THE PHIILOSOPHY OF TROM

Okay, I'd now like to take up the subject of the philosophy of TROM – philosophy of TROM. I'm
very grateful to Terry Scott who reminded me of the importance of this subject in a taped
communication to me; and he felt there's a definite need for a look at the subject, into the
philosophy of TROM. Well, I agree with Terry. And so here we go, we're going to talk now about
the philosophy of TROM. 

Let me say at once that the theory of TROM is quite consistent with the theory of Scientology,
and there's no areas, really, were they are at variance at all – with the possible… no, with a
definite exception that there's one of the axioms which definitely does not apply in TROM. 

But I suspect that Ron in his later years, himself, would have suspected that there's something
odd about that axiom. Because I used to talk to Ron even in the early fifties - and when we used
to skirt around the subject of that axiom - and there's things he said then that made me suspect
that he felt there was something odd about it. 

Anyway, the axiom is Axiom 31 in Scientology, and this is the axiom which (raised?) [postulates]
that goodness and badness, beauty and ugliness are alike considerations and have no other basis
than opinion – that is Axiom 31 of the Scientology axioms. And this axiom tells us that goodness
and badness is really relative to the situation. In other words, it's entirely a matter of opinion,
that there's no basis for goodness or badness, or beauty and ugliness in the universe… that
there's no basis. 

Well now, discounting the subject of beauty and ugliness, for which I would be inclined to say
that the second part of the axiom is true - but I haven't studied it all that much - but I would say
that if the axiom simply read, "Beauty and ugliness are alike considerations and have no other
basis than opinion," I would agree with that. 

But it's the first part, goodness and badness that sticks in the craw. Now this is a very old
philosophical point that Ron hit when he hit Axiom 31. I don't know whether he knew that he'd
hit a very old philosophical argument. I missed it at the time. It wasn't until a number of years
later that I realised there was a flaw in this axiom. 

It wasn't really until I started to get down to my own research that I began to seriously doubt the
validity of the first part of that axiom. And I hadn't got too far into my own research before I
realised that the first part of Axiom 31 is in error; it's simply wrong. 

This is why it works: if you say that all goodness and all badness are simply a matter of opinion,
then you stop all possibility of social comment. You know, you can't then point your finger at
something and say, "Well, I consider that bad." The person would say, "Yes, that's fine, but it's
simply your opinion that it's bad, and I consider it to be good." You see that? 

And, bang, you have immediately… you've destroyed the whole subject of morality and ethics in
one swoop, just like that. You've just wiped them off the face of the planet. You see that? Once
you say that goodness and badness are simply a matter of opinion you've just destroyed all social
comment, you can't comment about an action. 

Because the person could immediately say, "Axiom 31!" He could invoke Axiom 31. So, "Well,
look, these things are simply a matter of opinion. You consider it's bad, I consider it's good." And
there's no absolutes on the subject. Well, not so much as no absolutes, but it's simply a matter of
opinion, simply a matter of opinion. "I know my opinion's as good as yours, old chap," he can say. 

So you can't comment on an action. Now, that is a very dangerous way to run a society, I can
assure you. Societies tend to collapse when this is adhered to. If you were to try and run a society
on that basis it would run itself into a hole, it would run itself into a hole rather rapidly. 

And societies that have tried to live like that, the hedonistic type – usually this concept is
associated with hedonism: that whatever I do is right and whatever you do is right, and it's all a
matter of opinion, and we all live for today for tomorrow we die. It's a hedonistic philosophy. And
no society has ever flourished using that philosophy. It simply leads to the graveyard, very, very
quickly… very, very quickly. The society just collapses. It just falls apart. 

Usually it just falls apart into bloody conflict. That's an end to the society and something more
stable takes its place. In other words, it's not a workable, it's not a practical proposition. So the
first part of Axiom 31 is a fault. 

So with the possible exception of that TROM and the body of data of Scientology are consistent
with  each  other.  And  all  we  can  really  say  is  that  TROM  bears  the  same  relationship  to
Scientology say as, oh, say Einstein's relativity theory bears to Newtonian mechanics. It's just a
smoother way of looking at it, and a much faster and a much more practical way of getting the
job done. 

But it does contain some more fundamental truths which were missing from Scientology and so
tended to limit the application of Scientology. I suppose, logically speaking, from a philosophical
viewpoint, you could put - with the exception of these odd little bits and pieces like the first bit
of Axiom 31 - you could put Scientology within TROM. 

