6112C14 SHSpec-93 Anatomy of Problems
A problem is postulate counter-postulate, force counter-force, idea
versus idea, solution versus solution. You have two people in collision, in
trouble with each other. To be in trouble with each other, they have to be in
the same time stream and they have to be able to communicate. Do you realize
that you, with your problems, are on a separate time stream from the physical
universe and that's why you are not in present time? So even in an individual
you have two time streams.
How do you suppose a PC got out of PT? He must have started off in some
instant of time that went on this same time-stream, but he went [off] on a
spur line. During the middle of, say, a race, he finds his watch missing.
It's an important thing to him, and he loses it. While he is at the racetrack
in a time-stream called "the race", he tries to go back to the time he lost the
watch, and therefore, on the subject of the watch, he has a departure in time
from the time-stream. He starts running on a back-time-track while time goes
forward on the agreed-upon time track. He is trying to find out what
happened, not to stop time. He just wants to see what happened. A thetan has
the facility of running on another time stream.
So he goes off sideways, worrying about it. He has a problem now. And
because he hasn't solved it very well, he gets stuck in it, but then he really
gets stuck by solving it. He becomes the foe of all pickpockets so he won't
lose his watch. But he's already on a slightly different time-stream, and he
remains on it because he started it. You normally refer to this sort of thing
as a game -- a rather downgraded one. He isn't really hung up in a moment of
this time-stream but in a moment of departure. The rest of the time, he sort
of makes time himself. It becomes an endless affair that can float along
forever. So you are running along in session and he suddenly has a picture of
a racetrack. That picture exists in another time-stream, which he can slip
into.
How about the fellow who didn't enter this universe at all? You never
met him; he isn't on the time-stream. Can you have a problem with him, when
you have never met him and never will? You've never had anything in common
with him; you've never communicated with him; you've never gotten any O/W's on
him. So how can you have a problem with him? You can't.
So all problems have their own time-stream between the two beingnesses,
ideas, forces, or whatever. They must also have a means of communication.
Two armies will maneuver forward until someone fires a shot. That's a
communication which everybody can understand. Now the communication enlarges
and they can really have an agreement (not a disagreement) to have a war. Now
they can have problems with logistics, mechanics, propaganda, and how to have
motivators big enough to justify the overts.
Where you see an argument, there must have been a prior agreement, even a
light one. [Cf. the idea that there can be no ARC break without prior ABC.]
This is why the goriest wars are civil wars. The defeated in a civil war are
treated like criminals, not just losers. This is because there has been a
tremendous amount of agreement, so the ARC break is very severe. Similarly
with serious 2D upsets.
There couldn't be a wild disagreement, resulting in a problem unless
there was some prior agreement. The problem is as large as there has been
agreement. France and Germany have common blood going back to the conquest of
Gaul by the Franks.
There might be a road out on the solution of a problem in the recognition
that a 3D is based on a one-time total agreement. Remember about games:
pan-determinism, self-determinism, other-determinism? A person gets on one
side of a game to the degree that he has reduced his pan-determinism, accepted
other-determinism, and considers himself to be operating on self-determinism.
There are always these factors. There must be an outside disinterested
arbitrator to resolve the problem. That's where the auditor comes in.
Routine 3D is one of the roughest ones to figure out. Even LRH had to have
outside help to the degree of someone else reading the E-meter, to figure it
out. It was so involved that it was all self-determined or other-determined,
with no pan-determined factors at all. It looks at first to the PC like there
are at least forty or fifty vital factors. It takes the auditor to shake it
all down to five. The auditor does it by listing and assessing, down to one
item which will either be totally right or utterly wrong (oppterm). That is,
it will be either totally self-determined (terminal) or totally
other-determined (oppterm). Notice that any item you choose will get one of
three reactions from the PC:
1. He doesn't know if it is right and doesn't care.
This is rare. It could be a wrong item or he could be ARC broken
or groggy.
