A "GPM" is a goals problems mass. That is to say, it is the accumulated mental mass or charge which has resulted from a long term pattern of failures to achieve a goal. The earliest mention of them I have seen is in the Yogasutra of Patanjali. Much work on figuring them out was done by LRH and his research staff during the early to mid 1960's. Ogger and others investigated further. GPMs form around goals which have as part of their idea the concept of the opposite idea. These opposing pairs are often called dichotomies. The dichotomy creates the problem by stimulating a person to create his own opposition while pursuing the goal (which is only half of the dichotomy). There appear to be three classes of GPMs:
1. Implant GPMs. These rely upon the charge of actual GPMs for force, and act to collapse different GPMs together into a mess. Their goals rely entirely on actual and primal GPMs for force.
2. Actual Personal GPMs. GPMs form around identities, called terminals in Scn. Each identity has a goal that it is programmed to pursue. This identity is in turn opposed within the mind by an identity which opposes that goal, called an oppterm (opposition terminal). A person pursues their goal in violation of the spiritual "law" that all flows are two directional. Eventually it backs up enough that the person switches to the opposite goal (crossover). Actual GPMs are in a long series designed to be a circle which repeats itself endlessly. Ogger researched a further routine for processing these.
Some of the above are addressed in the Clearing Course and old OT2. Please see Electra and Ralph Hilton on this subject for further discussion of implanted and personal goals.
3. Primal GPMs. Actual Personal and Implant GPMs draw their force from primal GPMs. Primal GPMs form around dichotomies which are so basic they appear to be part of the fabric of reality itself. A primal GPM goal is characterized by an idea that truly cannot exist without its contradictory statement, the two of which form a single idea. A harmless example of this arrangement is "illuminated vs dark". Illuminated implies that it has light and therefore is not dark. Dark means lightless, which is without illumination. The one concept cannot exist without the other. Therefore they are a single idea. The discovery of this third group as being GPMs has its origin in my study of the writings of Aleister Crowley, who did a lot of work in this area. Crowley didn't call them GPMs, any more than Patanjali did, but as they consist of goals formed into a problem by their opposite propositions, which then accumulate mass (charge), it can be seen that these are a type of GPM. These Primal pairs are called "Primordial Polarities" in Zivorad's Slavinski's PEAT processing. They are also known as "Codes" in Alan Walter's Knowledgism system. Max Sandor discusses them (calling them "Prime Axioms" part of the time) in his Purple Notebook in articles 66, 667 and 668.
I was reading a chapter of "Excalibur Revisited" by Geoffrey Filbert called "The Death Of The Gods" for only the 5th or 6th time (I'm a little slow on the uptake) when it dawned me that he was describing some sort of very fundamental GPM phenomenon:"There have been some powerful operating thetans which, in the past, which designed "theta traps". Some of these were successful forms of entrapment, in that they are evident in people and their conduct today. The three most prominent ones are these dichotomies: (1) good/evil, (2) survive/succumb, and (3) love/hate. Most, if not all, people have spent their entire existence and time in the physical universe looking through one of these only. It is sort of your own 'dark glass' you look through. ... This personal 'dark glass', or Achilles heel, that each person has is erasable through auditing. Unfortunately, until it is, it is the only meaningful context on which the individual can be addressed or appealed to. The purpose of these 3 theta traps was to eliminate the competition and to render the recipient blind and ineffective as an operating thetan. One of these three, at the least, got laid into them prior to any involvement in this physical universe, and it gets reinforced once they are in it, and it accumulates engrams locks and secondaries (not to mention GPMs, Reliable items and Service facsimilies) very rapidly."Like I said, it only took me 5 or 6 times before I spotted "love/hate" as being the basis of a GPM in the emotional tone range. From there it took mere seconds to spot "good/evil" as thought and "survive/succumb" as effort. It fit into what I already knew so perfectly I sat down and worked the entire pattern of them out, and wrote this article.
