How many expect to be there at the end of today? Okay. How about it, Instructors?

Thank you.

Male voice: Yep.

Well, I understand that we have a little fulmination here today, have had in the last day or so. All those who are going to blow should blow on these dummy sessions before we start auditing for real. And there are still several people who haven't blown yet, so let's not be quite so complacent. There are at least half a dozen I think that, or more than that, that haven't blown up and blown their stacks and so forth.

How many people are you going to have left in the TRs at the end of this week?

Don't feel so alone if you have blown. No, don't feel so alone because it's in the best ACC tradition. It's always a little painful and it maybe sometimes takes you as much as a day to settle out and get down and get to feeling better.

Male voice: They're all out.

But the time to blow is before somebody has the Rock in fifty percent restimulation. That's the time to blow - not afterwards.

How many people are going to go back in, I should have said?

Okay. This is the fifth lecture, 20th ACC, July 18, 1958. And we're going right ahead here today with the ACC training procedure.

Male voice: Sixty or zero.

Now, if we look this over very carefully we will discover that we have so far covered in lectures everything up to communication. But we haven't said too much about goals and PT problems. We haven't said too much about this and we've said practically nothing about communication. So we're going to take those things up today.

Either one, huh?

Now, CCH 0 is a composite of all of the things you do or should do or could do in order to get a session started. And there are probably a bunch of other things that should go into CCH 0, but they're not there. But the things that are there are very, very important. That is to say, you tell somebody that the session has begun. That's an integral part of it. You try to establish some goals and that's a solicitation of a participation by the preclear, a contribution to the session. You could go over goals and run a process on goals, an old process, a rather good one, but that's not indicated here. You merely establish some goals, some goals that are real to the preclear.

Male voice: I don't know.

Now, right there I'll give you the main thing - and you possibly never thought of it before as the main thing - but let's make sure that this survive-succumb proposition is taken care of.

All right. We're not above throwing you back into the TRs.

Now, your goals are to get the preclear to survive. Now, let's just make sure that the preclear has a similar vector, and if he doesn't have, why, your adroitness is solicited. There's nothing you can do about it but be clever. It's always unfortunate in a routine where we put a little area in there and say, „Well, the thing you do about this is be clever.“ But the truth of the matter is, that's the best advice.

Male voice: That's right.

How would you be clever about goals if you found somebody was just there to kick the bucket? Hm? How would you be clever about it? Well, there would be a number of ways, all of them dependent upon the preclear. Just exactly how is he trying to kick the bucket? And we must remember that there are eight dynamics and he may be trying to kick the bucket on only seven of them, you see? And he's got one dynamic on which he's not trying to kick the bucket. Well, that's fine, we at least have an entering wedge.

So don't feel too complacent at having gotten out of it. All you've got to do is put your spine into a corkscrew shape, confront with your right shoelace and not correct it three or four times when asked to do so and you'll have had it!

But a pc who is on a negative dynamic - you saw the congress there; talked about negative dynamics, remember? And you've known about negative dynamics before. Well, a pc who is on a negative three is definitely on a succumb negative one, negative two, negative three. You see? He's trying to die on three dynamics. Well, you could audit a long time on somebody who's trying to die on three dynamics, but the concentration may only be on the third dynamic.

Why? Because obviously, obviously auditing or auditing positions are uncomfortable to you. It's not punishment. We're trying to groove you down.

He's trying to get away from „this horrible, terrible, awful environment,“ he tells you; because all of the „nasty people“ who are kicking him around. Now, he may not state it quite that bluntly and wave a red flag in front of your nose and say, „See, see, textbook case, textbook case!“ It may take a little talking on your part on the subject of goals.

You'd be surprised what a joy it is to somebody or some group, somebody who knows nothing about it at all, to watch a good auditor, a good pro, at work with a preclear. I'm always amazed at how a totally strange group of people - unless they've got some nut in their midst who is restimulated or something of the sort - will sit around and how quiet they will be and for how long, observing a rather inconsequential session. Have you ever noticed this?

And you can discover some of the wildest things about a preclear in talking about goals. And if you don't, then you evidently aren't running goals or aren't interested or something. If you occasionally don't discover a real wild curve in the area of goals, then you just aren't giving it enough attention.

Audience: Yes.

Now, one of the ways of doing it, the arduous way, not recommended, but give you an idea, would just be to take up all the dynamics. Ever occur to you before? A goal on the first, a goal on the second, a goal on the third, a goal on the fourth, a goal on the fifth, a goal on the sixth. What do you want to have happen to this universe? See? You're auditing a pc and you ask him, „What do you want to have happen to this universe as a result of this auditing session?“ You're liable to get a wild reply.

Yeah.

„Now, what do you expect to have happen to the kingdom of thetans as a result of this session?“ Well, that's a staggering question. Now, if he's on an inverted seven, he'll give you an answer. Otherwise he'd just kind of be staggered or it'll just be totally unreal and he'll pass it off. But if he's on an inverted seven and you ask him a question like that, you're liable to hit real fireworks and do more for that case in that little brief period of time in asking for goals than you do with an awful lot of auditing. You brought something into his view and brought something into your view.

Well, what they're impressed by, although they are apparently interested in the replies of the preclear - what they're really impressed by is the professional attitude of the auditor and how he goes about his work and his thoroughness and efficiency in the whole thing. That impresses the living daylights out of them. But it impresses them to such a degree they don't even look at it. No more than your preclear looks at it. He sort of takes it for granted sort of thing. And the better it is the more he takes it for granted. The more natural or real or the way it should be it seems to them, you know?

Now, what if his vector is totally negative on seven? Seventh dynamic goal for this session: to get a few more of the damn things trapped. Well now, what do you do? Well, there isn't very much you can do because this is not a process.

And I ran into this first, by the way, just before the first book was published. I had my first surprise about this sort of thing.

The only thing you can do on it is two-way comm and put it down in your little notebook which is - I carry mine over on this side of my skull; I have a section of white bone in there - I don't have any brains evidently. It leaves me lots of writing space and I can reach in there and put down notes, and it says, „Thetans, Freedom of, Recover in Goals.“ And I just clear this every time I turn around. See? I clear this. I don't clear it as often as I clear a command, but I sure hit it every now and then. That's to make sure he cognites on it somewhere along the line.

I was invited up to an apartment in New York City where there were several bigwigs of one kind or another. You know, people who are prominent, newspaper syndicate features and that sort of thing, and they were there, and in the arts. And it was just a party. And somebody got me talking about Dianetics. And somebody persuaded me to run an engram on somebody. So I picked out a likely subject and threw him down on the couch, you know, and proceeded to run an engram.

I wouldn't go so far as to hold a gun on a preclear until he cognited. But I'd certainly give him enough line to hang himself with a good cognition.

It turned out to be one of the more vicious engrams I could have selected. And although it wasn't terribly dramatic from a standpoint of agony and pain, there was quite a bit of comm lag mixed up in it, you know? The fellow was pretty anaten, pretty fogged out as he was running it. But it wasn't a prenatal or birth or something that you would consider a headline attraction, you know? It was just something stupid like a tonsillectomy or something like that, you know?

