Bilateral Course

Frequently Asked Questions

A: The original research on bilateral phenomena was sparked by 'The Bicameral Mind' by Jaynes and 'The Psychology of Consciousness' by Ornstein, following initial information from surgical operations in which mentally ill patients had the left and right hemispheres separated and the resulting behavior changes observed. The person I worked for, Gregory Mitchell, ran Mental Development Ltd and applied this information, along with methods of stimulation and entrainment by audio means of the left/right brain developed by Monroe and Lefebure, to development techniques, in order to increase communication between the hemispheres. Further work by Fehmi found out about the value of synchronisation of left/right brain-waves.

In order to get feedback on what was going on, Gregory initially used bilateral EEG equipment, following the work done at Charing Cross Hospital on schizophrenic patients to use bilateral phenomena to determine diagnosis, in which it was found that extreme left imbalance corresponds to florid (delusional) schizophenia and extreme right imbalance corresponds to bipolar (manic-depressive) schizophrenia. Then he realized that the GSR effect was a valid way to measure the relative response of the hemispheres to stimulation, by putting a meter on each hand, giving two needle movements - you could see that if the left hand produced a fall larger than the right hand, then the difference in response is the amount that the right brain is aroused above the left brain; and vice versa. By making a meter with a double Wheatstone Bridge, he was able to reproduce this same information with one needle, the 'differential' reading between left and right hand reads. So this is Greg Mitchell's invention. In the following years, he (and I too) used the meter with many clients in therapeutic and developmental roles, and found it to be a valuable aid and that the principles are valid.

An interesting aside is that when one uses the normal GSR Meter in self-administered mode, holding the double-electrode in the left hand, this is picking up right brain arousal. Because right brain relates to real experience and feelings, this is fortuitous. You can say, "right reads - on the right track"! But if the person is in a very left brain dominant state, the solo electrode in the left hand won't pick up on the left-brain mental responses and a lot of case can be missed. The reads then are probably reactivated fears resulting from the items looked at, but the actual data may be false and this not realized.

Indicator Tech helps greatly to determine the truth underlying charged beliefs, considerations, etc, and this ties in very closely with what is done with the Bilateral, and is the main reason why one can do without the Bilateral in advanced self-administered development.

Q: I gave myself a brief session today using your Indicator Tech. What a marvellous tool! I can see how it takes apart the various ideas, considerations, lies, and defenses that the person erects between themselves and truth. My question is, doesn't this basically eliminate the need for a device such as the Bilateral meter?

A: The Bilateral is best applied by a practitioner to help with diagnosis and therapeutic procedures. When these are done well, the client will be relatively objective to his thoughts and feelings and not be suppressing too much heavy emotional material so that he can access real experiences, beliefs and feelings and look at this material rationally. This is good left-right brain communication.

Bilateral techniques achieve the same end result as Indicator Technique but the procedure is under the direction of the practitioner and does not require the client to question his data - particularly at first it is best to use the Bilateral for right reads only, to get to accessible case that is reality-based and not based on the client's defenses of intellectualisation, misguided rationalization and blaming, etc. Later, when the client has more self-esteem, left reads can be pointed out, and then you are asking the client to question his data and rationality, but on the basis of his own mind as reflected by the meter, not on the basis of the therapist's evaluation or invalidation.

Indicator Technique is an advanced technique, used in The Insight Project. It is best applied as a self-administered procedure and requires a stable person with good L-R hemispheric communication, so there is a relatively 'quiet' mind. Then the Indicator technique can get to the intuitive knowingness of truth that underlies the mental alterations and negations. With a client who has made good progress in self-development, such as with the Living Consciously, there are not the same defenses that prevent an open-minded re-evaluation of all that has previously been identified with, so Indicator Technique can be used to finally take apart the beingness that the actual Being has substituted for himself as a mega safe solution or summation of all other safe solutions and survival computations.

Q: Different people want the two types of meters for different purposes, as well as some who appreciate the value of using them together. Would people typically use a Bilateral meter without a regular one?

A: The recommended method is to use both together but some have bought a Bilateral meter on it's own because they are particularly interested in the left/right brain phenomena and diagnosis of psychological state based on left/right brain arousal. The Bilateral supplements the GSR information with another dimension of feedback and certainly doesn't replace the GSR.

Q: You say 'the right brain cannot lie' - does this mean that anything that reads to the right is true?

