Are there any questions about your immediate auditing? Are there any questions about your immediate auditing? Are you running into anything? Oh, come, come, come, come, come now!

Male voice: I ran into something, but I think we're handling it.

All right. What did you run into?

Male voice: Present time problem refused to drop on a stuck needle.

Yeah?

Male voice: That's the only data I have. That's what it did. And come hell or high water, that's what it did.

A present time problem is sticking a needle?

Male voice: And didn't unstick.

How do you handle a PT problem?

Male voice: (pause) Well, you — um, find out as many things as the guy can be responsible for.

That's one way of handling it. There are three ways of handling a present time problem. They are as follows:

Fairly high-toned case — two-way comm.

Middle range case — if you want a killer, is "Invent something worse than," and then "Problems of comparable magnitude to." That's a killer for a middle range case. That just takes the problem, bayonets it, throws it over cliffs, puts it through cane shredders. You understand? That's a real killer.

For a middle range or a high-toned case, you can get rid of one very rapidly with a very limited process which mustn't be continued very long, "What part of that problem could you be responsible for?"

Male voice: What do you do in the case you don't know what the problem is? In this case it's . . .

Ah, just a minute.

Male voice: Okay.

Now, what about a low case?

Male voice: Yeah.

How do you handle a present time problem in a low case?

Well, I can assure you that a problem that would be something that you possibly would blow off the end of your knuckle — you know, just say, "Pfff — well, that's the end of that problem," practically spins a person who is totally crushed in all the time everything — about everything, see? Practically spins him. Ah, you're looking at a whole case in a PT problem. Isn't that desperate?

Isn't that a horrible thing? It is horrible. I mean, just the fact that this happened to him now creates a total case on the subject of a PT problem.

His answer to it is individuation at once. Get away from it. Get out from under it somehow or another. Get out from under what?

His identity, of course. His chief method of solving this problem when it gets down to that point is simply to die, get away from it, change your identity, get out from under his present time circumstances. Kangaroo, when startled, will pick her babies out of the pouch and throw them away. Women will have miscarriages. You get the idea? Compulsive — throw it away, throw it away, see? Get rid of it. Somebody causes a little problem about the house — give it away, walk off and leave it.

An old man, one time, had a little trouble with a Model T Ford — brand-new Model T Ford. And he was driving it home from the dealers and halfway home it stalled, and he couldn't get it started again. He walked off and left it. He totally individuated from the person who wanted a new Ford to a person who didn't want a new Ford with entirely new characteristics, don't you see? That was his answer. You got it?

So it makes a whole case, all by itself when, one, the problem is of sufficient severity or, two, when the case is at a sufficiently low level. Either condition can obtain, either one can obtain.

And when you see a stuck needle that won't unstick for anything, you're looking at a total PT problem. One of the things that will happen to such a case is the case will do a bunk. Be careful of saying, "Be three feet back of your head" to such a case, because it's the very invitation he wants to do an inverted exteriorization, see? He'll just flip on the thing. You get the criticalness of it?

Well, how do you handle such a problem?

Well, there is a basic way to handle a problem that we know positively eventually does — and that is TR 10.

A better one than that, if a person can run it at all, is Connectedness. This Control Connectedness that we are running right here has not been left in the lineup without malice and forethought and is the only thing I know of that will, one, improve the case and, two, get rid of the stuck-needle-type PT problem. See, it will do both — it will do both of those things.

Now, TR 10 has this liability. It doesn't much improve the case; it'll get rid of the problem, but it doesn't much improve the case. Do you understand that? Because he doesn't get the idea of being at cause, in it. That's why it remains as TR 10, why it is not a processing step. It isn't called CCH 10, you see? It's called TR 10. It's just a training step. All actual processes are processes because they improve the case. TRs are there because they improve the auditor. Do you follow me on this?

Audience: Yeah.

So Connectedness, no matter how arduous it is to carry it out, will do this. All right.

Now, let's get into this thing called a problem. What is a problem?

Two or more considerations opposed, that's a problem — two or more considerations opposed.

A dramatized problem becomes a game. Football field — here, instead of a consideration you have a team versus not a consideration, but a team. But that even a football game is basically this — is you can get one team to consider something and have it lose.