But you can't put TROM within Scientology, because there's data in TROM which is not known in
Scientology. But there's everything that's known in Scientology - you'll find this in TROM. You'll

find that it's all in there. So the senior subject is TROM, I can assure you. It's the senior subject.
But Scientology, with a few exceptions, is quite consistent with TROM, is quite consistent with it. 

So we do have a philosophical background there, the philosophical background of Scientology.
But we can actually take the technology of TROM, and from it get a much, much more workable
philosophy than Scientology could ever have. 

And god, Ron worked hard at this subject with the philosophy of Scientology. He really did over
the years burn the midnight oil there to try and get a philosophy of Scientology. And in his latter
years he even started to get into this subject of ethics, you know, and started to say what was
ethical, yet in his own axiom, Axiom 31 - first part of Axiom 31 - says that goodness and badness
are all alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion. 

Yet here he was in the latter days of Scientology expounding a code of ethics. Well, this is
inconsistency in his own field, and he paid for it. He paid for it. You can't teach the students,
make them learn Axiom 31 by heart on the one hand, and on the other hand insist that they
abide by a code of ethics. They're two things that are logically inconsistent with each other. You
see that? There's these logical inconsistencies that caught up with him in the final years. 

Well, we're not going to fall for these logical inconsistencies of that type. We simply do not say
that goodness and badness are simply a matter of opinion. We know that there is the subject of
goodness and badness, we do know that there's such a thing as ethics. You will find in TROM a
code of ethics. It's written up quite firmly in TROM. And as you live by this code you flourish. And
if you don't live by that code, the further you run your life away from that code the less you
flourish. 

But we in TROM, we can go much, much further than that code of ethics when we talk about the
philosophy of TROM. The key to the philosophy of TROM lies at Level 5 and the subject of the
goals packages. There is an enormous amount of philosophical material there which is readily
available once you come to study the goals packages, which gives you the basic philosophy of life
which comes from TROM. 

Things you’d never believe, never dreamed - and were never dreamt of by Ron in Scientology -
stand like steering beacons at you when you study the goals packages, the true goals packages
that we know exist in Level 5 at TROM. 

Let's start working and looking at some of these goals packages and this basic idea of the
philosophy of TROM. When we look at Level 5, we find Level 5A, we find the 'To Know' goals
package; and then at Level 5B we find a whole mass of junior goals packages, the vast majority of
which are un-erasable and a tiny proportion of which are erasable. Now, the first datum that
interests us here, and which becomes a part of our basis of our philosophy of TROM, is this 

datum that you cannot successfully base your life upon an un-erasable goals package. You follow
that? 

Now that's a very, very important philosophical datum, that is. It's a survival datum. It's more
than just something that you sit around and idly talk about in the coffee shops, you know. It's
something which is raw survival in this universe. Basing your life upon an un-erasable goals
package is a death sentence in this universe. It's a death sentence. It really is. I couldn't stress it
more strongly; couldn't stress it more strongly. 

Now, this isn't something wishy-washy. This is something you can prove. You can prove it. You've
only got to try and erase one of these un-erasable junior goals packages to demonstrate to
yourself quite conclusively that what I say is utterly true. You take the goal 'to hate', say. It's
quite un-erasable. Its legs are 'to hate', 'to not hate', 'to be hated' and 'to not be hated'. And sit
down and try to erase that as a goals package using the technology of Level 5 - and it will kill you. 

And if you were to get into life and take up this subject of 'hating' and make that your main spur,
your main purpose that was driving you, your main thing that was driving you through life was
this urge 'to hate', and so forth, you would equally kill yourself. 

So, now here is something of vast interest, isn't there, vast practical interest as a philosophy of
life there. So it'd be kind of very important to know which goals packages are erasable and which
are un-erasable. Well, I can tell you: there's only about - I sat down one day a few years ago and I
counted them up. There's about twenty-five or thirty erasable junior goals packages, the most
important of which are listed in the write-up - the most important of them are listed in the write-
up. 

If you only had the ones that were listed in the write-up and you didn't know the rest of them
you'd be quite safe, because the remainder of them, they'd start to fall out the handle when you
work with the ones I've given you in the write-up. Because that's the way I found the others; by
working with the ones that are in the write-up - the main ones are in the write-up. 

