Insanity Part 2

MP3 DOWNLOAD

This is the 3rd of July 1994 and this is the second tape in the sequence where we are discussing
the subject of insanity, IP's etc. This tape is a direct continuation of its predecessor and should
always be accompanied by its predecessor, for obvious reasons. 

We have discovered the IP set of X(1-X)+Y(1-Y)=1 and it is necessary at this stage to discuss the
qualities and nature of this IP set and I hope to be able to answer questions on this subject of the
nature of this IP set in what follows. 

The first question we must take up is the one that's hanging fire from the last tape and that is
the question of whether the person stuck in the X(1-X) IP can move across to the Y(1-Y) IP, and I
said that he cannot do this and we now have to find out why this is so. 

When working with IP's in logical analysis it is a very useful ruse de guerre (trick of war) to
substitute in place of the little IP another symbol. 

For example, if instead of the IP set that we have there, we replace it with the set of A+B=1,
where A = X(1-X) IP and B = Y(1-Y) IP so we're now using a substitution set. Now the interesting
thing is that when we use this substitution, of course, we have now left the Insanity Class and
were back into reason again, because this A+B=1 set can be manipulated in logic, in terms of
reason again. 

So we're back on the main road and it saves wear and tear on the mind and it saves wear and tear
on the fingers writing out all these little X's and Not-X's all the time. So it's quite legitimate to do
this. So the question arises now that we've got an A+B=1. Well we know from when I mentioned
the subject of interpreting A+B=1 in logic. 

Remember I said that we have to find out whether it's the inclusive or exclusive "OR". That in the
A+B=1, the A and the B are quite disjunctive, they're quite separate from each other and we just
want to find out how much separation there is. 

You see the problem is that you can write A+B=1 and it can either mean that the class AB plus
the class of A and Not-B and the class of B and Not-A = 1 or it might simply mean that the class of
A and Not-B plus the class of B and Not-A =1. 

Now both of those can be expressed in terms of A+B=1. You see the problem? One is the
inclusive OR and the other is the exclusive OR. One includes the possibility of both A and B, as a
common class and the other one excludes the possibility of both A and B as a common class. 

So our problem here is to find out, with these IP's and the question, "Why can't the person move
from one IP to the other?", can this common class of both IP's exist? Well let's put it together. 

The AB class becomes, in terms of the IP's. It becomes X(1-X)+Y(1-Y)=1. That becomes that class.
It's a separate class so we must make it equal to 1. 

And when we look at this class, we immediately see that if that is so then X=Y, and (1-X)=(1-Y).
But that can't hold, because the person, remember, the games player in his descent down
through into compulsive games play has postulated that X≠Y, he has to make this postulate
otherwise he'll lose the whole set, if he accidentally postulates that X=Y. You see that? 

So his old postulate of X≠Y is still running so that prevents the common class of the two IP's
from existing. So that class is equal to zero. Now let's go over the AB set, because it's easier to
express there, it now becomes A(1-B) + B(1-A) = 1. It's the exclusive OR. So the person is either in
one of the IP's and not in the other IP, or is in the other IP and not in the first IP. 

Now that is a simple double bind. I refer you to the double bind technology [see previous lectures:
The Exclusion Postulate & Bonding]. It's exactly analogous to the example I gave you in the double
bind tech of the young man who couldn't get a job because he was inexperienced. 

You remember that double bind on an earlier tape? Well this is a similar thing, it's a straight
forward double bind and it locks the person in the IP that he was in when he went into the IP
state. In our example the person, remember, his last game postulate was X. So he goes into the
X(1-X) IP. And the other IP although it is in the set still, it's not available to him. It's over that way
and he can't get to it because he's locked out by the mechanism of the double bind. So that
answers that question. 

If you follow this through you see the reasoning behind that. 

Twin IP's… TIPS 

Now before we proceed any further we ought to name this baby we have our hands on. We've
got two IP's with a plus sign in between them and they're equal to 1. We ought to name this.
Well, we do have a name for it in TROM, we call it a TWIN IP. And the initial is TIP. That is T I P. TIP,
it means Twin IP's. 

Twin IP's. And its initials are TIP, usually with the S because it's plural they are Twin IP's...TIPS. So
henceforth when I refer to Twin IP's what I mean in the general case, the IP's X(1-X)+Y(1-Y)=1
that's what I'm referring to when I'm talking about the Twin IP's. 

Four Characteristics of the IP State 

Now we're in the fortunate position in TROM of being able to define these TIPS. This state of
Twin IP's. We're able to define it, which virtually means that we can define the IP state. There are
four characteristics to the IP state, which do define it. And if a person manifests these four
characteristics then he is in the IP state. And if he's in the IP state he will manifest these four
characteristics. 

So it's a definition of the IP state I'm going to give to you now. And it's something you should
know if you want to understand this upper level tech in TROM. You should understand this
definition of the IP state. 

Identification 

Now the first of the characteristics of the IP is identification. In the IP state a postulate is
identified with its negative. A postulate is identified with its negative. Now that is the first of the
characteristics. It's quite self explanatory and it's quite obvious, and you can see it in terms of
the symbolism and you can see how it's comes about. So I don't really have to say any more about
that at this stage. 

