‘The Unstacking Procedure’ by Dennis Stephens

This is a new transcription of a talk by Dennis Stephens as discussed in a previous post.

You can download the 115Kb pdf file from this link.

The title may need some explanation. Stephens was asked to comment on William Nichols’ unstacking procedure, a technique that not much is heard about now, 30 years later. In his reply he needed to foreshadow material that he would explain in detail 18 months later in the Insanity and Sensation series – because these, and Nichols’ unstacking procedure, are both developments of L. Ron Hubbard’s theory of goals problem masses (GPMs).

Hubbard’s work on GPMs was ambitious, heroic, insightful and flawed. It drove him round the bend, and caused grief to those who tried to follow him. But it had to be done. Fundamental advances in knowledge are not made by some inspired genius who pops up with all the right answers. They are the result of bold guesses that are known to be tentative; candid gathering of data to test those guesses; and a willingness to be proved wrong. Non-scientists often assume that it is a scientist’s job to be always right: it’s closer to the truth to say that science progresses by being wrong. A theory that can never be tested by attempting to disprove it is useless. Hubbard and his co-workers at Saint Hill deserve our respect and gratitude for opening up a new frontier, the postulates that form the deep structure of the mind.

In this article Stephens points out where GPM theory went wrong in the 1960s, with similar flaws in Nichols’ unstacking procedure in the 1990s, and how we can see a way ahead.

Dennis Stephens on Insanity and Sensation

Stephens regarded his discovery of insanity points, or impossibility points, as the most contentious part of his work and hesitated to publish it. But since this material has become widely available as audio files and Pete McLaughlin’s meticulous word-by-word transcriptions, I feel justified in including it in my series of edited transcriptions. Here is his Insanity Series of five recorded talks as three pdf files:

1. Insanity

This is a new transcription of two taped talks by Dennis Stephens, combined as a single article.

Insanity Point Part 1, 30 June 1994
Insanity Point Part 2, 3 July 1994

If we accept as a fundamental truth that a thing either exists or it doesn’t, then a person is insane when they believe that a thing can both exist and not exist simultaneously. To cross the line into that state is to lose all certainties. We don’t like to think about it, but everyone has experienced it at some time if only for a passing instant. The fear of going insane may be the basis of all irrational fears: no wonder it has been hard to take a clear look at the subject of insanity.

In Stephens’ view, insanity is a consequence of a compulsive game, which limits the classes remaining open to a player. They then go insane when they believe that they have no class to go into if they are overwhelmed in games play. In terms of Boolean algebra, insanity is a violation of the law that x (1 – x) = 0, in other words nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. Stephens develops this mathematical argument to demonstrate the twin impossibility points, or IPs, in every games matrix.

There were pointers in dianetics and scientology toward the concept of an IP, but in the absence of a mathematical approach that concept was not grasped. Hubbard (1956) reconsidered dianetics in terms of games theory, stating that engrams contain something more important than the pain and unconsciousness by which he originally defined them. That something was the moment of shock at realising that one had been overwhelmed, defeated. The winner is convinced that he has overwhelmed the opposing player. The loser is convinced that he has been overwhelmed. Krause (2009) developed a form of dianetics that addressed this conviction as an incident within an incident to recover the losing postulate that the person had made at that point.

You can download the 202Kb pdf file from this link.

2. Sensation

This is a new transcription of two taped talks by Dennis Stephens, combined as a single article.

Sensations, 27 July 1994
Sensations, The E-Meter, 28 July 1994

In these talks, Stephens proposed that sensation is generated between opposing postulates (also called goals). For example, the sensation of sight is generated where the goal ‘see’ is baulked by ‘not be seen’ and inverts into ‘not see’. As Gerbode points out, if we had an unlimited power of vision that could see for an infinite distance through any obstacle in any direction, then there would be nothing to see as everything would be transparent. Our sensations are consistent because they are generated by a consistent system of postulates. From this we infer the existence of a universe of consistent objects.

The mass (resistance to movement) that we experience in this universe comes from the impossibility points where opposed goals have reached a stalemate. This stalemate may be temporary in the view of the game players, a kind of rolling stop, but Stephens realised that from the viewpoint of somebody sitting on that impossibility point time actually has stopped, because space and time are generated by game play.

Thus, an IP turns out to be something far more fundamental than a nasty mental glitch that occurs when our games become compulsive and dysfunctional. The psychological phenomenon of insanity is the clue that leads to an understanding of how virtual universes of experiences are generated, literally from nothing. If anyone wants to explore this idea further I recommend Spencer-Brown’s book Laws of Form, where he discussed imaginary Boolean values that are simultaneously ‘yes’ and ‘no’.

Stephens also explains the range of phenomena that are observable with an electropsychometer in terms of his games theory and in particular the closure or expansion of distance between the person and the IP on their side of the game.

You can download the 162Kb pdf file from this link.

