6107C11 SHSpec-27  Problems and Solutions

     Just going into session and running "Do fish swim?" would give gain if
there were no PTP's, ARC breaks, or W/H's.  This is hard to teach auditors,
though it's been known since 1955 that if a PTP was present, you'd get no
change in profile, if an ARC break was present, you'd have a depressed graph,
and if a W/H is present, you don't even have a session.  It's weird; You're
trying to hold the PC still so that you can audit him.

     A problem is a postulate-counter-postulate resulting in indecision.  Any
time you have a fixed stable postulate, it accumulates, or came about because
of, a confusion.  A problem has at least two stable data (the two opposed
postulates), each surrounded by a confusion, so at a MESTy level, it looks
like a confusion -- counter-confusion situation.  War is one of these.  Twenty
years after World War II, traces of it persist as NATO, the Common Market,
etc.

     As for the bank, someone set up some idea that he should oppose to some
other idea.  However, the idea that he set up to oppose the other idea commits
overts against the other idea in that it confuses the other idea.  Then it, in
turn, gets back confusion, and the other idea attacks his idea, so you wind up
with two opposed confusions, which then gather more confusion.  This then goes
down the ages as one aspect of the reactive mind.  Problems have duration;
thus the reactive mind has duration.  How many ways could you take a problem
apart?  As motion, as looking at two things, as getting confusions of
comparable magnitude -- all without adding a new solution.  Solving problems
without being stuck with a new solution has never been done before.
Psychoanalysis, by contrast, lays in a new solution that produces new
confusions, then more solutions.  Thus you get branches and schools of
psychoanalysis.

     If someone has to have a solution, he didn't confront and as-is the
problem.  A solution is always a no-confront; confronting produces a
vanishment of the problem.  If you want something to persist, just don't
confront it.  This gets us back to the original mechanism of structure in this
universe: preventing solution of the problems of the universe to guarantee the
persistence of the universe.  So anybody who solved problems with regard to
the universe was persona non grata with anyone who was trying to get a total
persistence of the universe.  The problem is that it is impossible to create
and at the same time to say that something will persist.  [Things created tend
to as-is] [So if we want things persisting around us.] if we can't create,
we've got to preserve what was created.  The way to preserve it is to get in
this mechanism of no-confront and solutions that we are now trying to undo in
the reactive mind.  This is the idea that "anyone who solves problems is a
dead duck.  Horrible things will happen to anyone who solves problems." And
everybody agrees 100%, and everybody does it to everyone, and you get a
physical universe fact that enters the mental field.  [With reference to the
above quote, I think Hubbard means by "solve," "As-is."]  This is where
structure and mind take their first divergence.  If you want a shakily
persisting universe to persist forevermore, you've got to prevent a solution
[As-ising] of its mysteries.  You've got to prevent it from being confronted.
So you say, "Anyone who tries to solve this thing is gonna get it." This goes
over into PC's trying to solve their problems from day to day.  The terrors of
having solutions [as-isings] then bring about all these other mechanisms.

     The universe poses a lot of problems: why is it here; why does time go
clickety-click, etc.  And a person who could be a tremendous mystery thought
he could guarantee to himself a tremendous persistence.  Obviously, the way to
live was to be mysterious, and if you confronted nothing, you'd live on and
on.  So we developed a whole genus of thetan who had decided not to solve
anything, because to solve something is dangerous.  If you just ask a PC to
solve something repetitively, masses close in on him.  He dramatizes the cure
of the impersistence of universes.

     Basically, there's nothing wrong with solving [as-ising] problems, but
when you've got tremendous overts against people who were trying to solve
problems, of course it becomes impossible to solve problems.  The persistence
of the reactive mind is a Q and A'ing with the physical universe.  So you find
that most physical universe principles that affect the mind are in the area of
problems: gravity, being trapped, stillness, etc.  The person gets threatened,
"You solve [as-is] a problem and we'll put you in jail," so the fellow has a
problem, doesn't solve a problem, doesn't confront the problem, doesn't create
space between himself and the problem, and of course he gets embedded in a
sort of black basalt of energy.  He "solves" the problem and jails himself!
He knows if you confront a problem, you get confused.