A: The Bilateral reads to the right based on the subject's reality, including deeply held beliefs. It is primary a device to help guide the client towards suppressed charge that is based on genuinely held perceptions, though these may still be misguided; right reads need to be cleared of charge by clearing the suppressed material. Right reads do not equate to truth, they mean you're on the right track.

Q: I'm rather curious whether you've had any practitioners go nuts trying to watch two meters at the same time while holding a session together. Is there a compelling reason to have two separate meters instead of combining both in one box with two dials?

A: When using both meters together, they go side by side and the dials are aligned next to each other, so it's almost like one big meter. The Ability 3a is used on it's own for self-administered work and the Bilateral can also be used on its own, though because both hands hold electrodes, continuous notes cannot be written.

Q: Different people want the two types of meters for different purposes, as well as some who appreciate the value of using them together. Would people typically use a Bilateral meter without a regular one?

A: The recommended method is to use both together but some have bought a Bilateral meter on it's own because they are particularly interested in the left/right brain phenomena and diagnosis of psychological state based on left/right brain arousal. The Bilateral supplements the GSR information with another dimension of feedback and certainly doesn't replace the GSR.

Q: I have read your materials on bilateral analysis several times. While I can see how left brain reads could indicate alteration or falsification, I also wonder if they might simply indicate analytical reactions, depending on the process. For example, what might the pattern be with problem solving, and so forth. It occurs to me that a left read would show in such circumstances the excitement of that hemisphere without a true/false judgment.

A: Yes, that's true. Same as with the normal GSR, a read indicates mental activity but only an instant read (i.e. reactive, before the subjetc has a chance to think about it consciously) indicates a charged response. There's an exercise in the Bilateral pack to demonstrate such reads when doing left and right brain-type mental activities. They tend to be 'soft' and short though sometimes are long if the mental activity is demanding for the person, or tiny if the activity is easy.

When doing a procedure that is more a continuous process, you are looking for changes in the overall balance and also for 'sharp' reads, that look like they are driven by charge, to which you would respond, "What was that thought (L)/feeling (R)?"

Q: I started out with a notion of left read = bad, right read = good, based on a notion of left equaling falsification and right equaling at least a marginal level of duplication or truth. This was producing very frustrating experiences with lots of left reads, until I recognized that I was trying to TEACH myself. So, I decided to hang the definitions and simply operate from the principle that left equals energy in the rational/serial/reasoning side, and right equaling stimulation of the global/experiential/intuitive side. Once I did that, for one thing, it started to calm my meter behavior down, lowering the balance and freeing up the needle, which had been starting to pack up a bit. Then, I noticed an interesting occurance. As I observed the meters and just thought about how they operate together, I would make an observation with a hypothesis - if intense, it would bang to the left. If unclear or unresolved, the bilateral would read to the left and hang out. But if I thought - yes, that could very well be the way this is, it would bang to the left and both meters would float. Do you see, at this stage, it's not a belief per se; it's a hypothesis about process or possibility - yet it's interesting and exciting, so both meters float. It isn't necessarily a picture of reality, because it's process/serial based, so no swing to the right. I don't recall seeing a discussion in your materials about a situation where you get an intense left read and then dual floats. But I was looking at them while theorizing these materials. I believe that if there is an emotional investment in being right, an unwillingness to know something, or some such issue, the bilateral won't float even if the GSR does. I think it may be important to interpret left reads in the context of the result you are attempting to produce and the process run. What do you think?

A: I agree entirely. A new postulate is a left brain construct and may well be high energy but not reactive. A float on both meters is an honest and genuine clarity.

An interesting double reactive response occurs with withheld communication where a picture of the true occurrence emerges instantly (R-the missed withhold) followed by an immediate cover up (L-defense).

So the context of bilateral reads is all-important. Your statement, "left equals energy in the rational/serial/reasoning side, and right equaling stimulation of the global/experiential/intuitive side" is an excellent description of reads on the bilateral that are cognitive, not reactive, and they can be big when postulates are involved, especially with a powerful being (as with 'upper level meter reads' on the GSR). For this reason, the course materials - which are pretty good now but I'm sure can be improved - are essential for meaningful use of the bilateral.

Q: An aspect of the BM that is perplexing me: On quite a few occasions with more than one subject, the BM seems to do little more than act as a mirror image of the GSR. If the GSR falls, it goes left. If the GSR does a slow rise, the BM goes slowly to the right. If the GSR floats so does the BM, but in opposites. Then suddenly, the BM goes into a different pattern. It takes on a life of it's own, along the lines of the materials in your manual. I have found these to be the times when the most valuable insights can occur.

