GPM ITEMS
A lecture given on 2 April 1963

Well, how are you today? Let's see if you're there. How are you today?
Audience: Fine.
All right.
All right, this is what? This is the 2nd of April, or the 3rd? Or the 5th? The 2nd of April AD 13, Saint Hill Special Briefing Course, and we have a lot of material here for you today.
But the first thing I'd like to show you is the prototype of the new listing meter. A listing meter. And been designing this, and Fowler and Allen have been throwing the nuts, bolts and electrodes together, and here we have the item. The item. Interesting, huh? There's a new listing meter here, huh?
Well, what's this all about? What's this all about? Well, I'll show you a better picture here on the other screen. There is a listing meter. Now, it goes this side down, as you list on the paper, it goes that side down, and you've got two panes of glass. Here, and here, and you've got your needle across here, and you've got two rows of dots. See the two rows of dots, there? See them? Now those, of course, are closest to the paper, and it actually fits at about that angle. And it's on a little s‑little stick, here. See this little stick? And it tips like this. You can see it‑see, it tips over here. The cans‑the cans go on here, and they plug in over here to the side like that, and your wheel‑your wheel, see‑is back here. Back. See, the back side, and the tone arm reads are inside the dial there.
And so you get your needle action and your tone arm reads, and as you put it down here, you take a pencil, and you put your list underneath this glass. You see, this thing is hanging up like this and you actually rotate your tone arm over here, with your finger, and you go on and list, and of course as you look at your paper you are looking through the two glasses at the dial, don't you see? So as you list, if that needle twigs, ticks, rocket reads, rock slams or anything else, you of course see it without moving your eyeballs any off of what you are writing immediately below it. Don't you see that? See?
To show you the position ‑there's your paper, there's your pencil, and you look down through there and you see exactly what you're writing, so that you get something like this, don't you see. And you see that through there, and of course you can see your needle, your needle swings back and forth across that check mark. Pretty good, huh? That is the new listing meter. That is a prototype of this. And this does not replace the Mark V. This is a cheap meter. This is a very, very cheap meter, and it's skinned down, and it only has two sensitivities, and you skin this thing down to a very elementary meter design and elementary parts. And it doesn't cost very much money.
Now, the reason why it doesn't cost very much money is it's not good enough, you know, to put good close rudiments in or do sec checking or something like that. It's pretty good though, by the way. Only a Mark V will do something like that. But it's actually good enough for a co‑audit to put in rudiments with. And you actually, because these things are cheap, you could have a lot of them for co‑audit. You wouldn't want to buy a whole bunch of Mark Vs for a co‑audit, they'd beat them up something terrible. No, what you want is a bunch of these listing meters. The price of this has not been released at this particular time, it's going into production as soon as I put in 12, 14 hours of auditing with the meter, and take any little refinements and so forth that need to be done, and there we go.
Now, this is all very interesting, but what does this do to the Mark V? Well, it doesn't do a thing to the Mark V. You need that for various things, and this is sufficiently cheap that you just put it in as part of your kit. You would also want a Mark V to audit with, man, particularly if you're security checking.
My idea was ‑a Mark V, you know, is quite expensive because the components in it are fixed to go forever and all that sort of thing. And that's the modern Mark V, it has really been groomed in that way. But this listing meter‑so some co‑audit member has an ARC break and busts one of them over somebody's head, well, you charge him the price of it or something like that, then. He isn't ARC broke. Mark V, you'd weep, man!
But you could buy‑you see, you‑they should have‑if you're running a co‑audit, you should have one of these listing meters for every team. That is, if you've got 30 people you need 15 listing meters if that's the way you're going to do it. And of course that's an awful outlay. So I've been laying it on here to get a real cheap meter that was beautifully designed, but basically one that would do a power of good as far as listing is concerned so that you wouldn't miss reads and wouldn't give yourself any agitation or anything like that.
Well, that's a‑that's enough of the commercial here. The situation with regard to meters is pretty good. The US government, by the way, is sort of running up the white flag over in the States on that thing. That's confidential but I could tell you because I know you won't tell anybody. It'd be very shameful, you know, if the government had to quit. They apparently are.
Okay. Now today's lecture concerns the GPM and is consecutive to the last lecture which I gave you on the subject of the GPM. What do we mean by GPM? It is the Goals Problem Mass. Now you can call it a GPM is a Goal Problem Mass. Sequitur. G, P, M‑Goal, Problem, Mass. Pc postulates a goal, this gives him problems and he accumulates mass. And when he's accumulated so much mass and this thing has gone on and on and it's all worn out, and it's deteriorated in meaning, why, he postulates another goal and he gets another problem series, and he gets another mass.
Now, the whole thing was originally detected, by the fact that the only thing that would keep a pc from progressing in an auditing session was if he had a present time problem. I deduced from that, that there must be something very weird about problems. And I kept studying problems until I eventually had this drop out of the hamper. The whole existence of the GPM was deduced. It was deduced in its entirety, before anybody ever saw one. Which I think is quite interesting, because it is a considerable triumph for research to have the thing actually exist.
