Second Addendum to Theory Section
Cause is the action of bringing an effect into existence, taking an effect out of existence, knowing, or not-knowing. That which is brought into existence, taken out of existence, known, or not-known is called an effect.
Thus life, in all its manifestations, is causative.
Causation is the common denominator of all life impulses.
Causation is achieved by postulates. A postulate is a causative consideration. A consideration is defined as a thought, or idea.
Life can believe itself to be an effect, but that belief is itself a causative consideration.
Responsibility is the willingness to assume causation. A being can assume causation for anything. The only liability to assuming causation is to run the being out of games. The only liability to not assuming causation is to give the being a surfeit of games. Thus, as games become progressively more compulsive, the willingness to assume causation (responsibility) is seen to lessen. Unwillingness to assume causation is thus a measure of the compulsiveness to play games in a being.
Complementary postulates enhance affinity; conflicting postulates lessen affinity.
Thus, affinity is the willingness to create complementary postulates. Love is the expression of affinity.
Reality is the degree to which complementary postulates are created. Thus, as games become progressively more compulsive things become progressively less real to the being. Things are only as real as one is creating complementary postulates regarding them.
Communication is the action of creating complementary postulates.
When two or more beings adopt complementary postulates regarding a creation they share that creation, which is now a co-creation. They are said to be in agreement regarding that creation. Thus, agreement is a shared creation.
Beings, by means of their willingness to create complementary postulates (affinity) and by actually creating complementary postulates (communication), achieve co-creation (reality). Thus understanding is achieved between beings.
Games, because they contain conflicting postulates, lessen understanding between beings.
A right action is a lovable action; it is an action that one is willing to create complementary postulates with. A wrong action is an unlovable action; it is an action that one is unwilling to create complementary postulates with.
Thus, the concept of right and wrong is a concept brought about by games. There is no absolute right and no absolute wrong. What is considered right or wrong is relative to the being and the games he is playing. Thus, what is considered a right action in one society can be a capital offense in another.
However, although the subject of what is right and what is wrong is within games there is a senior ethic. this is the subject of the right way to play games. This ethic, being about games, is not relative to the being and the games he is playing and is thus not within games. This ethic is the Code of the Ethical Being. While games are played within this ethic they retain all their element of fun, but cease to be the traps they become when played outside of this ethic. The only safe way to play games is to play them within this ethic. But the being can only play within this ethic while games are non-compulsive. Therefore he needs to address the subject of games with a view to taking the compulsion out of them. Thereafter he’ll be able to play within the ethic, and enjoy games forever with no liability to his beingness.
Continuing on the subject of within-game ethics. A games rule is an agreement between beings denoting permissible (right) play. Play outside of the rules is considered improper and therefore wrongful play. Laws are games rules denoting permissible play in a society. Thus, to accuse another of a wrong action is to accuse him of acting outside the rules of the game; it is to accuse him of unethical behavior.
A being, having lost a game played fairly within the rules, can either accept the loss or attempt to imply that the victor had committed wrongful play. These are the only two choices open to him. If he can convince his opponent that he has committed wrongful play he (the victor) will believe that he has behaved unethically and did not win the game fairly. The action of assigning causation for wrongful (unethical) play to an opponent is called blame. If the opponent accepts the blame he feels guilt.
Not wishing to behave in an unethical manner the guilty being resolves not to play in such a manner again. This, of course, is the precise effect intended by the blamer, who, now having succeeded in limiting his opponent’s willingness to act, is more easily able to overwhelm him.
Thus, blame is seen as an attempt to lower another’s willingness to act by invoking the suggestion of wrongful play, and thereby make him more easy to overwhelm.
The Blame/Guilt mechanism is pure games play. The purpose of blame is only to permit the blamer to win games. Unable to win games any other way, and having the need to win games, he resorts to the blame mechanism in order to do so.
In that any life game has a near infinite number of possibilities within it, and that it is clearly impossible to draw up games rules for all of them, the Blame/Guilt mechanism is always available to a games player. There is always some action he can point his finger at, declare it wrongful, and so attempt to make his opponent feel guilty - and thus use less than his full abilities in the playing of the game.
As a wrong act is essentially an unlovable act, the use of the blame mechanism is pure emotional blackmail: I’ll withdraw my love (affinity) from you if you persist in acting in such a manner that prevents me from winning the game.
However, blame has the liability of having to convince the other being that a wrongness has occurred. So the blamer has to keep the wrongness in existence in order to convince the other that is has occurred. Thus we find the blamer having to keep whole sections of his mind in existence in order to convince others that he has been wronged. It is a terrible price to pay for his compulsion to win games, but it clearly shows the limits to which beings will go in order to do so.
The Blame/Guilt mechanism breeds compulsive games play. Compulsive games play breeds the Blame/Guilt mechanism. They are inseparable, and where you find one you will always find the other. By means of the Blame/Guilt mechanism life finally degenerates into a frantic attempt to make others guilty while equally frantically resisting their attempts to do the same thing to you. At this level life is seen by the player as one vast sea of wrongness containing one tiny island of rightness - himself. And he knows above all things that if he stops assigning wrongness (blame) for even one instant his island will sink, and he will drown and be lost forever in that sea of wrongness. Its not that the compulsive blamer is always right, its just that he has a vast need to be right. He is always right. Even when he is wrong he is right. And he’ll still be protesting his rightness when the coffin lid is nailed down on him. For he knows how to win games: always make sure that self is right and others are wrong. It becomes his epitaph.
This is how the subject of right and wrong got into games play. And games have never been the same since. It has no other significance. Once it is understood for what it is, it will be found to resolve with no other address than by use of the exercises in the Practical Section. As the compulsion to play games lessens, the need to invoke the Blame/Guilt mechanism also lessens, and finally vanishes. It always was a crummy mechanism, and games are much more fun and healthy without it.
Shame is guilt exposed. Ridicule is the exposure of guilt. Shame/Ridicule form a pair like Blame/Guilt, from which they were spawned.
