> bjbjqq 4ee"CCCCCWWWWW43 3 3 3 3 3 3$558ND3CD3CCU4B,B,B,CC3B,3B,B,F./;T,W".
3k404/8f+8/8C/B,D3D3B,48 : Insanity Point Lecture 01 Insanity
By Dennis Stephens June 30 1994
Transcribed by
Pete McLaughlin May 7, 2012
Today is the 30th of June 1994 and this is the first of the lectures on the upper level tech of TROM, and I want to take up with you the subject of insanity.
Sanity Defined
The word insanity or the wordmore precisely the word sanity comes from the old Latin word sanus meaning healthy, so presumably insane means unhealthy. But that meaning has long since been modified in English and the only connection, these days, between the subject of sanity and the subject of health we could say that a person who is insane would have an unhealthy mind. That would be about the only connection. Theres no other. There is no other use of the word health. No other connection between the word health and the word sane that I know of in our in modern English.
However, its long been known by mankind that theres a connection between this subject of sanity and this subject of reason. And ahhtheres also, its been known, people with that unhealthy people, particularly unhealthy people with unhealthy minds dont reason to well. So theres atheres a connection there. Theres connectivity there too.
1:26
In our modern society, the word insane is largely used in a legal sense. More and more, only the legal profession have any use for this term of insanity, the term insane and this subject of insanity.
The medical profession gave the term away many, many years ago because of their conflict within the medical profession on what the word means. These days the medical profession talk about psychosis, in the subject of psychiatry, they talk about psychoses etc., which they have some form of definition for. And ahhh and there they stand.
02:12
But ummmthe subject of insanity umm they wont have apart in its legal sense and one can understand why. You see the problem that the law has with the subject of ahhh of insanity started many, manymany, many years ago when some bright young barrister ummpleaded his client ummminnocent of a crime on the grounds of insanity. And ahhh once he did this, of course, the ahhhlegal profession had to have a definition of insanity. To find out if the person was on one side or the other side of the line.
2:50
In other words, they were looking for a definition of insanity. And the lawI believe this was aboutsome time in the 19th century in English law they came up with a definition of insanity, a legal definition. I believe they called it the M'Naghten rules, which said that a person, and Im paraphrasing it here, that a person is insane if he doesnt know what he is doing or if he does know what hes doing, he doesnt know that what he is doing is wrong. Thats roughly a paraphrase of the M'Naghten rules. And youll find that ahhthat that rule is, with modest various modifications, is taken in various parts of England, Australia and so forth as the legal definition of insanity. Also, many states of America have adopted it or very, very similarvery, very similar rules. Very, very similar, very, very similar definitions of insanity.
03:53
But quite clearly, such a definition of insanity is useless from a medical point of view and thats why the medical profession simply wont have apart of it. Theyre quite happy with the term psychosis which they canwhich they can fit into theirfit into a medical structure. They cant fit this definition into a medical structure, the legal definition of insanity, into a medical structure, so they have no use for it.
04:15
Well quite frankly, neither can we. What we cant put ahhWe cant use their def the legal definition of insanity either. The lawyers and solicitors and legal eagles might be able to make sense of this definition but its a completely useless definition for a social scientist, for a psychologist, as it is for a medical doctor. Its quite useless, and so we must abandon it too. Its of no use to us when were talking on the subject of insanity.
04:53
Never the less, if we want to understand this subject of insanity we ought to have some form of asome form of a definition for it, which means weve got to hang it onto something. Weve got to connect it to something. We just cant have ithave it hanging there all by itself in space. Weve got to define it. To define it means weve got to connect it to something else in the universe.
05:07
Reason
Well the thing thatsthat insanity or sanity connects itself most obviously to is this subject is this subject of reason. That is thethat is the thing it is most obviously connected to. Its ahh as I pointed out earlier, that ahh its been well known that insane people do not reason very well. They reason very, very badly. And people with unhealthy minds reason very badly. Its been well known, this, for many, many centuries this is that this is so.
05:38
So the most obvious connection between the most obvious thing to define sanity and insanity is in terms of reason and that is what we do in TROM. WeWeWe ahhWe dont talk about health and healthy minds but were were very much concerned with this subject of ofof reason and so forth.
06:10
A thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously
Now, in TROM, we knownow this is not an originalthis is not an original discovery in TROM, but we know in TROM that reason in this universe is based on this proposition that A thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. Now that is a definition of reason, a basis of reason in the whole field of logic and in the whole of the sciences.
The whole of science accepts that as a basis of reason, that that is the basis of reason. In fact the whole science of logic is based upon that premise that a thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. So that is reason inin logic. Its reasonIts the subject of reason in science and it happens to be the subject of reason in the universe at large.
06:55
When the scientists and the logicians adopted that as their basic premise of reason and based the subject of logic upon that they were on very, very firm ground because it turns out that the proposition that a thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously is ais a valid deduction from the basic law upon which this universe is evidently constructed.
07:22
So were on very, very firm ground in TROM. When we say, Ok, were going to start relating this subject of sanity to reason and insanity to unreason.
07:34
Now, once we do this weweweve completely left mankind at large behind, because ummmankind at large as you probably know and have noticed, has as manyalmost as many definitions of insanity as there are people. You know?
07:51
Its an incredible thing if you go up to a person and say, well what do you thinkwhat is insanity? and youll get as many different answers as there are people. Now the reason why you get this is why you get this phenomena, is that nobody knows what reason is. You see?
08:08
If you dont know what reason is you wont know what unreason is and if you dont know what unreason is youre going to have trouble with this subject of insanity, because theres obvious connection between this subject of unreason and insanity. Now you see why mankind has trouble with this subject.
08:28
The the endpoint that mankind gets to onto this subject of insanity is..is that hethe final endpoint is he says, Well ahhany person who disagrees with me is insane. Now that thats thethats the final fling of the compulsive games player. You know. IfifIf you disagree with me you must be insane because you disagree with me. And Im sane. Im obviously sane, therefore if you disagree with me you must be insane. And that thatthat is the finalfinal step there there of the compulsive games player.
09:09
But theres ahhummThis might be a method ofofof ahhof settling games. It might be a very, very valid idea of getting rid of the opponent.
I mean in the history of;in history shows a vast number of occasions where people whove disagreed with the establishment have been clapped away in insane asylums or or maybe even executed, oror simply because they disagreed with the establishment. Theyve been pronounced insane and vanished. Theyve gone never to be seen again. And this is still happening today on the planet. You know?
09:50
You can go to variousvarious countries in the in thein the third world and umm anybody who disagrees with what the president sayshe publisheshis disagreement with what the president says and the following day the mans gone, never heard of again. You know? His bodys dumped out at sea somewhere. Thats it, you know? So hes gone.
Obviously insane. Done with him. He disagreed with what the establishment said. You see this is what the games player considers as reason and unreason. The man is obviously insane because he disagrees with me.
10:29
This is about as far south as it can go. Its about as unreasonable as you can get on this subject of reason I can assure you. Cause we know cause we know what reason is. Its got nothing to doreasons got nothing to do with Might being right. Its got one hell of a lot to do with whether the thing can both exist and not exist simultaneously in the universe. Now youyou you get the drift of what IIm onto here.
10:59
Mankind at large doesnt know anything about this subject. Only the scientists know a bit, the because theyve studied logic. Logicians know about it. They know a bit about reason. The scientists know a bit about reason but mankind at large doesnt.
11:16
People who have never studied science or studied logic, studied mathematics have no vaguest idea of what reason consists of. Really they dont, have no idea. Outside of this field of natural philosophy a person has no idea of what reason consists of. That includes the law, that includes ummbusiness peoplebusiness men, so forth. They simply have no idea. Its not part of their training. So they have no concept of what reason is. So they have no concept of what insanity is. So, of course, they can pick any any wild idea out of thin air and say, well thats as good definition of insanity. You see that?
11:58
Thats whats happened in ourin our society all the time on this subject of insanity. Theres as almost as many definitions of insanity as there are people simply because people dont know what reason is and if they dont know what reason is they dont know what unreason is. If they dont know what unreason is they cant connect it up with this subject of insanity, so they cant get a good definition of insanity. But we can we can do better than that
12:22
Now, I have to give you this little digression because you may believe that our society knows a lot about insanity. In truth of the matter it knows nothing. Knows nothing about insanity.
