It has become evident to me that two of the processes used in Grade 5, AKA Power, are a direct address to two of the ten primal goal pairs listed below. Extrapolating from that single observation, I posit that the same approach could be tried with the other primal goals of the Causal and Thought bands. The effect of relieving these basic pairs should be to exteriorize/expand beyond each specific band of existence ( and section of the tone scale) held in place by each corresponding GPM.

There is a tendency among spiritually awakened people to dramatize one side or the other of the top two goal dichotomies. With the top goal pair, either the person absolutely declares an infinite God, or else declares a non-existence such as Hubbard's "static" or modern Buddhism's "anatta" (no self). With the #2 goal pair, the person declares either a universal consciousness or else a godlike individual uniqueness. These are incomplete views. That's right: Hubbard's "life is a static" is a dramatized half of the #1 pair, the zero half. The other end of which is infinity and can be experienced as an infinity of living universes wherein all thoughts, matter, etc are one living beingness. On that #2 goal pair (the one atop coexistence), some people declare that "we are all one", while others insist on their individuality. BOTH VIEWS ARE INCOMPLETE IN EACH CASE. BOTH VIEWS ARE HALF THE TRUTH.

The following processes which are Power processes or Power style processes should always be run to ep on BOTH commands of the pair. When an F/N VGIs is reached on one command, ack, indicate, inform the PC that the command is finished and that they will now run just the other command. Then do so. Failure to reach ep on BOTH commands of a primal goal pair will leave the unrelieved goal in hidden restimulation, and the relieved goal DRAMATIZED. I posit that Hubbard ep'ed on half of #4 only (probably while running "Tell me a source."), which would account for his declaring himself Source.

Goals are incredibly powerful, and even dangerous, due to the direct link they have to ourselves at Native State. GPMs formed atop implanted goals and their absurdly inappropriate oppositions are bad enough, and the actual GPMs have the full force of the identity terminal behind them -- but primal goals tap into even greater power. Consider the force behind affinity for someone (#7), or the way a person defends a mere point of view (#6). And we all know how much force is behind the urge to survive. Because of this potential I consider the Power approach to be sheer genius because it relieves the dichotomy without restimulating the force. Let's see if Power can be expanded a little to address more of these goals...

I anticipate some people will dub the subjects below to be "old hat" and "we've been processing that stuff for 50 years." That's right, you have. But until now, no one that I know of has spotted the fact that these dichotomies hold in place -- nay are used to CREATE! -- the entire span of existence itself with all its details of structure such as emotional tones, mental archetypes and sequences of aberration. Knowing as we do that a person can fixate on, or obliterate from sight, various parts of themselves as depicted using the tone scale as a model, then a knowledge of EXACTLY what puts any portion of that scale in existence should give us a far better handle on deaberrating it. Past processing sequences were working semi-blind, almost hacking away at the jungle with eyes closed. Sometimes the "bridge" would get part of its sequence correct, then wander off with these things only partially handled. For instance, running dianetics (#8), then Grade 0 (#7, communications), then cleaning up the identity terminal in various ways in Grades 1-4 (#6 dichotomy) is a logical sequence. But then Grade 5 is slipped in! Its 1-3 processes are nice set ups doing more #6 clean up, but then it addresses #1 and #4, without touching #2 and #3! Then The R6 and Clearing Course materials, Grades 6 and 7, address the details of SOME (not all) of #5. Dichotomies #2 and #3 are still untouched by that bridge, though I seem to recall processes that have existed since the 50s which go after them!

And that is exactly why this data is so important for processors. Let's not do any more skipping around and missing things. I'm not saying that one absolutely MUST take these in sequence from the bottom up, though I suspect that's the best course (No need to be too anal in that regard. I remember a PC named Trevor who came in for processing so screwed up from years of heavy drug use that the Power processes were run on him first with great results!). But leaving any dichotomy unhandled is a mistake. And leaving any dichotomy discharged on one end only is a gross auditing error with dire consequences to the PC. The result can even be a bit bizarre. A perfect example is Hubbard (not to beat the poor guy to death, but...), who possessed enormous abilities gained from processing, yet exhibited the dramatizations resulting from the discharge of only one end of #2 and one end of #4 (possible also #1). The effect of this was a demigod who insisted on his spiritual individuality, and enforced himself as Source of Scn. Observing a person dramatizing one end or the other of a primal goal pair can now allow a CS in possession of this data to prescribe processes specifically aimed at the dichotomy!