There's somebody right here that coached a bunch of Olympic team people and had them beat another team by changing its considerations. The Olympic boys, I think, had to go up against the navy on swimming, if I remember this story right, and in order to win against the navy — they knew they probably couldn't swim better than the navy so they won against the navy, anyhow, by simply convincing the navy that it had won already. "There's no sense in struggling against you boys, you're so good. Yes, well, you're pretty hot. And in these trials and preliminaries you certainly show up, and you've got this made in the shade." And the navy team did not even try, and the Olympic team simply mopped them up. By doing what? By changing the considerations involved in the game. Right?

Well, obviously, it's necessary to change the considerations in a preclear before you can solve the problem. But about what? Now, before you can change any considerations, you'd better find out what considerations you're trying to change and about what. And the isolation of the terminals involved in the problem to the satisfaction of the preclear can result in the problem going pfffft. Because we have this thing of interposition between the preclear and the object, see? Communication break — it all looks completely confused out there.

So now we get into a dangerous area, however, because if you talk too much with this preclear — not to him, it doesn't hurt him to talk to him — but if you talk too much with him so that he talks too much, you run down his havingness. So that must be avoided. And on a very low case this becomes a very tricky operation — the isolation of the problem — so tricky that it probably cannot be done. There's a band where it still can be done, but below that it can't be done at all.

Let's look at an insane person. We say to this insane person, "Now, let's go to the bottom of this and articulate your problem." It can't be done, can it? But a person who is merely soddenly and horribly, apathetically, stuckly worried, might possibly be persuaded to do so, as a last resort.

But we have a mechanic known as havingness. Since all problems derive around the consideration of loss of havingness — this loss of havingness is always a little side panel to every other consideration in a problem — somewhere around the problem there is a threatened loss.

Definition, by the way, of "threat" is quite interesting on your Keep It from Going Away. A threat is a method of keeping it from going away. See, a threat is an automatic "keep it from going away." Do you get the idea? "There will always be that pressure against me." "Automobiles are always threatening to jump on me." In other words, it's a threatened "keep it from going away." All right, that's a threat.

But there's a threat to havingness, and there is a "keep it from going away" mixed up in the consideration, too. And the reason the preclear has got it at all is because he's used it to keep something from going away, and it has become, at some time in the past, a survival mechanism. And it is no longer a survival mechanism but has become an anti- or succumb-mechanism. An individuation has taken place; he changed his personality since he last regarded this as a survival action. He had problems, maybe, to keep his father's interest. Now, one day, he's merely got problems.

How are they sticking this way?

Well, they're sticking on the fact that he had a survival mechanism at one time or another. But, of course, he did that to keep Father there — so as not to lose Father. You got the idea?

So threat of loss and "keep it from going away" are always side computations. So there's all sorts of doors- — should start opening for you right there.

But on articulation of the problem — an articulation of the problem all by itself in the direction of selecting the terminals which are a problem — just get him to elect the terminals that are a problem and he will eventually find himself staring at the problem. That is a tricky one. That is a tricky one.

But a "keep it from going away" counters the threat of loss. Loss goes thataway. And keep it from going away goes thisaway. Got that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

So there you get your ridge and how a problem makes people feel insane. It's a can't-reach-must-reach, can't-withdraw-must-withdraw. Don't you see?

How do you unsettle that?

Well, one of the easiest ways to unsettle it in general, in view of the fact that a present time problem is taking place in the present, is by Connectedness. "Get the idea of that connecting with you," which means an objective "keep it from going away," which counters the loss, which will sort the thing out eventually. See that? That's the best way I know of, at this time, of getting rid of a stuck needle.

You get the anatomy of problems here, though, and what we're trying to do with these problems? It's interesting that problems snap in on somebody. But there are cases around that problems snap away. They're on an inversion. This case that individuates from the Ford car he just bought is a snap-away. But the normal reaction of a problem is to fall in on somebody. And then every time he solves it, he keeps the problem.