A: Yes, that sounds familiar. But the Bilateral is correctly telling you that the falls on the GSR are only intellectual answers and rises on the GSR represent suppressed right-brain material that is not accessible (otherwise the rise would be a fall) and the real case is not yet contacted. (Though not mirroring the GSR, an altenative is a rise on the GSR with a left read on the Bilateral, which would mean a defense has kicked in, some kind of rationalization to justify backing off from looking at the issue, which is further from confronting the charge than in the case where BM goes to the right.)

Then suddenly you get a breakthrough. For example with a repeated question, this might occur right up to the point when the real item is found, when you get a long fall on the GSR accompanied by either a strong left read (which when cleared becomes a right read) or straight away a strong right read, probably followed by a few more to the right as the item is clarified (the truth fully confronted), and ending with floats on both meters with mid-way balance points at the end point of the procedure.

Q: If I'm running an upset, I may get regular reads on a GSR, with a satisfactory float as the situation is clarifed. But, no particular pattern on the BM other than the mirror. It seems wrong to dispute the client's understanding due to the activity of the BM, so I don't do it. I just run a regular session off of the GSR. Are you familiar with this? Can you explain it?

A: As you say, it may be inappropriate to dispute the client's understanding when running a light procedure that has the function of a release, not getting at the real case towards erasure. With a more advanced case, or in circumstances where the procedure is only meaningful if it gets to the core truth of the matter, you can dispute - or rather, you can point out the Bilateral reads, the person's own biofeedback, as one never disputes intellectually nor invalidates the client's data. This is why the use of Indicator Tech is really an advanced procedure, because the person must be willing to question the rightness of his mental content (with which he has identified) and look afresh in the present.

One can dispute left-reading defensive answers with something like, "OK, now look in a different direction and give me another answer" until you get a right read, and respond to right reads with, "Is there more to this?" to get the real charge off. If there aren't left or right reads then the question isn't charged and you just get a light answer.

Q: It seems to me that you could actually run the session solely off of the BM without a GSR, except for those relatively rare instances when the BM reads and the GSR wouldn't. After all, if you get a mirror of the GSR, then you know what it would be doing, and if you don't, then the BM would provide the senior information anyway.

A: That's true, but the situation where the GSR reads and the BM doesn't (because it's just lower-brain unconscious arousal) is an important case, as this corresponds with deeply imprinted material that the client can't access without more unburdening and which might really stick him in it, if taken up immediately.

Q: As I see it, a left read is the person processing within a known and knowable system of structures and beliefs. To me, it's not even that a left read is a lie, unless deliberate. It's just that they are only engaging their pre-ordained belief system, and will likely only produce a result consistent within that system. The person can become happy and perhaps successful within this system, but they will bump into incongruities and will certainly not realize their full spiritual potential.

A: Yes, and that structure is the Ego, the person's front to the world. The belief system is a network of survival solutions, made or adopted because they seemed a safe way out of problems at the time, but now these solutions are uninspected and used automaticly - even though they may be self-defeating and inappropriate in today's circumstances. These ideas define the person's identity, so they are held onto fixedly. It is a network of defenses and is maintained by further rationalization, justification, denial of responsibility, making others wrong, etc. But deep down the person knows they're lying to themselves, and this conflict results in the suppression of right-brain feelings and intuition, which have to be reality-based, as the right brain can only think in that way.

The left read is not usually a deliberate lie or fabrication, but it is an alteration due to the person's defenses against truth, and so it is actually a lie, fabrication or safe solution. But it's ways of thinking that the person has identified with, they're part of his make-up, so he can't see it as an alteration. With appropriate stimulation, these computations are activated; this is cognitive reactivity, as opposed to the more familiar emotional reactivity which comes about because of negation or suppression of painful or threatening real experiences. Such experiences result in decisions, which add to the belief system. Except in the case of direct reactivation of past trauma, you need to handle the cognitive distortions and defenses before the underlying emotional material is accessible.

Q: I'm researching left/right brain theory. Very interesting. Apparently, there can be significant deviations in individuals regarding their brain patterns. Robert Ornstein says that left-handed people tend to have the language and verbal portions shared between the two hemispheres.

A: That's a bit misleading. Though language can be handled by the right brain, normally it is primitive and emotional language, such as the expletives used when angry. If the left hemisphere is removed or malfunctioning, the right can acquire the left's functions, to the extent that is possible outside the normal formative period of brain development.

