THE EXCLUSION POSTULATE

MP3 DOWNLOAD

Minimum Prerequisite study: You can understand this lecture if you've read "TROM 2023", and we recommend reading our video-enhanced online version.
For best results, we also recommend listening to all the lectures up to this point in the listed order on our lectures main page.

Hello, Greg, this is Tuesday the 20th of April 1993 and I thought I'd cut a tape for you expanding
on some of the background material of Level 5. It occurred to me the other day that while I have
this material available I may as well give it to you mainly because anyone doing Level 5 will come
across this data but it will take them some time to put it together into a coherent form, which
I've done. It took me some time to do it. 

So, anyone doing the exercises will find this data particularly useful because it will help clarify the
material that shows up. Under this same heading would be the theory material that I gave you on
the two recent tapes. One on the subject of Dissociation, you recall that material on the subject
of  dissociation,  and  the  other  theory  material  I  sent  you  on  the  tape  on  the  subject  of
Unstacking, remember my reply on the subject of Unstacking. Well both those tapes, one on the
subject  of  Dissociation  and  the  reply  to  the  subject  of  Unstacking,  contain  very  useful
background material on Level 5, which I won't repeat because I know you have the material. 

Sooner or later on Level 5 it's necessary to jump in at the deep end, so to speak, on the subject of
postulates and the universe and this time is about now on the subject of the theory. I've already
talked about universes and all universes consist of life plus postulates, that's all they consist of
there's nothing else in any universe but life and postulates. 

Anything else you consider is in there is purely an illusion, is a slight of hand. There's nothing else
in any universe that you could conceive of but life and postulates. So the physical universe in
which we live, in which we share follows that same rule, in that it's a universe and it's based upon
a postulate structure, it's based upon certain laws, this universe and many of the physical laws of
this universe, which have been discovered by scientists using their measuring equipment and
their observations, but these physical laws of the universe are deductions from the basic laws of
the universe. 

In other words the universe is based on laws very much more fundamental than the laws of
physics and you would have to expand the subject of physics considerably to include life before
you could expect to uncover the basic laws upon which this universe is constructed by studying
the subject of physics. 

The subject of physics as we understand it today on this planet is far too limited because it
doesn't include the subject of life and because of that limitation it cannot encompass the basic
laws from which this universe is constructed. But that doesn't mean that we won't come across
these laws when we're working with a person in therapy, particularly when we get into the upper
level tech at Level 5, because we're dealing with the very building blocks upon which any
universe is constructed, that is life and postulates. And Levels 5A, 5B and 5C are devoted to this
subject of handling postulates in the mind. 

So we're very close up against the subject of universes and what a universe consists of and what
this universe consists of when we're working with Level 5. So it's no real surprise that sooner or
later when a person is working at Level 5, particularly on Level 5A, when he's working with the
fundamental, the basic, the fundamental goals package, the 'To Know' goals package. Whilst
working with that goals package he will come across the absolutely fundamental law upon which
this universe is constructed. 

I clearly remember the day when I was having a session, some years ago, when it suddenly
dropped out the hamper in the middle of the session. There I was working along and suddenly,
Bang!  I was suddenly in possession of the basic law upon which the physical universe is
constructed. There's no great secret about this law, it's just that it's [chuckle] it's very deeply
hidden if you happen not to know where to look for it. 

The place to look for it, of course, is amongst the goals packages and particularly on the 'To
Know' goals package. You start working with that and the basic law of this universe is going to
drop out the hamper. Bang! It's bound to drop out sooner or later for anyone working on Level
5A, which is why I'm mentioning it here, because it may be a surprise to them, they might come
across it and they might not know what it is. And they might think, "Oh, it's just another
postulate." 

All Postulates Limit the Possible and Thereby Define the Reasonable 

Well, I can assure you that it isn't just another postulate, that it is the basic law of this universe
and I'll give it to you now. It is provable; demonstrably provable as such that it is the basic law
because it explains so much of the phenomena that occur in this universe. 

But before I give you this basic law, I better give you something which is common to all universes.
This law is common to all universes, not just the physical universe in which we live. This is that: 

All postulates limit the possible and thereby define the reasonable. 

Until a Postulate is Made Everything is Possible 

All postulates limit the possible and thereby define the reasonable. Once you understand that,
you understand that proposition, you understand an awful lot about universes. You understand
that, until a postulate is made everything is possible and that any postulate, no matter what it is,
limits the possible. 

For example, if a person says, "Alright well now the law is that no car will travel at more than 80
kilometres an hour on this stretch of road." Well that's the law. Well how does that limit the
possible? Well it limits the speed of the cars on that stretch of road, you see? 

And no matter what postulate you make you'll find that any postulate
that you make will limit the possible. So the first thing about a postulate is any postulate limits
the possible, that's its fundamental purpose, to limit the possible. Now how about this second bit
'and thereby defines the reasonable'? Now that is really something. The subject of what is
reasonable in this universe is a terrible puzzle; it's a great puzzle. 

People bang the table and say, "Well this is reasonable and that is unreasonable." And they talk
about what is reasonable and what is unreasonable but if you say to them, "What is reason and
what is unreasonable and what is reasonable?" they can't define the terms. 

They'll give you an example of something they consider is reasonable and they'll give you an
example of what they consider is unreasonable, but they cannot define reasonableness,
unreasonableness or reason itself. They simple cannot define them. 

If you were to talk to a physical scientist, you could get closer to a definition of reason. If you
were to talk to a logician you'd get even closer to a definition of reason because logic is the
science of reason but even the logicians don't grasp this fundamental relationship between
postulates and reason. I think most of them would if you were to give it to them. They'd say, "Oh,
yes, I sort of knew it but I didn't know it in those words." 

But the average person simply doesn't understand the subject of reason, He doesn't understand
what is reasonable and what is unreasonable, although he'll give you endless examples of what
he considers reasonable and what he considers unreasonable. 

That Which is Reasonable is That Which is Consistent with the Postulate 

So all postulates limit the possible and thereby define the reasonable. 

Now how does a postulate define the reasonable? Well this is the way it goes. That which is
reasonable is that which is consistent with the postulate. It's really as simple as that [chuckle].
Give it to you again, "That which is reasonable is that which is consistent with the postulate." 

Example, if the postulate is that every house in Australia will have a roof on it. In other words if a
law says that no house shall be sold without a roof. All houses would have a roof. Then it's
reasonable if you buy a house to expect the house to have a roof on it, because it's consistent
with the postulate which is that 'All houses in Australia will have a roof on them.' See that? 

And if you were to buy a house and you look up and notice that it hadn't got a roof on it, that
would be inconsistent with the postulate which says that 'All houses will have a roof on them'
and so you could say, "Well, this is unreasonable." I shouldn't have expected to buy a house
without a roof on it. You follow? 