All of freedom lies within the concept of freedom of choice. When one is no longer free to choose one has lost all the freedom there is. The basic freedom of choice is between making and not making a postulate. In life this translates into the freedom of choice to play or not play a game. Thus, to the degree that the playing of games becomes compulsive freedom becomes lost. All entrapment is to be found in the compulsive playing of games. The route from entrapment to freedom, then, lies in the regaining of ones freedom of choice to play or not play games. As the being got himself into this trap, then only the being can get himself out of this trap. One being can show another the route out, but the trapped being must walk this route out himself. Thus, one being cannot free another; he can only help him to free himself. You will never find freedom ‘over that way’; no matter how thoroughly you ransack this universe in search of freedom you will only discover more and more traps. Indeed, the search for freedom over that way is one of the basic traps of the universe. You can say to another being, Free me, and with the best intent in the world he will only succeed in making you into his slave. The very best he can do for you is to show you the nature of life and games, and indicate the route out of the trap. The rest is up to you. This is the basic truth about freedom. Outside of this truth lie the freedom games: games which cash in on the desire of every compulsive games player to be free.
We always tend to imagine a slave master as a rather muscular man armed with a large whip. Such a man is not even a novice at the gentle art of making slaves, for all the very best slaves are voluntary slaves and would not give up their slavery for anything. They are convinced that they are on the ‘road to freedom’, and need no whips to keep them on it.
To trap you while promising to free you is probably the oldest game in this universe. This is the game of the ‘freedom maker’: he makes slaves out of those who walk a road to freedom that he has created for them. All the very best traps in this universe are clearly marked, The road to freedom. The game of the freedom maker is big business in this universe, and always has been - simply because the willing slave, deluded into walking the road to freedom, is always more than happy to work long hours for next to no pay, and so create enormous wealth for the slave master. The places where his willing slaves toil on their road to freedom are called Freedom Factories. (This is a slang term). The universe is strewn with them. Whole planets have become vast freedom factories. Very probably the first extra-terrestrial visitor to this planet will be an agent from a local freedom factory - scouting the territory to see if its worthwhile setting up shop here. The whole technique of the freedom maker is to suspend a carrot called ‘freedom’ in front of the person’s nose. The carrot is on a string joined to a stick, the other end of which is attached to the person’s back. Once the device is in place the person will follow the carrot forever down the road to freedom created by the freedom maker.
Freedom is the only thing that a being will permit himself to be put into slavery in order to achieve. Ponder these words as you ransack this universe in search of freedom, for the gates of the freedom factories are always open, and a new slave is always made most welcome while the carrot is being suspended in front of his nose.
The subject of freedom has always been bigger business in this universe than the subject of power. This is because the carrot of freedom is always considered a more valuable carrot than the carrot of power. It has been said that a man will sell his soul in exchange for power. What, then, is he willing to sell in exchange for promised freedom from the compulsion to be powerful? Why, his freedom, of course! It is the only thing he has to offer in exchange for such a prized goal. Hence the game of the freedom maker and freedom factories.
Reasons why for a postulate always come later than the postulate for which they are created as the reasons why. The postulate always comes later than the desire to make that postulate. The sequence is always: Desire - Postulate - Reasons why for that postulate.
The reasons why for a postulate are only justifications to convince others that the postulate is reasonable. Thus, reasons why are only created in order to justify a postulate, and always come later in time than the postulate. The postulate, in turn is always later than the desire to achieve the effect which the postulate puts into action.
The closest you can every come to a ‘reason why’ for a postulate is that it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Now this is not something dreamed up by me after a heavy night reading Alice in Wonderland. It happens to be the truth of the matter. (Something I believe that gifted mathematician who wrote Alice suspected too.) The fact that the mere suggestion we function in such a manner sends those with a mechanistic view of the mind crawling up their own synapses is only indicative of how little they know about the mind, and how trapped they are within the whole subject of reasons why and conviction in general.
Now it is true that a being, feeling unable to dream up convincing reasons why to justify a postulate, will not make that postulate. But these are reasons why for not making a postulate, not reasons why for make a postulate.
The truth is that a being never needs a reason why for making a postulate until he has made that postulate, and needs convincing reasons to justify it to others. His postulates stem from his desires, his desires stem from his urge to be alive and in there playing the game.
Its easy to see how the general belief that the reasons why for a postulate preceded the making of the postulate came about. The being, having made a postulate and now having to dream up convincing reasons why he made that postulate in order to make the postulate appear reasonable to others, will always swear on a stack of bibles that his reasons for making the postulate existed prior to the making of the postulate. For to admit otherwise is to open him up to the charge that he’s making postulates without due reason why, and then justifying them afterwards. The only way he can defend his postulate as being reasonable is to swear that the reasons for making the postulate existed prior to the making of the postulate. Eventually he comes to believe his own lie, and becomes trapped in a ‘web of reason’.
If a being ever needed a reason why to make a postulate then the first postulate ever made in the universe could never have been made, for at the time it was made no reasons why for postulates existed. That first postulate could only have been made from a desire to achieve a certain state of affairs. That is the way it was then, and that is the way it has been ever since. First came the desire, then the postulate - and only later were reasons why invented to justify the postulate and make it convincing to others. See reasons why as pure and simple conviction phenomena and you have the entire flavor of all this.
The mind, then, is full of convincing reasons why one should not make postulates, but it contains no reasons why a postulate has been made. Of course, one can always point to some part of the mind and assign it as the reason why one has a compulsion to kick cats, say, but this assigning is coming later than the postulate to kick cats. If you wish to be free of your compulsion to kick cats you need to address this postulate to kick cats, and the whole subject of cats and kicking. There is clearly a compulsive games condition here between you and cats.
Ransacking your mind and assigning reasons why to your compulsion to kick cats will not help you in the slightest. Any person can sit down and invent an infinity of convincing reasons why they have to kick cats. Its a very interesting intellectual exercise, and can give insight into the whole subject of justification and reasons why in general, but don’t expect it to do anything about your compulsion to kick cats.
That can only be resolved by resolving your compulsion to play games with cats.
