all it is, you might be able to handle more technical literature. It
depends on interest and commitment. Try using AT to deal with the startle
reflex as you read, That might help. And be patient, don't end gain as you
read.

I can see that
people contributing to PCT have a wide range of interests and
experiences, for example there may be brilliant cyberneticists
interested in PCT who use themselves awfully and hunch up at PC
screens all day?

I haven't met them personally so I don't know, but ther well may be.

This suggests to me that AT people may find PCT more
interesting, at least in the initial stages if it is presented with a
specific rather than generalised approach. If my understanding is
correct then the non-generality that we are interested in here is
reference signals?

Think of reference signal as "the currently held personal value" and it may
make more sense.

His technique is one of facilitating and encouraging change in the
>>>reference
signals by increasing trust in kinaesthic sensations through the use of
respect imparting and value imparting touch and talk.

I would be interested to hear you develop this theme with respect to
FM's comments on faulty sensory appreciation.

Since FM is not here I am going to have to do what others have done and take
a shot at it without his help. I try to look at what he says alone, using as
much as possible, his words compared to his other words, doing my best to
process that way before I start analyzing it using my own inputs. In the
first stage there is very little that I can do because he does not define
except by use and that is not consistant and one must read over and over to
make sense of what he says. In addition to that, many of the concepts he
uses are of his period and I have no idea how current usage was dictated at
that time.

In order to answer this question Jon I had to relook carefully at what I did
and separate what I read from what I read into it.

I realized that I influenced it a lot. So I will try to tell the whole
story.

Generaly I get the impression that FM is about helping people to trust their
six senses. I got the impression that he believes that it is fear of the
sensations that causes disease and infirmity. He goes so far as to say that
all diseases will some day be eradicated. [Which is ridiculus] . And that
it is mistrust of the sensation which causes the infirmity. This mistrust
is to me mislabeling

To me AT is about developing skill in identifying the various options and
choosing the better truth. This is what my teacher Zoanna told me and I
believed her.

The better truth, to me, is the perception of least effort. She taught me to
achieve it in motion by telling me to seek it while sitting and standing.
She said that if I feel pressure while sitting or standing and that I should
soften She said "pressure, soften,presure, soften repeatedly as she stood
up or sat down. My seeking this perception of least effort, making it my
reference signal, caused my HNC relationships to assume the relationship you
all talk about.

How easy. I did not measure angles. I sought a perception. She said this
would be a continous thing, this seeking, it would be a constant. not a
state to be reached. As FM said "not a plane". As an engineer would say
"not descrete" Not the end of all effort. I should not seek to cease
having to work That even when I rest I am still controlling, but seeking
least effort with respect to the goal. Not zero effort in zero time, that
is end gaining, but minimum effort with respect to the goal. Their are two
simultaneous reference signals. One is the primary goal the other is to
achieve it with least effort.

Head neck chest relationships were incidental.

In doing this I experienced a perception of myself of giving myself over to
the action. I learned that I can use that signal to give myself over in
relationships. It produced softer eyes softer elbows. They were indirect
effects

I told Zoanna I realized that this is something I can retain as a perceptual
reference signal even into my human relationships to reduce the startle
reaction.

This is trusting trust. Trusting proprieceptive sensory inputs. Trusting
me trusting my perceptions. Notice the lack of a comma in that last
sentence..

All of this coincides with my own experience and data based belief that
amounts to the same thing. That we can increase or decrease our sensitivity
to sensory inputs and we can also label those inputs with arbitrary ethical
values.
If we label them bad we either will not let ouselves experience the
sensation or we will feel bad about experiencing them.

Put it another way. The response of repulsion to human waste odors has two
components. Intensity, which is not socially influenced. We may even enjoy a
little sniff, but if too strong may cause us to cringe; and the social which
is learned or incorporated; and that has two components, the one, social
acceptance, the other, its reminder of death. We can learn to hate any trace
of waste odor. This hate can be so intense as to be maintained as a
safeguard against social rejection and death even though there is no
immediate reason to maintain it. Excessive contempt by a parent toward a
child's waste matter might cause a constant startle reaction in an adult as
a gurantee against rejection and reminders of death. The entire system
becomes a controled perception. A subunit of experience in the larger unit
of experience of staying alive.