Motionlessness 

Now the next characteristic of the IP is motionlessness. That is lack of motion. Now let's discuss
this briefly. Quite clearly if a person is operating upon a postulate and it's negative he's in a state
of motionlessness. 

For example, if a person is both striving to go to China and striving to not go to China he isn't
going any place. He is in a state of absolute stillness. He isn't moving. And why is he in a state of
stillness? Well the two postulates there are simply contradicting each other. One is the exact 

contradiction of the other. And so they stop each other. They simply stop each other BANG.
Right there, BANG. Get it? 

So there's no motion in the IP state. There's no motion. It's a state of motionlessness. It's a stop
motion. It's a point of stop motion. There is no motion in the IP state. If you don't believe this
you should get the idea of trying to go to China and trying to not go to China simultaneously. 

And you will quickly realise that while you're holding these two postulates you aren't going any
place. It's not that you can hold those two postulates and while holding the postulate to go to
China and holding the postulate to not go to China you can then go to South Africa. 

No, no you can't do that. While you're holding the postulate to go to China and the postulate to
not go to China you can't go to South Africa. Why not? Because it contradicts the postulate to go
to China, get it? So that is the second of the characteristics of the IP is motionlessness. No
motion. Complete lack of motion. 

Timelessness 

Now the third characteristic of the IP is timelessness. Or if you like there's another name for it,
we also call it a 'time stop'. Essentially it's a state of timelessness. Actually this stems from the
motionlessness, but this is the way it works out. Every postulate has a time component to it.
Time is required in order to put a postulate into action. 

So the being in the universe, when he's playing games with the postulates, he's always creating a
little time, even if he is doing it automatically and unknowingly. He is always endeavouring to
create a little time in which to fulfil his postulates. So he keeps doing this continuously and
hence the whole universe jogs along through time. You see that? 

So, there's a time component to every postulate and without the postulates there could be no
time  component.  The  time  component  vanishes  when  the  postulate  vanishes.  The  time
component vanishes because the time is bound in to the universe. The time is built into the
postulate structure of the universe. As I've said many times, this universe only consists of life and
postulates, but the postulates need time in order to fulfil themselves. 

So if you're in a state where there are no postulates then there is no time. It does follow there.
But we know that the IP state is a state of no postulates. Remember that if X(1-X)=1 then X+(1-
X)=0. Both the X and the 1-X are zero. 

So in the IP state there's no postulates and therefore there is no time. There is no time in the IP
state. There is a timelessness. Actually it's more of a time stop. What happens is time jogs along
right the way up to the point that the postulates went into IP and time stops at that precise
instant. It's a time stop rather than the timelessness, but we refer to it as timelessness the IP
state. But the onset of the IP state is the time stop, that's where time stops. 

And this is quite well known in the field of psychiatry, that a person will actually go insane at a
certain moment in time. They may stay insane for six months or a year and maybe they get some
treatment or maybe for any number of reasons suddenly the person snaps out of it and they
look around and say, "Where am I?" and they say, "Well you're in this institution." And he says,
"Well what date is it?" and he's got a whole year missing out of his life. 

Time stopped for him, you see, at the point where he went into the IP state a year previously.
Now he's come back out the IP state and he's now back into the sanity again. This is so common
in psychiatry that it's documented. 

If you read up books of psychiatry and the treating, of the insane and so forth it's very common.
And people have memory lapses where they go into insanity and for a period of time they have
no memory of the period inside the insanity. They come out of it and they've lost a period of
their life. The doctor says, "Can you remember being in here for a year?" and he says, "No, the
last thing I remember was receiving that telephone call from Uncle Ben, and after that there's
nothing. I don't recall anything." "Ah, yes," says the Doctor. He understands. "Yes, yes… you've
had a nervous breakdown." 

He's been insane. He's been in the IP state and now he's snapped out of it. So there's a time stop
there, in the IP state. Now I don't have to remind listeners to this tape who have studied the
subjects of Dianetics and Scientology about being stuck. They know all about this subject of
being stuck on the time track. I would refer you to the connection between this material that I'm
talking about now, the IP's being stuck in time and the fact that a person can be stuck on the
time track. So I just point it out at this juncture that there is a connection between being stuck
on the time track and the IP state. 

You can be stuck on the time track for other reasons than IP's but sure as hell if you went into an
IP state you'll be stuck there. That's where your attention will be stuck. It will stick your attention
because there is no time in the IP state. If a person went into the IP state and then came out
again there will be a little time stop there which would hold his attention at that point in time. 

We'll discuss this a little more when we're talking about sensations. At this juncture I'll just
remind  you  that  the  phenomena  does  exist  and  to  relate  this  subject  of  time  stop  and
timelessness of the IP state to what you know of being stuck on the time track and the engram
bank. 

Mass 

Now the fourth phenomena that characterises the IP state is the phenomena of mass. Now I
won't go in and talk about this because I'll be discussing it much more fully when we talk about
sensations and the anatomy of sensations. So at this stage just bear it in mind the fourth
characteristic of the IP is mass.

Characteristics Necessary and Sufficient to Define the IP State 

So there we have the four characteristics of the IP. The identification between a postulate and its
negative, the subject of motionlessness, timelessness and mass, they are the four characteristics
and they do define the IP state. 