The mind, then, is only resolved by addressing postulates, and the subject of games - postulates in conflict. Reasons why for the postulates always come later than the postulates, and so have no part in the resolution of the postulates in conflict.
When you fully grasp this you will stop ransacking your mind in a futile attempt to discover the reasons why for your current mental state. For the only reasons why you will discover there are the ones you are putting there now, and they are all later than the event. Its futile searching a stable for a horse that has gone; but its bordering on the ridiculous to search a stable for a horse that was never there, and then convince yourself that the piece of straw you find is really the horse.
It is only ignorance of the truth of this matter that causes patients to spend years with psychotherapists in search of the reasons why for their troubles, and why psychotherapists waste their own and their patient’s time in such a futile search. The only justification for the activity is that its profitable for the therapist, and the patient always lives in hopes that he might one day get somewhere.
Whole ‘schools’ of psychotherapy have grown up professing to know the ‘real’ reasons why of behavior, and they vie with each other to see who can be the most convincing. As its possible to invent an infinity of convincing reasons why for any facet of the mind this activity has unlimited prospects for future games play, but bleak prospects for helping people to resolve their compulsion to play games.
Once you grasp the truth about this subject of postulates and reasons why you will also learn to cut through the smoke screen of reasons why that others throw up to justify their postulates, and be able to see their naked desire and postulates clearly exposed. The brush salesman may give you a thousand convincing reasons why you ought to buy his brush, but all of them come later than the fact that he desires to sell a brush to you.
Life gets very simple once you realize that the correct sequence is: Desire - Postulate - Reasons why (Invented) for postulate.
The subject of reasons why gets combined with the Blame/Guilt mechanism. Thus, a person may search their mind for the reason why of some unwanted mental condition. Having found (assigned) a reason why that is convincing to them, they promptly blame it for the unwanted mental condition. This is compounding the lie, and only traps them further in the Blame/Guilt mechanism, and in the whole subject of conviction and justification. The unwanted mental condition is essentially a postulate, which is held in place by the compulsive games condition with its opposition postulate within the goals package. Only when addressed in this context will the unwanted mental condition resolve.
Some modern ‘schools’ of psychotherapy are what is known as evaluative schools. The practitioner of their type of school does not search in the mind of his patient for the reasons why of the patient’s difficulties, for he has already convinced himself that he knows the ‘real’ reason why for everyones difficulties. Therapy (if it can be called such) with this type of practitioner is not a matter of searching for anything, it is purely a matter of the practitioner convincing the patient of the practitioner’s beliefs. As some of these beliefs seem very strange to their patients - and to most other people, come to that - it can take years to convince them. (All the difficulties in convincing are ascribed to the patient’s resistance to accepting the truth.) Even after conviction has been achieved the patient still has his unwanted condition, but he now also possesses a thoroughly convincing argument as to why he has that condition. These schools have come a long way from the definition of a workable psychotherapy: One that can vanish unwanted mental conditions. I suppose the acquisition of a set of convincing reasons why one has a mental condition is an improvement upon not having such a set, but its a very poor substitute for being free of the unwanted mental condition.
If one were to inquire into the nature of the quality or ability that is closest to life itself one would eventually arrive at the subject of knowing. Life can know. All else is the subject of methods or systems of knowing.
The basic law, or agreement, of this universe is that one will only know that which is brought into existence to be known. Thus, this universe sets a limitation upon knowing as only being possible for the class of things which are brought into existence to be known.
This law is peculiar to this universe. A being can only operate, i.e. play games within this universe while in agreement with this law. Once he starts to know outside of this law he is operating outside the universe.
The action of bringing something into existence so that it can be known is called creation. Thus, in this universe knowing is limited to those things which have been created in the universe.
It should never be considered that knowing is by nature limited to those things which are created to be known. Life can know; it can know anything, whether it has been brought into existence to be known or not. In order to operate in this universe life considers, or agrees, that it will not-know until something is brought into existence to be known.
This limitation upon knowing is the basic law, and the only basic law, that governs this universe. Other universes can be constructed upon other basic laws, but they would all be some type of limitation of knowing, for while knowing is unlimited any type of universe or game is impossible. Bear the basic law of this universe in mind as you do the Practical Exercises, for all the games you have ever become trapped in in this universe have been based upon the basic law of the universe.
Purpose, Intention, Goal and Postulate can be regarded as synonyms. A game is a contest in conviction.
Conviction, then, is an enforcement of knowingness.
Enforcement of knowingness is called importance.
Purposes are made more intense in order to make them more convincing. Thus, importance is the intensity of purpose; the degree of ‘mustness’ in that purpose. As the intensity, or importance, of a purpose approaches zero so the purpose itself approaches zero. Importance bears the same relation to purpose as cattishness does to a cat: when all the cattishness has been removed the cat has gone too. Thus, to resolve a purpose in the mind it is only necessary to address the importance of this purpose; once this has been resolved the purpose itself will approach zero and finally vanish. This is the basis of all effective psychotherapy.
Significance is the consideration of both the nature of a purpose and its importance. So significance too approaches zero as the intensity, or importance, of that purpose approaches zero. There can be no significance in the absence of importance. Thus, importance is the basis of all significance.
So any purpose, to stay in existence, requires an importance ‘rating’. But importance is an enforced knowingness, and once the importance has gone the purpose too has vanished. Thus, all purposes are systems or methods of knowing, not-knowing, making known, or making not-known.
Purposes are held in suspension in the mind by opposing purposes. Thus, a purpose can only be resolved in relation to its opposition; it can never be resolved in isolation. A pair of purposes in opposition is called a problem. Problems are the basic building blocks of games.
It is necessary to clearly differentiate between the rather loose term ‘opposite’ and the very precise term ‘opposition’. Opposition is the exact opposing postulate, whereas opposite has a much broader use. E.g. The opposite of knowing is loosely regarded as not-knowing. However, the opposition postulate to ‘To know’ is ‘To be not-known’. This is not a matter of conjecture, but of logical necessity.
