Anchor Points - Basic Concept:

I Think we are all aware of anchor points, or at least are able to perceive them when our attention is directed to them. These are points which delimit and demarcate our space. Often, they are placed at the corners of a cube, or rectangular prism, which space contains the place where we consider ourselves to be. When our space is big, we feel big. When it is compressed, we feel bad. We find that when we have included a person we are attempting to speak to within our space, we can be clearly heard. When we have not, shouting barely suffices. Intimacy has something to do with placement of anchor points and, very possibly, co-ownership of them.

Anchor Points - Extended Concept:

I believe we encode the properties of the space, the rules which pertain therein -- and perhaps more -- onto the anchor points. When we agree (with someone else) that we occupy the same space, the basic data encoded on the anchor points of the space are automatically agreed to as well. If the agreement is partial, there is a flimsiness to our perception of the other person, their characteristics and communication.

(More on this, as I think it through.)

Theoretically, two entities could agree on so little that they might never occupy the same space. Or, they just agree a little, and get little glimpses -- "sightings."

In the school of "Incident Reduction," there is the doctrine that the higher the fidelity with which you recall an event, the more you are able to cause parts of it to vanish, and the better therapeutic result you’d obtain.  

The late John Galusha added the (literal) P.O.V. to that. This was still consistent with the notion of “greater fidelity of recall = better erasing = better incident reduction.”

The Galushan P.O.V.  technique got me to thinking about anchor points and just what they encode or symbolize, or contain, or are. My instinct has been that they contain a significant element of agreement. (These issues seem to show up on a GSR as vigorous movements to the higher-resistance side, with pretty obvious fine structure. Due to the nature of many old GSR's, it could just as easily be a potential opposite the instrument’s, rather than an abrupt resistance change.) Anchor points somehow are involved in the agreeing to experience the space they create; somehow contain, or act as mnemonics for, the agreements or principles or rules of the place; and when 2 beings share anchor points, they share an agreement that they both see a space and buy into the rules of the place (cause & effect, or whatever).  

If one thinks of clustered entities, the beings in each cluster have the moment of trauma highlighted. The anchor points of that time & place are highlighted. They agree on that space. If they are all stuck in the incident, they are stuck in the anchor points, so they co-occupy the space, which is why they are clustered.

Certain platen-based reduction techniques, by scanning off the agreement shared among large numbers of beings, tend to de-cluster them, which is precisely what such techniques are used for. They have the advantage of working on everyone presently "watching the movie," so they are capable of breaking up the primary cluster(s) that the client has been stuck in. Once these are fluffed up a bit, there is enough "elbow room" to work in a closely-targeted fashion with entities and clusters as they come up, without involving the client, himself.

Principals and ^c-linking (Greek letter chi)

This principle says that different folks’ clusters could be mutually shared, providing a sort of bridge, akin to, but not the same as, a communication ("comm") line. This means that two “principal” beings could each have a cluster, the two clusters could more-or-less agree on the anchor points, and thus co-occupy space to a greater or lesser degree, and thus act as a sort of bridge between the two “principal” beings. These would be “sort-of” comm lines, but not really. Think of it as being vaguely similar to a capacitor in an electronic  signal path: signal passes, but there is not direct electrical connectivity, so no current flows.

The “Principal,” let’s call him, would thus have fuzzy borders, that sort of run together to the next guy, thus explaining telepathic comm lines. I like “Principal” as an alternative word for "client," since it carries the connotation that the task at hand is the unearthing of the Principal and disengaging him, and perhaps his tight band of cohorts, from the general mass of beings. The Principal is the guy who gets cheated out of most of the practitioner's time and attention, at lower levels, because the cloud of beings sucks up a lot of therapeutic effort. He also suffers unstable gains, since his being cluster overlaps his neighbors' -- in a figurative sense. It can only be figurative, because physical distance is often not a factor. There are even cases where the live links cross between mutually hard-to-perceive spaces and, possibly, across time.

This sort of world-of-comm-lines-and-terminals – nirmanakaya?? – has always sat a little funny with me. Entity techniques tend to think entirely in terms of individual entities stuck to the Principal & clusters likewise stuck. I have always felt that some of the "objects" being worked were actually comm lines, but the actuality never seemed quite that crisp and clear. This is one reason why. No doubt, there are others. Let's call these lateral links "chi" ( c ) links.

The next question is whether other, non-platen techniques could be devised to scan off agreement on a larger scale, dropping huge segments of the cluster membership out of the game. Platens lack flexibility, are excruciatingly complex to use and are unforgiving of even slight errors, as anyone can tell you who has ever used the techniques.

 With CDEI-as-permission, and now this, we start to see an alternative set of technical underpinnings based on an understanding in terms of permissions and agreements.

Marty Zone

Home