THE UNSTACKING PROCEDURE

MP3 DOWNLOAD

PREREQUISITE STUDY: Completion of TROM 2023 at minimum.

RECOMMENDED: TROM 2023, all the lectures listed on our MAIN LECTURES PAGE up to this one, and we highly recommend you watch the above video if you don't have a Scientology background.

Hello, Greg, this is Dennis Stephens here and the date is the third of November 1992. I hope this
tape finds you well. Although I will have acknowledged the receipt of your data by phoning you
I'd like to formally acknowledge the receipt of the letter from you. It arrived yesterday as a
matter of fact. And I'm glad that you were able to decipher my typing. I'm sorry I typed that
material on both sides of the sheet of paper; it no doubt didn't help you. I was... chuckle... I was
going through a period in late 1978 where my havingness was rather bad and that's why I was
typing on both sides of sheets of paper. I repaired my havingness sometime after that, I don't do
that these days; I write on one side of sheets of paper, but anyway you managed to get it
duplicated and no doubt you'll soon get the material onto your floppy disk. So good of you to
put this material on the disk for me. 

Now the main purpose of this tape Greg is to evaluate the "Unstacking Procedure" which I
promised I would do for you. And in order to do that I've got to give you a fair bit of background
data. So we shall press on with the background data then we'll go into the evaluation of the
"Unstacking Procedure." 

Some Scientology History 

Thank you very much for sending it, by the way. As soon as I read the Unstacking Procedure, of
course, I recognised the leopard by his spots. In other words I recognised the Hubbard technique.
It's a direct offshoot of the Hubbard goals procedures of circa 1961 to 1964. I'd say around the
vintage of 1963, I would put that material, although he has modified it because there are things
in there which I'm not familiar with. So there are modifications to the procedure but never the
less, essentially it's the material that Ron was working on in 1963. Now I was very fortunate that I
happened to be at Saint Hill in 1962 right in the middle of the material that Ron was working on
the subject of goals. 

I'll give you a little bit of background material here. He started work, as far as I know, Oh, I'm
pretty certain about this because I heard the history of the material, history of his research in 

1962. We had to hear it as part of the Briefing Course. He started his research into goals in 1961
and by 1962 he was well into it and I won't go into the various techniques that Ron produced but,
just to say that his original approach was to find a main goal in the preclear and then try and find
out what was opposing this goal, and then somehow get the goal erased. That was his general
idea. 

His researches in Scientology up to this point had inevitably led him to the fact that the final top
level material in Scientology, the highest possible level of Scientology material would be on the
subject of purposes and postulates and goals. 

Anyone who researches in the field of the mind eventually ends up with this one way or the
other, they might get there by different routes but they always end up there at that point. 

Ron ended up there in 1961. He'd started out in 1950 with engrams and incidents and charge and
secondaries and then he'd gone through various other procedures and so forth and finally in
1961 he got to the end of the road and he was facing the wall there, he had to get through this
barrier of the postulates. 

Postulates, Goals, Purposes and Intentions 

By  the way, I'm going  to use the word  postulate interchangeably with  the word  goal and
interchangeably  with  the  word  purpose  and  interchangeably  with  the  word  intention.  So
postulate, goal, purpose, intention are synonyms, and I'll explain this later in the tape but just
bear with me for the moment. I mention it because Mr. Nichols in his Unstacking Procedure
differentiates between these factors, but we'll talk about that later. 

Back to Saint Hill History 

When I got to Saint Hill and started to get into the auditing material on goals one thing that
struck me was the terrible state of their E-Meter needle response. I mean I was in the presence
of a number of the old timers of Dianetics and Scientology. Some of them had been on the
course a longer time than me. They'd been on the course for some months and they'd been
fiddling around with these goals procedures. I happened to audit some of them and some of
them had to audit me and quickly I knew that these people were basically in pretty good case
shape cause some of them I knew as people in the outside world not just as fellow students on
the course but I was struck by the terrible state of their needles, the terrible state of their
needle responses. Almost invariably they had, with very few exceptions, a high tone arm and
stuck needles. I was one of the few exceptions. Maybe 10% of the course were exceptions and it
wasn't until much later that I realised why I was an exception and probably the reasons why some
of the others were exceptions. But anyway that was one of the first things that struck me about
this research was what it was doing to these people's tone arms. 

Note: Some day we're going to have to do a video and/or web page on the e-meter. But for now,
just to keep you from being terribly confused about the above passage, the needle of an e-meter
is what shows how one is reacting to commands given in an auditing session. Stuck needles are bad 

(needles should be moving) and also high tone arms are bad (the 'tone arm' is used to adjust the 

meter so you can keep reading it, and the higher you have to adjust it, the worse things are).

The Scientology practitioner, or "Auditor" has his subject, or "Preclear" hold a set of electrodes that
resemble soup cans so he can read how the preclear reacts to commands in a session. The needle moves in reaction, and he adjusts the meter's readings with what's known as a "Tone Arm".

In fact the insensitivity of the old Mark IV meter was one of the reasons why Ron developed the
Mark V meter during this period. That the sensitivity of the Mark IV was insufficient to read
through these high tone arms and stuck needles. He needed a more sensitive instrument so he
developed the Mark V. It was also quite apparent that the people on the goals procedures were
not getting anywhere case-wise. Although they were all hopeful, everyone was hopeful that we
would actually get something out of it the general tendency was that the people were worse off
case-wise than they had been when they started the course. Although that wasn't mentioned,
that was the general sort of impression that there was. 

As I say I knew many of these people before they'd come on the course and they were in far
better case shape prior to going on the course than they were while on the course. So obviously
it was hitting them hard, and these people had a wack of auditing, you know. And the vast
majority of them were Clears and lower level OT's and had been for many years, me included. 

So that's a little subjective look at what was going on at Saint Hill. Ron started off, as I say,
finding goals and then he got into this subject of End Words, that came later, about 1963. Then
he got into the subject of the implant GPM's which eventually became parts of the Clearing
Procedure. He abandoned the idea of finding goals on the preclear. He simply wrote them down,
whole lists of them and swore that they were all parts of implants and swore that this is what
you had to do, and left it at that. In fact he sort of despaired. 

I think that he secretly knew that he'd failed in that area of research. He patched it up as best he
could, but I know I left Saint Hill in not very good case shape and over the years afterwards I met
many of the casualties of that period of auditing at Saint Hill. Every so often in Sydney some ex
Saint Hill'er who'd been there doing goals in 1962 to 1964 would sort of wander into Sydney and
look me up and, you know, we'd have a little session and I'd have him on the meter and see, "Oh
my god, that this whole area was a major engram on his case." 

Some people did really suffer. One girl in Sydney I know, I don't think she's recovered yet.
Unfortunately we hadn't gotten the procedures to repair the situation and I had no real repair
for it. And nobody had a real repair for it; we didn't even know what was going on. All we knew
was that if you weren't careful when you mucked around with goals that you ended up with a
high tone arm, a stuck needle and the preclear was getting a lot of sensations and he usually had
a black field. 

He'd lose his pictures, his field would go black and he'd feel as if he was getting a lot of breeze
blowing. 