And you actually have people around, particularly in the government, who experience physical pain at the idea of solving a problem. It keeps something from going away too strongly. Eisenhower does that. The problem hits him just about the top of his rib cage. And whenever he really is called upon, and — "This is an emergency, General. This is an emergency. This is an emergency. You must solve it! You must solve it. You must do something about it. You must solve it!" And he all of a sudden says, "Hmmm. Solve it! Bang!" Get the idea? He doesn't like it. He does not like solving problems. And you'll find most people do not like solving problems. And they, by the way, don't like you coming around and solving them, either, because you snap things in on them, too. I've told you all this before, but it's all germane to that.

So you start to solve some case's problem for him, and he's in trouble. But if you make him take it apart, why, he gets over it. So, therefore, you never evaluate for a preclear and you never tell him what to do because you can physically hurt him. You must get him to take the problem apart. You must get him to keep things from going away. You must get him to take over the responsibility, one way or the other. Got it?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Well, that's the anatomy of PT problems.

Male voice: Just a point that came up while you were talking about that, regarding this individuation that you spoke of in the earlier lectures — I suddenly snapped that one of the big points of this individuation is an abandonment. It's an abandonment of the larger area right down to the smaller area so that the stuff that you have abandoned is then sitting there as other-determinism.

Absolutely right. Very good.

Male voice: Thank you.

Audience: Thanks.

Yes?

Female voice: It'll often happen that a person says, "I could know about this terminal involved in my problem." In other words, it's sort of like saying, "I could know; I don't want to know." It's good to pull off there, isn't it?

Oh, yeah.

Female voice: Could be I'm not being very clear in the first place.

No, no, you're being perfectly clear. This is the main problem we have with HGC auditors.

Female voice: You don't want to make . . .

Bless them, they do this — they do this: they get a process that is resolving something and they beat it to death. They start solving a problem, and their interest in it and their persistence is so great that they just make that the end-all until they got that really mopped up. And, boy, they mop it up with mops and waxers and scrapers and so forth. And having taught them to persist, I'm now faced with the necessity of telling them to put on the brakes someplace. That answer your question?

Female voice: Yes.

You can dust one of these off lightly. The criteria of a present time problem might interest you. What is a present time problem in the limit of definition of our processing? That is something else. It is that thing or activity which makes the preclear feel that he ought to be elsewhere doing something rather than sitting there being audited. You understand? So it is an exteriorizer from the session in PT. There are actual terminals that he ought to go out and talk to. There are actually people around that he ought to get away from, see? It's a not-there condition in the auditing session. So, therefore, he never gets into session because he ought to be doing something else. See, he ought to either be running or attacking.

Male voice: Could there be a condition that he's trying to get away from there?

Mm-hm! But the condition always goes back to a terminal.

Male voice: Yeah.

Only those people get worried who think terminals are important.

Male voice: Yes, thanks. I got that.

Yeah.

This is a fascinating field — this PT problem. This is one of these gorgeous fields. Man, you can have a ball. And if you don't think there's anything to know there, you're mistaken. There's lots to know there. And it would — your ability to handle pcs depends on your ability to get across this point: The only time that a preclear never proceeds and goes up where — is where a present time problem is yanking him out of the auditing room, telling him to attack or to run away. And then he'll never get there. Second he starts to come up, he says, "Well, I ought to do something about Josie." He's — right away he's out of session thinking about what he should do to Josie, don't you see?

Audience: Mm-hm.

It's quite remarkable.

Yes?

Female voice: Yes, I have a problem with — um, our old friend, fields, again.

Good.

Female voice: And I'd like to ask the question. This is what happened in my own field. And I can get mock-ups and I can see them, shove them around and make things and so forth. But it's dark out there. But if I get a facsimile and put it there, then it's light. Now what kind of messes have I got?

Well, you obviously have a field you can work in.

Female voice: Yeah. I can but. . .

You might ask yourself this — I'm not auditing you, but you might ask yourself this — what are you looking at? What is that field?

Female voice: It's like darkness, as in night.

Yeah. It's darkness in night. What are you doing?

Female voice: I'm looking at darkness . . .

Yeah, but is the darkness — does it exist? Or is it — I mean — does it exist in the physical universe? Or does it exist in the mental universe? Where does it exist? Where is this darkness?

Female voice: It's in the — it's in the mental universe.

It's in the mental universe.

Female voice: Yeah.

It's mind.

Female voice: Yeah.

Sure?

Female voice: It doesn't light up.

You sure?