Life has four basic abilities. Every purpose in life must manifest in line with one or other of these basic abilities. The totality of these manifestations regarding a purpose we call the goals package of that purpose. Thus, all possible manifestations of the goal ‘To know’ are within the To know goals package.
Thus, all possible games regarding a purpose are within its goals package. Thus all possible non-games (complementary postulate situations) regarding a purpose are within its goals package. Thus, the totality of charge (upset) on any goal is to be found within its package.
It is a fundamental error in psychotherapy to go outside a goals package looking for charge that is within the package. It is always within the package. There is no other place it can be. E.G. A man has a compulsion to drink. The totality of this problem, and all other possible problems on the subject of drinking, are within the ‘To drink’ goals package. To go searching outside the ‘To drink’ goals package for the ‘reasons why’ of his compulsion to drink is to court failure. Yet some ‘schools’ of psychotherapy maintain that the man’s compulsion to drink - and everything else about him, apparently - is to do with his infantile sex life. His sex life, both infantile and non-infantile, is within the ‘To sex’ package. His drinking life is within the ‘To drink’ package. They are separate packages, and its a fundamental error to address one in an effort to resolve the other. Its analogous to a medical doctor bandaging up a man’s toe when he has a cut finger. It may be necessary for some psychotherapists to resolve their own ‘To sex’ packages before they will be able to appreciate this simple truth. If so, then so be it.
Due to the nature of conviction (an enforced knowingness) the basic goals package is ‘To know’. All other goals packages are within this package. All other goals are methods of knowing, not-knowing, making known or making not-known.
(This truth can also be arrived at by examining the purpose of any purpose. Eventually you will arrive back at one or other of the legs of the ‘To known’ package. Once there, you can backtrack no further, for the purpose of each of these purposes is its own purpose.)
All goals packages are in exactly the same form as the ‘To know’ package.
All goals packages are addressed in exactly the same manner as the ‘To know’ package.
A goal can be general or specific. E.G. ‘To grow’ is general; ‘To grow petunias’ is specific; ‘To grow petunias in the springtime’ is even more specific. All specific versions of a goal are within the general version. Hence, only the general form of a goal is ever addressed, for all possible specifics are within the general.
This section can be glossed over if desired. The purpose of the section is to demonstrate to those interested that the subject of the goals package rests upon a firm logical foundation.
The subject of logic rests upon two fundamental axioms:
|1)||The common class of a concept and its absence does not exist. ( x(1-x)=0. This equation is only satisfied when x is either zero or unity. Thus, in the algebra of classes (Boolean algebra)(symbolic logic) the symbols can only have the value of zero or unity.)|
|2)||The universe can be divided into any concept and its absence. ( x + (1-x) =1.)|
From these two basic axioms all other logical propositions are derived. One of these propositions states that the types of possible classes that can exist with two concepts, x,y, are four. Their sum equals the universe: unity.
xy + x(1-y) + y(1-x) + (1-x)(1-y) = 1.
(Any high school student can, by extending out the left hand side of the above equation, discover that it does in fact equal unity.)
Any goals package contains two concepts; these plus their absences (negatives) constitute the four legs of the package.
The ‘To know’ package is such a package. If we represent ‘To know’ by x, and ‘To be known’ by y, we can see from the above equation regarding two concepts that the four possible classes are:
|xy||This is the class To know and To be known. These are complementary postulates, and are a no-game class.|
|x(1-y)||This is the class To know and To not be known. These are conflicting postulates, and are a game class.|
|y(1-x)||This is the class To be known and To not-know. These are conflicting postulates, and are a game class.|
|(1-x)(1-y)||This is the class To not-know and To not be known. These are complement -y postulates, and are a no- game class.|
Thus, we have proven within the rigors of strict logical reasoning that any goals package contains the full universe of its component concepts, and that no part of life is external to the package. In the language of the mathematician the 16 levels of the goals package are necessary and sufficient for our purposes.
All four legs of a goals package hold each other in suspension in the mind. No goal in a goals package can be erased (vanished) from the mind without also erasing the other three goals in the package. Thus, a goals package is the smallest unit that can be erased from the mind. To attempt to erase any purpose from the mind without also erasing the other three purposes in its package is merely an exercise in futility. E.G. A man has a compulsion to drink. He will never be free of his compulsion to drink until he is also free of his compulsions to not drink, to be drunk, and to not be drunk. They are addressed as a set, and they erase as a set.
The oppositions in any goals package are in the same form as the oppositions in the ‘To know’ package.
The complementary postulates in any goals package are in the same form as the complementary postulates in the ‘To know’ package.
However, the purpose of the goal may embrace more than one leg of the ‘To know’ package. E.g. You can grow something in order to be known as a grower; you can grow something in order to know what it looks like when its grown; you can grow a privet hedge in order to not-know the view of the local gasworks; you can grow a privet hedge in order to be not-known by your neighbors.
Thus it is an error to try and draw a one-to-one correspondence between the legs of a goals package and the legs of the ‘To know’ package. Life knows no such limitations.
This universe is a universe of purposes, either complementary or conflicting. While viewed as such it is possible to understand it. If viewed in any other manner it forever remains a mystery. What we regard as an object in the universe only consists of purposes. It is held in existence by its own internal conflict of purposes. It is a highly compressed goals package. As the basic goals package is ‘To know’, every object in the universe can only basically consist of this package. Within this truth lies the key to vanishing unwanted universe objects.
All goals packages are within the basic package, ‘To know’. Why, then, may it be necessary to address other (junior) packages on the route out? Simply because a being may not clearly perceive that any given purpose in life is a method of achieving one or other of the legs of the basic package. Once he perceives this regarding a given purpose the charge (upset) on that purpose vanishes and reappears in the ‘To know’ package. While he does not perceive this the charge remains in the junior package.