     All this is a protective mechanism resulting from an upper-level creative
failure.  The consequences of creating showed up with step six.  So after the
universe was figured out on the basis of, "If you create one, there are
terrible consequences"; therefore it's impossible to create another one.  So
your havingness would be shot to pieces if you knocked out the one you've got,
because you couldn't create another one.  You've already had, earlier on the
track, tremendous problems on the subject of creation.  It isn't enough to
just create something and say, "That's it." You have to agree it's valuable
and no one can ever create another one like it, etc.  You make something
valuable by protecting it and by never being able to replace it.  These are
all mechanisms of value, by which people try to get you to lay off MEST.  So
everyone is convinced that creation carries penalties and that you have to
protect creations against being as-ised, and you get the problem sequence
going.  We have legends against looking -- Medusa, Pandora, etc.  Another
threat would be, "You realize that if you solved the problem of time, all time
would cease." Actually, if you could solve the problem of time, the worst that
would happen would be having to put it there for yourself again.  And mass
without time probably wouldn't entrap anybody, anyhow.

     If you told the PC, "Face a solution," repetitively, he'd get upset.  In
the first place, solutions are the easiest things a thetan does and the
easiest things to create, and he'd practically get his head knocked off with
the confusion surrounding the solutions.  You didn't have him looking at the
confusions -- only the solutions, so the confusions just get more confused.
Not confronting the confusions, you have no reason why any of the solutions
ever occurred.  If we say, "Look at the confusion," they haven't much inkling
where to look.  What's communicable is the package of confusion + solution
which is the problem.  When he looks at problems, he looks at future solutions
too, so it as-ises things a bit.

     You're not trying to get the fellow to solve or erase problems but to get
him over his horror of problems and the piability of solving things.  You're
trying to get him to recover from these things which were set up on the very
earliest part of the track.  A person who can't confront problems hasn't much
judgment, so this is the clue to judgment.  Judgment can only take place in
the presence of observation.  We can observe synthetically when using mathematics, or when mocking something up.  Judgment is absent in a person who can't confront a problem.  The auditor who cannot confront the problems of the PC won't see them as problems, won't handle them, and the PC won't make progress.  So this resolves auditing too; the more confrontingness a person has, the better his judgment.  An auditor with judgment is a valuable auditor.

     So we want to get someone familiar with problems.  We start with reach
and withdraw on the MEST he has problems with.  Any number of processes will
increase the PC's familiarity with problems.

     People go off onto the collection of solutions for which no problems
exist, e.g. decorative knot tying or botany.  Then there are people who will
have nothing to do with problems but are overwhelmed with problems.  Most of
these problems wouldn't seem like real problems to you, just facts, as he
describes them.  [E.g.  "Tell me a problem." "Ok... The sidewalk."] As you
enter the area of problems with a PC, you'll find him in one of these two
conditions, if it's a problem he's never been able to handle:

           1. Pc in an obsessive automaticity of solutions

           2. Pc totally immersed in the problem as a fact.

He'll never be in the center line of, "These are problems," until he wakes up
to it.  When you run problems on someone, he first starts coming up with
solutions, then, on a gradient, he starts to relate them to the facts, which
for him appear to be problems.  Or he goes into the processing announcing
facts, not solutions.  So it doesn't seem to you, the auditor, that you are
listening to problems.  It's not that he hasn't told you the whole story; The
fact he's given you is, to him, a problem.  It starts peeling back,
onion-like, until you find eventually there was some problem it was involved
in, usually with an overt in it, and he can see it all and it blows.

     The way to get the PC more familiar with problems is to get him to look
at them.  "Recall a problem," is one way; 6-way confront bracket is another.
The two can be combined with profit.  You can also use, "Recall a PTP." This
situated him in the time of the problem.  It's a head-on type of process, with
no alter-is of time.  [For 6-Way Confront, see HCOB 6Jul61 "Routine 1A"]

     In view of the fact that the aberration about problems was originated to
protect the universe and creations, you find the early end of a problems run
appearing to run forever, since it was put there to insure persistence.
However, you will notice that the TA is active.  This then starts
deteriorating, and he'll pass to either side, either facts or solutions or
cognitions.  He can alternate between facts and solutions, too.