Female voice: Not absolutely. I presume it.

You presume it?

Female voice: Yeah.

It's not the inside of your skull, is it?

Female voice: Well, if I get outside the skull, it's still dark.

It is?

Female voice: It's dark inside the skull. It's also dark outside.

All right. And so therefore there is a field condition of some sort or another.

Female voice: Yeah. But I can — as I say, I can light it up.

All right.

Female voice: If I put a light facsimile into it, it's light.

Light it up.

Female voice: That's all.

There's a question here. Sooner or later — sooner or later this will have to be hit. But just in the process of doing Step 6 in mock-ups it's liable to get hit awful sudden, see? It's a cinch that this would have to happen sooner or later. The field not necessarily will have to be cleared up, but the field will have to get clear. You get the idea?

Male voice: Right.

And that's either done on just the processes of keeping things from going away . . .

One of the wildest things I've seen in a long time was a fellow who had an invisible field. It was a nice, innocent invisible field that wasn't bothering anybody. And he could put up mock-ups and they'd get invisible rather fast. The field ate them up — a hungry field. But all of a sudden he was asked to mock up a woman — this was experimental, and it was a very significant object — and he was asked to mock up a woman and keep her from going away. At which time the entire field turned upside down, went coal black, and black blankets went flying all over the room and battered down the walls, according to him. (I didn't notice them doing that, but he said they did.) And, activity occurred with suddenness.

Now we, by the way, had a case that had a totally black field. And within the space of twenty-four hours, why, it turned from black to clear to gone, just on keeping things from going away.

We've also taken a case that had a totally black field and we specialized on the black field and gotten rid of it. And I'm afraid it's not much of a problem.

Good.

Yes?

Female voice: What is it that determines the ability of an auditor if it isn't his case level?

What determines the ability of an auditor if it's not his case level? Well, in the first place, ability is only impeded. Ability can only be impeded. Ability on a third dynamic evidently can be an intellectual breed of cat, and it only requires that he attain certain self-discipline in order to handle it.

Now, I didn't say that this was a sweepingly true statement. I said an auditor below a certain case level couldn't be an auditor. And evidently the level at which a person could be trained is a sufficient level for the individual to handle a third dynamic situation.

Now, what determines the ability of it? Now, he has the ability. It is largely monitored by willingness — willingness.

You'll run into this unwillingness to be Clear. You know, you'll learn that unwillingness to do anything. You can crack through it today because it's still there. All the chips are on our side. But sometimes it'll take some cracking up.

But where an auditor is concerned, in the first place, he volunteered, which immediately selected out all the people who were — mostly, most of the people who were unwilling to help others.

So what determines it?

Natural selection — he's here.

Female voice: Yes.

Okay?

Female voice: Well, I know a lot of people who think that they want to help people. They are willing. They go out of their way to help people. But they're doing the wrong things. They're not helping them.

Well, that's right. But are they trained?

Female voice: No.

And are they trainable? That makes the difference.

Female voice: Some of them might be.

Right. But the difference between the trainableness of them and the untrainableness of them would establish the lack with — if they had the ability to do something about it.

Yes?

Male voice: Well, I thought I had pretty good mock-ups. In fact I was rather proud of them. And during this processing I've had a couple of facsimiles turn on that put anything I could self-determinedly make to shame, in clarity and color and vividness, and so forth, and . . . What cooks?

There's a hump — the hump characteristic. A person, as he runs the drills to keep things from going away and so forth, is actually patching up his bank.

Male voice: What?

For quite a while he's patching up his bank.

Now, I do something that I haven't put in Intensive Procedure. And I was thinking about it the other night, that I'd better put it in the next written rendition of the thing.

There are certain things you do which are preparatory to auditing. Now, one of those things is quite interesting — but this is merely to give the preclear an index. It's not therapeutic; it's simply to tell him how well off he is or isn't. And you run him on the track just like an old Dianetic auditor and you have him find a couple of pleasure moments. Have him think of one and then you ask him to close his eyes and you run him back to it just like we used to do — us old guys back in 1950, see? And you run him back to it and have him inspect it and have him notice how solid it is or isn't. If he can't find it at all, well, you know what the score is. On a pc that's just walked in, you know what the score is. You know that he's below perception of bank. All right.

