INSANITY PART 1

MP3 DOWNLOAD

PLEASE BE ADVISED that the "Insanity Lectures" from the 1990s are some of the most tedious studying in the subject of TROM, primarily because it is laden with Boolean Algebra equations. We want to remind our readers, as Dennis alluded to in the original manual, that a total understanding of TROM's logic equations is not absolutely essential to your TROM practice. Please write to us if you get stuck in your studies.

TROMGuides@Gmail.com
Roger@BetterTROM.com

You will do best if you read TROM 2023, and listen to all the lectures listed as BEGINNER, INTERMEDIATE & ADVANCED on our main lectures page before tackling the Insanity Lectures.

Study help based on reader feedback will be added to the transcript as an ongoing activity.

Today is the 30th of June 1994 and this is the first of the lectures on the upper level tech of
TROM, and I want to take up with you the subject of insanity. 

Sanity Defined 

The word insanity or more precisely the word sanity comes from the old Latin word 'sanus'
meaning healthy, so presumably insane means unhealthy. But that meaning has long since been
modified in English and the only connection, these days, between the subject of sanity and the
subject of health is we could say that a person who is insane would have an unhealthy mind. 

That would be about the only connection. There's no other connection between the word health
and the word sane that I know of in modern English. However, it has long been known by
mankind that there is a connection between this subject of sanity and this subject of reason. 

And also, it's been known, that unhealthy people, particularly unhealthy people with unhealthy
minds don't reason too well. So there's a connection there. 

In our modern society, the word insane is largely used in a legal sense. More and more, only the
legal profession has any use for this term of insanity, the term insane and this subject of insanity.
The medical profession gave the term away many years ago because of their conflict within the
medical profession on what the word means. These days the medical profession talk about
psychosis, in the subject of psychiatry, they talk about psychoses etc., which they have some
form of definition for, and there they stand. 

But on the subject of insanity, they won't have a part in its legal sense and one can understand
why. You see the problem that the law has with the subject of insanity started many years ago
when some bright young barrister pleaded his client innocent of a crime on the grounds of
insanity. And once he did this, of course, the legal profession had to have a definition of insanity,
to find out if the person was on one side or the other side of the line. 

In other words, they were looking for a definition of insanity. I believe this was some time in the
19th century in English law. They came up with a definition of insanity, a legal definition. I believe
they called it the M'Naghten rules, which said that a person, and I'm paraphrasing it here, that a
person is insane if he doesn't know what he is doing or if he does know what he's doing, but he
doesn't know that what he is doing is wrong. That's roughly a paraphrase of the M'Naghten  

rules, and you'll find that that rule is, with various modifications, taken in various parts of
England, Australia and so forth as the legal definition of insanity. 

Also, many states of America have adopted it or very similar rules. But quite clearly, such a
definition  of  insanity  is  useless  from  a  medical  point  of  view  and  that's  why  the  medical
profession simply won't have a part of it. They're quite happy with the term psychosis which they
can fit into a medical structure. 

They can't fit this legal definition of insanity into a medical structure so they have no use for it.
Well, quite frankly, neither can we. We can't use the legal definition of insanity either. The
lawyers and solicitors and legal eagles might be able to make sense of this definition but it's as
completely useless a definition for a social scientist or a psychologist, as it is for a medical
doctor. It's quite useless, and so we must abandon it too. It's of no use to us when we're talking
on the subject of insanity. 

If we want to understand this subject of insanity we ought to have some form of a definition for
it, which means we've got to hang it onto something. We've got to connect it to something. We
just can't have it hanging there all by itself in space. We've got to define it. To define it means
we've got to connect it to something else in the universe. 

Reason 

Well the thing that insanity or sanity connects itself most obviously to is this subject of reason.
That is the thing it is most obviously connected to. As I pointed out earlier, it's been well known
that insane people do not reason very well. They reason very badly. And people with unhealthy
minds reason very badly. It's been well known for many centuries that this is so. 

So the most obvious thing to define sanity and insanity is in terms of reason and that is what we
do in TROM. We don't talk about health and healthy minds but we're very much concerned with
this subject of reason. 

A Thing Cannot Both Exist and Not Exist Simultaneously 

Now that is a definition of reason, a basis of reason in the whole field of logic and in the whole of
the sciences. The whole of science accepts that as a basis of reason, that that is the basis of
reason. 

In fact the whole science of logic is based upon that premise that a thing cannot both exist and
not exist simultaneously. So that is reason in logic. It's the subject of reason in science and it
happens to be the subject of reason in the universe at large. When the scientists and the
logicians adopted that as their basic premise of reason and based the subject of logic upon that
they were on very firm ground because it turns out that the proposition that a thing cannot both
exist and not exist simultaneously is a valid deduction from the basic law upon which this
universe is evidently constructed. 

So we're on very firm ground in TROM when we say, "Ok, we're going to start relating this
subject of sanity to reason and insanity to unreason." Now, once we do this we've completely left
mankind at large behind, because mankind at large as you probably know and have noticed has
almost as many definitions of insanity as there are people. 

It's an incredible thing if you go up to a person and say, "Well what do you think… what is
insanity?" and you'll get as many different answers as there are people. Now the reason why you
get this phenomenon is that nobody knows what reason is. You see? 

If you don't know what reason is you won't know what unreason is and if you don't know what
unreason is you're going to have trouble with this subject of insanity, because there's obviously a
connection between this subject of unreason and insanity. 

Now you see why mankind has trouble with this subject. The endpoint that mankind gets to on
this subject of insanity is that he says, "Well any person who disagrees with me is insane." Now
that's the final fling of the compulsive games player. You know. If you disagree with me you must
be insane because you disagree with me. And I'm sane. I'm obviously sane; therefore if you
disagree with me you must be insane. And that is the final step of the compulsive games player. 

This might be a method of settling games. It might be a very valid idea of getting rid of the
opponent. I mean history shows a vast number of occasions where people who've disagreed with
the establishment have been clapped away in insane asylums or maybe even executed, simply
because they disagreed with the establishment. They've been pronounced insane and vanished.
They've gone never to be seen again. And this is still happening today on the planet. You can go
to various countries in the third world and anybody who disagrees with what the president says,
he publishes his disagreement with what the president says and the following day the man's
gone, never heard of again. You know? His body is dumped out at sea somewhere. That's it, you
know? He's gone. Obviously insane, done with him, he disagreed with what the establishment
said. 

You see this is what the compulsive games player considers as reason and unreason. The man is
obviously insane because he disagrees with me. This is about as far south as it can go. It's about
as unreasonable as you can get on this subject of reason I can assure you, because we know what
reason is. 