Wouldn't it be nice to have clears and OTs who didn't dramatize these things?

I would very much like to thoroughly explore the possibility of designing Power style processes which take on all of these. I especially like the wording of "tell me a source/no source" because it is arranged to extract one's awareness from a stuck location in the universe and one's terminal in the universe if run properly. (Frankly the ep given by Hubbard in the bulletins on Power is a mistake; Filbert indicates the correct ep in "Excalibur Revisited".)

Calling the linear apparency created by these goal pairs a "tone scale" is a bit awkward. It is better described as the span of all existence. A person's disability or case can be described mechanically as being aware only in small portions of this span. Using this model, clearing would consist of achieving awareness and cause over the entire span -- from godhead at the top to the unknowable fragmentation of self at the bottom. So I'm suggesting, not an entirely new paradigm, but an expansion an old one: the approach of dianetics. In incident running via dianetic technique, case is brought up the tone scale. I am suggesting that this is correct as far as it goes, but beyond a certain point in processing a processee should recover the ability to be at ALL TONES ON THE EXPANDED SCALE. The entire thing from top to bottom. Naturally I would expect that at some point in processing the scale would vanish, just as track had vanished earlier in processing when going "clear". The end product would be a pure simplicity, and the tone scale an amusing complexity which one no longer requires. Okay, here's the tone scale as its major goals with my (incomplete) notes in regards to processing them.

1. Existence vs non-existence (total existence/total non-existence), nothing vs everything, zero vs infinity. Goal: "Exist!" as "to have everything" (basic havingness)

Power process: What is? / What isn't? (McMaster)
(This would appear to be a potential "one shot clear" process due to its all-encompassing command. If you could get it to run on all levels.)

A process to try: Tell me a nothing. / Tell me an infinity.

Or as an OT drill: Locate a static. / Locate an infinity. (I deliberately wrote this to be quite insidious. "Locate" means place inside a space, which cannot actually be done in either case! The intention here is therefore to lure the PC into expanding beyond existence.)

2. One self vs individuals, one vs many (no space vs infinite space). Goal: "Separate!"
This pair gets dramatized as "We are all one" versus "I am alone/unique".
Power style, try this: What is alone/separate. / What is one/united?
"tell me a unity/tell me about it; tell me a separation/tell me about it" to ep on BOTH commands! Or maybe "tell me what everyone knows/tell me about it; tell me what everyone doesn't know/tell me about it; tell me what one person knows/tell me about it; tell me what one person doesn't know/tell me about it" commands along those lines. That second group uses #3 dichotomy as a lead-in to the #2.This needs much more research...
3. Perception vs non-perception, know vs not-know. Goal: "Aware!" or "Perceive!"
Power style, try this: Tell me an awareness. / Tell me an unawareness.
(This can be tested both with and without the follow-up "Tell me about it.")

Also plug in "know": What is known? / What is unknown?
(This can be tested both with and without the follow-up "Tell me about it.")

OT drill:
"Be aware at your location in space."
"Be aware that you are unaware in all other spacial locations than that location. Decide to 'not-know' all of those locations."
"Change your mind and decide to reverse that by not-knowing at your location in space, while being aware in all other locations."
Alternate those two conditions until you experience an expansion.

Lots of early 50's processes address this. Look them up in the old PABs.

4. Truth vs lies. Goal: "Create!"
Power process: Tell me a source. Tell me about it. / Tell me a no source. Tell me about it. (McMaster)
Eps: "Tell me a source" - Cognition is "I am source". //  "Tell me a no source" - Cognition is "The source which I am is not in this universe, and is not this identity I am being."

Creative processes of all sorts are drills.

5. Meaning (import) vs meaningless, important vs unimportant. Goal: "Import!" ("This means ____!")
Power style, try this: Tell me something important. / Tell me something unimportant.
(This can be tested both with and without the follow-up "Tell me about it.")