The beauty of it is - the beauty of it is when you're covering dynamics and goals - is that the destructive, inverted side of the dynamics, one to eight inverted (that's all destructive), tend to reverse rather easily, and that's why no vast process was ever leveled at this. A fellow doesn't stay there forever if you call it to his attention. He'll feel silly telling you, „Well, maybe we'll be able to get a few more of the damn things trapped.“ See, on the seventh dynamic it's a silly thing. He recognizes that it's silly.

And by golly, all these people sat there in the room watching this and for about two hours and a half, why, a pin drop would have scared them half to death. This was very interesting to me and I had to take a look at this, you know? What I was doing was not very interesting from a standpoint of a performance. And what the preclear was doing - the preclear wasn't being very interesting either - compared to preclears I had audited.

Now, the funny part of it is that a thetan does know and does realize and does recognize that an inverted dynamic is wrong. He does do so. This is quite remarkable. That's not because of his social training or what he read in the newspapers or what the judge in the court says. We'll go into this later on when we're talking about the Rock. His sanity is as good as he can recognize the wrongness in destruction. It isn't necessary to be able to tolerate destruction to be Clear. It's quite odd. But the fellow was right who said something about the optimum solution: the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

If it gets too dramatic you can expect the group, perhaps, to dramatize. That will occasionally occur. It occurred one time at 42 Aberdeen Road. After we left the address, 42 Aberdeen Road, the owner of the property had moved back into it, and some auditor decided that he had better go over and tell them something about Dianetics, smooth them out somehow or other. They were upset because the property had so many people in it. It was just my home, you see? The property had had an awful lot of people in it. They hadn't wrecked it or messed it up.

And the better he gets and the better he feels and the better he operates, the better are his goals on the dynamics. And when his goals shape up to the greater good for the greater number of dynamics, when they shape up in that direction, he himself is freer, more able to function, has greater ability and is incidentally able to wreak more destruction, but doesn't, which is fascinating. When he's in this terrifically destructive mood he cannot wreak the destruction he would like to wreak. Isn't that interesting? This fellow feels like he'd like to blow up the whole world, he is so mad; he'd just like to tear it to pieces. Awfully deflating to tell him to go ahead. Just tell him to go ahead; if he wants to blow up the whole world, go ahead. He'll recognize that he cannot because he is not able to.

So this auditor starts to show them what Dianetics was all about, and threw the husband of the family back into birth and ran it. Got about halfway through and the fellow was going into convulsions and so forth and having a perfectly wonderful time. At which time the wife and about three or four of the friends there begged the auditor to stop and practically threw him out of the house and got down, „Oh, my poor, dear friend!“ you know, and all that sort of a thing to this guy that was halfway through birth.

The maddest thing in the world, the angriest thing, the thing that most wants to chop up everything is probably a little tiny spider that couldn't even bite effectively.

We never heard the end of this, and we don't know what happened to the fellow after that, you know? We haven't a clue. I imagine he had colds and things for a few weeks. They usually settle out in ten days at the most.

The more he specializes in destruction the less able he is to destroy. The more he destroys the less able he is to destroy. Quite interesting. It's too bad that Russia never used atomic bombs in World War II. The US having used one in World War II is probably almost incapable of using another one. Isn't that interesting? If Russia had used one, why, they'd be fairly incapable of it, but they don't know yet. I hope they don't experiment on us first. But the point is, here, that the more an individual obsessively has to destroy, the less he is capable of destruction.

But here was a case of a really dramatic show. Big show. Well, it was too much for that particular audience.

It's quite interesting that destruction itself is such a two-edged sword. I don't know about a two-edged sword, I've found them very handy from time to time in action and so forth. When I say two-edged sword, I remember a sword that shattered its hilt one time because I hit somebody over a helmet, and it shattered its hilt and the blade extended all the way down through the hilt. You get the idea? Nobody had blunted the blade when it went through the hilt. Boy, that sure made mincemeat out of my hand! Well, it's an edged hilt that we're interested in with this thing, destruction, an edged hilt. You could handle it all right if you handled it with some care, but don't hit anybody with the blade because you'll cut your own hand off.

Now, I've put on some rather quiet shows. Like, you know, I'd just sit down and audit somebody on ARC Straightwire. And I swear people sit around by the hour watching me run ARC Straightwire. And you've had the same experience, I'm sure, running some rather mild process on somebody and having other people sit there just as attentive and just as interested in what was going on. Fascinating. Every once in a while one of them answer one of the commands to themselves.

Now, destruction of MEST, destruction of anything, as you go down the line, which is willful and intentional and all the rest of it with malice aforethought, normally winds up in a destruction of the ability that it took to destroy in the first place. So that boxers get worse and worse and less and less, you know? They don't improve.

Well, all I'm trying to point up is what their attention is really on. Their attention is on your perfection in the TRs. And the more perfect you are and the better easy-command-of-the-situation show you put on, why, the better and more intense their interest is. It's quite interesting.

And if you want to look for the curve of improvement, look into the constructive fields of endeavor.

So good auditing occurs when it occurs. You give good TRs with good intention, running along the line, with good interest in the preclear, running sufficiently easily so that there's no apparent strain anywhere in the environment on the thing, and boy, you've got it made as far as the preclear's concerned. And the test of it, of course, is that an audience, a number of other people in the room, will watch you with great fascination; watch what's happening.

Now, never be fooled by this one: An individual is apparently going out the window and down scale by construction. This is not true. And if you look him over carefully - let's say he's a painter and he's painted and painted and painted until he's painted himself raw and burned himself out and he's painted his career into limbo and he isn't getting better, he's getting worse all the time as he paints, and so on; he's been famous and all that sort of thing - you're looking at the wrong curve. Paralleling it in his conduct in life, you'll find out he was engaging in a tremendous amount of destruction, and as he painted away he was also destroying away. He wasn't just constructing and he was giving great emphasis to destruction. Until at last his constructiveness was devoured in his destructiveness, which apparently gives destructiveness great power.

All right. This is your period, not mine. What questions do you have? Yes, Adele?

Destructiveness has only the power of the construction which preceded it. The act of blowing up a large and beautiful city is impressive only to the degree that the city was constructed large and beautiful.

Female voice: What do we do if we've begun running present time problems on chronic conditions? Drop them?

Now, you think this is just a passing remark and a moral lesson on this Friday, but it isn't at all: It is the very heart of clearing. If it weren't for this fact, clearing would be impossible. If destruction had power in its own right, you'd never clear anybody. But the destruction, magnitude of, is totally dependent on the constructiveness which preceded it, and by addressing the constructiveness alone you are able to banish destructiveness. Creation always whips destruction - always.

Present time problem on a chronic condition. Well, you have no business running a present time problem on a chronic condition for this reason: A present time problem process, of course, is what it is: „What part of that problem could you be responsible for?“ And you should bridge it over as rapidly as possible into one that will produce an effect. And then, watch out, because you're generally running right straight on the Rock.

Therefore, in clearing goals there is some hope for you, if you simply clear the constructive angle and try to lead the fellow into a little more constructive look at it.

I haven't taken up Rocks very much. But Rocks have tabs on them that stick out in plain sight. And one of them is a chronic condition.

