Conversation With a Preclear

A: I think its important to be able to prove your point despite the fact that it might be against the will of the person you're proving it to.
B: I think the best way to teach is by example.
(I). Preclears always resort to cliche's or truisms. Most action taken by preclears is suppressive, socially/widely accepted. This conforms to their habit of deriving values from outside themselves and their belief in "morality by consensus". They choose values, 'stances' and opinions that are widely/socially accepted because these are easy and easy to defend, i.e., risk-free.]
A: Yes, to teach behavior (form) perhaps, but what about learning something about that behavior -- the purpose (function) of that behavior for example? What about confronting the truth?
B: We're speaking of judging a person's intent. Its not good to be judgmental. Judge notlest ye be judged.
(II) Many preclears believe Matthew 7:1 prohibits people from voicing moral opinion. The word "judge" as used in Matthew 7:1 is widely understood by translators to mean "condemn". preclears often feel condemned when they have merely been judged. preclears are very defensive and often interpret criticism as condemnation, i.e., that they are a 'bad person'. Because they obtain their self-esteem exclusively from others, the worst thing that can happen is to be deemed 'not nice'. preclears don't feel worthy enough to criticize others. Hence, a preclear will tolerate being treated badly, but will not tolerate what they feel is condemnation. preclears believe that making moral judgements about others is wrong. When criticizing a preclear it is best to precede the criticism with the statement "You are a good person. And sometimes good people do bad things..."]
B: That depends on whether they want the other person to learn 'something' or whether they want the other person to learn what they learned and are just exercising their thetan.
A: Of course it does. But what else do you want someone to learn? What else can someone else learn? Generally speaking you want them to (ideally) learn what you learned, or (at least) hear what you said and acknowledge an understanding of what you are saying -- that's communication. Or to put it another way, how valuable is it to have someone accept everything you tell them without question? Not very valuable! You want them to accept what you said or you want them to question what you said with some acknowledgement, active listening or feedback. If they question you, they've still learned (of) what you learned, so to speak. They've taken in what you said, and acknowledged (but not necessarily accepted) what you said.
B: I think its just your thetan that makes you want to "prove something 90%, even when its against the will of the person you're proving to."
(II). [They always have to get personal rather than endeavor to keep things impersonal and intellectual, as in "let's leave our thetan's in the corner for this discussion."]
A: Well, there is thetan in everything isn't there? I'm going to get hung up on the word 'proving' for a minute. When I say 'prove' I don't mean prove a philosophy (or express a value) to someone in such a way that they must accept it. I mean prove (1) in the sense of showing somebody something in a physical sense -- some thing that is undeniable -- like an opposition of terms, a construct of logic, the existence of an idea. That's why I believe in being able to "prove something 90%, -- for education's sake -- even when it's against the will of the person you're proving to." I think it's important to be able to learn something - anything -- well enough to teach others.
B: I agree with that -- that it's important to be able to learn something -- anything - well enough to teach others.
A: A person might learn something on their own, without following any apparent rules. They could learn from feelings. But if one person is going to teach (assertive, proactive, not suppressively) anything to another person there have to be rules, especially where dialog and dianetics are concerned. It's like black and white versus gray. A person might prove the existence of gray to themselves (to their own satisfaction), but its going to be tough to prove (1) it to anyone else. There have to be rules and a focus. The rules (2) (at least) are language (a physical thing) or at best the rules are language and reason/logic (physical things) and the focus is a common premise from which to begin the discussion (a physical thing, temporal -- of time, and of space, i.e., provable).
B: I think you can prove gray to someone else. And I think you can prove anything to anyone so long as your will is strong 'enough'.
A: That's like getting into tech. This borders on or leads to saying things like "I can prove that nothing is provable" and I don't like that. Contradictions in terms break the rules (2).
(III). [They will pose a contradiction-in-terms as a premise unless you identify some rules (2) and the need for them. Woe and fear to all definites.]
