Part of Experiment Zone
HSP — EXPERIMENT 02
PMA, The Work, The Journey, PSYCH-K and Avatar use very different explanations and procedures. But what if some of them enter through different routes while still influencing overlapping parts of the same human system?
Experiment 01 introduced the provisional HSP System Update Experiment: a way to investigate whether an activated system state can later be re-accessed under sufficiently safe conditions and with sufficient choice space — and whether the system subsequently responds differently.
Here we turn the question around. Do existing change methods contain procedural elements that may interact with some of those same system dynamics — even when their own explanations are very different?
Working hypothesis: different methods may use different access routes into overlapping parts of the same human processing system. Procedural overlap does not make their explanations equivalent.
Experiment 02 — the hypothesis
Experiment 01 introduced the provisional HSP System Update Experiment: a way to investigate whether an activated system state can later be re-accessed under sufficiently safe conditions and with sufficient choice space — and whether the system subsequently responds differently.
That raises another question. Many existing change methods also deliberately make something active: a thought, trigger, body state, memory, emotion or belief. They then introduce some form of observation, inquiry, different experience or new meaning.
Their explanations can differ widely. One method speaks about subconscious beliefs, another about stressful thoughts, stored clusters, cellular healing or creations.
HSP does not need to decide which explanation is correct in order to ask: what becomes active during the procedure, which system dynamics become accessible, what changes — and does later feedback show that the system actually responds differently?
Working hypothesis: different methods may use different access routes into overlapping parts of the same human processing system. Procedural overlap does not make their explanations equivalent.
An important boundary
If an external procedure contains recognizable HSP system steps, that does not mean the method’s explanation has thereby been confirmed.
The HSP System Update Experiment is also not a renamed version of any of these methods. The comparison works in the other direction: HSP provides a system architecture and uses it to investigate whether procedures developed elsewhere may interact with some of the same dynamics.
A method may, for example, speak about a subconscious belief, an incorrectly stored cluster or a cellular memory. HSP can investigate whether the procedure helps make an active prediction, state or learned route accessible without concluding that the original explanation is literally correct.
What input is used? What becomes active? What happens to activation and choice space? What new experience or feedback occurs? Does later output change?
The method’s own ontology, neurological explanation, spiritual account or causal claim.
Procedural overlap is not evidence of mechanistic equivalence.
Where does the entry point appear to be?
This map is not a ranking and does not say which method “works”. It only shows where, viewed through HSP, the procedure may enter the system.
| Method | Typical entry point | Possible HSP dynamics | HSP does not need to adopt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Avatar — Creation Handling Procedure (CHP) | Unwanted experience / “creation” | Make an active experience accessible, observe it, reduce identification, make another possibility available | The concepts of “creation” and “discreation” as literal explanations of what is happening |
| PMA | Trigger details, feeling, associations | Detection, activation signature, associative route, prediction, new processing / feedback | That “bad clusters” as incorrectly coded storage are the established mechanism |
| The Work | Stressful thought or judgment | Make meaning and prediction explicit, examine certainty, open alternative interpretations | That the thought itself is necessarily the complete cause of suffering |
| The Journey | Body, emotion, memory | Activation / body state as access, associated meaning or memory, new experience | Claims about cellular memory or cellular healing as established HSP mechanism |
| PSYCH-K | Limiting / subconscious belief | Prediction, learned system logic, alternative rule, state and feedback | The “Whole-Brain State” or other proprietary neurological / spiritual explanations as HSP fact |
None of these methods is the source model for the HSP System Update Experiment. The comparison instead uses HSP as the reference architecture to investigate where procedures may overlap.
Similarity means: possibly overlapping system processes — not the same method, the same theory or the same mechanism.
An external procedure viewed through HSP
Avatar’s Creation Handling Procedure (CHP) works with what the method calls an unwanted “creation”. Its procedure includes experiencing and defining it, describing it without judgment, changing the relationship to it and eventually introducing another preferred possibility.
From an HSP perspective, a procedural pattern is particularly interesting:
This bears some resemblance to part of the provisional HSP System Update Experiment:
But resemblance is not equivalence. The HSP experiment does not assume that a person metaphysically created the unwanted experience, that something must be “discreated”, or that a preferred state should replace the old state.
The HSP question is smaller: what happens when an active system configuration can remain accessible without automatically executing its familiar protective output?
HSP question: could part of the possible effect come from making an active configuration accessible under conditions in which its old output is no longer inevitable — regardless of how Avatar itself explains that change?
Progressive Mental Alignment
PMA describes, among other things, “bad clusters”: in its own model, incorrectly stored or coded sensory data carrying a negative charge that can later be reactivated by matching details. The method uses a questioning and conversational process to identify and change such connections.
HSP does not need to adopt the bad-cluster model as neurological fact to recognize a procedural route:
This connects with the HSP question of whether a specific detail or body signal can activate a larger associated system configuration.
HSP question: does there need to be a literally “incorrectly stored cluster”, or is a learned associative route that produces activation when matching input appears already sufficient as a model?
Byron Katie — self-inquiry
The Work does not primarily begin with body state or memory, but with a specific stressful thought or judgment. Its procedure uses four questions followed by “turnarounds” to examine the thought from different positions.
From an HSP perspective, this directly touches Meaning and Prediction. A thought such as “he does not respect me” is not only text; it can lock in what input means and predict what the situation represents or what will happen next.
HSP does not need to claim that a thought is the complete cause of suffering. It can, however, investigate whether reducing certainty in one dominant meaning changes prediction and makes other output available.
Brandon Bays — The Journey Method
The Journey presents itself as a transformation and healing method working through body, emotion and deeper memories or blocks. Its own explanation includes language around “cellular healing”.
HSP does not need to confirm a cellular memory or healing claim in order to investigate the procedural possibility seriously:
This is close to the question in Experiment 01: can body state act as an access signal to a larger active configuration without claiming that the memory is literally stored in bodily tissue?
HSP question: what if the body is primarily an observable system state and retrieval cue rather than a storage location we have to assume in advance?
Subconscious beliefs
PSYCH-K describes itself as a method for changing limiting subconscious beliefs. Its own method uses “Balances” and links them to a so-called “Whole-Brain State”.
HSP can approach this at a smaller, observable level. A belief can be read as a relatively stable combination of meaning, prediction and learned system logic that influences which output becomes likely under particular input.
HSP does not need to confirm that the brain hemispheres enter a particular proprietary “Whole-Brain” mechanism or that the subconscious mind works as a programmable computer.
HSP question: does the procedure actually change the prediction or operating rule that becomes available under relevant input — and can that later be seen in output and feedback?
Possible shared architecture
If we use the HSP System Update Experiment as one HSP reference model and temporarily set the methods’ explanations aside, several recurring procedural elements become visible:
A thought, trigger, feeling, body state, memory or belief brings part of the existing system logic online.
The person is no longer only in automatic output, but gains some access to what is happening.
The thought is questioned, the state is experienced differently, identification changes or an alternative rule is introduced.
The earlier meaning, prediction or necessity of protection may become less dominant.
More choice space makes another response possible without having to prescribe it completely in advance.
A new experience becomes meaningful for HSP when later situations show that the system actually processes or responds differently.
Larger working hypothesis: change may become possible when a relevant learned system configuration becomes accessible and, with sufficient capacity, new information or experience becomes available that does not simply confirm the old prediction.