What they used to call "winds of space", used to feel as if there was a light breeze blowing on his
face all the time. This, of course, was just energy impacting around his face. Energy deposits,
because it was affecting the skin. They were in pretty bad shape. The people that went on the
course in good case shape survived it but there was a minority that went on that briefing course 

in 1961 and '62 who were in rather bad case shape when they went on course and it really hit
them hard. This material did. Many of them, case-wise have been in a mess ever since. I don't
know whether they've got out of it to this day because there's no repair in Scientology, there's
no repair to what happened to these people in Scientology. 

Don't ask the PC to Oppose His Goals 

There's only my own research. Many years later I discovered what had happened to these people
and got the repair out for it. I know the repair; I don't think it's generally known outside my
research exactly how to take this situation apart. What I'm leading up to is this datum that when
you muck around with goals and purposes, you're ok. You can ask the preclear for goals and
purposes and postulates as long as you don't ask him to oppose them. 

Get that very clearly, you're quite safe, any auditor in the world can work with goals and
purposes and intentions as long as he doesn't ask, "What would be the opposition goal for that
goal?" Now once you ask that question you walk where angels fear to tread. There is the danger
point. There is the line that Ron crossed and it all went wrong from that point onwards. 

And I didn't know why it went wrong, none of us knew why it went wrong, and none of us had
the repair to put it back right. It was just endless repairs. Even the repairs were being repaired
and the repairs that were repairing the repairs were being repaired. It just all fell apart at that
point. In fact I would go so far as to say that this was one of the main causes of the decline of
Scientology. 

Ron Hubbard, case-wise, took an enormous pounding on this. It hit Ron very hard indeed, case-
wise. He looked absolutely terrible in 1962 when I was over there. 

I knew he was under enormous restimulation, you could see it. He was bravely struggling on with
his research. The research was killing him. And he was trying everything he knew to get this
subject of goals out right. 

He never did get it right and case-wise he never did recover. He went downhill case-wise. It hit
Ron as hard as it hit anyone. Case wise he went downhill badly from 1964 onwards, even though
he abandoned work on goals, went on to other things, still he couldn't lift that material. He
couldn't lift that restimulation. 

And the datum here is that you can work with goals and purposes, it's quite safe as long as you
don't ask that key question, "What would oppose it?" 

You can do anything else with a goal or a purpose. You can mock them up, you can have other
people mock them up, you can ask what purpose would a thing have. What's the purpose of a
cat? What's the purpose of a dog? What's the purpose of a brick? What's the purpose of a house?
You know? What purposes have you had? 

You can do this with goals, you can get him to write up long lists of goals, I mean the auditors got
enormous freedom on this subject but he must not, having got a purpose or a goal he must not
ask, "What is the opposition goal?" unless he knows exactly what he is doing. If he doesn't know
exactly  what  he's doing,  doesn't  know  the  complete  anatomy  of  the  subject  of  goals and
purposes in the mind he'll rapidly worsen his preclear and he won't know what's going on. And he
won't be able to repair it. The effect is that, if you muck around with goals and the opposition to
goals and ask that question, "Who or what would oppose a goal?" and you don't know the
complete anatomy of what's going on, your attempt to use this technology, the attempt to run
these processes and so forth will act as a major engram on the preclears case, as a major engram. 

And this is what happened to the Scientologists on the Briefing Course, the auditing was an
engram. If you ever get one of these people that were at the Saint Hill Briefing Course between
1961 and 1964, the whole of that period when they worked on goals, you will find, the whole of
that area will sit on their case like an engram. It will respond exactly like an engram. As you come
up to it the needle will start to jiggle as you get closer to it the needle will go into rises, then as
you start to talk about the Briefing Course you'll see the needle rise and you'll see the tone arm
rise. It's just as if the preclear was approaching a major engram, a major engrammic experience
which he cannot confront. 

One of the things that I spotted myself after I left the Briefing Course. I got to work with some
of these people, trying to repair, and every one of them without exception who'd been at the
Briefing Course, soon as you tried to talk to them about it or any of them wanted to talk to you
about it, because they were so upset about it, soon as they started to talk about the Briefing
Course 1961 to 1964 and the auditing that they had, up would go their tone arm and the needle
would stick and it was just as if you were talking about a major engram on their case. 

So that's the first moral of the story there, it's a rather grim message, it's rather grim, Greg, that
there is a limitation on the subject of working with goals and purposes. Don't ask that question,
"Who or what would oppose a goal or a purpose?" unless you know exactly what you are doing
and that unfortunately does mean a familiarity with my research. 

As far as I know, I don't know as anyone's got a complete repair for this except myself. I have the
complete repair for it. Ok so far so good. 

The Universe in which we Live only Consists of Life and Postulates 

Now let's press on with our background material. The real reason why the upper level tech of
Scientology or the upper level tech in the mind devolved around this subject of postulates is that
the universe in which we live only consists of life and postulates. The universe in which we live
only consists of life and postulates. By postulates we mean purposes, intentions, goals they are
synonyms as far as I am concerned. 

So the universe in which we live only consists of life and postulates. Well once you understand
that you can see how fundamental this subject of postulates is, and why one has to get it right
before one gets involved with it. You don't get any second chances on it. Once you start to
oppose postulates you don't get any second chances. What I'm trying to say here is that you have
a fair amount of latitude when you're working with objective processes like getting the preclear
to go around and touch objects. You can do a pretty botched up job of auditing and still the
preclear will get a bit of case gain. 

When you're dealing with masses in the mind, pictures and so forth, you can do a pretty botched
up sort of auditing job and the preclear will still get some gain out of it, unless he's in rather bad
case shape, but you'll get some gain out of just the fact that he's moving up and down the time
track and looking at a few pictures he'll get a bit of case gain. This is the old 10% that Ron used
to talk about, you know, 10% of cases will get better no matter what you do, and this was the
10%. 

But when you get onto postulates, uh uh, you lose that. You're ok as I say as long as you don't ask
that question, "Who or what will oppose?" You can do what you like with postulates as long as
you don't ask that question. They'll still make good case gain on a preclear. But if you ask that
question you've got no latitude. You do it right or you kill the preclear, eventually you'll kill him.
You have got to do it right. It's too close to the top of what life consists of, what this universe
consists of. Postulates are the very building blocks upon which the universe is composed. So you
better get it right, otherwise it all falls apart. 

Now my entry into the subject of goals came in 1978 when I started to do my own research. First
of all I researched and got out my lower levels of 1, 2, 3 and 4. Then I had nowhere else to go in
my research except into postulates and I sweated blood over postulates, just like Ron Hubbard
did, in my own research. But fortunately  I  had  the benefit  of hindsight.  I knew  what had
happened in 1962, in this Briefing Course. I was there, I knew what had happened, had seen what
had happened to the preclears so I knew something was odd about this, so I avoided the pitfalls. 

In other words I started afresh; I didn't take Ron's research as gospel. You see Ron went into his
research in 1961 on the subject of goals and the subject of oppositions on goals, he made an
assumption,  and  the  assumption  was  an  incorrect  assumption  and  it  was  because  this 

assumption was incorrect that all his later troubles on the subject of goals and postulates and so
forth fell around his ears. It's an assumption that almost any Scientologist would make and
would get wrong, and the assumption was wrong, Ron got it wrong. 