Reason's got nothing to do with "Might being right." It's got one hell of a lot to do with whether
the thing can both exist and not exist simultaneously in the universe. Now you get the drift of
what I'm onto here? Mankind  at large doesn't know anything  about this subject. Only the
scientists know a bit, because they've studied logic. Logicians know about it. They know a bit
about reason. The scientists know a bit about reason but mankind at large doesn't. People who
have never studied science or studied logic, studied mathematics have no vaguest idea of what
reason consists of. Really they have no idea. Outside of this field of natural philosophy a person
has no idea of what reason consists of, that includes the law, that includes business people, and
so forth. They simply have no idea. It's not part of their training. So they have no concept of what
reason is. So they have no concept of what insanity is. So, of course, they can pick any wild idea
out of thin air and say, "Well that's as good a definition of insanity as any." You see that? That is
what's happening in our society all the time on this subject of insanity. 

There are almost as many definitions of insanity as there are people simply because people don't
know what reason is and if they don't know what reason is they don't know what unreason is. If
they don't know what unreason is they can't connect it up with this subject of insanity, so they
can't get a good definition of insanity, but we can. We can do better than that. Now, I have to
give you this little digression because you may believe that our society knows a lot about
insanity. 

The truth of the matter is it knows nothing about insanity simply because our society at large
doesn't know anything about reason. It can't define it. You go up to a person and say, "What do
you think is reason? What's the definition of reason?" He can't tell you. He doesn't know. He will
call himself a reasonable man. 

You say, "Are you reasonable?" He'll say, "Oh, yes. I'm a reasonable man." You say, "Ok, what is
reason?" He can't answer the question. Now that is a very strange state of affairs isn't it? A man
will call himself reasonable when he can't define reason. How unreasonable can you get? That's
just about as unreasonable as you can get, isn't it? But, enough of this digression, let's get back
onto the main road. 

Insanity Defined 

Well now we're ready to give our definition of insanity. We're in a position to do it. We've tied it
up with the subject of reason. We know what reason is. So we know what unreason is. So we can
define insanity. Now this is the definition that we use in TROM. Here we go: 

A person is insane when they believe that a thing can both exist and not exist                                           simultaneously 

That is the definition of insanity that we use in TROM. A person is insane when they believe that
a thing can both exist and not exist simultaneously. 

Now as you listen to the definition it doesn't seem particularly world shattering does it? I mean
the earth didn't move under your feet as I read it to you. But that is the definition of insanity. It
ties it up completely with the subject of unreason. But although, it doesn't sound particularly
earth shattering as we proceed to tie it up to our existing technology of games play I can assure
you the datum will become more and more earth shattering. 

So you will start to almost feel the planet move under your feet when you start thinking about
this subject. 

Prerequisite for Insanity 

Now the first step on this road is what we might call, and is probably very correctly called, the
prerequisite  for  insanity.  And  again  this  is  not  understood  outside  of  TROM.  By  the  way,
Scientology had no definition for insanity. Note that! We have a definition in TROM for insanity.
Scientology had no definition for insanity. You can hunt through Ron's works; he never bothered
to define it. I don't think he ever really came to grips with this subject of reason, unreason and
insanity himself, certainly not closely enough to define it within his subject. 

But we've come to grips with it and we can define it. 

Insanity and Compulsive Games Play 

But as I say there is a prerequisite to this subject of insanity, a very interesting prerequisite,
which ties it up to the subject of games play. Now here is the prerequisite of insanity. Here we
go; a person only goes insane when they believe that they have no class to go into if they are
overwhelmed in games play. 

Now what do we mean by that? Well it's pretty self-explanatory isn't it? A person can only go 

insane if they have no class to go into if they are overwhelmed in games play. In other words a 

person can reduce their postulate set down to two games classes.  

And while they've got two games classes they're ok. They can go into one games class and lose
the game and they will get driven into the other games class and they’re still ok. They've got a
game they can play. 

But what happens if they reduce their set down to a single game class set? Now we tie this
material up with what I mentioned, I believe on supplementary tape number 3, this subject of
the  postulate  set  and  the  reduction  of  the  goals  package.  Recall  that  material?  There  on
supplementary tape number 3. 

[See Level 5 - Tape 3 - The Exclusion Postulate: How Games Become Compulsive - Editor] 

If the goals package or more correctly the postulate set is reduced down to a one game class
postulate set and the person is using this postulate set in games play and is actually in this
games class and actively playing a game from this sole remaining games class and loses the
game. Gets driven into overwhelm, he has literally no place to go. 

You might say, "Well he'll simply go into one of the other games classes. No he can't, because
he's postulated that he can't go there. His last overwhelm said no, his last overwhelm, when he
last left that class he said, "Well I can no longer play this game. I can no longer stay in this game.
I've got to get out of this game. It's not playable by me any more." 

So he reduced that possibility down to zero. Now the last possibility is reduced down to zero. So
where is he going to go? 

He Goes Insane! 

Well I'll tell you where he goes. He goes insane. He loses his marbles. And that's what happens.
And that's the connection between insanity and compulsive games play. And it's a tremendously
valuable connection. 

Once you grasp it all sorts of things start to make enormous sense. It tells you immediately that
only compulsive games players go insane. And it also tells you that every compulsive games
player, given enough time, will eventually go insane. Once the person reduces the goals package
down to two games classes, that's the state of compulsive games play, eventually it's going to
get reduced down to one games class. 

Compulsive games play starts with two games classes, then it gets reduced down to one games
class and at that point every time he starts to use this class in games play he's putting his sanity
on the line, because if he loses the next game he loses his sanity. He's gone. There is no other
place he can go but into insanity. 

And our problem is to put forward this scheme, to show how this occurs. And to get it all written
down so it's understandable. So you can see it clearly. And it's not an easy thing for me to do

because we're dealing with the very essence of unreason. Don't kid yourself. I wouldn't be giving
you this data if I didn't know, with absolute certainty, that it's correct. 

I first discovered this data some years ago but I put it on the back-burner for further testing so I
wouldn't go off half cocked. But now I'm absolutely certain that this is it, that I've got the data on
insanity. I know exactly what insanity is, and it is what I'm saying it is. 

That right at the heart of every insanity you will find this urge to make a thing both exist and not
exist  simultaneously,  or  the  urge  to  try  and  operate  on  a  postulate  and  its  negative
simultaneously. One way or another, the insane person is trying to do the impossible. And it is
impossible. It defines the impossible in this universe, this attempt to operate on a postulate
while operating on its negative. 

You can't both go to China and not go to China simultaneously. If you try this you will go mad.
That is insanity. You get it? Now another datum that immediately falls out the hamper once we
know  this  prerequisite  for  insanity  is  the  practical  thing  of,  "How  could  a  person  proof
themselves against insanity?" 