Now nobody's trying to foist this thing off on you. If you don't have one ‑if you don't have one, why, you're pretty lucky. Also, you're not human. But anyhow, the GPM was a deduced mechanism, and it's on this basis which you find back in 1950 and forward‑I don't think this definition existed till about 55. But it was postulate‑counter‑postulate. In other words, you cannot have a problem unless two people or two things have two opposing postulates or ideas. And then you get a problem.
A problem is of a dual nature. It has a duality, a problem does. And you have this expressed in the GPM as the terminal‑which means the pc‑and the oppterm‑which means the enemy.
Now why are these things expressed? You very often will find a proper name. Actually, your name will undoubtedly rocket read in present time when you get to the top of your GPM. I had the rather horrifying experience, just last night, of having my own name rocket read like mad when we had approached it, and in actual fact suddenly greeted present time. I hadn't seen present time for some time, and it was terribly unfamiliar and so on, and I didn't like it very much. But the pc's present time would be the top of his forming GPM. That's his present time. Now actually, he slides up and down this to some slight degree. He becomes his last life, or this life, and he postulates his next life, sort of, and in postulating his next life, or one hoping, you know, what he's going to become or afraid of what he might become, he tends to have an element slightly into the future of the MEST universe present time.
So the GPM that comes right on up to present time, MEST universe, but may exceed it somewhat, or may not quite reach it, because the pc has his own present time as regulated by the Goal Problem Mass in which he is situated. The top of that would be his present time and anything back from the top of that would be his past.
Now, you get the oddity that a pc could be in his own past, and you'll find this is rather uniform and consistent. Now we've known this for years. The whole book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health talks about engrams and somebody being stuck on the time track. Well, that's a pc in his own past. You see, that's a time track and that's his time track. And it's quite different than the MEST universe time track. It parallels it and it approximates it, but it doesn't answer up point for point with the MEST universe.
In other words, you can be a little bit ahead of present time in the MEST universe, you can be a little bit behind present time in the MEST universe with the top of the GPM, and then the pc isn't necessarily at the top of his own GPM. In other words, he got tired forming this thing, and for this half a lifetime or something like that he's skidded and he's using a slightly earlier item. Of course, he's still forming the GPM. But it's a sloppy thing.
I'll give you an idea here. Here's‑here's MEST universe present time, you see. Now, the pc's GPM in which he is situated might be just a little bit forward of this present time because he wants to become a cowboy in his next life. That's not his goal, that's just an ambition stemming from the goal "to be active." And he says, "Well, this lifetime, that's too tough," and he doesn't want anything much to do with it, he's being a, brahhh, something or other. He's up‑he's up here. He said, "I'm going to be a cowboy, see, in my next life," and he hasn't become a cowboy, but he‑actually you'll find a little item up here, "cowboy." You got that? He's already forming the next item that will become a good sound terminal. And you will find it and it will run.
In other words ' the pc‑pc's GPM extends up with his hope and this rather tends to make somebody believe that the GPM was all formed 200 trillion years ago, and he's just living along this track. Well, that's irresponsibility to end all irresponsibility. I was looking at that the other night.
In other words ' here he is in PT and he's John Doe. There he is as John Doe, and John Doe particularly‑ it's a goal "to be active"‑and he particularly detests‑because of the goal and so forth‑active people. See, in other words, he was active down here. But now he's become more sedentary, and here's this oppterm, now, the goal has finally turned around on him, he's getting ready to leave this GPM. And John Doe, and he doesn't like active people.
So this one over here is an idea called "active people." Now this is how a thetan doesn't have to think. This is sloppy thinking to end all sloppy thinking. Brother, you've really taken the cake, the prize, the croix de guerre, all possible decorations for sloppy thinking. Because what you did was instead of having to analyze "Bill is an active person, Joe is an active person, August is an active person, and therefore antipathetic to me because I don't like my goal anymore, which is clear down here in the bottom of all this," we say, here‑we just say "active people." And then that makes a group summary. That is the big think. That tells you that people who think in terms of "the people"‑no individuals, "the people" ‑they're nuts, you know. They're nuts. Including Khrushchev.
I don't think I'd audit Khrushchev if he asked me to, because I think he'd be too nuts. He believes in a thing called "the people," which means he's dramatizing one of these things and it has nothing to do with people. This is the sloppy think, do you understand? The sloppy think. We don't want to have to think about Pete, we don't want to have to think about Gillham, we don't want to have to think about George, so we just think about "people," see, or "men."
You've seen girls like this. You've made a pass at some girl sometime or another‑not any of you of course‑but you made a pass at some girl or another, and she said, "All men are alike." Actually, this is taken up in Book One. It's quite interesting that we had it so pat. "All men are alike." And you say, "Huh!"
Actually, she's got something over here‑"men." See? Now this doesn't‑doesn't make it necessary‑ remember what I told you about confront in the last lecture? Well, this doesn't make it necessary to confront anything, don't you see, so that she can then just group classify anything that wears pants as men. And one of you girls comes up with a pedal pusher and you're just like all other men, you see. You're wearing pedal pushers or something like that, slacks, you know. Well, you wear pants so you're a man. And she never looks to find out if you're a man or a woman, she says, "All men are alike and therefore you're brutal."
