Is the running of BTs the ultimate solution? What about the person's own case? Does the person still have a case
and can it be processed? The article answers these questions and more.

GPMs and NOTs
by Clearbird

What we learned is that the theory of GPMs is relatively simple. After its discovery and early research in the 1960s however, the subject has been surrounded with considerable mysticism and warning signs due to its rocky history in Ron Hubbard’s original research. On the 1965 edition of the grade chart, Actual GPMs were listed as the most advanced level. At the time, however, there was no approved technology to use to run it. Around 1967, what Ron called actual GPMs was completely dropped as part of the published grade chart. The general understanding from lectures and literature was that its place was above the published grade chart and it would be put back on the chart when the proper technology had been developed and tested.  Instead, the published standard OT levels concentrated on implants, such as the original Clearing Course and OT-2, and on entities, such as OT-3 through OT-7.

Introduction of NOTS

In the very late 1970s, the Church of Scientology's OT levels were changed to include a heavy dose of NOTS auditing. OT-4 became the NOTS Drug Rundown, OT-5 audited NOTS and OT-6 and 7 were Solo NOTS.

NOTS -- or New Era Dianetics for Operating Thetans -- was first released in 1978 as a remedy for OTs who were having trouble running Dianetics. It was found that “entities” (body thetans and clusters of same), rather than the preclear himself, in many cases were the “individuals” holding the charge, holding the engrams. These disembodied spirits had to be addressed directly in order to handle that charge. Inexplicable pains, misemotions and body conditions, that were usually considered the realm of engram running and Dianetics, were sometimes very troublesome to run on OTs. The “Dianetics” techniques (New Era Dianetics for OTs) of addressing the individual entities took care of much of that.

Soon thereafter, NOTS got extended to Solo NOTS (1979). It was claimed that completing these levels would lead to “cause over life”. From being extracurricular rundowns, NOTS and Solo NOTS became part of the standard Bridge. One had to carry on until any and all “entities” within arms length were “blown”. The Solo NOTS technique was designed to be a rather quick action (estimated to 25-50 hours) and an economical way of finishing the job of audited NOTS. That’s how it was first announced by Hubbard. It soon got extended to be an almost endless action that, for many, took over a decade to complete. The tech assumes that the preclear has no more case of his own, no more time track. All there is left to do is the handling of these entities all around him. The entities are seen as the cause of all his ills and shortfalls. After getting rid of their influence, however, the preclear is considered completely caseless and ready for the “real OT levels” that consist of drills of OT abilities. The Solo NOTS tech is a ‘clean-out of entities’ action as none of the preclear’s own problems and aberrations are directly addressed. The tech focuses all on structure — the entities — rather than function — the preclear’s own postulates, goals, purposes, fixed ideas and aberrations as they came about and stuck over the eons of existence in this universe.

Good for business

We have found that Solo NOTS has been considerably overextended from its original definition and concept of handling body conditions on OTs after they shouldn’t run Dianetics anymore. This overextension coincided with Ron Hubbard’s retirement from the scene and the new management’s take-over. One could suspect more attention was paid to the business side of things and less attention given to the technical validity as long as it brought in new customers and business. In hindsight “cause over life” seems a great selling point but nothing more. Addressing entities for hundreds and hundreds of hours validates them as “cause” for any and all ills the preclear suffers from. It’s the same problem as endless engram running brought about in the 1950s. Whether one validates the engram bank or the spirit world as the cause of all ills, the result is that the apparent cause becomes stronger and stronger and tends to overwhelm the preclear as he is continuously put at effect. “Cause over life,” as we understand it, should mean the preclear is in charge, not the spirit world.

GPMs and beingness

What is not being addressed on the current OT levels is Goals Problems Masses. The Goals Problems Masses came about as a result of playing aberrative games, getting into conflicts, and somehow occasionally forming and holding onto dichotomies of identities involved, own IDs and the opposing ones. This phenomenon has gone on before the beginning of time and before this universe.