12:31
Simply because our society at large doesnt know anything about reason. It cant define it. You go up to a person and say, what is what do you think is reason? Whatt the definition of reaons? He cant tell you. He doesnt know. He will call himself a reasonable man. You say, are you reasonable? Hell say, Oh, yes. Im a reasonable man. You say, Ok, what is reason? He cant answer the question. Now that is a very strange state of affairs isnt it.
12:59
A man will call himself reasonable when he cant define reason. How unreasonable can you get. Thats just about as unreasonable as you can get, isnt it.
13:10
But, enough of this digression, lets get back onto the main road.
13:15
Insanity defined
Well now were were ready really now to give our definition ofof insanity. Were in a position to do it. Weve tied it up with the subject of reason. We know what reason is. So we know what unreason is. So we can define insanity. Now this is what Im going to give you is the definition that we use in TROM.
13:39
Here we go. A person is insane when they believe that a thing can both exist and not exist simultaneously.
Now Ill just check that back. Its not garbled so there is no need for me to repeat it.
That is the definition of insanity that we use in TROM. A person is insane when they believe that a thing can notcan both exist and not exist simultaneously.
14:08
Now as you listen to the definition it doesnt seem pretty it doesnt seem particularly world shattering does it? I mean the earth didnt move under your feet as I read it to you. But that, never the less, is the definition of insanity. That is the definition of ahhof insanity. It ties it up completely with the subject of unreason.
14:35
But although, its ahh doesnt sound particularly earth shattering as we proceed to tie it up to our existing technology of games play I can assure you the datum will become more and more earth shattering. And,,,and,,,and,,,So you will start to almost feel the planet move under your feet when you start thinking about this subject
15:00
Prerequisite for insanity
Now the ahhthe first step on this ahhon this road is what we might call, and is probably very correctly called, the prerequisite for insanity, the prerequisite for insanity. And again this is not understood outside of TROM.
By the way theScientology had no definition for insanity. Note that. We have a definition in TROM for insanity. Scientology had no definition for insanity. You can hunt through Rons works, he never bothered to define it. I dont think he ahhhhe ever really came to grips with this subject of reason, unreason and insanity himself. Certainly not closely enough to define it within his subject.
15:50
But, never the less, weve come to grips with it and we can define it.
Insanity and Compulsive Games Play
But thats as I say is that there is a prerequisite to this subject of insanity, a very interesting prerequisite, which ties it up to the subject of games play. Now here is the prerequisite of insanity.
Here we go, a person only goes insane when they believe that they have no class to go into if they are overwhelmed in games play.
Ive just played that back, its not garbled.
Now what do we what do we mean by that? Well its pretty selfexplanatory isnt it. A person doesnt go can only go insane if they have no class to go into if their overwhelmed in games play.
In other words a person can reduce their postulate set down to two games classes. They canand while theyve got two games classes their ok. They can go into one games class and lose the game and they will get driven into the other games class and their still ok. Theyve got a game they can play. But what happens if they if they reduce their set down to a single game class set?
Now this ties this upwe tie this material up with what I mentioned, I believe on supplementary tape number 3, this subject of the postulate set and the reduction of the postulate set of the goals package reduction of the goals package. Recall that material? There on supplementary tape number 3.
If the goals packageor the postulate or more correctly the postulate set is reduced down to a one game class postulate set and the person is using this postulate set in games play and is actually ummmin this games class and actively playing a game from this sole remaining games class and loses the game. Gets driven into overwhelm, he has literally no place to go.
18:06
You might say, Well hell simply go into one of the other games classes. No he cant, cause hes postulated that he cant go there. His last overwhelm said no. his last overwhelm when he last left that class he he said, Well I can no longer play this game. I can no longer stay in this game. Ive gotta get out of this game. Its not playable by me any more. So he reduced that possibility down to zero.
18:35
Now the last possibility is reduced down to zero. So where is he gonna go?
Well Ill tell you where he goes. He goes insane. He loses his marbles. And thats what happens.
And thats the connection between insanity and compulsive games play. And its a tremendously valuable connection. Once you grasp it all sorts of things start to make enormous sense.
It tells you immediately that only compulsive games players go insane. And it also tells you that every compulsive games player, given enough time, will eventually go insane.
19:18
Once the person reduces the theahhthe goals package down to two games classes. Thats the state of compulsive games play. Eventually its going to get reduced down to one games class.
Two games classes, then it gets reduced down to one games class and at that point every time he playshe starts to use thisthisthis class in games play hes playing withheshes putting his sanity on the line. Because if he loses the next game. The next game he loses. Hes lost his sanity.
19:44
Hes gone. There is no other place he can go but into insanity.
And ourourmy problem is to our problem is tototo put forward this scheme this scheme to show how this occurs. And to put itput it into get it all written down, and so forth. So its understandable. So you can see it clearly. And its not an easy thing for me to do because were dealing withwere dealing with the very essence of unreason.
20:18
Dont kid yourself. I wouldnt be giving you this data if I didnt know thatwith absolute certainty that its correct.
I first discovered this data some years ago but I put it on the back burner for further and further testing. I wouldnt go off half cocked. But now Im absolutely certain that this is it, that Ive got the data on insanity. I know exactly what insanity is, and it it is what Im saying it is.
That right at the heart of itof every insanity you find in the person right at the heart of every insanity you will find this urge to make a thing both exist and not exist simultaneously, or the urge tototo try and operate on a postulate and its negative simultaneously.
One way or another, the insane person is trying to do the impossible. And it is impossible. It defines the impossible in this universe. It is this attempt to try and work on a postulate while working on its negative, to operate on a postulate while working on its negative.
21:28
You cant both go to China and not go to China simultaneously. If you try this you will go mad. That is insanity. You get it?
21:42
Now another datum that immediately falls out the hamper once we know this prerequisite for insanity is this subis the practical thing of, How could a person proof themselves against insanity?
How a person can proof themselves against insanity.
Now we know how to do this in TROM. We know how we can proof a personhow a person can proof themselves against insanity but its not understood in any other field of psychotherapy. Its not understood in Scientology. Its just generally known in Scientology that if a person is cleared that theirthat they willthat thatthat they wont go mad. But it wasnt understood why.
We know why. We can explain why. Why it is. We wewere running on a senior datum here thanthan the other psychotherapies because we can correlate this material so closely because of our quite profound knowledge and understanding of games play.
22:45
So howhow could we proof a how can we proof a person against insanity? Very, very simply., very, very simple. Very, very simple way a person can be proofed against insanity. All they have to do is do levels One, Two, Three of TROM. Solo. Thats all they have to do. Anyone whos achieved the first three levels of TROM, theyve proofed themselves against insanity.
23:17
Why? Because by the time the person gets to the top of level Three, they are no longer a compulsive games player. Theyve taken so much charge off theirtheirtheir game compulsions that their game compulsions are now no longer game compulsions.
They play games still but the compulsions gone. The charge is off it. The intensity of charge is off their bank by the time they get to the top of level Three. Theyve taken enormous charge off their case and their no longer a compulsive games player. And because their no longer a compulsive games player they have no danger of ever going insane.
23:59
They cannot be driven insane in life any longer. They can be made miserable but they cant be driven insane.
Your compulsive games player can be both made miserable and driven insane and the proofproofing of the individual is the first three levels of TROM.
24:21
A person doesnt have to go as far as level Four or level Five. They dont have to erase all the goals packages in their mind. Oh no thats not necessary, just levels One, Two and Three completed solo is sufficient to proof any person against insanity.
24:40
Now that is a tremendously important datum. And its a datum that stems directly from our understanding of how insanity comes about.
Quite clearly if a person is not a compulsive games player they havent reduced their their their games down to a single game class, and if they havent reduced their games play down to a single games class, then theyre not putting all their eggs in one basket. Are they?
25:10
And as they havent got all their eggs in one basket they can suffer overwhelm and always have a place to go to. Will always have a class to occupy in the event of overwhelm.
Unlike the compulsive games player whose reduced his games classes down to one. If that one gets overwhelmed hes got no place to go except to lose his marbles, which he promptly does.
25:38
Now I want to give you an example of this. Youll see it youll see it very, very clearly. Youll see how this would go.
Ill go through an example, and work the example through with you very, very carefully and youll see exactly how the person goes insane. And well relate it exactly to theto the ahhto the postulates involved.
Boolean Algebra
But before I do so I have some probably a little bit of bad news for you.
In order to truly understand this subject of insanity we need enormous precision in our reasoning which cannot be obtained by the use of just words. So in order to achieve this precision Ive got to Ive got to. I have no choice. Ive got to use the algebra of logic which is Boolean Algebra. So I will have to lapse into this symbolism.