How a Person Can Proof Themselves Against Insanity 

Now we know how to do this in TROM. We know how a person can proof themselves against
insanity but it's not understood in any other field of psychotherapy. It's not understood in
Scientology. It's just generally known in Scientology that if a person is cleared that they won't go
mad. But it wasn't understood why. We know why. We can explain why it is. We're running on a
senior datum here than the other psychotherapies. We can correlate this material so closely
because of our quite profound knowledge and understanding of games play. 

So how can we proof a person against insanity? The simple way a person can be proofed against
insanity, all they have to do, is do Levels 1, 2, and 3 of TROM. Solo. That's all they have to do.
Anyone who's achieved the first three Levels of TROM has proofed themselves against insanity.
Why? Because by the time the person gets to the top of Level 3, they are no longer a compulsive
games player. 

They've taken so much charge off their game compulsions that their game compulsions are now
no longer game compulsions. They play games still but the compulsions are gone. The intensity
of charge is off their bank by the time they get to the top of Level 3. They've taken enormous
charge off their case and they are no longer a compulsive games player. And because they're no
longer a compulsive games player they have no danger of ever going insane. They cannot be
driven insane in life any longer. They can be made miserable but they can't be driven insane. 

Your compulsive games player can be both made miserable and driven insane and the proof is
the proofing of the individual with the first three Levels of TROM. A person doesn't have to go as 

far as Level 4 or Level 5. They don't have to erase all the goals packages in their mind. Oh no,
that's not necessary, just Levels 1, 2 and 3 completed solo is sufficient to proof any person
against insanity. 

Now that is a tremendously important datum. And it's a datum that stems directly from our
understanding of how insanity comes about. Quite clearly if a person is not a compulsive games
player they haven't reduced their games down to a single game class, and if they haven't reduced
their games play down to a single games class, then they're not putting all their eggs in one
basket. Are they? And as they haven't got all their eggs in one basket they can suffer overwhelm
and always have a place to go to. They will always have a class to occupy in the event of
overwhelm. 

Unlike the compulsive games player who’s reduced his games classes down to one. If that one
gets overwhelmed he's got no place to go except to lose his marbles, which he promptly does. 

Now I want to give you an example of this so you'll see it very clearly. You'll see how this would
go. I'll go through an example, and work the example through with you carefully and you'll see
exactly how the person goes insane. And we'll relate it exactly to the postulates involved. 

Boolean Algebra 

But before I do so I have probably a little bit of bad news for you. In order to truly understand
this subject of insanity we need enormous precision in our reasoning which cannot be obtained
by the use of just words. 

So in order to achieve this precision I've got to use the algebra of logic which is Boolean algebra.
I will have to lapse into this symbolism. I'm sorry. My apologies but if I attempt to do it otherwise
I'm simply going to fail and the whole tape will just degenerate into a mass of verbiage. I won't
get my point across. 

So I'm going to have to use logical symbolism. So that means I'm going to have to define my
symbolism as I go, and explain exactly what the symbolism means. Then you can grasp it. It's not
a difficult subject. I'm not going to turn you into a logician or anything like that. I'm just giving
you the absolute fundamentals of it here so you can understand the terms and see it in terms of
the symbolism. 

Einstein had this same problem with his relativity theory. It's generally recognised that it's quite
impossible  to  explain  Einstein's  relativity  theory  in  words  to  anyone.  But  once  a  person
understands sufficient advanced mathematics it's quite understandable. When they see the
mathematics, it all makes sense but they can't put it into words. This is simply because the
mathematics is a much more precise tool than the English language. 

I'm up against the same problem trying to explain and discuss this subject of insanity while just
using words. The words just aren't precise enough. I will have to lapse into the symbolism of logic
in order to achieve the precision required to get the job done. So my apologies, but I do have no
choice. Up to this point I've got through. I managed to write the write up of TROM. I've given all
these supplementary lectures and you've only had just a nodding acquaintance with the algebra
of logic. I've mentioned it in just a few bits and pieces here and there but now I'm afraid I am
going to have to go a little bit further into it and explain a little bit more of it in order to
complete this upper level tech of TROM. 

It's a complicated subject and we need the precision of the algebra. So here we go. First of all I'll
give you the symbolism I am going to use and then I'll discuss some of the relationships and their
deductions one from another. But first of all the symbolisms so somebody listening to this can
actually write it down on paper and see the symbolism. 

X and 1-X 

When we put down a symbol, say X that really means X exists. If we want to put down Not-X we
write that down as 1-X and, in other words, all we're saying there is that the absence of X is 

everything in the universe except X. So it's X is, X exists, and X doesn't exist is 1-X the whole
universe less X. See that? 

Brackets () 

Normally, for convenience sake we surround the 1-X with a bracket, so when I'm going to give
you 1-X, I'll give it to you in the form (1-X). Get that? Now there's going to be nothing else inside
the brackets except 1-X or 1-Y. 

It will just be 1, minus sign, and a symbol. That's all that's ever going to turn up in the brackets.
So there is nothing complicated inside the brackets, except the one minus the symbol. That's all
that's going to be in the brackets. 

Equal = and Not Equal to ≠ 

Right, next are the signs that we're going to use. First is the equal sign. Well the equal sign is in
arithmetic and we use it in logic exactly the same as it's used in arithmetic. It means identical.
Equal sign means identical with. So equals is just exactly the same meaning as used in common
arithmetic. 

But we use another sign in logic and that is the sign of ≠, Not Equal To. And the sign we use for
that is the ordinary equal sign of arithmetic but we slash it through with a line 45 degrees to the
horizontal. It slashes through the equal sign. It literally crosses it out. 

And that is the sign for not equals. Now fundamentally in logic the statement or the sign ≠
simply means that equality is not the case. That's what it means. Equality is not the case. It's not
equal. See? Equality is not the case. That's all the symbol ≠ means. 

0, Zilch, Zero, Nothing, Naught and Null 

Now in logic zero means the same as it does in ordinary arithmetic and ordinary algebra, it means
nothing, zilch, naught. So, X=0 means there are no items in the class of X items. 

1, Unity and Universe 

One, the figure "1" means universe, or more precisely the universe of discourse. It's the totality
of the existence classes, the totality of things that can exist in the situation. We express that
with the figure "1". So the only numbers that appear in the logic are zeros and ones. We don't
have any other numbers. It's a much more simple mathematics than ordinary mathematics. 

Class, Common Class and Null Class 

Dennis has already given definitions for these elsewhere. 

Plus + means either AND or OR 

Now I better also at this point give you the meaning of the plus sign "+" in logic. The plus sign is
slightly different from its use in ordinary arithmetic and algebra. In logic the use of the plus sign
depends upon what's on the other side of the equation. 

For example, if we have X+Y=0. It means that both X=0 AND Y=0. And the combination of X+Y=0
means that both of them equal 0. Get that? So X+Y=0 means exactly the same as X=0 AND Y=0.
We put them together and say X+Y=0. 