Now, somewhere around here we're going to have another one called "brutal people," see. We don't have to confront anything, we don't have to find out anything about people, we don't have to do anything else. If people are people, they're brutal people. You see the idea?
We don't have to differentiate at all. So this is why we get A = A = A as such a dominant character of the reactive mind, and this carries through forward to time. I have said advisedly that the thetan is on his own time track, just as time, but in actual fact the more he lives this thing, the more he group thinks. In other words, he ‑that means a different thing in advertising, it means‑it means a number of high‑paid executives sitting around getting no ideas, and that's group think. And that's not what I mean.
Classification. He thinks by classes. He doesn't think in terms of Bill or Pete or anything. So he thinks of time that way. So that all time becomes a time. And every time is instantaneous time so in actual fact as you run the fellow back he can't tell if it's yesterday or today or tomorrow or anything. He's got all time classified. Just as he has this whole item here, let us say, is it all men are alike," see, and that's just "Men," you know, why, we've got another‑other items which similarly group everything that has anything to do with the goal.
He just says, "Well, that's‑belongs to a certain class of things, so therefore that's all that and I don't have to inspect that." And actually he's against it, because he is being this thing here which is against that class, so he is a class and he is against a class and there are no individuations and that carries through and forward to time.
So there is no individuated time in the GPM. It's quite interesting. It all seems like right now. You go back a hundred trillion years and you may have track with pictures on it which parallels this which is hanging outside the GPM and you say, "Oh, yeah, that was a hundred trillion years ago. It seems‑well, it seems a long time ago." You're looking at this picture. The second you get into this thing called "ladies of the court," see, that's an item in the GPM. Here would be "ladies of the court," see. And here it is, actually, oh, back here ages ago, a hundred trillion years ago, see. And it seems like it's right here. Right here, right now. Right here, right now. "Ladies of the court" has no time differentiation. That's because there is no differentiation in these things.
In other words, these items are "men" versus "women," you see? And one item includes all men, and the other item will include all women. And a thetan just says, "Well, we don't have to think about this, the best thing to do Is just to realize that bricklayers are bad people."
Well, anybody then could be classified who was bad people, would be a bricklayer. He thinks so, too. You know? He'll get a twinge. They're bad people, they must lay bricks, you know? It's true. But that's the nonthink ‑characteristic because there's no confront connected with it. There's havingness without a confront. And you get a havingness without a confront, you :,et this type of classification. You understand?
So therefore, as you come up the bank, as you come up the bank, these items successively entered into, formed and so forth, are usually postulated from the past into the future like this, see. Here he is now, and here he goes into the future, and he thinks "I'd like to be a cowboy." See, "active people." So everything's going to become cowboys up here. But he hasn't entered that, so it's not really nicely heavily formed. There's not much mass on it yet because there's no livingness and no track connected with it.
But he's going to pass out of this period of present time and he's going to move into something that he's already figured out. He's begun to get the inkling here, you see, this‑let us say, this item in present time is "sedentary People." He's begun to get the inkling that sedentary people are capable of holding you back. He's gotten this idea here, so he'll be something on the order of an "active person." He finds out he can't be quite a cowboy, so he's going to be an "active person facing people who hold you back." He's already had these two items up here slightly into the future. He's getting an inkling f them, but he hasn't lived through them yet. There's the way he figures out his bank, in other words.
And therefore you find this bank wildly and widely classified. It's all‑It's all in classes. It's all in postulates or concepts. And this is why concept therapy was so effective when it was effective, if you'll remember 1952, something like that. By the way, the chiropractors down in Texas took it up‑I think they've still got it. We abandoned it for the excellent reason that it apparently had some bug connected with it. Well, the bug connected with it is we were actually pulling the postulate out of one of these GPM items, without pulling or confronting the mass out of the item. And therefore Concept Processing‑I recognized there was something a bit wrong with it, so I didn't push it anymore.
Now that's what happened. Now of course, you actually couldn't, even by concept therapy, disarrange this GPM very much, but you sure could key somebody in on the back of his own track. So there is no time identified, there is no mass identified in these things, that is to say he doesn't identify it as 1952 or something like that. What he identifies is 1952 is a hundred trillion years ago, you see. That's as far as his differentiation is capable of, he's got a total identification of two dates. He doesn't then confront and single out the identity of a single date.
I'm sorry for the use of the word "identify" and "identity" but English has moved over from differentiating a oneness into a total confusion of a oneness with all other onenesses. So you don't have a word which actually follows through on that.
Now, what's this all about here? This means that we've got a goal here, we've got a goal here "to be active." And the first thing up from that, he's simply now living the goal "to be active." So you have the goal "to be active," but it has certain enemies. And those are probably something like "inactive people" or "being‑ inactive." And then he moves up here and he's become somebody with the goal "to be active" and somebody with the goal "to be active" of course opposes with "people who are inactive." So it's "people who are inactive" or something of that sort.
And then he gets up here a little bit higher and he's got "an active person" or "somebody who is active." And that opposes, of course, something banal like "somebody who is inactive." And then we go up here a little bit further and he gets‑he's getting so he's fought these inactive people.
