THE PROCESS

CHURCH OF THE FINAL JUDGEMENT 1965

revised May 1968

LOGIC TWO

Subject: LIMITATIONS

1. 1 WHEN A PERSON'S SCOPE OF KNOWLEDGE, ABILITY, AWARENESS, CONTROL OR SENSITIVITY THREATENS TO BECOME TOO LARGE FOR HIM HE CREATES LIMITATIONS FOR HIMSELF IN ORDER TO RESTRICT IT.

2 TOO MUCH SCOPE IN ANY OF THESE DIRECTIONS CARRIES WITH IT TOO MUCH CONSCIOUS AWARENESS OF RESPONSIBILITY.

3 By limiting the scope of our knowledge, ability, etc., we limit the scope of our responsibility - or at least the scope of our AWARENESS of our responsibility. We no longer see the full extent of our true function and purpose in life. We see no further than the bounds of our Limitations.

4 SO A LIMITATION IN ORDER TO BE EFFECTIVE MUST BE AT THE SAME TIME A JUSTIFICATION, OTHERWISE THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM A CONSCIOUS AWARENESS OF RESPONSIBILITY BEYOND THE LIMITATION.

5 A Limitation must appear as basically one of two things: -

6 a) An infliction, 'just one of those things', an inavoidable obstacle, a fact of life, something over which we have no control, such as: failures, losses, burdens, incapabilities; inadequacies, disasters; or stupidity, ignorance, unawareness, insensitivity, repression, fear, insanity, sickness and infirmity.

7 It is possible for us to deliberately, though quite unconsciously, bring about such things for and in ourselves, and yet to remain consciously convinced that it is through no choice of our own that they occur.

8 Examples:

1. A man does well in his job and is promised that if he continues to do as well he will be promoted to a higher position. Almost at once his work falls off. He makes mistakes, becomes forgetful and generally makes it quite clear he's not fit for promotion. He is not conscious of deliberately regressing, and may be as surprised as everyone else at his failures, but unconsciously he does not want the increased feelings of responsibility in the new position, so he reduces his capabilities accordingly.

2. A man builds up a business to a certain point, and then suddenly some 'misfortune' befalls it and he finds he is back where he started. The scope of responsibility involved in the expansion threatened to become too great for him, so he had to reduce it drastically by a financial collapse. Of course, it appears to be sheer bad luck, so as to prevent him being conscious of having deliberately engineered it. Sometimes, after such a disaster, you hear a person saying, 'I can't think what came over me. Normally, I'd never have done that'. Or, putting the blame on someone else, 'I knew it was the wrong move, but he was so insistent...' Or, 'I've never forgotten to do such and such before. This had to be the one day I forgot it.' Indications that on some level he KNOWS that he has deliberately caused the incident, or at least deliberately failed to prevent it.

9 b) A moral restriction, an obligation, a commitment, a code of ethics, a religious dogma, something which reduces the scope of our thoughts, emotions, actions and abilities, by convincing us that there are certain things we should or should not do, be, feel, think, experience, etc.

10 These two we can create deliberately and specifically in order to limit our scope, and yet at the same time be utterly convinced that they are genuinely altruistic and selfless moral, social or spiritual values.

11 Example:

A woman wants to marry but cannot because she feels obliged to look after her ailing mother. Clearly marriage carries with it greater scope both for fulfillment and for failure, than looking after an ailing mother. So the sense of obligation is used as a limitation against the responsibility of a marriage relationship.

12 LIMITATIONS CAN BE 'BASIC' OR 'CURRENT'

13 Long standing physical disabilities, deep-rooted moral and religious codes, stupidity, neuroses and phobias, these are all 'basic' Limitations. They are part of a person's basic pattern of unconscious 'agreements'. They are there as a PERMANENT boundary to the person's scope, a constant and built-in barrier to maintain his chronic level of awareness of responsibility, and they can only be removed by taking the person back to the original compulsive 'agreement' from which they stem. Then they will disintegrate because the force holding them in place will have gone.

14 'Current' Limitations on the other hand, are physical or mental conditions brought in to handle specific situations.

15 The first two examples above are instances of 'current' Limitations. The man's incapability is not basic, as shown by his previous efficiency. A business collapse is a 'current' incident, not a 'basic' characteristic, and is therefore a 'current' Limitation. The third example, the woman and her ailing mother, comprises both a 'current' and a 'basic' Limitation and illustrates how the two are often combined to produce an effective result. The 'ailing mother' is an external circumstance and therefore 'current', but the sense of obligation is a 'basic' moral attitude. Each on its own need create no Limitation, but together they create a very effective one.

16 The following examples are instances of 'basic' Limitations.

1. A man is impotent and consequently every relationship he has with a woman is sexually a failure. As a result he cannot have a complete and lasting relationship. He is using impotence to prevent himself from really becoming involved and taking all the responsibility that this would bring with it. Only by getting at the root of his need to be uninvolved in this way would it be possible for him to get rid of his impotence.

2. A boy is stupid at school, and as a result very little is expected of him in the way of academic achievement. He is using stupidity to avoid the responsibility that a clever boy has, to do what is inevitably expected of him by both his parents and his teachers, to pass exams and win scholarships, and then to continue in the kind of pattern that these achievements impose on him.

3. A man is heavily repressed emotionally. He has great difficulty in responding or reacting to things. Consequently he is not a threat to anyone. He is utterly predictable, apparently completely stable and imperturbable. Nothing seems to throw him off balance. He is using repression to prevent himself from enacting and expressing strong emotions that might have far reaching consequences for which he will have to take responsibility. Such a person will never APPARENTLY cause any positively destructive effects, but nor will he be in any way constructive. He has 'limited' himself to a point of negativity.

4. A woman has a deep-rooted moral 'agreement' with herself that it is wrong to get angry with people. Her imposed rule, that she avoids doing it at all costs. As a result, she avoids the possible repercussions of expression of her anger. Sometimes a moral agreement is so powerful that it generates not only a deterrent of guilt, but an actual incapability to perform the 'immoral' act; an even more effective 'basic' Limitation.

17 ANY 'CURRENT' LIMITATION, IF USED CONSTANTLY, CAN BECOME SO FIRMLY INGRAINED AS TO CONSTITUTE A 'BASIC' LIMITATION.

18 Religious or ideological dogma, as it stands, often constitutes a useable 'current Limitation, but a person CAN become so irrevocably endoctrinated with such dogma that is becomes 'basic'.

19 Certain physical ailments, originally 'produced' as Limitations for specific situations ('current'), if used frequently can become chronic ('basic').

As it is, so be it.

May 1968 ROBERT DE GRIMSTON

THIS MATERIAL IS THE PROPERTY OF THE PROCESS

Return to Logics Return to Process Teachings