He assumed that if a preclear has got a goal or a purpose there and he expresses it to the
auditor, if the auditor asked him, "Who or what would oppose that goal or purpose?" that a
preclear is in a position to give him the correct opposition as far as the preclear is concerned. You
see, it's a natural thing to do. 

Say, "Well it's the preclears goal so he would know what would oppose it." You see? Quite
naturally, it's the preclears business, it's his mind, he knows what opposes what is in his mind.
Yes, but they're wrong opposers. This is the joker in the pack, if the preclear knew what truly
opposed the purposes in his mind he wouldn't have the mind. What he believes is the opposition
goal is wrong opposed, that's why it's in his mind. It's a lie. It's an incorrect opposition. That's why
it's stuck there, it's a lie. 

If it was the correct opposition it would vanish by inspection. There would be nothing engrammic
about it. It wouldn't be sitting there as a mass in his mind. You see the engram bank consists
essentially of lies. You see that? So if it's sitting there, there must be a lie in it. Ron said this many
times, "There's got to be a lie in it," he'd say, "or else it wouldn't be there" if it was the truth it
would unmock. Ron Hubbard knew that. We've known that in Scientology for many years. If it
was the truth it would unmock. 

In fact there's an axiom which says so. So when the auditor says to the preclear, "Who or what
would oppose this goal?" and the preclear says, "Oh, so and so, and so and so." Now it doesn't
matter how this preclear tells you this. He might give a flash answer, the preclear might give a
flash answer, or the auditor might give him a sheet of paper and say, "Write down all the
oppositions and we'll meter check them." Doesn't matter how he does it, you'll end up with the
wrong opposers. You can't get the right one, because the right one isn't in there, hmm... see it?
You can't win. It was a "no win" situation from the word "go" on Ron's research. 

Soon as he asked that question, "Who or what would oppose?" he was doomed to failure
because the right answer was not in the preclears engram bank. The only thing that was in the
engram bank was the lies and that's why they're in the engram bank. The little bit of logic there
you have to get past and it wasn't till 1978 that I spotted the flaw, I said to myself in 1978, "Well
if everything the preclear offers up on the subject of oppositions is a wrong oppose how the hell
do you find the right oppose? What is the correct opposition?" Well it's a logical construct. You
have to construct the correct opposition logically by what is reason in the universe. 

In other words, the correct opposition is not a matter of opinion it's fixed by the nature of this
universe and everything else is false. It's either the correct opposition or it's a wrong oppose. It 

can't be partially correct. It's either exactly right or it's a wrong oppose and if it's a wrong oppose
it will kill the preclear. It will just add to his bank, because it's another lie. 

There's Only Two Types of Lies in this Universe 

You see, Greg there's only two types of lies in this universe. You can say that a thing exists when
it doesn't exist. Or you can say that a thing doesn't exist when it does exist. Or another way to
put it, you can say that a thing is true when it's false or you can say a thing is false when it's true.
Now when he gives you the wrong oppose, he's saying he thinks it's true but it's false. See that?
He's giving you the best one in the world. He says, "Yes, I believe this opposes. This is the correct
opposition." But it's the false opposition. It's false because he got it out of his bank, you see? So
it's a lie. 

He's saying something is true which happens to be false, even though he believes it, he believes
the lie, but it's still false, because he got it out of his bank. 

Constructing the Goals Packages 

So I had to sit down and logically say to myself, "Ok, well what would oppose a goal?" and started
to construct the goals packages and I found that, every goals package has four goals; there's the
goal, there's the goals negative, its opposition goal, and the negative opposition goal. And these
are the four goals in the package. There are only four in the package and there are only four in
every package, never less than four, never more than four. There can't be, the universe say so. 

Goals Package 

Let's take the goal 'To Know'. Now you can try this test on almost anyone. Say you come up to a
person, particularly someone in good case shape, don't try it on people in rather bad case shape
because you wouldn't expect them to give you the right answer. I remember one guy came
through Sydney, he just came back from the Briefing Course or somewhere from the Sea Org
and he was so Clear you could almost see the harbour bridge through him, and I got to speaking
to him, and I asked him. 

I thought I will just check it out, see how he is on the subject of goals. I'd already started my
research and I asked him, I said "What would be the opposition goal to the goal 'To Know'? What
would oppose the goal 'To Know'?" And he looked at me, he said "Why the goal ‘To Not Know’?"
and I immediately knew that he knew nothing about goals. You know, he just hadn't got it. 

The goal 'To Not Know' does not oppose the goal 'To Know'. The goal 'To Not Know' is the
negative of the goal 'To Know'. It's not the opposition. 

Intensity Scale of Goals 

You see, this is the way it works. You start with a scale on the subject of the goal. Now right on
the top of the scale you have a very intense goal 'To Know' and the goal gets less intense, less
intense, less intense until you reach a zero point where there is no intensity of the goal 'To Know'
so there's no goal there at all, as it loses its intensity the goal itself vanishes so you get a zero
point where there's no goal then you go over the zero point and now you're into the negative
goal 'To Not Know'. You get a very tiny goal 'To Not Know' and as you intensify that goal you get
more and more intensity of the goal 'To Not Know' until you reach maximum intensity 'Not
Know'. So there's the scale that goes from plus maximum intensity goal 'To Know' which is 'Must
Know', big 'MUST KNOW', goes down to zero point where there's no goal at all then it goes
minus maximum on the other side as 'Mustn't Know', maximum 'Mustn't Know'. See that? 

But 'Must Know' doesn't oppose 'Mustn't Know'. One is simply the negative of the other. They're
not in opposition. This is the logical construct, you see? 

So I say to myself, "What is, the goal 'To Know' actually in opposition to?" Well the goal 'To Know'
is opposed to the goal 'To Not be Known'. 

I mean, if you're trying 'To Know' something the purpose that frustrates you most and exactly
frustrates you is the purpose 'To Not be Known'. You see that? Once you think about it, it's
obvious that is the exact opposite goal. 

You're trying 'To Know' and somebody over there is trying 'To Not be Known'. You're saying
'Must Know' and he's saying 'Mustn't be Known'. That is the exact opposition. So on one side of
the fence we have 'Must Know' on the other side of the fence we have 'Mustn't be Known' and
the negative of 'Mustn't be Known' of course is 'Must be Known' and low and behold what do we 

find. We find that 'Must Know' and 'Mustn't be Known' are exact opposite goals but because of
that scale I mentioned where they go from plus to minus the goal 'Mustn't Know' is the exact
opposite of the goal 'Must be Known', get it? 

Scale of Opposition Goals 

There are the four postulates. There's positive 'To Know', negative 'To Not Know', positive 'To be
Known', negative 'To Not be Known' and 'To be Known' is opposed by 'To Not Know', and 'To
Know' is opposed by 'To Not be Known'. There are four postulates in the package and there's
nothing else in the package. When you think about it that's the complete package. There's only
those four. That is the whole subject of knowing, in that package. There is the whole subject
there. 

Anything else is a wrong oppose. Any other opposition to the goal 'To Know' except the goal 'To
Not be Known' is a wrong oppose. It has to be. 

