DISSOCIATION

Hello Greg this is Dennis Stephens here and the date is the 12th of January 1993. I thought I'd
get round to giving you a detailed reply to the tape you sent me in December about the upper
level Scientology tech. 

Our weather here in Brisbane is typical tropical Brisbane weather. We have two types of summer
weather here. By the way, were you born in Brisbane, in which case you probably know the
weather here better than I do. Your mother lives here and maybe you were born here and lived
here most of your life, but as far as I'm concerned we only have two types of summer weather
here. 

When the monsoon trough moves down over the tropics we get the tail end of it down here and
it makes us very humid and cloudy and very wet. Then once in a while, hopefully, when we're
very lucky, some cool air breaks through from the south, the wind, which has been in the north
east from the Coral Sea, goes round to the South East and becomes the South East Trade Wind
which is probably the real wind for this latitude in the summer and the weather goes back to
perfect, just a little overnight rain and beautiful blue skies and big fluffy masses of cumulus
during the day, typical sub tropical summer weather. 

Ok, now to proceed with our reply in detail on the tape that you sent me. First off it's a pity that I
never will be able to meet Bill Robertson because he's now deceased. I would have liked to have
met the gentleman because people who do research in this field are very few and far between,
very, very thin on the ground, as they say, are people who do research into the human psyche
and into the human spirit. 

You've only got to look into the field of psychiatry to see how few and far between researchers
are in the field of the human psyche. Because the techniques of psychiatry are very little
different than they were 20 years ago. There hasn't been any great development there in the
field of psychiatry, indicating that there are not many people actively doing psychiatric research. 

Oh, there's no doubt lot's of psychiatrists spending lots and lots of funds in universities and so
forth getting absolutely no where but they're not doing anything useful, coming up with any 

practical breakthroughs in their subject, in their field. Material today in psychiatry is much the
same as it was 20 years ago. 

No doubt the rarest of all researchers into the human psyche are those who do research into
their own psyche. That is very rare, very rare indeed. For every 10 that do research into other
peoples psyche there's only about one who does research into their own psyche, which is why I
would like to have met Bill Robertson. Was he very old when he died? Was he an old person or
did he die somewhat unexpectedly. 

You mention in your tape that you've got a stack of data there about a foot high of paper so his
research must have been very productive while he was active, to get a stack of paper a foot high. 

I was interested in your preliminary remarks on the subject of NOTS because I'm familiar with the
NOTS procedure, I was also familiar with the fact that the procedure tends to go on forever,
having known a person who was working on NOTS and he seemed to be getting absolutely
nowhere very fast. I don't know whether he's still working on it or whether he's given it away.
One should always be very, VERY suspicious of a technique where material seems to vanish then
seems to come back into the mind again. In other words, you get rid of something and something
else takes its place and you get rid of that and something else takes its place and this goes on
forever and ever. 

One should be very suspicious of such a technique for there is something fundamentally in error
when this occurs. 

The error is usually that you're simply on the wrong track. That what you think is going on is not
what's going on and there's something entirely different going on. 

When I used to talk to this guy who was doing these NOTS and we used to talk about the
procedure and I tried this procedure, this NOTS it just didn't mean a thing to me. I worked really
hard at it. It just didn't mean anything. I could mock-up these entities and I could move them
around and put funny hats on them. I could do anything with them but there's one thing I
couldn't get the things to do and that is, do what they were supposed to do according to the
textbook. You know, I used to try really hard. I used to try and mock them up, I used to misown
them. I'd say, "Somebody else is mocking them up" and I put them here and I put them there and
I get other people to move them around and I create abundances of them, I'd create scarcities of
them. I'd do everything to them but nope, nothing used to happen. The E-Meter just used to sit
there, tone arm at 3 with a floating needle and the whole thing just used to yawn at me and after
a few weeks of fiddling about with this I finally said to myself, "Well this god damned procedure
is flat on you Dennis Stephens. You're just wasting time." And then the needle really freed up
and started to float nicely so obviously that was the correct thing. The process was flat on me.

My own research, in other words, my own work I'd done, my own Level 5 technology had
flattened the process if the process ever needed flattening and it was flat on me when I started
it so I had nothing to report on the subject of NOTS except that it was flat on me when I
attempted it. I just couldn't get any of the phenomena that other people got, other people
reported or any of the phenomena that this guy reported. 

He used to explain some of the phenomena he was getting to me. I certainly got nothing
compared to the phenomena he was getting. All right, well so much for the preliminary remarks
Greg. Now to get down to the meat as they say. 

What I'm going to say is possibly a little bit revolutionary but I'm going to have to say it because
it's very real to me, and it's the way I see the procedure. 

One has to be very careful indeed when one comes across a phenomena in the human psyche.
One has to be very careful indeed before one determines that this phenomena is being created
by any other entity than the preclear. 

No Such Thing as Entities 

Even though the preclear will swear over a stack of Bibles that this thing in his mind has nothing
to do with him, one has to be very careful indeed to agree with him on this subject. 

I myself in all the research I've ever done, and I can assure you Greg that I've ransacked this
psyche of mine. I mean if I want to tune up my Theta perceptics one of the old procedures I do is
a little "Opening Procedure by Duplication" between two MEST objects in present time. That's
the sort of a limbering up exercise for me. So I'm no slouch at the subject of OT work. 

But I can assure you in all the OT work I've ever come across and worked on, I've never come
across anything in my psyche that is anything but my own creation, my own mock-ups. I've never
come across any entities. I haven't yet. Don't come across them. I have never come across them. 

Now that might come across as startling to you, never have in all of my research. Nowhere in the
levels in my own technology. Nowhere in the lower levels of my own tech. Nowhere in the upper
levels of my own tech. Nowhere in all the materials of Dianetics back in 1950 that I ran. In the
hours and hours of Scientology techniques that were run on me and various other techniques
and items that were run solo including the clearing technology. In none of it, ever, have I found
any entities in my psyche. Now that's interesting isn't it? 