"That what you resist, ye become," to make a Biblical utterance out of it. Because it was never more true. Of course, all the time he has the goal "to be active" he's fighting inactive things. What's eventually going to happen to him? As he goes up the line on this terminal column he is going to become less and less and less active, and more and more prone to being very sedentary.
So you get up here at the top, you got something like "a person who hates activity" or "a person who can't move" or "a person who can't be active," is usually the type of terminology it has, and of course what does it faces? It faces as an oppterm "active people." In other words it's a total reversal goes through this GPM.
This is always the case. Don't get fooled now and say, "Well, the case I'm auditing is different." That's just an excuse because you can't find his goal or something.
The case you're auditing, it does just that. He doesn't do anything else, otherwise he wouldn't be on this time track at this time, and he would be in some other universe or something of the sort. So that's what we're talking about, we're talking about these conceptual items. There is the pc's concept of his own identity based on his goal, and his own identity is at first his goal full‑out, he is his goal, and then he becomes somebody that has the goal, and then he becomes somebody that represents the goal, and then he becomes somebody that isn't getting along very well with the goal, and then he becomes somebody who isn't very much in favor of this goal, and then he becomes somebody who is against the goal and then somebody who just can't perform the goal at all.
Now, on the oppterm side, the enemy becomes somebody who is highly antipathetic to this goal, becomes somebody who isn't so antipathetic to the goal, becomes somebody who isn't‑is kind of neutral on the subject of the goal, and eventually somebody who is rather in favor of this goal, and then eventually is somebody who would have that goal and be active with that goal. And that's the evolution of the oppterm.
Now, the evolution of the terminal is the deterioration of the goal, the evolution of the oppterm is, of course, an improvement of the goal. He just goes from total wouldn't‑ oppterm wouldn't have the goal on a bet, to the oppterm is the goal. That's nothing to do with the fact that people change, but the person's idea who has these ideas change with regard to his opposition. And for every one of these pairs, you have a problem.
Now, you could even articulate what the problem is and fool around with it a lot, but you don't have to actually‑you bleed the charge, the pc sees what it is. You've got, on the goal "to be active," you've got this person over here, let us say he's come up to a point of somebody with the goal "to be active" and who does he face? He faces "people who are inactive." So he's classified.
Now, what's this conceptual thing? "People who are inactive." Well, this is‑he just classifies everything, see. He just says, "Well, Joe, Bill, Pete, Mary, John, Oscar, government clerks, businessmen, people who sit down in chairs, loafers, bums, skid row, sailors don't move around on ships very much so they must be inactive," and so forth. And in other words, that whole thing is this item: "People who are inactive." Sweeping, isn't it? Sees one of these things, his hair goes up. He says, "Waahhh! Awful! Grrrr!" He doesn't know why. See, because he's not really articulating it analytically, he is simply talking about it.
He'll talk about the next one up, but not the one he's in. He's already forming the one that's up by forecasting his opinions. That which you resist you become, so as the person dramatizes his goal and postulates these opposing terminals, he of course gradually becomes the opposition, eventually becomes an inactive person. And there he is at the top of the bank as an inactive person.
Now what happens to him? Now what happens to him? Well, that's very interesting, you can always predict the goal, they run off completely, one, two, three, four. Here he is at the top of the bank. Let's say this is the top of the bank here. And here he is, "an inactive person"‑this one over here. And these are "active people," over here. See, so he's opposing those. Now this is your bank band in here.
Now, this thetan with the goal "to be active" at the top of his terminal line is, of course, no longer capable of doing anything with this goal at all. He's got too many overts on the subject, you see. He's had too many oppterms and so on, so he has become the oppterm, so he's an inactive person. And over here you have active people.
All right. It's very easy to predict what he's going to do. Now a thetan, in actual fact, doesn't live the bank one, two, one, two. He's always himself, they're always themselves. What he does actually is become this one slightly. You get a continuous closure, and he becomes inactive people, and then he becomes the other one slightly. So he actually moves on a kind of a zig‑zag up the line. He's always slightly into the oppterm and out, and then slightly into the next oppterm and out, and slightly into the next oppterm and out. You can see how he would do that, because he resists these things he becomes, and they monitor his own conduct.
So therefore you see very clearly here that an active person, he was an active person, he's become an inactive person. What's he going to do when he postulates his next goal? You've got "active people" over here. Now you'd say, well, maybe he should postulate his own goal back. No, no, you're going to get something slightly off. It's going to be something antipathetic about active people that he has learned in the wisdom of his long track experience.
So he's going to look at that and he's going to find life at this point utterly and completely intolerable. He's going to be degraded because of course he has of course denied his own postulate. Remember that many times said? He's denied himself. He's denied himself. But of course he is his own postulate to be active, and here he is being inactive, so he's denied himself, so he feels very degraded and he doesn't like this.