Listing 

Now the strange thing is that you could use a listing technique on a preclear. You could sit any
preclear down and say, alright let's take the goal 'To Know'. You say, "Alright now who or what
would oppose the goal 'To Know'?" I want some opposition goals here, what would oppose, not
who or what, say, "What would oppose the goal 'To Know'?" "What would be the opposition to
the goal 'To Know'?" 

Write them down. Give him the paper and he writes them down and he writes you a list 20,000
long. He's got everything on his list. You go over the list and ask him what he thinks about the
list. He gives you some ideas and whether you null the list or whatever you do with the list, he
finally ends up with one and he says, "That is the one." And it's the wrong one. And worse still
you go over the whole list and nowhere on the list do you find 'To Not be Known'. It isn't even on
the bloody list. 

Why isn't it on the list? Because it's not in his bank and he's ransacking his bank looking for the
answer and the answer isn't in there so he can't put the correct answer in his list, cause it's not in
there, you see? 

The correct answer is a logical construct. To give you the correct answer he'd have to think about
it analytically. He would have to say, "Well what would be the exact opposition to the goal 'To
Know'?" He'd have to figure it out, work it out logically in terms of pure reason. Then he could
give it to you but he'd never list it out. You see that? 

Ok, so you formulate the goals package on a logical construct. You take these goals 'To Know'
with its opposition 'To Not be Known' and the goal 'To Not Know' with its opposition 'To be 

Known' and you work with those .... Magic.... Then the magic occurs. 

All the wrong opposers blow. You work with those four postulates and all the wrong oppositions
on the subject of knowing that he's got in his whole mind will eventually blow, because you're
working to the truth, you see? Those four are the truth. 

'To Know' Complements 'To be Known' 

The truth of the matter is 'To Know' exactly complements 'To be Known'. They are exactly
complementary.  There's  absolutely  no  opposition  between  those  two  goals.  They  exactly
complement each other. 

Left to themselves they would close the distance and collapse in on each other unless you held
them apart. They're complementary postulates, 'To Know' and 'To be Known'. Similarly 'To Not
Know' and 'To Not be Known' are complementary postulates. Again left to themselves they
would collapse in on each other, and they cancel each other out. 

Literally they cancel each other out. If you have somebody walk in with a great desire 'To be
Known', you know the sort of person he's all the time going around wanting people to look at
him and once they have he gets in their faces. 

Well if you sit around and look at him and know him and watch him and so forth. Everyone sits
around and admires him and looks at him and watches him, you'll eventually wear out his
postulate 'To be Known', because you're complementing it exactly and eventually it will fade out.
He simply would not be able to hold the postulate against that complementary postulate. You
see that? 

So the two complementary postulates vanish each other. The opposition postulates stay there
forever. So there's the pure magic. 

If you want to address the subject of knowingness and get all the wrong opposers and all the
wrong mishmash of upsets in his bank. If you want to clear the whole lot out on the subject of
knowingness. You would address in therapy the four postulates 'To Know', 'To Not Know', 'To be
Known', and 'To Not be Known'. 

They are the whole subject anyway, you see? You will address those and while you work those all
the rest will start to come apart the whole tangled web of wrong opposers will unravel and you
will be left with nothing. You have simply erased them. 

You simply erase the bank. That's the magic that occurs there when you work with the exact
goals package. All the wrong opposers come apart. You're left with nothing, just the four
postulates and because the two complementaries vanish each other you end up with a handful
of nothing, see. And you've got the perfect erasure of the bank. 

Saint Hill Special Briefing Course Repair 

Now this was the repair I didn't have for the victims of the Saint Hill Briefing Course experience
of 1961 to 1964. I didn't have this repair until 1978. Till '78, '79 before I had the full repair there,
and it's the only repair I know of. 

If you want to take this whole subject of the miserable life upsets they have had, the fact that
these upsets are still going down the track and the whole of their Briefing Course experience is
sitting there like a major engram, the correct thing to do will be Level 5A of my procedure. That
would take it apart cleanly... it did it for me. 

I can look over my Briefing Course experience now and the E-Meter yawns at me. There's
absolutely nothing there. It's absolutely clean. There's nothing there at all. There's no charge on
that at all. It's gone. 

I've meter checked it, so forth. Gone! Been gone for years. But it wasn't in 1975. Like all the rest
of the people who've been on that course I had a hell of a lot of charge on that material. It was
sitting on my case like a major engram, too. And I was in pretty darn good case shape. God knows
what it was doing to people who were in worse case shape than I was in. 

Where Does all the Mass Come From? 

Ok, so much for that Greg, we now press on. 

I said earlier on that we live in a universe that only consists of life and postulates. Well where
does all the mass come from? I mean, it's obviously not mocked up mass in the universe. How
come there's so much mass in the universe? It's not been created mass. It's not directly created
mass. It just doesn't work out that way. It's not created mass. If it was created mass it would
come apart rather easily, but no, it's not created mass, the mass of this universe. 

If you've ever tried to erase a sideboard in a room in present time you know what I'm getting at.
This stuff does not come apart very easily and it's not mocked up mass. 

If it was simply mocked up mass you'd only have to get the idea it was somebody else's mock-up,
it would start to thin down and a gang of you could sit around and start to erase sideboards very
easily using the upper level tech of Scientology. Any good low level OT's in Scientology, a gang of
them could sit together and could spend their Sunday afternoon un-mocking sideboards, un-
mocking bits of walls and floors, you know, if they wanted to. They could do it. But it doesn't
work out that way. You can't take this stuff apart. Now why doesn't it come apart easily? 

Well it isn't mocked up mass that's why it doesn't come apart. If it's not mocked up mass then
what the hell does it consist of? Well I'll tell you what it consists of: postulates. But how the hell
could a postulate look like a mass? Well it's the way you look at it. 

Is there any other way that the mass could come apart? We've got a universe that consists of life
and postulates and that's all it consists of fundamentally. 

Well is there any other way that mass could get into this universe except by mocking it up? That's
really the problem you're faced with. You've got a universe that consists of life and postulates
and mass starts to turn up in the universe. Well it either gets there because it's directly created
by life or it comes through some other method. 

Well, there is another method by which it gets into the universe. This is the unknown method.
This is the secret method and this is where 999.99 parts out of a thousand of the mass in the
universe comes from. The rest of it is somebody else's mock-up, or peoples mock-ups. 

Sensations 

But  let  me  briefly  talk  a  little  about  the  subject  of  the  sensations.  Now  we've  known  in
Scientology for a long while, sensations are a sort of mass, they're a sort of a mass. A sensation is
not an emotion. Sensations are not emotions, they're different from emotions. Emotions are
little masses too, but sensations are somewhat different. And it wasn't understood where these
sensations came from in Scientology. We sure as hell knew that they existed because everyone's
got them but nobody seemed to quite understand just how they came about and what they
were. 

Well one of the things that I discovered when working on the subject of postulates in opposition
was  that  sensation  occurs  at  the  boundary  between  opposing  postulates.  Sensation  is
generated, to be more precise. Sensation is generated at the boundary of opposing postulates. 

We have this datum that sensation is generated at the boundary between opposing postulates.
Now this is an important datum because this is the essence of where the vast majority of mass in
this universe comes from. 