But when we say X+Y=1 we can't use that additive definition when they’re equal to one, when
they're equal to the universe. X+Y=1 has the meaning that the universe either consists of X OR it
consists of Y OR it may consist of both. It's indeterminate. It may consist of both. 

In other words, it's an either/or situation. But we don't know whether it's what they call inclusive
OR or the exclusive OR. So we don't know, but when we have an equation equal to one, the plus
sign is disjunctive. 

We can't just add them together like we can in arithmetic. Quite disjunctive, it's definitely an
either/or situation. Either it is X OR it is Y OR it is both (X AND Y). That's the way it's generally
interpreted in logic, the equation X+Y=1. 

[disjunctive - serving to disconnect or separate - Editor] 

X≠0 

Now, what about the equation X is not equal to naught, X≠0 ? Well that means that X is
somewhere in between X is equal naught, X=0 AND X equals 1, X=1. It certainly doesn't mean
that X equals naught, X=0 and it certainly doesn't mean that X equals 1, X=1 it's in between.
What it means is that some X's do exist. See that? It's not the case that X doesn't exist. 

That is precisely what X≠0 means. It means that it is not the case that X doesn't exist. X may be
equal to 1 in that set of circumstances. We don't know. But it is not the case that X does not
exist, and that's what X is not equal to naught, X≠0, means. 

Little bit complex until you get to grips with it, the use of that not equal "≠" sign but I can assure
you it all makes sense. It's only by the way in the last 50 or a hundred years or so that the
logicians have got out the use of these signs and brought them to the precision that they are
today. 

The history of logic is a very fascinating history if you like to read it up. It's the history of how not
to do it. There's no more precise subject than logic and when you read up the history of it, it's
quite amazing how many great logicians have got it wrong. Particularly on this subject of what is
meant by the not equal sign and how we interpret the question of sum in logic. 

Well we can do it in modern logic but they couldn't do it a hundred years ago. But we can do it
today. 

X≠0 versus X=0 

It must be clearly understood that the sign X is not equal to naught. 

X≠0 is the complete antithesis of: X equals naught, X=0. 

You see that? It's the antithesis. It's the complete opposite. 

The opposite of X equals naught, X=0 is: X is not equal to naught, X≠0. 

The antithesis of X=0 is not, repeat not, X=1. See that? If X≠0, X may equal 1 but we just don't
know. It's certainly not equal to naught and we express that by saying X≠0. See that? Or put that
another way, some X's do exist. That's another way to look at it. Use the word "some". 

X+Y≠0 

Ok, now what about X+Y≠0? 

Well the easiest way to understand X+Y≠0 is to realise that X+Y≠0 is the antithesis or the
opposite of X+Y=0. 

That is to say it is the antithesis of X doesn't exist AND Y doesn't exist. It's the antithesis of that. 

So it means that some X's exist OR some Y's exist OR some of both exist. With the added
implication that it may be the case that X=1 OR Y=1 OR both X AND Y are equal to 1. 

That can be the interpretation of X+Y≠0. It simply means that it's not the case that X+Y=0. 

How Insanity Comes About 

Well that's the end of the snappy basic course in Boolean algebra. We're now going to press on
with our material and it's time that we took up this example that I mentioned to you so we can
understand clearly how this subject of insanity comes about and exactly what it looks like when
it does come about. 

We're now in a position to do this because we're now in a position to use our symbolism very
precisely. Now for our example I'm going to use the example that I gave in the original write up
of TROM about the Barber of Seville. 

The Barber of Seville 

Do you remember the example I gave of the Barber of Seville, which is a well known historical
logical paradox? I'll just refresh your memory. Remember the king gets fed up with seeing the
men of the town wandering around with scruffy beards so he puts a notice up in the town square
which says that, "Henceforth, on pain of death, all the men of this town will be clean shaven. All
those and only those who don't shave themselves will be shaved by the town barber." 

Later on in the day the town barber saw the notice and promptly went insane. Now why did he
go insane? Because he couldn't obey the edict, so he was facing execution by the king. And so he
did the only thing he could do he went insane. Now let's examine exactly what the problem is
here. 

In order to take this problem apart the easiest way is to put our postulate set together and tick
off the possibilities. Clearly we've got a postulate set here of a person who shaves themselves.
Let's nominate the letter S as a person who shaves themselves and the letter B is a person who is
shaved by the town barber. 

So each person in town has two options, to be shaved by himself or shaved by the town barber.
So we're looking at the SB postulate set. Clearly they are postulates. 'To shave oneself' is a
postulate,‘To be shaved by the town barber’ is a postulate too. They are both postulates so it's a
postulate set we are looking at here. 

Postulates: 

• S to shave oneself 

• B to be shaved by the town barber 

Cross-packaging 

Both postulates aren't in the same goals package so there's a bit of cross-packaging going on
here but it's still a postulate set. It's not a goals package as we would understand it but it's
certainly a postulate set. Cross-packaging is not germane to this situation so we'll discuss it later. 

[Note: In a correctly made goals package both goals will exactly complement each other as do 'To
Eat' and 'To be Eaten' or 'To Sex' and 'To be Sexed'. 'To Shave' and 'To be Shaved' are complementary
but the limited goals of 'to shave oneself' and 'to be shaved by the town barber' are not exactly
complementary goals so are cross-packaged. - Editor] 

Now first of all let us write down all the possibilities in this set. Well there are the four possible
classes. In other words, each person in town can either be shaved by the town barber or shaved
by himself and this gives four classes of people in the town. 

They are: 

1. SB, (to shave oneself AND be shaved by the town barber) 

2. S(1-B), (to shave oneself AND not be shaved by the town barber) 

3. (1-S)B, (to not shave oneself AND be shaved by the town barber) 

4. (1-S)(1-B), (to not shave oneself AND not be shaved by the town barber) 

They are our four classes that we recognise and we're going to add in this class that we'll call an
Insanity Class. We will add it into the set and we will see how it fits in. 

The insanity class is the class of B(1-B) and for completeness sake we will the make another
insanity class of S(1-S). 

Insanity Classes 

• B(1-B), to be shaved by the town barber AND to not be shaved by the town barber 

• S(1-S), to shave oneself AND to not shave oneself. 

So we have in all six possible classes here of our set. Now normally if we were doing a logical
analysis of this particular problem we would simply restrict ourselves to the first four classes. 

The last two classes would be made equal to naught by the basic law of reason in the universe
which says that B(1-B)=0 and S(1-S)=0 by the basic law of reason in the universe both those
classes would be null classes. 

So they can be cancelled out. But we're going to leave them in for the sake of completeness
because we're dealing with this subject of insanity. You see? So we've got to put them back in
again. In they go so we've got six classes. 