2. It could be self-determined or other-determined.
3. The PC could do a flip-flop between self- and other-determinism.
This phenomenon is a lower scale mockery of pan-, self-, and
other-determinism, the three factors present in all problems. The PC just
dramatizes these as he gets into the GPM. He'll be on one side for a few
days, then go into "Don't know," then go pan-determined for a bit: "I can have
both viewpoints. I'm really something else," so just run the side you can
chip at best and if you are not making progress, you have chosen a side he
can't confront. There are levels of confront to consider. If we were going
to run only one side, it would be vital to get the right one. You could just
run the right side of the right levels, and he'd go clear. But you can't
always expect it to happen. The harder he is enmeshed in the GPM, the less
distinct it is to him that either side is real. Or he is liable to be very
fixed in one side and not at all in the other. As you run him, he has a hard
time of it. If you pick the wrong side for him, he will run a long time.
The GPM is a problem. Before it was a problem, it was an agreement, and
after it was an agreement, it was a game. There was a time continuum; and
these two elements [beingnesses?], and ideas which make up the 3D [3rd
dynamic?] existed once in their nuclear form as a total agreement:
1. They were in the same time-stream.
2. They were in perfect communication.
3. They had tremendous agreement and goals on what they were doing.
They had all these things in common, and then they started to depart, one from
the other, and got into a game, which got very thorough. The game
deteriorated into a problem and stuck. I.e.:
1. There was a long period of total agreement.
2. Then there was agreement on the game they got into.
3. Then it got to be very deadly and got beyond a game into being a
problem.
But having originated with its own time-continuum, the problem continues
up into present time as a GPM. The easiest way to approach it, for most pcs,
is to find that side they can most easily fight. That will give them big case
gains and will take big solutions off the top of the problem. But recognize
that we have a long way to go after having taken the solutions off the top of
the problem. The end of the auditing is not just reaching the end of the
prehav levels but could be expected to go on further. You now have the
self-determinism / other-determinism softened up a bit. You still have to
attain self-determinism for the other side for the PC, and pan-determinism.
The PC is really on neither side.
The PC has been waterbucks; he has been tigers. Before there were
waterbucks and tigers as enemies, the PC couldn't have told the difference
between them. They would have had the same goal. They weren't very solidly
waterbucks or tigers yet. Their "now-I'm-supposed-tos" weren't yet congealed
to that extent. Then they started separating out distinct characteristics
which were only waterbucks' or only tigers'. Then they solved problems
different ways and the game deteriorated into some very standard
"now-I'm-supposed-tos". Those were specialized forms of self-determined
survival that had nothing to do with pan-determinism but a great deal to do
with other-determinism. The truth of the matter, however, is that the PC is
neither side -- tiger or waterbuck -- and is capable of being either.
The PC shifts from one side to the other just because you have audited
him a lot, just because you have done listing and nulling of his items.
That's a tremendous amount of auditing. His "now-I'm-supposed-tos" are shook
up like dice in a box. Now he will dramatize both sides, while before you
started auditing, he was fixed in one side and dramatized it on a
stimulus-response basis.
So the PC is assessed. You've got the Routine 3D package, and now you
want to find the right side for the PC. The only thing that makes it the
right side is that the PC can run it with benefit. Ti's the side he can run
best to run out somatics and break up the GPM. It's not that the PC is that
side, because the PC is equally the other side and is neither side, in truth,
and is capable of being both. Both sides are equally other-determined to
him. But one side is higher than the other on the tone scale, so it is easier
to view as the ally and harder to buck in auditing. But the PC has used both
sides, down through the ages, until he has so many overts on himself as a
waterbuck that these overbalanced and he became a tiger.
You are trying to establish the pan-determinism of a thetan who has
gotten so biased that he can't tell a good action from a bad action, because
the "now-I'm-supposed-tos" all fit in this exact pattern. And he has some
game running that has resulted in an insurmountable problem which has given
him his total package of "now-I'm-supposed-tos". All "now-I'm-supposed-tos"
were part of some old problem and earlier than that, some old game, and
earlier than that, some old agreement.
The PC's pan-determinism has been submerged, and he is being obsessively
self-determined, which pins him thoroughly on a dynamic, and he is no longer
loose on the dynamics.