So, having said all that. What I believe FM neant is that subconcious and
unconcious qualifications of "bad" toward sensory inputs and sensation in
general will cause unnecessary and in some cases harmfull accumalated
neuronal/chemical sets. These are perceptions. They are controled
perceptions. They are incorporated as life saving in the holder's belief
system. In his hierarchy of values.

Take me for instance. I have arthritis. It is known that seritonin reuptake
is associated with pain. One could say that that is the "cause of the pain"
if we jump into the loop at that point. Or one could say its part of the
system of a maintained perception of pain.

I experimented with high B vitamin intake. B12 is good for general energy
level. B2 is used in the production of seritonin. Within three days my pain
level in my right foot diminished by about 50 %. Instead of throbing for
hours it only lasted about an hour but most significantly I noticed this.
Instead of responding to an initial shot of pain with more pain I did not
feel obligated to deal with the pain by adding pain. I had been responding
to pain by adding pain. A learned/incorporated loop. That is precisely what
went through my mind. I was able to memorize the perception and gradualy
eliminate the mega vitamins and maintain the new perception of less pain.

That was about four years ago.

More recently the postal facility I work at moved and my new assignment was
10 times more strenuous than my old one. In my old job I could sit most of
the time. In my new one I was on my feet a lot or riding a three wheeled
bike. I was in a panic. I walked at a snails pace and cringed with every
step. That was when I sought out AT.

The rest is history.

I now seek to stand, seek to walk. I also seek to sit down of course. But
my activity level is 1000 times what it was. I am singing better than I was
30 years ago. My sense/perception of control over my fate is much higher.

On first reaction it
seems that a system that compares actual input with desired input
(reference) suffers if actual input is either intrinsically unreliable
or effectively unreliable by virtue of a problem in the monitoring of
that input (ie faulty sensory appreciation not faulty senses). I
wonder what type of input is reliable here ? I am also a little
confused here since I believe from the PCT website that references are
the inputs we desire rather than the ones we are currently
experiencing? Does this mean that most people probably want good use
but their references are faulty and so they reach the wrong
destination? Does this then suggest that error does not lie in the
input but rather in the reference? (contra to FM's statements about
faulty sensory appreciation) - if so then why is our reference
unreliable if we have accurate input on which to base expectations?
Could we tidy this area of confusion ? how do the PCT concepts of
input and reference fit into FM's picture of faulty sensory
appreciation and the reasons we go wrong (pull or head back etc) ?

Jon ,

You may be a little startled and maybe not, If I say to you that, all of the
above is true. Each part is true in itself but you modified them as you went
along. You made new truths.

The whole truth of the loops represented above is their relationship to each
other as you presented them. Now what I have just said may sound like mumbo
jumbo, but it is profound. AT helps to discover [make and name] and trust,
new truths, new relationships. It als helps us to go into and out of any
truth we want. So what is true above may or may not be true next time
around. Remember we are seeking least effort.

I am going deal with your above paragraph in a separate post This post is
long enough and I want to do justice to your inquiry.

thanks for the opportunity to help

Jim D

It is a shame that an interesting line of debate so quickly
degenerates into taunts, to be honest Jim, the tone of your original
mail in places didnt help in my opinion, I hope the debate can
continue constructively.

Regards Jon

>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AlexTech Mail List" group.
To post to this group, send email to alextech@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alextech-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alextech?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

···

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Dundon" <jannim@comcast.net>
To: <alextech@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:27 PM
Subject: [alextech-list] Re: pain from startle reflex

----- Original Message -----

[Jim Dundon 05.31.07.0124edt]

···

Hi Jim

Michael, After reading and rereading and rerereading Alexander and
participating in 40 hours of lessons, I feel qualified to make a couple
of
comments.

My life has been turned around.

Good - questions...

I would be genuinely interested to know how you get on when you have
had an extended period of say one year absence from your teacher, an
earlier mail of yours indicates that you began lessons Oct last year,
if you have had 40 lessons with reasonable spaces in between then it
suggests that you have yet to see how you get along on your own?