You don't run a process like, „Well, tell me a part of your wife you don't have to destroy.“ You see, that's a non-communication sort of process. Or, „A part of your auditor you don't have to slice.“ You know? But you can say, „Is there anything else you would like to do to your auditor?“ See? His goal for the session, let us say, is to give his auditor as bad a time as possible. Now, you could actually talk to somebody until they will more or less admit such a thing; you don't have to drive them very hard. Take somebody that - he wasn't there by his own consent, let us say, he's a member of some family that's dragged in to you to be processed and he isn't there by his own consent. And it doesn't take very long to suddenly scare into view such a goal.

Female voice: What if it's already produced an effect in somatics?

What we want to do is establish the optimum goal that we can establish at the time that we establish it. Establish the best goal that we can establish at the time we establish it. That's all we're interested in. And if the goal is a destructive one, establish goals more often. Continue to establish goals as you go. Not quite so often as you clear a command perhaps, but almost.

It's all right. You've got to flatten it. You understand that, „What part of that limb (or something or other) could you be responsible for?“ isn't a - I trust you were not saying, „What part of that problem could you be responsible for?“ You're undoubtedly saying, „What part of that limb could you be responsible for?“

The way you do that is to call breaks. You don't call breaks to clear a command, but you call breaks to establish goals again - just for an excuse to start a new session, see? Have a little break, have a cup of coffee or a Coke or something of the sort and come back and hit it all over again. See? And go through goals, only this time be a little more exhaustive.

Female voice: We're using „that problem.“

Now, the processes which you're running, in general, will change his mind about the goals. But he's liable to get stuck with his own postulated goal at the beginning of session and if it's wrong way to, make sure it gets changed. Get the idea? So we're not so much interested in changing the goal in CCH 0 as we are establishing it thoroughly.

Hm?

One of the things that really upsets an entheta preclear who is going down the line at a great rate - one of the things that really upsets, is to have you go in there, establish an entheta goal, a very bad goal, and then say, „Well, that's fine,“ and go on to something else. He sort of put it out as bait to tempt you, you know? He started to try to tell you that he's a bad man and he's very dangerous and you'd better be very careful because look at the violence of the goal he has. See? And this doesn't faze you - it itself tends to cave in the goal.

Female voice: We're using „that problem.“

Now, so much for goals. You would say, you - beyond this fact - that you would continue to clear goals and work with goals as you audited until the goals were somewhere on the constructive side of the dynamic span.

That problem. Well, it isn't a problem - which is putting a lie into the session the whole distance. You just better slip it right over to „that terminal.“

You don't disagree with - and this is a proviso I must give you before we leave this subject - you don't disagree with a destructive goal verbally. Your disagreement takes the form of clearing one, often. It'll throw him out of agreement with the auditor. You don't have to agree to the destructive goal; all you have to do is establish that it exists. He'll change his mind with great rapidity if you really get this thing going. So you see, it is to some degree a matter of judgment.

But this thing producing effects, producing somatics, and so forth, the general rule is that when a process is producing change you continue to run it. So I think that short of disastrous occurrence of some kind or another, you would have to go on and flatten that and then get off of it as rapidly as possible. And then come back to it with its proper process which is Help.

All right. Now let's move over into the burningly important part of CCH 0, which is PT problem.

Female voice: Thank you.

Now, goals, oddly enough, cannot uphold - hold up your sessions. If you forgot about goals they would come out in the wash. They really would, I mean they'd work out one way or the other. You just slow down the length of time it took to get a result on somebody See, you just slow it down; you'd find yourself investing a lot more hours. See? They work out somehow.

Answer the question?

Only occasionally when you had somebody who came in to commit suicide during auditing would you really come up against it. See? So goals become very important in such a case. Somebody comes in to knock off the body and he wants your help, and you don't establish any goals and then the main thing that happens there to the auditor is that he becomes upset. The auditor feels pretty bad when somebody goes glimmering on him because he never got an agreement on the subject of what he was doing. He just was assuming the preclear wanted to survive; therefore, if the preclear died it was the auditor's fault, don't you see? And it makes the auditor feel bad.

Female voice: Thank you.

If he establishes goals, one, he prevents this occurrence very markedly of somebody knocking himself off and two, he certainly is not in the dark concerning the intentions of the preclear via auditing.

All right. Yes?

Well, goals being what they are, the PT problem is much more important, because a PT problem in CCH 0 can hold up the whole parade of auditing and nullify your every effort. Goals cannot. But you get no advance or change of profile if you leave a present time problem lying there untouched or if you leave it incomplete or if you get a preclear who was audited by somebody else who didn't complete a present time problem. You got this? Boy, this is one of the burning facts of auditing today. It isn't something you do to make him feel better; it isn't something you do to get him into session. It's something you do to get some change on the case, and that's what you're auditing him for, so PT problem becomes extremely important.

Male voice: Ron, what's happened to the old, „Build a future,“ as far as goals are concerned? Does that take too long or something?

Now, the funny part of it is the individual doesn't always tell you he has a present time problem. Isn't that right? He doesn't always tell you. In fact, I've never had one tell me yet unless I ask him. He's sitting there glumly and so I ask him. And he says, „No, I don't have anything worrying me, nothing troubling me, no.“

I said there's a Goals Process. Of course, that is it.

But the point is, he's not contributing anything to the session so he must not be there, and if he can't contribute anything to the session he isn't going to go anyplace. All the contribution he's doing to the world is contributing his worry to some set of terminals which are in conflict and confusion somewhere else.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

And the first thing we have to know about a PT problem is often overlooked by the auditor. And don't let me ever catch you overlooking this one about a PT problem. It's part of its definition: A PT problem is a present time problem only if it exists physically and concurrently in the real universe where the auditing session is taking place. A PT problem, a present time problem, is real and actual and a PT problem and should be handled only if it is taking place, exists, is happening, has other terminals and is located in the physical universe at the time of the auditing session.

On actual test - on actual test against profiles, the process run does not produce as much gain as the other processes you will run, and actually doesn't change the person's goals as fast as other processes. So it is merely - it's a good process, it just happens to be weaker than what you can do.

This fellow says, „Well, I have sciatica.“ Looks like that's a PT problem, huh? The devil it's a PT problem; it has nothing to do with it! It's in the auditing room for sure and it's undoubtedly on the backtrack. Right? It's way back when. So he hurts in the session. Well, sometimes something like this can distract a preclear sufficiently so he can't be audited. Funny part of it is you would probably dive right in and start taking it up at once without getting the preclear into session if you considered it a PT problem. Well, it isn't. Because the fellow who hit him in the sciat has been dead for a thousand years. So it certainly isn't happening in the physical universe now. Therefore, you can actually audit somebody with a somatic. You can actually do so. Ignore it utterly and have it come out in the wash.

Speaking of old processes, you'll be interested to know that - first day, I think, of this last congress, why, the head of the Kansas City group fell off a roof and broke his back. And they - family hastily sent Nile and Mary a wire to please come back and do something. And Nile came up and saw me and I asked him whether or not they had anybody there that could do anything. And yes, there was somebody there that could do anything. So I just told him to have this person run some Havingness on the fellow if he could, you know. And then to go back after the congress. Well Mary went back after the congress. She just got back to town and she's got this fellow with feeling in his legs and got him on the road, got his temperature down, got him squared around. He's living. He's also taking his work - his office work - is being brought in to him so he can do it in the hospital. And then he's bound and determined now that he will get on a plane as soon as he can and come in to the HGC and get some intensives and get this broken back straightened out.