You know, the goals 'To Create', 'To Love', 'To Admire', and so forth, the whole list of them (you'll
find them in the write-up.) You work with those, and you'll quickly come across the remainder.
But all of the remainder are quite subsidiary, quite supplementary. 

I've given you - the most important of the junior goals packages are in that write-up of TROM.
You can safely ignore the rest, but you will discover them when you work with the ones in the
write-up. The only junior goals package that should have been included in the write-up and never
got included - because I didn't spot it in time; I got the whole thing typed up before I researched
that area - was the junior goals package, the 'To Reason' goals package, 'To Reason'. 

The legs of this goals package are: 'To Reason', 'To Not Reason', 'To be Reasoned', 'To Not be
Reasoned'. Note the purpose there is 'To be Reasoned', not 'to be reasonable'; not, repeat, not 

'to be reasonable'. The goals package is 'To Reason', 'To Not Reason', 'To be Reasoned', 'To Not
be Reasoned'. 

That is the 'To Reason' goals package. Because that is a beautiful little goals package, and it
should belong… it belongs on the main list, and you should add it to the main list; and it's a
specific one. The whole subject of reason and logic becomes an absolute joy after you've erased
that goals package, where prior to the erasure of that goals package logic and reason can be a
very mysterious subject. 

But the whole subject of logic and reason becomes an absolute joy like poetry after you've
erased that goals package. So it's a very worthwhile goals package to erase, and that's why it
belongs on the main list, and why it's unfortunate I couldn't get it on the main write-up. But
nevertheless, if you work with the ones that are on the write-up you would come across the goal
'To Reason' eventually and realise that it is erasable and you realise how important it is and you
would add it to your list of erasable goals. 

So there's only that tiny number of goals which are erasable. Now you can base your life on any
one of those, or any number, any combination of those goals, the positive legs of those goals,
and you'd be all right. You could survive in the universe. There's no liability to working with the
positive legs of the 'To Know' goals package, or the positive legs of any of the junior goals
packages. There's absolutely no liability to it, they're quite safe. They're all survival, they're all
'life packages', as I call them that we know them in TROM. They're life packages. 

But when you pick up a dictionary, the first thing you're struck by is the vast number of other
goals mentioned in the dictionary - as in verbs. All these verbs, they're all goals, they're all
purposes. Well, a large number of them are synonyms for the life goals, they're the synonyms for
the junior goals packages. But there's an equally or an even vaster number which are completely
un-erasable. 

And the majority of verbs in the English language cannot be formulated into erasable goals
packages. And if you were to base your life on any one of those purposes you'd be running
yourself on a one-way trip to the graveyard. 

Now this is what I'm talking about when I'm talking about the philosophy of TROM. Here is a way
of life, here is a philosophy of life, based upon goals packages which are erasable, goals packages
which are un-erasable. It's simply a matter of discovering whether the goals package is erasable
or un-erasable. 

If it's un-erasable you keep away from it like the plague. You simply don't get involved with it.
That's the entire secret. You keep away from goals packages which are un-erasable. You don't
have anything to do with them. You might as well cut your throat, you know that. So you don't

get involved with those goals packages that are un-erasable. Because you don't use them in
games play and don't get involved with them, you're immune to them and you survive well. 

Now the only unfortunate thing about all this is that the philosophy doesn't become particularly
real to a person until they get into Level 5. And Level 5 is a fair way up the line for the average
person in therapy. 

It may not be far up the line for a person who's had a lot of Scientology auditing - they may get to
Level 5 within, oh, I don't know, ten, twenty, thirty hours of running solo. They may get there.
That would be unusual. But it's possible. 

For a person who's never had any psychotherapy, it's going to take them longer than that to get
up to Level 5. And it's no good rushing it. They're not going to do any good on Level 5 until
they're ready for it. So they've got to work through the steps. So it's just unfortunate that our
philosophy, the philosophy in TROM, is based upon material which is going to be a little bit
unreal to people until they've got to the upper levels of our subject. Now that is unfortunate. I
wish it wasn't that way. But, unfortunately, I can't make it any other way than it is. 

We can't run our tech any other way. It doesn't run any other way. Got to do Levels 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - in
that sequence. You might say that the fault lies in the fact that the humans on this planet are in
such god damn lousy case shape. If they were in better case shape they could get onto Level 5
rather quickly. You see that? That's the problem. 