Ken Ogger, in "Super Scio", gives the opinion that the Scn Grades area of case is senior to all other case addressed in Scn. He is correct, but I must point out that the Grades address some of these primal GPMs, relieving the charge accumulated on these goal/oppgoal dichotomies. Further research should be directed toward creating processes which knowingly deal with these as discrete GPMs, rather than merely adding to the spotty Grades approach. Please observe that session out-rudiments would seem to be locks on primal GPMs.
The way a dichotomy works to limit a person is this:
The person chooses one half of the dichotomy to be, to do, to have. This causes the person to abandon part of theirself because theta is both sides. With good vs evil for example, when the person pursues good, they cannot be evil. When they are being evil, they cannot be good. This causes the person to abandon HALF OF THEIR OWN BEINGNESS on the subject. Viewing case as fragmentation or a lack of wholeness (thank you, Max Sandor), it can be seen that the more dichotomies a person chooses halves of, the smaller they become as a being. The person relieves these by recovering the willingness to be either end, both ends or none of any dichotomy at will without effort or force (not-isness).
Max wrote a first rate article on the subject of goals which treats the dichotomy aspect rather differently than I am explaining it here. Please read his approach for broader view of this subject: pnohteftu chapter 733.
These are going to seem terribly familiar to anyone from the Co$ or freezone who is well read in the subject. The point of laying this out in this manner is to identify them as the causes of various sorts of case, so that they will become more effectively dealt with in processing.
Make the initial postulate (the as-isness) a postulation of the thing AND its opposite, then alter-is it with a 2nd postulate saying that you only postulated one of the two (not the opposite).
A simple statement of these in words is impossible. Each of these creates whole classes of phenomena, so use the pairs as guidelines showing you where to look.
To begin, the top of the tone scale looks like this structure:
Native State: no goals and no dichotomies, unmanifest and beyond either existence or non-existence (and no decisions/postulates) Strictly speaking, Native State is above the tone scale.Tone Scale Bands:
Static: goal - Exist!, postulated dichotomy - both zero existence and infinite existence
Coexistence/Individuality: goal - Separate!, postulated dichotomy - both no space and infinite space
Awareness (K-M Know/Not-Know): goal - Perceive!, postulated dichotomy - both know and not-know
Causal band (beingness)
Existence vs non-existenceThought band (postulates, considerations and opinions/viewpoints)Also expressible as "total existence vs total non-existence", "be vs not be", or even "nothing vs infinity." Manifestation out of Native State. This is behind everything... This one is so deep I can't think of any process which can fully resolve it. This is not only far above human reality, its problem is almost incomprehensible. The first half, "existence", appears to be an infinity of any and all qualities one might want to name. The second half, "non-existence", appears to be a zero, a total stillness which LRH described as a static. BE, which is to say a goal reading something like "to have existence", is pursued heavily by most people. It's very rare (and disturbing) to see anyone switch to the opposing goal and pursue NOTHING. So to make anything vanish is experienced as a "loss" reacting on this goal (which is basic to all losses of all kinds). This of course affects the person at their PU terminal as well (personal self/thetan located in space), usually as some variant of Shakespeare's famous scene in Hamlet. ;-) The highest processes of which I know only achieve the static, but do not resolve this dichotomy into Native State. Gotama (the Buddha) is alleged to have resolved this one. I have no opinion about whether he succeeded. Max Sandor, in his novel "The Logs of JD Flora" expressed this awareness: "Nobody can leave who wants to leave. Nobody can leave who wants to stay." ... "Not wanting to leave, not wanting to stay, I will cease to create my existence." Goal: "Exist!" "to have everything!"One self vs individuals (separate consciousness)Also perceptible as "no space vs infinite space". Separation from static into Coexistence. Even though fragmentation into entities occurs near the bottom of the tone scale, it is this dichotomy and its resulting GPM which are subtly involved in entity problems such as attachment and obsession by "BTs." The entire subject of self is from this dichotomy, and all the problems of such derive either directly or indirectly from this. This would seem to literally create separated spaces. "... the consideration that Theta is individual Thetans" --Raymond J. Krenik, Jr. Goal: "Separate!"Perception vs non-perception (this is from Buddhism, but maybe predates Gotama)Also called know vs not-know. You could also call it aware vs unaware. Creates the Know to Mystery scale. Filbert claims that LRH was wrong about what all wisdom boiled down to, and that the most fundamental word of wisdom is "Aware!", which is this level. Damned close, but "Exist!" is senior. That's okay, Filbert is seeing and operating a hell of a lot higher than LRH! (see "Survive vs succumb" below) Goal: "Aware!" or "Perceive!"