So one has to be very careful when one comes across something in ones psyche which one
believes is some entity in present time that's influencing them in present time. Now I'm not just
saying this because I've never found any. Because I can assure you that the insane asylums all
over the world are full of people who will swear on a stack of Bibles that they've got things in 

their minds which are alien to them. They swear that their mind is haunted by beings who are
influencing them. The insane asylums are full of these people. And it's one of the first things that
a person dealing with the insane or mentally disturbed, has to become familiar with. I mean you
can walk up to any psychiatrist and talk about entities in your mind and he will just yawn at you.
He's heard it all before. He has it every day, five days a week, his working days. And when he gets
called out on the weekends he's called out to people who've got entities in their minds, and
they're all as nutty as bloody fruitcakes. Every god damned one of them. 

Not one of them turn out to be anything else but "misowned circuitry" in the bank. So I say this
advisedly, Greg, there's really two types of people in this universe, two types of beings. There
are those who swear that their mind is haunted by entities at the drop of a hat. You know they'll
just swear at the drop of a hat that their mind is haunted by entities. And those who've never
seen an entity ever. There are two types, there are definitely two types of people. And I'm one of
those who've never seen one. There aren't any as far as I'm concerned, and there are those who
swear that their mind is haunted with entities. The concept of the entity in the mind, that a
thetan, a degraded thetan or an OT thetan, which is a separate thetan from self is influencing
self is a peculiarity of certain section of humanity. 

Now quite clearly whoever did this research and developed this technique of NOTS is one of the
types of people who believes in the haunted mind theory and who has entities, and he no doubt
grabbed upon this idea of entities and developed this idea of NOTS. 

The technique simply couldn't have been developed by a person like me because I've got no
reality on the concept of entities. It's the last thing I would develop, is a technique on the subject
of entities simply because as far as I'm concerned they don't exist. I've never had any, you know,
never had any reality on then. 

Dissociation 

Now this phenomenon of the haunted mind, which I choose to call the haunted mind theory is
known in psychiatry, they have a technical word for it in psychiatry and it's as good a word as any.
They call it dissociation. D I S S O C I A T I O N. 

Not to be confused with disassociation, to disassociate. To disassociate means to not associate
with someone, but in psychiatry dissociation has a very precise definition, and is the shutting off
of one part of the mind by the main part of the mind and classifying this shut-off part of the
mind as the class of not-self. 

The Haunted Mind Theory 

In other words the person simply compartmentalises their psyche into the class of self and not-
self. There's the bit that they're inhabiting which they call self and there's the bit over there
which they’re now opposed to which they call not-self. And this becomes the haunted mind. And
the person will swear over a stack of Bibles that that bit over that way is not them. Even though
fundamentally they are mocking it up and making it go through all the motions that it's going
through. Now this is a classic misownership situation. Here they are mocking something up,
putting it on automatic, having it go through various motions and everything, endowing this
entity with life with one hand and with the other hand denying that they are doing it. 

Now is it any wonder that when they get into this area with these entities that their tone arm
goes up high and their needle sticks. Is there any wonder when that happens that there is this
classic case of misownership. 

One would have thought that some Scientologist down the line faced with a preclear or a Clear,
as they say, working with NOTS who's plagued with a high tone arm, first of all plagued with an
endless process that never flattened and his tone arm had gone up high and his needle is stuck
that surely the guy's tech would have come in and he'd said to himself, "Good God what the hell
is going on here? Have we got a classic misownership? There's something wrong here. This tone
arm shouldn't be this high and this needle shouldn't be this sticky with this preclear or this
person." You see that? 

But no, they all blithely go ahead with the whole denying theory. They don't apply their own tech
to the subject. There's obviously something very odd going on when a person starts dealing with
these entities and ends up with a high tone arm and a stuck needle. This is a serious case
manifestation; it's a serious manifestation that there's a high tone arm and the stuck needle, it
means that there's something seriously wrong in the session. 

I mean only a complete idiot would try and audit through a high tone arm and a stuck needle.
You know? When I used to train auditors in HASI. This was one of the things that I used to get
into and I used to stand and beat over the students heads. If you get a high tone arm and a stuck
needle you better do something about it. You just don't blithely press on with a high tone arm
and a stuck needle. There's something seriously wrong in the session. You better find out what it
is. 

Could be the guy's got a present time problem. He's got a nail in his shoe that's hurting him or
we don't know what, but it's giving him a high tone arm and a stuck needle. So you better do
something about it. Ok so much for that. 

The Hidden Influence 

Another name for the haunted mind theory is the theory of the hidden influence. Now some
people do honestly believe that their mind can be influenced by entities of which they know not
what of. 

In other words, they believe that their behaviour can be influenced and they have no way of ever
finding out who the influencer is. Who is doing the influencing? And they genuinely believe this. 

Of course this is a lot of bullshit. This is a complete violation of communication theory. 

Anything Influencing Your Mind You Can Communicate With 

The truth of the matter is that if anything is influencing your mind, if anything is capable of
influencing  your  mind  or  influencing  you  as  a  personality  then  you  are  quite  capable  of
communicating with it, with this entity and finding who it is and what it is and finding out all
about it. You'll find a note to that effect in my research there. In other words, there aren't any
such things as hidden influences. The whole thing is a complete lie. It's a lie to scare the kiddies,
see that. There's no such thing. If you believe there's such thing as hidden influences you end up
with a haunted mind. The truth of the matter is that you can only be influenced by those things
that you are capable of discovering. 

Communication Theory 

If it can influence you then you can discover it. You see that? It's just two way communication. If
someone can communicate with you then you can communicate with them. 

The fact that they can communicate with you means that you can communicate with them. If
something can touch you then you can feel the touch. See that? It's the way it goes. It's two way
communications in the universe. If somebody's going to influence you and move you around and
cause you to do things then you're quite capable of being aware that this is happening. 

So  there  is no such  thing  as  a  hidden  influence.  It's  one  of  these  delightful  little fictions
somebody dreamed up to scare the kiddies. Well I can assure you Greg that there is a large
percentage of the inmates in our insane asylums who will swear over a stack of Bibles that such
things as hidden influences do actually exist. See they know that they exist, that's why they're in
the insane asylum. 

By the way, reverting back to the high tone arm and stuck needle, for a moment, you mentioned
on your tape that the current fad or at least one of the current fads on the subject of high tone
arm and stuck needle in HASI is to blame it on overrun. 