In the Absence of Postulates the Concept of Reason is Meaningless 

So  that's  the  connection  between  reason  and  the  postulate  and  there's  no  other  senior
definition of reason in this universe. Reason is only that which is consistent with a postulate.
That is to say that in the absence of postulates the concept of reason is meaningless. In the
absence of postulates the concept of reason is meaningless. 

The  concept  of  reason  only  has  meaning  in  the  presence  of  postulates  and  that  which  is
reasonable is that which is consistent with a postulate. In other words, the postulate defines
what is reasonable. It defines it because that which is reasonable is that which is consistent with
the postulate. So there's nothing difficult about this. It's very simple. It's so simple, this is, so
simple, that you almost have to make it more complicated in order to understand it. It's so
terribly simple, but life gets so involved in this subject of what is reasonable and what is
unreasonable that it forgets the basics and forgets the simplicities and so you come up to a
person and say, "Well, what is reasonable? What is unreasonable? What is the definition of
reason?" 

I don't know how many people in Australia you can walk up to and say, "What's a good definition
of reason?" I don't know how many people will say "All postulates limit the possible and thereby
define the reasonable. And that which is reasonable is that which is consistent with a postulate."
you know. You might find somebody else in Australia who would say that but I think it is very
doubtful, very doubtful in deed. I'll tell you what, I wouldn't have said it until I'd done Level 5 of  

my technology and 'til I'd got myself a few yards deep in Level 5 and understood about universes
and got the basic postulate of this universe out and so forth. 

I wouldn't have answered that. I didn't know what reason was either; I was just like anyone else. I
couldn't relate it to postulates. If you can't relate it to postulates you can't relate it to anything,
because the subject of reason won't relate to anything else. 

We can Define Reason as a Complementary Postulate 

Now can we actually get more precise on the definition of reason than to say that reason is that
which is consistent with a postulate? Yes we can. We can go one little step further and we can
define reason as a complementary postulate. Reason is a complementary postulate. 

Now how did that come about? Well that which is most consistent with a postulate is its
complementary postulate, you see? You can't get more consistent with a postulate than the
complementary postulate to that postulate. 

So the complementary postulate must be the very essence of reason regarding a postulate. In
other words, a person wants to 'be Known' say, he's operating on the 'To be Known' postulate,
the most reasonable thing you can do regarding that person is 'To Know' him. You see that? 

That's the most reasonable thing because that is the absolute essence of, the totality of the
consistency. That is as consistent as you can get with his postulate. His postulate is 'To be Known'
and if you adopt a 'To Know' postulate which is the complementary postulate of 'To be Known'
then you will be as reasonable as you can get. You will be as consistent as you can get with his
postulate. 

So reason is a complementary postulate in this universe and that is the most precise definition
there is in this universe of reason. It is a complementary postulate. This tells you immediately
that the opposition postulate is as unreasonable as you can get. A person has the postulate 'To
be Known' and about as unreasonable as you can be is 'To Not Know', 'To Not Know' him, because
it's [chuckle] totally inconsistent with his postulate. 

His postulate is 'To be Known' and you're directing a 'To Not Know' postulate towards him. Well
you couldn't get any more inconsistent with his postulate than that, and you couldn't get more
unreasonable as far as he's concerned, than that. You follow? 

All Games Must Be Unreasonable 

Now this definition of reason been a complementary postulate tells you immediately that all
games because they contain conflicting postulates must be unreasonable. 

Game Defined 

A game is a contest in conviction and contains opposing postulates by definition that is the
definition of a game. It's a contest in conviction. There are two people trying to convince each
other of opposing postulates. So all games must be unreasonable, follow? It drops out straight
away from the datum that reason is a complementary postulate. If reason is a complementary
postulate then all games are unreasonable. There's no reason in conflict, it's an unreasonable
activity, see, it's an unreasonable activity. 

I mean it might be fun, games might be fun but so help me they're not reasonable. I mean you've
got 22 men in two football teams standing on a football field and they are about to start a game
of football. It's not reasonable for them to play this game of football. The reasonable thing to
do, if they want to be reasonable at all about it is at the beginning of the game one of the men
to pick up the ball and run it down and put it in the opposing goal. You see that? 

If the idea is to get the ball into the goal between those two posts well they might as well pick it
up, run it down and put it down there, if that's their purpose. It's not reasonable for 11 of them
to try and get that ball into the goal and the other 11 to try and stop it from happening. That is
not reasonable. It is not a reasonable activity... it might be a lot of fun but it's certainly not
reasonable. See that? 

The More Conflict There Is the Less Reason There Is 

So that's just an example of an unreasonable game. Well it's no more unreasonable than any
other game. The fact that the conflict is there, the fact that the postulates are opposing each
other is the very essence of unreason because reason is a complementary postulate. 

Then this tells you right away that when a person comes up to you and says, "What we need in
our society is more conflict and more competition and so on." That they're also saying that we
need more and more unreason, you see that? The conflict, the competition and so on and the
opposition all produce unreason. The more conflict there is the less reason there is, and so on. A
tremendous amount of data starts to make sense, once you understand these basics it all drops
out of this hamper, if all postulates limit the possible and therefore define the reasonable, and
the reasonable is a complementary postulate. 

Ok now, I could expand that material out considerably. Once a person grasps it they can expand
it out themselves; it has enormous ramifications. Now we'll go on and get the basic postulate of
this universe. 

The Class of the Knowable 

So here we go. The basic postulate upon which this universe is constructed is 

The class of the knowable is coextensive with the class of those things brought into
                                                              existence ‘To be Known’ 

I'll repeat it: 

The class of the knowable is coextensive with the class of those things brought into existence ‘To
be Known’. 

Now that's a pretty big mouthful, that is, I better break that down into little bits and we'll
examine it in detail. 

What do we mean? What do we mean by the class of the knowable? Well that is the class of
those things that it's possible 'To Know'. And that's all we mean when we say the class of the
knowable. We mean the class of those things it's possible 'To Know'. Now, "The class of the
knowable is coextensive with", well that is a technical term, it's not a difficult technical term, it's
a term used in logic. It means when two classes are coextensive, it's a term a logician would use
when he means that, the members of these classes are identical in their characteristics. They
have  identical  characteristics.  So,  loosely  speaking  we  could  say  instead  of  the  phrase  "is
coextensive with" we could say "is identical with" or "is the same as". That would be a looser way
to say it, but the precise technical logical way to say it is "coextensive with", that is the precisely
correct way to say it. That the class of the knowable is coextensive with the class of those things
brought into existence 'To be Known'. 

Now what is this class of things brought into existence 'To be Known'? Well that is just what it
says, the class of things that are brought into existence 'To be Known'. So the law says, the basic
law of the universe says that the class of the knowable is identical, is the same as, the class of
those things brought into existence 'To be Known'. That's all it is saying in so many words. That's
what the law means. 