The fault lies not in our tech, but in the material we have to apply the tech to. So it's not a
technical failure. It's just that the people of earth, the people of this planet, the humans, have
never really taken much thought on the subject of the state of their case. Good little compulsive
games players that they are, they're always much more concerned with what's going on out that
way rather than concerned with what's going on inside them. 

Two Types of Games Player 

You know, you always know the compulsive games player: he always looks exterior to himself for
the solutions to his problems. This is almost a definition of a compulsive games player. You know
them by that. You know them by that: they look exterior to themselves for the solutions to their
problems. They never look into themselves to solve their problems. They always look for the
quick fix out that way. That's the compulsive games player. 

The non-compulsive games player, he doesn't live his life like that. He may look outside exterior
to himself for the solution to his problem, but he's just as likely to look inside himself for the
solution to his problem. 

He may use either; he has the choice. He can do both. That differentiates it. 

So, when you come across that, when you come across a person who endlessly looks exterior to
themselves for the solution of their problems, know that this person is a compulsive games
player. And this person is going to take a fair while on the earlier steps of TROM before they can
get up to Level 5. They're just not going to get up to Level 5 until they've broken this pattern.
They've got to start looking at themselves. They've got to start working through these lower
steps - and that means looking at themselves. 

They're going to have to break this lifelong habit of the quick fix over that way, quick fix over
that way. They go for the long-term fix over this way, not the quick fix over that way. That's
TROM. 

Another way you can tell the compulsive games player is the amount of - he needs to be
stimulated by his environment - the amount of stimulation he needs from the environment. The
compulsive games player has a tremendous need to be stimulated by his environment, where the
non-compulsive games player has far, far less need to be stimulated by his environment. And by
the time he's finished the five Levels of TROM his need to be stimulated by the environment is
very tiny indeed and is completely under his control, completely under his control. 

So there's two quick indicators for the compulsive games player, just to give them to you in
passing: is the quick fix over that way - always looking exterior to themselves for the solution to
his problems - and a high need to be stimulated by the environment, and so on. You see that?
They're quick indicators of the compulsive games player. And the higher that compulsion of
games play is the more time they're going to have to spend on the lower Levels of TROM, the
more they're going to have to sweat on Levels 2 and 3 of TROM - 2, 3, 4, but mainly 2 and 3. 

The compulsive games player has a rough time at Level 2. He really does. That's the one. As I said
from the write-up: it separates the men from the boys. And that's the one that sorts them out,
sorts out the compulsive games player, is Level 2. 

The non-compulsive  games player sails through  Levels  2 and  3 quite comfortably. But  the
compulsive games player has a lot of trouble, because they make him look inwards, they make
him look at his mind, and that's the one thing he will not do. He will only look exterior to himself
for a quick fix to his problems, and Level 2 won't let him do that. 

It simply says, "Look at your mind; just evaluate these things in your mind; start looking at your
postulates and considerations; what's the structure of your mind that you're working on? Let's
look at these things, not keep looking out that way to a fix for your problems. Let's fix them…
You fix them! Your mind, you fix them." That's TROM. 

But to return to our main line, which is the subject of the philosophy of TROM and the subject of
the goals packages. Don't miss it: our philosophy of TROM is governed by the data at Level 5 -
governed by this data at Level 5 and the goals packages. It completely dominates the philosophy 

of TROM, completely dominates it. And the only other philosophy of TROM would be what you
will find in Scientology. 

You know, the general (what might be called the background) philosophy, which is common to
Scientology and TROM. But the philosophy that differentiates TROM from Scientology is the
philosophy that comes from the goals packages at Level 5. And once the person gets to Level 5
they can easily - we have all the tests for the un-erasable goals package at Level 5B that, you
know, is the… well, the test is there, you know: "Is it opposed?" 

Is the 'To Blank' leg of the goal opposed to the 'To be Known' leg of the basic package. That's the
first test; it's a very fundamental test. That's the first test any person will use when they get to
Level 5. 

Later on is the ionisation test, which I've covered in the supplementary lectures, where the -
people will discover the ionisation test for themselves. And the ionisation test, the subject of
ionisation is very, very simple. Yes, just briefly to reiterate the ionisation test: the ionisation test
is based upon the fact that the positive legs of any erasable goals package will ionise mass white
or coloured, whereas all four legs of an un-erasable goals package will ionise a mass black. 