Actually there is always six classes in the set when there's two elements in the set. The four main
classes, then the two possible insanity classes. But normally the two insanity classes aren't used
as we are not dealing with the subject of insanity, only the subject of reason, but on this tape we
are dealing with insanity. So we are going to have to put them in to complete the set. We're
going  to have B(1-B)  and  S(1-S)  in and  not make  them  equal  to zero,  as we are going to
understand how this guy went insane. 

The Six Classes 

Let's start ticking off our six classes from one to six. So, I'll assume you've got them written down
and just number them in the order I gave them to you from one through to six starting with the
reason classes and 5 and 6 will be the two insanity classes. 

1. SB, to shave oneself AND be shaved by the town barber 

2. S(1-B), to shave oneself AND not be shaved by the town barber 

3. (1-S)B, to not shave oneself AND be shaved by the town barber 

4. (1-S)(1-B), to not shave oneself AND not be shaved by the town barber 

5. B(1-B), to be shaved by the town barber  AND to not be shaved by the town barber
simultaneously 

6. S(1-S), to shave oneself AND to not shave oneself simultaneously 

Limitations on the Game Class Set 

Now before we go on to discuss what the king said and see how that affects the situation we
must first of all discover if there are any limitations to the set by the very nature of the
postulates themselves. When we examine this we find that that is actually the case. 

That this town barber doesn't have a full freedom of choice even regardless of what the king
said. For example, it's quite obvious that if the barber shaves himself he is being shaved by the
town barber. And it's equally obvious that if the town barber is being shaved by the town barber
he is shaving himself. 

Now it is those two propositions straight away that affect the set. Now the first of these
propositions, if the barber shaves himself he is being shaved by the town barber knocks out
number 2 in our set "S(1-B)", that goes out. 

2. S(1-B)=0, to shave oneself AND not be shaved by the town barber equals naught 

And the second of these propositions knocks out number 3 in the set. So you'll just knock it right
out and reduces number 3 to zero. 

3. (1-S)B=0, to not shave oneself AND be shaved by the town barber equals naught 

So the town barber has got a reduced set straight away regardless of what the king said. He's
only got 1 and 4 plus the two impossible insanity classes. 

1. SB, to shave oneself AND be shaved by the town barber 

4. (1-S)(1-B), to not shave oneself AND not be shaved by the town barber 

5. B(1-B), to be shaved by the town barber AND to not be shaved by the town barber 

6. S(1-S), to shave oneself AND to not shave oneself 

So he can either shave himself and be shaved by the town barber or not shave himself and not be
shaved by the town barber. They're his only options. They are the only options. So those are his
options as he approaches the notice board and reads the notice in the town square about the
king's edict, bear that in mind, they are his only options. 

Consider the King's Edict 

Now let us consider the king's edict. The first thing the king says, "Hence forth on pain of death
all the men of this town will be clean shaven." Well what he's saying here is that this class, class

number 4, the class where the person neither shaves themselves nor is shaved by the town
barber. That class is reduced to zero. Get it? 

4. (1-S)(1-B)=0,to not shave oneself AND not be shaved by the town barber equals naught 

So we imagine the town barber, reads that first part of the edict, and he says, "Oh, yes, on pain of
death all the men of the town will be clean shaven. Oh", he says, "I have to shave myself. I can't
grow a beard any more." 

See, so he's OK so far. So 4 goes out. So that leaves him with just 1. He's only got one class he can
occupy in the reason part of the postulate set. That is to both shave himself and be shaved by
the town barber. 

1. SB, to shave oneself AND be shaved by the town barber 

Now notice that his set has been reduced to a one game class set. Remember this is not a goals
package but the same principle applies, that we started off with four classes in the reason part
of the set and we've now got it down to one. There is only one reason class that he can occupy in
that set and that is to shave himself and be shaved by the town barber. 

Ok, so the barber now reads on and the next part the king's edict says, "All those and only those
who don't shave themselves will be shaved by the town barber." 

Now there are two propositions there. The first of these propositions is that ‘All those’ who don't
shave themselves will be shaved by the town barber. Now this proposition means that number 4
of our set goes out to zero. 

Yes, yes that's right number 4. The king is simply being repetitive. The proposition means exactly
the same as saying that "henceforth all the men of the town will be clean shaven." 

Logically they mean exactly the same thing. Now when you're doing a logical analysis it's not at
all unusual to find the persons' utterances are highly repetitive. That's ok it doesn't affect the
analysis. 

You say, "Ok, well number 4 now is definitely out, definitely equal to naught." 

Now that leaves us with the final part of the king's utterance. 

Now the final part is, "Only those who don't shave themselves will be shaved by the town
barber." 

Now this proposition, "Only those who don't shave themselves will be shaved by the town
barber." means exactly the same as saying that, "all those who are shaved by the town barber
won't shave themselves." which in terms of our set reduces class 1 in the set to zero. 

1. SB=0, to shave oneself AND be shaved by the town barber equals naught 

Now then up to this point the barber has read the edict and he's been OK. He's read the first part
of the edict about men in the town being clean shaven and he says, "Yes, that's alright, I'll have to
shave myself." 

And he reads the second part the edict, "All those who don't shave themselves will be shaved by
the town barber, he says, "Yes, that's all right, that's fine, I'll shave myself." 

But, then he gets to the third part of the set, "Only those who don't shave themselves will be
shaved by the town barber." Crunch! Bang. He's in trouble, because his final remaining set has
been reduced to zero. He can't obey the edict. 

He is in the class of SB and the edict is driving that class into zero. So the effect upon the town
barber is the edict drives him out of his last remaining class, the SB class. While he's desperately
trying to stay in the class. 

Now let's take a pause here for a moment and understand exactly what this unfortunate barber's
problem is, or another way to look at it, what his problem isn't. He doesn't have any problem
shaving himself. That is not his problem. He has no difficulty on this subject of shaving himself. 

So this little insanity class of S(1-S) number 6. We can reduce that to zero. We can wipe that one
out. That's not his problem. That one goes out. 

6. S(1-S)=0, to shave oneself AND to not shave oneself equals naught 

Now his problem is the fact that he's the town barber, because if he weren't the town barber he
could shave himself. It's only because he's the town barber that he can't shave himself. The edict
only prevents him from shaving himself because he's the town barber. So his problem is that he's
the town barber. 

So you understand that he has no problem shaving himself. His difficulty is one of identity, it's an
identity problem. So it's this equation of being shaved by the town barber that is the root of his
problem. Being shaved by the town barber or not being shaved by the town barber. If he could
not be shaved by the town barber he'd be all right. You see? He'd be alright because he could
then shave himself and not be shaved by the town barber. 