I began lessons last August and ended them in March of this year. Mainly
because I had been helped so much that I decided to resume singing lessons
with a profesional teacher. What the AT helped me with was persuing and
accepting and holding onto desired changes. New perceptual references. So I
have been "on my own" for just a few months. But I really don't feel like
I'm on my own. Not a week goes by That I don't silently say "thank you
Bruce, thank you Robert, thank you Zoana, or thank you Mary. My experiences
are still fresh but I feel strong about them, not like I am in any danger of
losing them.

There
is a distinction between good use under a teacher's guidance and doing
for yourself what a teacher can do for you, I would be interested to
hear whether your approach and understanding through PCT affords you
advantages when it comes to maintaining good use without your teacher?

Hmmm. Good question I do think in terms of changing reference signals or
the controlled perception when I think of moving away from pain or toward
pain. Yes I do I think of pain as a controlled perception and myself as
developing skill in maintaining a perception of ease. I would say this
helps me to get a handle on things. A named experience is easier to reach
than an unnamed one, thats why we name them, so we can find them when we
need them, and so also the process.. It helps to give it a name, helps to
make it more real, for me anyway.

Another key thing for me that I know would help anybody in this work who is
willing to be, is an understanding of systems dynamics. PCT says that all
the conditions in a system are true simultaneously. So when I see people on
this site talking about their complicated experiences and how one thing
causes another, I just pray that I could get through. This is not easy to
grasp but is very powerfull and explains the power of somatic therapy. This
is linked to perceptual control. A closed loop system is a perception. In
a closed loop system no one thing in the loop is a cause of another. Change
a part and you change the entire system so it looks like that one part was
the cause.--- When in reality the entire loop is the cause, the purpose, the
maintained perception.--- What I am trying to get accross is that some of
the experiencings/descriptions which list a series of causes in reality
constitute a sytem being maintained, a controlled perception. Controlling
for pain. Now somebody is likely to jump in and say, I am crazy. Nobody
wants pain. True. But that is why it is called pain. Let me repeat the
entire sentence again

"THE ENTIRE LOOP IS THE PURPOSE, THE CAUSE, THE PERCEPTION".

Change any part of a painfull loop and you will change the loop. You can
truthfully say that that part change was the cause of the change. Therefore
it was the cause.

IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT SENTENCE AS A WESTERN WAY OF LOOKING AT AN EASTERN
UNDERSTANDING YOU WILL SEE MORE CLEARLY WHERE I AM COMING FROM."

Some of the participants here pride yourselves on eastern approach and
catagorize the western approach as unnacceptable. But it is catagorization
which identifies western thinking. In order to make the distinction you must
do exactly what you condemn, you must catagorize, and catagoricaly condemn.

I imagine that that last sentence caused some pain in a few MB units out
there. Maybe some blinking eyes. Or maybe denial or confusion. Maybe some
startle reflexes.

We go to AT teachers for pain reduction. That action of going to an AT
teacher is closed loop negative feedback action. which says that you will
continue that action until the pain is reduced. It would not hurt anyone in
AT to understand this.

In fact it would behoove everyone to read up on some the other theories they
so quickly classify as unworthy because they are "Western". That is a mind
blocking label and a controled perception.When I discover that ATrs don't
even read FM why should they read anything else. Understanding every theory
would enhance your appreciation of AT. It would be great to see a
discussion about how well a persons identity can be changed with AT.

For instance, If you bring about change in someone you have brought about a
change in identity. Identity Control Theory says that people tend to
maintain an identity, tend to create an environment that they are familiar
with because that's what they are sure of. Can you see how powerfully that
relates to what AT does. Table work is effective ego regressive, boundary
reducing action. It helps to change identity. How would you know this if
you classify that languaging as unnacceptable.

My singing teacher said to me, "we are going to change your identity, Jim"".

Would an AT teacher forbid that because it is western thought? Do you know
that actors use AT a lot because of the freedom it helps them to achieve.
Are you going to help them do that by telling them to maintain a certain
head neck chest relationship. They won't get any work. Actors know how to
go from one type of closed loop to another. They control changes in
perceptual signals. Method actors focus on modifying the larger somatic
experience. That is why they are more effective.