This is a HUGE area of mental templates and archetypes (middle thought band of the tone scale). This is NOT the assignment of meaning to a location in space occupied by something -- that is symbolizingness. These meanings are timeless/above time. The R6 implants seem to be held in this area. Please understand one thing about implants: they can have no effect whatsoever upon a spirit which is empty and without mental structure. But once these goal pairs are in place, they give the implant something to latch onto. What an implanted dichotomy latches onto is this primal fact about ideas caused by the #1 goal pair: EVERY IDEA IS A SPLIT INTO A POSITIVE AND A NEGATIVE EXISTENCE. For example there is no idea "light" or idea "dark"; those are half ideas. The actual idea is "light/dark". That's how the mind is created, via these pairs. That's why pairs of opposites must be tapped to resolve mind. That single fact is behind all goals and GPM phenomena. Once an existence is created as a division into two like that, then it can be further altered with doingness verbs. Remember: the basic triangle behind the scale of existence (tone scale) is the BE-DO-HAVE triangle. That is the hidden engine running the whole show from dichotomy #1.

6. Personal self vs other selves, single location in space vs pervasion. Goal: "Myself!"
Power style:
"tell me where you are located. tell me about it." alternate with "tell me where you are not located. Tell me about it."

Clean up ser facs, actual GPMs, then find some way to address viewpoint oriented opinions. Use #5 against #6 with "Who is important? / Who is unimportant?" This has to unlock the person from mental anchor points, fixed points of view, etc. Ep should be pervasion, which is beyond a completely free POV, a "thetan" which can assume any location in space/time at will. Clean up of this goal should free a being from identity defined by anchor point opinions such as ser facs.

An assist (IMD-swap process):

When resistence is noted between individuals. Place your viewpoint at those terminals.

Between two people:
Be Person A.
From that terminal look at Person B. Tell me about them.
Be Person B.
From that terminal look at Person A. Tell me about them.

Repeat until the charge blows.

IMD-swap uses the senior position of primal pair #2 to relieve resistence between terminals at the level of #6.
7. Love vs hate, affinity vs antipathy. Goal: "Communicate!" (This is affinity/desire via communication)
Pervade with affinity? Buddha's OT drill goes here. Grade 0 processes. Many, many Scn processes address this area, but none of them I recall directly go after the dichotomy in the Power manner. Also "From what distance could..." etc. EP should be a christlike affinity.
8. Survive vs succumb. Goal: "Survive!"
Resistance keywords on this one: need, must, can't, etc. Resistance begins at Antagonism 2.0 on the tone scale. Therefore Dianetics which follows "somatics" (R3R) cleans this up. The definition of clear as no longer subject to the force in pictures is a clear on this level. Much of the excellent work of Hubbard addressed this.
9. Persist vs destroy, concentrate/condense vs annihilate. Goal: "Solidify!"
This is real/unreal of the physical universe. The best processes I know of which address this are CCHs.
Since the goal command is to solidify, when this level is screwed up a person experiences unreality. Agreement with matter reinforces this and makes the PU thin and unreal. So in addition to CCHs, run "disagree". There is some narrative testimony concerning this as an implant at the beginning of this universe -- about which I must caution any Scio to read "The Shape of Apparent Reality".
10. Too much vs not enough. Goal: "Make nothing of!" (suppression) (There is at least one last goal pair here at the bottom. It seems to govern such phenomena as evil intention toward self and fragmentation into entities. I cannot perceive it clearly yet... I posit that it is probably the cause of the entity phenomena addressed by some NOTs; of the extreme PTS condition known as the suppressive person; and the delusional telepathic voice haunted sort of insanity.) Or
"Other people's consciousness."??
get some people to answer me these:
main questions:
What goal would a BT have?
What goal would a BT oppose? (would be opposed by a BT)

secondary questions if the first two don't bite, then go back to them after these:
How would having a BT stuck to oneself assist one's survival?
How would having a BT stuck to oneself hinder the survival of others?
How would having a BT stuck to oneself make one right?
How would having a BT stuck to oneself make others wrong?
How would having a BT stuck to oneself help one dominate?
How would having a BT stuck to oneself help to avoid domination?

(also replace "BT" above with each of the following: thought, viewpoint, dimension point, anchor point.)