Q: What about thoughts that don't actually belong to the person, which are misattributed or imprinted telepathically and the like. A friend likes to discuss experiments where he assess a list on one person, then brings a second person into the room and assess the same list on them, but tells them they are to serve only as a channel for the first person's case. He says that often, they get the exact same reads! I presume this would read only on the GSR and not on the BM.

A: Not necessarily. If one identifies with misattributed content then this is imprinted and would read to the right as an accepted reality, or on the GSR and not the BM if it is completely unconscious. Most of what reads as Imprinted in Indicator Tech is misattributed ownership and so the indication of it as Imprinted differentiates the self from it and breaks the identification, so it can be re-evaluated rationally.

Q: A rise on the GSR generally means incoming mass, protest, or avoidance/disconnection. Depending on what I am running, I might choose to take it up or not. What is most interesting, though, is how perfectly the BM mirrors the GSR in these circumstances, down to the tiniest twitch. In a sense, I have a feeling that the person is running at a certain depth level, and that they are neither in conscious avoidance nor connected up with "primal" level emotional charge. That is why the occasional variances are so interesting, because they are a change in characteristic. I have also seen situations where the meters are on completely different tracks, which is fascinating. But I find the mirror phenomenon to be quite common thus far.

A: Yes, it is, and as you say, the change in characteristic away from that is very significant and a valuable pointer to case change actually occurring, and a procedure starting to bite, whether it's immediate or after hours of goings on that actually hasn't bitten. That's why the amount of Balance change on the GSR is not really a guide to case change. If you don't get the right item (that goes to the right), or if the procedure is not taken further in connection with that right item, it's meaningless in that respect. A person could play darts and if it's a good contest get lots of Balance change (changes of arousal on the GSR) - but no case change! A person can do various so-called advanced procedures and if the evaluations about the procedure are interesting and accepted, get lots of Balance change but no case change, because no 'right' items are actually involved in the procedure.

Q: I just made a very interesting discovery with a subject using the BM. The subject had a 100% mirroring effect on every comment, statement, origination, or thought using the GSR/BM. BUT, as the session progressed, the GSR balance point shiftede: at session end, the GSR balance was lower and the BM was closer to center. At session beginning, the GSR balance was relatively high and the BM was well in the left hemisphere. So, somehow, this person was adjusting their reality base without necessarily being consciously aware of the process, nor was it obvious to me.

A: That's a very healthy adjustment, typical of a well done session with genuine case change. There was charge in reactivation (the high GSR balance), the reality of it was accessed (all the GSR falls and corresponding BM right reads) and the charge erased. I guess there were gradual movements in those directions rather than obvious long reads.

Q: This subject doesn't easily get marked L/R deviations on the usual questions: math tables, etc., although I had a steady R reaction when I got him to sing for me!

A: Math tables may be effortless for him whereas singing to you was both a new thing and an emotional experience for him.

Q: I should aim to shift the general balance more towards center on the BM with low balance point on the GSR. Agreed?

A: Yes. Ideally, the balance on the BM is central but also flexible with the ability to access deep into L or R at will. So a very good session end-point is recovered central balance and a moderately low GSR balance point (showing involvement and interest but not overwhelm).

Q: A female subject gets marked L/R deviations, and went intensely into a right brain trauma in our first session. However, in the second session, she displayed the mirroring phenomenon for much of the session, with R stabs that, when pursued, led to emotional discharges. I haven't had many people to work with on this, but so far, each subject has a sort of BM thumbprint.

A: Their unique case, which you're able to see clearly.

Q: Technical question/observation: I've noticed that some items become analytically "reclassified" after evaluating them. That is, they read as a conditional "true" (GSR- fall, BM-R), but after that is acknowledged and the charge explored, they start reading left. They may still be charged, but the client originates more understanding of the real nature of the item, gaining some distance. Still, they can yield a new item on the "more to this?" question, which may itself read as "true".

A: That can be cognitive reads: thoughts, new ideas and imaginings, and also the left-brain starts playing its reactive tricks (further justification, rationalization, blame, and reactivation of remaining fixed ideas).

There's more understanding because there's some reality-based charge come off. After some thoughts-about, which may or may not lead off the right track, the client may - particularly with prompting - go back to the new reality base and dig deeper.

Interesting how the mind works, isn't it? As with doing lots of Indicator Tech, experience with the Bilateral results in more self-awareness out of session, when you spot your own mind doing the same sort of things.