************************************************************************
The following first appeared in the private email list IVy-subscribers,
which was available to all those who subscribed to the
printed magazine, International Viewpoints.
************************************************************************


Someone maketh me to lie down in green pastures
by Phil Spickler
14 Dec 1998

Dear Anyone,

It seems as though one of my main alter egos (definition: another
"I"), namely Algernon, the chief guard sheep, the one that has the
large "M" carefully sheared into his beautiful coat (as the beginning
of "Merry Xmas") that is customarily sheared into my Praetorian
Guard, has once again wandered down to my sleeping raft deep in the
Dismal Swamp, awakened me from the delirium that is my constant
companion during the holiday season, and requested that we say a few
more words about acknowledgment -- that apparently lowly piece of
tech that turns out to be the Genghis of all Basics, the undercut of
all undercuts, the universal solvent, if you please, that, along with
admiration, is one of the scarcest commodities on this beautiful dirt
ball called Earth.

Yes, acknowledgment, the thing that all creators and their creations
desire, and in many cases exist to receive.

Well, with that modest preamble, let us speak of acknowledgment -- in
fact, let us acknowledge acknowledgment, by saying that it possesseth
a gradient scale that in human types runs all the way from the merest
grunt or snort up to and including perfect duplication and
vanishment.  Along the way, in terms of TR-2, it had been pointed out
in the past that if acknowledgment were adequate in the auditing comm
cycle, it would bring an end to that cycle and prepare the pc freshly
(if you were doing some form of repetitive- command question) to the
point where said pc would be ready for a new auditing comm cycle in a
new unit of time.

Let's face it: acknowledgment is more of an art than a science, and
without a doubt and over the years, it has been extremely obvious
that some folks had more talent for this art than others.  But
nevertheless, the broad and general range of people could learn this
ability and practice it and cognite on it and improve it to the point
where the artist within could get pretty darn good at the art of
creating and delivering acknowledgment.

Once folks fully understood Cause, Distance and Effect, and could
perceive clearly what took place at the effect-point, they were
practically home on becoming great acknowledgers.  Auditors who were
very good at Listing and Nulling, or correcting listing and nulling,
clearly had to have the skill to be able to notice the enormous
difference between wrong items, wrong indications, and right items
and right indications, and the gigantic difference between very bad
indicators and very good indicators.  And so it is true with
acknowledgment, which is truly a scale of duplication: one must be
willing, able and responsible for the indicators that appear at
effect-point when acknowledgment is delivered.  And just to keep it
simple, if the indicators are not good, it is necessary, particularly
in an auditing session, but in life as well, to quickly point out to
the receipt-point of your acknowledgment something on the order of,
"Say, what I just said there didn't do a very good job of
acknowledging, did it?" or "I guess that didn't really duplicate what
you were talking about, or being, etc., etc., etc.  Let me see if I
can do better," and whether you're working telepathically or using
sonic verbalizations, in order to get the correct indicators and the
correct indication, you've got to fool around while maintaining
communication with your pc (or your girlfriend, or your boyfriend, as
the case may be) until the indicators of a successful acknowledgment
appear.  And don't go on to some other cycle of auditing or
communication until that has been achieved.

Now since we're talking about gradients, it doesn't mean that you
have to cause the other person to vanish every time you acknowledge
them.  Nor do they have to go Clear-OT 100 either, unless that's what
you're aiming to do. It just simply means that you've got to get good
enough indicators and expressions from your receipt-point for the
person or whatever to feel adequately acknowledged to the point that
they're ready to go on to something else.  That's pretty simple now,
isn't it?  And once you get comfortable with the idea, especially in
auditing, that you can be that responsible, and you stop rushing to
get to the next thing, question, command, or whatever, you can take
the time to make sure that each auditing comm cycle is very well
done, and then you and the person or whatever you're working with
won't be making a time track that is filled with unacknowledged
creations, which usually end up persisting in a way that is not to
your mutual benefit.

Well, that's enough for now -- I can hear the bell ringing, whose
knell summons me to heaven or to ______ (please fill in the blank) --
but Algernon insisted that these things be said.

To all a good night -

Best,
Phil

P.S.  It is well to remember that for want of a nail, the battle was
lost, and for want of an acknowledgment, the unhappiness between
communicating viewpoints and their creators persisteth.