5110CM01 OCTSER (October Series) Self-determinism -- Effort Processing, plus Validation Straightwire, "the theory of which was to validate all the good moments of the preclear's past by having him recall them (Ability Major 5, "Ability Straightwire", page 7).] What is this fixation on death, disaster, and invalidation? One theoretical possibility is that he's getting even. He's been made to produce, so he mocks up a bad production. Mechanically, of course, it's something he hasn't as-ised because it's unpleasant, etc., but why did he agree to those mechanics in the first place? He makes an original agreement, then revolts against it. Maybe he's been made to produce lots of good things, so he revolts with this mechanism, so when he's called upon to mock up something good, he mocks up something bad. This may happen on a 1.1 level. This can be seen running pleasure moments, when the PC slips into the badness of it all. Assuming that the fellow is in revolt, this can be very overt (hi-toned) or covert, e.g. not producing but having excuses for failure or forgetting to do it at all; the latter is a lower harmonic of direct refusal. Occlusion is this level of revolt, and we let people get away with it. For instance, Hitler's around somewhere, and we allow him to get away with having forgotten who he's been. "I can't" is a covert "I won't." The mechanism is so lost it has become a way of life, not a revolt any more. The guy just mocks up bad pictures and forgets. Some civilizations on the track were really production-crazy, e.g. Arslycus, where the thetans were actively producing, mocking up matter. You couldn't get away; there were entrapment mechanisms. Production got a bad name because it was production against power of choice over production. The bank dramatizes this creation against the wish to create. The fellow doesn't want to mock up the bank, so he mocks up the bank. His will to create has been badly overwhelmed, partly because he overwhelmed others' will to create. Arslycus eventually fell apart. Some worker invented disintegration so that it could happen. This was the only possible response -- to out-create with a new idea something worse than what was happening to them. Creation gets a bad name from enforced creation. There's another side to it. LRH has been unhappiest when he's produced so much that he gluts the market. Others decide they've been out-created, and they get unhappy too. That's not so upsetting; what's so upsetting is not having any market for your creation, no observers, no audience, etc., and not having it wanted. One does want one's creations to be admired. If you are made to produce when you don't want to, or if you think there will be no appreciation of your production, you will generally produce an overt product. One can also think that a good creation in some field will bring one into a state of victimization or some unpleasant consequence. In this case, one retreats, saying, "I can't," or "I don't have any talent," or "I haven't been educated." In 1948, the answer to "Why does a thetan create a bank?" was that he creates something with resonance between his own tone and what he creates in the bank. This is not the whole story, though. An individual mocks up, or doesn't, in an effort to prevent his will from being overthrown on the subject of creation. He gets mechanisms to inhibit creativeness in order to protect his self-determinism. These mechanisms are what we run into in processing. This is why creative processing works, but it is also why some pcs eventually dreamed up that the bank gets solid. The mechanism was already there. Methods of denying creation are the most fundamental thing you're dealing with in processing. We have to figure out what the guy's afraid of and disarm it on that angle. So what is he afraid of? He's afraid of being made to do. (You can substitute "do" for "create" to avoid some mine fields.) He considers there are bad consequences to doing; he considers that you have to hit a thetan to get him to create. This is an old-old consideration; it explains things like the high birth rate amongst the lower classes. [It also explains waiting until the last moment to write a paper, and the artistic temperament and why artists seek out SP's.] If someone hits you, you'll make a picture of it. This explains to everyone that he's a victim -- he has been made to create, and he is following the law that the best way to keep from being hurt is to create. This keeps you from being beaten. The most involved point in an engram is where the fellow thinks he has mocked up the engram in full, which should keep him from further injury, then gets hit again by something else, so he mocks that up too, and then there's more injury, or something, which defeats him. His best answer to a blow was to create. That used to get him off the hook. Then he suffers defeat and an invalidation of the mechanism of creation as a defense. Then comes a total not-is of engrams, which is another defeat, and the disappearance of earlier engrams. People with invisible fields have gotten to a chronic state of believing it won't do any good to create. This all sums up to