There is ACT, Acceptance Commitment Theory, RFT, Relational Frame Theory.
If you familiarized yourself with them you could integrate the insights they
offer with AT. What is interesting is that many of you take pride in
looseness but are not loose enough to look at anything else. How about
being loose enough to read a book, at least FM's. Read some books and talk
about them instead of only your aches and pains.

I would also be interested to read anything that you or any other
PCT person might have written that relates to AT?

There is certainly a lot of literature available. I would recommend Bill
Power"s "Making Sense of Behavior" It is the least technical. But if you
think of a reference signal as a currently held personal value, that is is
all it is, you might be able to handle more technical literature. It
depends on interest and commitment. Try using AT to deal with the startle
reflex as you read, That might help. And be patient, don't end gain as you
read.

I can see that
people contributing to PCT have a wide range of interests and
experiences, for example there may be brilliant cyberneticists
interested in PCT who use themselves awfully and hunch up at PC
screens all day?

I haven't met them personally so I don't know, but ther well may be.

This suggests to me that AT people may find PCT more
interesting, at least in the initial stages if it is presented with a
specific rather than generalised approach. If my understanding is
correct then the non-generality that we are interested in here is
reference signals?

Think of reference signal as "the currently held personal value" and it may
make more sense.

His technique is one of facilitating and encouraging change in the
>>>reference
signals by increasing trust in kinaesthic sensations through the use of
respect imparting and value imparting touch and talk.

I would be interested to hear you develop this theme with respect to
FM's comments on faulty sensory appreciation.

Since FM is not here I am going to have to do what others have done and take
a shot at it without his help. I try to look at what he says alone, using as
much as possible, his words compared to his other words, doing my best to
process that way before I start analyzing it using my own inputs. In the
first stage there is very little that I can do because he does not define
except by use and that is not consistant and one must read over and over to
make sense of what he says. In addition to that, many of the concepts he
uses are of his period and I have no idea how current usage was dictated at
that time.

In order to answer this question Jon I had to relook carefully at what I did
and separate what I read from what I read into it.

I realized that I influenced it a lot. So I will try to tell the whole
story.

Generaly I get the impression that FM is about helping people to trust their
six senses. I got the impression that he believes that it is fear of the
sensations that causes disease and infirmity. He goes so far as to say that
all diseases will some day be eradicated. [Which is ridiculus] . And that
it is mistrust of the sensation which causes the infirmity. This mistrust
is to me mislabeling

To me AT is about developing skill in identifying the various options and
choosing the better truth. This is what my teacher Zoanna told me and I
believed her.

The better truth, to me, is the perception of least effort. She taught me to
achieve it in motion by telling me to seek it while sitting and standing.
She said that if I feel pressure while sitting or standing and that I should
soften She said "pressure, soften,presure, soften repeatedly as she stood
up or sat down. My seeking this perception of least effort, making it my
reference signal, caused my HNC relationships to assume the relationship you
all talk about.

How easy. I did not measure angles. I sought a perception. She said this
would be a continous thing, this seeking, it would be a constant. not a
state to be reached. As FM said "not a plane". As an engineer would say
"not descrete" Not the end of all effort. I should not seek to cease
having to work That even when I rest I am still controlling, but seeking
least effort with respect to the goal. Not zero effort in zero time, that
is end gaining, but minimum effort with respect to the goal. Their are two
simultaneous reference signals. One is the primary goal the other is to
achieve it with least effort.

Head neck chest relationships were incidental.

In doing this I experienced a perception of myself of giving myself over to
the action. I learned that I can use that signal to give myself over in
relationships. It produced softer eyes softer elbows. They were indirect
effects

I told Zoanna I realized that this is something I can retain as a perceptual
reference signal even into my human relationships to reduce the startle
reaction.

This is trusting trust. Trusting proprieceptive sensory inputs. Trusting
me trusting my perceptions. Notice the lack of a comma in that last
sentence..