Actually, in view of the fact that he is mocking it up at that moment, himself, and that your auditing more or less addresses what he is mocking up causes you to address the somatic in any event. But it can be neglected.

All right. Now, she ran out of and pretty well flattened a couple of processes that I gave Nile, which were fairly standard processes, you know? Some Havingness and I think it was „Invent - invent a person with a broken back and what problem he could pose.“ I think that was it. And she ran these pretty flat; she didn't know where to go then. She picked up the old one: „What could you change?“ and „What could you leave unchanged?“ Well, that's way off the track and way from behind, but it's still a good, powerful process. And this one, for heaven's sakes, shook out his evident goals. See? And his goals were - he was so busy; he wanted to come back to the HGC. I'd offered him some auditing and he wanted to come back to the HGC, but he couldn't because of his family commitments and his business and all of that sort of thing, so he fell off a roof and broke his back. Isn't this - isn't this wild? That's what Mary reported on the thing, at least. But anyway, he's in much better shape.

This one can't be neglected: His mother-in-law arrived that morning and the first he heard of it was her three trunks being put on the front porch. And he noticed this as he came down the steps to report to you in an auditing session. It wasn't a grip he saw; it was three trunks. Well now, those trunks exist in the physical universe. He's in the middle of an uncomplete, incomplete, uncompleted cycle of action. One of the things he's doing is waiting for the end of it. So he's waiting somewhere else than in the auditing room.

But here's your goals. Now, there's goals shaking out of an old-time standby - still good.

You could say so many odds and ends about PT problems that it's hardly worth summing them all up because they all add up to a total interruption of everything as far as the preclear is concerned.

Male voice: One further point on that, Ron. When you get the preclear to establish a goal, I usually find it's a good policy to establish whether it's real to the preclear that he or she can work towards this in the session.

Now, what is it that makes it a problem? Well, it's plus or minus randomity. It is a different pace than he considers life should be lived at. Something has happened faster or slower. More has happened or less has happened.

That's all part of the chitter-chat.

Now, you see PT problem could be: he expected his paycheck and his paycheck for his accumulated back pay and everything was supposed to be one thousand dollars and he got a little slip from the treasurer and a check for twenty-five cents - less has happened.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

He has an envelope delivered to him which he thinks is his back pay. He opens it up and finds twenty-five thousand dollar bills in it and simultaneously discovers that the treasurer's office has been robbed.

That's right. That's adding the certainty.

Now, in either event, when he reports to you, he's in no shape to be audited because something is going on in the physical universe which has his attention. And it's plus or minus randomity, so his attention is fixed and his attention is on wait.“ This burning question, „What is going to happen out there?“ entirely prevents him from finding out what's going to happen in the auditing session - plus or minus randomity.

Male voice: Good.

But don't, please, ever consider a present time problem a present time problem when it isn't taking place in the physical universe now, when it doesn't have terminals which are alive now.

You'll find - you'll find that goals become pointless if you don't check them at session end.

Do you know why you have to do that, why you have to put that very slashing „This is it!“ line of demarcation on a present time problem? Because an auditor will do this - a good auditor would never do that and so none of you will ever do this - but you start running a PT problem and find yourself on a chain of problems and you start going down the chain. Well, why don't you just take out your pocketknife and cut your preclear's throat and cut your throat too because that's the end of that.

Male voice: Uh-huh.

When he starts going off into a chain and into the past you're no longer in a PT problem and you are probably not running the optimum process to handle that chain.

So you're stuck with remembering what the preclear's goal was for that session, and whether he made it or not, checking whether or not he at least accomplished something toward it. And this puts time on the auditing time track.

You start running as a PT problem the fact that his head aches. You certainly are going to go way on down back - the backtrack. Yes, his head aches now, here - his head aches now, here - and it aches so much he is having a hard time concentrating on the session. Well, all you've got to do is groove a session with processes sufficiently light to be audited in spite of his headache and his headache will disappear. If you run old TR 10 or something silly - hardly anything, you know - or TR 5: You make that body sit in that chair.

Male voice: Uh-huh. Yes.

He isn't in good shape so you run a light process. See? That's always a little maxim an auditor goes by anyhow: The worse shape a preclear is in, the lighter the process you run on him. That's because of the Effect Scale. If you know the Effect Scale that, of course, takes place. And it's amazing to be able to make a very sick person feel much better by just offering to audit him or something. You know, that's an awfully light process. He actually has been reached, he's been reached too thoroughly by the society and by things and if you try to reach him with great force again, then he doesn't respond, because auditing is the trick of making the preclear reach. You could define it like that.

There are many ways that you can run goals, is what I was trying to say with all this dissertation about this chap. There are many ways that you could run goals. There are many ways that you could arrive at goals. And in the final analysis if a person doesn't have some goals and if you don't treat it one way or the other, he probably will just miss some large percentage of his auditing benefit. It's a catalyst rather than a process.

And when you use processes which prevent his reachingness totally, why, then he of course nulls on down and gets worse. So you want to use a very light process if your preclear has some somatics. But that's not a PT problem, see? Now, some people, mentally, you know, kind of back in the back of the skull or something - mentally - is something you do unconsciously according to psychology. A subject all of you - I want to recommend to you a subject - the subject of psychology - I want to recommend it to you thoroughly. Don't ever let Scientology get into that state. I recommend it to you as a horrible example of complete hotchpotch. Mental reservations, mental this, mental that, and they don't even know what's in the mind.

Male voice: Yeah. I see.

When you get a person with a PT problem you mustn't ever sort of unconsciously divide it up in such a way that - well, he's here in present time and he doesn't feel well and therefore he has a PT problem. You get the idea? Don't have a feeling that a PT problem is sort of a significant state. You know? It's not. See? A PT problem is a couple of terminals, two or more terminals, having at it or not having at it.

Yes?

See, Papa and Mama no longer talking to each other is almost as much a PT problem as Papa and Mama cutting each other's throats. So don't ever fail into this lazy one, you know, of thinking, „Well, this person has a present time problem because he's uncomfortable.“ That's not the definition of one.

Female voice: Ron, I was one of the fortunate people who stayed back and had another two days to look at the TRs.

The present time problem must exist as terminals in the present moment of time - live meat and blood and MESTy terminals that everybody can see. Don't ever get lazy about that definition because you'll go astray, astray, astray and this is the only way you can really hold up a profile.

Oh, yeah? Good.

I mean, the only way you could absolutely fix a profile so that it will not change: just - just hold it on the same line. The profile goes like this; at the end of the week it goes like that; the next week it goes like that; the next week it goes like that; the next week it goes like that; the same profile, same profile, same profile, same profile. The only thing that'll do that, week after week, is a PT problem untouched by the auditor. And that'll do it.

Female voice: And I found something very interesting: That a coach if he promoted terrific ARC with you could flunk you hardest, fastest and best. But if there wasn't any or very much ARC, you could beat him pretty near every time. I found that very interesting.

Now, if you get Auditor Code breaks and ARC breaks with the preclear every time you turn around or he thinks you do, you could get a suppression of the profile. It's above the line a few points and at the end of a week's intensive it's below the line a few points. Well, that's ARC breaks. ARC breaks cannot paralyze and hold frozen a profile in its same pattern week after week.

That's a very interesting observation.