Im sorry. My apologies but if I attempt to do it otherwise Im simply going to fail and the whole tape will just degenerate into ahhinto a mass of verbiage. I wont get my point across. So Im gonna have to use logical symbolism.
So that means Im going to have to define my symbolism as I go, and explain exactly what the symbolism means. Then you can grasp it.
27:10
Its not a difficult subject. Im not going to turn you into a logician or anything like that. Im just giving you the absolute fundamentals of it there so you can understand the terms and see it in terms of the symbolism.
27:25
Einstein had this same problem with his umm with his relativity theory. Its generally recognized that its quite impossible to explain relativity theoryEinsteins relativity theory in words to anyone.
But it ahhh once a person understands sufficient advanced mathematics itsitsits quite understandable. They see the mathematics, it all makes sense but when they try and put it into words they cant put it into words. But they see it in terms of the mathematical symbols.
27:58
This is simply because the mathematics is a much more precisemuch more precise tool than the English language. And its similarIm up against the same problem trying to explain and discuss this subject of insanity, and so forth while just using words. The words just arent precise enough. I will have to lapse into the symbolism of logic in order to to achieve the precision required to get the job done.
So my apologies, but I do have no choice. Up to this point Ive got through. I managed to write the write up of TROM. Ive given all these supplementary lectures and youve only had just a nodding acquaintance with thewith the algebra of logic. Ive just mentioned it in just a few bits and pieces here and there but now Im afraid I am going to have to go a little bit further into it and ahhhexplain a little bit more of it in order to complete this upper levelupper level tech of TROM. Its a complicated subject and we need the precision of the algebra.
So here we go.
First of all Ill give you the symbolism I am going to use and then Ill discuss some of the relationships and so forth and their deductions one from another. But first of all the symbolisms so we canactually somebody actually listening to this can actually write it down on paper and see the symbolism.
29:31
X and 1X
UmmmWhen we put down a symbol, say X that really means X exists. Ummm If we want to put down not X we write that down as 1X and because its ahhhin other words, all were saying there is that the absence of X is everything in the universe except X. So its XX exists, X doesnt exist is 1X the whole universe less X. See that?
30:05
(Brackets)
Simple, quite simplesymbolism. Normally, for convenience sake we surround the 1X with a Bracket, so Ill when Im gonna give you 1X, Ill give it to you in the form (1X). Get that?
30:22
So thats what itthats what a 1 minus X will sound like when it comes over to you. (1X).
Now theres going to be nothing else inside the bracket except 1X or 1Y. so forth. It will be 1 minus sign a symbol. Thats all thats ever going to turn up in the brackets. So there is nothing complicated inside the brackets, except the& one minus the symbol. That s all that s going to be in the brackets.
30:55
Equal = and Not Equal To `"
Right, next is the ahhh& the& the signs that we re going to use.
First is the equal sign. Well the equal signs in arithmetic and we use it in logic exactly the same as its used in arithmetic. It means identical. Equal sign means identical with. So equals is just exactly the same meaning as used in common arithmetic.
But we use another sign in ummm in logic and that is the sign of not equal to. Not equal to. And the sign we use for that is the ordinary equal sign of arithmetic but we slash it through with a line 45 degrees to the horizontal. It slashes through the equal sign. It literally crosses it out. And that is the the sign for not equals.
31:51
Now fundamentally in logic thisthe ahhhthe statement ahhhor the sign not equal simply means that equality is not the case. Thats what it means. Equality is not the case. Its not equals. See? Equality is not the case. Thats all it means, the symbol.
32:11
0,Zilch, Zero, Nothing and Naught
Now in the logic zero means the same as it does in ordinary arithmetic, ordinary algebra it means nothing. Zilch, nothing, zero
1 and Universe
One, the figure 1 means universe, or more precisely the universe of discourse. Its the totality of the existence classes. The totality of things that can exist in thein the situation. That is we express that with the figure 1. So the only numbers that appear in the logic are zeros and ones. We dont have any other numbers. Its a much more simple mathematics than ordinary mathematics, I can assure you.
32:50
Classes and Common Classes
Now Ive on lecture 10 Ive already explained this subject of classes and common classes and so forth. I dont have to go give you that material again. Thats already given on lecture 10, which is a forerunner to this one, and a necessary prerequisite to this one. So you have the subject of common classes. So you know what a common class is. And so on.
33:19
Plus +
Now I better also at this point give you the meaning of the plus sign + in logic. The plus sign its slightly different from its use in ordinary ahhin ordinary arithmetic and algebra. Umm In logic the use of the plus sign depends upon ummmwhat the thing, whats on the other side of the equation. For example, if we have, say, X+Y=naught. It means that both X and Yboth X equals naught and Y equals naught. And the combination of X+Y equals naught means that ahhhboth of them equal naught. Get that?
34:01
So X+Y equals naught means exactly the same as X equals naught and Y equals naught. We put them together and say X plus Y equals naught.
34:11
But when we say X plus Y equals 1 we dont were notwe cant use that additive when theywhen their equal to one. When their equal to the universe.
X plus Y equals 1 has the meaning that the universe either consists of X or it consists of Y or it may consist of both. Its indeterminent. Wed have towed have to do something about that about that equation. It may consist of both.
In other words, its an either/or situation. But we dont know whether its the ahhhWe dont know whether its the inclusive OR or the exclwhat they call the inclusive OR or the exclusive OR. So we dont know, but its certainly when we have an equation equal to one the plus sign is quite disjunctive quite seperative. We cant just add them together like we can in arithmetic. Quite disjunctive, its definitely an either/ or situation. Either X or its Y or its both. Thats the way its generally in...interpreted in logic, the equation X+Y=1.
35:28
X`"0
Now, what about the equation X is not equal to naught X`"0 ? Well that means that X is not& it s somewhere in between X is& is & is equal naught X=0 and X equals 1 X=1 . It certainly doesn t mean that X equals naught X=0 and it certainly doesn t mean that X equals 1 X=1, its in between. It really, what it means is that some Xs do exist. See that?
35:53
Its not the case that X doesnt exist. That is precisely what X is not equal naught means. It means that it is not the case that X doesnt exist. X may be equal to 1in that set of circumstances. We dont know. But its certainlyit is not the case that X does not exist, and that s what X is not equal to naught X`"0 means.
36:20
Little bit complex until you get to grips with it but it ahhh& the use of that not equal `" sign but I can assure you it all make s sense.
It s only by the way in the last 50 or & or a hundred years or so that theyve the logicians have got out the use of these signs and got them and brought them to the precision that they are today.
The history of logic is a very fascinating history if you like to read it up. Its ahhhits the history of how not to do it. Its taken ahhhitittheres no more precise subject than logic and when you read up the history of it its quite amazing how many great logicians have got it wrong. Particularly on this subject of ahhhof what is meant by the signwhat is meant by the not equal sign. And how we interpret the& the& the question of sum in logic. Well we can do it in modern logic but they couldn t do it a hundred years ago. But we can do it today.
37:20
X`"0 versus X=0
It must be clearly understood that the sign& say X is not equal to naught X`"0 is the complete antithesis of X equals naught X=0 . You see that? It s the antithesis. It s the complete opposite. The opposite of X equals naught X=0 is X is not equal to naught X`"0 .the antithesis of X=0 is not, repeat not, X=1. See that?
37:47
If X `"0, X may equal 1 but we just don t know. It s certainly not equal to naught and we express that by saying X `"0 . See that?
37:58
Or put that another way, some X s do exist. That s another way to look at it. Use the word some
Ok, now what about X+Y`"0?
Well& Well the easiest way to understand X+Y`"0 is to realize that X+Y`"0 is the antithesis or the opposite of X+Y=0. That is to say it means ahhh& that is to say it is the antithesis of umm& X doesn t exist and Y doesnt exist. Its the antithesis of that.
So it means that ahheithereither ahhsome Xs exist oror some Ys exist or some of both exist. With the added implication that it may be the case that ummthat ummmthat X = 1 or Y = 1 or both X and Y are both equal to 1. That can beThat can be the interpretation of X+Y`"0. It simply means that it s not the case that X+Y=0.
39:25
Ahmm& Well& Well that s the & that s the end of the ahh& that s the end of the& of the snappy basic course in Boolean algebra. We re now going to press on with our ahhh& we re now going to press on with our material and its time that we ahhhits time that we took up this ummthis example that I mentioned to you so we can understand more clearly how this subject of insanity comes about and exactly what it looks like when it does come about.