Well certainly overrun can produce high tone arm and a stuck needle, there's no doubt about
that, but to say that that is the only cause of it is simply untrue. There's many, many causes of a
high tone arm and a stuck needle, many phenomena can bring this about in the human psyche
and overrun is only one of the causes. 

Now without more ado let's get into the anatomy of dissociation. I mean I've been talking about
dissociations and so forth. Well can we do anything about it? Is the phenomenon solvable? Oh,
yes indeed. The subject of dissociation has a definite anatomy of which I am very familiar and it
has a very easy solution. 

The Anatomy of Dissociation 

Common Manifestations of Dissociation 

Before going into the anatomy of dissociation I think I better give some of the more common
manifestations of dissociation. Unless you are aware of this Greg, you may be surprised at the
ramifications. 

The Bouncer 

The simplest manifestation of dissociation is, of course, the old Dianetics circuit, where the
person has a command there in the mind which commands him to do things. 

He may have say, a bouncer, that bounces him up and down his time track, that's a circuit, a little
postulate, sort of shut off from him which is commanding him there, which he's quite aware of
but he's powerless to do anything else but obey it. That's probably the simplest manifestation of
dissociation, is the circuit, which Ron covered very well in Dianetics Modern Science of Mental
Health. He spoke very well on the subject of the circuit. He covered the phenomena very well. He
obviously researched it very thoroughly, the subject of the circuit. 

By the way this whole subject of dissociation was skirted by Ron in his research. He nibbled at
the corners of it but he never came to grips with it head on, Ron didn't. He never came to grips
with it. 

The reason he never came to grips with it head on, this is only a personal opinion here, is I believe
that he himself suffered with dissociation. As I say more about this subject of dissociation you'll
see why I believe that Ron suffered with it. So of course he was inhibited in his research on the
subject because of the fact that he was personally involved in it. That he was a dissociative
personality himself so he couldn't really come to grips with it objectively. And he never did in the
whole research of Scientology. He nibbled at the corners of it but he never got right down to
grips with it. But, anyway let's press on. 

Entities (another circuit) 

Between the circuit and compulsive behaviour would be these entities in the mind which we
come across on the subject of NOTS. You know? They're simply little circuits, that's all. And they
don't indicate the persons insane or anything. They're just little split off circuits. They are just
down there at the same level as circuitry. 

So it's not a serious phenomenon at all. It's quite mild, just mild dissociation. It's the same level
as circuitry. It's between circuitry and the person who is under a mental compulsion. It's certainly 

not as severe as a mental compulsion. It's certainly not anyway near as severe as a multiple
personality. 

Compulsion 

The  next  most  severe  level  of  dissociation  would  be  a  person  under  a  compulsion  to  do
something, or compulsive behaviour, where a person is very aware of being compelled to do a
thing. 

It may be when they go out walking they mustn't walk on the cracks between the paving stones
and they feel compelled to avoid the cracks on the paving stones. They mustn't put their foot on
a  crack;  they  must  put  their  foot  between  the  cracks.  It's  a  compulsion  there  and  that's
dissociation. 

Or it may be a compulsion to do any behaviour. Compulsive behaviour is a manifestation of
dissociation. It's not a severe manifestation. There's much more severe ones than that, but it is
essentially a part of the mind which is split off which is now commanding the main psyche to do
something and the main psyche is obeying it, and the person is powerless to not obey the
commands. 

Multiple Personality Disorder 

Now the next level of severity. We leave the normal types of neurotic or ordinary behaviour, the
ordinary type of person. We are now moving into what are classified in psychiatry as a psychosis
and probably the least severe of these would be the multiple personality. Where the person
manifests one personality for a spell and then that personality disappears and they become an
entirely different person. 

If you read the book "The Three Faces of Eve" this is well documented. In psychiatry it's not a
common condition but when it does occur it's most startling. It's a manifestation of dissociation
and the psychiatrist or the therapist's job is to marry up all these entities and get them back to
one bit again. You've got a split personality. 

You've got a shattered personality; you've got to put the bits back together. When you get all
the  bits  back  together  you  get  one  personality  again,  all  the  rest  have  gone.  That  is  a
manifestation of dissociation. 

Schizophrenia 

Above  multiple  personality,  more  severe  than  a  multiple  personality  is  the  schizophrenic,
schizophrenia. Where the person hears voices and compulsions to act and do things. The person
is being told to do things by voices that talk to him and so forth. Whole sections of his mind are 

shut off and he's under compulsive behaviour. All the manifestations of schizophrenia which one
can read about in any textbook of psychiatry. This is a severe manifestation of the dissociative
personality. 

Paranoia 

Equally severe is paranoia, the paranoia, the paranoiac. He believes that the world is against him.
It's a psychotic condition, he believes that people are plotting, that there are entities out there
that are plotting and he unreasonably believes that he's being influenced by these entities. And
they're all out to get him, they are all out to destroy him. This is the paranoiac. 

Schizophrenia and paranoia go together. You get the classification of the paranoid schizophrenic,
the two go together, sometimes they're separate, sometimes they're together. Now this is the
reason why I believe that Ron Hubbard was never able to complete his research and never did.
Well not complete, and never did come to grips with this subject of dissociation in Scientology.
That is because I happen to know from personal experience of Ron that he was markedly
paranoiac. He was definitely a paranoiac personality, was Mr. Hubbard. 

It was quite obvious when talking to him. I used to go out and have dinner with the guy. And we
used to sit and burn the midnight oil and so forth, and chat and drink together. And it was quite
in the way he used to talk, it was quite obvious that he felt that he was being got at. 

He used to genuinely believe that the psychiatrists were ruining Scientology. And I used to argue
him, I'd say, "Ridiculous Ron, just leave them alone, they're not doing us any harm. We leave them
alone, they'll leave us alone." "No, Dennis," He used to say, "No, No, there... there's all sorts of
things happening." He'd say, "There's funny things going on, on our comm. lines and it's the
damned psychiatrists. They're out to get us. And we've got to get them first." 

And after a while I began to realise that this guy was paranoiac. I was dealing with a paranoid
personality. It wasn't marked, I mean he wasn't insane but he was a paranoiac personality, was
Ron Hubbard. 

