6505C11 SHSpec-60 ARC Breaks and PTP's -- The Differentiation

     Releases are being made with power processing, with LRH D of P'ing and
MSH CS'ing.  It is getting very routine to get keyed-out clears in under fifty
hours.  We know that we can audit anybody 34 awareness levels below Level 0.
[Note: at this time, the Awareness Scale was apparently in its present (1976)
form.] The bulletins covering the power processes are too simple to be
anything but confidential.  The processes are too pure and simple to be
generally released.  They require both a great deal of training and a high
case level.  Therefore, power is to be made confidential.  Power processes can
only be audited in organizations.  There is not enough control or sense among
people like Homer and Berner to do it in the field.  The idea of running
end-words on raw meat!!  It just overwhelms the PC and is tough to straighten
out.

     Clay table processes have been taken out of the processing line-up.  When
people process raw meat with the clay table, they neglect one thing rather
uniformly: getting the questions answered.  Only a few processes are left on
students' auditing checksheets.

     The international situation has improved.  In the U.S., the senate and
house are attacking, or are on the verge of attacking, the FDA.  In Victoria,
the report on the Inquiry is delayed.  It will doubtless fizzle out.

     People probably thought LRH was exaggerating, when he said that we were
going to take the planet.  But he has always meant exactly that.  We are now
just at the edge of dissemination as a phase in the development of
scientology.  Having the Minus-0 Awareness Level Scale is a great help in
dissemination.  The press will support you on "need of change", so you press
this.  They will go along with this.  Whatever the press says is a protest.
"Revolutions are popular until you give them the change that is to be made
into.  Then they cool off."  The Scale of Awareness is a scale of what a
person, group, or organization can be aware of.  It is new.  Having the
Minus-0 Awareness Level Scale opens the door to bringing a person "right up
the line to release on study alone, because it has a trick: If you can locate
what a person is aware of on that scale, you only have to tell him about the
next level, and he will become aware of that and experience a case change."
Therefore, you can get case improvement by education.  Don't confuse the level
a person is at with his conduct.  For instance, someone dramatizing hysteria,
i.e. being hysterical, isn't necessarily, or even generally, aware of
hysteria.  Therefore, he isn't necessarily at the level of hysteria.  We do
know that a being must be aware -- and we mean analytically aware -- of
something, to be at that awareness level.  Something someone is dramatizing is
above where he is and is overwhelming him.  What he is aware of can be
discovered he what he "talks about or seems to be alert to."

     There are lower levels than 34 below zero.  But power reaches to the
bottom and gives a release.  The two levels below level -34 [Unexistence] are
False Causation [-35] and Reasonableness [-36].  These levels are below
Uncausing [-32].  The human race generally is near the bottom end of the
scale.  A person who is aware of being hysterical is pretty high-toned
[relatively speaking].  You can't pull an overt off the person at Uncausing.
There "aren't any".  "It just happens."  "What will be, will be."

     Religions fail by being below a perception of God.  "The greatest ARC
break operation that has ever been pulled in the history of the human race:
The God who is everywhere [with] no mass [ -- a] total generality ... total
unlocatability ... total power ... total causation."

     Will you please, please differentiate between ARC breaks and PTP's?
Ninety percent of the PCs that you are doing ARC break assessments on are in
fact in PTP's.  The ARC break is usually after a PTP, unless it is a flagrant
case of BPC.  A PTP is postulate/counter-postulate.  The PC is at war with
something.  He is not just worrying about something he doesn't like.  He is
agin something.  For instance, a husband has an argument with his wife.  One
wants to go to the movies, and the other doesn't.  This is a war, not an ARC
break.  But it could lead to an ARC break on both sides.  Running the ARC
break wouldn't help, though it would run.  But running the problem will help.
You could find the problem, where you might not ever find "the BPC". [So the
sequence is:

     1.  Problem.

     2.  Overt.

     3.  ARC break.]

If you clean up the BPC, the case won't improve, because the PTP is
unhandled.  They won't necessarily even feel better.  You have to do something
about the fractured postulate.