They are necessary and sufficient to define the IP state. By that I mean that there may be many
other characteristics of the IP state but those four are necessary and sufficient to define it.
Right, now various questions are going to arise from the last section of the preceding tape. We
now have a person in the Twin IP's X(1-X) and there's the other IP of Y(1-Y). You've got these Twin
IP's and these are equal to 1, and the person's either in one or the other but they're stuck in the
X one, the X IP. And the immediate question comes to mind that a person's going to say, "Well
wait a minute Dennis. Hold your horses. Didn't you say that Y=0 [Y is an empty class]. 

Isn't that a part of the compulsive games play that the person went into when he reduced his
goals package, his postulate set down to a one game class he postulated that Y=0 and he
postulated that (1-X)=0. 

And now you've got Y reappearing in one IP and (1-X) reappearing in the other IP. How do you
account for that Dennis?" Well very simply. I'll draw your attention to the fact that in the IP state
when X(1-X)=1 then X+(1-X)=0. So in the IP state all X, (1-X), Y and (1-Y) are all equal to naught.
[They're all empty classes] See? 

So that there's nothing there in terms of reason, you're looking at a different state. You've
moved from the state of rationality into a state of irrationality. I know it's peculiar. And you say,
"Well if none of these postulates exist then how come we're equating them to 1?" Well, by
convention, we are saying that these exist in the insanity state. You see that? Otherwise we can't
use the logic. But you must bear in mind that all the postulates in the IP state are equal to zero.
It's a direct deduction from the fact that it's in an IP state. The IP state is impossible in terms of
reason, you see? It's quite impossible. 

Therefore the postulates don't exist. [Chuckle] Obviously. 

So that answers that question of how come the person can be in the IP X(1-X) when he's
previously postulated that (1-X)=0. But when he goes into that IP he postulates X=0, too. The
whole lot goes, when he goes into the IP. So that answers that query. 

[Note: If the person is in the insanity state he is still trying to go to China and not go to China but
time has stopped. He is not moving either direction, so the postulates are not functioning. By
convention they are shown as being there only because that is the last postulate the person was
working on and marks where he is stuck. - Editor] 

Social Aspects 

Now a few brief words on the social aspects of what we're talking about here. When a, so called,
sane person meets an insane person the first response the sane person has is to believe that the
insane person is playing a game, he's putting it on. And he's inclined to sort of slap him on the
back and say, "Ok, that's very good… ahh… that's a good game. Ok, now snap out of it and talk
to me." 

It takes him some little while to grasp that the insane person is not putting it on. It's not an act.
He actually is the way he is and it's not a sham, it's not a front. It's not something he is putting on
consciously and can put on and take off at will. He's stuck in it. And the strange logic of the
insane is something the insane person is stuck with. And once the sane person or the so called
sane person realises this, he's abhorrent of insanity, so he pulls away from it as if it's the plague.
And it's no exaggeration to say that the study of insanity is the most difficult of all studies that a
person can undertake. 

Working with the insane burns out more psychiatrists than any other field of medical practice,
the burn out rate amongst them is absolutely incredible. It's a very trying occupation, for a sane
person to try and understand insanity. And this is largely because of ignorance of the state. 

Now we in TROM we are no longer in ignorance of the state of insanity we do know it's postulate
structure. When you see a person who is insane you know fundamentally that they've got a
postulate, you don't know what the postulate is, but somewhere they have a postulate and
they're trying to operate on that postulate and it's negative simultaneously. 

That is what they're trying to do, and that is why they're insane, and they are locked in this state.
The alternative to being locked in this state is even worse than the state that they are in, you see
that? Like the barber in the Barber of Seville, he goes insane but the alternative to going insane
was even worse, he would be executed. 

And that was even more intolerable than the insanity. And this is true for every insane person.
There is an alternative but it's always worse than the insanity so they choose the insanity rather
than the worse option. Now this abhorrence of insanity is so intense, this pulling away from
insanity that I expect people to have enormous difficulty understanding the material on this
tape. 

Even people who've completed the first three levels of TROM are going to have some difficulty
understanding it. I know this because I had difficulty understanding it when I first discovered it.
And so, I make no bones about it, I found it an incredibly difficult subject to work in, to get the
basics out. 

The rational mind simply abhors the IP state. It abhors insanity. It's the complete antithesis of
rationality. You see? The rational mind works on the proposition that X(1-X)=0 and the insane 

person is working on the proposition that X(1-X)=1. And it's a complete contradiction. You
couldn't be more contrary to the rational mind. It's the complete antithesis to the rational mind.
And the rational mind abhors it and shuns away from it. So I won't be surprised if anyone hearing
this tape thinks that I've lost my marbles. 

That Dennis Stephens has finally gone mad with his TROM. That would be one extreme reaction
to listening to these tapes and the other, the most moderate reaction, would be that a person
would have incredible difficulty understanding what the hell I'm talking about. 