Now before I go on talking about the basic law of the universe I want to give you a very valid, a
very useful deduction from this law, which is of everyday use in society and of tremendous use in
science and is well known and so forth. But I'll give it to you as a deduction from the basic law of
the universe. I could give it to you in terms of Boolean algebra but that wouldn't help, wouldn't
make it any clearer either, unless the person listening to the tape understands the symbolism of 

Boolean algebra it would be just as mysterious. So, I better give the deduction to you in terms of
formal logic, so here we go: 

I.    If, the class of the knowable is coextensive with the class of those things brought into 

existence 'To be Known'. 

II.   Then, a thing is either knowable by reason of existing, or is not knowable by reason of not 

existing. 

III.  Therefore, a thing either exists or it doesn't exist. 

IV.  Therefore, a thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. 

Yes, I've just replayed that over, it's not garbled so no need to repeat it. Not garbled so it is
exactly straight the way it should be on the tape. 

Now this proposition that a thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously just happens to
be the basic postulate or the basic law upon which the science of logic is constructed. This law,
according to the textbooks was first discovered by Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, some 2000
years ago when he said that the most fundamental of all philosophical principles is that "A thing
cannot possess and not possess a quality." 

Now certainly Aristotle based his own logic, his grasp of logic and all his writings on logic and all
his subject of logic on that principle, and Aristotelian logic held fast in the whole of the western
world for something like 1,850 years. So all that happens today, all that happened in 1,850 or
about 1,850 years after Aristotle was that a guy called George Boole an English mathematician
came  along  and  took  that  basic  principle  that  a  thing  cannot  both  exist  and  not  exist
simultaneously and expressed it mathematically, and used it as the basis of the algebra of logic. 

The algebra of the logic of classes, which is called Boolean algebra, and thereby made logic into a
mathematical subject rather than a philosophical subject. At least he turned the logic of classes
into a mathematical subject rather than a philosophical subject, and the Boolean algebra is
based upon that same proposition "That a thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously,"
which is itself a valid deduction from the basic law of this universe. 

Interesting isn't it that the basis of logic, the basis of the science of reason as we understand it in
our world, is the basis in the science of reason. And it's no different in the eastern world of India
and China. Their science is based upon the same postulate, I assure you. It's no different. In other
words, when you take propositions apart using that basic law that a thing cannot both exist and
not exist simultaneously you start to build up a science of logic. 

Well if you try and build up a science of logic without that basic law you end up with a mess. You
just end up with a dogs breakfast, and you end up with unreason. You have to have that basic law
in there, you see, that a thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. Aristotle was
completely right when he said that the most fundamental of all philosophical principles is that a
thing cannot both possess and not possess a quality. 

Now one day when I get a bit of time, and it's one of these things I mean to do, and I keep putting
it off, I'm going to sit down and write down the basic law of this universe and see what other
valid deductions there are from this basic law, but that one, I know, is a valid deduction. That a
thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously, produced the science of logic. I'm just
wondering what other valid deductions can be made from the basic law which could be used as
the basic for other sciences and for other human endeavours. As I say I just haven't got around to
doing it. It's one of the things I keep meaning to do and haven't done. There are no doubt many
other  valid  deductions  that  can  be  made  from  that  basic  law  upon  which  this  universe  is
constructed. 

Two Futile Activities in this Universe 

Now let's examine this basic law of the universe more closely. What is it telling us? Well it tells us
essentially that there are two activities in this universe which are utterly and completely futile. 

One of these activities is to try and know something which doesn't exist. Now that is the essence
of futility, because you simply can't know it unless it exists. If it doesn't exist it's unknowable.
The basic law of the universe says so. 

So if a thing doesn't exist in the universe it's absolutely futile to go around and try and discover
it. Yet people spend half their lives trying to discover things that don't exist. It's true, they do. Of
course, the person believes that this thing might exist, or believes that it does exist, so he keeps
searching for it. But nevertheless, if it turns out that the thing doesn't exist, they've wasted their
time because there's nothing there. They won't find it if it doesn't exist. 

Now the other futile thing to do in this universe is to go out of your way 'To Not Know' things
that do exist. See that? That's the other futile thing to do. In other words, not knowing things
that do exist when the basic law of the universe tells you that this whole idea of trying 'To Not
Know' things that exist is futile. If the thing exists it's knowable, if it doesn't exist it's not
knowable. So you can waste an awful lot of time and get yourself all upset by trying to discover
things that don't exist or trying to not discover things that do exist. 

As Ron Hubbard explained in Axiom 11, you know, "the futility of not is-ness" yet people do it all
the time, you know, they've got this painful memory and they spend half their life trying to blot
it out of their mind. Well they're not going to do it are they? They're just going to make
themselves miserable, ruin their health one way or the other. 

Why? Well the basic law upon which the universe is constructed says you can't do it. If it exists it's
knowable and no amount of endeavouring ‘To Not Know’ it is going to change that in the
slightest. If the thing exists therefore it's knowable. 

Knowing and Time 

While you're 'not knowing' it, you can get yourself into an awful mess. You see that? 

But this, of course, is basic in the understanding of Dianetics and Scientology. That what you
resist you become. You know? What you 'Not Know' you end up getting wrapped round your
neck. I mean there's a thousand ways Ron has expressed this in Scientology and quite rightly so
too, but again you see, it's a valid deduction from the basic law upon which this universe is
constructed. It gives you the only two futile things in the universe. 

The first thing is to try and know something, which doesn't exist, and the other futile thing is to
try and not-know something, which does exist. Both of them are the essence of futility in this
universe. I mean these things simply aren't of a matter of opinion, you know, they are not of a
matter of which school you go to, you know. You're living in a universe, you're acting and working
and so forth totally within a universe and you're subscribing to the laws of the universe and the
basic law of the universe you're subscribing to tells you that "it's futile to try and know things
that don't exist and it's futile to try and not-know things that do exist." 

Games Play Only Consists Fundamentally of These Two Futile Activities 

Yet all of games play contains these possibilities. When we examine the game, what we call
"games play" we find people doing these things. They try to discover things that don't exist and
they try and not-know things that do exist. You could say that fundamentally games play only
consists of these two futile activities, which is why games play fundamentally is a very futile
activity in this universe. 

Actually there's nothing wrong with playing games as long as you don't have to play them. If you
can take them or leave them they can be fun, but when you have to play them, you're doomed,
because you're stuck on this futility. You go into unreason and you end up just nailing the coffin
lid down on yourself. You're gone. 

Why?  You've  violated  the  basic  law  of  the  universe.  So there's  quite  a  lot  that  even  at  a
superficial level starts to fall out of this subject of the basic postulate upon which this universe is
constructed. We immediately understand what games play consists of and what the futility of it
is. 