Truth vs lies (upper thought band, creation)Emotion band (emotion)Here we have the basis of all reality, in the archetypical area. This dichotomy is the basis of the as-is, alter-is, not-is triangle. It is from this point on the tone scale that I write all of these Ghost Danse articles. Therefore please be advised that all the views on the causal area above this point are distorted. Nothing above this point is perfectly expressible in words by anyone. Goal: "Create!"Meaning (import) vs meaningless (middle thought band, alteration)Or perhaps this is quality versus no quality. Also important vs unimportant. Single/combined or simple/complex on the subject of creations. Here we have the basis of values, in the archetypical area. The triangle is: perception (of the creation), evaluation (alteration of creation), judgement. This can also be expressed as good vs bad, beauty vs ugliness, and valuable vs worthless, etc. There's a lot of thought level charge built upon this into a GPM. As this is above "personal self vs other selves" there is no way any personal identity is going to solve this dichotomy -- please view what is sometimes called "christ consciousness" for the solution. The primary mechanism of getting an as-isness to persist is to "tag" it with meaning. "This means before." "This means after." "This means good." "This means bad." "This is important." "This means I didn't create it." "This has value." "This means I don't know it." "This means... This means... This means... " Etc. etc. etc. ... This is a secondary creation atop a first one, an alter-is, which obtains persistence for a creation, for an as-isness. Buddha is seen admonishing his monks against this action in the Mulapariyaya Sutta. Goal: (I'm Having difficulty expressing this one perfectly, so as close as I can get it right now is) "Import!" or "to Judge!" ("This means ____!")Personal self vs other selves (lower thought band, separate viewpoint/location in space)Perhaps this should be better described as "personal self versus everything else". This is the dichotomy directly senior to "actual" GPMs. It is activated by having only a single viewpoint, i.e. an identity such as an actual GPM terminal. The actual GPM terminal is most likely created by whatever laid in this GPM dichotomy. There have been reports for almost 30 years of processees reliving incidents where they started the incident as a big being who is a whole crowd of people, and end the incident only being one of that crowd. Please note that though this superficially resembles separation from static, it is not the same thing. Please see these excerpts from a conversation between myself and John Lester for a discussion of the dangers inherent in this dichotomy, the dichotomy it echoes [self vs other], and thoughts on their resolution. (Please discern the difference between the goals of "self vs other" and "personal self vs other selves." The former is a pure self, while the latter is the self projecting a false self image. "Myself" has two parts: "my" and the "self" it is having. The former is a separate awareness -- the latter a personality which has opinions.) Beingness above this dichotomy is pervasive, below it there is only a single near point location in space from which reality is viewed. Heidrun Beer has written an excellent article with process commands addressing this dichotomy at : http://www.sgmt.at/gce/gce1.htm. Even though fragmentation into entities occurs near the bottom of the tone scale, it is this dichotomy and its resulting GPM which are subtly involved in entity problems such as attachment and obsession by "BTs." This is the actual area being audited when dealing with apparent entities and BTs -- and therefore this dichotomy and its section of the tone scale around Games is what the occultists call the "lower astral plane". Therefore NOTs processes address this problem. The Thought band is a complete cycle of action and decays scale for thought. As such this third, lower portion consists of the dead mass of postulation. An identity at Opinions is a postulate mass? Apparently so. Goal: "Myself located!" (to be there!)