The Mind Abhors Insanity 

Even those who are familiar with logical analysis, you know, familiar with Boolean algebra and
don't  have  any  problem  with  the  symbolism.  Unless  they're  well  advanced  in  TROM,  well
advanced through the levels, they're going to have some difficulty grasping this material, simply
because the mind abhors the subject of insanity. You've only got to look at the history of the way
we treat the insane. All down history the minority class of humanity that has been treated the
worst during the whole of history has always been the insane. No minority group has been
treated like we've treated the insane. Even in this century we've been hacking their brains out
with ice picks and subjecting them to violent electric shocks all under the name of helping them.
I mean, how on earth do you expect to help a person when you're subjecting them to violent
electric shocks and hacking bits of their brains out? Gives you some idea of the abhorrence the
rational mind has of insanity and the fact that the state is simply not understood. You think of
the worst things that it's possible for a group of people to do to a minority. The very worst that a
majority group could do to a minority group then you pick up a history book and read back
through history and you'll find that somewhere, sometime a majority group has done this to the
insane. No exceptions. They've done it. It's there on the track. All the horrors have been done to
the insane. No minority group has been so badly treated by mankind as are our insane brothers
and sisters. 

So don't be surprised if you yourself listening to this material find it difficult to grasp, if you find
yourself shuddering away from it, if your tendency is to say, "Well, this is interesting but Dennis
is probably wrong." And so on. 

Well I can assure you that Dennis isn't wrong. What I'm giving you is correct. It is correct. As I said
right at the beginning of this material that I discovered this stuff some years ago, and I put it on
the back-burner. I thought, "I just want to be absolutely certain of this before I mention it to
anyone." 

But as more and more data piled up it became obvious that this is exactly right. This is exactly
the way it is. And all I've done over the years is perfect the technology. A few years ago I couldn't
have presented it in such a coherent form as I can present it now. I've rounded it off in the last
few years. But essentially it hasn't changed, it's still the IP technology, the upper tech of TROM. 

The subject of the IP is the subject of insanity and also finally an understanding of this subject of
sensation. In order to help people to understand the IP state I will give you another postulate
configuration. Another way of looking at the subject of insanity, and another way of looking at
compulsive games play, as a more diagrammatic representation, which may make more sense,
may help more people to grasp what I'm getting at. 

Compulsive Games State 

Now first of all, I'd like to give the diagrammatic representation of the compulsive games state.
Now this is a state where we're still discussing the XY set, and the postulates that are holding
are X≠Y and X=1-Y or more precisely in terms of our symbolism X=(1-Y). 

That is the compulsive game state. Now we can represent this as a matrix, a diagrammatic. There
is a way of doing it diagrammatically which may be of assistance to you instead of seeing it in
terms of the logical symbols. 

Some people's minds do better with diagrams than they do with symbols. It's the difference
between the geometer and the algebraist. The algebraist works best with symbols and the
geometer works best with pictorial representations. 

So here we go, let's see if we can express this compulsive games state diagrammatically. Let's
imagine a square. Ok now in our square in the top left hand corner of the square we put the
symbol X. In the bottom left hand corner of the square we put the symbol 1-Y, in the top right
hand corner of the square we put the symbol Y and in the bottom right hand corner of the
square we put the symbol 1-X. Ok? 

And there we've got our square with four corners and there's a symbol in each corner. Then
between the top left hand corner symbol, the X, and the bottom left hand corner which is a 1-Y
we put an equal sign so we have X=1-Y. Then between the bottom left hand corner symbol 1-Y
and the bottom right hand corner symbol of 1-X we put a not equal sign. Then between the
bottom right hand corner symbol of 1-X and the top right hand corner symbol of Y we put an
equal sign. And between the top right hand corner symbol of Y and the top left hand corner
symbol of X we put a not equal sign. 

Now if you look at that and examine it you'll see that it's virtually saying that X is not equal to Y,
1-X is not equal to 1- Y, Y is equal to Not-X and X is equal to not Y and that defines the compulsive
games state. 

IP State 

So, there's that one. When you've got that written down put that to one side.  That's the
diagrammatic representation of the compulsive games state. I'll now give you the diagrammatic
representation of the IP state. 

Put up your square and in the top left hand corner we have an X symbol, in the bottom left hand
corner this time we have a 1-X symbol and in the top right hand corner we have a Y symbol and in
the bottom right hand corner we have a 1-Y symbol. 

Now working our way round from the top left hand corner, between the top left hand corner
symbol of X and the bottom left hand corner symbol of 1-X we put an equal sign. And between
the bottom left hand corner of 1-X and the bottom right hand corner of 1-Y we put a not equal
sign. And between the bottom right hand corner of 1-Y and the top right hand corner of Y we put
we put an equal sign. And between the top right hand corner of Y and the top left hand corner of
X we put a not equal sign. And this defines our IP State. 

We have X is equal to 1-X and Y is equal to 1-Y and X is not equal to Y and Not-X is not equal to
not Y. Now that is our IP state. Now when you examine those two squares carefully and you'll
notice that all that's happened, the only difference between the two is that the bonding has
changed. The X has changed its bonding. 

Instead of being bonded to 1-Y, X is now bonded to 1-X and Y instead of being bonded to 1-X is
now bonded 1-Y. It's a change in the bondings or the identifications, more strictly speaking, the
correct word I should use would have been identifications. 