 But bear in mind that the basic law of the universe does allow games to occur, you see. The law
sets the universe up and says the class of the knowable is coextensive with the class of those
things brought into existence ‘To be Known’. 

I mean, it doesn't forbid you, doesn't say that you can't go around and try and know things that
don't exist. It doesn't forbid you from trying 'To Not Know' things that do exist. It allows this to
be possible, but you'll never succeed. It doesn't actually forbid you from trying. The law says you
can't make it but it does allow the possibility for the games to occur. You see? 

So there's a certain subtlety involved here, but of course any purpose, any goal and any law is a
limitation of the possible and only by limiting the possible is it possible to set up any forms of
games play. You have to have some limitation of the possible and that is the basic limitation in
this universe, is the basic law upon which this universe is constructed. 

The Dictum of Aristotle and Postulates 

Now we know as a valid deduction from the basic law of the universe that classes of objects obey
what's known as the 'Dictum of Aristotle', which in modern terminology would be that "A thing
either exists or it doesn't exist" and "A thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously" and
by use of this proposition you can formulate a very workable logic. This logic would explain the
relationships between classes of objects in the universe itself. This is the subject of logic and the
logic of classes, Boolean algebra. 

Don't miss this, don't miss this in the slightest that the classes of objects in this universe, their
logic  is  totally  determined  by  this  proposition  "A  thing  cannot  both  exist  and  not  exist
simultaneously",  which  is  a  direct  deduction  from  the  basic  law  of  the  universe.  It  does
determine the basic logic of classes utterly and completely and it's up to us now to ask this
simple question, "How about the subject of postulates?" Do they obey exactly this same law of
classes? In other words, a thing either exists or it doesn't exist. Well how about postulates? Is
that true for postulates and is that the only law that's true for postulates? Well let's examine it. 

Well what we're looking at here is the difference between a postulate and an object. We're
trying to see if they are different in their nature. 

#1 – Law of The Scale 

Well now, one difference immediately comes to mind. Take a postulate, say the postulate 'To
Know', all right. You can start off with a high intensity postulate 'To Know' and it's on a scale and
as the intensity of the postulate lessens, gets less and less and less, it will go down to a zero
point where there is no postulate then it will go over the zero point and will reappear in the
negative. You get a very faint 'To Not Know' postulate," and that 'To Not Know' postulate could
be intensified up to a maximum intensity of maximum 'To Not Know'. 

Now this is different from an object. An object doesn't obey that rule at all. For example: you've
got this lump of rock, you know, and you have it in full intensity and you reduce its intensity and
you get a point of zero intensity and then there's no rock and then it goes into minus, a little
minus intensity of a rock and it goes into more minus until you get a maximum intensity of no
rock. 

No, no it doesn't work with rocks. It works for postulates; it doesn't work for rocks so there's an
immediate difference between the postulate and an object in the universe. So you must bear
that in mind. 

#2 – Law of Complementary Postulates 

Now is there any other law, which applies to postulates, which doesn't apply to objects in the
universe? Yes there's one other law, which applies to postulates which doesn't apply to objects in
the universe. This is the law of the complementary postulate. 

Now you'll become aware of this when you start working with postulates at Level 5, that
complementary postulates satisfy each other and vanish each other. Complementary postulates
satisfy each other and vanish each other. 

Now what this means is, for example, you put up a 'To be Known' postulate and by its side you
mock-up* a 'To Know' postulate, and the two postulates satisfy each other and they cancel each
other out and they will vanish each other. And you will find that the two postulates after a
second or two will be gone. And you say, "Where have they gone to?" Well they cancelled each
other out. 

*A 'mock-up' is generated by the being. It's a creation.

You'd have to mock them up again and if you wanted to hold them in existence you would have
to continue to create them and hold them in existence. Soon as you let them go they satisfy each
other and they vanish. So there's the law of the complementary postulate. Now that's a peculiar
law  to  postulates  which  doesn't  apply  to  objects  in  the  universe,  is  that  complementary
postulates vanish each other, satisfy each other and produce a mutual vanishment. 

#3 – Law of Aristotle 

So we have two laws there which are applicable to postulates which aren't applicable to classes
of objects and we now must ask ourselves the question, 'Does the law which is applicable to
objects,  in  other  words,  "A  thing  cannot  both  exist  and  not  exist  simultaneously",  is  that
applicable  to  postulates?'  Well,  yes  it  is.  A  postulate  cannot  both  exist  and  not  exist
simultaneously, so that obeys the same law as the law of objects and the law of classes. So the
classes of objects and objects in the universe just obey that one law, one fundamental law. A
thing cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously. 

But  postulates  natively  obey  these  three  laws.  We  have  the  'law  of  the  scale'  where  the
postulate goes from the maximum plus intensity through zero point and no postulate down to a
minus maximum intensity. We have that law. And the next one is the 'law of the complementary
postulate' whereby a postulate plus it complementary postulate satisfy each other and cause
their mutual vanishment. 

And thirdly and finally that 'a postulate cannot both exist and not exist simultaneously.' Now
those three  laws are  the only  three laws, which  govern  the behavior  of postulates in the
universe.  They're  the  only  three  laws.  There  aren't  any  others.  Now  the  law  of  the  

complementary postulate, the law which says that a postulate plus its complementary postulate
satisfy each other and cause their mutual vanishment has some very important influence on
games play in the universe. 

How Games Become Compulsive 

The effect of this law is as follows: If you can imagine people playing light hearted games and so
forth and having a desire to play games and they want to get their game going and keep their
game going. Every time they happen to accidentally match up with complementary postulates
the game ends. The game simply stops you see. And the postulates vanish. They satisfy each
other and they cancel each other out and the postulates disappear. 

You imagine a games player saying, "Oh damn I've managed to get complementary postulates
again so after a while, in games play, in the universe, there's always this tendency to avoid the
complementary postulate situation because it, unnecessarily, from the point of view of the
games player, ends the game. 

So this class of 'both the postulate and its complementary postulate' tends to vanish out of
games play. That's one of the first things you see go out of games play in the universe, is the lack
of appreciation for the fact that you can end the game by adopting complementary postulates. 

First of all it is regarded as a nuisance to end the game because they want to keep the game
going to enjoy the sensation of the games play and so to accidentally in the heat of the moment,
happen to accidentally match their complementary postulates ending the game, the game stops,
you see, and the game un-mocks. 

So they come to avoid the complementary postulates. And so the effect is to concentrate more
and more on the opposition postulates and less and less on the complementary postulates, and
the effect of this is to make the games play more and more compulsive. You follow that? You see
how that would be? It follows directly from the law of the complementary postulate. If you go
into a game in the beginning you know the laws, and know everything about it. 

