((My comments in double parentheses - Homer)) PROBLEMS, CONDITIONS AND SOLUTIONS. ACT - 68 22 July 1994 Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes. On Sun, 24 Jul 1994, Lenny or Jevan Gray wrote: > Are you implying that taking walks "makes it worse", (eliminating >the reference to dog or ducks)? > > I'm asking this flat, no jokes, no implications. > > If the answer is yes, then what line _are_ you following as your >current "best" attack. I thought you said you _were_ getting some >gains. Well admittedly I was in a bad moment when I wrote that, Nick's mention of following the bliss hit me in the face, as for me there is no bliss to follow. People just have no idea what a Black V is, until they descend down to that level. Later I did go into session, and I nailed it once again, as I usually do. All of my sessions these days produce marked progress, but the what and why of it all is still unknown, and I am in deep despair about finding anyone who actually knows what the fuck they are doing or who can even grasp the condition without down playing it like, "Take a walk, watch some TV, it will go away." Who are they fooling? More importantly, who or what are they auditing to give such advice? Certainly not anyone I want to know or audit. When someone is desperate and can't breath and is considering suicide or kamikaze 80 percent of the time just to amuse himself, just to give himself reason to live, even if not utterly seriously, you DON'T TELL THEM TO GO TAKE A FUCKING WALK AND FEED THE DUCKS unless you have absolutely no idea what to do, in which case you ought to keep your mouth shut. You ask, what did I run then? Well today it was, "What would ruin any possible activity you could indulge in?" "What could make any possible activity unworthwhile?" I nailed it on "No Family". Tears, Sorrow turned on, ran off, very deep, very central and VERY early, right through the throat center. You NEVER tell someone who is suicidal to go take a walk, he is just as likely to go out and jump off a bridge or walk into the lake and never come back, especially here at Cornell :). The present physical condition of the pc is related to a prior problem. It is not necessarily a SOLUTION to the prior problem as Electra says, as it may be an incidental consequence to the efforts that were the actual solution. Usually the pc has not-ised those prior solution efforts, the efforts were themselves applications of not-isness to the prior problem, so he won't be very aware of them. But they will effect the body and produce INCIDENTALLY various deathly manifestations in the body, especially as they are let go of. It is these later manifestations that the pc has his attention on. If you try to run these conditions as solutions to the prior problem, it won't run, as they weren't created as solutions. They get USED as solutions to other problems later, but they are themselves incidental consequences of the true solutions that are presently too submerged to be known. So rather than run "What problem is this condition a solution to?" I would run, "What problem resulted in this condition?" "What problem gave rise to this condition?" "What problem preceded this condition?" "What problem is connected to this condition?" This avoids the evaluation that the condition is a SOLUTION to the problem which it may not be. I would also run the creative form of this question, "What problem COULD result in this condition?" "What problem COULD give rise to this condition?" "What problem COULD precede this condition?" "What problem COULD be connected to this condition?" so that when the pc momentarily runs out of actual answers to the question, he can at least continue to give fabricated and fanciful answers. This trick allows the auditing and two way comm to continue, and also allows the pc the possible opportunity to 'out-create' the original problem by maybe inventing something worse. The package that is being audited consists of a central condition, which is related to a prior problem, which problem consists of a conflict between two terminals, the terminal that the pc is being, and the terminal that he is opposing. Sometimes the pc is aware of the problem but not the terminals, sometimes he is aware of the terminals, but not the exact problem. As the pc is listing for what problem might be connected to the condition, he may tend to give you TERMINALS rather than problems. He will say "Something to do with food". That's a terminal, not a problem. It is however the terminal he has the problem with. You ultimately want the terminal, but you also would like a clear statement of the problem. Sometimes the pc will give you the problem but not the terminal. He says "Well I can't relate." You ask him "Who or what can't you relate to" to get the terminal, and he says "I don't know." "What arena of life did you walk into that when you walked out of it you had this condition?" That's just another way of asking it. So the full C/S would be something like this, 1. "What general class of Problem might result in this condition?" Once you get a statement of the general class of problem, such as "Disagreements about Aesthetics", continue with: 2. "What general class of terminals are involved in this problem?" Pc says 'Nutty Thetans'. 