You see, there's a scale of sensations which goes from very, very light down through very, very
heavy sensations. As the space closes and the intensity of the postulates increases the quality of
the sensation changes and is more perceived as mass rather than as a sensation. 

I don't want to get too involved in this Greg because it gets into material where I'm still
researching, but I can say at this point with absolute certainty that the vast majority of the mass
in this universe comes about at the boundary between opposing postulates and is essentially
sensation  mass.  It's  mass  that's  brought  about  in  games  play  where  the  conflict  between
opposing postulates generates fused postulates and the mass tends to condense out. 

[Note: See Insanity Point Lecture 1 for a detailed description of how mass and sensation are
generated by postulates in opposition. - Editor] 

There's various mechanisms of condensation but essentially if you were to examine the mass you
would see it's scrunched up postulates where they are jammed in, pushed in hard together
where you get a postulate scrunched up hard against its opposition postulate. 

Supposing you had two goals, you had a goals package and you had the two opposing postulates
of the goals package there in opposition. Well at the boundary between the opposing postulates
you would find both postulates there scrunched up and that would be the sensation, that
scrunched up postulate. 

Where the two are jammed together that would be the sensation. Because the mind can't easily,
or the person, or life cannot easily duplicate or perceive that scrunched up postulate, it sees it as
mass. That's why you see the sensation as mass rather than perceiving it as a sensation. 

That is the essence of it. But as I say my own research isn't complete on that. But I'm absolutely
certain that that is the mechanism. That's how the mass in the universe comes about. It comes
about through conflict and games play. It's a generated mass. It's not a created mass, it's a
generated mass and it consists of postulates scrunched up. 

In  actual  fact  you  would  find  the  mass  is  generated  in  any  goals  packages.  There's  four
postulates in the goals package, the mass is generated between any two opposing postulates in
the goals package. The mass would actually consist of scrunched up mass of all four postulates in
the package. You always find all four postulates present in the mass. I know the postulate
configuration there but there are certain aspects of it that I'm not completely satisfied with, so I
won't go into it because I don't like to go off half cocked in these letters. 

But what I've given you so far you can take it as the way it is. Seems a bit peculiar at first glance
to see sensation as mass but I can assure you it's a postulate configuration. 

When you look at it you don't see it as a postulate configuration you simply see it as a mass. It's a
confusion, if you like. You say, "Well there's a postulate so scrunched up and it's so confused that
I can't see it as a series of postulates. The postulates are all scrunched up in there, tangled up in
a mass, so I see it as a mass rather than as a series of postulates," and that's the essence of it. 

But the important datum here is that the mass only consists of postulates. 

Erase the Dog Process 

Now you can prove this, that a mass only consists of postulates, you can actually prove it in
auditing. It's a technique I developed a couple of years or so ago, long after I needed the
technique. 

You could take any creature but it works well on a dog or it will work on an inanimate object.
Suppose the preclear's upset with a dog. 

You could erase the dog from his mind by asking him, "What is the purpose," or function of a
dog?" Usually if it's a living creature you say purpose, if it's an inanimate object you'll say
function. 

You can put him on the meter and you say, "What is the purpose of a dog? and the preclear tells
you, and you take up each one of the purposes of the dog. 

Preclear says, "Oh dogs bark." And you say "Well how do you feel about that?" "Oh," he says, "I
have this terrible thing, we used to live next door to a dog that barked all the time. It drove me
mad." You take this up and you run this material, you see, till he was all right about that purpose.
His needle floats. 

And you say, "Is there any other purpose that a dog has?" and he says, "Well they bite people."
"Oh, well how do you feel..." He says, "Oh, I got bitten by a dog once. He says. And so you run that
material there. You see? 

See what you're doing here, your discharging the dogs' purposes, his opposition to the dogs'
purposes. But you're not mentioning the word oppose, you see. You're not mentioning the word
oppose. You're saying, "What's the dog's purposes?" 

Eventually you go through all these purposes and get them all squared around and he feels
alright about a dogs purposes. He feels better about those purposes. 

Then you say to him, "What purposes have you had or got towards a dog?" and then you take up
this side of the coin. "Oh, well I've always had this urge to kick a dog, you know." "Oh well, how
do you feel about that?" you find some incidents where he kicked dogs, and he secretly kicked
dogs and done all this, that and the other thing, see, and you go along with this till you got all his
purposes out regarding the dog. 

And you go back to the dog, "What are the purposes of a dog?" and see if any more material
showed up and you keep going backwards and forwards on these purposes towards the dog and
the dogs purposes towards him. 

Low and behold, magic, the dog would vanish out of his mind, because you've erased all the
purposes, you see? He's now got all the purposes there and he's got them sort of squared
around and you haven't mentioned the dog's package, but the technique is powerful enough to
erase the dog out of his mind. And it proves that all that is present there are the purposes. 

You could do it with a house brick, you know. You could erase a house brick. If a person has got
house bricks in his engram bank you could say, "Well what's the function of a house brick?" and
he'd tell you and you run that and get clear, square that all around and then get some more
functions of a house brick and then get his purposes towards a house brick. And you do this
backwards and forwards until there's no more charge on it and at that point you'd find that
house bricks had erased from his mind. You see? 

Because there's nothing else there. A house brick is essentially a purpose, you see? There's
nothing else there but the purpose. You follow? 

So that's a little technique there, and it proves that the mass essentially is a mass of purposes
and there's nothing else there but purposes. 

There are other ways to erase things from the mind but that is one way to do it, without getting
too involved in goals packages. It takes longer. There are quicker ways to do it, like by using the
goals packages as in my procedure, but that will do it. Takes longer but it will get there in the
end, and it proves that all that is involved is the purposes. There's nothing else involved. 

A dog is a living creature running on a set of purposes and a house brick only consists of
purposes. And so on, see? 

We live in a universe that only consists of life and purposes, that's all there is, the rest is illusion. 

Proof the 'To Know' Goals Package is Basic to all Goals Packages 

Now there is another point I want to get into before I go on to an evaluation of the Unstacking
Procedure. I mentioned earlier and you'll find in my research that I sent you, the idea that the 'To
Know' goals package is the basic goals package, and since I wrote that material I can actually
prove that this is so. 

I didn't have the proof at the time when I wrote those notes up and I'm in a position now to give
you the proof. That the 'To Know' package is the basic of all goals packages. 

Importance 

The  proof  is a  very  simple  proof.  To understand  it  we  have  to understand  the  subject  of
importance. 

Now the importance of a goal is the enforcement of a goal. It's the "mustness" of a goal. 

When a goal is trivial, the purpose is trivial. It has very little intensity but as the goal becomes
more important to us, as we strive to achieve this goal in life we increase its intensity and the
goal is now a "must." 

Take the goal 'To Know'. It starts off just as a slight need 'To Know', we really don't care whether
we know or not. Then we 'Must Know', you see it, MUST! Well the "must" is the enforcement of
the goal. 

Now any goal can have an enforcement, "must." We can increase the mustness of any goal. We
have the goal 'To Help' beginning with a light enforcement. Not much enforcement. Not like the
heavy, 'Must Help!' You see. Heavy enforcement of the goal. 

Any goal can have an enforcement or mustness. All the word simply means is the enforcement of
the goal. 

