From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 15 - January 1994
See Home Page at

Meta Structures

By Flemming Funch, USA(1)

The more we strip away the common human bank, the more different
get. Behind the scenes beings might have drastically different ways
of doing things.

It is important to note that there isn't a particular 'ideal'
way of behaving that we get to when we clear people enough. We are
more likely to run into wide differences in approach and intentions
and so forth. If you are making people all the same you probably
setting them free.

Now, beings might at a very high level have very different
about things, or they might have set up drastically different
to guide their actions at multiple levels.

I am correlating this with what is called Meta Programs in NLP (Neuro
Linguistic Programming). That is basically that in different areas
people might have certain overall programs of behavior which guide
their overall actions, but which are different from person to person.
For example, some people organize their whole life around avoiding
things they don't want, whereas others organize their lives around
moving towards stuff they want. There is no right or wrong in this,
and it isn't just casual decisions either. There are inherently
motivations and methods of doing things. Some people think in really
big generalities, others take great attention to detail. Ideally one
is flexible and can do all of these things, but typically a
person has a certain underlying approach. So, when we dig deep
enough we don't find sameness, but we find that people do things for
different reasons.

If we extrapolate this up to a more spiritual realm we see similar
phenomena. Beings might set up a certain approach to doing things
that will pervade everything they do over many lifetimes. We could
say that certain structures are postulated at a high level with a
great deal of persistence to them. I would call these Meta Structures.
You could say that they form part of the being's personality. Not
that they can't change, but they are likely to have a high degree
of permanence.

People are different

As an example, I personally have a certain method of exploring a
I would rather randomly start somewhere, anywhere, and get very deeply
involved in what I find. I would get very confused, but would
sort things out. Then, once I have things figured out in that corner
of the subject, I would make a big jump and go to some totally
part of it, chosen in some illogical fashion, and I would immerse
myself in that. By repeatedly jumping around and getting in over my
head I would eventually become really good at the subject.

Somebody else might have the approach of systematically working
through a subject from one end to the other and continuously
a big overview of what has been learned.

Somebody else again might start out by making a mock-up of what he
is likely to find and then walk in and compare everything to his

No approach is right or wrong. It is just that the being has chosen
a certain structure to monitor the way he does things.

Most likely there are structures that a being keeps all throughout
their existence in a universe. And there are other structures that
continue through a series of lifetimes and then change. Or structures
that only apply to one lifetime or to a certain period of one's life.

Astrological signs are probably an example of structures that are
agreed to be permanent through one's lifetime. I have never seen
audit out their astrological characteristics. You can of course
from the negative side to the positive side of the characteristics.
But I've never seen anybody stop being an Aries, or Libra, or
no matter what OT level they got to.

Different Case Handlings

The meta structures are not something to audit out. It is meaningless
to even try. They are very self-determined causative decisions, they
aren't case. It would be much more worthwhile to find out how to use
them in the best possible way. If they no longer serve the person
he will probably change them. But be aware that they are created
at a high level. It takes more than just a casual thought to change
them around.

Meta structures would be something to take into consideration in
If people work in different ways it makes the most sense to treat
them differently. That is, you can do more for a person if you are
in tune with their method of operation. It doesn't make sense to stuff
some 'standard' method of operation down everybody's throats.

As an example, some people will be well disposed to doing a bridge
in a nice orderly fashion, and they will organize their case in such
a fashion that it fits the program exactly. Other people might hate
the idea of a fixed program and would get much more out of skipping
around and exploring things in an apparently random fashion.
clearing wisdom would recognize the first person as a well running
pc and would send the other one to ethics to get him to behave.

There might of course be regular case phenomena that would prompt
a person to be pro or con a certain way of doing things. Service facs
or overts might make somebody sabotage the program. However, even
with that taken care of, I would claim that different people work
differently and would work best with different approaches.

I think the best work one can do is to meet people where they are
at and help them to do better what it is they basically want to do.
That takes a certain sensitivity to different basic ways of doing
things, and enough flexibility to be able to help people even if they
have different approaches than you yourself have.

(3)Page 147 of Flemming Funchs 'Technical Essays,': Technical Essay #
108, 22 November
1992. These books can be obtained direct from Flemming. The Address
Flemming Funch, 7448 Oak Park Ave, Van Nuys, CA 91406, USA, or:
Scandinavien readers may be interested to know that a translation to
Danish of Essay #1 has appeared
in Uafhngige Synspunkter, M21, March 1993. Ed

Fri Jul 21 18:37:51 EDT 2006