Double Bondings 

This is a double bondings. But the double bondings have changed. And that is the only difference
between those two squares. Now if you can understand that and grasp that you can see the very
essence of the basic difference between compulsive games play and insanity. There's just that
simple change of bonding. If you can grasp it, it will go click in your mind and you've got it. You'll
see it instantly and all the mystery about insanity will vanish out of your mind. You'll see it
clearly, just a simple flip of bonding from the compulsive games state to the IP state. And that's
what happens to the unfortunate compulsive games player, his bonding flips. And he flips into
the insanity bonding. Then he's gone. He's gone into insanity. 

Just to round off and complete your diagrams under the diagram for the compulsive games state
we'll write the symbolism for it, which is : 

Alright now under the diagrammatic representation the square for the IP state we'll write in the
symbolism for that which is: 

That final identification is just to remind you that there is a double bind there. 

[Note: the formula for the double bind is X(1-X)=Y(1-Y) which reads the insanity point for X is
bonded to or equals the insanity point for Y. - Editor] 

The Sanity Loop 

Now on a previous supplementary lecture I introduced the subject of The Loop. And this is a very
useful piece of information in this context of sanity and insanity because it gives us the clearest
difference between the subject of insanity and the subject of sanity. In other words, we can
express sanity in terms of the loop and we can express insanity in terms of a loop. And once you
put them side by side and compare them you immediately see the difference between sanity and
insanity. 

Now let's give you first what we shall call the sanity loop. Now there's three parts to the loop,
like any loop, and the first part is the postulate and the postulate that goes with sanity is the
postulate that a thing is itself. 

A thing is itself. And that is expressed by X=X. Now another way to express that postulate is to
say that a thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously, and that is expressed by X(1-
X)=0. Now another way to express that is to say that a thing either exists or it doesn't exist. And
that is expressed by X+(1-X)=1. 

[Note: The three elements of the loop are the Possible X+(1-X)=1, the Impossible X(1-X)=0 and the
Identity Postulate X=X. - Editor] 

All three of those elements are identical to each other and are simply various methods of saying
the same thing. If you were to think about this very carefully and very closely and ponder it and
look at those three carefully it would begin to occur to you that they are exactly what they say
they are, that they are different methods of saying exactly the same thing. 

So much for the sanity loop. 

The Insanity Loop 

Now let's have a look at the insanity loop. First of all we will look at the postulate. Now the
postulate in the insanity loop is "a thing is its absence" and this is expressed by X=(1-X). Another
way to say this is to say that a thing both exists and doesn't exist simultaneously, and that is
expressed by X(1-X)=1. Now another way to say this is to say that neither a thing nor its absence
exists, and this is expressed by X+(1-X)=0. 

[Note: The three elements of the Insanity loop are the Possible X(1-X)=1, the Impossible X+(1-X)=0
and the Identity Postulate X=(1-X). - Editor] 

Now just as in the sanity loop, all the elements in the insanity loop are identical to each other but
there is one difference here, there's one difference between the two loops, in this respect, in
the sanity loop, not only are all the elements in the loop identical to each other but all the
elements in the sanity loop are true in this universe. 

Now, in the insanity loop all the elements in the loop are identical to each other but each of
them is false in this universe. The sanity loop is the very essence of reason in this universe. The
insanity loop is the very essence of unreason or insanity in this universe. Now the rationale
behind that last statement is a very simple one. The sanity loop, the element X(1-X)=0 is a valid
deduction from the basic law upon which this universe is constructed, therefore that element is
true in this universe, therefore the other two elements in the sanity loop are also true in this
universe  because  they  are  identical  to  the  first  element,  and  the  identification  is  a  true
identification. 

In the insanity  loop  on the other hand, every  element of this insanity  loop  is a complete
contradiction of its partner in the sanity loop and therefore it's false in this universe, even
though  the  internal  identification  between  the  elements  of  the  insanity  loop  is  a  true
identification. 

Now, as I said earlier, if you duplicate exactly what I've just said on this subject on the difference
between sanity and insanity you will have the clearest possible understanding of the difference
between these two subjects in this universe. 

Now, sooner or later, somebody's going to raise this question and say, "Well, how can you be sure
Dennis that the insanity postulate is X=(1-X) and that the insanity postulate is not X≠X?" The
answer to that question is very simple. The insanity state depends upon the postulates of X=(1-
X). They have to both be of the same intensity for the state to occur. And that can only happen
when X=(1-X). If we simply say that X≠X that isn't sufficient to give us that identification. 

The identification may be there but it's not implied. But once we say X=(1-X) we're definitely
saying the intensity of X is identical to the intensity of (1-X), and that is necessary to the insanity 

state. The insanity state does not occur unless a postulate and its absence or a postulate and its
negative are both being held with exactly the same intensity. 

Now once you have X=(1-X) then the rest of the loop follows. Everything else in the loop follows.
You get that? The postulate X≠X simply is insufficient to establish the insanity state in this
universe. What it establishes I don't know, but it certainly doesn't establish the insanity state in
this universe. It's simply not a strong enough postulate to establish it. 

There is definitely an identification in the insanity state. The insanity state like the compulsive
games state is a compulsive state. There is identification in the state. So it requires to be based
upon  a  postulate  which  has  an  identification  in  it,  and  the  postulate  X≠X  contains  no
identification. 