So not liking this, and having‑wanting very little to do with this, he wants to get rid of that goal. He wants to get rid of that goal. And here he has the character, you see, of an inactive person. Faced with active people. So he solves the problem. He solves the problem. And he postulates a goal up here, right here, he postulates this goal and that goal is "to be quiet." You can predict what next goal he will‑you can't say what it is, but you're going to get something weird going. When you try to finally figure out what the pc's next goal is, you're figuring it backwards, you see, from above down below. When you go back up the other way, you can see cleanly and clearly exactly what that pc's goal would be. The next goal he postulates, of course, is "to be quiet." Obvious. Second you see it. It's never anything like "to be a troubadour." Nuh‑uh, uh‑uh, uh‑uh. Wouldn't have anything to do with "to be a tank driver." See, it wouldn't be anything to do ‑"to have a harem with 19 wives." You know, now that we've turned loose Routine 2 on goal finding, I think you're going to see some of these.
The most embarrassing goal that the pc comes up with, of course, ticks slightly. And some uneducated auditor who doesn't know very much sees that tick, doesn't realize that it's just embarrassment, the fellow giving up "to have a‑to have a harem of 17 wives," you see, something like this, you see. And he says that's the pc's goal, and you know those things never are.
Pc‑you've got this bank, it‑you're trying to find the upper bank or you're trying to find this bank‑you've got this bank up here and you're trying to find the lower bank just under it, well, it's not offering you much problem now, because we've got mechanisms which find the next goal, bang, without you having to do a thing. But he's never here "to be a singer." That goal isn't there, see. That goal would not be‑wouldn't even be "to dance," you see, because here's what makes it up‑these top terminal‑oppterm. That top terminal‑oppterm is what makes it up. That tells you what the next goal's going to be. And that's what the next goal's going to be. It's not going to be something else.
He postulates it all on his own. He thinks he's free and clear and he thinks he has been totally disassociated from any influence in having postulated this goal, as soon as you run back the bank you see why he's postulated every one of them. He'll tell you he postulated it free and clear, own free will, prime postulate, had nothing to do with anything, then you get back and you find out this goal "to be quiet" was immediately succeeded by the goal "to be active." They don't go plus and minus. They don't go plus and minus. You can't say a goal "to know the truth" would be followed by the goal "to know nothing." You can't say that that would be.
The goal "to know the truth" might be preceded by another type of goal. But it would be a goal that had to do with secrecy. I'll tell you such a goal: "to be a gambler." "To be a gambler." And, uuhhh eee oohhhh, he doesn't want anybody to know what he's doing. Only it might be a little more frightened than that‑"to be secretive," how about that? Well, that's of course followed by a goal something like that "to tell people," or "to teach people," or something, don't you see. But there'll be a combination in between these. But sometimes it's more subtle than that. Sometimes it is simply‑well, let's say this‑"to be an executive." Well, that‑rare that such goals occur, but it's "to be an executive." Then it's followed inexplicably with the goal "to be truthful." But when you see the two together you will understand. You will understand, because of course, as a manager, or as an executive, or as a government head or something like this, there are many things you can't tell people. And you eventually get to a point where you don't like people who are too broadcast in their opinions, so on. The US government now has practically thrown the press out of the Pentagon and everything, they‑I think there'll be a camp eventually in Washington, as the government goes along its wild career. It'll be 30 or 40 miles out from the city and it'll be inhabited by newsmen, and that's as close as they're permitted to the Capitol. Nobody's permitted to give them news these days.
So you keep holding back news, don't you see, you keep holding back news, and you eventually get an oppterm you see, which has to do with the exact reversal to hold back news, and even though you were an outflowing‑type character to begin with, well, this will mount up. So you get an influence building through three or four GPMs, don't you see.
The guy was "to be outspoken," you see, and this is followed by "to be reserved," you see and so forth. And that will eventually deteriorate to the person‑"to never say a word." Because you get the cumulative effect of these things. They're not "positive‑negative." They're not "oppose‑not oppose." That does not work out. It's just what the person postulated originally and what he became on his experiential track, and then what he took on for randomity‑these are all determinable from the exact goals that you find‑and then that sequence lands him in another sequence which of course goes through the same deterioration and that lands him in another sequence. Each one of those sequences is a separate GPM with a goal at the head of each one of them.
These things are not intermixed. You can collapse one end of the GPM on the other, you can mix them up like dough, you can throw four GPMs together, you can think that one GPM goes ahead of the other GPM when it goes behind it, it eventually turns out. You can scramble the bank most gorgeously on a pc, but actually only by finding more goals than you have run. I don't mean there's any danger in finding goals. Ordinarily only one goal fires at a time, but I proved the other evening that two goals can fire at the same time.
What you're looking at here is the gradual deterioration of a thetan. You're looking at the dwindling spiral. What he postulates, he tries to become, but in becoming it accumulates overts on things that aren't what he postulates. Things are bad because he has postulated what's good. And then this of course results in a deterioration, a degradation where he's concerned, so he postulates a new goal, this selects‑this preselects out for him his enemies, because an enemy is somebody who doesn't have that goal, and then he gets a deterioration up the line and eventually that goal passes out of his existence and control into the hands of the oppterm‑it looks like in the bank. So he postulates a new goal and as he goes along, the whole consecutive pattern of a GPM takes on a rather consistent note.