Your first attack on a Routine 3D package is just to find the
"only-onlyness" of it. Does the PC think of himself mostly as a waterbuck at
this moment? The easiest side to run is usually the lower toned side. If you
run the PC as it, because of the trick of the commands, you get more attack
against the weakest side of the GPM, so it runs more mass and more flows, and
it is easier for the PC to handle. The other side may either totally slay him
or have no reality at all. He is not capable of attacking tigers because they
are too much for him. They don't exist for him. If you run this one, watch
out. The PC may get so overwhumped that before the PC realizes it, he is down
the tubes. Even so, if you kept attacking, something would happen. It would
be uncomfortable for the PC; he would ARC break easily, but he'll try it. But
he doesn't get reality out of it; that's the basic liability.
Could you just blow one of these things up? No. In the early stages of
the run, if you ask the PC what he would think of blowing it up or wiping it
all out at one fell swoop, he'd go into an awful confusion. He hasn't got it
differentiated enough to do much about it. He couldn't attack one side of the
problem because it was too big for him to find it real. What will be his
reaction to wiping out the whole thing? That's about seven times as unreal.
The idea of this game ever having an end or a beginning is preposterous.
In view of the fact that there are confusions on down the line that tend
to bang the PC up into the problem, as you audit the thing, you keep on
hitting confusions of one kind or another. It keeps banging the PC up towards
PT, so the track to him looks shorter and shorter. He thinks maybe he was
only a waterbuck for one lifetime. Then it broadens out again, and he'll feel
he was a waterbuck for a very long time.
What remains to be sorted out is the easiest way to beat the GPM. Over a
month or two you might be able to take pieces of it the PC can find --
conflicts -- and date them on the meter and get the whole track plotted on the
subject. That would soften up the GPM just by getting it aligned and assigned
correctly on the track. During that time, you wouldn't have to figure out
which side the PC was on. This is a feasible method of clearing somebody. It
would mean teaching people to date on the E-meter, which is quite a skill.
But it could be done, and it's quite a tool. Or you could find every
confusion that might precede any stuck picture the PC has on the subject of
waterbucks vs tigers. Find what the person was at the time and what they
did. It would be an interesting gimmick to make a list of the number of goals
the terminal and oppterm have in common or of the points on which they would
be in agreement, or you could ask, "What game would a waterbuck play with a
tiger?" and vice verse. It would all run out the center of the problem, once
the prehav runs have straightened it out somewhat. All you are trying to do
it to establish the pan-determinism of the thetan, who has gotten so biased
that he can't tell a good action from a bad one because the
"now-I'm-supposed-tos" all fit in this exact pattern, and he had some game
going which has become an insurmountable problem which has given him his total
package of "now-I'm-supposed-tos" -- you are trying to establish the PC's
pan-determinism so he can breaths.
Before auditing, the PC is being solution, solution, solution. The next
thing you see with auditing is problem, problem, problem. When this is peeled
off, he is game, game, game.
The TA goes up on the PC because he is breaking the mores of the
terminal, not necessarily those of society or his present group. A guy whose
terminal is a cat burglar will get a high TA when he goes to bed at night
because he refused to dramatize or went against the terminal.
Wyszukiwarka
Podobne podstrony:
SHSpec 171 6207C17 Anatomy of ARC BreaksSHSpec 034 6108C04 Methodology of Auditing Not doingness and OcclusionSHSpec 314 6310C17 Levels of AuditingSHSpec 268 6305C23 State of OTSHSpec 312 6310C15 Essentials of AuditingSHSpec 038 6108C11 Basics of Auditing Matter of FactnessSHSpec 188 6208C21 Basics of AuditingSHSpec 114 6202C21 Use of PrepcheckingAnatomia morderstwa (Anatomy of a Murder)SHSpec 123 6203C19 Mechanics Of SuppressionSHSpec 154 6205C31 Value of RudimentsSHSpec 026 6107C06 Routine 1A ProblemsSHSpec 09 6403C09 Summary of Lower LevelsSHSpec 276 6306C19 Summary of Modern AuditingSHSpec 074 6111C01 Formation of CommandsSHSpec 046 6108C29 Basics of AuditingSHSpec 47 6411C17 Styles of AuditingSHSpec 322 6311C07 Relationship of Training to OTSHSpec 091 6112C12 Sec Checks in Processingwięcej podobnych podstron