     The condition of someone in a PTP isn't ARC broken, it's war.  A
postulate/counter-postulate adds up to war.  "It would have done Hitler no
good to have run him on an ARC break."  He might have been on a PTP, though.
Probably it would have required power processing to stop him, though.  One
commits intentional overts as "a solution to a problem."  When you define an
overt as a solution to a PTP, you can solve any case.  When overts are defined
as ARC breaks, they are closed to solution.  The resolution of the case is,
"Who have you been mean to?" Process the PC at cause -- always.  A person
commits intentional overts for only one reason:  they are solutions to
problems.  Knowing this, even low-level cases are open to solution.  But when
you define an overt or series of overts as an ARC break, you close the case to
a solution.  Because a case is usually struggling along at a low cause-level,
the question, "Have you committed an overt?" will be hard for him to answer,
because he has never committed an overt, because it was all vitally necessary
and therefore totally justified.  You should ask the more penetrating
question, "Why is it so vitally necessary and why is it justified?" It is
because there was a problem requiring a solution [the solution being the
overt].  What throws you is that the problem is so buried in the past that it
is impossible to see the connection between the overts and the problem.  The
problem is frequently on the past track .  Often it has nothing to do with
PT.  The person is still solving a problem relating to an earlier
relationship.  It is still PT to him.  Hence it is still a PTP to him.  If you
trace it back, you will find that it made sense, somewhere earlier, in a
screwy sort of way.  A guy who is always smashing up his car might be solving
a problem with Daddy, who never let him use the car, by making the car
unuseable.  "You look on a lot of things as overts which are, in actual fact,
vitally necessary solutions to urgent immediate problems of survival.  The
only thing wrong with them is ... 'When?'" You could ask a guy, "When?", with
a finger snap, and get, say, "1932".  Then you could ask, "What problem did
you have in 1932?" You will get many, many manifestations, but amongst them
will not be disinterest.  If you told someone the right problem, he would change his conduct, having cognited that his solution was nuts.  These solutions are daffy, because of dropped-out time.  The solution is to an ancient problem, which is gone, leaving an overt.

     To get the major problem on someone's track may take a power process.
But if the person has some fundamental problem in his life, it has formed
innumerable locks, which have moved up to PT, and they are the overts and
withholds that he is dramatizing in PT.  If you are clever, you can get at
these locks.  You don't have to ask for overts, if you ask for solutions to
the problem.  The old process: "Tell me a problem./What solutions have you
had?", modified to "What solutions have you put into effect to solve [that
problem]?", could be reworded as, "How have you attempted to solve that
problem?" So you can just use:

     "Tell me a problem."

     "What solutions did you put into effect to solve this problem?"

This would give you O/W.  Or you could use:

     "What have you done to solve that problem?"

     "How have you attempted to solve that problem?", or

     "What would solve the problem?", or

     "What action of yours was a solution to the problem?"

Some such process would get the overts off.  Any action the person took to
solve the problem was to some degree an overt, because it was against another
postulate.

     An ARC break is a charge that has been restimulated on the back track,
which hasn't moved into full consciousness and therefore hasn't been
identified.  The PC avoids the area.  "An ARC break is BPC [and] hasn't
anything to do with solutions to problems.  [A guy] who is failing to complete
a comm cycle because somebody won't acknowledge it ... only has, really, the
BPC of a missed withhold:" an inadvertent missed withhold.  A missed withhold
can be inadvertent, not intended.  It looks and feels much like an actual
missed withhold.  If you won't acknowledge the fact that the PC has answered
the question, you bypass the charge of his answer.  But the better part of it
is that you have given him a problem, since he intended to answer it.  This is
a PTP, by definition.  He is trying to solve it [by force].  Then he ARC
breaks, but that is secondary.  It will solve rapidly by asking, "What problem
have you had in auditing?", especially on a PC who has been roughed up by not
being acknowledged.  Eventually, the PC would give you, "The problem of
getting someone to listen to me."  Then, to get the PC's overts on auditors,
ask, "Then how did you go about solving it?" You get a string of overts by
getting PTP's.  For instance:

     "What problem have you had with me about auditing?"

     "Well ... Very often you didn't seem to listen to me."

     "Well, how did you handle [solve] this?"

     "I stopped telling you right answers."

[So the PC has an ARC break, a PTP, and a missed withhold!]

     You can be misled by the BPC and the fact that, yes, there is an ARC
break.  But the ARC break isn't fully clean-up-able unless you find the
problem that it is based on.  If you clean up the problem and the problems
that the PC has had in his auditing, a whole string of ARC breaks and a whole
string of overts will blow.

     This is the case because awareness of problems is 'way South -- below
minus thirty-four.  Cause [overts] is 'way North.  So if you try to pull
problems directly with O/W, the PC would already have to be so high-toned that
it wouldn't have any effect on him if you did pull the problems.  You can
discuss problems with anybody.  It seems to be the case that where there is
life, there are problems.