Well, that's because the preclear is on wait, so his state of case, his state of beingness, his criticalness, his aggressiveness, all of these things are a fixed pattern of wait. And you've got to get him off of that wait in order to change that profile at all.

What other questions are there?

This is the only thing we know of that will do this because every time we've found a pc's profile unchanged - every time - we've then (when we could get hold of the preclear and we've gotten hold of the preclear) just shake the cake until it was a bunch of crumbs and sure enough a PT problem would fall out that he was knowingly withholding from the auditor.

Yes, Rick?

A serious PT problem can apparently be the whole case. You know? My husband's leaving me; my husband's leaving me; my husband's leaving me; my husband's leaving me; my husband's leaving me; won't live with me anymore; is over there somewhere. Husband's leaving me. You know? We have a case right now that is: Wife leaving me; wife's leaving me; wife's left me; wife's leaving me; wife's left me. Week after week after week after week after week this fellow has been so involved in this PT problem he makes no progress in auditing, because he's also saying, „Maybe she'll come back; maybe she'll come back.“ You know? He's on wait. He's on a big maybe. It's a big unknown. Here he is parked somewhere on the MEST universe time track by these occurrences.

Male voice: Could you consider affinity as willingness to confront?

Well, what can you do?

That could be part of infinity - affinity. „Willingness to be“ is a better definition.

Well, in this particular case the present time problem, as it will occasionally be, is also evidently the Rock. So the Rock is in total restim by reason of the PT problem and to take one off the other, is demanding auditing skill the like of which nobody ever had to exert before.

Male voice: Thank you.

But by using the terminals involved in the PT problem with Step 6 - you know, running the PT problem with Step 6 - Terminal A is part of the PT problem. All right. In front of that body mock up Terminal A and keep her from going away. Behind that body mock up Terminal A and keep her from going away. You get the idea? By beefing up the process used on the PT problem it is apparently, at this stage, being handled.

You bet. Yes?

Therefore, a PT problem is also not defined by the process that's run on it. Don't say, „It must be a PT problem because we ran Responsibility on it.“ I know this sounds queer, I know this sounds weird for me to say that, but you actually kind of could, you know.

Male voice: Would you define problem?

You could say, „Well, it's a PT problem so we run the standard process for PT problems on it.“ And then we lose because a PT problem is not defined by the process run on it. You could run anything on a PT problem. Any dynamite that you want to throw into the case, any process you ever heard of that you think will bite on a PT problem can be run on a PT problem.

Problem. Postulate-counter-postulate. Terminal-counter- terminal. An unresolved and opposed set of considerations would define a problem. A problem is relatively uncomputable when first viewed and it is not computable as long as it remains in perfect balance. Some other factors or considerations must be added or subtracted from a problem that is a real killer as a problem before the thing resolves.

In this particular case, I think the PT problem has greater width than the auditor has ever established and I have not had a consultation, oddly enough, about this particular case. I've just had it lightly discussed but the profiles of this case have for some reason never been brought up to me by the Director of Processing and we have never gone over this case as a case - with a big thud. And I remember making a note on the case one time but that's about all.

And the way you unbalance a problem is quite interesting. It is a problem as long as postulate-counter-postulate apparently has equal and opposite postulate force, you see? So that - well, I'll give you one; I'll give you one right straight off my case. I seldom use my case. Scarce. Valuable.

But I would suspect if it wasn't surrendering, if this PT problem wasn't surrendering, that the trouble with the PT problem was that it hadn't been isolated, that we had another problem in front of the problem. And he's talking about the loss of his wife, the loss of his wife, the loss of his wife as the PT problem and it's so apparent and... God bless auditors, they're so reasonable. It sounds so much the thing, they're so much in agreement with the possibility that this could be a PT problem that I don't think anybody's ever gone behind this and looked around to find out what it was.

It's been my consideration for a long time that individuals most failed in the research in the field of the mind when they predicated everything they were doing on their cases only and never found out whether or not there was anything else in the universe. And so I try not to do it. But this one - this one is amusing to me because I never saw such a complete this-met-that and neither one of them had any difference of weight and they were both totally opposed.

Now, frankly, you might be able to find out all sorts of things about this instead of just accepting this pat situation. It's so pat it's almost out of a paperback novel, you know? So, of course, it must be the present time problem; it's so ordinary and usual.

And this was the problem: If you trained somebody to use a sword, he would undoubtedly use a sword and get himself knocked off. If you trained somebody to be a scholar and a man of peace, he would undoubtedly run into somebody with a sword and get knocked off.

Well, when one doesn't surrender in an hour or two you'd better get suspicious that you have not surrounded it and looked it over. Now, how do we know it's loss of his wife, loss of his wife, loss of his wife; how do we know that's the present time problem at all? Because having received this I seriously doubt if we have looked searchingly and exhaustively for a second PT problem. Maybe he's also experiencing the loss of a boyfriend. He'd be much less likely to remark on that to his auditor, wouldn't he? Maybe - maybe there's a darn good reason why his wife's leaving him. Maybe he has a social disease. Maybe this is his PT problem. Maybe he feels he's going to go nuts in the next couple of years with some incurable social disease or something. You get the idea? You could only get messed up about a present time problem if you buy the idea that it's always the kind of a problem that you would consider a problem. The test of a present time problem and its ability to hold up a case is not whether or not the auditor would consider it a problem. That's not the test. The test is something quite different, is: does it hold up the case and does it exist in physical terminals in the real universe right now? And does the pc think it's a problem after you've worked it over awhile? Let me tell you something about the behavior of one of these darn things. You say so-and-so to the pc, „Do you have anything worrying you now? Anything causing you any concern out in the world or in your business or in your home, something like that?“ And he says, „No. No.“ Needle doesn't drop on the E-Meter.

And we used to have a saying in France: The value of a cassock and a cross against wolves was that they marked where the body had been devoured. Wolves will not eat brass or linen.

You got a better E-Meter: How does his willingness to contribute to the session compare to former willingness to contribute to the session or proper willingness to contribute to the session, hm? How does that compare? If it's less, look for that PT problem until you wear the E-Meter out, because it's there. Only two things could be wrong. He could be feeling ill, see, which would suppress his contribution to the session. So the devil with that, just go on and audit him. You see? Audit him on something light, don't keep up with that plow technique, maybe, that you were using, but soften it up a little bit.

Now, there was a hell of a problem, if you look this thing over. You made this fellow a man of peace and, of course, he never would become involved with the upsets and so on of combat and swordsmanship and valiance and chivalry and all of this sort of thing; he'd never have anything to do with that. So, therefore, apparently he would be safe, but he wouldn't be safe. But if you trained him to a sword, of course you were training him to an inevitable death. And these two things were totally counter-opposed. Whether sensibly or not, that was another thing, see? But they were totally counter-opposed.

The way to soften up a very, very tough process might be of interest to you. You throw more two-way comm in between the commands. You slow down the number of commands per unit time. You can actually soften up a process without changing a process. It's quite interesting. And you could take a process that was tearing his head off, and then he shows up for the next session and he feels a little ill, not necessarily because of the processing at all, and you say, „Boy this - he isn't in good enough shape to run this process. It'd be a mistake to change the process maybe.“ You see? It probably would be a mistake to change the process but to get it run you might have to soften it up. The way you would soften it up would be to throw more two-way comm in it and throw more ARC into the session. Show more interest in it. Clear his goals much better, you know, and do various things.

