Русская версия

Site search:
ENGLISH DOCS FOR THIS DATE- Out of Sessionness - B580820
- Present Time Problem - Running of - B580820

CONTENTS PRESENT TIME PROBLEM — RUNNING OF
HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D.C.
HCO BULLETIN OF 20 AUGUST 1958

PRESENT TIME PROBLEM — RUNNING OF

Auditors are occasionally unsuccessful in running present time problems, life computations and service facsimiles because they themselves are not alert to the definition of a problem.

A problem is two-terminaled. A single terminal cannot make a problem. The basic problem is Postulate-Counter Postulate. Therefore, when the preclear says his wife is a present time problem and the auditor runs “A problem of comparable magnitude to a wife”, he is not running a problem at all. He is running a condition. For this to be a problem the wife would have to include another terminal.

An auditor should make the preclear define the problem accurately as a problem, not as a condition or situation. The problem of “my wife’s desire for another man” is a problem. The problem of “my husband’s fooling around with machinery” is a problem.

Wherever a PT problem arises it is up to the auditor to locate an actual problem and get the preclear to describe it. He then runs “Invent a problem of comparable magnitude to that problem.” Thereafter frequently he says, “Describe that problem to me” and makes sure each time he does that the problem is described as a problem, not a single terminal or a condition. When running a PT problem he also asks, “Does that seem to be a problem to you now?”

Failure to get the preclear to define the problem as a problem will result in a failure to relieve the PT problem and the auditor and the preclear may proceed into the session believing implicitly that they have run the PT problem when, as a matter of fact, they have not even touched it but have in actuality run the conditions of a single terminal.

Probably the biggest holdup in all intensives is this fact of mis-definition of problems.

And in passing it may be remarked that given Clear Procedure the biggest delay on clearing is the failure of the auditor to run PT problems and ARC breaks. It might also be said that the preclear only protests violently about ARC breaks under one of the two following conditions: (I) the auditing is actually very bad and (2) the PT problem has not been run. As a rough rule of thumb it could be said that given well-intentioned auditing, a preclear only protests about ARC breaks when a PT problem has not been isolated and run. The problems connected with “being audited”, “being a preclear”, “the auditor”, have been rather uniformly overlooked by auditors, and cases which tend to hang up in processing are usually hung up on these.

L. RON HUBBARD LRH: md.cden