And the negative legs of erasable goals packages will also ionise a mass black. So all one has to
do is to simply feed - when one wants to test a goals package to find out if it's erasable using the
ionisation test - one just simply feeds/floods any old mass in the universe, just flood any old mass
in your mind with the postulates, the legs, one by one, the legs of the goals package. If all four
legs ionise the mass black then this is an un-erasable goals package - the decision's final. 

It's not because I say so; it's just a factor of the universe, it's just the way this universe is
constructed. The ionisation test is a much simpler test than the test that's given in the write-up.
But unfortunately, a person has to be in fairly good case shape to use the ionisation test. So
anyone that had been at Level 5 for a while, they can use it. 

And the idea of putting postulates into a mass is real to them that they can use the ionisation
test. Prior to that they must use the test given in the write-up, to actually judge if the 'To Blank'
leg of the package to be tested is opposed to the 'To be Known' leg of the basic package. They
have to just think about that. 

Well, it's a valid test, it's a good test. It got me by, it saved my life, that test did. It's a good test.
But the ionisation test is a better test. But, again, it's not available, and it's not available to the
person, until the person's well into Level 5. It's not a technical failure, this, again. It's only
because of the rather poor case shape of human beings. 

If human beings in our society in the last two thousand years had spent more time dealing with
the mind and researching the subject of the human mind, and less time researching black boxes
and so forth out that way, we would already have a large body of knowledge of the human 

psyche extend on the planet. And people would be in better case shape and these things
would've been much easier, you see? But we haven't got that. We've got a society that's quietly
going mad, or noisily going mad, and they need psychotherapy. They need therapy. They don't
believe they need it, but they do. They sure as hell need it. 

There's no quick fixes over that way; they ran out of quick fixes over that way. And their survival
is dependent upon their sanity - it always has been. Their survival is dependent upon their sanity.
And our society is not becoming more sane, it's becoming less sane. 

The other morning I heard on the radio there, I heard - they were talking about American society,
and the chap he said that one thing about the Americans, he said… he said there they are, he
said  they've  got…  two  per  cent  of  the  American  population  are  winning,  and  they're  all
billionaires; the other ninety-eight per cent of the society are losers and they haven't got much
at all, he says, and the whole society are armed to the teeth. 

Now, he said, what the Yanks can't see is that that's a recipe for disaster. Well, the man who said
that is quite right. But the Yanks can't see it. They still persist on running their society on the
basis of two per cent winners, ninety-eight per cent losers and everyone carrying a gun. Well, it's
a recipe for disaster. You see that? 

But only if you're sane can you see it. If you happen to be fixated into the goals 'to exploit' and
the goals 'to profit' - and they're all un-erasable goals - if you happen to be fixated on those
goals, like the Yanks are, then you'll never get your society straight, you see. The society just runs
itself into the ground. They can't see it, but people standing off and looking at America can see
the faults of America, but the Americans can't. 

You know, they have violent riots in their towns. In Los Angeles they have riots, you know. It
didn't do anything for them. All it meant was that they had to get down and photograph the riots
and get the riots on the TV screen so everyone could see the riots, they could all stand around
and say how bad it all was. But it never occurred to them that that was a signal to do something
about their society. No, it's quite unreal to them. The only thing they understand is their
postulates of their un-erasable goals packages that they're stuck in: they got to make a profit,
they got to exploit, you see? They're stuck in it. They can't get out of it, can't look outside of it. 

Which is the awful thing about the person getting stuck in an un-erasable goals package. The
dreadful thing is that the person can't think outside of it in the end. They get stuck into it.
They're so stuck in the un-erasable goals package, and it's killing them. And they can't stop killing
themselves. 

It's like the alcoholic who's drinking himself to death. He's on the same skid - he's on the same
skid row. He can't stop drinking. Yet the drink is killing him. Yet he can't stop drinking. Well, that's

a perfectly good analogy of a person who's stuck dramatizing, and stuck in the legs of an un-
erasable goals package. 

The goals package is killing him, but he's totally addicted to this way of life, he's totally addicted
to the legs of this goals package, and he can't get out of it. Even if you show him a way out, he
can't get out. He can't get out of it. His only way out of it is to dig himself out with something like
TROM, and get himself out that way. He sees enough people around him digging themselves out
of their problems using TROM and eventually he'll try it, too. 

And he realises that it does work: he doesn't have to do it this way, he doesn't have to be in this
goals package which is killing him. You see that? Now that's the philosophy of TROM. 