So from that viewpoint there's another angle from which you can understand it. The postulate
X≠X is insufficient for our purposes here, because the insanity state like the compulsive games
condition which precedes it in life, and from which it is derived is itself a compulsive condition
and contains identifications all of which happen to be false. 

Now I think we've picked our way through the mine field very carefully and precisely. From this
point onward it gets easier. If you can understand it up to this point you've got the subject of
insanity understood. And the whole subject of the IP and Twin IP's and so forth is within your
grasp. And the rest of this material is easy. We're over the hump in other words. 

Now it's necessary from this point to be very clear what we mean when we talk about insanity in
relationship to a person in therapy. 

Brain Damaged Persons and Insanity 

We've got to now talk about some aspects of human case conditions. There is such a thing as a
brain damaged person. Now this is a medical fact that people can develop brain damage which
can affect their behaviour. Some people can be born brain damaged and their behaviour will be
affected by this brain damage for the remainder of their life. 

Now some types of brain damage produce in the individual manifestations and characteristics
which appear to be identical to insanity. And for all we know the individual, the spirit manifesting
there, may also be insane. You see we've got the spirit and we've got the body. We can have a
rational  spirit  trying  to  function  through  a  brain  damaged  body  and  therefore  giving  the
manifestation of being insane. 

Or we can have an insane spirit manifesting through an undamaged brain and giving all the
manifestations of insanity. But we can also have this state of affairs of an insane spiritual being
manifesting through a brain damaged body, and again manifesting insanity. This will be very rare
indeed, now all these three possibilities can occur. Or there's the fourth possibility of a rational
spiritual  being  operating  through  an  un-brain  damaged  body.  That  would  be  the  fourth
possibility, and that completes the whole set now. That would cover all the possibilities. 

Now it must be clearly understood that when I'm talking about this subject of insanity I'm only
talking about the spiritual being and his postulates. I'm not talking about brain damage. Brain
damage is a medical phenomenon. If you wish to know about brain damage you should go and
consult a doctor and consult the medical textbooks, consult the literature on this subject which
is quite extensive. Medicine knows one hell of a lot about the symptoms of brain damage. We
know an awful lot about it. But, I give you this advisedly, don't make the mistake of assuming
that a brain damaged person is insane just because they manifest very peculiar behaviour. 

The human spirit behind it may be insane or may not be insane. And you cannot prove his state of
sanity or insanity if he happens to possess a damaged brain. You simply won't be able to
determine it by his behaviour if he possesses a damaged brain. Now do you understand that? On
the other hand our mental hospitals are full of individuals, who, to use the vernacular, are as
nutty as a fruit cake and there is nothing wrong with their brains at all. 

You subject their brains to every test known to medical science and their brain cannot be
differentiated in any way from the brain of a sane and rational human being. There is nothing
wrong with this person's brain that any medical detection can determine yet the person is as
nutty as a fruit cake. They are insane. Now that is the sort of insanity I'm talking about. 

That here we have a spiritual being whose insane and that's the subject we're talking about.
We're dealing with the human psyche; we're not dealing with the human brain. Unfortunately 

diseases of the brain or injuries to the brain or malfunctions of the brain can produce behaviour,
which superficially look like insanity, looks like insane behaviour. 

So you see that this subject of brain damage muddies the water up, doesn't it? It muddies the
water considerably. If you want to deal with the insane, the first thing you better find out, if you
want to deal with a person that superficially gives the manifestations of insanity, you better go
and have them thoroughly examined by a medical doctor. Put them through all the tests known
to medicine, x-ray their brain and so forth, the whole works to find out if they are suffering any
brain damage. 

If this person is not suffering any brain damage whatsoever, then you will know for certain, for
absolute certainty that the procedures that we use to handle insanity in therapy, will benefit this
person, will snap them out of the insanity. We know this for absolute certainty. But if this person,
who manifests insanity, has all these tests done on them and the tests determine and show quite
clearly that this person is brain damaged then you do not have this guarantee. You do not have
the guarantee. 

The therapy will certainly improve the person but we don't even know that we're dealing with an
insane spiritual being, it may be the case that we've got a rational sane spiritual being trying to
operate  through  a  brain  damaged  body  in  which  case  the  techniques  we're  running  are
inappropriate. You follow me? Bear in mind the four classes that I gave you. 

• You've got a sane being operating an non-brain damaged body 

• You've got a sane being operating a brain damaged body 

• You've got an insane being operating a non-brain damaged body 

• Or it can be an insane being operating a brain damaged body 

You see a person that's manifesting insanity, well the only thing you know for sure when you see
an insane person, a person manifesting insane behaviour, is that this person isn't in the class of
beings that is a rational being occupying a non-brain damaged body. He can't be that class, but
he may be in one of the other of the three classes. You don't know. You have to subject this
person to medical tests to find out if their brain damaged, and if it turns out they have no brain
damage we know then for sure that the insanity must be to do with the human spirit and our
therapy techniques for handling insanity will work. 

But we don't have this guarantee in any other circumstances. If this person is brain damaged our
therapy may or may not help the person. It probably will help him but we have no guarantee.
Simply because we don't know about this variable called brain damage. 

CCH's (Control Communication Havingness) 

Now what are the techniques to best help the insane person. What are the techniques we use?
Well they are the CCH's. CCH 1 to 4. 