3. Postulates, Self and the Obsessive IP

This is a new transcription of a talk by Dennis Stephens, taped in August 1994. A person involved in a game comes to associate the sensation of winning, or the thrill of the game, with their opponent’s IP. On the other hand they avoid looking at their own IP, which is just a dead spot of defeat. In playing a game we are actually trying to overwhelm the opponent, or drive them through their IP. Such phenomena as near-suicidal risk taking and sexual kinks become understandable in the light of this insight.

You can download the 90Kb pdf file from this link.

The original audio recordings of these five talks can be found online at Tromology and TROM World.

-oOo-

References

Gerbode, F.A. (2013) Beyond Psychology: An Introduction to Metapsychology. 4th edition (Applied Metapsychology International Press).

Hubbard, L.R. (1956) Scientology’s Most Workable Process. Professional Auditors Bulletin 80, 17 April 1956.

Krause, R. (2009) Routine Three Expanded, a “new” form of Dianetics. International Viewpoints 103: 27-35.

Spencer-Brown, G. (1969) Laws of Form. (Allen & Unwin: London).

‘The Game Strategy’ by Dennis Stephens

This is a new transcription of a talk by Dennis Stephens as discussed in a previous post.

You can download the 79Kb pdf file from this link.

Following on from Stephens’ previous talk on Dissociation, a game strategy is a method of winning a game below the level of a direct postulate.

A game strategy is a more fundamental and inclusive definition of what Hubbard called the service facsimile. Like the service facsimile it is generated by the person themself; but it becomes more than just a concept. Stephens identifies its four essential parts:

1. It is a fixed solution to a problem, just as the form of an organism a solution to the problem of its survival versus the environment. So it’s a ‘thing’, not an idea or a process.
2. It generates game sensation, gives a hope of winning, as it’s what one has to be in order to win the game.
3. It must be kept secret from the opponent in the game, or they will easily counter it. So there is a Must Not Be Known postulate that acts as the boundary around it.
4. It has been proven to work – most often picked up from one’s parents by observation in early childhood.

It is what Eric Berne called a ‘game’ in his special sense that term (Berne, E. 1961 Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. Grove: New York.) One of Berne’s examples was the schlemil, someone who pretends to be clumsy or stupid as an excuse for imposing on others. The complementary role to the schlemil is the schlimazel, a person who allows schlemils to take advantage of them. Both are Yiddish words; the schlemil is always spilling his soup, and the schlimazel is the man he spills it on. Another related pair of complementary game strategies might be adulterer and cuckold; you might discover that games strategies are as varied and contradictory as the games themselves.

The service facsimile or game strategy also appears in another derivative of scientology, Werner Erhard’s Landmark, as the Racket – a contra-survival way of being that is reinforced by a secret payoff.

I’m beginning to think that many (perhaps all) identities have their origin in game strategies. As it accumulates charge and gets fleshed out with additional postulates the strategy becomes a mask, a persona, a valence that one adopts and eventually comes to believe is oneself. We are basically individuals: individuality is a whole, an identity is a part. Assuming an identity narrows down our beingness because an identity is a package of postulates. And each postulate limits the possible. On the other hand, an identity is a player, a winning package that can beat the game; it has characteristics that entitle it to reach the goal. There could be a tie-in with the Must Not Be Known postulate that surrounds the strategy, too. Privacy is essential to the maintenance of a self, which tend to dissolve if fully known. So people are sensitively protective of their privacy.

Furthermore, using a game strategy is an overt act; its exposure produces shame. Does this suggest there is something culpable about having an identity? From the other side, the possession of an identity is enforced on us by society because it is a way of keeping track of us and holding us to account for our actions.

L. Ron Hubbard said that a service facsimile is basically a device to make another consider that they had committed an overt, i.e. making them wrong. “that facsimile most used to make other people realise they are guilty of overt acts. So therefore, a service facsimile is totally itself an overt act.” (5911C26 The Handling of Cases – Greatest Overt. 1st Melbourne ACC-28). It sets one up as an non-attackable valence (6204C03 The Overt-Motivator Sequence. SHSBC-135). Now, a game strategy might be defined more broadly than a service facsimile but they are closely related. The game strategy isn’t solely a way of making the opponent guilty or wrong; more generally it’s a way of convincing them that they have failed in their current game postulate. This might be by deception, bluff, creating a misconception of their own failings, or undermining their confidence.

The original audio can be found online at Tromology and TROM World.

‘The Surprise Game’ by Dennis Stephens

Here’s a new transcription of a talk by Dennis Stephens as discussed in a previous post.

You can download the 119Kb pdf file from this link.

The original audio can be found online at Tromology and TROM World.

The Surprise Game is additional background to Stephens’ previous talk on dissociation. He describes what was, and remains, the simplest game of creating surprises for oneself by not-knowing part of something that you’re creating. It leads into the game of having an imaginary playmate, and Stephens discusses the ramifications of this in Dissociation.

The postulate structure of a surprise is a not know followed by a sudden know. The breaking of a delusion is a special case of surprise.

Here on Earth in the 21st century many people have lost the ability to surprise themselves, and even fallen below the level of creating imaginary playmates; they’re now dependent on other human beings in the material universe to provide them with surprises or randomity.