It is a truism of psychotherapy that a patient can only be helped within the structure of his own convictions. Or, as they say, you can only help him ‘where he lives’. One could, of course, by means of the technique of listing the purpose of a purpose eventually get the patient to realize that the purpose bothering him was really one or other of the legs of the ‘To know’ package. However, this is not desirable, and no matter how smoothly achieved will leave the patient feeling as if he’s been deprived of something. Which he has. He’s been deprived of the other purpose! Far better to address the junior purpose in the context of its own package. When you do this it very often happens that the junior package suddenly ‘collapses’ at the instant when the patient realizes that the purpose in question is only a method of achieving one or other of the legs of the basic package. All residual charge will then leave the junior package and reappear in the basic packages - where, of course, it truly belongs. However, junior packages, being complete in themselves, will also erase in their own right quite independently of the basic package.
The legs of a junior package must bear the same relation to each other as do the legs of the basic package. Otherwise the package is not a true package and will never erase. E.G. The complementary goal of ‘To free’ is ‘To be free’ not ‘To be freed’. Some care is always required in formulating the exact wording of junior packages. When a junior package is not erasing cleanly the most common fault is that the package is not a true package. This is known as cross-packaging. It is one of the ‘deadly’ sins. When two or more junior packages are crossed up into one package neither of the packages will erase, and the whole mish-mash just grinds on forever. The therapist who tries to resolve a man’s drinking problem by addressing his infantile sex life is guilty of cross-packaging. This is why the ‘therapy’ goes on forever with no relief for the patient. Indeed, the basic way to confuse a being is to cross-package him. Much thought has been given to this gentle art in the history of the universe, and the most confusing things that have ever happened to beings have been overt attempts to cross-package them - all under the guise of ‘education’, of course. Once cross-packaged the being is stuck within the crossed-up packages forever. Cross-packaging is the primary method of enslaving spiritual beings that has been used in the universe. It is infinitely more effective than the use of rubber truncheons. So make sure that the legs of your junior packages bear exactly the same relation to each other as do the legs of the basic package. Only then will they erase.
Check that the complementary postulates are indeed complementary, and that the opposing postulates are exact oppositions. This can only be done empirically, on the basis of cold, hard logic. To do it any other way is to court disaster. Once may have a strong ‘gut feeling’ that the goal ‘To eat’ is opposed by the goal ‘To not be edible’, however logic tells us that the correct opposition is ‘To not be eaten’. The difference between the package cleanly erasing and grinding on forever is to be found within such fine shades of meaning. Nowhere in life do you have to be more precise than in this area of composing junior goals packages.
Erasure is vanishment. When a goals package has been erased from the mind it is gone. Literally. All four legs have vanished. It has not been suppressed, repressed or any other type of pressed. It has neither been adjusted to or not adjusted to. It has gone. Even the concepts contained within the package have to be consciously created by the being before they exist. You can hunt in the mind forever with lie-detectors, skin galvanometers, et al, and find no trace of the component legs of an erased goals package. Thus, the concept of erasure is a psychotherapist’s dream. It is also a nightmare to those who hold a mechanistic view of the mind, and maintain that once an ‘impression’ is made on the mind it is in that mind forever. Faced with the phenomena of erasure they either don’t believe it, tear up their textbooks and acknowledge that they were in error, or jump out of sixth story windows taking their textbooks with them, depending upon their mental stability and general willingness to change their minds about such things.
A goals package is the smallest unit that can be erased from the mind. Hence, when something erases from the mind some goals package or other has been erased. This can and does happen in general psychotherapy, and accounts for the ‘miracle’ cures we sometimes read about.
Partial erasure of a goals package is called nulling that package. Nulling a package reduces the intensity of the compulsive games condition between the legs of the package. If a goals package can be nulled it can also be erased.
Are we then free to take any purpose, formulate it into a goals package, and proceed to erase it from the mind? No. We are not free to do this for every purpose.
To understand why this is so we have to examine the basic urge of life in this universe. In this universe life is endeavoring to be. It is endeavoring to exist. The purest expression of this urge is contained within the ‘To be known’ leg of the basic package. This is true of all life in the universe right down to the cellular, bacterial and virus levels. Goals which further or enhance this basic urge can be formulated into goals packages and will erase. They are called life goals. Goals which oppose this basic purpose, when formulated into goals packages, will not erase. They are called non-life goals. An examination of the basic package also reveals that the goal which most furthers and enhances the ‘To be known’ leg is the goal ‘To know’, the complementary goal in this package. Thus, ‘To know’ most furthers and enhances life’s basic urge in the universe.
Thus, a life goal is defined as one which is not opposed to the ‘To be known’ leg of the basic package.
Thus, a non-life goal is defined as one which is opposed to the ‘To be known’ leg of the basic package.
Non-life goals, upon examination, will invariably be found to be part of the negative legs of life goal packages. E.G. The goal ‘To hinder’ is clearly totally within the ‘To not help’ leg of the ‘To help’ package.
Non-life goals can only be erased from the mind by erasing the life goal package in which they are contained.
This limitation upon the formulation of goals packages is put on us by the nature of this universe, and the purpose of life within it. It is not a limitation of method, but a limitation imposed upon us by the basic agreements and nature of the universe itself. The reason why non-life goals packages do not erase is because the goal upon which they are based is opposed to the basic urge of life in the universe, not due to some quirk in people’s minds. The fact that non-life goals packages do not erase is extremely powerful evidence supporting the theory of lifes’ basic urge in the universe.
One could wax very moralistic about all this, and point to non-life goals as being ‘original sin’ or some such, and use it as a platform to assert the way to the ‘good and pure life’. One is, of course, free to do this. And it is true that a spiritual being gets himself into all the trouble its possible to get into in the universe by adopting non-life goals as a total way of life. And, in so doing, he can also make the life of those around him a misery too. However, no matter how much we moralize and point the finger, the truth is that some people have become convinced that the only way to live is to base their life upon non-life goals, and they will continue to do so until they change these convictions. The problem boils down to a problem in therapy, not a problem in morality, for only therapy can change their convictions without overwhelming them, and so driving them further into the trap. As, for the majority, this therapy can be completed by themselves in their own homes at no cost to themselves except their own time, we see this as the optimum solution to the problem.