40:00
What were now in a position to do this because were now in a position to use our symbolsto use our symbolism, very, very precisely.
40:10
Now for our example Im going to use the example that I gave in the original write up of TROM about the Barber of Seville.
Do you remember the example I gave of the Barber of Seville? The ahhhwhich is a well known historical logical paradox actually. And ahhh Ill just refresh your memory. Remember the barber, the king who ummmhes in this towntheres the king there with the barber and ahhh the king gets fed up with seeing the men of the town wandering around with scruffy beards so he puts a notice up in the town square which says that, Henceforth, on pain of death, all the men of this town will be clean shaven. Ahhall thoseonly those who dont shave themselves will be shaved by the town barber.
Later on in the day the town barber saw the notice and promptly went insane. Now why did he go insane? Because he couldnt obey the edict, so he was facing execution by the king. And ahhhso hehehe wentthe only thing he could dohe he went insane.
41:32
Now lets examine exactly what thewhat the problem is here.
In order to take this problem apart the easiest way is to start to put ourour postulate set together and ahhhandandand tick off the possibilities. Clearly weve got a postulate set here of ummof ahhhummm a personahhahhlets nominate S the letter S as a person who shaves themselves. And the letter B that is a person who is shaved by the town barber. So is the Swere looking at the SB postulate set. Clearly they are postulates. To shave oneself is a postulate. To be shaved by the town barber is a postulate too. There both postulates so its a postulate set were looking at here.
Postulates
S to shave oneself
B to be shaved by the town barber
42:32
Cross Packaging
Both postulates arent in the same goals package so theres a bit of cross packaging going on here but never the less its still aits still aits still a postulate set. Its not anot a goals package as we would understand it but its certainly a postulate set.
42:47
Now first of all let us write down all the possibilities in this set. Well theres the ahhfour possible classes. Theres ahhhSB, S(1B), (1S)B, (1S)(1B), they are our four classes that we recognize and were going to add in this class that well call an Insanity Class. We will add it into the set and we will see how it fits in.
Four Classes
SB, to shave oneself and be shaved by the town barber
S(1B), to shave oneself and not be shaved by the town barber
(1S)B, to not shave oneself and be shaved by the town barber
(1S)(1B),to not shave oneself and not be shaved by the town barber
43:38
This is the class of B(1B) and for completeness sake we will the another insanity class of S(1S).
Insanity Classes
B(1B) to be shaved by the town barber and to not be shaved by the town barber
S(1S) to shave oneself and to not shave oneself
So we have in all six possible classes here of ourof ourof our set. Now normally if we were doing a logical analysis of this particular problem we would sucwe would simply restrict ourselves to the first four classes. That last two classes would be made equal to naught by the basic law of reason in the universe which says that ahhthat B(1B)=0 and S(1S)=0 by the basic law of reason in the universe both those classes would be null classes. So they would be can be cancelled out. But were going to leave them in for the sake of completeness because were dealing with this subject of insanity. You see? So weve got to put them back in again. In they go so weve got six classes.
45:00
Actually theyre always are six classes in the set when youwhen its aWhen theres two elements in the set theres the four main classes then the two insanethe two possible insanity classes. But we normally ththatthere, as I say, the two insanity classes arent used because were not dealing with the subject of insanity.
Normally were dealing only with the subject of reason. But as wereon this tape dealing with the subject of insanity were going to have to put extra insanity classes in and complete the set. So weve got six classes. Ok?
45:36
And were going to leave the the B(1B).class in and the S(1S) class in. were going to leave those in. were not going to make those equal to zero, because werethethethis ahhwere going to try and understand how this guy went insane. So we cant make those classes equal to zero and cancel them out the set because one of themone or the other or both might be useful in the analysis. So we will have to leave them in.
46:09
The Six Classes
Ok, off we go now. Lets start ticking off the classes. The first of the ummmlets have a look at the king said.
46:22
But ummm before we take up what the king said, theres two things we should actually do first. One of these is ummfrom a practical point of view we should number our six classes from one to six. So, ummwell justIll assume youve got them written down and just number them in order I gave them to you from one through to six starting with the reason classes and five and 6 will be the two insanity classes. Ok, so just number those from one to six.
Six Classes
1. SB, to shave oneself and be shaved by the town barber
2. S(1B), to shave oneself and not be shaved by the town barber
3. (1S)B, to not shave oneself and be shaved by the town barber
4. (1S)(1B),to not shave oneself and not be shaved by the town barber
5. B(1B) to be shaved by the town barber and to not be shaved by the town barber simultaneously
6. S(1S) to shave oneself and to not shave oneself simultaneously
Now the next thing we have to do, you realize this analysis were only really concerned with the town barber were not really concerned with the men of the town. So well restrict the analysis to how the kings edict affects him because it clearly, if you care to look at it youll see that it affects the men of the town quite differently than it affects him. So were only concerned in the analysis with how it affects the town barber.
47:28
Limitations on the game class set
Now before we go on to discuss what the king said and see how that affects the situation wewewe must first of all discover if theres any limitations to the set by the very nature of theof of the postulates themselves and when we examine this we find that that is actually the case. That this town barber doesnt have thesedoesnt have a full freedom of choice even regardless of what the king said.
48:03
For example, for example its quite obvious that if ummif the barber shaves himself he is being shaved by the town barber. And its equally obvious that if the town barber is being shaved by the town barber he is shaving himself. Now there the therestheres two propositions straight away that affect the set.
Now thethe first of these propositions if theif the barber shaves himself he is being shaved by the town barber knocks out ummknocks out number 2 in our set S(1B), that goes out.
2. S(1B)=0, to shave oneself and not be shaved by the town barber equals naught
48:46
And the ahhthethethe second of these ummthese propositions knocks out number 3 in the set. I wont give you what it is but youll just knock it right out and reduces number 3 to zero.
3. (1S)B=0, to not shave oneself and be shaved by the town barber equals naught
So the town barber has got a reduced set straight away beforeregardless of what the king said. Hes only got 1 and 4 plus the two impossible insanity classes.
1. SB, to shave oneself and be shaved by the town barber
4. (1S)(1B),to not shave oneself and not be shaved by the town barber
5. B(1B) to be shaved by the town barber and to not be shaved by the town barber
6. S(1S) to shave oneself and to not shave oneself
49:15
So hehehe can either shave himself and be shaved by the town barber or not shave himself and not be shaved by the town barber. Theyre his only options. There the only options.
So they are his options as he approaches the notice board and reads the notice in the town square about the kings edict, bear that in mind, thatsthats histhey are his only options
49:42
Consider the Kings Edict
Now let usNow let us consider the kings edict. The first thing is he saysthe king says, Hence forth on pain of death all the men of this town will be clean shaven. Well what hes saying here is that ahhthat this class, class number 4, the class where the person neither shaves themselves nor is shaved by the town barber. That class is reduced to zero. Get it?
4. (1S)(1B)=0,to not shave oneself and not be shaved by the town barber equals naught
50:09
So we imagine the town barber, he reads the edict up..he reads that first part of the edict, he says, Oh, yes, on pain of death ummm all the men of the town will be clean shaven. Oh, he says, I have to shave myself. I cant grow a beard anymore. See, so hes OK so far. So 4 goes out so that leaves him with just 1. Hes only got now one class he can occupy in the sanity part of the ahh the reason part of the ahhof the postulate set. That is to both shave himself and be shaved by the town barber.
1. SB, to shave oneself and be shaved by the town barber
50:49
Now notice now that his set has been reduced to a one game class set, a one game class set. Remember this isthis is not a goals package but, never the less, the same principle applies that thewe started off with four classes in the set, in the reason part of the set and weve now got it down to one. Theres only one reason class that he can occupy in that set and that is to shave himself and be shaved by the town barber.
51:20
Ok, so the barber now reads on and the next part the kings edict says ummall those and only those who dont shave themselves will be shaved by the town barber. Now theres two propositions there. The first of these propositions is that all those who dont shave themselves will be shaved by the town barber.
Now this proposition means, we interpret that to mean that number 4 of our set goes out to zero. Yes, yes thats right number 4. The king is simply being repetitive. The ahhthat proposition means exactly the same as saying that henceforth all the men of the town will be clean shaven. Logically they mean exactly the same thing.