The four CCH's as given out by L Ron Hubbard back in the late 1950's, about circa 1957, round
about that period. He developed these 4 delightful little CCH procedures there. 

And I mentioned in the write up any person who cannot pass Level 1, cannot pass the test in
Level 1 of TROM, requires running the CCH's with a separate therapist. They should run the
CCH's with a separate therapist until such time as they can pass the test in Level 1. It's quite
distinctive, once those CCH's have gone flat on them they will pass the Level 1 test providing
they're not brain damaged. 

Get that proviso, providing they're not brain damaged. If the waters are muddied up and you've
got a brain damaged preclear, well, I don't know? Your guess is as good as mine. My entire
speciality is in the human spirit, the human mind, the human psyche, I'm not an expert on brain
damage. So you will have to go and consult elsewhere to find out how to handle brain damaged
people. I'm not an expert in that field so I can't help you. 

Now this tells you that from a common sense point of view if you've got some preclear that's
manifesting a high degree of irrationality and has done so for some years and you want to take
this person on in therapy well for god's sake get this person tested for brain damage before you
do anything. Just find out what you're dealing with. If the tests say the person is brain damaged,
well you know then where you stand. If the tests turn out that the person is not brain damaged
well, ok that gives you some confidence that your CCH's, and so forth, are going to eventually
get the person up to a point where they can pass Level 1 of TROM. Then they will be able to run
solo. You get it? 

But if a person is brain damaged you don't have this assurance. I don't know what's going to
happen. You run CCH's on a brain damaged person. I don't know. I've got no data on it. Don't
think they've got any data down at the Church of Scientology either. My best guess is that the
techniques would benefit a brain damaged person, but certainly, I'd be very surprised if it did
anything to cure their brain damage. 

If the CCH's cured their brain damage, I'd be very surprised to hear that. But it would no doubt
benefit the person. It certainly wouldn't harm them. But don't expect a brain damaged person to
ever, and this is the point really, this is the bottom line, don't really expect the brain damaged
person to ever be able to TROM solo. You know? Just don't expect it. You may be able to help
them with the CCH's but it's doubtful if they would ever pass the Level 1 test to be able to get

onto Level 2 solo. They might, but I think you could consider yourself very lucky if they did or
their brain damage would be very minor. 

But as I say, if you're dealing with a brain damaged preclear you're on your own mate. You're on
your own. It's not my speciality. I can only advise you, but I must tell you I'm not an expert in that
field. But I am an expert in the field of the human spirits who are operating bodies which aren't
brain damaged, I do know a lot about those. 

I can help you in that area, but I can't help you much in the area of brain damaged human beings.
You should go and consult with medical specialists on that subject, they can tell you much more
than I can. 

What do CCH's do? 

Well, let us consider a person that is an insane spirit or a person who needs the CCH's run. Let's
just say we have a person who can't pass the test at Level 1 because the human spirit is insane,
but this person has no brain damage, let's take that case. That's an area we can talk about. What
is it about these CCH's that would break insanity in the insane spirit and return the spirit back to
a rational state? 

What is it about these CCH's? Well the CCH's are saying to the person come to present time,
come into the present time "Now" universe. Come into now, and come into now, it keeps saying,
come to present time, come to present time. It's quite safe here. It's quite safe to come into
present time. Come into present time. 

And the person eventually gets pulled in. They realise that this universe is safe to be in and once
they come into contact with this universe again, they come into contact with the basic law of this
universe. And once they come back into contact with the basic law of this universe they come
back into contact with the rational loop again. And they snap out of the insanity and snap back
into the sanity condition. 

Now it's as simple as that. You've got to say to them "Come to present time, come to present
time." Ron Hubbard knew this all, many years before he developed the CCH's. Ron used to talk
about this in early lectures in Scientology. I've heard him say this many times. He was right, too.
He said that you could walk through an insane asylum, and just go to every patient one by one
and say, "Come to present time." Just snap your fingers in front of their faces to attract their
attention and say, "Come to present time." He said. And some tiny, some small percentage of
those people will immediately regain their sanity, and walk out of the asylum, absolutely sane. 

Ron used to say that, and later he developed the CCH technique, and they were a highly
specialised and highly mechanical way of saying to the person, "Come to present time". They
would  get  the  person  into  present  time,  so  that  the  insane  person  could  come  back  into 

agreement with the postulates of this universe. And once they come back into agreement with
the postulates of this universe the insanity is broken, because in this universe rationality is a
deduction from the basic postulates upon which this universe is constructed. You see? They go
back into what is reasonable in this universe so their insanity breaks, because their insanity is
unreasonable compared to this universe. You get it? 

That's why the CCH's work when they work. Look there is nothing magical about those CCH
processes they're just a systematic and precise way of saying "Come to present time", "Come to
present time," "Come to present time," "Quite safe here," "Quite safe to go back into agreement
with this physical universe." 

And the person eventually comes into present time, comes into agreement with the universe.
Ceases to go into the strange weird logic of the insanity state and starts to adopt the rationality
of the universe. 

Starts  to  go  into  X=X,  things  are  what  they  are.  A  thing  cannot  both  exist  and  not  exist
simultaneously. And a thing either exists or it doesn't exist. Starts to adopt this approach, which
is rational reasonable reason in this universe. Starts to adopt that and their insanity vanishes, get
it? 