Once a life goals package has been erased all the non-life goals to be found within its negative legs will also be found to be erased. E.G. Once the ‘To help’ goals package has been erased, the ‘To hinder’ package, and all similar packages to be found within the negative legs of this life goal will also be erased.
The more fundamental a life goals package is, the more non-life goals are to be found within this negative legs. Thus, the ‘To know’ package, being the basic package, contains all possible non-life goals within its negative legs. It also contains, of course, all possible life goals within its positive legs.
The general rule of therapy is to address the most fundamental life goal that will produce change in the being when addressed. From this rule is derived the rule that we always address the basic package first, and stay with that package as long as it produces change. We only leave that package when it ceases to produce change in the being, and then only temporarily until it can once more be run gainfully.
The main purpose of addressing junior packages is to permit the basic package to be run gainfully. This is purely a matter of the most efficient use of therapy time. Life contains a near infinity of significances, and we are addressing all of them when we address the basic package. To address a junior package while the basic package can be addressed gainfully is a non-optimum use of therapy time.
Knowing the nature of life’s basic urge in this universe it should come as no surprise to us to learn that non-life goals packages not only never erase, but produce a steady worsening of the state of the being while erasure is being attempted. Its not that they just grind on forever, like cross-packaged life goals do, never nulling and never erasing, but they actually produce a marked worsening in the state of the being. And there is no relief from this worsening. If the non-life goals package is persisted with it would eventually lead to the demise of the by now thoroughly demented and tormented being. One either does this right or it will kill you. There is no middle path.
I could not stress this fact too strongly. I’ve walked to the gates of hell researching non-life goals packages on myself to discover this truth, and there’s no need for others to repeat the torture on themselves. We have, within the technology of the goals package, the power to give a being either life or death. All coins have two sides. The non-life goals package is the other side of the coin called life. However, such is the power of the basic package (To know) that it will actually repair the ravages brought about by running non-life goals packages. If this were not so I would not be writing this now. But I only caught it in the nick of time. You may not be so fortunate.
If you wish to play with non-life goals packages while the life goals packages are still heavily charged, there is a very precise way to go about it. Contact your local undertaker and get him to deliver you a coffin. Lay in the coffin and address non-life goals packages. Then your next of kin will only have to screw the lid down when you expire. They won’t have long to wait.
I can give you the basic non-life goals package. I give it to you so that you can avoid it. A spiritual being cannot be destroyed. He can only be degraded. And he has been degraded. He’s been degraded so much that the urge to degrade can beat strongly in his breast. Life on this planet is being constantly degraded by those who deny that it is basically a spiritual quality, and insist that it is basically mud. The whole philosophy of materialism is a direct degradation of life. Its purveyors, themselves degraded to the point of being convinced that they are no more than mud, take a perverse joy in trying to drag others down into the ooze. Most of the ‘education’ a spiritual being has ever received in this universe has been an overt attempt to degrade him - to strip him of his native spiritual qualities. For while he is cognizant of his true spiritual nature he is considered infinitely dangerous to those who wish to use him for their own ends.
The ‘To degrade’ goals package, when formulated and used, is one very ‘hot’ non-life goals package. It will soon have you scraping agony off the walls of every torture chamber this side of Galaxy 4. And that is only for starters. Very soon death is regarded as a welcome release. The whole of the ‘To degrade’ package is within the negative legs of the ‘To enhance’ package. This life package, when erased, also erases the ‘To degrade’ package amongst others. And this erasure is achieved painlessly. Once achieved, the ‘To degrade’ package can be run with impunity. It has no more charge left in it than a piece of dead codfish. I trust that you are getting the message.
Such is the power of the ‘To degrade’ postulate in the universe these days that the basic upset in any person’s life is invariably an overt attempt to degrade them by others. It is usually in early childhood, or even infancy. The incident is so abhorrent to the being that he rapidly shuts it out of mind (not-know), and by adolescence it is no longer a part of his or her conscious recalls. Yet the incident continues to have a profound effect upon the being for the remainder of that life-time, and colors his physical, emotional and intellectual approach to everything he does. By addressing the ‘To enhance’ goals package in the form of the 8 classes of overts and motivators, just as given for the ‘To know’ package earlier, any psychotherapist could rapidly ‘spring’ this basic lifetime degradation into view and permit its re-evaluation to pt(now) realities. Such an action would be enormously therapeutic to the patient, and would result in a betterment of their whole personality. Such are some of the applications of this technology in the field of psychotherapy. The same results can, of course, be achieved by a person running solo on the exercises given in the Practical Section.
The basic law of this universe states that its only possible to know those things which have been brought into existence to be known. From this law it follows that those things which have been brought into existence to be known are ipso facts considered knowable. This means that the universe imposes upon us a willingness to know those things we bring into existence to be known. While we function inside this law we can play games in this universe with impunity. However, once we try and function outside of this law the universe becomes a trap. The trap is, of course, our ignorance of the basic law of the universe, not something intrinsic in the nature of the universe itself.
This means that its quite safe to create any effect in this universe as long as one is willing to experience (know) the effect one has created. Once one loses sight of this law one becomes trapped. Trapped where? Trapped within the basic "To know’ goals package. And, of course, trapped within the universe itself.
As all junior goals packages are within the basic package, they too follow the same basic law. E.G. The ‘To free’ package. Its not possible to be free without being willing to free (others).
This aspect of the basic law of the universe is called the Law of the Complementary Postulate. It states:
To adopt any postulate in a goals package while being unwilling to adopt its complementary postulate leads to entrapment in that goals package.
The only entrapment this universe contains is violation of the Law of the Complementary Postulate. Bear this law in mind as you erase goals packages.
Thus we can always measure the degree of entrapment in a goals package, and the intensity of the games condition between the legs of the package, by discovering how willing the being is to adopt the complementary legs of that package. E.G. The ‘To control’ package. The positive complementary legs of this package are ‘To control’ and ‘To be controlled’. Entrapment in this package is indicated when one of those postulates is preferred to the other. As the package erases, of course, this imbalance lessens and finally vanishes, at which time the being is equally willing to occupy any of the four legs of the package. Of course, an imbalance in the positive complementary legs of a package also produces an equal and opposite imbalance in the negative complementary legs of that package.