On an educational basis, we simply have to discover the un-erasable goals packages, and we
simply educate children, school, tell them that… and give them the technical reasons why, that
you can't get involved in this activity. It's no good - tell the kids - it's no good going around and
hating; no good going around and destroying; it's no good going around and exploiting; it's no
good going around and profiting. 

All these are un-erasable things; they'll kill you. We can't run a society that way. And we can
prove it. And here it is - teacher writes it all up on the blackboard. He teaches them TROM. There
it all is. The children can test it in their own minds, and see it's all there. You see that? There's the
philosophy on an educational level. 

You could teach this to people. It could be taught at schools. Then our society would start to
come off it. See, at the moment we're like the person who believes in Axiom 31. We live in a
society  where people don't believe there's any  - that they  believe that just goodness and
badness are a matter of opinion. They don't believe there's such things as dangerous activities
that lead to the graveyard - except the most obvious things, like shooting yourself or jumping off
a cliff, and everyone knows that they're harmful. But they don't - the businessman doesn't realise
how harmful his goal to exploit is, which is the basis of his business activity. 

I mean business, as it's run in our society at this time - and Christ, business doesn't have to be run
this way - but business is run on the basis that the bottom line of business is to make a profit.
And profit is achieved by exploitation. 

That's the way it's run on this planet in the western society, western world at this time. They call
that business. It's a strange and peculiar variation on this subject of business: it's based upon
those two postulates of profit and exploitation. The bottom line is profit, and profit is achieved
by exploitation. And both of those goals packages are un-erasable. 

Now, it's not immediately obvious to a businessman that the problems in his life are brought
about by the fact that he's operating  upon un-erasable goals packages. It's insidious; very 

insidious. It's only as his life progresses that he realises that there's something wrong with his
life. 

And he can't see what it is. He doesn't know enough about life. He doesn't know about the goals
packages. He doesn't know that the purposes he's running on are non-life purposes. He doesn't
know enough about life. He doesn't know TROM. If he knew TROM he wouldn't do it. He'd rather
- you know, he'd do anything but do what he's doing. He'll realise the insidiousness of it, the
danger of it, the awfulness of what he's working himself into. And so his health collapses after a
number of years, you know. His life falls apart. You know, it all comes apart 'round his ears. And
he becomes an alcoholic, and he takes up drugs, he tries everything to try to make his life
bearable. And it just gets worse and worse and worse. It never occurs to him. He can't put his
finger on it. 

The trouble is that he's - all his troubles stem from the fact that he's basing his life upon profit
and exploitation. And they're un-erasable goals packages, they're non-life activities. The longer
he persists with them the more he's killing himself. All he's got to do is stop doing those two
things, if they're the things he's doing. He's only got to stop doing them and his life will start to
improve immediately. You see that? But he can't see that. You can't tell him; because his got a
whole mass of rationalisations and justifications for his activity, you see that: for his life, for his
profit and his exploitation and his business. You see? It's all heavily screened, and it's all built into
his psyche. And he's got a thousand reasons why, and a thousand justifications for everything he
does - even though everything he does is killing him. 

That's the problem when the person is in to an un-erasable goals package. Now that's what we're
up against… we're now talking about the philosophy of TROM. This is the philosophy of TROM.
What we've got to do - people have got to understand this. They won't really understand till they
get to Level 5 that it gets so awfully real to them, so terribly real. 

They realise that all the awful thing… I mean, when I got to it, it hit me. I realised that all the
terrible things that… when my life fell apart, all the times when my life ever fell apart was when I
got involved with un-erasable goals packages. While I was engaged with erasable goals packages
it was good roads and good weather. Life was fun, life was joy. Life was joy. Life is a joy. 

But every time I got involved with un-erasable goals packages and got into those, life became
serious, dull, apathetic, miserable, black, apathy, you name it. It all fell apart. You see that? That's
what happened to people. And that's what's happening to our planet. 

We have the technology in TROM to do something about it. We have the philosophy to do
something about it. And the philosophy lies in Level 5 - the subject of the erasable and un-
erasable goals packages. 

Because these are the purposes of life; all of these goals packages consist as purposes, and life
only consists of purposes. Life as we understand it - it's just life and purposes, you see. There's
nothing else in this universe but life and purposes. There's the life purposes and there's the non-
life purposes at the highest level. 