Now when your doing a logical analysis its not atall unusual to find the persons utterances that the people say are highly repetitive. Thats ok itit doesnt affect the analysis. You say, Ok, well number 4 now is definitely out, defiantly equal to naught. Now that leaves us with the final part of the kings utterance. Now the final part is, Only those who dont shave themselves will be shaved by the town barber.
52:43
Now this proposition, Only those who dont shave themselves will be shaved by the town barber. Means the same as sayingmeans exactly the same as saying that, all those who are shaved by the town barber wont shave themselves., which in terms of our set reduces class 1 in the set to zero.
1. SB=0, to shave oneself and be shaved by the town barber equals naught
53:11
Now thenup to up to this point the barber has read the edict and hes been OK. Hes read the first part the edict about men in the town being clean shaven and he says, Yes, thats alright, Ill have to shave myself. And he reads the second part the edict, All those who dont shave themselves will be shaved by the town barber, he says, Yea, thats all right, thats fine, Ill shave myself. But, then he gets to the third part of the set, Only those who dont shave themselves will be shaved by the town barber. Crunch. Bang. Hes in trouble, because his final remaining set has been reduced to zero. He cant obey the edict.
53:56
He is in the SB classthe class of SB and the edict is driving that class into zero. So the effect upon the town barber is tothe edict drives him out of his last remaining class, the SB class. While hes desperately trying to stay in the class
54:19
Now lets take a pause here for a moment and uhhunderstand exactly what the what this unfortunate barbers problem is. Orummanother way to look at it, what his problem isnt. He doesnt have any problem shaving himself. That isthat is not his problem. He has no difficulty on this subject of shaving himself.
So this little insanity class of S(1S) number 6. We can we can we can reduce that to zero. That ummthat thatwe can wipe that one out. Thats not his problem. Thatthatthat one goes out.
6. S(1S)=0 to shave oneself and to not shave oneself equals naught
55:00
Now his problem is the fact that hes the town barber, because if he werent the town barber he could shave himself. Its only because hes the town barber that he cant shave himself. The edict prevents from shavthe edict only prevents him from shaving himself because hes the town barber. You see that? So his problem is that hes the town barber. So you understand that he has no problem shaving himself. The the his difficulties onon on identity. Its an identity problem. So its thisthisthis equation of being shaved by the town barber that is the root of his problem. Being shaved by the town barber ornot being shaved by the town barber. If he could not be shaved by the town barber hed be all right. You see?
55:49
Hed be alright you see because he could then shave himself and not be shaved by the town barber. But he cant do that while hes being the town barber. You see his problem. Its an identity problem.
56:05
So as he stands there looking at the notice board his mind will go from must be shaved from the town barber but I cant be shaved by the town barber. Which iswhen he says I cant be shaved by the town barber its just another way of saying mustnt be shaved by the town barber.
So his mind goes from must be shaved by the town barber but thats impossible because the edict says I cant be. So I mustnt be shaved by the town barber but thats impossible too because Im the town barber so I must be shaved by the town barber. Got that?
56:46
No, the edict wont let me. So I mustnt be shaved by the town barber but I am the town barber so I must be shaved by the town barber, mustnt be shaved by the town barber, must be shaved by the town barber,onetwoonetwo fasterfasterfaster until he hits the point must be shaved by the town barber and mustnt be shaved by the town barber both postulates simultaneously, both with the same intensity. BANG. At which point he loses his sanity.
5. B(1B)=1 to be shaved by the town barber and to not be shaved by the town barber equals 1
57:15
Now if you can follow that, youve got it. So our set now reduces toumm the first four classes are zero, there all zero classes and class 6 weve agreed that is a zero class and ahhhthe 5th class isisis 1. Hehehis existence class. He is now in the insanity class of both must shave himself and mustnt shave himself simultaneously.
57:46
Now, factually, thisthisthis may save hismay solve his problem for him, as far as the king is concerned or it may not. The king, I mean obviously while hes insane hes going to grow a beard, so the king if he was harsh, he might say, Well well execute him anyway, he didnt obey the edict. Then again the king might take pity on him because hes insane and relent, save his life.
So it may or may not solve his problem, but never the less thats whats going to happen to him. Hes going to go insane.
58:14
Or to put it another way while he is fixed in the identity of the town barber insanity is his only option in the situation. Its his only option because its the lesser evil to being executed. Thats the other option, but thats a worser evil, so he will accept the lesser evil and lose his sanity.
58:43
Of course, he would have no problem at all if he hadnt been fixed in the identity of the town barber. Let us assume that hed ummthat he was a non compulsive games player and has completed his first three levels of TROM and so could have occupied the identity of the gamof the barberthe town barber or nothe could be the town barber or not be the town barber at will. Then he would have no trouble at all. He was ummmahh
59:19
He would have simply read the edict and said, Ok, ummIll What will happen is, he said, While Im ahhIll shave myself, when I shave myself I wont be the town barber. But when Im shaving other people in the townthe other men in the town, Ill be the town barber. So he goes back to .. End of problem. Get that?
59:43
So, he would have simply gone back to his barber shop noticed it was full of customers put on his identity of being the town barber and proceeded to shave them. And when hed got rid of all his customers he would have simply removed his identity of the town barber and hung it on the hook in the barber shop and then he would have shaved himself. Quite leisurely. And when he got himself shaved he would of ahhhput his identity back on ummof the town barber, readyall ready to receive the next customer.
1:00:23
Now I can assure you that ahhyou now, if youd been following this through carefully and closely youyou now know much more about that logical paradox than the guy who dreamed it up. I can assure you. Because you now knowyou now know all about the insanity side of it, which he obviously didnthe clearly never knew.
So you now you know him one hell of a lot about that logical paradox, but we can see how useful that little logical paradox was to us. Wewewewhat it gives us by using it. We can use it to understand thehow a person goes from compulsive games play into insanity.
01:01:05
IP defined
Now this class, well call it the general class X(1X)=1, now that is what we call the insanity class. Now thats athats a definition.
X(1X)=1, X and not X simultaneously
That is a definite term we call that an insanity class. And theres a its also we call it, we have a name for it in TROM, which is a more generally used name we call it an IP.
Now IP, the letter I and the letter P they are the initials of Impossibility Point, or Insanity Point. I.P. So when we tryan IP is always in the form X(1X)=1 its the essence of insanity the very basis of insanity and thats the general expression of it. It is X(1X)=1. And IP is short for Insanity Point or Impossibility Point.
1:02:20
Its impossibleimpossibility point because in this universe its impossible tototo maintain that ahhmaintain that class and retain ones sanity. Quite impossible to hold that class.
Its a point of impossin other words, it defines the impossible in the universe. The only thing thats truly impossible in this universe is the IP. Is X(1X)=1. That is truly impossible and its the only thing thats impossible in this universe.
You simply cant do it. Its the only thing that cant be done in this universe. You cant both go to China and not got to China simultaneously. You cant both be the town barber and not be the town barber simultaneously.
It tis impossible and its the only thing thats impossible in this universe and its something you should remember and understand very clearly.
It defines the impossible so when we say when we refute that datum and say X(1X)=1 that.wellwellwhen we assert that datum that X(1X)=1 we are asserting that the impossible can exist.
But thats insane. The impossible cant exist in this universe. Because the laws of the universe say it cant exist, but it can exist, it cant exist.thats insane. Were into insanity.
01:03:57
See that? And thats the basis of insanity.
01:04:02
Mocking up Insanity
If you was to say to yourselfif you was toyou can get the idea of insanity, of how an insane person feels by mocking up an IP and getting into it.
I wouldnt suggest you do this if youre at all mentally unstable but if youve completed a few levels of TROM you can do it without any danger to your mental health.
You simply get the idea that you must go to China, and the idea that you mustnt go to China and go from one postulate to the other. Then go it faster and faster, from one postulate to the other, backwards and forwards. Until youve gonyour holding both postulates simultaneously.
At the point where your holding them both simultaneously youll start to feel a sort of a glee of insanity. A sort of a spinny feeling in your psyche. Well thats the time to quit. Cause thats when your going. Thats when your going into the IP. Thats the point youryour going insane. Your going into the insanity.
01:05:02
So if you ummWe understand it so clearly now that we can simulate it. But of course there is no real danger that youll go insane when you do it yourself because your doing it all consciously, you see. But you can simulate the feeling of insanity by getting the idea of going to China and not going to China, simultaneously. Or the idea of making any postulate and its negative and holding both postulates simultaneously.trying to achieve both postulates simultaneously. Its a spinny feeling. Theres a sort of glee of irresponsibility attached to it. Its a certain definite emotion thats attached with itthatthat goes with the IP and trying to achieve the IP. Its the emotion of insanity.