One may wonder if we can get round the limitation of non-life goals packages being unerasable by addressing them in a negative form. E.G. ‘To hate’ is a non-life goal, for ‘To hate’ is totally within the ‘To not-know’ leg of the ‘To know’ package (one does not wish to know those things that one hates), and is therefore opposed to the ‘To be known’ leg. Would not, then, the goal ‘To not hate’ be erasable when formulated into a package? The answer is no. This can be proven empirically. The conclusion has been verified by testing. It can be proven empirically by an application of Boolean algebra, or even by formal logical reasoning. Given that the class ‘To hate’ is within the class ‘To not-know’, it follows that the class ‘To not hate’ contains within it all the class ‘To know’ plus some of the class ‘To not-know’. Therefore, some of the class ‘To not hate’ is opposed to the class ‘To be known’. Thus, ‘To not hate’ is also a non-life goal and its package will not erase. In life, one does not get out of the trap of hating by adopting a policy of not hating. This is true for the negative legs of all non-life goals. Their packages do not erase, and in life one does not become free of them by adopting their negatives.
Only life goals are erasable from the mind. None of the legs of non-life goals packages can be formulated into erasable packages.
The negative legs of life goal packages, when formulated into goals packages, also will not erase. This much is obvious from first principles, but has also been verified by testing.
When we violate the basic law of the universe in formulating goals packages the packages never erase and are intensely non-therapeutic. When we try and live our lives in this universe on the basis of non-life goals, or their negatives, we become further and further entrapped in compulsive games play, and in the universe itself.
Once trapped within a goals package, whether a life or a non-life package, it is incredibly difficult to get out of this trap by livingness alone. The being moves compulsively from one leg of the package to the next, round and round, like a tennis ball bouncing inside a box. He endlessly tries to get relief from the agony that every leg eventually becomes by adopting a new leg, only to find that that leg in turn sooner or later becomes agonizing. No matter how he twists and turns and struggles, he is trapped within the box - within the goals package. Is it so surprising that some eventually go insane, and retreat to private hells of their own manufacture? A hell that is only slightly less agonizing than life has become.
There may be a relief for some by adopting the philosophy of the world’s great spiritual leaders. E.g. Christ’s message: ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself’. But for the many they are simply unable to use these routes to get out of the trap that life for them has become. They are far too enmeshed in the trap to be able to get out of the trap by changing their mode of life and thought. Their compulsive thoughts governs their behavior; their compulsive behavior governs their thoughts. They are trapped forever in the universe. This is literally true, for when the basic law governing the game of this universe was dreamed up no arrangements were made to ever bring the universe to an end. Why should they be made? Do children, left to themselves, ever put a time limit to their own playtime?
The only release for the majority from the trap this universe has become for them is to methodically take apart the trap they have made for themselves. This universe was never designed as a trap. But it most certainly becomes one when one acts in it in ignorance of its basic laws. This technology is such a route out of the trap.
There are only three steps that a spiritual being needs to take in order to free it from any trap. They are:
|1).||Realize that you are in a trap.|
|2).||Discover the true nature of the trap.|
|3).||Walk out of the trap.|
A partial list of non-life goals follows. Each of them has been tested and found to be intensely non-therapeutic and non-erasable.
To Degrade. To Destroy. To Blame. To Enslave. To Hate. To Drug. To Trap. To Lie. To Cheat. To Steal.
There are many other non-life goals, but most will be found to be variations of the above list.
A partial list of life goals follows. Each of them, in addition to the ‘To know’ package, have been tested and found to be therapeutic and erasable.
To Create. To Love. To Admire. To Enhance. To Help. To Feel. To Control. To Own. To Have. To Eat. To Sex.
There are also the perception packages. These are all within the ‘To Know’ leg of the basic package, and are therefore therapeutic and erasable.
To See. To Hear. To Touch. To Smell. To Taste.
Language purists who complain that the word sex is a noun in English are free to use the Anglo-Saxon four-letter verb. It means the same thing. When working with goals packages one quickly gets used to verbalizing nouns when simple verbs are not available in the language. After all, words are only symbols representing concepts, and when working solo we are free to use them however we please. Only when dealing with others do the meanings of the words have to be agreed upon.
The main list of life goals, headed by ‘To Know’ and continuing with ‘To Create’ etc., form a scale of increasing condensation, or solidity. You will be able to write a book about what you will find as you erase each of these packages. I’ll leave you to make your own discoveries. Quite apart from therapeutic considerations as you erase the package you will learn more about the subject matter of the package than you could ever learn by taking a course at a university in that subject.
The list of life goals given are by no means a complete list of all possible goals of this class, but you will find that most others are variations of the ones listed. The list is certainly adequate to get you out of any type of compulsive game you have got yourself into in this universe.
However, you may like to formulate your own life goals packages. A very useful trick when confronted with a non-life goal, and wishing to find the life goal in whose package it resides, is to take the opposite (not the opposition) of the goal and formulate that into a package. E.g. The opposite of To Destroy is regarded as To create. Formulate and run the To Create package. To Destroy can also be considered as the ultimate in hindrance, or non-help. So formulate and run the To Help package. Both packages resolve compulsive destructive tendencies - as, indeed, do all life packages. Again I would like to remind you that when formulating a goals package be very sure that the legs bear the exact same relationship to each other as do the legs of the basic package (To Know). You can waste hours - even years - trying to erase packages where the complementary legs are not exactly complementary, and the opposition legs are not exactly opposing. Consult a good dictionary when in doubt. Get it right before you start. Its always quicker in the long run. The complementary legs of the life goals listed follow. Their negative legs are obtained by adding the word ‘not’ to the positive legs.
To be Created. To be Loved. To be Admired. To be Enhanced. To be Helped. To be Felt. To be Controlled. To be Owned. To be Had. To be Eaten. To be Sexed.