In auditing GPMs, one addresses the stuck identities which have formed ridges, circuits, and valences in the mind. No doubt, there is a large number of entities attached to these IDs of the preclear’s own creation. In auditing GPMs, we find there is little or no liability attached to ignoring these entities until they occasionally need to be addressed in repair actions. Usually, one will experience a shifting and blowing off of masses after a session. In our experience, when concentrating on the GPMs, one takes care of the structure the entities hold onto. The entity case we see as the “me-too case”. The entities react to what’s already there. They copy things or react to them in various ways. The entities are usually utterly at effect. We understand them mainly as a recording medium for the preclear’s experiences and postulates. They either resonate with the preclear’s own case or don’t resonate as the case may be. In auditing the GPMs, we address the preclear’s own postulates which form the backbone and structure of his case. Once this structure is taken care of and as-is-ed, the entities blow wholesale without the auditor having to pay much attention to them.


The basic unit of a GPM is an unresolved conflict.
The reader will probably be able to relate to conflicts between a man and a woman. The battle of the sexes seems to have gone on forever and has an archetypical dimension. In modern GPM auditing, one should resolve these old archetypical conflicts, one type of conflict at the time, before looking for other material in “the marriage GPM”. A conflict is resolved in the mind by discharging the two identities against each other.


There is another reason we find that extensive Solo NOTS auditing is a liability. It seems that the entities copy the preclear’s own past identities as they can be found in GPMs. To try to “blow them off” doesn’t make any sense at all. This action tends to fragment the preclear. The right approach, in our book, is to inspect the postulates that hold the pairs of opposed IDs and all the other parts of the GPMs in place. These structures as-is rather easily with the right approach. Most of what happens is that attention units belonging to the preclear are recovered and integrated as part of himself. Along with that, the entities copying the IDs, may or may not blow. This takes care of itself once the preclear’s own postulates and aberrations are handled. However, when one tries to “blow” IDs consisting mainly of own-trapped attention units, we get a fragmentation or a “buttered-all-over-the-universe” experience and case condition, to use one of Ron Hubbard’s expressions.

NOTS at its best

NOTS was, and is, a marvelous tech that has performed miracles over the years. In hindsight, it is a limited technique of finding and clearing up the “me-too case”. The tech had its most spectacular results when it first came out. At the time, and prior to NOTS, auditing engrams with Dianetics on OTs was the rule. It had resulted in much misowned charge on many OT cases. The preclear had been trying to run and erase charge that belonged to the entities. NOTS clears this charge up in short order and takes a load off the case. It also addresses many other causes of misowned charge. Once the misowned charge is handled, however, one should recognize that this tech has done its job, and its future role is repairs and occasional clean-ups. What happened when it was overextended into endless Solo NOTS, was that charge that was the preclear’s own creation now got misassigned as being the charge of entities. It’s not a new idea in healing nor in auditing that too much of a good thing can cause harm. NOTS was actually designed to take care of Dianetics’ overruns in the first place. One unproven datum that led into this mess in the first place, was the assertion that once the person was Clear there was absolutely nothing left of the person’s own bank. The timetrack, the track of the preclears experiences through the ages, according to Ron Hubbard was completely gone.

The current definition of Clear is, “a Being who no longer has his own reactive mind,” the implication being that what is left of reactivity and aberration belongs to the entities. This seems, in hindsight, to be wishful thinking. Incident running of the preclear’s own timetrack, including engram running, seems quite possible after Clear with techniques other than New Era Dianetics, such as Robert Ducharme’s R3X. Part of the problem could have been that New Era Dianetics went earlier similar too fast. As the bank after Clear is rather light and fluid, compared to solid on non-clears, the preclear and the session could easily fly off the tracks, so to speak, and land the preclear in the entity case, the always present “me-too” crowd. We think that’s what happened.

The conclusion we have come to, running various versions of GPM tech, is that there is still an almost endless amount of track and data in the bank. It’s all there and waiting to be run. One can concentrate on running the IDs that are stacked up in the GPMs or one can choose to run a lot of track. In one GPM process we used, we audited endless track incidents as “prior confusions” to the GPM goals. It brought up all kinds of whole-track adventures similar to what the readers may recall from their own Dianetics auditing.


In NOTS one handles entities, one at the time, with valence technique. One basically isolates one body thetan at a time and flips it out of the valence it is stuck in (a stuck viewpoint, so to speak). The process gets the body thetan back in its own valence, its free-spirited beingness. There are many obvious questions the NOTS materials avoid. Where do the BTs come from? Why are they stuck to the preclear? Where are they going? What kinds of beings are they? How many kinds of entities are there? These are some existential questions that have been around still unanswered.

We will not say that our studies have revealed the final answers to all of that. We have, however, found some workable truths that directly can be applied to processing. Bear with us if you disagree. We have to say it as we see it and ask you to check it out on your own.