I looked at these things and it just didn't, you know, didn't compute. The question, then, every time I'd evidently trained a boy or a son or a person, you know, this question would come up. And it was always a disappointing answer because you knew the end product of the answer. Either way you answered it, why, he was dead. And so it was in those wild times, you see? And it had evidently been going along - I'd evidently had that thing just generation after generation after generation, see, just riding along. The ethical, moral responsibility of training. That's all it - all it's conceived itself to surround.

Now, PT problem doesn't necessarily stand up on its hind legs and smack you in the nose. It does that more slowly; it waits a whole week until you give them their second APA to smack you in the nose if you don't find it. And you've been in there with great enthusiasm and you've been auditing him and you've been nnzzz and it's going this way and that, and you get to the end of the week and you give him a profile and he takes all the examinations and you add it up and buuu, what the hell is this! Well, if it went down - if it went down, there was an ARC break in there someplace. Maybe not even in that session, you know, maybe in some earlier session and the ARC break remanifested itself.

Naturally the answer to it is terribly simple, which fell out of the hamper on the next three or four auditing questions. Just bang. The answer to it's rather obvious. But because some of you may have the problem I won't bother to answer it.

But if it didn't change at all, then a PT problem was sitting right - two, three feet back of his head laughing at you very snidely. That's what happened. That's all that happened so don't go kicking yourself around. We've got this thing in a box. This is crated and marked, „Important. Express.“ Now, somebody suggested to me the other day that if you ran Connectedness for a little while a PT problem that was buried would show up. I haven't done this yet but it sounds like a very good suggestion. It opens up the possibility of running a little bit of a process of one kind or another and then asking him again for the PT problem, you know, without - regardless of whether it was Connectedness. You see? Process him a little bit and then talk about the present time problem and then process him a little bit and talk about the present time problem - rather than just beat it to death - because processing will change his mind slightly or at least shake his communication system up a little bit, see, and maybe change his mind on the situation.

A problem is composed of factors which are apparently - underscore apparently - unreconcilable. Apparently, you see? You have two truths of comparable magnitude which contradict each other. And there is the general run of problems.

Now, you can eventually get any real present time problem to show up on the E-Meter providing he'll show a lie reaction on the E-Meter. If he won't show a lie reaction on the E-Meter, if the needle's so stuck that that won't happen, then for sure you won't see a present time problem on the E-Meter. Got that? So a good test is when you first ask him whether or not - you see, you can do this real covertly - when you ask him at first, right there at first, if he has a PT problem - you've just done some goals and this sort of thing - and he has a PT problem.

Yes?

By the way, his PT problem could be so pressing and so much in there that he couldn't establish goals, at which time you'd have to take up goals after the present time problem, again. Don't you see? It'd be taking up goals again, not take them up after, if he has a pressing present time problem. If he has a pressing present time problem and it was very pressing and had him very upset, you'd better take up goals again, don't you see? Slide him in back of this.

Male voice: One more point. How would you apply this with a preclear? Would you get him to get some understanding of this?

But if this fellow doesn't show up - you see, you haven't had too much chance to study his behavior on an E-Meter - and if he doesn't show up with a drop on a PT problem the first time you ask for it or the second time you ask for it, crank that sensitivity button way up and pull the tone arm down to re-center the needle swing so as to get a fantastically sensitive reading. And now ask him again if he has a PT problem.

Well, that comes under the definition of the problem. We're going to take that up some more - next lecture. Defining the problem. Every few commands you should get him to define the problem, and the next thing you know the problem falls apart. But if you don't get him to define the problem and you just keep using the word problem, why, he's liable to drift off onto other problems, or all kinds of vagaries occur.

If he bangs on that be sure and ask him again to see if you get the same bang, because it isn't true that a PT problem at first doesn't show up on the E-Meter - that is not an accurate statement - it doesn't show up much at first. See, that's very accurate. It doesn't show up very much.

Male voice: So, you'd...

So that if you had it set over here at 2.0 on the sensitivity button, you see, and you say, „Well, has anything been worrying you lately?“ and so forth, and he says, „No,“ and it stays there very steady; and yet just that morning - just that morning - somebody had come upstairs and had spilled his ashtray off into his shirts in the drawer and they all burned up. And it's left him literally without a shirt on his back and he's got to go downtown and buy some more shirts but he doesn't have any money to do so - or some weird thing like this, you know.

Yes. So you'd get the problem redefined several times.

He says, „Well, this kind of happens and there's no reason for me to go on blaming people because it happened and therefore, it's sort of my own fault, letting them into my room anyway,“ and therefore, this hardly could interrupt an auditing session.

Yes?

Now that - absorb this datum, will you - the preclear's no judge of the importance of a PT problem; he's no judge at all.

Female voice: Ron, this thing you mentioned now - if you're running a present time problem and this gets started on a chain into the past and you hit the Rock or very near the Rock and...

And when you first ask him (with that sensitivity set on 2.0 there) about present time problem, it apparently doesn't flicker. And the funny part of it is if the sensitivity is cranked up high enough, it will flicker.

Which you will.

Now, of course, the way you've been doing this is to set at 2.0 and you ask him the first time and you ask him the second time and you ask him the third time and you ask him the fourth time and finally, all of a sudden you get a little blip on the meter. Well, that's sort of slow freight through Arkansas. Very slow. And if you ask him once and don't get a drop it's always a good thing to crank up the sensitivity knob and ask him twice. If it's there, it's there and you'll sure see it there, even though he's in apathy about it.

Female voice:... which we have, yes.

Now, what is your guarantee that you will not leave a present time problem unrun? You haven't got one. You have no guarantee at all beyond your own observation. Is it there or isn't it there? Maybe the problem is so antisocial he dare not mention it.

Which you will.

We used to suspect that people who made no gain ever in auditing, even though audited a year or two or something - and there were some people around who did this - never made a gain, had something they dared not tell, in particular, a Scientologist. And since that time a check on several of these cases has demonstrated this to be very much the case. It was something they couldn't tell a Scientologist, but that must have meant it was going on in the real universe right at that time. Some influence of it, some crosscurrent of it must be taking place at that time.

Female voice: Yeah. All right.

In one of these particular cases, we were of the belief that he'd received some money to do the organization in. This was the first time it ever got really clued into view. And this we thought was the case. So we asked him. He broke down, flew all to pieces and after that was auditable. Isn't this a grim one? Because he actually had been around for a couple of years getting audited without ever showing a gain on an E-Meter.

No, if you overrun it, you will.

Now, this doesn't mean that everybody who shows no gain is privately doing something covertly to Scientology. But it does mean that such a thing amounts to a present time problem which can never be exposed. So those present time problems which can never be exposed are the most insidious things on a case, but they're present time problems and they do exist in the physical universe at the auditing time.

Female voice: Yes. But then what are you going to do if „What part of that problem could you be responsible for?“ cannot possibly handle the huge, big condition, situation halfway...