The similar list for the perceptics packages is:
To be Seen. To be Heard. To be Touched. To be Smelt. To be Tasted.
‘To Drink’ is a part of the ‘To Eat’ package. Thus, it too is a life goal and will erase. Its complementary leg is ‘To be drunk.’ I mention it because it is a specific package for the resolution of alcoholism - if you can get the alcoholic to stop drinking for long enough to null the package.
Some life packages are shared in common with your body (e.g. To Eat; To Sex). As you erase them you can expect to experience passing body stimulation. It will pass away as the packages erase. But remember that even though you have erased one of these packages, and are free of the compulsions within it, your body will still be active with the package. E.g. Even though you have erased the ‘To Sex’ package your body will still require sexual activity to remain healthy. Similarly with eating. Its the way the body is. Its a built-in part of its existence as a life form. You can be free of the compulsions within these packages, but your body never will be - and still remain a body. If you want a body that is free of the needs of food and sex then I suggest you look around for a Mark VI robot body. They are very popular in some parts of the galaxy, although they are not without their own peculiar maintenance and upkeep problems.
This universe has been well described by physicists as a space-time continuum. It has three spatial dimensions, and one time dimension at right angles to the three spatial ones. Although this concept is easy to handle mathematically it is not easy to visualize, for once within the universe our minds become to some degree trapped within the three spatial dimensions. Which leaves the fourth dimension a bit tricky to grasp. However, life can embrace a four dimensional continuum. If life could not embrace it then life could not have created the idea of the universe in the first place. (Even if it is considered that the universe was created by God he too is considered as being alive). Indeed, this universe is within life, rather than life being within the universe. Only when we consider life to be a phenomena generated by the masses and spaces of the universe do we have any real difficulty in grasping the nature of the universe. This is the ultimate trap of materialism.
We can get over the difficulty of conceiving of a four dimensional continuum very easily by dropping one of the spatial dimensions. This leaves us with a model containing two spatial dimensions and one time dimension. We can conceive of this very easily. Such a model is a cylinder closed at one end and open at the other. The two spatial dimensions of this tube are its cross section. The time dimension is the length of the tube at right angles to the cross section. The closed end of the tube is the beginning of the universe. The open end is now. As time passes the tube gets longer.
If we now imagine our tube to be populated with beings who can only easily perceive the two spatial dimensions our model is complete. We, of course, being easily able to perceive in three dimensions, can see the whole tube. The beings in the tube, by their own creativity and games play make time, and thus continuously extend the tube. We outside the tube, by observing them and seeing what they are doing, could easily predict the future of the tube. But if we were to enter the tube and agree to abide by the laws of the tube - i.e. to only perceive spatially in two dimensions - we too would become a tube dweller, and be limited accordingly.
And this is precisely how a being gets into the real universe. He considers that such a game looks like fun, and pops into the tube. After a while he may well wonder how he is ever going to get out again. He gets out again by contacting and reviewing his decisions to go into agreement with the laws governing the tube.
The basic law of our universe is that one will only know those things which are brought into existence to be known. Agreement with this law keeps us in the tube. Its as simple as that. As one continues to null the ‘To know’ goals package one progressively frees up from the compulsion to be in the tube. Eventually one has regained ones freedom of choice in the matter of whether or not to stay in the tube.
Now this tube we call the universe has been in existence for some 2 x 1014 (200,000,000,000,000) Earth years. This is a long time when compared to an Earth year, but how long is it to a being who is outside the tube, and only needs to flip his attention from one end of the tube to the other?
Not every being currently in the tube has been in it since the tube began. They have been drifting in to see what the game is like continuously - like children joining in an existing game of cowboys and Indians. Most have eventually become more or less trapped in the tube as they lost cognizance of their true nature as spiritual beings, and of the basic law governing the tube.
One of the many phenomena that stem from the basic law of this universe is that no matter when a being entered the tube all of the past of the tube is available to him. His agreement to only know those things which have been brought into existence to be known does not prevent him from knowing anything and everything that has ever happened in the tube, whether or not he was in the tube when the event happened. Because everything ever brought into existence in the tube is knowable by the basic law governing the tube, the being can know it.
So you can know anything and everything that has ever happened in the past of this universe. But you cannot know what is going to happen in the future of this universe, because that has yet to be brought into existence to be known, and so by the basic law of the tube is unknowable. To know the future of the tube you have to go out of the tube - and out of agreement with the basic law of the tube.
So you can known what has happened in the past of this universe, whether or not you were actually present when it happened. You can observe the fall of Carthage, the crucifixion of Christ etc. But don’t be surprised if the event turns out to be different from what is reported in the history books. Historians use a system of knowing, not direct knowing. By the use of systems of knowing history becomes the common denominator of what people can agree upon as having happened, which can be and often is very different from what actually happened.
As we know, people can and do assume the identities of well known historical figures for the purposes of games play. This can and does become quite compulsive amongst certain types of personalities. We can predict that it would be most compulsive amongst the insane. And it is so. Any given insane asylum may have five Napoleons, four Christs and a couple of Genghis Khans. Where did they all learn so much about these identities to be able to ape them so well? Need we ask? Are any of these insane people reincarnations of the originals? Probably not. But all of them have the native ability to know everything there is to know about the originals by examining the past of this universe.
Another aspect of the same phenomena is that any incident that occurred in the distant past of this universe can be found in the past of any being in the universe today. And it is ridiculously easy for the being to believe that he was actually involved in this incident, for he has no evidence to the contrary.
Again, then, we see the sheer futility of ransacking the past of this universe in search of the ‘reasons why’ for current behavior. The being has the whole history of this universe to draw upon when he is a bit short of a convincing ‘reason why’ for a postulate, and will not hesitate to do so when pressed. Clutching a cherished postulate to his bosom, he will happily and methodically relate any and all of it to those who are stupid enough to search for the ‘reasons why’ of his postulate.
Only by resolving postulates in conflict can the being be freed from the trap the universe has become for him. This is the subject of the goals package in general, and the ‘To know’ package in particular.