Function and structure

As we see it, the resistive part of the NOTS case is the GPM case seen through a microscope. You see the tiny and isolated parts rather than the full picture. The NOTS techniques and data fall short as far as the super-structures of the GPMs are concerned. An early maxim of Hubbards was “Function monitors structure”. This is the same law as “Postulates are senior to MEST”; “Purpose is senior to form”; “Considerations are senior to mechanics”. What this means is that any creation or organism has come about due to one or many postulates. The creation or organism will take on the outward form that the postulates somehow dictated. To unlock unwanted creations, one should therefore find the rationale and postulates that created them and, most likely, still are active and keeping them created. Finding the postulates at work would include finding their right origin. To unlock the resistive part of the NOTS case, one has to understand preclear valences and the basic structure of GPMs. The following two definitions of GPMs in the Technical Dictionary are to the point: 4. Goals Problem Mass: the problem created by two or more opposing ideas which being opposed, balanced, and unresolved, make a mass. It’s a mental energy mass. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06) 5. items (valences) in opposition to one another. Any pair of these items, in opposition to each other, constitute a specific problem. (HCOB 23 Nov 62).

So we have two opposing postulates. These postulates are the goals or obsessions held by the valences or identities as we prefer to call them. These identities/valences are not BTs. They are typically past IDs the preclear has occupied or opposed. Tech dictionary definition (3) states: 3. a GPM: constitutes of items, beingnesses, that the person has been and has fought. (SH Spec 137, 6204C24) The BTs, as we see it, are not these valences. They are building materials that, in part, make up these identities. BTs are usually rather inert and benign. They are at total effect and do very little by themselves. They can be held in place by the preclear; they can be energized by the preclear and perform their brand of obsession or compulsion. Also, they seem to be able to hold data; we see them as a recording medium of sorts the Being often uses inadvertently. As far as the preclear’s case is concerned, an entity can be found in one of three conditions: (1) It can be inert, i.e., it does not affect the case but is present; (2) It can be restimulated. This restimulation occurs only along the lines of what it’s already stuck in. There is a simple on/off choice of conditions: it’s either keyed in or it’s keyed out; (3) It can be absent or “blown”. By being restimulated or keyed in, an entity holds data. By removing whatever restimulated it in the first place, it is keyed out; the entity becomes inert or blows; it returns to its origin or whatever. What happens to them should be of secondary concern to the practitioner, if her objective is to make the preclear well. Being on some 7th dynamic mission of freeing entities, is not part of what auditing should be about. In GPM auditing, the entities should be recognized and granted beingness for what they are but need only be addressed occasionally as part of repair actions. What we are saying, is that the entity population on a case is mainly a medium that responds to the preclear’s postulates and considerations. The large majority (an estimation would be over 90%) are fragments of other Beings that are alive and well elsewhere. Release the entities and we don’t see an explosion in the population of humans. The only social impact releasing entities has, as far as we are concerned, is to have less dispersed and fragmented thetans all around, including the preclear. As fragments of theta, body thetans are best understood as stray attention units that got caught up in other thetan’s cases for whatever reason. It could be old mutual involvement, similarity of games or misidentifications (A=A=A). Theta, according to Scientology axiom 1 is not located originally. It has no location, mass or wavelength. What locates theta is interest and fixated attention. Interest and attention require that one chooses a point of view, thus they become located.

What we have learned

What the author has learned from all this studying and research could be summed up this way:

1. The preclear’s valences are senior to any entity found on his case.

2. Entities can be found as elements in a given valence. The entities flavor the valence with color, eccentricity, and oddities, but the postulates that determine if the entities are triggered, keyed in, keyed out or simply gone are the preclear’s own.

We see the entities as elements in a larger structure or group, like the members in this school band. Each member colors the band but the overall beingness of the band is determined by outside forces, such as the school’s music director.

In the mind we have senior structures in the form of valences or IDs, that again are part of a larger GPM structure. One has to address the senior structures and the postulates behind them to resolve matters.



3. These postulates are the types found in GPMs. The reason they stick, and thus prevent the entities from blowing, can be resolved within the GPM theory. One valence in a dichotomy is hung up against another. They are hung up in a way so they form an age old unresolved conflict. Once this dichotomy is resolved, the preclear can let go of the valences, and the elements they are built of are no longer needed and will thus easily come off as well.