You want to play the game. You want to play games and well one thing you want to avoid is to
end the game. You want to get the game started see, so you avoid the complementary postulate.
Then when the game gets started the tendency is to forget about the complementary postulates
because you're trying to avoid the complementary postulate situation, it tends to go out of
games play. Then when you try to end the game you've forgotten how to do it. I know it sounds
silly but this is the way it comes about and games play then tends, because of the law of
complementary postulates, tends to go from light hearted, casual, voluntary games play, it tends
to go into compulsive games play. It becomes compulsive once the players lose the ability to end
the game with complementary postulates and they lose the ability simply because they will no
longer allow the game to end. In the early days of playing the game it was a nuisance to end the 

game  with  complementary  postulates  so  they  put  it  to  one  side,  and  said  we  won't  use
complementary postulates to end the game and then they forgot about it and they lost it, you
see. They lost the ability. 

And they then got into compulsive games play, because once you take the complementary
postulates out of the games situation you're only left with the game situation. You see this? The
complementary postulates have gone. Look let's put it this way, let's imagine what we call a
postulate set. 

You  see  there  are  only  two  positive  postulates  in  an  erasable  goals  package,  there's  the
postulate plus it's negative plus the complementary postulate plus it's negative. That's four
postulates in the set. Let's call the postulate X. So there's X and the negative, which is Not-X and
there's the complementary postulate to X we'll call that B and there's Not-B which is the
negative of B. So there's only X and Not-X and B and Not-B. 

Those are the four postulates. So there are only four classes in the set. There's....

Now  this  is  a  technical  term  'compulsive  games  play'  and  it's  defined  as  the  state  when
complementary postulates have vanished out of the postulate set and the set has been reduced
to the two classes of ‘X Not-B’ and ‘B Not-X’. And the two complementary classes of ‘X B’ and
‘Not-X Not-B’ have gone out of the set, and that is the technical definition of compulsive games
play. 

The games play is compulsive simply because it cannot be ended. There's no way to end the
game at this point because the complementary postulates have gone. The opposed people
cannot occupy those complementary postulates because they're out of the set, you see. 

The set's just reduced to the games classes. The postulate classes now, one is gone, two is
present still, three is present and class four is gone so you're left with just classes two and three
which are the two games classes, and that is the technical definition of 'compulsive games play'. 

And that is how games play becomes compulsive in this universe, it stems from the law of the
complementary postulate. Now in terms of the 'To Know' goals package what would this look 

like, a compulsive games condition? Well the person is either in a state of 'Must be Known' facing
an opponent who 'Mustn't Know' or he's in a state of 'Must Know' facing an opponent who
'Mustn't be Known' or visa versa giving a total of four possible games classes in all. 

In other words, whichever one of the four postulates in the set he's in, he's facing the opposition
postulate. That's another way to put it. The set reduces to only two games classes but there are
four  possibilities  because  there  are  four  postulates  in  the  set.  So  whichever  postulate  he
occupies  he's  always  facing  the  opposition  postulate.  He's  never  facing  a  complementary
postulate because they've gone out of the set. 

Now  that  is  compulsive  games  play.  Now  there  is  one  other  characteristic  that  goes  with
compulsive games play and that is that the law of scale that goes with the postulates of
"maximum intensity down to zero point and out through to minus intensity" vanishes. That law
goes out and simply becomes plus intensity or minus intensity. 

In other words the person is in there pitching full steam the whole time and there's no zero
point,  there's  no point  ever  where  there's no  postulate  in  games play. They're  simply  full
intensity all the time they're playing the game. The game is continuous, in other words, there's
no point where they stop playing it. They can't stop playing it. You see? 

It's compulsive so there's no zero, there's no null point, there's no zero point on the scale for any
of the postulates, so that law of the scale goes out when we go into compulsive games play. So
in compulsive games play the law of the complementary postulate has gone out, and also the
law of the scale, has gone out. All that's left is the 'law of a thing cannot both exist and not exist
simultaneously'. 

In other words that same law that governs the objects in the universe, it governs objects and
classes in the universe. So once the postulate set goes into compulsive games play, once games
play becomes compulsive, postulates obey exactly the same law, logically, as do classes and
objects in the universe. And the postulates can be manipulated as such in a logical system, which
is very interesting. 

While we're dealing with compulsive games play we can use the same logic for postulates as we
can for classes, but once we go into non-compulsive games play, voluntary games play, we have
to realise that we can't use the same logic for postulates that we can for objects because the
postulates obey two other laws. You understand that? 

These are technical basics that we're dealing with. It would actually be possible to formulate a
mathematical logic, which allows for these extra qualities of postulates in the natural native
state  including  all  the  laws  that  govern  postulates.  In  other  words,  a  logic  which  governs
postulates in non-compulsive games play. 

If I get some time one day I might see if I can formulate such a logic but it's not really necessary
to  do  so.  Any  logical  constructs  you  would  need  or  I've  ever  needed  when  dealing  with
postulates are included in the application of Boolean algebra to postulates. 

Boolean algebra has always been sufficient for understanding compulsive games play. So I simply
treat the postulates as if they were objects and classes of objects, and so forth, and the answers
come out right, of course, simply because in compulsive games the postulates can be handled as
if they are objects. The logic is the same. Now all this might seem very far-fetched and one might
be wondering what this has got to do with everyday life and every day auditing experience, and
so forth. Well it does have some very important ramifications, compulsive games play has. 

It  does  allow  us  to  get  a  tremendous  understanding  of  life.  For  example,  what  are  the
relationships in our XB postulate set when the games play is compulsive. When the XB class is
reduced to zero and the Not-X and the Not-B class is reduced to zero, and the set only consists of
X and Not-B or B and Not-X, just what is the relationship between X and B. 

Identifications in Compulsive Games Play 

Well the relationship between X and B is that X = Not-B, that is the relationship between the
postulates. Ouch! We have an identification in the set, an identification occurs within the set, in
the postulate set in compulsive games play. 

Once  compulsive  games  play  is  undertaken,  there's  an  identification  between  two  of  the
postulates in the set and the identification is between X and Not-B. X = Not-B and B = Not-X,
another identification* in the set. 

*In this case, "identification" would mean they are equal or identical.

In other word if the games play became compulsive in the 'To Know' goals package then 'To
Know' in the mind, would become identical with 'To Not be Known' and 'To be Known' would
become identical with 'To Not Know'. Now is there any justification for this, any application of
this, do we certainly see this sort of thing going on in everyday life? Indeed, we do... indeed we
do. 

Must be Known Identification 

Let us take an example of the person who is compulsively assertive. He's being known, he's
making his presence felt, he's laying down the law, he's thumping the table. Well if you've ever
met such a person or been in the presence of such a person you'll know one thing this person
cannot do. That is he cannot know anything. He cannot receive any communication while he's in
that state of mind.