3. "Is this THE PRIMARY problem resulting in your condition, or merely a compounding problem?" If compounding, go back to 1, and run 1, 2 and 3 repetitively until pc says "This is it, or it seems central or its the key problem or whatever." If pc says, this is IT, find the correct wording for the terminals in the problem, such as 'Nutty Thetans' and then run whatever problem process on that terminal you have. From Electra, "What could you do to a Nutty Thetan?" "What might a Nutty Thetan do to you?" "What could you do AS a Nutty Thetan?" "What might be done to you AS a Nutty Thetan?" Again you want what was actually done, is being done, or will be done, but you ask for creative solutions too to tide the pc over the moments when he can't remember anything actual for a while. Also run withheld from/as and opposed in/as. What could you withhold from a 'Nutty Thetan?' What could you oppose in a 'Nutty Thetan?' etc. How you run these is up to you, I imagine some would like to have done and withheld run alternately. Eventually you find a packet where the pc gives you the same answer for all four questions. It may or may not be THE packet. If it is you are in luck. That's the overt. If not, just continue auditing until flat, then go back to beginning of finding more problems and terminals. A valid criticism of this process is that it finds the apparent oppterm to the pc, 'Nutty Thetans', but it fails to find the terminal. The supposed opp term which the pc gives you that he thinks he is fighting, is often his own terminal at the end of the GPM. He will tell you he is at the beginning of his GPM where his terminal is 'A Star Class Being' who is opposed to his opp terminal 'A Nutty Thetan'. In other words, his GPM starts with 'A Star Class Being' and ends with 'A Nutty Thetan'. He is claiming to be at the beginning of the GPM fighting the end of it, when in truth he is being 'A Nutty Thetan' at the end of the GPM fighting what he used to be at the top of the GPM, 'A Star Class Being.' You become what you fear if you lose to it. But stranger things can happen. Truth is he is at the end of a GPM where 'A Nutty Thetan' is his BEGINNING terminal and 'A Star Class Being' is his most detested ending terminal. He is at the bottom, out of valence into the good guys, he was saner when he was A Nutty Thetan! In other words, his GPM starts with 'A Nutty Thetan' and ends with 'A Star Class Being'. He is in truth at the end of his GPM fighting the beginning of it. Having failed utterly as a Nutty Thetan, he has descended down into being 'A Star Class Being'. You become what you fear if you lose to it. Most people who act 'like they are God', are out of valence of for this reason. This second situation is a lot harder to audit than the first case, because you have to get him all the way back up his GPM to being a Nutty Thetan again, before he will let go of it. To find the actual terminal one could run, per R2-12, "Who or what would oppose a Nutty Thetan?' "Who or what would a Nutty Thetan oppose?' The idea is to run the one that turns on the least mass. You run the first one, and it turns on mass, that means the second one is right. he comes up with 'A Star Class Being' and you know that his OPP TERM is A Star Class Being, and his terminal is a Nutty Thetan. Personally I have never found this to work except rarely. The pc is much more likely to be able to describe his enemies than himself in the matter. Especially if he is out of valence having been overwhelmed by the nutso good guys (Star Class Beings.) He can't confront what he lost TO (Star Class Beings). But he sure can confront what he lost AS, because that is what he is fighting now (Nutty Thetans.) So you run, "What have you done to/as a Nutty Thetan" and you get both sides, and its usually the right side anyhow, as most people are out of valence and almost always list their own true sane valences as their worst enemy, and you don't want to run the out of valence side anyhow, so Electra's approach might work where R2-12 might fail. Just remember that the pc will try to sell you on the idea that the terminal given is the enemy, when really it was him, his own true valence a while back before he got overwhelmed. So you get a lot of righteous indignation about all these 'Nutty Thetans'. Once the pc comes up tone a bit and snaps back into valence you will find some real seething froth at 'Star Class Beings' all of whom no doubt should be crucified immediately without trial. This is the gist of what I ran. "What would ruin everything?" "No Mommy" "Some Mommy" Homer ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Homer Wilson Smith This file may be found at homer@rahul.net ftp.rahul.net/pub/homer/act/ACT68.MEMO Posted to usenet newsgroup: alt.clearing.technology