When we're enforcing a goal we're trying to convince the opponent of our purpose. We're having
trouble getting our message across to him, you see. So then we increase the intensity of the
purpose, the mustness of the purpose, in order to get it through to the opponent. In other words
we are trying to win the game. So we increase the intensity for that reason. So it's a conviction
phenomenon. The mustness is a conviction phenomenon and we're trying to make it known to
the opponent. 

Now you get it? The mustness, the enforcement of the goal is done to make the goal known to
the opponent. The only reason we increase the mustness of the goal is to make it known to the
opponent, but 'To be Known' is the basic goals package. 

Enforcement and The ‘Know’ Component 

The enforcement of any goal is its 'Know' component. It's got a 'Must be Known' component of
the goal and 'Must be Known' is a part of any goal in life. It's the enforcement part. And more
than that, as we take the enforcement out of the goal, as the enforcement comes out then
eventually when all the enforcement is gone from the goal there's no goal left. You see, if you
'Must Know' you've got the goal then, heavy 'Must Know' but as you take the mustness, the
enforcement out of the goal it becomes more and more trivial, more and more trivial, more and
more trivial, until there's no mustness in it at all. Well at that point the goal is gone. 

You can't have a goal without some intensity in it to achieve the goal, you see that? Without any
intensity at all you are down to zero. You reach the zero point on the scale. So without the
mustness there's no goal. 

Just like you've got a cat, well you take all cattishness out of the cat and you end up with
nothing. You can't have a cat without any cattishness, you see? 

It's the same with a goal; you can't have a goal without some mustness in it, got to have some
mustness in it just like the cat has to have some cattishness. Otherwise you lose all the cat. So
you  lose  all  the  goal  when  you  take  all  the  enforcement  out  of  it.  But  the  enforcement
component is the 'Must be Known' component. See that? It's driving it across to the opponent,
trying to get the goal across in games play. 

So, that determines the existence of the goal. We find that the basic package, the 'Must be
Known' package, which is the 'To Know' goals package is the basic goals package, and all the
other goals packages are really within that package. 

It's the proof! That is the proof of the fact which comes out in practice. It works in practice that
the basic package is the basic package and it will do all those magical things. You can play around
with junior packages and get into an awful mess and you run the basic package and it all comes
back right again. 

And it's why you have to do Level 5A before you play around with any other packages, you must
do 5A. You've got to get that one right and when that one is erased the whole banks erased, the
whole lot’s gone. That is the basic package. 

The only reason a person has to run anything else but Level 5A is because they don't believe that
the  'To  Know'  package  is  basic.  They  believe  there  are  other  things  in  their  mind  except
knowingness and there isn't. There's nothing else in there, except the four legs of the 'To Know'
goals package that's all that's in there. All the rest is just illusion. 

Unstacking Procedure, Evaluation 

So much for that, Greg, now we can go into the evaluation of this Unstacking Procedure. 

Now before we get into it you might reasonably ask how can I evaluate this procedure without
having run it on me or run it on anyone else. Well I can answer that very easily, it doesn't need
running on me because I tried to run it and it's all flat. It's all flat because the subject of goals
and purposes, with me knowing the basic packages and knowing the basic theory of it, there's
just simply nothing there. 

I just read through the material yesterday and there's a little bit of charge on reading on the
wrong opposers when I was on those awful wrong opposers in the examples he gives. They were
a bit scrunchy. And I sort of yawned those off, they were a bit awful they were. 

So apart from that there was nothing there. The material doesn't need running on me, because
there's simply nothing to run. So that answers your question. 

And if I wanted to run it on someone else well I simply wouldn't, because the flaws he's got in
the procedure and I'm sure that Mr. Nichols himself would realise these flaws once he got his
paws on my data. Once he got his paws on my data he'd realise his flaws just as Ron would have
realised the flaws. 

I wasn't able to give my research to Ron Hubbard. It was just too late, I never could get it to him. I
knew if I posted it on to him that it would never get to him and I didn't know where he was in
1979. I didn't know whether he was still at sea or...? I know his health was poor. I didn't know
quite where he was. He was surrounded so much, you know, the comm. line I had to the Old Man
was gone and I didn't want it to go to some half crazed secretary who wouldn't know its
importance and wouldn't be able to evaluate it properly. And so I didn't bother. 

I just couldn't get it to him. There was no way I could get it to him so I just had to leave it and
hope it would come right for him in the end. 

But anyway, back to the Unstacking Procedure. First off I better clarify why postulates and
intentions, goals and purposes are regarded as the same breed of cat, are all synonymous with
each other. It comes from where the word postulate comes from in English language. 

The word postulate comes from the old Latin postulare: to demand; and the idea of demand is
the  very  essence  of  a  postulate.  When  we  postulate  something  we  are  demanding  that
something is going to happen. 

We make the postulate 'To Know' and we want 'To Know'. There's something we want, we are
demanding something, demanding ‘To Know’. You see? 

This 'Must Know' the word is correct there and when I say that a postulate is the same as a
purpose is the same as an intention I'm on very firm ground in the English language, because
that is where the word comes from. The word root is from the Latin to demand. So that my usage
is correct. 

In Nichol's glossary, I'll just look his glossary up... hang on... 

Interestingly enough, Greg, you can always tell how much a person knows about the mind or
some aspect of the mind by looking in their glossary of terms. You know, if they've got off beat
definitions of phrases and off beat definitions of words you know they've got some hang ups on
that subject. It's quite interesting to go straight to the glossary, it's quite revealing. Looking for
what his definition of a postulate is, I know it's slightly off beat from mine but I can't find it so I'll
have to abandon it. But I can assure you Greg, that mine is more in line with the dictionary
definition of a postulate. You look it up in a dictionary you'll find that it's essentially, it's a
purpose with an intention. 

When a scientist is making a computer model he has certain postulates he feeds into his model
and they are his basic postulates. He calls those postulates rather than intentions. That is to say
the basic postulate he's using on his model so people know what he means, but essentially the
postulates put in are purposes, they are essentially purposes. 

I think I better clarify that once and for all. Let's take this word significance. Now he has a
different idea of significance than I do. He defines significance "The conceptual and factual
content of an experience such as the ideas encountered in study as opposed to a phenomenal
content such as pictures or objects," it says. He goes on for another sentence. 

Now this is a complicated understanding of significance. 

The significance of a thing is simply the purpose plus its importance 

That is the totality of significance, there isn't anything else to do with significance except
purpose and importance. When we say significance we say what do the things signify, what does
it mean? 

The word significance has the same root as the word signal. What are the signals it's sending us?
What does it mean? So if we know what it means, then we know what its significance is. But its
meaning is essentially its purpose, its function, that is its essential meaning. So we're down to
function again. 

So significance is purpose plus the importance, that's all. A thing might have many purposes and
each purpose may have an importance but essentially when you take a significance apart you're
taking apart postulates, you're taking apart intentions, purposes, and that's all. There's nothing
else  there.  He  gives  the  example  of  motherhood  as  a  significance.  Yes,  motherhood  is  a 

significance but what is motherhood? Well motherhood is the state of being a mother and what
is being a mother? Well the identity of being a mother is the identity of a person who is
operating on the goal 'to mother', the purpose 'to mother'. 

