THE PROCESS CHURCH OF THE FINAL JUDGEMENT 1965 revised May 1969
1. 1 RESISTANCE IS THE CONSCIOUS OR UNCONSCIOUS ACT OF PREVENTING YOURSELF FROM ENACTING SOMETHING, WHETHER IT BE IN THE FORM OF DOING, BEING, HAVING, THINKING, FEELING, SEEING, HEARING, KNOWING, OR BEING THE EFFECT OF SOMETHING.
2 Conscious resistance is a manifestation in support of the 'intention' side of an unconscious conflict. Consequently it is fair to assume that whatever we resist consciously we are almost certain to enact it eventually in one form or another or we are already enacting it without being conscious of the fact.
A person has destructive urges towards his friend. He feels like insulting him or laughing at him or even hitting him. Quite consciously he resists the urges. This means that on a level of purely conscious motivation the manifestations of his need NOT to be destructive outweigh the manifestations of his need to destroy.
Therefore, unconsciously, the need to destroy is the stronger. Either the man is already being destructive towards his friend in ways far more subtle and devious than those which he is conscious of resisting, or his destruction will finally emerge in one form or another, either openly and apparently beyond his control, or covertly and unrecognizably.
4 The first possibility is the more likely of the two, because the unconscious mind never plays a waiting game (unless it is specifically and compulsively doing just that) if it can find a way of getting immediate satisfaction; and it generally can. So it is probable that while the person is making an outward show of resisting his destructive urges, he is at the same time dropping poison around his friend in the guise of help and goodwill, making his friend feel inferior by flaunting his superior qualities around him, making him feel rejected by treating him in an offhand manner, invalidating him by being disdainful of his most personal problems or any other of the numerous ways that people use to drag one another down without appearing - even to themselves - to do so.
5 So one important thing about conscious resistance is that basically it does not work! It is only there because of the superior strength of the counter-intention against which it is directed.
6 Unconscious resistance, which has no conscious manifestation in the form of a desire to resist or a feeling of the rightness of resistance, is a far more real and powerful element. It IS the counter-intention.
7 In this case we have a conscious wish NOT to resist; to accept, to feel, to act, to commit ourselves, to become involved in the direction which we are unconsciously resisting.
8 So here the intention is to accept, while the strong counter- intention is to resist, and the more we try consciously to break our own resistance, to allow our true feelings to manifest, to act according to our instincts, the more solid and effective that resistance becomes.
A man finds he is apparently unable to feel any love for his children.
Let us suppose that the feeling is there, but he is resisting being aware of it for fear of the emotional consequences of allowing himself to feel and therefore express it. He has an unconscious agreement that feeling and expressing love for his children makes him vulnerable, particularly to their possible rejection of him and his love.
Now consciously he would like to feel such love, and at the same time he thinks he ought to feel it. So he tries to create it. He decides to spend more time with them, yet more interested in their personal problems. He tries to make his relationship with them less formal and stilted. He allows them more freedom.
No love manifests. (Solutions of this kind have no effect whatever on unconscious resistance). If anything the resistance becomes stronger; because of the threat of the greater physical proximity with his children which the man is forcing upon himself.
10 RESISTANCE IS THE LAST STEP IN THE PROCESS OF NON-ACCEPTANCE
11 If we're unable simply to:
1. NOT ACCEPT the existence, presence and reality of a situation; if it is unavoidably THERE, and involving us; then we at once attempt to deny our own personal:
2. RESPONSIBILITY in and for the situation.
If however we cannot escape from our sense of responsibility, then we shut down:
3. Our AWARENESS of the situation, its nature and its implications; we become blind to it.
If we cannot fail to see the situation and our part in it, we find something or someone to:
4. BLAME for it.
If we cannot establish the blame to our own and everyone else's satisfaction, and the responsibility returns to us, then we are reduced to:
5. DEFENDING some part of ourselves and our agreements against the implications and consequences of the situation.
If this proves to be impossible we:
6. JUSTIFY ourselves and our part in the situation. We attempt to make it 'right' where it feels 'wrong'.
If this also fails, we dig our toes in solidly and:
This we do by creating barriers and allowing no part of the situation to penetrate them.