     Where are ARC breaks and BPC, of course.  To get an ARC break, just throw
an end-word into restimulation.  Get a total generality hitting the person
outside his awareness, and you will see an ARC break on the generality of it.
The whole bank is the most total generality that one can state that is still
the truth.  When a generality in the bank is restimulated, the person cannot
identify the threat, and he feels terrible, not knowing.  This is a true ARC
break.  The PC cannot locate the source of this horrible feeling.  It isn't
because he is sick to his stomach.  It is that he doesn't know why he is sick
to his stomach.  If you give someone a wrong item off a GPM, he will go from
Tone 40 to Tone -40 so fast that he looks like a dive bomber:  That is an ARC
break.  But someone who is ARC broken with an instructor really has a problem
and some overts which were solutions.

     Auditors can get stuck in the win of successful ARC break assessments and
do them on people who really have PTP's.  They will get loses that way.
Problems are far more common than real ARC breaks.

     An experimental, non-therapeutic, but very educational process is,
"Invent a problem."  You will see black masses show up, as the PC's bank
collapses on him.  If you ran, "Invent a solution," and the solutions that the
PC gave you were all really invented solutions, the mass would also move in.
But if you ran, "Think of (or recall) a problem/solution," the mass would move
off.  You could do, "Think of a problem./ Invent a solution," and the mass
will move in.  Any totally new inventedness tends to collapse the bank.  If
you started knocking out a bunch of whole-track problems, you would find the
mass going away.  Similarly with whole-track solutions.  The near-far action
of it is very interesting.  This makes Problems of Comparable Magnitude able
to bring mass in, if you are really inventing, which is hard to do.  The main
message is that "you can move mental masses around with the idea of problems
and solutions." Why? Because of the basic definitions of problems and
solutions.  A solution is an effort to bat a problem away, which usually
fails.  The problem, being postulate/counter-postulate, puts the opposite
postulate across from you in a hurry, when you think of it.  A person's
problem is thought of as a mass.  He calls a PTP "it" because it is an "it" to
him: a mental mass that he tries to bat away.  Postulate/counter-postulate
gives you a mass.  "So, whether he sees it or not, [when a person gets a
problem showing up, he] gets a mass show[ing] up, and whether he realizes it
or not, the thing he tries to do about it is to do something about it to move
it away from him.  But his effort ... will move it closer to him.  So he's in
a situation, when he has a problem, that he has to do something about
something ... to get rid of the something which is moving in on him."  This
phenomenon of mass moving in happens in life, too.  The PC normally responds
by trying to do something to it to push it away.  But that effort will move it
closer to him.  The guy has a "huge, fundamental" problem.  You get it and
ask, "Well, all right.  Is that your problem?", and he will say, "Well, no.  Really the problem was something else."  You ask the same question again, and he says, "No.  My problem was so and so and so."  The PC denies each problem as he as-ises it.  They are as-ising in the course of getting down to the main problem.

     Sometimes you have a problem of missingness.  There is nothing there to
confront.  This leads to a "Where is it?" This kind of problem fringes into a
generality and borders on the ARC break.  This is where the problem fringes on
an ARC break.  That is why problems and ARC breaks appear to be cousins.
"It's gone," and "Where can I find it?" are borderline to the ARC break.  So
it is easy to confuse them.  But failures to solve ARC breaks should have
clued you in to the fact that there is something else wrong.  Fifty percent of
the reactive bank is devoted to the compulsion to make a reactive bank.  On
every process except R6, you should ask about problems, not ARC breaks, unless
you realize that you have goofed in the comm cycle.  In that case, LRH would
ask about specific parts of the formula, not do a long list.

     You don't have overts in the absence of a problem.  The problem may be
gone, but the solutions are still forthcoming.  You can run responsibility on
problems, problems and solutions, and any number of things.

     The basic mechanism of the mind is that "it needs a problem situation to
lock up time. [Nothing] else can stop [a person] on the time track."  For
instance, World War II is still being fought in literature.  It was a problem
with a lot of solutions, and civilization is to a large degree still stuck in
it, as witness the Sunday Supplements, TV programs, etc.  A night club could
be mocked up like an air raid shelter and make a fortune.  World War II was a
postulate/counter-postulate that is still more real to people than PT.  "Any
point of the time track where a civilization is stuck [is seen] as more real
than any new period."  It is the same with PCs.  If your PC isn't paying close
attention, you can assume that the PC is stuck somewhere in back time.  You
can get his attention by finding out where he is locked in time and entering
that prior time period.  If you trigger the back time period, you will find
yourself there with him.

     You get the PC's overts by going after problems, but, if he is below
causation, he won't recognize them as overts, because they are necessary
solutions.  Just ask for the problem.