If they by some fluke became yesterday's present time problem - there was some end of cycle no matter how indefinite - then they would simply become part of the case and any technique would touch them. But that they're still contained in the physical universe keeps techniques from reaching them. Do you follow this? So that PT problem is easily the most important part of CCH 0 unless CCH 0 is so scanted as to constitute an ARC break with the preclear, at which time the ARC break with the preclear because it depresses an APA must be more important than the present time problem. Do you see this? Now, if you get a clear understanding of this, the results which you get in sessions will materially improve and become much more uniform. You're doing very well now, but here and then I know you, as well as I have, have muffed a case. You know it didn't thuh, and so on.

All right. I've got that taped fortunately.

We know now why: present time problem or a series of ARC breaks with the auditor. These two things are the only things which can stand in the road of a process working. And these two things are really both contained, to a very marked degree, in CCH 0.

Female voice: Yes. But are we going to sit and do ARC drills?

So we could say that CCH 0 is the only single series of actions which could prevent a case from gaining, the only barrier on the track to improvement, the only barriers, since there are two of them: ARC breaks between auditor and preclear - he didn't start the session, he didn't do this, he didn't do that, he wasn't interested in the preclear, you know, all that sort of thing that all come up, then are established in CCH 0 - or a PT problem. These things were not handled and therefore the case made no progress.

Now, wait a minute. I'm going to - I'm going to show you - I'm going to show you where this thing is taped and you will see that it is taped.

The answer to getting cases into session is CCH 0 and keeping them gaining are also contained in CCH 0. So I think you'll find this a fairly important step even though it's the step you have to get rid of in order to get auditing done.

Female voice: Yeah.

Remember, if it's just the step you have to get rid of in order to get auditing done, remember to get rid of it with great thoroughness.

Getting him to define the problem handles it. This will occur every time a little auditing error is made. Things don't become a problem to people unless they have been a problem to people, you might say, at this late stage of a case. So you always can count on the fact that if you overrun a problem or do this little thing wrong, you will always go back into the past with the problem.

Thank you.

And that is, you make him define his terminals of this problem. Then you make him define the problem often and the terminals some more. You got this? Now, this continues his attention on the physical universe aspect of this. And you thank him very much and acknowledge the living daylights out of him every time this reminds him of anything. And you don't let him get reminded. You might say you forcefully keep him boosted into PT.

And there are several mechanisms. First of these mechanisms is to get the terminals defined, of the problem. What are the terminals involved?

Now take the ethical, moral training problem I just gave you, see, as an actual one that I did find myself on my own case. All right. Now, don't think for a moment that this wouldn't underlie any PT problem that had to do with training. You get the idea? To some slight degree any modern training problem would be a lock on this thing. So all an auditor would have to do, would be to let me wander in a session that way, slightly into the past and get reminded of something, without acknowledging it within an inch of my life, and I would have been right straight back into the time this problem occurred, which was 1125.

Now the next thing is to get him to define the problem often as you run it. „Now, exactly what is the problem?“ This is the cliché that an auditor uses. See? „Exactly what is the problem now?“ And he will define it for you once more. Now if he defines it by running into the past, no - „So what are the terminals involved with this present time problem - this present time problem?“ See? „What are the terminals involved with it?“

And he says, „Well, it's my wife and the chauffeur. And that reminds me...“

You say, „Well now, your wife, you say, your wife. Now, what's she look like?“

„Oh, so-and-so and so-and-so,“ see?

„And the chauffeur, how long has he been working for you? Oh, that's fine. And he's working for you right now or has he left?“ See? Zuuup, see, right up here. And don't let him slip. Don't let him slip. Because every PT problem, if it is a severe PT problem to a person, is based on a chain to which there's a basic. And the command which you're using is purposely a little bit light so that it won't tend to go into the past too far.

Female voice: Well, now, that's fine, but can I just ask something else?

Mm-hm.

Female voice: All right. Well now, number one, how about if this has already occurred and you have the junk around the Rock or something near in restim and you're trying to run this one; and if so, are we going to just try and push this to one side so that we can run a bit of ARC Straightwire drills?

You can always bring a person on up to PT. You can always bring a person up to present time. Communication as a process will bring the person to present time. „What part of that problem could you be responsible for?“ if it has drifted into the past, is no more than communicating. It's as-ising some of it, but it is still merely communicating, isn't it?

Female voice: Yeah, if the preclear can answer it. You see, if it is a problem, but if it's a huge messy condition and they are utterly confused.

Well, there's still a part of it he can be responsible for. He may comm lag like mad, but there's still a part of it he can be responsible for. He can still be responsible for having gotten into it in the first place or having sat down in that auditing chair as they'll sometimes tell you bitterly.

Now listen: It's a communication process and therefore cycles just like ARC Straightwire. And if you permitted it to go into the past, it'll cycle back up to the present, and the thing for you to do is grab the brass ring as the present goes by. That's right, see? The present will reoccur again if you watch it, and if you don't two-way comm on the significances of the past with him too much. If you just lay off that luxury and just ask him, you'll find that a problem will cycle just like communication. Got it?

Female voice: Yeah.

It will. You don't believe me. Female voice: Urn - well, I'm the preclear on the subject.

You're the preclear. Well, now, that's responsible for some of this. Now, as you cycle back into this, so you will cycle back out of it again on this particular process, if it is continued to run.

You can leave a person parked all over the time track at end of session, perhaps, if they are going to be run some more. But it would be a serious thing to park a preclear in the past with a communication type process and not bring him up to the present if you weren't going to run it anymore. So, „Auditing must cease at ten o'clock“ gets awfully modified by this rule: When do we get him into PT? We've been bringing preclears into PT here now for eight years or more. They should have been in present time. Well, a communication process does bring them back into present time and so does a responsibility process. But they can get awfully messy if they slide off a PT problem and dive for the past and hit something like the Rock. This can get awfully messy and it can get very uncomfortable. So if you're the pc in that particular case, I can understand your concern.

A better one is for the auditor to carefully pick up all these terminals as he goes. He picks up all these terminals. What kind of terminals is this pc talking about all this time? And you can take advantage out of any auditing situation, no matter how bad. Who's your auditor, by the way?

Female voice: Mauerer. But, Ron, why don't you go straight for the Rock now? Why do we have to do this ARC? If you hit it, why do you have to push it on one side? Do you see?

Because the Rock is not always the basic on which the present time problem is sitting. The present time problem may be sitting only on some side consideration or lock. You can take somebody who has a Rock which is definitely concerned with jewelry and get his car stolen. This will only vaguely associate.

No, there isn't any reason to jump the gun as you'll find in experience that by trying to bypass a PT problem and trying to go for broke right then that you will very often miss. Thoroughly. Because it doesn't take long to clean up a PT problem. It doesn't take very long to clean it up. It either cleans up or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, why, you've got no choice but to clean it up.

Yes.

I know, „this has got to be done all at once“ is very, very much the point. But it can't be done all at once. The present time attention of the pc in the auditing room is one of the reasons why past locks come to the surface. The pc's attention is so small on the auditing session that when he hits the Rock with a present time problem in this situation - in restimulation, he can't handle it and he tends to go to pieces. His attention's all split up.

You audit somebody who is tired and his attention is rather poor and you hit something beefy in the case and he just goes wog! And you hit it when he isn't tired and it's, „So what?“ Get the idea?

Female voice: Yes.

All right. That answer it a little bit?

Female voice: Yes.

All right.

Yes?

Male voice: You're running the process, „What part of that problem could you be responsible for?“

Right.