So he's in a state of 'Must be Known' and 'Not Know' and the two are identical. While he's in the
state of 'Must be Known' he's in a state of 'Not Know'. So he can't know, he can't receive any
communications, while he's in this state of compulsive 'Must be Known'. 

If you've ever tried to talk to an angry person you'll see this same thing. He's assertive, he's
angry. You can't get through to him while he's angry. He's got to cool down. Once he cools down
then you can talk to him, converse with him. He'll then receive more messages. But while he's in
this state of compulsive 'Must be Known' he can't receive messages, simply because 'Must be
Known' equals 'To Not Know'. The identification is in the set. 

Must Know Identification 

All right let's give another example in the 'To Know' goals package the 'Must Know' postulate
can  become  compulsive.  And  when  the  person  becomes  compulsive  'Must  Know'  can  be
associated with the person wanting to hide. We get the example of the old lady peering out
from behind her curtains and watching people walking up and down the road. You see? We get
the  nosey  parker*  hiding  in the  bushes,  You  see?  Compulsive 'Must  Know'  with  compulsive
'Mustn't be Known'. So 'Must Know', 'Mustn't be Known' become the identification there. 

Nosey Parker: a London park groundskeeper (parker) who spies on young lovers in the park. 

Mustn't be Known Identification 

Also, in the 'To Know' goals package when it becomes compulsive a person who is in a state of
'Mustn't be Known', in a state of hiding, you'll find that they are always furtively looking out to
see if anyone is looking at them. 

Everyone's aware of this phenomena of the person in compulsive hiding. The person's hiding in a
house say, they've got all the shutters drawn, the urge to put aside a shutter and peer outside
and see if anyone's looking in is almost irresistible. You see? The 'To Not be Known' is identified...
is equal to, is identified with the postulate 'To Know'. 

Must Not Know Identification 

Finally, in the 'To Know' goals package the person is dramatizing 'To Not Know' he's highly
rejective, highly rejecting, well he's going to be noisy. I don't know whether you've noticed this,
you probably have, but all protestors are noisy. I've never heard of people quietly protesting. 

Well, a protestor is dramatizing a 'Not Know' postulate and he does it noisily. There's no such
thing as a quiet protestor. See? 

'Not Know' is identical with 'Must be Known' and 'Must be Known' is assertive, so he's asserting
his protest because the 'Not Know' postulate is identified with the 'Must be Known' postulate. 

Summary 

So we have plenty of validation of this datum from the basic 'To Know' goals package, and it
applies to every other goals package too, I can assure you. It's not peculiar to the 'To Know' goals
package that identification is there in compulsive games play. 

That the X = Not-B and  B = Not-X in the postulate set in the goals package. In terms of
propositions; the propositions are: 

Identification and Dianetics 

43 years ago in 1950 Ron Hubbard published a book called "Dianetics Modern Science of Mental
Health" and in that book he postulated a thing called the reactive mind and he said that the logic
of the reactive mind contains an identification of A=A=A. You recall that? In Dianetics it was one
of the foundation stones of Ron's reactive mind theory, was the identification in the reactive
bank "A=A=A" and the analytical mind, he said, didn't contain this identification. The reactive
bank was locked into a fixed identification pattern. Now, could it be. Could it just be! Could it just
be that when we look at compulsive games play with  the compulsive identification in the
postulate set, are we looking at the same phenomena that Ron Hubbard was looking at when he
said that a reactive bank contains an identification of A=A=A?* Could it be? 

*In Dianetics, the "Reactive Mind" stored experiences of pain and unconsciousness known as
"engrams". These engrams contained identifications wherein everything in an incident was equal
to everything else. If one was hit on the head with a baseball bat, the reactive mind would equate
the bat with the head, the pain, the person who hit him, etc. and Hubbard called this the A=A=A
of the reactive mind. The reactive mind is also known as the "reactive bank" or simply "the bank".

The analytical mind, or the rational thinking mind the person is aware of does not contain such
identifications. Hubbard said that the analytical mind thinks in terms of differences and similarities
and the reactive mind in terms of identities (meaning it had these identifications in it of one thing
being identified as another, or everything in it is equal).

Yes it is! It is! We are looking at exactly the same phenomena when we're looking at compulsive
games play we're looking at the A=A=A of the reactive mind. Now Ron, Dear Ron, for all his 

tremendous qualities as a man, as a researcher and he was a genius, but he was no logician, and
he was unable to put this subject onto a logical foundation. 

I've been able to do this and been able to put this subject together, and we have got the subject
of postulates and the laws governing the postulates, games play, compulsive games play and the
identification and we're back where we were. We're now validating Ron's data of 1950. This is it!
This is it. We've found it. He never could find it. He could never explain why the reactive bank had
an A=A=A identification but now we know why it's in there. 

It comes from compulsive games play and we know how games play gets compulsive in the
universe from the postulate set. We have the whole thing now. We've got all the bits and all the
bits fit together, we've completed Ron's research on the subject of Dianetics in terms of the
identification in the reactive bank. So is it any wonder at Level 5 when we erase these goals
packages and break these false identifications in the postulate sets at Level 5, Level 5A and Level
5B where we erase the goals packages and break these identifications that we're just breaking
up the reactive mind itself?  Yes, exactly. That is exactly and precisely what we are doing. We're
breaking up the A=A of the bank. We're just tearing the bank apart at Level 5. 

The Double Bind 

There's a technical name we use for an identification in a postulate set or an identification in any
general set and that is a double bind, I use the term double bind to indicate a false identification.
A false identification is a double bind in a postulate set. 

The term double bind is not originally my own. I first came across the term double bind in a
reference to a book written by an anthropologist by the name of Gregory Bateson* who wrote a
book in the 1950's, I believe, or round about then 1940's, 1950's, and he used the term double
bind in terms of an identification. 

I don't know exactly how he used the term because I never read the book, I've only read
references to the book, but I do know he used it in terms of an identification so I'm carrying on
the use of the word when we talk about this false identification. 

*Gregory Bateson published 'Steps to an Ecology of Mind' in 1972.
You can also look up an article about him in Wikipedia that mentions the double bind.
Also note that Dennis Stephens elaborates on "double binds" in his lectures on Bond
Breaking, and talks a great deal about bondings in the mind in the lectures Bonding &
Bonding (Relationships).  Visit our lectures main page  for the recommended study
order.  An example of a "double bind" is when you need experience to get work, but
in order to get work you need experience. A is the condition for B, and B is the condition
for A.

False Identifications 

And it is false, I mean, let's face it, in a postulate set to say that 'To Know' is equal to 'To Not be
Known' and  that 'To be Known' is equal to 'To Not Know', I mean, let's be realistic these
identifications are false, they are false identifications. They are a pack of lies. They are whoppers
of the first order. They're false identifications. So when we call these false identifications of the
postulate set we call them double binds, double bondings, double binds. 