But he can't do that while he's being the town barber. You see his problem. It's an identity
problem. So as he stands there looking at the notice board his mind will go from must be shaved
by the town barber but I can't be shaved by the town barber. When he says "I can't be shaved by
the town barber" it's just another way of saying "mustn't be shaved by the town barber". 

So his mind goes from "must be shaved by the town barber" but that's impossible because the
edict says I can't be. So I mustn't be shaved by the town barber but that's impossible too because
I'm the town barber so I must be shaved by the town barber. Got that? 

No, the edict won't let me. So I mustn't be shaved by the town barber but I am the town barber
so I must be shaved by the town barber, mustn't be shaved by the town barber, must be shaved
by the town barber,... one... two... one... two ... faster... faster... faster until he hits the point "must
be shaved by the town barber" and "mustn't be shaved by the town barber" both postulates
simultaneously, both with the same intensity. BANG. 

At which point he loses his sanity. 

5. B(1-B)=1 to be shaved by the town barber AND to not be shaved by the town barber equals 1 

Now if you can follow that, you've got it. So our set now reduces to: 

The first four classes are zero, they’re all zero classes and class 6 we've agreed that is a zero
class. 

And the 5th class is "1", his existence class. He is now in the insanity class of both ‘must shave
himself’ AND ‘mustn't shave himself’ simultaneously. 

[Note: Class 5 is actually ‘to be shaved by the town barber’ AND ‘to not be shaved by the town
barber’ simultaneously] 

Now, factually, this may solve his problem for him, as far as the king is concerned or it may not.
The king, I mean obviously while he's insane he's going to grow a beard, so the king if he was
harsh, he might say, "Well we'll execute him anyway, he didn't obey the edict." Then again the
king might take pity on him because he's insane and relent, thus saving his life. 

So it may or may not solve his problem, but that's what's going to happen to him. He's going to
go insane. Or to put it another way while he is fixed in the identity of the town barber insanity is
his only option in the situation. It's his only option because it's the lesser evil to being executed.
That's the other option, but that's a worse evil, so he will accept the lesser evil and lose his
sanity. 

Of course, he would have no problem at all if he hadn't been fixed in the identity of the town
barber. Now let us assume that he was a non-compulsive games player and has completed his
first three levels of TROM and so could have occupied the identity of the town barber or not. He
could be the town barber or not be the town barber at will. Then he would have no trouble at all.
He would have simply read the edict and said, "Ok, what will happen is," he said, "I'll shave
myself, when I shave myself I won't be the town barber. But when I'm shaving other people in the
town, other men in the town, I'll be the town barber." 

So he goes back to work. End of problem. Get that? So, he would have simply gone back to his
barber shop noticed it was full of customers put on his identity of being the town barber and
proceeded to shave them. 

And when he'd got rid of all his customers he would have simply removed his identity of the
town barber and hung it on the hook in the barber shop and then he would have shaved himself,
quite leisurely. 

And when he got himself shaved he would have put his identity of the town barber back on all
ready to receive the next customer. Now I can assure you that if you'd been following this
through carefully and closely you now know much more about that logical paradox than the guy
who dreamed it up. 

Because you now know all about the insanity side of it, which he obviously didn't. He clearly
never knew. So you know one hell of a lot about that logical paradox, but we can see how useful
that little logical paradox was to us. What it gives us by using it. We can use it to understand how
a person goes from compulsive games play into insanity. 

IP Defined 

Now this class, we'll call it the general class X(1-X)=1, now that is what we call the insanity class.
That's a definition, X(1-X)=1, X and Not-X simultaneously. That is a definite term. We call that an
insanity class. 

We have a name for it in TROM, which is a more generally used name we call it an IP. Now IP, the
letter "I" and the letter "P" they are the initials of Impossibility Point, or Insanity Point. IP. An IP is
always in the form, X(1-X)=1 

It's the essence of insanity, the very basis of insanity and that's the general expression of it. It is
X(1-X)=1 and IP is short for Insanity Point or Impossibility Point. 

It's an impossibility point because in this universe it's impossible to maintain that class and retain
one's sanity. It is quite impossible to hold that class. In other words, it defines the impossible in
the universe. The only thing that's truly impossible in this universe is the IP, is X(1-X)=1 

That is truly impossible and it's the only thing that's impossible in this universe. You simply can't
do it. It's the only thing that can't be done in this universe. You can't both go to China and not
got to China simultaneously. You can't both be the town barber and not be the town barber
simultaneously. 

It is impossible and it's the only thing that's impossible in this universe and it's something you
should remember and understand very clearly. It defines the impossible so when we assert that
datum that, X(1-X)=1 we are asserting that the impossible can exist. But that's insane. 

The impossible can't exist in this universe, because the laws of the universe say it can't exist, but
it can exist, it can't exist… that is insane. We're into insanity. See that? 

And that's the basis of insanity. 

Mocking up Insanity 

You can get the idea of insanity, of how an insane person feels by mocking up an IP and getting
into it. I wouldn't suggest you do this if you're at all mentally unstable but if you've completed a
few levels of TROM you can do it without any danger to your mental health. You simply get the
idea that you must go to China, and the idea that you mustn't go to China and go from one
postulate to the other. 

Then do it faster and faster, from one postulate to the other, backwards and forwards. Until
you're holding both postulates simultaneously. At the point where you're holding them both
simultaneously you'll start to feel a sort of a glee of insanity, a sort of a spinney feeling in your
psyche. 

Well that's the time to quit, because that's when you're going into the IP. That's the point you're
going insane, you're going into the insanity. We understand it so clearly now that we can
simulate it. But of course there is no real danger that you'll go insane when you do it yourself
because you're doing it all consciously, you see. 

But you can simulate the feeling of insanity by getting the idea of going to China and not going
to China, simultaneously. Or the idea of making any postulate and its negative and holding both
postulates simultaneously… trying to achieve both postulates simultaneously. 

It's a spinney feeling. There's a sort of glee of irresponsibility attached to it. It's a certain definite
emotion that's attached to it that goes with the IP and trying to achieve the IP. It's the emotion
of insanity. 

Ron Hubbard knew about it. He called it the glee of insanity, but he didn't know its logical
construct. We understand it in TROM. We've got it in TROM. We know about it. But Ron was right
when he said there was a glee associated with it. There is. There's a glee. There's a sense of
irresponsibility and a glee there, and a definite spinney feeling. A definite feeling as if the world
is spinning around under your feet. And you feel as if you might take off into space at any
moment. It is a definite spinney feeling. Though you can subjectively create the emotion, the
feeling of insanity, now you understand its postulate structure. 

Deductions from X(1-X)=1 

Now this postulate X(1-X)=1 has some very interesting deductions, very interesting deductions.
I'll give them to you. I won't prove these deductions but they can be, I can assure you, every one
I'm giving to you can be proven very easily in Boolean algebra. 