Flemming Funch discusses this dichotomy in Technical Essay #42 "Beingnesses":When you assume a viewpoint it implies that there are points you are not viewing from. Those are called dimension points.
The separation of viewpoints and dimension points creates space and it allows an interchange to occur. The viewpoints can have considerations about the dimension points and the dimension points provide something for the viewpoint to experience.
It usually gets more involved than that. Various viewpoints and dimension points get grouped together and the being decides to be all of it and pretend that it is one thing. That is what we could call an identity. One is being that and not being everything else. The "not being" part is the outside world that the identity is dealing with.
Love vs hateEffort band (pains, physical sensations, body level thoughts)Could also be called "affinity vs antipathy." This isn't a generalized ARC triangle manifestation so much as personal love versus personal hate, i.e. the problem being held by the single viewpoint of "personal self vs other selves". Creates emotional tone scale. This activates as desire and accumulates tremendous charge on the identity terminal due to losses. Buddhist craving. Goal: "Communicate!"
Survive vs succumbMystery band (matter, unconsciousness)This activates as clinging to bodies (ex: Needing Bodies on the tone scale). Buddhist attachment or clinging. LRH claimed that "Survive!" was the most fundamental word of wisdom. (Please note where this is on the tone scale, below death, and what GPM was providing the force driving his personal [terminal] actual GPM goal of "to have wealth.") Goal: "Survive!" Hubbard's discovered goal "Survive!" rules the effort range of the tone scale and therefore is the goal immediately senior to MEST. Theta interacts with MEST at that level, producing life forms exhibiting an effort to survive. Narrative incident running with Dianetics addresses this area.
Persist vs destroyThere is another band below Mystery. It is a band of universal evil purposes and individuation of self. Don't have it sorted out yet. seems to be:This is below normal human behavior, but can be seen active in psychotic behavior. Solid rocks and nuclear weapons exemplify this dichotomy. CCHs address this problem. Goal: "Solidify!"
Other be vs Not-be?
Goal: "To be you!"?????
These probably should be addressed from the bottom of the scale up if possible. Viewed from the bottom up this would be:
persistence (solidity) This
is addressed with CCHs.
efforts (survival, resistence) Incident running and R6 material until clear by definition of free from force in pictures.
affinities (ARC, emotion)
viewpoints (self separated from all else) NOTs is a backwards leap at this. EP is pervasion.
values (evil, ugliness, right/wrong, etc.)
truth (as-isness anyone?)
knowing/perception (yes, Virginia, there is reality above truth)
self separate from theta (coexistence)
total existence (don't ask...)
I've begun compiling a power processing approach to these: Primal Goal processes.
Each of these governs a section
of the tone scale.
Each of these has a triangle which is a process.
Each of these is founded on a dichotomy.
See how low one sort of "clear" really is? The levels above efforts (for which I have not provided any advice on processes) are addressed using different Scn, TROM, Pilot, etc. materials. None of which have been sorted out in an orderly manner...
Sometimes a person will experience an accension which brings these realities to light. Here is a recent one: Dale Askew.
LRH remarked more than once that being there and communicating were
the only crimes one can commit in the universe.
I think you will find, if you consider each primal goal pair carefully that the positive goal of each is considered a crime. LRH was looking at the goals for dichotomies 6 and 7.
Here are the CRIMES, ha ha!
Goal # Goal (the crime)
#1 to be total existence
#2 to be individual
#3 to know (to be aware/to perceive)
#4 to create
#5 to judge
#6 to be there (thetan located as "Myself")
#7 to communicate
#8 to survive
#9 to persist as a solid shape
#10 to cluster in agreement???
As with everything else I'm working on, this page will change as more knowledge comes to light.
back to index