Oh, it showed on many occasions in Scientology. Many times he showed paranoiac behaviour. I'm
not the first person or the only person to have known that Ron Hubbard was paranoiac, had
marked paranoiac tendencies. 

So it would be no surprise to me that a man with that degree of paranoia would have difficulty in
researching this subject of dissociation because he himself would dissociate quite badly, and
would tend to have bits of his own psyche shut off and acting quite independently of him. And
he would be unable to determine whether they were genuine bits of his personality or whether
they were other thetans in present time dictating to him. 

And he'd be unable to determine this because of his own paranoid tendencies. So that's why I
believe he never was able to complete this research and thoroughly research this subject of
dissociation. He should have done, you see. It was odd, considering the importance of the subject
that he never did come to grips with it. 

Ron and Sexuality 

There's another area of the mind, while I'm on the subject of areas of the psyche that Ron
Hubbard  never come to grips with. Ron Hubbard never came to grips with the subject of
sexuality, either. 

You hunt through the textbooks of Dianetics and Scientology and apart from the good old
prenatal coitus engrams of Book One and a bit on blanketing in "The History of Man" you will
hunt in vain for anything on the subject of sex in the textbooks of Scientology or in his lectures
come to that. That Ron was very quiet on the subject of sex. 

Well when you consider how important sex is in the subject of human beings lives you would
think it would have far greater mention in the subject of Scientology than it actually had. And so
we can probably assume, and I happen to know for a fact that he did have lots and lots of trouble
on the subject of sex, did Ron. And he was quite unable to do research on that subject. Anyway
that's a digression. 

Getting back to those manifestations of dissociative personality; it's quite broad, isn't it. Goes
from a simple circuit, through compulsive behaviour, through the phenomena you see in NOTS
and through compulsive behaviour into the realms of psychosis. In fact apart from various
degenerative conditions of the mind, to do with old age or alcoholism or poisoning and so forth,
dissociation is the common denominator of most insanity. 

That's the vast majority of people in insane asylums, who are classified as insane, are dissociative
personalities. The only other types of personalities that are classified as insane is the dementias
of aged people, or alcoholic dementia, dementia from poisons and that pretty well wraps it up.
There aren't any other psychoses. 

So you can see how important the subject of dissociation is, and how strange it is that it was
never researched by Ron Hubbard, never fully researched. It was quite interesting when you
start to study this subject of dissociation you realise that this whole thing is a great big hole in
Scientology called, "Where's Dissociation?" Ron never mentioned it, never mentioned the whole
subject called dissociation, interesting. In case you think I'm maligning Mr. Hubbard, I'm not. I still
think that he's one of the greatest psychotherapists of this century. In fact he may have been the
greatest because of his contributions to human knowledge of the mind; his contribution is
second to none. 

The man was a genius in his field but that still doesn't get away from the fact that he was
markedly paranoiac and was a dissociative personality and had lots and lots of troubles on the
subject of sex. That's the truth of the matter. Well I see this tape is running towards the end. I'll
just stop it and have a look at it. No, it's not running towards the end. It's my eyesight that's
running towards the end. I've just taken it out and had a close look at it there's a good 3 or 4
minutes on this. So I won't go over. I'll probably run off the end of the spool. 

The Solution to the Subject of Dissociation 

So let's now go into the subject of the solution to the subject of dissociation. Now the subject of
dissociation, the basis of it is our old friend the subject of problems and solutions. A person has a
problem, this is the way it works out, the person, usually in childhood, has a problem and they
solve the problem and the solution works. [laughs] That's the key point the solution works. 

So every time they get this problem they put this solution into action and the solution keeps
working. The solution eventually becomes automatic, this is the key point, this is. The solution
becomes an automatic solution and every time a problem turns up the solution goes in and the
thing becomes more automatic. Eventually they create a little entity, the child will create a little
entity in his mind, which puts the solution in as soon as the problem comes in. We all do it. And
then the problem comes along and automatically he will put the solution into effect there. 

Now the intensity, the degree to which he puts the automaticity in varies from person to person.
Although we all do this, some go completely overboard on it, and create a fully fledged entity
complete with a purple hat or what have you, and create an identity that goes with the purpose
or the function and the whole thing is sort of mocked up, there. And this is the dissociative
personality. 

And where another person, a person like me, simply created it as a little machine, a little
servomechanism but it never really was granted much life and so it never did get itself into
anything special. It is just a little servomechanism that will put the postulate into action when
the problem turned up. It will put the solution into action you see? 

So although we all do it, we all do it to varying degrees and the dissociative type of personality
does it to a marked degree and the type of personality who doesn't dissociate in later life only
does it to a very minor degree. So that's the essence of it there Greg, is the fixed solution which
goes into action. Then one day, inevitably what happens is that one day the fixed solution goes
into action and horror of horrors it doesn't solve the problem. And this is awful, see. Always up to
now the solution has worked and suddenly it stops working. 

Why would this solution no longer work? Well of course it could be any number of reasons, times
change, different circumstances. Nothing stays the same for very long in this universe as we all
know. So one day inevitably his fixed solution is no longer going to work. We know that for 

absolute certainty. Well I know for absolute certainty I'm getting to the end of this spool so I'm
going to switch it over. I'll see you on the other side of the spool Greg. Just run it on to the end
and I'll start right close in on the other side. So just run the spool till the end. 

Well here we are back again on side two Greg. Same date. You might have noticed about half way
through the first side of this tape that the background music stopped. I switched it off. I
switched it off because there is no need for it any more. The external noises stopped, ceased to
distract me so I switched off the background music because it was no longer necessary. It's now
quiet outside. 

He Can't Stop It. 

Moving along on the subject of problems and solutions. Yes we have the fixed solution and then
one day he finds it doesn't work, it no longer works. It is the inevitable end to all fixed solutions,
that one day they don't work. 

And then, of course, he tries to stop the solution from going into action. Then the fun starts
because  he  can't  stop  it.  He  can't  stop  the  machine  from  working.  He  set  it  up  to  act
automatically you see and he can no longer control the machine. 