Deduction #1 

Here we go. 

We can deduce from X(1-X)=1 that : 

X+(1-X)=0 in other words it's a state of affairs where neither X exists nor Not-X exists. Get it? 

[This means that X=0 AND (1-X)=0] 

X+(1-X)=0 now that's a state of unreason 

Because reason maintains that X+(1-X)=1 that's what reason maintains 

[X+(1-X)=1, either X exists OR Not-X exist OR both exist] 

But unreason, insanity the IP, says that X+(1-X)=0 

Now this is a particularly interesting deduction from our point of view because it tells us that
while the person is in the IP state the reasonable part of the postulate set is reduced to zero. 

Take the part of the barber while he's in the state of both being a barber and not being a barber
simultaneously. Then B+(1-B)=0. 

In other words B=0 and (1-B)=0 but look, if B=0 two of the four classes in the reason part of the
set go out and if (1-B)=0 the others go out, so the whole set goes to zero. So the person cannot
be, if they're in the insanity class, they can't be in one of the sane classes of our proposition. 

Once they go insane, in other words, they can't utilise the other part of the set. In other words
they're either sane or they're insane on this subject. If they're insane on the subject then they're
not sane. They can't be both sane and insane in the same postulate set. 

In other words, if the barber's in the state of B(1-B)=1, the rest of the set is equal to zero. And
the proof of it I've just given to you. Because if X(1-X)=1 then X+(1-X)=0 that maintains. That's
the first of the interesting deductions. 

Deduction #2 

Now let's look at the second of the interesting deductions: 

That if X(1-X)=1 then X=(1-X), thus X becomes equal to (1-X). 

In terms of our barber once he goes into the IP of B(1-B)=1 then being a barber is identical to not
being a barber. There is no difference in his mind between being a barber and not being a barber.
The  two  are  completely  identical  with  each  other.  That's  the  other  deduction  from  the
relationship X(1-X)=1. 

So those are the two enormously useful deductions about the IP from the insanity class, or the IP
as we call it. They're the two valid deductions from the IP. 

When X(1-X)=1 then X+(1-X)=0 and X=(1-X) 

The existence equals its absence and that is insane I can assure you. That is insanity. 

Fear of Insanity 

Now once you start to work with these IP's you rapidly start to lose your fear of them. The vast
majority of humanity is absolutely scared of this subject of insanity. The one thing they fear most
in their lives is that they will go insane, that they will lose their reason. See it's a mortal dread.
The compulsive games player has a mortal dread of going insane. 

It's as if he somehow senses that he's putting his life on the line, putting his sanity on the line
every time he plays a game that he's getting close to the edge. That the more compulsive the
games play he gets into and the hotter the game gets, the closer he starts walking to insanity.
He doesn't know exactly what's happening but he senses it happening. 

Every compulsive games player knows this. He knows that as the game heats up more and more
he's walking closer and closer to the gates of hell, to the gates of insanity. And sometimes the
games player will tell you this. It's written up in books, you know, written up in novels and so
forth. That men, under enormous pressure have said "I walked to the very edge of insanity and
just managed to claw myself back at the last moment under extreme game duress, you know."
and they write these stories up and they write these experiences up. They're well documented. 

But this is the view of the compulsive games player who's caught up in compulsive games play.
How about the non-compulsive games player, or the person whose completed Levels 1, 2, 3 of
TROM and is well on his way through Level 4 and 5, or a person who has completed Level 5? It's a
toothless tiger. There's nothing in it. It doesn't mean anything. 

He  knows,  the  person  understands  insanity,  he  knows  what  it  is.  He  knows  its  postulate
structure. And he certainly isn't going to get involved with it. He isn't going to go around trying
to drive himself mad, even if he could; he isn't going to do it. There's no point in it. 

So to the non-compulsive games player, to the completely rational person, the person whose
completed at least the first three Levels of TROM and understands this material I've given there
and understands the nature of insanity and understands the IP state the whole subject of
insanity is a toothless tiger. He no longer dreads insanity. He can sit there and try and go to China
and not got to China simultaneously. It's a game. It doesn't mean anything to him. It's just
another interesting game, a thing to do. 

You know, try and go insane. I mean this quite seriously. Once you understand this material and
you've cleared off your first three Levels of TROM, and are well on the way, you'll lose all your
fear of insanity. Just like you'll lose all your fear of your bank, insanity will go too. You'll find this
subject of insanity is not a dread, something you wake in cold sweat at 4 o'clock in the morning
and wonder if you're going insane. No it's just a toothless tiger. That's the one thing you know
that you're not going to do. Get it? So don't think that it's a terrible thing. That even a person,
when they've completed all their TROM they've got to be very careful not to go insane. No
there's nothing there. There's no charge on it. Put it this way, that by the time you've completed
the five Levels of TROM you'll put yourself on an E-Meter and you can try your hardest to both
go to China and not go to China and nothing's going to happen on that meter, except a little tick
maybe. Nothing awful is going to happen. It will hardly read on the meter. So you're dealing with
a toothless tiger I can assure you. There's absolutely nothing there. 

The total danger of insanity is to the compulsive games player. To him it's a definite hazard. To
the  non-compulsive  games  player  insanity's  not  a  hazard,  it's  not  even  a  problem.  If  he
understands it, it's a joke. You know? It's a giggle. It really is, it's a giggle. And it's certainly a
toothless tiger. There is no monster lurking there in the deep recesses of his mind ready to
swallow him up. I'm giving you the last monster in the deep recesses of the mind, this fear that
you will go insane. Well it's a toothless tiger. There's nothing there if you do your exercises, if
you do Levels 1, 2, 3 of TROM plus then you know this material. Now I couldn't make it any
clearer, could I? I couldn't make it any clearer than this. 

IP and the Goals Package 

Ok, now the example I've given you, the barber in the Barber of Seville is an example which is
one of a postulate set but it's not an example of the use of this data on the subject on a true
goals package as we understand it. Now I want to next give you the full data in terms of a goals
package. 

[Note: In a goals package the postulates exactly complement each other. For instance 'Must Sex' and
'Must be Sexed' or 'Must Eat' and 'Must be Eaten' - Editor] 

We'll pick up a general case. A general goals package, the XY goals package where say X is the
'To Blank' postulate and Y is the 'To be Blank' postulate. And we're now dealing with the general
case in the XY goals package. 

It's a postulate set still but it's a very specialised postulate set called the goals package. OK? 