All of this coincides with my own experience and data based belief that
amounts to the same thing. That we can increase or decrease our sensitivity
to sensory inputs and we can also label those inputs with arbitrary ethical
values.
If we label them bad we either will not let ouselves experience the
sensation or we will feel bad about experiencing them.

Put it another way. The response of repulsion to human waste odors has two
components. Intensity, which is not socially influenced. We may even enjoy a
little sniff, but if too strong may cause us to cringe; and the social which
is learned or incorporated; and that has two components, the one, social
acceptance, the other, its reminder of death. We can learn to hate any trace
of waste odor. This hate can be so intense as to be maintained as a
safeguard against social rejection and death even though there is no
immediate reason to maintain it. Excessive contempt by a parent toward a
child's waste matter might cause a constant startle reaction in an adult as
a gurantee against rejection and reminders of death. The entire system
becomes a controled perception. A subunit of experience in the larger unit
of experience of staying alive.

So, having said all that. What I believe FM neant is that subconcious and
unconcious qualifications of "bad" toward sensory inputs and sensation in
general will cause unnecessary and in some cases harmfull accumalated
neuronal/chemical sets. These are perceptions. They are controled
perceptions. They are incorporated as life saving in the holder's belief
system. In his hierarchy of values.

Take me for instance. I have arthritis. It is known that seritonin reuptake
is associated with pain. One could say that that is the "cause of the pain"
if we jump into the loop at that point. Or one could say its part of the
system of a maintained perception of pain.

I experimented with high B vitamin intake. B12 is good for general energy
level. B2 is used in the production of seritonin. Within three days my pain
level in my right foot diminished by about 50 %. Instead of throbing for
hours it only lasted about an hour but most significantly I noticed this.
Instead of responding to an initial shot of pain with more pain I did not
feel obligated to deal with the pain by adding pain. I had been responding
to pain by adding pain. A learned/incorporated loop. That is precisely what
went through my mind. I was able to memorize the perception and gradualy
eliminate the mega vitamins and maintain the new perception of less pain.

That was about four years ago.

More recently the postal facility I work at moved and my new assignment was
10 times more strenuous than my old one. In my old job I could sit most of
the time. In my new one I was on my feet a lot or riding a three wheeled
bike. I was in a panic. I walked at a snails pace and cringed with every
step. That was when I sought out AT.

The rest is history.

I now seek to stand, seek to walk. I also seek to sit down of course. But
my activity level is 1000 times what it was. I am singing better than I was
30 years ago. My sense/perception of control over my fate is much higher.

On first reaction it
seems that a system that compares actual input with desired input
(reference) suffers if actual input is either intrinsically unreliable
or effectively unreliable by virtue of a problem in the monitoring of
that input (ie faulty sensory appreciation not faulty senses). I
wonder what type of input is reliable here ? I am also a little
confused here since I believe from the PCT website that references are
the inputs we desire rather than the ones we are currently
experiencing? Does this mean that most people probably want good use
but their references are faulty and so they reach the wrong
destination? Does this then suggest that error does not lie in the
input but rather in the reference? (contra to FM's statements about
faulty sensory appreciation) - if so then why is our reference
unreliable if we have accurate input on which to base expectations?
Could we tidy this area of confusion ? how do the PCT concepts of
input and reference fit into FM's picture of faulty sensory
appreciation and the reasons we go wrong (pull or head back etc) ?

Jon ,

You may be a little startled and maybe not, If I say to you that, all of the
above is true. Each part is true in itself but you modified them as you went
along. You made new truths.

The whole truth of the loops represented above is their relationship to each
other as you presented them. Now what I have just said may sound like mumbo
jumbo, but it is profound. AT helps to discover [make and name] and trust,
new truths, new relationships. It also helps us to go into and out of any
truth we want. So what is true above may or may not be true next time
around. Remember we are seeking least effort.

I am going deal with your above paragraph in a separate post This post is
long enough and I want to do justice to your inquiry.

thanks for the opportunity to help

Jim D

It is a shame that an interesting line of debate so quickly
degenerates into taunts, to be honest Jim, the tone of your original
mail in places didnt help in my opinion, I hope the debate can
continue constructively.

Regards Jon

>

>> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---