And one of the prime objects of Level 5A and Level 5B is to break these double binds in the
postulate sets, to break them in the reactive mind. To return the persons thinking back to the
rationality of non-compulsive games play and breaking the false identifications. To return to
being able to once again see similarities and differences between things, what Ron so beautifully
explained in Dianetics, that the analytical mind works in differences and similarities and the
reactive bank works in identifications. 

Exclusion Postulate 

Now there's just one final subject I want to cover on this matter of the compulsive game play,
and that is the subject of what's called the Exclusion Postulate. We see that when games play
becomes compulsive that there is always a false identification. 

That when the person is in one postulate he's actually in two postulates and it's called twin
postulate games play. It's a compulsive games player with twin postulate games play. He's quite
incapable of adopting only one postulate. Whenever he adopts one postulate he adopts its twin,
the one it is identified with so he is always in two postulates. 

He's in a games postulate and he's in this other postulate which is somewhat hidden, you don't
have to search for it very far, it's there if he's in a state of compulsive games play. And we call
this other postulate the Exclusion Postulate. 

Now, why do we call this postulate the Exclusion Postulate? Well simply because it excludes him,
it excludes the games player out of the class of the opponent. Out of the class he's trying to
drive the opponent into. 

In other words his games postulate is trying to drive the opponent into a certain postulate and
his exclusion postulate keeps him out of that class that he's trying to drive the opponent into. In
terms of the 'To Know' goals package if the person is operating on 'To be Known' and the games
player is compulsive, his opponent would be occupying 'To Not Know'. So the person occupying
'To be Known' would also be operating on a 'To Not Know' postulate but the 'To Not Know'
postulate will be keeping him out of the class that he's trying to drive the opponent into. 

Now you say, "Well, what the devil? Why doesn't he want to go into that class?" Why doesn't he
want to go into that class?" Well it's not particularly obvious in the 'To Know' goals package but
let's take a more destructive goals package. 

Let's take the goal 'to stab', now a person in a stabbing game has two things he wants to do he
wants to stab the opponent but he doesn't want to be stabbed. So the games play is compulsive.
He's occupying the class of 'to stab' and 'to not be stabbed'. 

His games postulate is 'to stab' and his exclusion postulate is 'to not be stabbed' and the
postulate 'to not be stabbed' keeps him out of the class of 'to be stabbed' which is the class he's
trying to drive the opponent into. 

The opponent's in the class of 'to not be stabbed' and he's trying to drive this guy from 'to not be
stabbed' into 'to be stabbed'. 

But the last thing the games player wants is to end up in that class himself. You see that? He
doesn't want to be stabbed. 

We call it an exclusion postulate. That is the best name for the postulate. So, when we look at
compulsive games play we're looking at twin postulate games play. The second postulate is
always  there.  There's the games postulate and the exclusion postulate and the exclusion
postulate is always identical to the opposition postulate of the games postulate. The exclusion
postulate is identical to the opposition of the games postulate. 

In other words if his games postulate is 'to stab' the opposition postulate is 'to not be stabbed'.
Well that's exactly what his exclusion postulate will be. So he's in two postulates. 

Now one of the reasons I've cut this tape for you is that these exclusion postulates; this twin
postulate games play shows up with a vengeance when you start dealing with some of the junior
goals packages at Level 5B, and it can show up at Level 5A and you start wondering what the
hell's going on when you find these. 

The person will find  themselves in two postulates. They've got their games postulate and
suddenly this other postulate turns up which is the opposition postulate and they're sitting there
saying, "Oh my god what am I doing with the opponents postulate?" so this is why I'm explaining
it, it's an exclusion postulate. This is how I discovered it. 

It was only later that I put the logic together. First of all I discovered it empirically*. I found it in
auditing**. I found it in session, then explained the phenomenon. The Exclusion Postulate. I first
realised what it was for and then I realised it was identification in the set, and put the set
together and got it all out. You see? It all started to come out. So, this is one of the reasons why I
am cutting this tape. 

*Empirically means with a basis in or reliance on information obtained through observation, experiment, or
experience.
**Although the term "auditing" is original to Scientology, Dennis will at times refer to his own work as
"auditing" even though the processes taught in "The Resolution of Mind a Games Manual" are referred to
as "exercises".

When the games play is compulsive there's always twin postulate games play, the person is in
two postulates. He's got a game postulate, whatever that game postulate is and there will be an
exclusion postulate that sits there too and keeps him out of the class that he's trying to drive the
opponent into, keeps him out of that class.*

*Or you could just as well say (as a Scientologist might put it), when one is in a games condition,
one is trying to create an effect on his opponent that he doesn't want his opponent to effect
upon him.

Or if you want to put it the other way the exclusion postulate is identical to the opposition
postulate  to  the  game  postulate.  It's  identical  to  the  opposition  postulate  to  the  game
postulate. So we can see two players in compulsive games play, going back to our XB set. The
first player is in the class of X and he's got an X games postulate and a Not-B exclusion postulate
and  the  other  player  opposing  him  has  got  a  Not-B  games  postulate  and  an  X  exclusion
postulate, and there the two have ding-donged at each other. 

The general rule of compulsive games play is that in any game there's only one games class
involved. In other words there's only two postulates involved between the two players. He's
using X as a games postulate and Not-B as an exclusion postulate and his opponent is using Not-
B as a games postulate and X as an exclusion postulate. So there are only those two postulates
involved in any game. They have got two of them and they've both got the same two but one of
them is using one as a games postulate and he's got the other one as an exclusion postulate and
the other guy is using the other one as his games postulate and he's got the other one as his
exclusion postulate. 

It's a little bit complicated to explain it but it's very simple when you write it down and when you
draw it out on a piece of paper. You see the exclusion postulate and you see why I called it an
exclusion  postulate  because  it  keeps  the  person  out  of  the  class  he's  trying  to  drive  the
opponent into. 

When games play becomes compulsive it can become very undesirable to end up in that class. A
person might be committing some pretty nasty overt acts in compulsive games play and the last
place he wants to end up is to be in the same class as the opponent is being driven into. You
know? Like the example of the stabbing, you know. It's all right to go around stabbing people but
it's not all right to be stabbed. 

You know it's all right for Adolf Hitler to kill 6 million Jews but one thing Hitler didn't want to be
was a dead Jew, one that had just been gassed in one of Hitler's gas chambers. You know. That
was an intolerable place for him to be. You see? I'm sure Hitler had a very strong exclusion
postulate to not be gassed, to not be a gassed Jew. [Chuckle] So much for that. 

Twin Postulates in 5A Therapy 

The question arises, does this subject of twin postulate games play make any slightest difference
to Level 5A, the actual techniques of Level 5A practical? Nope, not in the slightest, once you
become aware that they exist you just do the technique exactly as I've given it. The fact that
you're operating on twin postulates doesn't have anything to do with it. You treat them as single
postulates then you win, every time. 