01:05:43
Ron Hubbard knew about it. He called it the glee of insanity, but he didnt know its logical construct.
We understand it in TROM. Weve got it in TROM. We know about it.
But Ron was right when he said there was a glee associated with it. There is. Theres a glee.
Theres a sense of irresponsibility and a glee there, and a definite spinny feeling. A definite feeling as if thethethe world is spinning around under your feet. And you feel as if you might take off into space at any moment. Definite spinny feeling.
1:06:21
Though you can subjectively create thethethe emotion, the feeling of insanity, now we understand its postulate structure.
Deductions from X(1X)=1
Now this postulate X(1X)=1 has some very interesting deductions. Very interesting deductions. Ill give them to you. I wont prove these deductions but they can be, I can assure you, every one Ive given to you can be proven very easily in sin Boolean algebra.
X(1X)=1, X is and is not simultaneously
01;07;02
Here we go. We can ahhwe can deduce from X(1X)=1 that X +(1X)=0.
X +(1X)=0, neither X exists nor not X exists.
In other words its a state ofits a state of affairs where X both existsX ummneither X exists nor not X exists. Get it?
X + (1X)=1, eitherX exists or not X exist or both exist
X +(1X)=0 now thats a state of unreason because reason maintains that X +(1X)=1 thats what reason maintains.
But unreason, insanity, the IP, says that X + (1X)=0
X +(1X)=0, neither X exists nor not X exists.
01:08:10
Now this is a particularly interesting deduction from our point of view because it tells us that while the person is in the IP state thethethe reason partthe reasonable part of the postulate set is reduced to zero. While the persons in the IP state the reason part of the postulate sets into zero.
Take the part of the barber while hes in the state of both being a barber and not being a barber simultaneously then B+(1B)=0. In other words B=0 and (1B)=0 but look, if B=0 two of the classes four classes in the reason part of the set go out and if (1B)=0 the others go out. So the whole set goes to zero.
1:09:20
So the person cannot be, if theyre in the insanity class, they cant be in one of the sane classes, see, of our proposition. Once they go insane, in other words, they cant utilize the other part of the set.
In other words theyre either sane or theyre insane on this subject. If theyre insane on the subject then theyre not sane. They cant be both sane and insane in the same postulate set. In other words, ifif the barbers in the state of B(1B)=1, the rest of the set the rest of the works the rest of the set is equal to zero. And the proof of it Ive just given to you.
Because if X(1X)=1 then X + (1X) = 0 that maintains. That the first of the interesting deductions.
Eg. B(1B)=1,to be shaved by the barber and to not be shaved by the barber simultaneously
B+(1B)=0, to be shaved by the barber does not exist and to not be shaved by the barber does not exist
01:10:22
Now the second of the interesting deductions that if X(1X)=1 then X=(1X). X becomes equal to one minus X. In terms of our barber once he goes into the IP of B(1B)=1 then being a barber is identical to not being a barber. There is no difference in his mind in being a barber and not being a barber. The two are completely identical with each other. Thats the other deduction.
Eg. If:
B(1B)=1,to be shaved by the barber and to not be shaved by the barber simultaneously
Then
B =(1B), being shaved by the barber equals being not shaved by the barber
01:11:07
From theahh from the relationship X(1X)=1
1:11:19
So theres the twotwotwo enormously useful deductions from thatin the insanity in the insanity of the IP from the insanity class. Or the IP as we call it. Theyre the two valid deductions from the IP. Thats it.
01:11:36
When X(1X)=1 then X=1X , or more precisely X=(1X)
1:11:59
The existence equals its absence and that is insane I can assure you. That is insanity.
01:12:07
Fear of Insanity
Now once you start to work with these IPs and so forth, you rapidly start to lose your fear of them. The vast majority of humanityof humanity are absolutely scared of this subject of insanity. One thing they fear most in their lives is that they will go insane that they will lose their reason. See its a mortal dread.
The games player the compulsive games player I should say has a mortal dread of going insane. Its as if he somehow senses that hes putting his life on the line, putting his sanity on the line every time he plays a game, that hes getting close to the edge, that the harder he.the more compulsive the games play he gets into and the hotter as the game hots up, the closer and closer he starts walking to insanity. He doesnt know exactly whats happening but he senses it happening.
Every compulsive games player knows this. He knows that hes walking closeras the game hots up more and more hes walking closer and closer to the to the gates of hell, to the gates of insanity. And ahhhsometimes youyouyouthethe games player will tell you this.
Its written up in books, you know, written up in novels and so forth. That nothing works. That men under enormous pressure have said I walked to the very edge of insanity and just managed to claw myself back at the last moment under extreme game duress, you know, and they write these stories up and they write these experiences up. Theyre well documented. Theyre
1:14:00
But this is the view of the compulsive games player whosewhosewhose caught up in compulsive games play.
How about to the non compulsive games player. Or the person whose completed ahhhummlevels one, two, three in TROMof TROM and is well on his way through level four and five. Or a person whose completed level five. Its a toothless tiger. Theres nothing in it. It doesnt mean anything. He knows. The person understands insanity. He knows what it is. He knows its postulate structure. And he certainly isnt going to get involved with it.
1:14:35
He isnt going to go around trying to drive himself mad, even if he could, he isnt going to do it. Theres no point in it.
So to the non compulsive games player, to the completely rational person, the person whose completecompleted thetheat least the first three levels of TROM and understands this material Ive given there and understands the nature of insanity and understands the IP state, and so forth, the whole is a toothless tiger. He no longer dreads insanity. Hell sit there and try and go to China and not got to China simultaneously. Hell playits a game. It doesnt mean anything to him. Its justso muchits just another interesting gamething to do. You know, try and go insane. I mean this quite seriously.
1:15:31
The person Once you understand this material and youryour...your state of case, youve cleared off your first three levels of TROM, and are well on the way, and you understand this material that Im giving you, youll lose all your fear of insanity. Just like youll lose all your fear of your bank. Insanity will go too. Youll find this subject of insanity is not a dread, something you wake in cold sweat at 4 oclock in the morning and wonder if your going insane. No uhits a its aits just a toothless tiger. Thats the one thing you know that youre not going to do. Get it?
1:16:14
So dont think that ahhits a terrible thing that even a person, you know, when theyve completed all their TROM theyve got to be very, very careful not to go insane. No theres nothing there. Theres no charge on it.
Put it this way, that whenby the time youve completed the five levels of TROM you canyou canyou can try your hard.youll put yourself on an Emeter and you can try your hardest to both go to China and not go to China and nothing going to happen on that meter, except a little tick maybe. Nothing awful is going to happen. You wont evenitll hardly,,,it will hardly read on the meter. So youre dealing with a toothless tiger I can assure you. Theres absolutely nothing there.
01:17:02
The total danger of insanity is to the compulsive games player. To him its a definite hazard. To the non compulsive games player insanitys not a hazard, its not even a problem. If he understands it, its a joke. You know? Its a giggle. It really is, its a giggle. And its certainly a toothless tiger.
There is no monster lurking there in the deep recesses of his mind ready to swallow him up. Thats the last monster. Im giving you the last monster. The last monster in the mind, in the deep recesses of the mind. Is the fear that you will go insane. Well its a toothless tiger. Theres nothing there.
01:17:40
If you do your exercises. If you do levels one, two, three of TROM. Plus and you know this material. Now I couldnt make it any more clear than this, could I.
1:17:56
I couldnt make it any clearer than this.
IP and the Goals Package
Ok, now the ummthe the example Ive given you, the barber in the Barber of Seville is an example which is not ummis not one of a postulateits one of a postulate set but its not an example of the use of this data on the subject on a true goals package as we understand it. Now I want to nextgive yougive you the full data in terms of a goals package.
Wellwell Well pick upummahh.a gereral case. A general goals package the XY goals package where say X is the to blank postulate and Y is the to be blank postulate. And were now dealing with the general case in the XY goals package. Its a postulate set still but its a very specialized postulate set called thecalled the goals package. OK?
The to blank Postulate Goals Package
1. XY, to blank and to be blank (complimentary postulates)
2. X(1Y), to blank and to not be blank (conflicting postulates)
3. Y(1X), to be blank and to not blank (conflicting postulates)
4. (1X)(1Y), to not blank and to not be blank (complimentary postulates)
01:18:57
Now I want to give you all the reductions in the set and give you the symbolism as weas we go so youve got the wholegot the whole picture. So there wont be any doubt in your mind as to whats happening. Youll be able to write it all down on a piece of paper and understand it.
