Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Threat to Havingness (PAB 127) - PAB580100

P.A.B. No. 127
The Oldest Continuous Publication in Dianetics and Scientology
Via Hubbard Communications Office
35/37 Fitzroy Street, London W.1

1 January 1958


Prepared from the research material of L. Ron Hubbard

The first step to processing a preclear is to find out if he has a present time problem and to handle it adequately enough to proceed with auditing. Often we have a preclear who comes to us basically just to get more able and as we process him we find that we are making no particular progress with this case. He seems to be doing everything just as we expect it to be done with no apparent gain.

The reason for this occurrence is the fact that the preclear is not doing the process in present time and has a present time problem that is interfering, of which he did not tell us. The fact about the matter is that the preclear himself does not really know, is not cognizant of the fact that he has a present time problem and is consequently a very “south” case.

I have found that a preclear who isn’t processing real fast on Procedure CCH isn’t doing the process because he has something which “threatens his havingness.” Since processing and havingness go hand in hand it isn’t surprising that the preclear will make sure that he doesn’t change since he cannot afford to expend more havingness in cognitions.

So this threat to his havingness is his present time problem of which he may or may not be aware and if you as an auditor didn’t handle it at the beginning of the session, it is certain that the preclear is not consciously aware that he has such a problem or is deliberately Lying to you for reason of shame, embarrassment — or that ARC is not fully present.

This threat to havingness is that which most prevents the preclear from having things. It is that which stands in his way to having and is thus a problem to him which he hasn’t under control.

What the auditor has to do is to find this problem for the preclear and then to handle it properly. This case is so low on problems that he doesn’t even recognize that he has one and his level of problems has to be increased otherwise he will create a problem out of auditing which is what happens when he doesn’t change. Auditing itself then becomes a problem to the preclear.

One handles this matter simply by going into good two-way communication with the preclear. (One-way communication as-ises havingness, two-way doesn’t and actually raises the tone of the preclear.)

One asks him if there is something that “worries him,” “presents a difficulty which he would like to handle or which is making life a bit troublesome,” or if he is about to “lose” anything (a pending court case, wife, business deal, etc.) or “if there is anything that he would like to change as it produces some pressure on him” and so forth. But the important question here is: “What most prevents you from having things?”

The moment anything arises, go straight ahead and ask him pointed but not evaluating questions about it so that he can define it into a more definite form. Ask him to tell you about it again, how it worries him, exactly what it is that has this effect until he can articulate it clearly and precisely. One can even play stupid so as to make him more lucid until one actually finds the terminal if it is a condition that is worrying him — for we handle terminals and masses only, and not conditions or effects.

After this one can state the problem to the preclear in practically his own words, asking him to listen carefully and correct one if one hasn’t repeated it accurately and then ask him to tell one if “it is a problem to him” and if he recognizes it as such. It is surprising that the preclear will look quite pleased to have this problem and will naturally want to hold on to it in spite of his protestations that he wouldn’t if you questioned him further about it. It would thus be wrong to suggest to him that it should be “solved” or taken away from him, for a problem is a game and a threat to havingness does and can reveal the hidden game the preclear is compulsively playing. Taking that problem would be robbing him of a game and the preclear would react violently or by not changing, since he thinks you are going to keep on taking all his games from him.

One thus tells the preclear that since he now has a problem it would be better if he had more problems which would be directly under his own control. One then handles this threat to his havingness by taking the terminal to the problem and running “Invent a problem of comparable/incomparable magnitude to (the terminal).”

The new problems he invents (if it is done with reality, and it is the auditor’s job to see that he does so) will not be aberrative since he has created both the intention and counter-intention that constitutes the problem and is therefore pan-determined in relation to these problems which he then can control. These problems will serve to move his fixed attention from the problem which he doesn’t have under control and the auditor can then proceed with Procedure CCH.

There is, however, a note of warning here. The two-way communication must remain “two-way” and also, this process can come dangerously near evaluation which must not occur. It therefore needs clever auditing to have the preclear discover this problem without breaking the Auditor’s Code. The auditor can ask “pointed” questions which will reveal it more easily, and even re-state the problem in clearer and concise language, but he must not evaluate under any circumstance.

This type of case, by the way, is a low toned case and needs a great amount of good control, and the first four steps of CCH must be thoroughly flattened before any attention and thinkingness processes are used.

It can be seen from the above that it is important at all times to look out for the things that threaten the preclear’s havingness and to handle them with problems of comparable/incomparable magnitude so that auditing doesn’t have to become a present time problem to you and the preclear.