We say that when a person is operating on that goal 'to mother' they are a mother, see that.
When we examine this concept, this significance of motherhood, we see that it's to do with
mothers and mothers are to do with the goal 'to mother', the postulate 'to mother'. You see? So
we're  back  to  purposes  again.  You  see,  so  significance  is  essentially...  it's  a  purpose.  A
significance is a purpose plus an importance, that's all it is, that's all a significance is. You can
take any significance and reduce it down to a purpose plus an importance. 

So he hasn't got a really good grasp of significance there. He hasn't got a good understanding of
significance. 

Now this izingness he sticks on as a suffix at the end. I read that bit over and over again and I
don't see why he's doing this and it seems to introduce a false note into his material. I mean I've
gone  around  kicking  plenty  of  cats  in  my  life  but  I've  yet  to  engage  in  kickizingness  of
catizingnesses. Kickizingnesses of catizingnesses, 

I just don't do it. I kick cats. So sticking izingnesses on the end has got nothing to do with life, as
far as I'm concerned and it may have a lot to do with Mr. Nichols's bank but it's got nothing to do
with life and I'm only really concerned with the fact that they exist in life. 

I just don't see this izingness... I don't see where it all comes in, it's an added complexity which
doesn't seem to do anything except make it more complicated. And as William of Occam with his
razor, said "never add hypotheses unnecessarily." 

I'm a great believer, he's a great friend of mine Occam is, so I don't believe in adding hypotheses
unnecessarily just for the sake of making a thing more complicated. 

Maybe I'm doing the man an injustice. Maybe there is a good reason why he has to use this
strange suffix on the end of all his goals but I've read it and reread it and reread it and I just
cannot find out why you have to do this and why it won't work if you don't do it. So I just assume
it's some peculiarity of him. Or some peculiarity he's gotten from someone else and he's got
himself stuck with, but certainly "izingness" is not something that I stick on the end of my goals
and people don't go round and talk about "izingness". 

They don't say, "Well I had a good game you know, I had a good day of eating ice creamingnesses,
you know, or eatingnesses of ice creamingnesses." They say, "I had an ice cream." You know? 

I'm sorry, Greg, I've got a very simple mind, you know, I hate unnecessary complexity if I can avoid
it. 

But what we have in this procedure, essentially he puts up this dichotomy, he gets the goal and
he asks the preclear for the opposition to the goal. 

Flunk! He shouldn't do that, that's one thing you mustn't do because he'll only give you a wrong
oppose. 

Every example he gives there he's got a wrong oppose. They're either wrong opposers or they're
cross-packaging. That's the other mistake. That's a gross error to cross-package, you know. So
the wrong  oppose is bad  enough but a cross-package is absolutely, you know. I mean it's
completely inexcusable. 

Cross-Package 

To cross-package is to take a goal out of one goals package and oppose it to a goal which is out
of another goals package. It's like putting the goal 'To Know' and opposing it to the goal 'to not
sleep'. You know, that's cross-packaging. So that they're opposed to each other, the goal 'To
Know' and the goal 'to not sleep' are opposed to each other. 

Well that's cross-packaging. It's a wrong oppose but it's also a cross-packaging so it's an even
bigger flunk. An even more severe wrong oppose. It's not even in the same area, it's on another
subject. 

So anyway, somehow he gets the goal and he gets the wrong oppose and then he has to spend
hours and hours, as you would expect, using all sorts of Scientology techniques to discharge
what turns up. 

The old serfac technique comes into action, he gets all sorts of techniques come into action
trying to discharge, and get this dichotomy which is just two wrong opposes in opposition to
discharge and they simply won't discharge. 

There's no reason why they should, they've got nothing really to do with each other, you know,
they're just wrong opposers. They'll just sit there forever. 

So he tries to get them to discharge, so he has to work for hours and hours asking these various
questions and so forth, ransacking the past, he's bending over backwards trying to make these
damn things erase, and they won't erase cause their wrong opposers. 

Ron was doing exactly the same thing. He was using all sorts of techniques to try and get these
wrong opposes to discharge and they wouldn't discharge cause they were wrong opposes. They
were simply incorrect oppositions and so they would just sit there. And that's what this guy is
doing too. You know? 

Now what do I think is the overall effect of doing the procedure of the Unstacking? 

Well if it was done in very careful hands it might take 50 hours before the tone arm will go up to
5 and stick. But eventually that will be the end point. That's where it would go and I don't think
he'd get much else out of it. 

Oh, you know, running up and down the time track asking for incidents that might be good. You
might get some benefit out of that. Asking for incidents, the preclear might get good gain out of
erasing a few incidents or reducing a few incidents but the overall effect of this wrong oppose, I
think, would swamp out any benefit he'd get and I think the overall tendency would be for the
case to tighten up and for more and more mass to appear and the tone arm to relentlessly rise
and eventually stick and it would need a repair. 

You'd have to run my Level 5A to get the preclear back where he was again. 

Now the aspect that I noticed in your summary of it, what you said that it seems to run all right
but it seems to run over that way. Well yes it does, it's all over that way, the technique is the
person as an observer and he's sitting watching this bank which is over that way. 

Well my experience of erasing postulates in preclears is they have to get into the postulate and
get their paws dirty. They have to get in there and own the postulate and get the feel of the
postulate, and get into the postulate. They won't erase otherwise. You can't just put it all over
that way and sit and watch it erase like you're watching a TV set. Nothing happens. You spotted
this yourself. You said that there's not much efforting, it doesn't seem to do much. 

No, it wouldn't do because it's all over that way so the whole thing will become a rather
intellectual exercise. It's all over that way. So that's my other criticism of it there. 

When I'm asked to evaluate it, it's like being asked to evaluate some of Hubbard's material on
goals and postulates and purposes back in the 1960's because the material is so similar. I would
lay a bet that this guy was on the Briefing Course in 1961 to '64. I'd lay a bet and that he's been
sitting holding this mishmash, this engram he collected between 1961 and 1964 and sometime
along the line he got in there and tried to use what he knows and he's modified it and reckons
he's got some benefit out of this procedure and he's gone ahead and published his procedure
and called it "Unstacking" but essentially I would lay a bet that Nichols is, although the name
doesn't ring a bell with me, I'd lay a bet that he got caught on this procedure either directly at
Saint Hill or somebody's run it on him and he's got stuck with a major engram on his own track.
This material has become a major engram on the track and he's trying desperately to take it
apart. 

You see thetans never give up. You stick him with something. All these characters at Saint Hill
between 1961 and 1964 who got stuck with this material of Ron's, this goals material, you know,
they've all been trying to figure it out, most of them are probably still figuring it out today. They
never give up. They never give up trying to solve it. 

I never gave up till I solved it. Took me nigh onto 1978 before I got it apart, got it solved. I never
gave up and I don't think any of the others gave up. They don't give up, people don't give up on
this one. You lay a major engram in and they'll work at it until they get it resolved and I think
that's what Nichols has done. He's trying to get it resolved. 

