From International Viewpoints (IVy) Issue 16 - April 1994
See Home Page at


By Flemming Funch, USA(1)

Despite having gotten good results with listing and nulling from time
to time, I haven't been very keen on doing stuff like that in the
last few years. It seemed to me that there are less risky ways of
getting the same benefits. But, it might be in order to examine the

First of all, the idea of listing pre-supposes that there are charged
questions that each have one and only one dominant answer which will
produce a significant relief when found and indicated. The idea
is that the listing process would bypass the general garbage in the
bank and go straight for the item that is causing the trouble.

LRH didn't shed much light on why that would be so. Particularly why
some seemingly invalid questions would work, such as 'What place
have you known?' on Power Plus. Or, a 3S&D type 'Who or what
has attempted to make nothing of you?'. To me it seems like those
questions should have a great many good answers.

It might be that L&N works by just finding a the first real good
that BDs well. Even though there might be more good answers. But that
sort of collides with the whole ritual of L&N that all gives the heavy
suggestion that there is one and only one answer and we indicate the
item found as the item.

Wrong Indications

The trouble with presenting anything as the answer is that
it very easily leads to wrong indications. The validity of the
question/answer combination is entirely dependent on the viewpoint
and context they are applied to. Even if the answer seems right from
a certain viewpoint, at a certain point in time, as applied to a very
specific context, then it is likely to be totally wrong seen from
many other viewpoints, or at other times, applied to other contexts.

If the viewpoint and context is explicitly specified, then it would
probably be alright. Or, if we just let whatever pops up as-is without
evaluating that it is the person's item.

If you tell somebody that 'YOUR ITEM IS ___!', then the person
will necessarily generalize it somewhat. The word 'YOU' will
tend to attach it to the person's identity to some degree. It
YOU with the item. And since any mention of time or place is left
out, it would tend to be generalized to a much wider context.


Finding an item would generally produce an as-isness. It does so by
hitting on the exact consideration related to the given mass. The
thing is that when it as-ises it disappears. Even if it WAS a valid
statement of the exact consideration, then it no longer is after it
has been found. So, the indication that it is your item can't
be anything but a lie at the time it is given.

Assuming then that there is such a thing as one exact consideration
for a specified mass, then the end point would be the as-isness of
that consideration, which should be accompanied by the disappearance
of the mass. After that there would be no point in evaluating anything
whatsoever about the item found.

Another problem about listing is that questions and answers are stated
in language. By the nature of language and words, any question
will be ambiguous and unclear. Any statements the person gives as
answers are likely to be only imprecise approximations of the actual
answers. No combination of words can aberrate a person in themselves,
they can only be an approximated representation of what really
goes on.

Other Methods

When I do listing, for example to find a service fac in a given area,
I would usually do it in a 2WC style. I don't find that most pcs would
dig very deep on their own. But with somebody to guide them along,
and corner them so they have to come up with the consideration, then
they can get a much better item.

In the type of valence handling I mostly do, polarity clearing,
I would avoid L&N at all costs. I find it more valuable to get
general that the pc is using throughout his life and that he will
really have to take responsibility for.

So, are there really situations where the best choice is to get a
really specific one-shot answer to produce an as-isness? I believe
there is when we are talking considerations, postulates, intentions,
computations. Finding the right consideration would generally produce
a big change right away and avoid a lot of time being spent messing
around with less significant side-effects.

Probably the direct search for considerations could be expanded into
more ways than it has traditionally been used. It is basically going
for the meaning behind the structure behind the appearance. The
must be very well defined in order to search effectively for the
consideration. The consideration might be expressed in words or
it might not, what matters is the conceptual idea that it is.

A valence is much more of a structure. I would still not consider
it wise to regard that as any kind of exact consideration. If it is
the simplicity of a viewpoint it might work, but I think a more
identity is risky to find this way. But there would probably be an
exact consideration that would keep one involved with a certain
and that could be listed for.

Listing is akin to Date/Locate in that we try to duplicate a specific.
When we get a close enough duplication we get an as-isness and an
instant change.

(1)Page 35 of Flemming
Funchs Technical Essays, Technical Essay # 96 - 9 June
1992. These books can be obtained direct from Flemming. The Address
Flemming Funch, 7448 Oak Park Ave, Van Nuys, CA 91406, USA, or:

Thu Aug 17 18:29:31 EDT 2006