Subject: FZ Bible FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 09/35 (20th ACC) repost [x2]
Date: 29 Nov 1999 03:13:15 -0000
From: Secret Squirrel <squirrel@echelon.alias.net>
Organization: mail2news@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology

FREEZONE BIBLE ASSOCIATION TECH POST repost

FIRST POSTULATE TAPES 09/35 (20th American Advanced Clinical Course)

**************************************************

Contents

20th ACC - First Postulate Cassettes [clearsound]

New #    Old #   Date     Title

20ACC-1  (1)   14 Jul 58 OPENING LECTURE
20ACC-2  (1A)  14 Jul 58 OPENING LECTURE - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-3  (2)   15 Jul 58 ACC PROCEDURE OUTLINED E-METER TRS
20ACC-4  (2A)  15 Jul 58 ACC PROC OUTLINED - E-METER TRS - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-5  (3)   16 Jul 58 COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED
20ACC-6  (3A)  16 Jul 58 COURSE PROCEDURE OUTLINED - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-7  (4)   17 Jul 58 BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION
20ACC-8  (4A)  17 Jul 58 BEGINNING AND ENDING SESSION - Q AND A PERIOD
20ACC-9  (5)   18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE
20ACC-10 (5A)  18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-11 (6)   21 Jul 58 THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCIENTOLOGY CLEARING
20ACC-12 (6A)  21 Jul 58 THE KEY WORDS (BUTTONS) OF SCN - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-13 (7)   22 Jul 58 THE ROCK
20ACC-14 (7A)  22 Jul 58 THE ROCK - Q & A PERIOD
20ACC-15 (8)   23 Jul 58 SPECIAL EFFECT CASES,  ANATOMY OF
20ACC-16 (8A)  23 Jul 58 SPECIAL EFFECT CASES, ANATOMY - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-17 (9)   24 Jul 58 ANATOMY OF NEEDLES - DIAGNOSTIC PROCEDURE
20ACC-18 (9A)  24 Jul 58 ANATOMY OF NEEDLES - DIAG. PROC - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-19 (10)  25 Jul 58 THE ROCK: PUTTING THE PC AT CAUSE
20ACC-20 (10A) 25 Jul 58 Q&A PERIOD - CLEARING THE COMMAND
20ACC-21 (11)  28 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET - GOALS OF AUDITING
20ACC-22 (12)  29 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont.)
20ACC-23 (13)  30 Jul 58 ACC COMMAND SHEET (cont. 2)
20ACC-24 (14)  31 Jul 58 RUNNING THE CASE AND THE ROCK
20ACC-25 (15)   1 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING
20ACC-26 (15A)  1 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING (cont.)
20ACC-27 (16)   4 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING (cont. 2)
20ACC-28 (16A)  4 Aug 58 CASE ANALYSIS - ROCK HUNTING - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-29 (17)   5 Aug 58 ARC
20ACC-30 (18)   6 Aug 58 THE ROCK - ITS ANATOMY
20ACC-31 (19)   7 Aug 58 THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL
20ACC-32 (19A)  7 Aug 58 THE MOST BASIC ROCK OF ALL - Q&A PERIOD
20ACC-33 (20)   8 Aug 58 AUDITOR INTEREST
20ACC-34 (20A)  8 Aug 58 REQUISITES AND FUNDAMENTALS OF A SESSION
20ACC-35 (21)  15 Aug 58 SUMMARY OF 20TH ACC

The clearsound set includes an Appendix containing two HCOBs.  This
has been included with the first lecture above.

Note that old 15B "Q & A PERIOD" of 2 Aug 58 was marked as missing in
the Flag Master List and was later found by Gold.  Its absense here
probably means that they found it to be the same as old 16A (20ACC-28
in the above list).

Old number 19B "Q & A Period" of 8 Aug in the Flag Master List
is also omitted but 20ACC-32 (old 19A) is extremely long and probably
contains both old 19A and 19B.

Note 20ACC-2 (1A) does not appear on the Flag Master List but
appears to be genuine.

We were able to check ten of these against the old reels and
found minor omissions [marked ">" in the transcripts.]

**************************************************

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Our purpose is to promote religious freedom and the Scientology
Religion by spreading the Scientology Tech across the internet.

The Cof$ abusively suppresses the practice and use of
Scientology Tech by FreeZone Scientologists.  It misuses the
copyright laws as part of its suppression of religious freedom.

They think that all freezoners are "squirrels" who should be
stamped out as heretics.  By their standards, all Christians,
Moslems, Mormons, and even non-Hassidic Jews would be considered
to be squirrels of the Jewish Religion.

The writings of LRH form our Old Testament just as the writings
of Judaism form the Old Testament of Christianity.

We might not be good and obedient Scientologists according
to the definitions of the Cof$ whom we are in protest against.

But even though the Christians are not good and obedient Jews,
the rules of religious freedom allow them to have their old
testament regardless of any Jewish opinion.

We ask for the same rights, namely to practice our religion
as we see fit and to have access to our holy scriptures
without fear of the Cof$ copyright terrorists.

We ask for others to help in our fight.  Even if you do
not believe in Scientology or the Scientology Tech, we hope
that you do believe in religious freedom and will choose
to aid us for that reason.

Thank You,

The FZ Bible Association

**************************************************

20ACC-9  (5)   18 Jul 58 ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE

ACC TRAINING PROCEDURE

A lecture given on 18 July 1958

[Based on the clearsound version only.]

Thank you.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
noncommunication 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, what can you do?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank you.

[end of lecture.]


