6107C06 SHSpec-26 Routine 1A -- Problems

The cure for Step 6 phenomena or creative processing ill effects is a six
way confront bracket on the pictures and responsibility on pictures. People
who go solid on Step 6 type processes have an automaticity where, if they
create anything, everything they've ever created gets created. Hence, since
the bank is an individual creation, the bank beefs up. If you use these
remedies, and you keep these things in mind, it would be safe to do creative
processing. You can prove this by taking picture A, improving it, then
looking at picture B. You will find that picture B has also improved. If you
improve the PC's ability to perceive, you improve his ability to create. And
it is only because the PC is doing it all himself that you can clear him.
However, if you improve the PC's ability to create without improving his
ability to confront, you've done him in. Art school does this; same with
technical schools. If you make sure the school has only text, diagrams, and
no real objects being studied, you'll cave the students in. Everything he
doesn't like about the subject will eventually come to the fore, because you
are running a can't have on him. It's a games condition; you are fixing it so
he can't have what he's being educated in. The more theory on the mind you
give someone, unaccompanied by an ability or opportunity to confront the
substance of minds, thinkingness, and the beingness of life, the less reality
they will have on it. So you'd do better to leave them alone in their present
confusion. All training must be accompanied by confronting, particularly in
the creative fields. The cure for obsessive create is confront. If the guy
is creating his own aberrations, it must be that the road out would be
confront. That would be the secret of clearing.

A mind is an obsessive unknowing creation, into which only a few
important factors enter:

Create Problems

Confront Change

Responsibility Not-know

Goals prevent the PC from looking at anything. He's always looking at tomorrow, not looking at what he's looking at. There's nothing wrong with having goals, but what you are looking for is the obsessive goal of the case. There's only one of these, and it prevents the PC from looking at any part of that goal's chain, because the goal is so obsessive that it removes his attention from that chain to something that isn't yet in the chain. When you find the terminal that represents that goal, you'll have found the terminal they've never looked at or inspected but have been. With an obsessive goal, the PC isn't in PT. He's down the future track at an imagined future point, so of course he isn't confronting where he is. One of the PC's goals leads to the person who most obsessively had that goal, which is the valence [the PC is in], and of course this is the total no-confront of the bank all bunched up in that spot. If you only looked at tomorrow and never observed the immediacy of the situation, you would eventually have as-ised any future of it at all. So it hangs in time 100%. You've never
as-ised any immediacy of the situation, so it is all there on that chain, and
all the future of it is as-ised. Goals processing undoes this mechanism of
no-confront. You are taking off all the futures. If you did goals processing
crudely and peculiarly, you could get the PC totally regressed so that only
some back point of the track has any reality to him, and no present point
does. If you ARC broke him, didn't keep him moving on the track, this could
happen -- a right-now-ness of moments on the track. Those points are on the
goals chain; they're moments where the PC wished to God he were somewhere
else, but he can't be somewhere else, so all he's got left to escape to is a
future. This solid scene he's looking at -- no part of it is actually
observed. It's a total overwhelm, and he's got a future there, a future
postulate. So it stays on the track as a solidity, since he can't confront
it. He'll hit these and bounce into the future. This could happen quite
early in SOP Goals running. The more he's confronted elsewheres than the
unwanted incident, the more they have as-ised, and the more he's fixed in the
incident where he didn't want to be. When you run creative processing, these
points come up easily, because he's obsessively creating them all the time.

A problem is the least confrontable thing there is, being composed of
unconfrontable confusions.

Some PC's will run a total irresponsibility on problems of any kind.
They will perceive no connection between having trouble in life and not
confronting problems in their lives. This is the clue to slow clearing.
Profiles don't change when PTP's exist.

A clue to cases is the magnitude of problem the PC comes up with. It can
drive kids buggy when their parents' idea of what a problem is is grossly
different from theirs. You may see someone sitting in the middle of a
disaster of a dramatic or a quiet sort who is worrying about the fact that the
lady next door has bought a new hat. That's the level of problem which that
person can confront, and the things connected with the disaster are not
problems. In fact, they're not even there. Someone could say to this lady,
"Why don't you straighten all this out " and she'll think they're nuts, that
there's nothing to look at, or if there was something there, there would be
nothing you could do about it. You could probably do a sanity and ability
test by making a list of problems by dynamics -- a prepared list -- in
gradients of magnitude. You could then have the test taker just check the
"problems" in each dynamic. What he checks would tell you where he lives.