Now this is where he does a very stupid thing, a very stupid thing. He opposes the machine. He
now opposes the thing. And he says, "This is now compulsive behaviour. I don't want to do this
any more but I find myself doing it. Every time X happens I do Y, and I don't want to do Y every
time X happens and I must stop myself from doing Y every time X happens." 

See he opposes his fixed solution. Now this is where the trouble starts. Up to now everything's
all right, no problem at all. The correct thing he should have done at this instance was to create
lots and lots of machines and put them over that way. Machines that were doing this thing for
him. In other words he should have duplicated his exact sequence up to that point, of creating
the automaticity to put in the solution automatically. He should have consciously done what the
machine was doing for him automatically. In other words he should have duplicated the machine. 

Now Ron had this technology he knew this very thoroughly and I learned this from the Old Man
way back in the 1950's. See he got that bit out all right. He knew about the automaticity the
fixed solution and so forth, so there's nothing new about what I'm telling you up to now. It's
standard Scientology tech unless they've gone and lost it. Unless they've lost it. I don't know
what they're doing down there these days. They might have lost it. But anyway Ron had that
tech, he understood that but he didn't talk of it in terms of dissociation, he talked about it in
terms of problems and solutions. He didn't relate it to the subject of dissociation like I'm doing. 

So anyway the person makes this mistake, he now opposes the fixed solution, of course he can't
stop the machine from working so now he puts it over that way and goes in and raises his flag
and goes into a great games condition with his own fixed solution. 

Now again, some personalities do this much more than others. Some do it very little. Some seem
to think it's a stupid thing to do, to go into opposition to their own machinery and they simply
don't do it. They somehow skirt round and unlock the machine. They don't do it. 

Never Took My Finger off the Machine 

I never did it. I ransacked back through my childhood, for this mechanism. I can't find myself ever
having done it. I used to set the machines up but I always knew that it was me doing it. I never
took my finger off the machine even though the machine was running automatically I could
always leave my finger on the machine and always stop the machine. See I never took my finger
off it. Maybe that was the secret of my success; I never took my finger off the machine. But some
people take their finger right off the machine, put it in the class of not-self then when they want
to stop the machine, they can't stop the machine because now the machine is over that way. It's
out of their control by their own postulates. 

It's not that the machine runs out of control or by any other postulate than theirs. I mean as soon
as you put a thing into the class of not-self you're now saying that it's no longer going to obey
your postulates. 

That's what you mean when you put a thing into the class of not-self. It's no longer going to obey
your postulates. It's now acting under other determinism. It's now acting under somebody else's
postulate. So you've got nobody to blame but yourself if you set up a machine, put it in the class
of not-self and then wonder why you can't control it any more. The machine never does anything
else but obey your own postulates, so you can't blame anyone but yourself. And you can blame
yourself for being damned stupid. 

Anyway, some people will do it and they get caught in this mechanism and this would be the
dissociative type of personality. They end up with this machine over that way that they're now
opposed to, they've now got a split off part of their psyche, this automatic machine over that
way. And the next thing you know they've got an entity there and or a cluster of entities, all on
the associated subject. 

Because you know from NOTS that the entities tend to cluster on similarity of subject. They
associate in the mind under similarity of postulate. Similarity of subject matter and that's no
great surprise to anyone that this should happen cause that's the way the mind gets built. 

But, never the less, this is the anatomy of the dissociation, Greg, this is how it comes about. 

Therapy 

Now what is required to be done about it in therapy? Well in my own therapy, nothing. It simply
comes out in the wash at Level 5A, by the time the person's done Level 5A. Just to remind you
what Level 5A consists of. 

A person is putting up postulates and creating postulates themselves and then they're putting
up postulates in the class of not-self, created by others. They're mocking up others creating
postulates in the class of not-self and they're creating postulates in the class of self. They're
working all the time with this class of self and not-self with very powerful postulates at Level 5A. 

Well after they've been doing this for 10 or 20 hours all their automatic machinery is shot to
pieces, they just tear it apart, because you see, they're now an expert at creating things in the
class of not-self. It's as easy for them to create things in the class of not-self as it is to create
things in the class of self, it doesn't make any difference to them. I mean, I can mock-up things in
the class of not-self just as easy as I can create them in the class of self. 

I can mock-up other people mocking things up just as easy as I can mock things up myself. I know
which is which, I keep them quite separate. One's just as easy for me to do as the other. No great
difficulty  in it. Most people unless they've worked  on this subject, you ask them to mock
something up they mock it up in the class of self. It never occurs to them to mock it up in the
class of not-self, unless you ask them to do so and some people have a lot of difficulty doing it,
they can't mock things up in the class of not-self. They say, "Oh, no, I can't do that." 

Well, all that comes out in the wash at Level 5A on my tech. They get over that by the time they
finish Level 5A. They've just broken this machinery down, all the entities have gone. So this is my
solution to the problem of dissociation is Level 5A. 

It's not a specific address to it. It simply comes out in the wash at Level 5A because it's covered in
Level 5A. When you are done with Level 5A you have broken all the entities down. They've all
gone, because they're only just the postulates in the class of not-self. 

What is an Identity? 

Look Greg. Let's understand. What is an identity? Let's understand what an identity is, and how
an identity comes about in the mind. 

An identity is simply a collection of postulates. 

Now the postulates come before the identity. This is a very important datum. 

It's not that you create an identity and then the identity starts operating on certain postulates.
That isn't the way it works. It works the other way around. You get the postulates first. There are
the postulates, the postulates go into action and then we say, "Well a person who uses those
postulates is a blank." See that? 

And we will call this person the identity of a "blank". You know, a fisherman is a man who fishes.
His postulate is 'to fish'. You see that? 

But first, how did the identity of the fisherman ever come about. Well one day somebody started
fishing, you see. Then somebody else started fishing, and they started fishing and they said,
"Well, we need an identity for this." 

Who is the person who's doing the fishing? Well, fisherman, he's now a fisherman, so they
invented the word fisherman and the word gives us the concept of an identity there. And now we
have the identity of a fisherman. But the identity of a fisherman comes later than the postulate
'to fish', see that? And it stems from the postulate 'to fish'. 