You don't have somebody with a goal "to be a lady," also with the goal "to make heavenly voices." These would not be the same thing to a‑it wouldn't be the parts of the same bank. Why? Well, "to be a lady," as it deteriorates, of course goes into other things. And it might possibly de‑go, up to a religious goal of some kind or another, we could expect that sort of thing to happen. But the truth of the matter is that if you've got a religious‑type goal creeping in along the line, it's also whole‑hog. I mean, it'll be common to all the GPMs. It'll be something about it: to be bad, to be good, to be devilish, to get around people, to trick people, to be honest, to make people be honest, to‑this kind of thing. There's a consistency running all the way through the thing that has to do with regulating behavior. And you could probably get a common denominator of all goals‑it's probably flavored by the first goal the pc ever postulated. But you don't have that goal and you won't have that goal for a long time.
So you will‑the only thing you will notice is that they are‑they're of a family. They're of a kind. The guy has a certain type of activity. Well, this gives you an experiential track for the pc. These‑on your 2, Routine 2Gs, you keep putting down goals that go out hard. You'll notice after a while that there is a consistency. You maybe got an Axiom 10 thetan on your hands, you see, and it's all on this subject, all on this subject, one after another. Axiom 10, Axiom 10.
Or they move up and down, maybe, the Axioms. But they're cousins, and bank to bank they're actually brothers or dichotomies or you can see that they're similar. And the various similarities here can be taken advantage of by the auditor. You have to study these things for a while, and you all of a sudden will say, "Yeah, what do you know." Well, I was just looking over a list, a goal oppose list, just a little while ago, and I didn't see the terminal or oppterm on it. The top oppterm, top terminal‑I didn't see them on that goal oppose list. But the‑I looked over an unnulled list, which is most likely to achieve the goal, and there staring me in the face was the top oppterm. How do I know it's the top oppterm? Well, let's say the goal is "to eat jelly cakes." What's the top oppterm? "Eaters of jelly cakes," of course, I mean, you know‑I mean it's very difficult to figure this out, see. Once you know.
The idiocy of all of this, however, is what has prevented man from understanding it or having anything to do with it. It's based on the solid mechanic of postulate‑counter‑postulate. Problem. Guy has a problem. And you get all the consequences of the overt‑motivator sequence, the noncommunication, the cut communications, the withdrawal‑all of these various things‑can't reach, can't withdraw, must reach, mustn't withdraw. All of these things are consequent to these masses. And they're in nice little packages all by themselves, and they go on up the line to the top.
Now the funny part of the top is that the pc will start exteriorizing from the masses when you get him close enough to present time. He can feel himself exteriorize from them, mass by mass. He all of a sudden recognizes that he isn't himself, his own name, and he recognizes that he isn't this future thing. He's liable to do a sort of a pop, an exteriorization pop. And even though you've run up to the top of the bank, in some way or another, when you've really got the top of the bank, you can expect the guy to sort of get an idea that he's going pop, exteriorizing. And he'll run something else down the line and he's going to go uhhp and exteriorize. And he'll start coming out of this thing.
Well, he's been in it for a long time. You run these banks on down to the bottom, find the next goal, run that on down to the bottom, find the next goal, run that on down to the bottom, find the next goal, run that on down to the bottom, find the next goal and run that on down to the bottom, find the next‑that's all there is to clearing.
The individualists amongst us, however, have managed to vary the GPM only to this degree: the only variation I think you will find in GPMs is where they stop. I'll give you an idea of just that. Where do they stop? Where does a GPM stop? Well, let us say this is a full goal. Now, I'm not going to draw as many here as you would actually have in a goal, see. This is a full goal, and here's your bottom of the goal (that has an item here too, by the way). And here's your top terminal‑oppterm of the next goal, you got that? Here's the top terminal‑oppterm of the next goal and of course that goes on down this way, and this goes this way, and here we've got this other bank.
Now the question is how far north in this thing does the pc go? Does he go this far? Is this all the items he's got? Or does he go this far? Does he go this far? All the way? Or, has he been very cute and postulated another goal up on top of this one, that only has that many in it? Huh‑hoohh.
So we find this goal and we get this top oppterm and we run the thing down and we're running it all out and about this time, my God that thing has got a lot of mass and it's very difficult and it's having an awful time running it. But you go ahead and you run it out the bottom and you skip this and you try to find the next goal and it's all very difficult. You can find the next goal, but he's dragging an awful lot of mass with him and so forth. Finally you get bright and you take this goal and try to find out what this goal is, and that may be much harder to find than the goal under it. And you try to find that goal up there.
Well, that's a horse of another hue. In other words, these conditions can exist. You can have a goal which‑a Goals Problem Mass which has maybe four items in it, and then a full bank here‑you can have a full bank, and of course if you've got a full bank, then you've just got nothing but full banks from here on. The number of these doesn't particularly‑ isn't particularly significant. This is your terminal column, this is your oppterm column.
