"What could you confront?" is one of the first principles of dianetics, as expounded in 1938. Foreshadowing of the 1952 principle of dichotomies is in the 1950 treatment of survive-succumb. As far as the thetan is concerned, surviving is bound up with confronting, in that "if something is surviving, he can confront it; if it doesn't survive, he can't confront it. And sometimes something survives too damn well, and he sits there confronting it for thousands of years saying, 'I am a black case.'"
You're right in the middle of the cycle of action. The dynamic principle of existence of scientology is Create! This is the common denominator of all thetans, even if they don't know it. Create + counter-creation = destruction. Survive is a continuous confronting. "Your license to survive is a license to confront. You have the right to look at the environment in which you are, and if you don't survive, you don't have the right, and if someone destroys your possessions, so you can't confront them, so they're not surviving, so you feel you're not surviving."
The word, "survive" can't be translated smoothly into several languages. "Suicidal races" like the Russians and the Japanese have such languages. They do confront, however. Confronting is the action; survive is the state of mind, so confront gives an action process. You can run confront on small children as, "What would you like to look at?" It's better to run the action.
"Kids are always trying to make people confront things — showing you things." You can run the process nonverbally. Just point questioningly. This lets you out of the symbol band nicely.
The communication process kicks in Axiom 10; it vividly takes in cause and effect. It's best to run an assist with "From where could you communicate to a _______ ?" If mass is present in the room, that helps his havingness. If he's too injured, you could have him look at (confront) the injured part, using a touch assist. You could also run, "What (body part) could you confront / would you dislike confronting?" You could also use, "From where could you confront _______ ?"
Confront - not confront
= Reach - withdraw
= Make comm lines - break comm lines.
The confront process produces a different engram chain than the communication process. Communication intends to produce an effect; confront lets anything happen.
To finish off a person's victim button, use "What victim could you confront / would you rather not confront?" Use "rather not" instead of "dislike" because, for instance, the phrase, "dislike confronting" could implant the person with a dislike of confronting. You could also use "What part of a victim could you confront?" for a further-south case. These victim processes tend to put a person continually in a winning valence. It may throw him out of his normal valence if he is stuck aberratedly in a losing valence, but then it eases him back into his own valence. "What could you confront?" runs the PC into valence.
Probably the lowest level thinkingness process there is is "Recall a communication," or "Recall communicating.,
On a psychotic, it is best to mimic his orderly actions only, not his disorderly ones. Anyone who can successfully do a thinkingness process is not a psychotic. If a person can at least be responsible for himself and his own environment, he is not crazy. These people are out of the realm of psychiatry. "Normal people" are not sane on all dynamics and cannot be trusted with all of them.
The idea of total responsibility, as expounded in Advanced Procedures and Axioms, was not and is not a popular one, although it formed the basis of many axioms. The idea of being irresponsible, as in Book 1, where people were all victims, was what was popular. A person who is not responsible on a dynamic has no choice but to be a victim on that dynamic. Absolute irresponsibility — and absolute insanity — could be defined as inability to take responsibility on any dynamic. Such a person would be a victim on all dynamics.
Survive — succumb = willing to look at — not willing to look at. It you had someone who was willing to look at anything on all the dynamics, who could escape from looking at them if he didn't want to, you'd have a sane man. It would have nothing to do with whether he was intelligent about it. He's helping to put the dynamics there, so he has some control over them. Since he is willing to look, he would be intelligent about them as well. Intelligence is non-restimulated stupidity. One can restimulate not-knowingness by educating kids to only look at things and never to take their attention off them. Thus you get mystery restimulated. It's an unbalanced thing; it makes them wonder and go into mystery. For instance, "Keep your shirt clean," repeated at him, is the same as, "Confront your shirt so as to prevent something." This locks him into confronting his shirt. Fixed and unfixed attention, as mentioned in Elizabeth, New Jersey, can be run with, "What would you like to confront / rather not confront?" This is not as good as, "What could you confront?" etc.
So the fundamentals of dianetics and scientology do not change. The only thing that changes is relative importances.
People believe they are obsessively separate, so they believe that if they ran this out, they would be obsessively the same person, and we'd get obsessive togetherness, as in Communism.
But actually, obsessive togetherness comes about from a terror of the separateness that comes about from committing overts and becoming more and more individuated. A person becomes more and more individuated until he finds himself doing a flip and getting drawn into a mass which for him doesn't exist. So you get a back and forth movements between these two points. Thus obsessive individuation and obsessive togetherness are much the same thing. The world is in these conditions so much that it's become [almost] impossible to prove that everyone is a separate individual. This is scientology's unsolved question: Is everyone separate or all one? We suspect that people are separate, but there's no proof. Experimental attempts to prove this are obscured by the obsessive states people are in.