Male voice: Good. Now, their idea of being responsible for a problem is solving it. I've struck people like this.

All right.

Male voice: Would the process work then or would you have to do more about clearing the command?

Well, it would be in the realm of clearing the command now.

Male voice: Yeah.

Their definition of a problem is an awfully poor definition. There's two - there's two definitions to a problem which are the rougher - the rougher things to handle. I'll give you an actual case on this if you want one. There are two definitions for problem which are the roughest definitions that a pc can have.

One, you have just enumerated. That's not the rougher one, but that's one of them. And that is: A problem is something he has to solve, see?

And the other one is: A problem is something that cannot possibly be solved. Now, if he's got either of these definitions when you're clearing the command, it is allowable to make a dodge on this „What part of that problem could you be responsible for?“

Well, actually there are about ten or twelve things you can clear a problem with, you know? Problems of Comparable Magnitude, Problems of Incomparable Magnitude - they are a couple of the older ones. Asking him to communicate with the terminals he's - you know - recall a time when he communicated with the terminals which are involved with this particular problem actually will bust a problem up in a rather gentle sort of way.

But there's a killer on these two definitions. There's one that goes like this: „Invent a woman. What's her definition for a problem? Thank you.“ This preclear is a woman, let us say, see. „Invent a woman. What's her definition for a problem? Invent a woman. What's her definition for a problem?“ And you'll change the definition for a problem.

Now, I should say something about this. A problem is something that can't run if it has either of these definitions. It's worth knowing. I had a case that hung fire for a year; wasn't my case, particularly - well, I guess, yes, it was. Also somebody else's case, but also my case. And this person had this definition for a problem a year ago. And so about three, four weeks ago I picked up the case again and found out the case hadn't gone anywhere in auditing. Well, if flattening a present time problem can be so violent as to keep a case from moving on an APA, then certainly the definition of problem is something that could hold the whole case up too. Right? Hm? So you get this idea of what is the person's definition for a problem as either something that has to be solved right now - and they can't change this definition - or it's: a problem is something that could never be solved, by definition; then, of course, on the first one you're just going to have him collapsing the problem on himself all the time.

Well, if these definitions don't easily shift, then they're somebody else's definition whose valence he's grabbed hold of. So you've got a terrific misownership on the definition, but a pc who is not capable of shifting ownership by responsibility. You get that?

Audience: Yeah.

All right. So the best way to handle it is to misassign or reassign the ownership of the definition by saying, „Another person: What's their definition?“ See? All right. „Invent another person,“ and „What's their definition for a problem?“ You see, you get this thing over there and they all of a sudden take ownership or properly assign the ownership of this definition and it just goes poof. And you never saw anything change as fast as the definition for „problem“ when run in this particular wise.

Male voice: Is this one case where you do not accept their first clearing of the command to be done, is it?

Well, remember, PT problem is preparation for auditing, not auditing. You wouldn't say this is one case in auditing where you do that. You'd say this is one point in auditing where you've got to have orientation before auditing can occur.

All right. Their whole case is a composite of problems. It would not be a case unless it were a composite of problems. If the person cannot handle problems or if a person has to solve the problems, all of them, or if the person has to totally neglect all of the problems, their case, of course, will not change. So it comes under the heading - it hardly comes under the heading of clearing a command - it comes under the heading of straightening up problems.

Now, there's a nasty trick that you can use on preclears, just comparable to this. I'm glad you've brought this up. I know it makes you feel uneasy to find that there are exceptions to hidebound rules. But you must realize that a problem is a case is a problem; a case is a problem, is problems; and if there's something difficult with this definition of problems completely aside from anything else, Help will shift around to some degree. But you can also run into a case where Help is a way of insulting somebody. And then you audit him on Help for fifteen or twenty commands and you say, „What is help?“ and clear the command again and the person says, „It's a way of insulting somebody.“ (This, by the way, is a subject of a later lecture. I'll give it to you now because you are running into it on problems.)

You do this same trick. They're misowning a definition for help so wildly that they'd have to get rid of the valence in order to change the definition. Only you can't get up to a process of changing the valence until you change the definition. So there's a way to short-circuit it.

You say, „Invent a man,“ (we don't care what he invents - invent a broomstick. Just invent anything - we didn't ask him to mock anything up, we just asked him to invent something, you know, only he usually mocks it up; we don't care) and „What is its definition of help? Oh, thank you. Good.“ And „Invent a broomstick and what is its definition of help? Oh, thank you.“

And the next thing you know you've come close enough to a proper assignment of ownership of the thing that without having gotten rid of the valence, the definition shifts. And you'll see that doggone definition for the word shift, shift, shift, shift and all of a sudden come up to something that's resolvable at which time you can come off of the process and whip right around and go right back to clearing a PT problem or go right back to running Help or something like that.

The only thing that hangs up a case right now are the significance of these three commands: Creation for Step 6, help for the Help Processes and problem for CCH 0. And we've gotten cases down - this is a terrific thing, you see - we've gotten cases down to a point where their resolvability depends upon their ability to define these three things. If they can define those three things somewhere and if you can change their definitions of these things when they're wrong and offbeat, why, you can solve the case. And this is about the only thing that keeps a case parked in the existing state is an unchanging definition of these three things.

And we know what makes cases cases: problems, help, creation. See, just those three things. There fortunately isn't anything else. You won't find some other exceptions to it. This is a subject of a later lecture: the cases that do not change. Got it?

You could almost say that you could produce a release simply by clearing these three words. You want to know how some people have accidentally produced a release with great suddenness: they've suddenly cleared or changed a definition on one of these three words.

Okay?

Male voice: Okay.

We're pretty close to the end of this right now. One more question.

Maida?

Female voice: While you were - of continuing discussion of problems in the last few days, the lights sort of went on for me and I'm going to check it out. It seems to me it's relevant in relation to what we've been talking about here. And that is the definition of problem and present time problem, and it really clinched it in the example you gave about this man that fell off a roof in order to come get his processing. And that is the problem - present time problem - is that which the preclear considers that make - renders him helpless. If you're helpless ...

That's very good. That's very smart, Maida. That's very, very smart. I'm impressed. That is smart. It's that which makes the preclear helpless. That's pretty good. We've got somebody among our midst who's got some - who's got some thetan.

Thank you.

Okay. That's the end of it.

Now you know a lot more about auditing than you did. It's always difficult to audit while you're being instructed in auditing. You got that? There are two or three of you, right now, who feel a little bit upset about your auditing, I'm sure, or about your cases. And that could simply be a feeling that you're invalidated on your auditing which makes you less capable of handling cases, don't you see, which could get you into more upset about your private case. You get how this could be? It's always difficult to paint a picture with somebody standing there insisting that you inform him exactly how you mix pigments, what is form - you got the idea?

If you want to ruin an Olympic games athlete for a short time, simply go out and ask him how you hold a discus, what is the stance, how many steps do you take, and bring it all into awareness.

But I'll tell you something. It is that which was not in awareness being brought into awareness which upsets you. Therefore, as it is brought into awareness, you get into the optimum situation of being able, actually, to perform even though you're totally aware. And your Olympic games athlete would become world's champion if he could throw a discus and still consciously go through every part of throwing a discus. You see that?

So the ruination is not forever, so don't despair.

Thank you.