Now, you have him look at this at the end of the first Step 6 session. You'd had him do this before you did anything else with him, you see? And then at the end of the first Step 6 session, you have him look at these two same pleasure moments again. (I'm talking about Clear Procedure, the book Clear Procedure, Step 6. It's Step 5 in your Intensive Procedure.)

Now, he'll look at these things again. And they either won't be there still or they'll be more solid and more brilliant.

Now, we go on and run another Step 6. This is the basic test — how we got to clearing people, see? We run another one of these keep-it-from-going-away mock-up propositions — another whole session — and we ask him once more to take a look at these two pleasure moments we spotted before we audited him very much. Well, if he was below mock-ups, all of a sudden, they're there.

Now, we run another session and we again have him inspect these two pleasure moments. Now, I can tell you — any Dianetic auditor can tell you that if we just ran him to them and ran him off of them, they would actually toughen up a little bit and then they'd get weaker because we're, to some degree, erasing them. And the natural course of human events — if we weren't processing him on Step 6, we'd run this just as a control, and we'd run him back to two pleasure moments. By the time we'd done it five or six times, we'd have other pleasure moments or we would have something different, here, entirely. But while we're running our mock-ups on him, these things are actually going to get more and more brilliant, more and more solid.

This was the kickoff. This was what tipped the thetan's hand. As he improved his ability to mock up, his facsimiles improved.

So who was making them? Obviously, he was. And this was the tip-off to our whole Clear activity and attack at this time. All right.

Now, this hump mechanism is the point where the bank itself becomes unbearably solid. And he's not yet coping with it. But that bank is just as solid as can be. Well, boy, think of it. If he's stuck in a tonsillectomy and you're running Step 6 on him, why, brother, those instruments are going to get more solid than any piece of steel you ever saw. And the pain is liable to become quite intense because that's getting more real than real.

Now, he will wind up with the ability to put up a mock-up that is more brilliant, more solid, more real you might say, than the physical universe around him. And he can then choose a subject off the track and mock it up. He has to mock it up himself. But he gets this terrific brilliance. But before he learns that he's mocking them up himself, these things become very brilliant and very solid. And that happens a little while before he finds out subjectively and for real — he can know this intellectually and still find it out subjectively — that he himself is mocking them up. And, boy, they get mighty brilliant. They get mighty glary if you're really fishing around looking for them.

Well, the reason I keep running people back and having them take a look at the same two mock-ups is just to find out how the fellow is progressing. And eventually I take him back and show him these couple of mock-ups.

And he'll say, "Well, there's nothing there, but I can put something there if you want me to."

And you say, "Put something there."

And he says, "Wow!"

Maybe one of them was a flower garden or something like that. Well, man, he can put a flower garden there the like of which he never saw, you see? And it's big and good and solid, and more solid than with his eyes he sees the room. Now, that's the phenomenon you're running into.

Male voice: The answer is to just keep on processing.

Oh yes — Step 6. Grit your teeth. Carry it through.

Female voice: Are you going to speak more about time in this course?

Oh, I don't know. I think you, in this course, are going to find out more about things than I'll tell you, just by processing.

Yes?

Male voice: Would you recap on today's tools on taking consecutive individuations apart?

Well, as a person is able to reach further and further away from what he was considering the identity he was in: he's in identity A, let us say, he can reach out to identity B and then C and then D, and they're further and further from him — in other words, further and further removed in space and in time — he is more and more capable of taking these things apart, more and more capable of surviving without them.

Now, you're reversing the course of individuation. At one time he was out there at perimeter D, you see? And then he started falling back and he got to C and he got to B and he got to A, you see? And now he's just his current identity and no other although the others are all still alive. All right.

Second male voice: It seems like that aligns itself awfully nicely with the element of affinity as a consideration of distance and also the Axiom definitions.

Mm-hm.

Second male voice: And from that viewpoint, it seemed a lot simpler.

Yes, it is. That help? All right.

Well, we've had it here and we were already a little bit late. You think you're getting anyplace?

Audience: Yep. Yes.

All right. Remember to get them under control and then run them on the mock-up processes. But if you don't get them under control, you'll never get anyplace. You understand that?

Audience: Mm-hm.

Okay. Thank you.