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.