4. That a person has gone clear is no guarantee that the GPM case is gone. The way to overcome the GPM case is to address it and handle all there is to handle. It does not just “blow” as the result of other auditing, be it Grades, Dianetics, addressing implants or entities. Any auditing takes charge off the case in general. To as-is things that persist, the exact postulate holding it in place, needs to be found.

5. The GPM case is a very basic level of case. It’s a record of the games of life as they took place since before the beginning of time. What can be found in the mind as GPMs, is the residue in the form of mental masses of what the preclear has been and done and fought against on the whole track. This residue can manifest itself as ridges, circuits, and valences just as described in the Briefing Course materials by Hubbard. A GPM is a layered record of old unresolved conflicts. The layers of these masses are held together by a common underlying passion or theme as explained in earlier articles. The themes are passions the being just wouldn’t give up on even after crashing into a brick wall of opposition. Rather than giving up on the theme, the being kept finding new ways and tactics to pursue it. Each tactic was a goal inside the GPM. As each of these tactics were met by opposition, we got layer after layer of dichotomies. The masses brought about by these conflicts remain created and are basically energized by the passion for the theme. We find the preclear’s ID smack up against the opposition, over and over, in the pattern we call a line-plot. These masses should be addressed, one conflict at a time, and be resolved.

6. It’s risky business to try to strictly follow the line-plots. At any given time a multitude of themes are in play in the hodgepodge called Life. The best approach is to unburden the GPM case, one dichotomy at a time. Each available dichotomy can be successfully processed to its own end phenomena, and should be, before looking for the next readily available pair. Once several dichotomies within the same theme have successfully been processed, the whole GPM may collapse, as it was a delicate balance in the first place.

In conclusion

Having originally done over 1200 hours of NOTS and Solo NOTS combined, and of late about 300 hours of GPM auditing, the author thinks he is entitled to express an informed opinion. We found that the NOTS case is a surface charge phenomenon. We like to call it the “me-too case”. Granted, there is quite a lot of “surface”, but the main reason the “me-too case” stuck in the first place, is that it helped model and form the IDs of the GPM case. It added color, eccentricity, and emphasis, intended or unintended, to these IDs. The NOTS auditing is an unburdening action. It unburdens the preclear’s GPM structures and valences. Removing entities is comparable to removing locks from the engram case. As we know from engram running, one shouldn’t unburden forever but start in on the real stuff and erase it. When we talk NOTS and GPMs, the real stuff is the self-created structures and valences of the GPMs. The basic unit is the dichotomy of two opposing IDs. Once the GPMs are available, one should go to work and remove them. Once they are removed, the real reason for most of the NOTS case is gone. The most detailed record of the anatomy of GPMs is found in Hubbard materials on the subject. Since there were so many different trial-and-error attempts, it is not that easy to unscramble. The basic flaw in processing them in the 1960s was that Hubbard wanted to do too much too fast. The right approach, we find, is to fully handle one dichotomy at a time. In following the lineplots right away, red-hot dichotomies were often left behind, and this led to errors in finding opposite IDs.

As explained in “Adventurous Routine 2-12," another reason was that endless listing was erroneously considered the way to discharge identities. Yet, when a gibbering hot dichotomy was finally found, it was not flattened but was left rock-slamming. In almost all the early techniques, much more charge was restimulated than blown. It resulted in bogged auditing, blown students, and severe illness as the grim results in many instances. If one considers one dichotomy the basic objective of auditing, success becomes possible. One has to flatten and resolve one dichotomy at a time and treat it as the basic process. The GPMs as well as the entities are there. They interact in ways that haven’t been well understood. There is, of course, much more to learn about this. What I want to press home is that the Pre OT case is not ‘entities from here on out’. Our cases as they exist in present time aren’t simply the result of grim conspiracies either. The next level known, as far as I can tell, was isolated and researched by Hubbard in the 1960s. It just wasn’t tackled with the right technology at the time. Applying what we learned from later Hubbard research helped a lot. Putting it all together was done by various researchers in the Freezone. The GPMs are real. They need to be handled if one wants to go OT for real. It may be a lot of extra work. We have found it an adventure so far. Some of us are in for the long haul and for what it takes. To those of you that are of that mind-set, we have dedicated this article series and website.



Hit Counter

This page last changed on: 2012-02-17 14:51