1:19:15
Now the person first enters into theinto the situation there ahhhbecoming as a non compulsive games player. Now he does this by making the postulate X is not equal to Y. X`"Y. He makes that postulate. That& that& that postulate& if he doesn t make that postulate he could lose the whole set by complementary postulate because he& at any time he can accidently make X equal to Y X=Y and when X equals Y of course the whole set vanishes as I explained earlier. So to prevent this happening accidentally he simply makes the postulate that X`"Y.
1:19:56
Now, let s expand that postulate and see what it looks like: the postulate X`"Y becomes& becomes& the symbolism X(1Y) + Y(1X)`"0
Now all that means is that at least one of those two classes has got members in it and therefore exists, and while one of those two classes has& both of those two classes are games classes, you see? And while at least one of them exists then the whole set won t vanish. So that little relationship there, that X`"Y holds this& the postulate set in existence, and prevents the whole lot vanishing by the & by accidentally making the postulate that X=Y .
Simply postulate that X is not equal to Y and thethe from that point onwards the set remains in existence for you and you can then become a non compulsive games player in that set.
1:21:10
Ok, so much for that. Now the person goes ahead shall we say as a non compulsive games player and the games play becomes more and more compulsive in thein the goals packagein the postulate set until eventually games play becomes compulsive. And at the point where it becomes compulsive its made compulsive by the postulate that X equals not Y, or in terms of symbolism that X=(1Y).
1:21:46
Now how does that look in term of the ahhininin terms of our symbolism? Well the set now looks like X(1Y) + Y(1X) = 1 see the difference? Before it wasthose two classes were not equal to zero now there equal to 1.
While those two classes are equal to 1 theyretheyrethey become the whole universe of discourse the whole universe of the postulate set so therefore the complementary postulate classes of XY and (1X)(1Y), both of these classes ahhcant becomecant existcantcan have no existence.
1. XY, to blank and to be blank (complimentary postulates)
2. X(1Y), to blank and to not be blank (conflicting postulates)
3. Y(1X), to be blank and to not blank (conflicting postulates)
4. (1X)(1Y), to not blank and to not be blank (complimentary postulates)
Course, the only existence classes are the two games classes. So games play is not compulsive. The person has two games classes. He can occupy either one or the other. Hes a compulsive game player with the optionwith the option of either occupying X(1Y) or Y(1X).
1:23:06
Those should Now that games play continues in the universe until eventually he suffers overwhelm of one of his classes. Lets say the Y class suffers overwhelm and can in his own mind he considers he can no longer occupy that class. In other words that ahhhe considers now that Y=0.
But as soon as Yas soon as Y =0 then (1X) must also be equal to naught because of thebecause remember hes made idthis postulate that ahh X=(1Y), which is the same as saying that Y =(1X), so as soon as he loses Y, Y =0, he would also lose (1X). So Y =0 and (1X)=0. Both maintain.
1:24:10
So hes now left with this single game class of X(1Y)=. Hes now reduced it down todown to ahhsingle game class postulate set.
1:24:30
#$ch s LT
B
b
'.1>OUhj#$:;;<ABIнй̽ееررhnh
3haVh>5\hXkhXkH*h^hXkh14h>hbh/hQh6h6H*h5>hO,fhA/h6D$DSop e
<=CD$a$gdQ$a$gd6DBCIPQ$%HIORSY$a$gd1$a$gdSIOPQo6;:N3Opq QRe j !`!a!b!o!!!!!!!!I"J"##X$a$$$% %h'h/hPhhaAh?]h1h}h\hpghalhnhSPYZ b!c!i!j!J"K"Q"R"d#e#k#l#$$$$&&&&='>'(( %U%V%%%%%%
&&&u&&&&&&&&<'>'''''(;(?(_(((((())))*!*#*$**++++,,,.
...>...0080?00l1111225555>5I5h}=hhR\hHeh?h(lRhRh})hIh1h,vh1hPh'h/L((("*#*****,,,,000011112222~44444 5!5'5(5l5m5s5556666273777.8/858689999:$a$gdPI5k5l5s5555555666/7173777788899]:r:s:::::;
; ;,;O;X;n;;;;<<=====3>4>T>U>>0?R?S????&@(@@@AAAAAAABBtBwBBؼhhhh\5hh$1hh\h~Q
h5h})h~Q
hP5hhPhR\hJ:::::;;n=o=u=v=====>>3?4?c?d?'@(@AABBGD$a$gd$a$gd5BBD$DFDGDHDMDjDqDDEEF>FFFYG[GG/H3HHH5I7IFIPIiIIII7J>J@J^JJJLL"LLLLL&M*MHMJMM N]N_NqNrNNNGOfOrOsO{OPPPPPPPPPPQtRvRRRh*h15h/YNhDhDphtzh8h{ghJYhh(hh h\hh:RLGDHDNDODEEEE=F>FFFZG[GHHHHHHIIII?J@JKKKKK!L"LIMJM^N_NsOtOzO{OOOPPPPPPuRvRmSnStSuSTTTT$a$gd15RlSmSuS{SSSSSTTTTTTT/U0U~UUUUWWWWXXXXXXlYxYYYY;Zj?jFjGjOjPjQjRjqjzjjjjjjjjjjjkk"k3k@Z^~6:$&(*R\^ļ伸伴䴼h
hqhuh9hgyh"hhhOWXh+0h$hD5hEY7hTh
7h$hDhnh(G@BNPTVbd*,`b01tv$a$gdEY7^b/1=?
fpft~ɒʒՒ֒acϔMOopyzbɖ#C;BQRS (hjmhjYhh*hxh /vhhm;hOWXhEY7h
hqQbc`agh;<BRS\]c$a$gdjYcd7uÛě*;nouv$a$gd`$a$gdjYqrěߛ
)*;sQΠoѡҡۢST[jklףܣޣ+Q`ab?@AߪѵѵhRhtzh"hIDh<hy;hJ=hnphh?KhhjmhWhOWXhh`hjYhjYhjYGTU[klޣߣ4uab@Aת$a$gd"gd`$a$gd`$a$gd<תتުߪԬլ&'(./>?@dgdzS5ʫݫԬ'V`mȭ@_`gͱKӳٳܴ"AP /0=>1<ʹ̹(MmqrAch5h\hW"/hPh3zhOWXhVh!n8h.7hghdh[HhzS5hnphRM`agJKLRSOP>?EF~˹̹rgd.7$a$gd!n8rsyzqrxynouvtugd5ӽ"@q
*7Vtabln,56}()1[\5Tik89:;^̼̼h/hV@hhThh'h~h^hppdhVIhVIH*hEXhZ:#hVIhmIhTph5h3zhW"/Gjkqrbc!"())*01gd51\]cd\]cd_`hiXY~3$a$gdI^_}UWX~24ABMO6HJ(*BC_~:;}')TUh&B:hMhShVhhhbhhWGh.Mh8hzyKh hIh1Ehb hLhV@hG34NOIJ)*;<EFst}()$a$gdS7D0OPQefg
Zykl 0123ceh979Tȼȸظh{{h@h~?hQahDdhTh]dhYhuChFhp!hPhshOg$hnnhb h&B:hVH,67fg
$a$gdn$a$gduC34cd 89rs{$a$gdQa$a$gdT$a$gdn78;>Rqr.MOP>G.=z2:=\x'V^ABRZ`g{=EG$/1=?htyhf^hW&h}MhUhnh8.h8.hh8.hOhQah@hDdh~?huCh{{JNO./xy'(12`aijBCLMFG01>?&'hi$a$gdO?t%'7?^j;t8W ! /N_n8:;Ufjv 3
;
U
`
%&./̼h
h$h$hD5hDhJh* hdphB~3hW:h<hhfhpch}Mh!htyhf^H!"*+ ,\]fg;<UV $a$gddp !HIVW`a{

HJZ\Z\56/il:UV$j<BDFH>X,45*TABFOQRLSW]_`jmyؼhFhzhWha{ha{7ha{h
hIhEihkh%8hX 9hfhh})hDhCMh$H6>?BCPQR`aij9:BCgda{!ELik89C.HNڇއǈ̈*/JOq(2?>ڋ"(+5=AINYhLJ$hyhvBhzhUGhShGhBCUhg+hcvBhFhWhIPFrom this point onwards hes now putting his sanity on the line every time he plays the everytime he plays ahhhe plays with thiswith this gamwith this game with these two postulates. Because if he suffers overwhelm in the game if he loses the game hes gona go insane. The only place hes going to be able to go is into the ahhthe only place hes able to go is into the insanity class, into the IPs
1:25:02
Well lets say he succeeds for a while but sooner or later by the very scheme of things hes going to get overwhelmed, and what s going to happen?