How to Get Rid of Entities 

So you come across an entity in the mind, your tendency is to say well I must try and get rid of
this entity. Flunk! That's the wrong way to go about it. The correct way to take an entity apart in
the mind is to find out what postulates it's operating on. Is just to find out its postulates and one
by one take over control of those postulates. Create them yourself. I mean, it could be just
creative processing, it could be as crude as that or it could be something as sophisticated as my
Level 5A. 

But, it amounts to the same thing. You're going to get in there and try and take over the creation
of these postulates, then the entity collapses. Once you've got rid of the postulate, you stop
creating the postulate that the entity is based upon, the entity vanishes because the entity only
consists of the postulates. It doesn't consist of anything else but postulates. A fisherman, the
entity of a fisherman, the valence identity of a fisherman, doesn't consist of anything else but
the postulate 'to fish'. Plus the postulate 'to be human' we might say, but that's common to all
human identities, the postulate to be human. 

The thing that differentiates out the fisherman is the postulate 'to fish', see that? And once
you've erased the postulate 'to fish' out the mind the fisherman's gone. And that's the easiest
way to erase a fisherman from the mind, is to erase the postulate 'to fish'. 

The hard way to go about it is to try and erase the fisherman without touching the postulate 'to
fish', that is the hard way to go about it. You might get there, you might get lucky. But it's the
hard way to go about it. 

The correct way to go about it is to address the postulate. Then the entity, the identity, call it
what you will, vanishes. 

That's why in my therapy I only work with postulates I don't work with identities, don't work with
entities because I don't have to. I work with postulates, the identities, the entities, come out in
the wash, they all do. 

I knew that according to my research data. The identities consist of postulates, that's all they
consist of, so you only have to work with the postulates in the class of self and in the class of not-
self and all the entities and identities and so forth come out in the wash. And they do, they fly
off at Level 5A. They fly off in all directions quite violently. They all come apart. So that's the way
I would do it in my therapy. 

Now there are other ways you could do it. There are lots of ways you could skin this particular
cat, called dissociation. You could treat the thing purely as a problem in "problems and solutions"
and back up Scientology tech to it. You could get the person to mock-up a machine that creates
entities, mock-up a machine that creates these postulates, mock-up a machine that creates
postulates that become entities. Then mock-up lots of machines. Now become the machine, have
other people mocking up the machines. You can do creative processing. 

You can take him back into childhood and pick up the points when he created the solution to the
problem and date it, find the moments in time when he first came across this postulate and set
the machinery up. Do it that way. That might be a hard way to do it by the way but you could do
it that way. It could be done Dianetically, but the fastest way to do it would be with my tech and
Level 5A. I swear it, the fastest way to do it. 

It's not the only way to do it, there are lots and lots of ways you can do it if you understand the
mechanism involved, the mechanism of the entity, the mechanism of the identity. Basically it's a
problem; it's the old problems and solutions technology. 

The Problem with NOTS 

Just in passing, when you mentioned on your tape at the beginning of your tape you were
talking about NOTS and the phenomena they came across in NOTS. I had to play this back over, I
thought this was most peculiar but no it was the way you said it. And it was quite true, I quite
believe it. 

You said that when they were trying to put intentions into mass, they were starting to come up
scale and OT, they were starting to put intentions out in the environment and they started to get
somatics in auditing. As soon as they started to put their intentions out into the environment
they started to get somatics. So then they sat down and tried to figure a technique to handle the
somatics. 

Flunk! Flunk! Flunk! Breach of the auditor's code! Look if you had a preclear walking around,
you're running 8-C on a preclear and you're walking around the room and you're getting him to
touch objects in the room and he turns on somatics, now what does the auditor's code tell you to
do? It doesn't tell you to sit down and try to figure out a process to handle the somatic does it? 

The auditor's code is very precise on this subject, it says that you continue the process as long as
it's producing change and then you stop doing the process. That's in the auditor's code. So you're
walking the preclear around the room touching objects, if he turns on somatics, you go on with
the process. To do anything else is a flunk. It's a code breach. 

It's one of the things that separates the auditors from the non-auditors. The auditors go on with
the process as long as it's producing change while non-auditors don't do that. That separates the
auditors out from the psychiatrists, that one does. The auditors go on and flatten the process
and the psychiatrists quit. 

But hey, we get onto the subject of upper level tech and the person now out in the environment
putting postulates into the environment and they start to turn on somatics. The correct solution
to that problem is to go on putting postulates in the environment and flatten the process. Get
that? 

There never was any need to invent the NOTS you see? It always was an unnecessary solution. All
they had to do was flatten the god damned process. If this OT's getting somatics every time he
puts postulates out in the environment, fine, start of session auditing command place some
postulates into the environment, thank you. You're getting a somatic. Thank you very much,
we're going to continue this process here. Here's the next command, put some more intentions
into the environment. Oh, your somatics are getting worse. Ok, we're going to continue this
process. 

You know, just auditing, routine auditing. Don't have to be a Level 14 auditor to handle that sort
of situation. You know, a Level 1 auditor can handle that. Continue the process as long as it's
producing change. 

This is what startled me. I could hardly believe that somebody of the technical expertise of David
Mayo would fall so easily into such a simple trap of not flattening a process and coming along
and inventing an unusual solution. So, bit peculiar isn't it. Someone around here's a bit obsessed
with the subject of entities. Now the odd thing is that if you were to take a person, a newly
fledged OT and he starts putting purposes into the environment and he turns on a somatic, if
you were to go on with the process eventually it would turn off. Eventually the somatics would
turn off. 

Somatics and Effort 

He may discover, however, and I've come across this phenomena, he may discover that the cause
of his somatics is that in putting the postulates into the environment he's creating effort in his
own body and these efforts go into counter-efforts in his own body and the conflict between the
effort and the counter-effort in his body is causing a somatic. In other words he himself is
generating the somatic in his own body by creating efforts in his own body when he's putting
postulates out in the environment. 

Maybe he's trying to use his body by trying to get the postulates out into the environment by
using body effort. Some people will do this, they are stuck in effort. And they try and project
mentally using the effort band and the end point of that is that they're going to get somatics in
their body. 