the thetan's responses to the accumulation of all the times his choice was overwhelmed. Someone's choice is overwhelmed, so he responds in some way, in a downscale attempt to make his postulates stick, which he never gives up trying to do. The basic assumption of a thetan and the first thing he wants to do, is the communication formula: Axiom 10. It's the most fundamental game in the interrelationship of thetans anyway. From there on, he just wants to make his postulates stick. When he fails to create an effect, he will still try to create an effect [by mocking stuff up]. Routine 3 (goals processing) is effective because you are looking over all the powers of choice he has hoped to effect, most of which have failed, and running out his failed powers of choice. Running goals is a sneaky way of getting at what postulates he would like to make stick by asking what conditions he was trying to bring about. The bank is the mechanisms of all sorts that tend to defend his assertions of self, though the effect of these mechanisms is to make a mess of the PC. The disintegration of his postulates is what's wrong with him. His reaction to this is surprisingly extreme, but the bank is still trying to have the effect. The basic of the chain is an overt, which is why overts work so well in processing. Someone who is obsessively protecting anything has overts on it. He is still trying to make his basic postulate of "effect on" stick, however. Why does he make the original overt postulate? He has gotten into a games condition on creation, that's why. He has been creating against someone else, gets a lose on making nothing of the opponent's creation, so he overts against it. Early on the track, thetans specialized in goofy games and got into forgetting what they were doing. So there seems to be something wrong in the field of postulates. Theoretically, you could run a PC on, "What effect could you actually create?" This doesn't work because it is too direct; it goes straight through the mine field. To the PC, it seems unreal; he can't do it. Modifying it to, "What decision would it be all right for you to make?" would be more workable. A thetan must have a feeling that there are motions and confusions he cannot tolerate, so he avoids them with mechanisms of creation. If a person's tolerance for motion and randomity is raised, his fears of consequences of the overthrow of his power of choice are reduced. Most fundamentally, obtaining a tolerance for motion and catastrophe would wash away the fear of fear. The creation of a confusion is the last echelon of a postulate. The last echelon of a confusion is the creation of a confusion by omission. So we're on safe ground with pcs if we stress creation of confusions, especially by omissions. So you could use the process, "If you said nothing, what confusion would occur?" or, "What not-doingness would create a confusion.?" Cases that don't move are the roughest ones. In catatonia, we have the last desperate effort of a thetan to make a postulate stick somewhere; it's a not-doingness. There's probably no such thing as a thetan who'd not trying to do something. All thetans are busy, if only trying to do things through omission. Thus, in asking for goals, we should ask for failed goals, secret goals, withheld goals, etc., since that leads straight to old postulates. A PC can be so confused on the blow/create theory that just being talked to by the auditor can cause him to create something. Or below that, he'll mock up nothing while in session and get lots of ideas about it out of session. Ron handled this with short sessioning. The PC would hand up his case right after session. Then LRH would begin a new session and handle it. At this level, the PC is on a total reverse: he creates when he's not supposed to and doesn't create when he's supposed to. Occlusion is the last answer, the last attempt to create an effect: an overt of omission. Here, you could use some far south process as, "What confusion wouldn't occur if you forgot?" This might get through to him if he's on a failed forget. [So the dwindling spiral of creation or postulates is: 1. Postulate 2. Failed postulate 3. Creation 4. Failed creation 5. Creation of a confusion 6. Creation of a confusion by omission 7. Not-ised creation of a confusion by omission.] A tolerance of confusions, problems, motion, etc, is fine, but failed postulates is what you are trying to get with goals processing. You can also get this effect if you ask a PC what he hopes would happen if he kept on doing what he was doing. If he can't answer, you can undercut it with "What won't happen?" What shows up here will be caution, which seems laudatory, but he'll begin to realize something will happen too, as you get the not-is off. You could run off intentional overts with, "What would (or wouldn't) be damaged if you forgot it?" They are both aimed at getting the effect he's trying to produce. Or you could use, "What damage would forgettingness cause?" You're running O/W crossed with forgettingness. Etc. This is all at a high level of theory. It's a road parallel to the one through the minefield, even if you can't get the exact road.