1:25:10
Well, before we discuss what happens lets briefly just review the position ahm& he s made the postulates X`"Y. he s made the postulate that X=(1Y). He s made the postulate that Y=0, and he s also got the postulate that (1X)=0. And hes in a games class of X. thats his games class. Remember thats his last games class is X. and hes got this other postulate there which is bonded to X cause X=(1Y), hes got this other postulate of (1Y) cause (1Y)=(1X) so hes in this double class of X, (1Y). X is the game postulate, (1Y) is the exclusion postulate. Now thats histhats his position.
1:26:11
Now hes.Now the opponents postulate is inexorably driving him from X into the (1X). That is to say the opponent is inexorably bonding X to (1X) and (1X) to X. In other words thethethe effect isthe opponent is driving him into the identification X equals (1X).
You see he cant leave X. thats histhats his thats his last haven. Thats his lastthats his lastthats his last pointhe can go in the set. You see? He has no other place to go so he hangs on to that grimly. But inexorably hes being driven into (1X), as well.
1:26:56
But this identification, X=(1X), cant take place while he is still holding the identification X=(1Y). Because if X=(1X) and X=(1Y) then (1X)=(1Y). and if (1X)=(1Y) then X=Y and the whole set will go. Hell lose the whole lot the whole game will vanish and that is intolerable.
So that cant happen so he simply has to break the bonding to (1Y). The identification that X=(1Y) eventually breaks. He breaks that bonding. That snaps. Hes now free. The X is now free of the (1Y) and the X bonds to the (1X) and we have the identification X=(1X), quite separate and free of the (1Y) postulate.
1:27:54
Meanwhile the (1Y) postulate has been under pressure from the opponent to go into Y and for exactly the same reasons the (1Y), as Ive given you a few moments ago, for exactly the same reasons, the (1Y) postulate breaks its bonding with X and goesand snaps inand snaps into the identification Y, (1Y)=Y and becomes the other IP in the set.
1:28:27
The set now reduces to X(1X)+Y(1Y)=1. With the player in the IP X(1X).
1:28:47
Now why is he in there? Because X was his last games postulate. That was his last that was his last sense of self identity. He was the games player using that X postulate so thats where he sticks and thats where hethats the IP he ends up in.
1:29:05
Can he move across to the other IP? No he cant do so. He cant move across to the other IP although thealthough its still a part of the set, but he cant move across to it.
But to explain why he cant move across to it, and continue on with tdfvx!"*+ۏYbuv (?G~Íȍ !9>Y_ُڏۏNUuwǑܑh/Uh)hShRhd"h:R@hiBh:xhyhLJ$6ܐݐhecontinue on with this tape well have to go onto a new tape. Because Im running out ofIm running off the end of the spool here.
1:29:31
End of tape.
21h:pO,f/ =!"#$%^666666666vvvvvvvvv6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666H6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH D`DG5Normal*$CJ_HaJmH sH tHLLG5 Heading 1$@&a$>*B*CJ0aJ0phRRG5 Heading 2
@&5B*CJ$\aJ$phRRG5 Heading 3
@&5B*CJ\aJphTTG5 Heading 4$@&a$>*B*CJaJ0phLLG5 Heading 5$@&a$>*B*phDDG5 Heading 6$@&>*B*CJphPPG5 Heading 7$@&a$5B*\phXXG5 Heading 8$@&a$5B*CJ\aJ$phN NG5 Heading 9 $@&a$
B*CJ$phDA D
Default Paragraph FontRiR0Table Normal4
l4a(k (
0No ListLLG5Heading 1 Char>*B*CJ0aJ0phtHPPG5Heading 2 Char5B*CJ$\aJ$phtH2B2 G50 Body Textx@!@G50Body Text CharCJaJtHP1PG5Heading 3 Char5B*CJ\aJphtHLALG5Heading 4 Char>*B*CJaJ0phtHLQLG5Heading 5 Char>*B*CJaJphtHHaHG5Heading 6 Char>*B*aJphtHPqPG5Heading 7 Char5B*CJ\aJphtHPPG5Heading 8 Char5B*CJ\aJ$phtHJJ G5Heading 9 CharB*CJ$aJphtHJ"JG5Caption
a$5B*CJ\ph*W*G5Strong5\PK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(Iw},j4 wPt#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu*Dנz/0ǰ$X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6_rels/.relsj0}Q%v/C/}(h"O
= C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlM
@}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K
Y,
e.,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+&
8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuرMniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$!)O^rC$y@/yH*)UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f
W+Ն7`gȘJjh(KD
dXiJ؇(x$(:;˹!I_TS1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ
x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRcXŻǿI
u3KGnD1NIBs
RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi~Vvl{u8zH
*:(W☕
~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4=3ڗP
1Pm\\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr]g
eW
)6rCSj
id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP8քAV^f
Hn"d>znǊ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QDDcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d7y\`JnίIR3U~7+#mqBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCMm<.vpIYfZY_p[=alY}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8*u{ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK!
ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM
0wooӺ&݈Э5
6?$Q
,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK![Content_Types].xmlPK!֧6+_rels/.relsPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK!
ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]
"I %I5BR8cn{^^/YDY(4:GDKT\g
nVucתr13 68@0(
B
S ?gh+/<@cgU ^
),7:R+X+k+q+//>1A111^2r23 3!3$344;;}====3>8>UUWW:X?XZZ^^``/a3aaabbdd&f*fggggllEmIm'n+npppppp"q$qqquuwwDwHwxx{{hkz}}}}}H~L~~~DHorw{ՄلڄބZ`"%EIX^nqĐPT:>>AZ];?bg ~ھlpqtae]`!$37@D}_edgV]`dCFJQ)mpz}y 
6
9
03$Sn.=+/:aXaJ#"4"5"C"####&&))****R+s+,,c2g24405m56677<<)=.=KKLLUUUV?WFWZZ/a4aaaRbqbicockhqhii9j?jmmrr}r w
wAxFx΅ՅNP*/_a?Awy$)\^&(>@Z\MR͝ϝ!_aѢբzSZ;?ŪǪլ٬dkU9;ް²̸θ%5df?B 68NPpr}%)gk37\atxVn
&(VrIL~QS.068;=:<DFUVn U[Y^6g[\)h24xz,.rtL N o
q
QS~$33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333chnnJJ_cPPo
p
>>mnop!$P^`P@^@`0^`0`^``^`^`^``^``0^0` R\al* b
~Q
@9L
3z{W&M/R\D$O{{ulg!"d"Z:#$LJ$O$Og$'({(g+/A/W"/
3B~3zS5
7EY78%8!n8}8X 9&B:W:W;m;J=}=5>:R@V@iBcvBvBBC1EWGmIIzyK}M.MCMm N/YNPQ:R(lR*SVWWOWXJY=^_S$`p[c]dppdHeG!fO,f{gkXkjmWm8nnnDpTpdpAkpnps&Xt,v /vw:xygya{VD14>EiOFf^?]O`
V<mdTpcnn})IRdn!/qtzSaV]G&+0^Opg*~?uC~$18VI9Fgb)RnI^<ISz*Dddb?p!QxPtyY [
(
C+8.7?KS15[HE(}aAIDL'})Qa^5UGT`F "+;y;\SpJ61\PPU$RG51fA"DYjY8.EX5Wb"$@hhtthhders&u&v&x&z&{&f}f~fffff "X@XlX@XX@XX@XXXX@XX @XXXXX,@X@XX@X0@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3.* ArialA BCambria Math"qh03<':)y )y A#203HX $P62!xx TOUGHBOOK TOUGHBOOKOh+'0t
0<
HT\dlTOUGHBOOKNormal.dotmTOUGHBOOK58Microsoft Office Word@W@8
,)@
@, )y՜.+,0hp
Title
!"#$%&'()*+,./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{}~Root Entry FBT,1Table8WordDocument4SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjy
F'Microsoft Office Word 972003 Document
MSWordDocWord.Document.89q