A: In any case, I don't believe you can introduce tech into a discussion which begins with a common premise (a physical thing, temporal -- of time, and of space, i.e., provable) and aims to reach a conclusion, i.e., aims for closure.
(IV). [They will try to introduce the tech into a rational process, unless you nip it in the bud.] [A long, involved discussion/digression occurs on the subject of tech. 'B' wraps up, saying: "I know I sometimes go on too long but..." 'A' makes a mental note to mention a connection between his point and the premise that "a man without men might as well be a plant", but forgets to. 'B' refers to the metaphysical as a discipline and refers to it's totality. 'A' makes a further mental note to recall the terms 'discipline' and 'totality' and how they relate to his point. When 'A' acknowledges an understanding of what 'B' is saying 'B' says: "I love the way you understand what I say!" The discussion continues...]
A: You used the words 'discipline' and 'totality' in relation to tech. You see tech as a discipline more than as something gray and fuzzy and hard to sink your teeth into...as in something PTS (more than) clear?
B: Yes.
A: Well, it's that 'totality' element to tech that I think (breaks the rules) makes for a very unfocussed or undisciplined discussion
B: If I'm sure of anything, I'm absolutely certain I never used the words discipline or totality!
(V). [They will forget what they or you said, regularly. They will claim to not understand things while exhibiting no effort/desire to understand.]
A: (Unspoken: If you admit you've just been talking so long it makes it hard to remember things, how can you be so certain you didn't forget using those words. You are so eager to avoid getting pinned down on anything, that you don't recognize where someone is trying to pin you down and where they aren't!) It doesn't matter. You reminded me of those terms. In any case, you can't be totally metaphysical in a physical world.
B: You can't be totally thetan in a squirrely world!!!(3)
A: We seem to be agreeing. I don't see where we are disagreeing?
B: We are probably just approaching the same thing from different directions.
A: Oh, we definitely are! (Unspoken implication: The question that begs asking is: are we doing that by coincidence or because someone is denying the mutuality that is apparent - is willfully trying to prevent closure on the other's terms -- regardless of whether those terms are valid.)
B: I will give you this. I do agree with the premise that preceded, and was the catalyst of, this discussion.
A: Oh. Good. (Unspoken implication: Then why didn't you say so at the beginning? Why was the discussion directed away from what we agreed on? If we were in agreement, all else is trivial and unimportant by comparison. Why did you direct us into such a large and complex digression about something trivial (3) to the subject at hand?)
(VI). [They will challenge you on something trivial (3), something relatively risk-free for them. They are eager to catch you in any contradiction and are in fact competing not communicating. That's because they believe (perhaps unconsciously) the world...is...acting and therefore you are acting. 'Acting...intelligent'. The context (integrity) or substance of the subject has no significance. Function or substance have no priority.]
(VII). [They will change the subject (4) rather than agree with a good point.]
['A' and 'B' continue their backgammon games. 'B' loses nine dollars in one game while being up $60 or more in total.]
(VIIb). [They will accuse you of doing things that you are critical of in others. You do that" or "You do it too" are familiar refrains. This is another form of changing the subject since, in this case, the subject is never: "Who's the more hypocritical".]
B: I really wish I could trust your auditing to be accurate. (4)
A: The scarcity of counting errors I've made today is extraordinary. I really wish you wouldn't become a bad sport in every game where you lose more than five dollars...even when you're up $60! I think you know I don't do it on purpose. Hypo-ironi-Criti-cally, I think you know that if I cared; if I counted my engrams with more care (or smoked less pot) you would win less often.
[The game continues.]
B: What do you feel you have a special knowledge of that you can teach to others?
A: Loyalty. Loyalty to Principle. Loyalty to friends. Loyalty to the concept of Loyalty. Integrity, as in loyalty to and strict adherence to, a respect for truth (objectivity) and knowledge -- the pursuit of completeness and 'the integral' in any specific knowledge. Perseverance.