All right, does the thetan's bank look like that? And are you here? Or are you here? Is that where you came in? Do you still have a piece of a goal up here? Well, the thing to do is to find the top of this goal with the goal you did find. Don't let go of the goal you found. You find the top here. And then come on down, and you can ask him on the meter, very cute, whether or not there's a goal above this one, and you'll get a tick if there is. And it's as simple as that.
And because you've got this one, and because you've got this one, you can actually give them questions that figure out what this goal is. Let's say this is the goal "to leave," why, naturally this oppterm here is "to leave." Well, now what's‑"people who leave," and what's the next one? Well, I don't know. Possibly the next one is therefore, "to stay around," something like that. You're not quite sure what it's going to be, you can't predict it that it is what it is, but you can get various lists and predictions and guess at it and shoot at it and so forth.
You'll eventually get these two terminals, if you list upwards. You can go all the way through this bank and on repair you'll find yourself all of a sudden going backwards up into this bank. You can go both ways in a bank, which might be very interesting to you. And you can list one all the way to the bottom and then patch it up and find yourself listing the top and all of a sudden go wheeep, and you'll think you're going over here to some lower bank, but actually you're not, you're landing in that bank. You probably are landing in a lower bank, if you were inexpertly overlisting and that sort of thing, you're going elsewhere.
But you'll eventually find this little thing, and then up here, you'll find the pc's PT. Now here's what's particularly horrible: is in this zone of this little truncated bank, or in any part of the GPM which is present time, is formed that far, at the top of the top GPM you will find‑you remember hidden standards and things like this‑well, you'll find all of the pc's hidden standards, you will find all of his chronic somatics, you will find all of his worries and yaps lie in the few top buttons that are nearest to present time.
So, look at this horrible thing: You could come in here, run this whole bank, get its top oppterm, everything else, and you're going down this line, and the pc's dragging mass along, mass turns on easily, and he's saying, "Ohhh," and so on, "but when are you going to do something about this lumbosis? When are you going to do something about the lumbosis? The lumbosis, the lumbosis"‑God, you've heard‑never heard of anything but the lumbosis. After a while suspect what's going on. You haven't got his present time items or otherwise he wouldn't be talking to you about this, man.
The thing to do, you'll find one of these items ticking or something of the sort, is start going back up and see if you can locate just a little bit more close to present time.
Now the bank, as I say, might be in this state whereby there's just a little piece of a goal‑it'd have a regular goal and everything‑and then there's a whole GPM and then followed in sequence by the remaining GPMs, or it can be like this. This makes life much more interesting. Now here we have just your regular GPM, see, but it's truncated. Instead of a whole top going over a border to a little smidgen of a goal, you've got half a GPM. Now, you list "most likely," and it lands you, of course, in the bottom of the terminal column. Huh‑huh. Toward the bottom of the terminal column. Because of course that's the most likely thing to make the goal. And so you say, "Well, let's list the least likely," and that's going to land you, of course, in the bottom of the oppterm column, and you don't want to be in the bottom. GPMs are always run from the top down. You get as high as you can go in them and run lower. Don't try to get as low as you can go and run higher. You can do it, but after you've tried it a few times you'll realize it's much harder to do than from top down.
But the horrible part of it is is sometimes you have to start below the top and go lower, then do a patch up, realizing something is missing in here, find a bypassed item and start listing against it, and you'll find yourself going higher. And you'll go on up and find the top of the bank.
So it's not impossible. But recognize that the hidden standards, the PTPs, the chronic PTPs, the pc's chronic somatics, all of these various things he natters and yaps about and that are the realest to him, are contained in these items which are nearest to PT, and that it is very difficult to hit those dead‑on if you have a half‑formed bank. Why.? There isn't any "most likely" to achieve the goal. There isn't any "least likely" to achieve the goal at the top of the bank.
Let's give you an example. It's the goal "to be excited." Well, of course, the least likely to succeed is "an unexcited person," and that probably is the bottom of the oppterm column for that goal, and the most likely to succeed is "an excited person" and that of course is the bottom of the terminal column. Oh, I think this is getting very interesting, because of course we are at the bottom of the goal, and we already know what's at the bottom of the goal, we've got the goal ”o” we’ve got somebody or something with the goal "to" we’ve got the goal itself, we've got things at the bottom of the goal, and we could always go in at the bottom.
No, we want up on the top. So, on this goal "to be excited"‑this goal "to be excited," we have a lukewarm person facing lukewarm people. That's the pc's present time. Of course, it's halfway through. The overts have run him down to a point of where he's halfway away from the goal, and of course the oppterms have moved up to halfway to the goal, and you've got a middle ground here, and you've got lukewarm‑a lukewarm person facing lukewarm people, and it doesn't have anything to do with being excited at all. Do you see what you face there anatomically?
Well, trying to get that band, trying to get that half‑formed GPM is much tougher than to get this one, because you can get this one, even though the pc's screaming and moaning that he still has mass, and he‑not mass on the items, but he still feels bad, and he's still worried about Agnes, he's just worried about Agnes all the time and he just can't seem to get unworried about. . . Well, "Agnes" is a rocket‑firing oppterm in his present time, and you just haven't lead up to it yet. Of course he's worried about Agnes, he sees her every day. She's an oppterm in the flesh. You see‑you see what?