Now you don't have to do anything about these twin postulates just know them as theory and
know that they are a part of compulsive games play. You do Level 5A and Level 5B exactly as I've
given it. It comes apart that way and it won't come apart any other way I can assure you because
the twin postulates of compulsive games play is based upon a false identification. 

It's got a lie built into it. The identification is false so any attempt to introduce twin postulates
into therapy is doomed to failure because you're simply dramatizing the lie. The truth is single
postulates. You'll win at Level 5A and Level 5B when you work with single postulates. You lose all
the time if you try and introduce twin postulates* to Level 5A and Level 5B, so just note that
down. I've tried it. I've tested it all, it only works on single postulates so don't try mucking about
at Level 5A and Level 5B with twin postulates. You'll just knock yourself into apathy and make
yourself miserable. You're just dramatizing the lie. Just dramatizing the A=A=A of the reactive
bank. 

*Do not confuse 'twin postulates' with 'pan-determined postulates'. The twin postulates, for
example, are a games postulate plus the exclusion postulate (like postulating 'must be
known' and at the same time postulating 'must not know'. Those are both self-determined
postulates. The compulsive games player, for example, can make a self-determined postulate
of 'must be known" and a pan-determined postulate of 'must know' on the opponent
(games postulate) and at the same time a 'must not know' self-determined postulate which
in turn is a pan-determined postulate of 'must not be known' for the opponent.

So, when running level 5A, for instance, you still want to put your pan-determined postulates on
your opponent when running each level of the chart. Do NOT use exclusion postulates.

Troubleshooting Level 5 

Now, finally I want to end up this tape with just a word on the practical of Level 5 here, and
relate it to what we've been talking about. When you get some area of the bank or the mind
which simply refuses to come apart at Level 5, Level 5A, Level 5B, Level 5C, doesn't matter what
it is. 

You sweat at it and it simply refuses to erase. Then search for the double bind, look for the false
identification. You should have that written up on your auditing room wall, "Search for the
double bind." It's always present, there's always a false identification in there somewhere. 

You've got a goals package with a false identification in it, with compulsive games play in it and
there's a false identification in there somewhere and that is the cause of why it won't come apart
Now this is absolutely fundamental, it's the only thing that will stop it from erasing at Level 5.
There's nothing else that will stop it. You've simply got a false identification in it and you haven't
spotted it. It's in there somewhere. You're going to have to find it. 

You know you may get to Level 5C, this happens quite often, you get some object there at Level
5C you’re trying to erase it and you can't erase it at Level 5C, well it's probably associated with a
goals package which has got a false identification in it. You know, the object has got itself mixed
up in games play with this goals package and has become important to the goals package. And
the goals package has got itself important to the object. And the object has got itself related to
this goals package and the games play in the goals package has become compulsive and you
can't get rid of the object in the mind. 

Well what you've got to do, you’ve got to knuckle down and erase that goals package. Then the
object will vanish, it will erase easily. There are no exceptions to this rule. If it's not coming apart
at Level 5A, B, or C there's a double bind, there's a false identification and there's a goals
package  here  somewhere  and  you  haven't  erased  the  goals  package.  There's  a  false
identification and it's to do with the goals package there. There's a goals package with a false
identification in it, which is associated with this area and it simply won't come apart until you
break the identification in the goals package. 

So don't try and put me through hoops, poor old Ron Hubbard used to be put through hoops on
this,  you  know,  people  write  in  and  say,  "I've  done  all  your  techniques  Ron,  and  nothing
happened" and poor Ron had to burn the midnight oil. 

Well I'm not going to go through hoops on this one cause I know, I've burned the midnight oil
myself on this and there aren't any exceptions. If it doesn't come apart at Level 5 then you
haven't  completed  Level  5.  There's  a  false  identification,  there's  a  goals  package  in  there
somewhere and with a false identification and that's all that can stop it from erasing at Level 5. 

That is very important data.  It's only this A=A=A of the bank, this  false  identification  of
compulsive games play that can prevent erasure at Level 5 and that is what Level 5 is there to
take apart. 

It needs this powerful technique of Level 5 to break this false identification in the goals package.
Only Level 5 will break it, but sometimes you get stuck on the false identification and you say,
"Well Level 5's not enough to break it." Well, it is, if you back it up to the right area it is powerful
enough to break it. So it's no good trying to put me through hoops on this one. 

If you write to me and say, "Well I tried it all and I still got this thing and it won't erase at Level 5."
I'll say, "Well, just complete Level 5. Go back and go through Level 5A again. Go back through
Level 5B. Find another goals package, there's one there somewhere." And the chances are that
it's one of these goals packages that I happen to know has a false identification in it. 

Like the 'To Sex' goals package. I happen to know that one has a false identification in it. Ever
since human beings adopted gender specialization and human beings were born either as males
or females it's got a built in false identification, that goals package has. 

So if you get anything associated with sex and it won't erase well just erase that, because if you
erase that 'To Sex' goals package then it will all come apart. I've been through all these hoops
myself, Greg, on this one you know. 

I burnt the midnight oil, I've said to myself, "Dennis, there's got to be other techniques here to
take these things apart." and, "I can't get this apart." Every time I've said that and I've looked into
it further, I've realised I've come across a god damned false identification of a goals package
there which I hadn't spotted and once I took the false identification apart, took the compulsive
games play apart, erased the goals package, it all came apart swimmingly. It all came apart
exactly as the textbook said. 

So I wanted to say those final words on this subject. It's all there at Level 5A, B and C plus the
little bits I've given you, that little addendum I gave you there. It's all there, you don't need any
other practical to take a bank apart. 

Level 6 

I'll say it now, if I ever come up with a Level 6. It won't be anything to do with taking the bank
apart it will be to do with something quite different. It will be something to do with the anatomy
of creating sensations or something like that. It will be something quite different than this whole
subject of the reactive bank because as far as I'm concerned that is a solved problem at Level 5.
Level 5 ends that. 

You start taking the bank apart at Level 1, you continue with Levels 2, 3, 4. You finish it at Level 5
and when you're finished Level 5 that's the end of the bank. It's gone. There's nothing else there. 

There's no bank. There's no more bank left, that's it. And if there's still bank there, then you
haven't completed Level 5. 

Now that's my final words on the subject and I'm not going to be burning midnight oil on the
subject. I've done enough burning of midnight oil on my own bank without burning midnight oil
on other people's. So I see I'm getting to the end of this tape Greg, so all the best for now and ta
ta. 

End of tape 

The theory of "The Exclusion Postulate" is extensively utilized in our series of "TROM Talk" videos on dating, sex and relationships on our YouTube Channel:

PLAYLIST FOR MEN       PLAYLIST FOR WOMEN

RETURN TO LECTURES MAIN PAGE