Case State after Insanity 

Now finally on this subject of insanity what sort of condition would we expect the person's case
to be in when an insane person becomes sane in therapy by the use of the CCH's? What sort of
case condition? Where would we expect to find them? Well we would expect to find them as a
compulsive games player. 

You see the cycle goes, that the person goes from compulsive games play into insanity, which is
itself a compulsive condition. So we give them therapy, run the CCH's on them and we snap them
back into sanity again. Well where are they going to be? Well they’re going to pick up life where
it left off, they're going to pick it up at the point where they went insane. 

So, in other words, they're going to be a compulsive games player. So that's where you would
expect to find them. You would expect to find the person as a compulsive games player. So bear
that in mind, it's a useful little thing to bear in mind, that when the insane regain their sanity
they go into compulsive games play. 

So, as we know the compulsive games player is at risk of going insane. You better not leave the
person there. You run the CCH's on this guy and you've got him sane, and you've got him up to
compulsive games play, and so you say, "Oh, ahh… well I can now quit." 

No, you can't because while he's a compulsive games player he's at risk of going insane. He'll be
back in the soup again, in six months, a year or five years. He'll go back into the soup again. He'll
be back into the insanity state if you leave him as a compulsive games player. 

You got to go further than that. He's got to be a non-compulsive games player. You have got to
get him out of that. Take him out of the risk area, take him out the area of risk of compulsive
games play. Take him up to a point where he is no longer at risk. In other words he's got to
complete the first three Levels of TROM. You've got to proof him against insanity. Then it's safe
for him to quit. He can quit at the top of Level 3 of TROM. It's safe for anyone to quit therapy
there, quite safe. They can quit at that point, because they're a non-compulsive games player,
and they're not going to go insane at this point. 

So don't turn a person sane in therapy and then leave him as a compulsive games player. That is a
definite flunk. It just simply isn't fair to the person. You fished him out the soup. You've left him
standing on this rock and then you go away and abandon him. Well he's going to slide off the
rock and back into the soup again isn't he, you know. He's going to fall off the rock back into the
sea. You got to fish him right out onto dry land and dust him off and dry him off and get him all
squared around so that he's no longer in any danger of falling back into that ocean again called
insanity. 

That means turning him into a non-compulsive games player. And that means running the first
three levels of TROM on him solo. He's got to run them solo. He'll pick up Levels 2 and 3 solo.
Finish the job solo. Then he's proofed. 

Separate Therapist 

Bear in mind a person's not proofed against insanity if they run Level 1, 2 and 3 of TROM with a
separate therapist, that doesn't proof them against insanity. Note when I say they're proofed
when they run the first three levels of TROM solo. That they complete to the top of Level 3 solo.
In other words they follow through exactly as I've given it. Follow that? Good. 

Becoming Aware of the Structure of Insanity 

Now every person as they run through Level 5 of TROM, will, just like I did, start to become
curious about the subject of insanity and then start to pick up the structure of insanity and start
to get the anatomy of it. It won't happen suddenly over night. They'll start to become curious
about it and left to themselves if they stay with Level 5 long enough they will get the whole
anatomy out. They will get the whole lot out all by themselves eventually. They might not
discover it in exactly the same words and in exactly the same way that I put it together, because
they might not be of the scientific bent. They may not be of a mathematical bent. They may not
be able to use logic like I can. But they would certainly have the essence of it. They would 

understand what insanity is in terms of postulates and if they come across what's on this tape
they would just listen and say, "Yes, that's right, that's exactly the way it is. He's just expressed it
a little different than I would. Yea, that's fine, but he's right, Dennis is, yes." 

So everyone who works on Level 5, long before they complete Level 5 of TROM will have an
understanding of the anatomy of insanity. It's one of those things that falls out the hamper.
Peculiar, but there it is, it falls out the hamper and will fall out every time on route to the
completion of Level 5. 

All I've really done is to take the cognitions that I had in that area and formalise them and done a
logical analysis of it and put it together in a form that is understandable and related it to the
subject of reason and unreason. I put the whole thing together in a logical construct, something
which would be useful to scientists and mathematicians or for anyone who wants to do further
investigation in this field. It's a valid reference point. 

So, although a person listening to this material on the subject of insanity might take it all with a
grain of salt and say, "Well yes Dennis may be right, and so forth" I think you'll discover that long
before you get to the top of Level 5 you'll be nodding in great agreement with me, saying, "Yes
what Dennis said was right on this subject. He knew about insanity and I'm finding it too. That
the things he said are quite right and ahh… and so on." 

In other words everyone before they get to the top of Level 5 will have various cognitions on
what sanity is. And they will understand that when I talk about IP's I'm talking about insanity.
They will understand insanity, not necessarily in exactly the form I've given it with the heavy
stress on the logic of it but they will certainly know its basics, they would discover that long
before they got to the top of Level 5. 

Ok well that's all I want to say on the subject of insanity. I see I'm coming up to the end of this
tape now and we will wind up this tape now and the next tape will be on the subject of
sensations. It's a continuation of this subject but for convenience I will put it on a separate tape. 

End of tape 

LECTURES MAIN PAGE