He himself, he himself may be a terminal or an oppterm‑he also may be an oppterm. So what‑how do we find this? How do we find this? Well, that gives you problems. Of course there are many solutions to such a problem. I'm just giving you what‑the problems that you face in looking at it.
So a GPM PT for the pc may be at any time of the forming of it. It could be the first two items. It could be the next six items. It could be the ‑it could be all the way to the top. It could be two over into the next bank. You know, I mean‑where ‑what's his position? Because it's the same picture, just line up the GPMs of three or four goals one after the other, and then just cut in anyplace in the first one or two and that's where you'll pick up the pc. But of course you’ve got the special conditions of a partially formed goal. Partially formed GPM.
It all comes under the heading as not very complicated, just a partially formed GPM, and the top of that GPM is present time for the pc. That's what you've got to reach, and that's what you're listing for.
In trying to audit somebody, you're trying to get to PT and go down. That is what your mission is, is to get as close as you can to PT as a blind strike in, and then go down a bit, and then perhaps move it back up to PT by various mechanisms, and then clean it all out and get that little item that's dogged into the future, whatever that is. And then when you've got that all straight, then go for broke going down and you just, after that it's just a‑it's just a sailing breeze, there's nothing to it, it's very simple. You can always go down.
The toughest part of the case is the beginning of the case, and that's where you're the most ignorant, and where your pc is the least educated, the most nervy, and the hardest to audit. Isn't it horrible the way life is? But that's why man has never cracked this thing. The hardest portion of it to crack was the beginning of it. And of course at the beginning, anybody trying to crack it has the least knowledge of it. And so it's operated simply as a big double‑door shut‑in‑the‑face mystery. It isn't actually much of a mystery.
It's‑people are, and they become, and they can postulate, and they have an opinion about others, and that's all based on their pattern of goals. And they dramatize these things like crazy.
Now there are many special cases of actions, there's various things that can happen when you're auditing. It's not my purpose in this particular lecture to give you a whole bunch of things that can happen or not happen or anything. I'm just talking to you about anatomy, how the GPM is formed, where you find the pc when you first enter the GPM, and it is simply anatomy of the GPM. That is quite important to you. The more studying you do on this, the more experience you get on this the easier it is, in actual fact. The most worrisome time is when the auditor is the least skilled, and the toughest end of the case, of course, is when the pc's case has not been entered, because you don't know where you are in the case.
And those things are the most difficult ends of it, but if you can just get over that big hump ‑the big hump of your own lack of skill at the beginning and the pc's lack of knowingness about where he is or what he's doing‑the tough end of the auditing is then overcome, because when you've slid over those two barriers of the auditor's lack of skill and the pc's unknownness, you all of a sudden find yourself sitting on a high road. And it's very easy to go down that high road, clickety‑clickety‑click, poppety‑poppety‑pop. You learn more and more and more, you learn more and more about GPMs, you learn more and more about it and the pc is of course easier and easier to audit, and of course the next pc you get ahold of, there's not much of a hump, but you're able to go over that hump because you've gotten more experience. The next thing you know you do like I was doing a little while ago: I looked on a list to see if the pc's item was on the list before I nulled it. You know, that kind of an operation.
"Pc's item on this list? Uh‑mmm, hmm, hmm. How far formed is this pc's GPM? Let's see, these are the lists he's listing. And how well formed are these GPMs? Well, his first GPM is‑oh, it's not formed yet. It's only about halfway. Ah yeah, here's an old goal oppose list. So, it's about a half‑formed GPM." How would you know that? Well you don't find any‑you don't find anything that's likely top term, or oppterm or top terminal and so forth. And it's all sort of lukewarm. That's what you got. You'll get so that you're acquainted with it. And there's nothing like doing something with it to get acquainted with it, and you threw up your hands in horror and said, "Oh, my God, this thing is so complicated, and uhuhhhhh and the pc ARC breaks so terribly, and it's so dangerous if we audit him wrong" and that sort of thing.
Well, all these things are true. All these things are true. It is true that it takes a long time for a pc to be picked up off the pavement and get going, and it's not something you do in a half an hour, and it's true that you'll have bad times and that you will have times when he feels wonderful all day and the next day, God almighty, why the hell did he ever ... He never really says why the hell did he ever enter Scientology or something like that, he always says what the hell did he ever postulate such a lousy goal for, you know.
This is the hazards of the business. You're at the tough end of the line. Learn anatomy. Learn what these things look like. Get it through your skull what these things are all about. And soon as you understand what these things are all about, then you understand what you're doing. And when you understand what you're doing, it falls apart. I would say that probably the toughest part as far as I'm concerned‑as far as I personally am concerned‑I should think that the toughest part of clearing is finding a goal, from my experience. The toughest part of it is not auditing items, or finding out where you are. It's tougher to find a goal. And look what we got‑the ammunition we've got today to find goals. So in actual fact, if you can find a goal accurately on a pc, I do ‑I wouldn't quail at the rest of it at all.
Okay, there's anatomy of this here GPM, and I hope you get acquainted with it.
Thank you very much, and good night.