All this will come out in the wash if you simply continued on with putting intentions in the
environment eventually the preclear could know if he was doing this. He'd eventually know
where he was getting these somatics from. "Oh, oh, I'm putting all this effort into my body,
that's where the pain is coming from." In other words it has nothing to do with his track it's
simply a present time phenomena. 

So that phenomena could occur. But anyway that would come out in the wash that was simply
just another reason why he's getting the somatics. But the correct procedure would be to apply
the process. 

So I'm afraid David Mayo's gone down in my estimation. I always had a rather high regard for the
chap as a Scientologist but if he fell for that one he definitely needed to do a retread, he did, if
he fell for that. 

Dissociative Phenomena is Cumulative 

Probably the most awful thing about the dissociative phenomena is that it's cumulative. A
person has one failure, has their first failure as a child say, and they get a machine that goes out
of control. Some bit of their mind goes out of control and they shut that bit off over that way
and they finally get that bit all quietened down and the next time they get into this it happens
more easily. In other words, failure breeds failure, and the next thing they know they're well into
a haunted mind and you will get the dissociative type of personality. 

Now I can give you more data on the type of personality that is going to become dissociative.
The type of postulates that this person will be operating on. I can even give you that, and that's
about as far as I can go on the subject is tell you the dissociative type of personality. 

Common Personality Types and Frequency 

Do you remember the four basic postulates in my Level 5A? 'To be Known', 'To Not be Known',
'To Know' and 'To Not Know', they're the four basic postulates. They're the ones that I work with
at Level 5A. Well now, it should be no surprise to anyone that people tend to fixate into one or
the other of these four postulates. And they tend to base their modus operandi in life on one or
the other of these postulates. Now the two positive legs of the 'To be Known' goals package are
the favourites. 

To be Known - Leg 1 

The most common is 'To be Known' that is the most common of all the postulates that you will
find a person dramatizing in life. The person is a circuit and often starts off quite creative, an
extrovert. All this is in my research notes by the way. I've no need to repeat it. You can find it by
reading it up there. 

To Not be Known - Leg 2 

And the least common of all is 'To Not be Known' type of person. Virtually in hiding, they are a
hiding type of personality, the retiring type of personality. 

To Know - Leg 3 

The next most common is the 'To Know' personality. This person tends to be introspective and
studious, wanting to learn. 

To Not Know - Leg 4 

Now, far less common are the negative type of personality. First of all 'To Not Know' that's the
next most common one, 'To Not Know', this person is a rejecting type of personality. He simply
doesn't want to know. 

Auditing Negatives 

Now the thing is that when you audit the negatives. When you get a person who's into 'Not
Know' or dramatizing 'Not Know', when you take the person who's into 'Not Know' and you audit
him he comes up scale and he starts to go over more and more to the 'To be Known' postulate. 

In other words the cycle of the person in the 'To be Known' postulate is that his op-term, his
opposition terminal is 'To Not Know'. That's the enemy is 'To Not Know' and he takes on the
characteristics of the 'To Not Know'. 

Now the further he goes down scale the more he goes into the valence of 'To Not Know' so as
you audit him and he's into 'Not Know' as you audit him and bring him upscale eventually you'll
bring him back up to the 'To be Known' postulate. 

So actually the person who's stuck in 'To Not Know' when you audit him he comes up scale and
you find he's a 'to be knowner'. That's where he really belongs. 

And similarly with a person who's stuck in 'To be Not Known' he's the opposition terminal of the
knower of the 'To Know' postulate. 

And the knower operating the postulate 'To Know' he will eventually go into 'To Not be Known'
so he eventually goes into hiding. And as you audit him he comes out of the hiding and goes back
into the 'To Know' postulate. 

So really there's only the two, 'To be Known' and 'To Know' they are quite distinctive personality
types, quite distinctive. The knower's make good scientists and so forth, studious, tend to be
academic,  thoughtful,  so  on.  The  'To  be  Known'  is  the  extrovert,  outgoing,  active,  great
sportsman, so on, you know. 

I  don't  need  to  belabour  the  point,  you  see  the  differences  between  the  two  types  of
personality, right away. But of the two types of personality, the type of personality that is more
likely to become dissociative is the 'To be Known' personality simply because the 'To be Known'
personality is opposed by rejection. 

What Type of Incidents Upset You?
To be Known 

Before I go on I better explain this a little bit to you. You can always pick which postulate goes
with a person. You've only got to say to the person, "Alright now, what sort of incidents upset
you in your life? What type of incidents upset you?" 

You say this to the person and he says, "Oh, well things I don't like in my life. I don't like being
rejected. I don't like rejection." Yes, he finally decides that sort of thing. "I am really very
sensitive to rejection." 

Well you don't have to look any further he's a 'To be Known'. He's operating on the 'To be Known'
postulate because the opposition terminal to 'To be Known' is 'To Not Know' which is rejection.
He gets rejected, see. The 'Not Know' of rejection. So that's his opposition terminal. So you can
always tell. 

To Know 

The person who is dramatizing the 'To Know' postulate his opposition terminal is 'To be Not
Known' so you say to him, "Now what sort of incidents in your life have upset you most?" and he
thinks about it for a while and you think, "Well he's going to say being rejected." 

No, he's not particularly worried about rejection, this type of personality. The thing that upsets
him is deprivation. He can't stand being deprived of things. He can't stand being prevented from
knowing things. You see his opposition terminal is preventing him from knowing things. He's
being prevented from knowing. It's the thing that gets him. 

He  doesn't  like  secrets.  His  opposition  terminal  is  a  secreted  person,  you  see  there.  His
opposition is hiding things all the time and depriving him of things. He hates being deprived of
things. So he says. "Well, the worst thing in my life is being deprived of things and being
prevented from knowing things." They are the things he detests most, you see. So he tells you
that and you know where he is, he's a knower. 

To Not Know 

Now the person who is stuck in 'To Not Know' you say to him, "What sort of incidents in your life
upset you most and he says, "Tell you that right away. I can't stand people inflicting things on me.
I just hate infliction. Infliction's a terrible thing." he'll say. 

This persons stuck in 'Not Know' his op-term is the 'be Known' and the ‘be Known’ is an inflictor.
From the characteristics of the 'be Known', 'Must be Known' personality. The 'be Known' goes
round inflicting things on people and the not-knower he can't stand that. He can't stand having
things inflicted on him. So that's the incidents he doesn't like. He doesn't like anything inflicted
on him. 