We resist receiving any effects the situation might create on us, and we resist creating any effects on the situation.
We deny ourselves any knowledge, awareness, true emotion, meaningful action, or even relevant thought in relation to the situation. In fact DISTORTED emotion, MEANINGLESS activity and IRRELEVANT thought are frequently compulsively used for the purpose of resisting; the last being the most effective, the most available and therefore the most commonly used for all.
A man finds he is unable simply NOT TO ACCEPT the fact of his inability to get on with people. The evidence stares him in the face and he cannot reject it.
Consequently he attempts to deny RESPONSITILITY for this state of affairs. He tries to establish that the result is none of his.
However he finds he cannot do this either. All the indications point towards the contrary, i.e., that he himself, his own behavior and attitudes, lie at the root of the trouble, So be closes down his AWARENESS of these indications. He shuts his eyes to the signs; the ways in which he deliberately alienates and antagonizes people.
But if these become too obvious to him, and he cannot fail to see them, he is forced to find a more positive and active form of rejection. He resorts to BLAME. He actively tries to force responsibility for the situation onto another person or onto circumstances 'outside his control', by means of accusation or direct attack. So be BLAMES his attitudes on the people to whom they are directed. He blames his behavior on the way in which he has been brought up.
If this fails to convince him, or anyone else, he is reduced to DEFENDING the image he has of himself as basically a very friendly and likeable person, against all the contrary evidence, and protesting that really underneath he is very amenable and co-operative, and so on. He magnifies every minute piece of evidence in support of the 'friendly' image and plays down all signs of the opposite.
If that does not work; still no one, including himself, is convinced, and he finds the reality of his position incontrovertible - he is unable NOT to realise the fact that he is malicious, sarcastic, untrustworthy and totally lacking in warmth and affection - he resorts to JUSTIFICATION. This consists of making success out of failure; making right what he sees as wrong. He endeavours to reconcile himself with his state by telling himself that it's not really so bad to be like that, a good thing in fact - or at least that it does not matter, that it's not important, and therefore not wrong.
Finally if this does not convince him, if he does not FEEL justified, but still feels guilty and depressed about himself and his relationships, he resorts to the last weapon in the line, which is RESISTANCE. He blocks everything. He digs in his toes and refuses to see or feel anything REAL about the situation at all, and also to do or think anything relevant about it. He blocks all his sensitivity in this area, and puts his attention and directs his activities elsewhere. Consequently the whole state becomes completely solidified.
13 But remember: situations are never simple, and the human mind is a turmoil. (Unconsciously it manifests the equivalent of conscious drunkenness). So in actuality, all these steps are both inter-related and interchangeable.
14 The above is a simple basic pattern, but the permutations in which this ladder of Non-Acceptance can be used are limitless.
15 For example, certain Steps can be regarded as forms of other steps. Non-Acceptance is itself a form of Resistance. Blaming is a way of shifting Responsibility. Shifting Responsibility is a way of Justifying. Justifying is a way of Defending. Unawareness is another form of Resistance. So is Defense. And Resistance is a form of Non-Acceptance.
16 Particularly, both the top step, the most abstract, Non-Acceptance, and the bottom step, the most solid, Resistance, are contained in all of the others. Non-Responsibility, Unawareness, Blame, Defense, and Justification, are all of them forms, both of Non-Acceptance and of Resistance.
17 All the steps between the top and bottom are interchangeable. Active Blame may appear AFTER Justification has failed. Rejection of Responsibility may follow an inability to be Unaware of a situation. Defense may come immediately AFTER Non-Acceptance has failed.
18 So within the basic Resistance pattern, allow for complications in the sequence. When a drunken man descends a ladder he is unlikely to keep rigidly and precisely to the order of the rungs.
As it is, so be it.
11th June 1969 ROBERT DE GRIMSTON
THIS MATERIAL IS THE PROPERTY OF THE PROCESS
Return to Logics Return to Process Teachings