The 'To Blank' Postulate Goals Package 

1. XY, to blank and to be blank (complementary postulates) 

2. X(1-Y), to blank and to not be blank (conflicting postulates) 

3. Y(1-X), to be blank and to not blank (conflicting postulates) 

4. (1-X)(1-Y), to not blank and to not be blank (complementary postulates) 

Now I want to give you all the reductions in the set and give you the symbolism as we go so
you've got the whole picture. So there won't be any doubt in your mind as to what's happening.
You'll be able to write it all down on a piece of paper and understand it. 

Non-Compulsive Games Play 

Now the person first enters into the situation there as a non-compulsive games player. He does
this by making the postulate X is not equal to Y, X≠Y, he makes that postulate. 

[Note: X≠Y means the player must prefer one goal more than the other or there will be no game. If
going to China and not going to China are equally unimportant you will not make a game to achieve
either goal. - Editor] 

If he doesn't make that postulate he could lose the whole set by complementary postulate
because at any time he can accidentally make X=Y and when X=Y of course the whole set
vanishes as I explained earlier. So to prevent this happening accidentally he simply makes the
postulate that X≠Y. 

Now, let's expand that postulate and see what it looks like: 

The postulate X≠Y becomes the symbolism X(1-Y)+Y(1-X)≠0 

Now all that means is that at least one of those two classes has got members in it and therefore
exists, and both of those two classes are games classes, you see? And while at least one of them
exists then the whole set won't vanish. 

So that little relationship there, that X≠Y holds the postulate set in existence, and prevents the
whole lot vanishing by accidentally making the postulate that X=Y. Simply postulate that X is not
equal to Y and from that point onwards the set remains in existence for you and you can then
become a non-compulsive games player in that set. 

Compulsive Games Play 

Ok, so much for that. Now the person goes ahead, shall we say, as a non-compulsive games
player  and  the  games  play  becomes  more  and  more  important  in  the  postulate  set  until
eventually games play becomes compulsive. And at the point where it becomes compulsive it's
made compulsive by the postulate that X equals not Y, or in terms of symbolism that X=(1-Y). 

Now how does that look in terms of our symbolism? Well the set now looks like X(1-Y)+Y(1-X)=1
see the difference, before those two classes were not equal to zero now they're equal to 1. 

[Note: When X(1-Y)+Y(1-X)=1 the player has raised the importance of games play or the need for
game sensation to the point where only conflicting postulates are allowed between the opponents.
- Editor] 

While those two classes are equal to 1 they become the whole universe of discourse, the whole
universe of the postulate set so therefore the complementary postulate classes of XY and (1-X)
(1-Y), both of these classes can have no existence. 

1. XY, to blank and to be blank (complementary postulates) 

2. X(1-Y), to blank and to not be blank (conflicting postulates) 

3. Y(1-X), to be blank and to not blank (conflicting postulates) 

4. (1-X)(1-Y), to not blank and to not be blank (complementary postulates) 

The only existence classes are the two games classes. So games play is now compulsive. The
person has two games classes. He can occupy either one or the other. He's a compulsive game
player with the option of either occupying X(1-Y) or Y(1-X). 

[Note: The opponents are switching between their postulate and its negative as needed to maintain
the conflicting postulate situation. - Editor] 

Single Game Class 

Now the games play continues in the universe until eventually the player suffers overwhelm of
one of his classes. Let's say the Y class suffers overwhelm and in his own mind he considers he
can no longer occupy that class. In other words, he considers now that Y=0. But as soon as Y=0
then (1-X) must also be equal to naught because remember he's made this postulate that X=(1-
Y), which is the same as saying that Y=(1-X), so as soon as he loses Y, Y=0, he would also lose (1-
X). So Y=0 and (1-X)=0. Both maintain. 

[Note: When Y=0 the player can no longer hold the Y postulate. He moves to his only remaining
postulate 1-Y, he is no longer interested in finding an opponent in 1-X and is only looking for an
opponent with the X postulate. - Editor] 

So he's now left with this single game class of X(1-Y)=1. He's now reduced it down to a single
game class postulate set. 

From this point onwards he's putting his sanity on the line every time he plays this game with
these two postulates, because if he suffers overwhelm in the game and he loses the game he's
going to go insane. The only place he's able to go is into the insanity class, into the IP's. 

Insanity 

Well let's say he succeeds for a while. But sooner or later by the very scheme of things he's going
to get overwhelmed, and what's going to happen? Well, before we discuss what happens lets
briefly just review the position: 

He's made the postulate X≠Y. 

            [X is more important than Y or vice versa] 

He's made the postulate that X=(1-Y). 

            [Compulsive games play begins] 

He's made the postulate that Y=0, 

            [Can't hold the Y postulate any more] 

And he's also got the postulate that (1-X)=0. 

            [Not interested in finding an opponent with 1-X] 

And he's in a games class of X. 

[The last postulate in the XY set he is able to hold] 

That's his games class. Remember that's his last games class is X. He's got this other postulate
there which is bonded to X because X=(1-Y). So he's got this other postulate of (1-Y) because (1-
Y)=(1-X) so he's in this double class of X, (1-Y). 

X is the game postulate, (1-Y) is the exclusion postulate. 

Now that's his position. Now the opponents postulate is inexorably driving him from X into the
(1-X). That is to say the opponent is inexorably bonding X to (1-X). In other words the opponent is
driving him into the identification X equals (1-X). You see he can't leave X. That's his last haven.
That's the last point he can go in the set. You see? He has no other place to go so he hangs on to
that grimly. But inexorably he's being driven into (1-X) as well. 

But this identification, X=(1-X), can't take place while he is still holding the identification X=(1-Y).
Because if X=(1-X) and X=(1-Y) then (1-X)=(1-Y) and if (1-X)=(1-Y) then X=Y and the whole set will
go. He'll lose the whole lot, the whole game will vanish and that is intolerable. 

So that can't happen. He simply has to break the bonding to (1-Y). The identification that X=(1-Y)
eventually breaks. He breaks that bonding. That snaps. He's now free. 

The X is now free of the (1-Y) and the X bonds to the (1-X) and we have the identification X=(1-X),
quite separate and free of the (1-Y) postulate. Meanwhile the (1-Y) postulate has been under
pressure from the opponent to go into Y and for exactly the same reasons. The (1-Y) postulate
breaks it's bonding with X and snaps into identification with Y, (1-Y)=Y and becomes the other IP
in the set. 

The set now reduces to X(1-X)+Y(1-Y)=1, with the player in the IP X(1-X). Now why is he in there?
Because X was his last games postulate. That was his last sense of self identity. He was the
games player using that X postulate so that's where he sticks and that's the IP he ends up in. 

Can he move across to the other IP? No he can't do so. He can't move across to the other IP
although it's still a part of the set, but he can't move across to it. 

But to explain why he can't move across to it, and continue on with this tape we'll have to go
onto a new tape. Because I'm running out of… I'm running off the end of the spool here. 

End of tape 

LECTURES MAIN PAGE