To be Not Known 

And your 'be Not Known' personality, you say to him, "Well now what sort of incidents upset you
most in your life?" and he thinks about it and says, "Well the worst things that happen in my life
are being forced to reveal things. Is to be found out." and they are the worst things that could
happen to him. 

You see he's a secreted type of personality and he's opposed to the knower. He can't stand
people, who want to know things. He can't stand their curiosity, their inquisitiveness and all the
worst upsets he's had in his life were of being forced to reveal things. So his upset is revelation.
He's upset by revelation, being forced to reveal things, being forced 'To be Known' that's his
upset. 

Summary of the Four 

So  there's  your  four  you  see.  So  you  can  tell  which  postulate  of  the  four  the  person  is
dramatizing by asking what sort of incidents upset them most, and it's quite distinctive. There's
no doubt, you won't get any cross types. People do fall into one of those types or another,
there's no doubt about it. 

You won't find a person to say, "Oh, well I don't like rejection, I don't like being rejected and I
don't like being deprived of things." Oh, no you won't get that. You won't get that much crossed
up. It's quite distinctive, you know, the person who doesn't like being rejected, he doesn't mind
being deprived of things. He doesn't care for it particularly but it's no great deal with him. And
the person who doesn't like being deprived of things, although he doesn't like being rejected, it
doesn't really bother him, not really, you know. It's not his game, you see. You see how that
would be? So it's quite distinctive. 

Dissociative Personality Type 

Now the reason why the dissociative personality is more likely to be a knowner is, because he's
out going, he puts up these postulates, these fixed solutions, you see. And then one day he tries
to change the fixed solution and he can't and immediately he feels that he's being got at. That
his own machinery is rejecting his orders, his commands. And he gets really very upset about this
and this is why I think it's the basis, I can't prove this, but I think this is why some personalities are
dissociative and some aren't. 

I think it depends upon this basic postulate they are operating on and I'm sure it's the 'be Known'
personality who is the sucker for dissociation. The 'Know' personality is quite immune to it. He's
quite immune to dissociation. 

I'm basically or I used to be, the postulates are so feint with me now, but I used to be, before I did
my own Level 5A, I used to be a knower and that used to be my favourite postulate, you see. But
it's certainly my case that I'm not a dissociative personality; I never have been even when I was a 

knower. I was dramatizing that postulate quite heavily as a young man. I was not a dissociative
personality, never have been in this lifetime. 

But there's plenty of evidence to back up what I'm saying although I can't prove it without doing
lots more research on lots of other people which I probably will never get the chance to do at
this stage. But I would lay a bet on it that the dissociative personality is fundamentally operating
on the 'To be Known' postulate and I know for a fact that the paranoiac personality is always
operating on the 'To be Known' it's the only postulate he operates on. 

Now that's not to say that every person operating on that postulate is paranoiac. No, no, but if
you find a person who's got paranoiac tendencies this person is basically a 'To be Known'
personality. 

Hubbard was basically a 'To be Known' personality and he was markedly paranoiac. And I've
known quite a number of paranoiac people in my lifetime and every one of them showed all the
characteristics of the 'To be Known' personality. There all extroverts, all outgoing, all outgoing in
their natures and so on. They showed all the manifestations of the 'To be Known' personality. 

So there's quite a lot of correlation there between those basic four postulates and life, Greg,
they're not just something I dreamed up, and they just sit there in my research. They're real living
things that sit in real living people in the environment and the more you work with them the
more you come to realise that they are just what I say they are the four basic postulates. 

They don't come any more basic than those four. And the person gets those straightened out at
Level 5A. And as he works with those, gets those out of the way it kicks great big holes in their
bank, great big holes, great big chunks get kicked out of their bank. Blimey old buddy, I see that
I'm getting towards the end of this tape and I'm going to close off now. It's getting towards 9
o'clock, half past 9, it's 9:15. Getting a bit tired, I may have a bit more space on this tape. I might
fill it. I may not before I send it off to you. Anyway I'll bid you good night for the moment. Ta ta
for now. 

Addendum - Addressing Entities 

This is an addendum to the tape made some time later and in listening to the tape I realised that
I forgot to mention another application for TROM, the resolution of the subject of entities from
the mind. 

Generally speaking it's not advisable to address the subject of entities in the mind unless they
interfere with therapy. So unless they interfere you wouldn't get involved with this subject. One
would simply proceed on through the levels but if entities did interfere with the running of
TROM they can be addressed right from Level 2. There's nothing at all to prevent a person from
putting up an entity and finding some differences and similarities between an entity and a
present time physical universe object. In other words simply treat it as a part of the mind. The
entity is a part of the psyche and can be treated as such and if it shows up in therapy it should be
treated as such. 

So if the entity interferes with therapy at Level 2 then it should be addressed at Level 2 and the
entity or entities should be put up and differences and similarities found between the entity and
present time physical universe objects. 

Similarly at Level 3, if entities interfere at Level 3 they can be timebroken against present time
physical universe objects. For the vast majority of people the whole phenomena will be gone by
the time the person gets to the top of Level 3. But never the less, if the phenomena does persist,
it will, of course, as I mentioned on the lecture, the Level 5A will hit at it. 

It will fall apart at Level 5A and if it doesn't fall apart at Level 5A, Oh my God it should have gone
by then, you can always, if there's any residual phenomena hanging around you can simply make
the junior universe of the entity the subject matter of the 'To Know' goal package at Level 5C,
and that, so help me, will be the end of it. That will be the end of it. So the subject of entities, to
recapitulate, can be addressed at Levels 2, Level 3 and Level 5A will get at it, get at the subject,
as I mentioned on the main lecture and also it can be addressed specifically and finally at Level
5C. 

So there's the little addendum I wanted to make on the subject of entities. But just to repeat
again so you've got the message. You do not address entities unless they interfere with therapy.
You just continue on with the therapy unless they interfere. But if they do interfere in the
running of TROM then you address them in the way that I've suggested it at these various levels.
Thanks very much. 

RETURN TO LECTURES MAIN PAGE