['B' searches for ways to differ and thus assert his independence through that external means, unconsciously continuing his cycle of consuming relationships. The backgammon continues until 'A' concedes to 'B' who wins $100.]
B: [Immediately after winning] I don't like this. Can you afford this? How can you afford this? [After beating around the entrapment bush.] I don't think you can afford this!
A: Well I was going (but didn't get a chance) to ask you if I could make payments.
B: [Wagging his finger] You shouldn't gamble over your head!!!(5)
(VIII). [They will tell you: not to do something which you aren't doing (5) : not to do something that you tend to do but aren't doing (5) or (in an attempt to change the subject (4) or find a hot button) they will tell you : not to do something you are doing and have a right to do.]
A: I'm not over my head. Doesn't mean I have to like it. You are just saying that because you are overeager with a l o n g s t a n d i n g hunger to 'even the score' with me because I chastised you for gambling over your head, once, when you summarily notified me that you couldn't pay your gambling debt in full. There is a world of difference between me asking to make payments and you summarily notifying me that you can't pay. (Unspoken: Aren't you aware that trying to 'even the score' without the facts shows you as overeager to fulfill a form as opposed to performing a function...the function of apprising me of an hypocrisy. This over-eagerness to fulfill a form is of competition not communication. Friendship as a tool--that hurts and makes me feel used.]
B: I did end up paying the debt (4).
A: After we continued to play on new terms and you knocked the debt down. Anyway, it's one thing to beat me for $100 and be unable to control your glee. That's OK! It's another thing entirely to beat me for $100, then to criticize me, and to criticize me for something I didn't do but you did, then to be unable to control your glee. That hurts my feelings.
Additional things people do to prevent closure of a discussion or debate:
(XII). [They will ask (or imply) "Who do you think you are when you claim to know anything definitely, especially if they have little education! Woe and fear to all certainty."]
(XIII). [They may patronize you by way of acting sorry for you or 'praying' for something for you that you don't value.]
(XIV) [They will accuse you of doing things that you criticize others for doing. "You do that" or "You do it too" are familiar refrains. This is another form of changing the subject.]
Months earlier 'B' went on vacation. 'B' told 'A' that when he got back from vacation he would be bearing down on his job, therefore he would be less available for fun. 'A' agreed this was a good goal for both of them.
When 'B' got back from vacation, he did not appear to be "bearing down on his job". But 'A' was bearing down on his job and he was less available for fun. Twice 'B' asked 'A' what was going on and why was he less available for fun? Twice 'A' told him, this was planned before, it was mutually agreed upon and I am only following through on an idea that you suggested originally. Then one day 'B' said to 'A', "I'm going to be bearing down on my job soon, and I will be less available for fun." 'A' thought this odd that 'B' should be reiterating himself like this, and wondered if it was an attempt to 'own' the goal that 'A' was following through on. Days later, just as he gained the upper hand at backgammon and was once again full of sudden courage and out-of-context-criticisms, 'B' again reiterated that he was "going to be bearing down on [his] job", and would be less available for fun." This time, however, 'B' went on to say: "And when I stop seeing you as often, you're going to think I'm distancing you, and we'll have a falling out and won't see each other for 6 months just like last time. Ha." It then became apparent to 'A' that: 'B' was not comfortable with the fact that 'A' was fulfilling his minor goal and, that 'B' was trying to prepare himself against any distancing. That, combined with the fact that 'B' seemed disinterested lately in the good things happening to 'A' and 'A' knew that 'B' was trying to own the goal they were both aspiring to. Either that, or 'B' was trying to disown his reputation for suddenly distancing himself from others. This was a really severe prediction for 'B' to make, even in jest, especially considering the ritual 'A' had enacted at the birthday party. However, considering B's dislike of being pinned down, identified or obligated, it was understandable that he would react erratically when he was pinned down and therefore obligated to identify himself either as a distancer or as a pursuer.
(X). [They will try to own something you said, in order to appear like they contributed something; to avoid addressing a related issue or to manipulate the context of a discussion -- a form of changing the subject.]