And you can play the game of life forever, with great fun and great enjoyment, as long as you
stay on the life purposes. But once you get off the life purposes and get into the non-life
purposes, which is the un-erasable goals packages, you're on the slippery slope to the graveyard. 

Now, that is important. There couldn't be any more important data to our society than this data
I'm giving you. It's all there in TROM. It's all there at Level 5A and Level 5B in the subject of the
erasable and the un-erasable goals packages. 

It's such a simple datum. It's such a great simplicity. But it leads - when it's applied, it's the
difference between a society that's rational and sane and can flourish or a society that is
eventually going to destroy itself. It's that difference. It's that important. 

Our society at the moment on this planet is sliding further and further into the un-erasable goals
packages. Life is becoming more and more desperate, more and more desperate. You can point
your finger at any number of causes of this. You can say it's because of the decline of religion,
the decline of Christianity - yes, that might be a part of it. It's because of the rising birth rate and
that we've got too many people on this planet - yes, that's a part of it. It can be due to this, it can
be lack of food, it can be due to any number of things. It could due to the holes in the ozone layer
- yes, that can be a part of it. Declining number of fish in the sea - yes, that can be a part of it. 

All these things can be a part of the problem. But essentially, what we have, in effect, is that
mankind is sliding more and more into un-erasable goals packages, he's basing his life upon un-
erasable goals packages. And these are non-survival, they're non-life goals packages, and they're
going to destroy him and destroy the society in which he lives. 

He's got to have to stop doing it. When he stops doing it life will improve. You see that? He
doesn't have to - the first thing he has to solve is get his purposes right, get the purposes right.
Then he can get the environment right. Mankind always tries to do it backwards. He tries to - he
always goes in for the fix over that way. 

He says, "Well, I can be sane and rational, but I've got to get the environment fixed up first." No-
no, no-no, no, you don't have to fix up the environment to become sane. You can become sane
without fixing the environment. You only need to apply a workable psychotherapy and you can
become  sane.  And  you  don't  have  to  fix  the  environment  in  order  to  apply  a  workable
psychotherapy. 

Anyone can sit down and use TROM, without having to go and fix up the environment. You see
that? It's just a… mankind is the great expert of solving problems over that way, but he never 

looks inwards. This is the weakness of the ape, the human ape, is that he's a cheerful little
extrovert, you might say. He's always looking over that way and solving, it's a business of black
boxes, solving problems, solving technical problems over that way. 

And he says, "We can get all these problems solved, and all these labour saving devices, and get
all these computers going, and marvellous things going, and we solve this, we solve that, and life
will get easy and everyone will be happy, and everyone will be fine, and the society will run
beautifully." And it doesn't work. It doesn't work. 

The more he solves over that way the worse his society's getting. This is because - this is only
because he's totally neglecting the inner world, the world of the postulates. He doesn't know
about those. He's never been interested in those. He doesn't know about these things. And
they're catching up with him. You see? That's what is happening to our society. 

He can solve the problem; it can be solved. It is solvable, by simply addressing the problem in
terms of the postulates. It's not too late to do that. It's never too late to do it. You can always
change your mind about a postulate, you see. It's never too late to change your mind. See that? It
can always work with a postulate. 

So there is the philosophy of TROM. This is the philosophy that differentiates TROM from
Scientology. It all boils down to this subject of the first part of Axiom 31 of Scientology, doesn't
it? It all gets round to that first bit. There is such a thing as good behaviour, and there is such a
thing - sorry... There is such a thing as goodness, and there is such a thing as badness. 

There is such a thing as a dangerous postulate in this universe; there is such a thing as a non-
dangerous postulate; there's such a thing as a life postulate; there's such a thing as a non-life
postulate. That is the message of TROM. And that is the basic philosophy of TROM - is to be
found in the goals packages of Level 5. 

Now this material can be expanded out enormously by people. I won't be able to do this, to carry
on the full ramifications of the expansion of this material. I'm going to rely upon others to
complete this work. But it only needs a few to grab this material and run with it – younger men
than me, younger people than me – to grab this material and run with it. 

And it's still not too late. We can do something about this, do something about this planet. We
have the data now in the upper Levels of TROM to do something about it. And it's never too late
to start doing it. Well, that's all I want to say on the subject of the philosophy of TROM. 

Thank you very much. 

RETURN TO LECTURES MAIN PAGE