He maybe had a bit of early success with this idea but I don't think it would do anything
eventually but end up going nowhere. It can't do, Greg, it can't go anywhere but run into wrong
opposers and cross-packaging and the end point of wrong opposers and cross-packaging is a
high tone arm and a stuck needle and a black field and winds of space and eventually they lower
the coffin lid on you, gently, and take you off to the cemetery and say, "Rest in Peace." That's the
only endpoint. 

You know, as I said early on, on the tape when you play around with postulates in opposition
you've got to get it right. You've got no leeway whatsoever. No leeway whatsoever. You either
get it right or you kill the preclear. It's an awful thing but there it is. 

That's why my injunction there on my own research material is not to hand it out to mentally
unstable people because they simply cannot duplicate it and they won't do it right. They'll do it
wrong and it only needs the slightest alteration or alter-isness of technique of Level 5A and my
Level 5A becomes a time bomb. You know? 

I mean I know more ways to louse up preclears doing a slightly alter-ised 5A so it becomes a very
dangerous procedure. That will eventually kill everyone that it's tried on, it'll louse them up.
That's why my injunction that it must be duplicated exactly and it mustn't be handed out to
mentally unstable people who can't use it properly. 

So much for the "Unstacking Procedure", Greg, I can't think of any more on the subject. I think
I've covered it pretty well there. 

Erasable Goals Packages 

Since I gave you my research data I can tell you now there's no more than about 30 erasable
goals packages in total. About 25 to 30 and the major ones you have there. I did discover some
others that are erasable which can be tacked onto the list if you want to tack them on. 

The 'To Reason' Goals Package 

Probably the most important one is the goal 'To Reason' it has the goals 'To Reason', 'To Not
Reason', 'To be Reasoned' and 'To Not be Reasoned'. They are the four legs of the goal 'To
Reason'. It's a very good goal. It takes apart the subject of logic in the preclear's mind and
squares him around on the subject of logic. 

If a person is having trouble on the subject of reason and logic and so forth that would be the
precise goal to run on him, the goal 'To Reason'. And it's specifically for people who have trouble
reasoning. It's a valuable goal so you can add the goal 'To Reason' there, into the set. 

But there's only about 25 or 30 erasable goals there that can be formulated into erasable goals
packages. All the other verbs in the English language cannot be formulated into erasable goals
packages, so it tells you how limited we are. 

The granddaddy of all the erasable goals is the goal 'To Know' that's the key one. 

The other thing I'd like to say Greg is that anyone who repeats this research will discover an
enormous amount of material about the human mind and life and the universe and so forth in
the psyche and the laws that govern the universe while they’re doing the research, if they care to
write these things down and so forth. 

I mean I've got stacks of notes on the stuff that came up when I was running this material but it's
not really relevant to hand it over to people... just be quite unreal to them. 

But when they run the material themselves it will become real to them and they will rediscover it
so I don't have to tell it to them, they'll discover it for themselves. They'll come up and say, "Oh,
yes you know so and so, and so and so" and I'll say, "Oh yes we know about that." And it will pop
up. In other words they will discover it themselves when they are running Level 5 of my material
there. 

So there's much more to my material than what I've given you but I've given you what you need
to run the material; to run and erase the mind and the rest of it comes out in the wash. You will
discover the rest while you're using the material I've given you, so I don't have to really give you
any  more.  Any  more  would  be a luxury  and  it can be very  confusing  and  I  don't want to
overburden anyone with it because until a person gets to work on it and starts to work with the  

material some of this upper level material can get quite unreal. That's why I didn't go on and give
you more material on the anatomy of sensation, the anatomy of mass in the universe. I've got
more data on it but it's so wild and woolly and I simply can't prove it any way at this stage so I'm
simply not going to go into it, I won't be drawn on the subject of it. 

Erasing Goals Packages and Knowledge 

So that's another aspect there, Greg, of this work worth bearing in mind. It all comes out in the
wash. I think I mentioned it in the research there. I said that erasing a goals package is like doing
the  university  course  on  that  subject  of  the  goals  package.  It's  the  equivalent  of  doing  a
university course. You become an absolute expert on the subject of that goals package. You
really know about it if you erase the goals package. Doesn't matter what the goal is. 

Supposing you wanted to become an expert on the subject of help, well if you want to really
know about the subject of helping and what helps, all about it. Well just sit down and erase the
'To Help' goals package. It's quite erasable and by golly you'll know about help! You'll be able to
spot help in society and you'll be able to spot no help, how help gets aberrated, you'll know all
about help and you can look back at what Ron wrote and say, "Yep the Old Man was quite right,
he got it right. He knew about it. He got it all out." And similarly with any other goals package. 

It's very educational. It's not only therapeutic; it's highly educational to erase a goals package. 

Anatomy of the Mass in the Universe 

Going back for a moment to the subject of the anatomy of the mass in the universe a person
doesn't really  have to know this anatomy, you know.  One  came  into the  universe without
knowing the anatomy of it and one can walk out of this universe without knowing the anatomy
of it. You don't have to know the exact anatomy of the walls and tables and floors and so forth
that this universe is made of before you can get out of this universe. Really it's sufficient to know
that they consist of postulates in a scrunched  up postulate configuration and really that's
sufficient. That's all you really need to know. Of course you need to know about the goals
packages and so forth and erase them and get rid of the mind and so forth. Then you can start
thinking about walking out of the universe. Well that about wraps it up, Greg, I can't think of
much else to go on to. It's coming towards the end of the tape anyway, I don't want to get into
anything else and have the tape run out on me. 

If you're still in touch with Bill Nichols, the guy who developed the Unstacking Procedure it's
quite ok with me if you want to send him a copy of my material, he might be very interested in it.
In fact you might save his life. 

His tone arm should be getting up pretty high by now if he's still working on the Unstacking
Procedure, he should be using a Mark 14 meter by now which has super sensitivity and he should

be looking for little drops of tone arm between 6.9 and 6.85 on his meter. [laughs] should be
getting pretty high, that tone arm, by now. 

I'm only joking, I hope he's not that bad. But anyway you certainly have my permission to ship him
off a copy of my data. Also I have no objection if you make a nominal charge to people for your
duplicating costs of this material when you send it off to them. I think that's something entirely
up to you. I certainly have no objection as long as you make it quite clear that it's you that's
charging and not me that charging it. They're your charges and not my charges. I leave that
entirely to your discretion, your good sense, who you send the material to. I'm sure your quite
aware of the limitations as well as I am so I leave it entirely up to your good sense. Ok, Greg, well
that's about it. I hope to hear from you soon and if I can send you some more data or anything
else to clarify I'll be pleased to do so. I don't mind if you communicate with me by tape or
whether you communicate with me by letter. I see that on the letter you wrote in nice big print,
with my bad eyesight if you do write a letter make the print nice and large or you, as I say, if
you've got a tape recording facility then by all means record a tape. I can play back tapes here
quite comfortably so I'm quite happy to converse with you by tape. 

Recording a tape is far easier for me than writing. Writing is very difficult for me these days
because of my bad eyesight. Even a typewriter's getting beyond me. So that's why this material
is on a tape rather than written. It's much easier for me to record with microphone than it is to
write or use a typewriter. 

Well that's about that at the moment Greg so I'll say "Ta Ta" to you and all the best and again
thank you for duplicating my material and bye for now. Bye bye. 

End of tape 

RETURN TO LECTURES INDEX