What would make one abandon a thought? A viewpoint? A dimension point? An anchor point?
What would make one pull in a thought? A viewpoint? A dimension point? An anchor point?
What would make one push away a  a thought? A viewpoint? A dimension point? An anchor point?
What would make one cover up a thought? A viewpoint? A dimension point? An anchor point?

There are many other goal pairs than the above ten (I have 9 spotted). These seem to be the basic ones, atop which the others are built. The processes above are by no means complete. Any highly trained processor could instantly think of dozens which I missed. Frankly, processing is not my forte. My real strength is my ability to access truth directly. I am a meditator of the old school in the style of Gotama or Patanjali.

Zivorad has developed a technique called PEAT which unburdens these and others, read about it here: http://www.beotel.yu/~zivorad/techniques.htm#peat

Each GPM is powered by a dichotomy.

Of each dichotomy, one of the pair is being pursued, usually the one we think of as the "positive" one of the pair. To use LRH's favorite dichotomy as the example, survive is opposed by succumb. Most everyone pursues survive.

And that traps one.

A quick read through the history of spiritual enlightenment will show that great spiritual teachers sometimes deliberately starved themselves or otherwise came close to death just before enlightenment. I'm not advocating starvation as a clearing procedure, ha ha! But it does point up that relief of survive/succumb by deliberately taking over (start-change-stop) the succumb end is effective. Knowing what we do from scn, it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with an entire battery of processes to as-is the resistance to death.

And that's just survive/succumb.

With ANY dichotomy on which a GPM has formed, the same basic approach can be used. It can be used with generic dichotomies like survive/succumb or love/hate. It can be used with dichotomies which have nouns attached (end words and terminals/oppterms). Just find which end the PC is pursuing and get them to take over and make their own the opposite end, so they can be-do-have BOTH.

This is ancient tech.
It is also modern LRH style tech.

It just happens to be how people's minds are arranged...


From Homer on ACT:
           Alan's process,

         "Tell me a positive"
         "Tell me about (item)"

that would have to be properly processed thus: "Tell me a positive. Tell me about it. / Tell me a negative. Tell me about it.

Other dichotomies I observe which have so much charge on them that I must assume they create GPMs (not correlated to the tone scale or part of main Primal series):

Communication vs separation/isolation

The Co$ and freezone partially address this one in Grade 0 processing. The Co$ is too dumb to realize they are cleaning up a GPM. Based on similar dichotomy in causal band. This is emotion band, and a submanifestation of #7.
Cause vs effect
Probably an echo of #4 goal.
Communication inflow vs communication outflow
This is wrapped up in the problems of the ARC triangle, such as duplication vs agreement. A lot of "must" and "can't" involved in this one. This dichotomy is senior to the "self vs other" identities dichotomy, but is dramatized heavily in the effort band. This may just be a special case of cause vs effect.
Male vs female
This one is so charged up on the terminal that a person usually cannot confront ever being or having been the opposite sex. The usual Co$ and freezone handle on this is to clean up the overts and motivators in this area. This should be done narrative style, if this approach is taken. I recommend R3XD for this purpose. But there should also be a direct GPM running approach possible, something similar to the method of relieving actual GPMs. I had hopes that Ogger would unravel this one, as it is a source of case for him. Hasn't happened yet. If is curious to note that those people who have risen above this dichotomy -- such as cross-dressers and some homosexuals -- seem to report that it is liberating and a huge relief. Homosexuals in particular exhibit higher average income and creativity than the norm. The most spiritually liberated person I ever met was homosexual: John McMaster. I have noted that the average American male ridges heavily on other males, unable to express unrestricted affinity. There is an obvious automatic games condition between the sexes which has been described in detail in the literature of psychology and other places. From all this I infer that relief of this GPM gives a person vastly increased affinity and creativity. The usual way this has been dealt with in the past is to not deal with it -- witness the chastity of nuns, monks and contemplatives over much of this planet. This one is locked onto the 2nd dynamic (sex).
Help vs harm
The entire idea that a person is so much at effect that they can be either helped or harmed is ridiculous. Nevertheless here we are.
Valid vs invalid
A 3rd dynamic dichotomy.
Another 2nd dynamic (sexual) goal dichotomy is  "to be desired" vs "to be hunted/stalked".