The core idea of mental blocking is to assert one's position and the nature of one's being. This may take many forms. The idea is a spiritual one for which we do not have direct terms or perception, thus we look at it through the example of everyday confrontations.
One aspect of the idea is not to be drawn into the attacker's “world” via curiosity, desire to change the world or the attacker, emotional hooks, self-importance or the like.
Another aspect is to be internally certain and undivided. In aconfrontation, the attacking party generally expects some reaction, either aggression or backing out. In some cases, mental blocking can take the form of giving no response or an entirely unexpected response. The main idea is not to play by the same playbook as the adversary, thus breaking out of a pattern of expected reactions.
Getting entangled into arguments or repetitious interactions with people can be draining and as much as one sees the problem in these, it is very difficult not to be affected, thus at least implicitly accepting the rules of the game. Playing various influence games tends to affect one's FRV and/or one's basic model of reality. Thus getting dragged into hostile arguments can for example be an attack. Blocking such may involve declining to participate.
Attack often works by playing on pre-existing doubts or divisions within the self or within a group. Recognizing this and being unambiguous and not tempted to be swayed is important. “I don't want to know” is not mental blocking. Knowing things, including the nature and content of the attack is important for an objective view of the world. But once one knows about it, one can decline to again be subjected to the same arguments and simply reject the whole topic as one that has already been seen and dealt with.
Declining a confrontation is not always an appropriate strategy, for example truth cannot be defended by being invisible. It is not possible to give fixed rules for every situation. Recognizing appropriate action depends on recognizing the deeper dynamic involved, we could say the nature of the asking. Defending truth where there is no interest for it to begin with is simply wasted time whereas standing up for it when there is a possibility of it being accepted can be a service to the participants.
Knowledge of a special kind may itself be a form of protection. Since the battle concerns one's “soul” or FRV, having drawn one's circle and standing firm in it may preempt attack. Human knowledge is never absolutely certain or complete, but knowledge through choice to apply it may become something of a different quality. Information is converted into being by the process of commitment. Mental blocking is not a matter of “true belief” but rather
of asserting one's choice also wile faced with attack. This is generally not an aggressive stance, since attack often expects an aggressive response.
Acting as a group may be important to the process. A single individual may be worn down by continuously defending one's position, also a group may focus “higher energies” more effectively than an individual. This is not a case of mob mentality but of strength in unity of purpose. An isolated
individual's mode of thinking and perceiving may more readily be shifted to match the attacker's, thus diminishing the STO alignment of the attacked.
In the case of mental blocking, the point is to preserve one's own nature, not to adopt that of the attacker. This is not always applicable to physical 3D conflict. We may think that in the context of higher densities, one's FRV, or polarity along the STO/STS axis determines one's strength and the realm one occupies. Deviating from one's chosen polarity represents loss. Sometimes the battle may be a “staring down contest,” sometimes it may not occur at all if the antagonists are naturally kept separate by their different natures.
Writings of mystics of the monastic traditions describe something like mental blocking when discussing the spiritual attacks confronted by the monks. The devils seek to confuse, to alternatingly flatter and to induce despair. The defense is not in arguing or engaging but in simultaneously acknowledging that the self is weak yet stands firm in giving thanks and glory to God, regardless of temptation or concern for self. The general advice not to talk to apparitions concerns this.
