Thank you.

Now, one of the best things to do with a weapon that you don't know what to do with would be to park it someplace and forget about it, and get a weapon that you did know what to do with. Wouldn't that seem sensible? Yeah, but this is a problem that's being handled by government.

A great deal of work has been done in the last year on many subjects and you might like to know about some of it. Would you like to know about some of that work?

Now, why can't you walk into a large business corporation, why can't you walk into a government, why can't you walk in to Mr. Big and say to him, "I have a solution to your difficulties"?

Audience: Yes.

Now look, at the moment — you can take my word for it, although there are a few of you sitting right now in the audience who have been through the HGC very recently who were dragging through as cases as long as Dianetics is old, as long as Scientology has been going — their cases never quite came up to expectancy. They expected more to happen than had happened. And now they know that something has happened to their cases and they have advanced — they know that an advance has taken place. And there are several people sitting right amongst you this moment who would tell you that.

Thank you.

We have a big weapon. It's probably the biggest weapon on Earth at the moment because it is a weapon and it can be used! And if there is another weapon on Earth that is tremendously big, a huge weapon that can't be used, who's left with the weapon?

A year ago I left Washington here intending to stay abroad for a few weeks. Well, I got abroad and I found something very remarkable. I found cases tougher than American cases. And I found a subject which was very, very intriguing to me; the effect of modern war on a population. And I found something else abroad; I found it was very easy for me to get very excellent assistance within the limits of the exchequer. That was very important.

All right. The atom bomb is a solution to all man's problems everywhere. Thud! No problems! So, it's too big a solution, isn't it?

So, I sat down and started to do some work. And the first of that work that was developed immediately after the not-know, the first and second postulate work that was done in Washington here, was the communication bridge. And I found out that it was very, very easy to dream up a process (we'd always known this) but I found out it was much easier to dream up a process than it was to get it audited on somebody. I found out there might even be said to be a small amount of difficulty connected with getting an actual process audited on somebody.

Well, man gets solutions mixed up with violence, death and the end of it all and he begins to avoid solutions. So that you walk into a big business corporation and you say, "Look, I could make all of your employees 50 percent more efficient, I could even bring you up to a point where you know what office you're sitting in." And what's he say? He said, "Nah. Well, I don't know. Take it off, put somebody on. Rah-rahhh."

And I set out a year ago to understand why — why? You know there was an old tradition in the field of mental healing (an old field, it has been laid aside these many years) but there was a tradition that "there were some mental healers who had a certain insight into a case, who had a touch, who were able to — by some personal magnetism — pull the aberration out of somebody." There was such a tradition.

The first manifestation is that the man has to have problems. He has to have problems because he doesn't dare arrive. He doesn't dare arrive because he knows it's painful. In other words, he realizes you're trying to put him in a no-game condition — he thinks. Man has identified going into a no-game condition such as "dead" with putting himself into a position where he can play a game. These things are harmonics on the same thing. Man can play a game here, he can be serene, but he can play a game; he can be nameless, but he can have an identity; he can be good, but he doesn't have to be good. He can win, he can lose, but he doesn't have to, and it isn't the end-all of existence if he does either. Then a man can have a game.

Do you know that the entirety of Dianetics was discredited in the field of psychology and psychiatry because they said, "It's very probable that Hubbard can get these results on his patients . . ." They didn't know I wasn't even in practice. "It's very probable he could get these results — but that is because a magnetism or a personal factor exists which gives him an insight." And they told people this; they really did. Some of you have heard that. And they told people this was why Dianetics worked when it worked, but that as a science it didn't exist, but was simply an attempt to explain this thing called "insight."

Have you ever tried to play a game with your — let us say, have you ever tried to play a game of blackjack — to get crude — with your last dollar? That's not a game. That's desperation! And here he believes himself to be playing a game of such seriousness that he cannot afford to play the game at all. It isn't a game anymore; life is therefore not interesting. Life is not something that is to be lived, life is not something which is to be used to live with.

Well, five years later, in October of 1955 I decided I would study this thing called "insight." Why was it one person got results with a preclear and another person didn't get results with a preclear? Why? It was a big study and I thought I could wrap it up in a few weeks with my usual optimism.

And he immediately believes then that he had better sort of grind away at something he's certain about and leave all this foolishness alone because life is serious and life is real and that death is its goal or something. And he falls completely out of any real interest or livingness. He's playing blackjack with his last dollar, always, he believes.

So, a year later I am telling you about it.

And therefore, he can't have a solution. The solution is down here. "Solution" means end of game, end of action and end of doingness. And he knows what that is. End of doingness is painful, it's agony, it's all there is gone, it's total loss. That's a solution to him.

First, there was the communication bridge. What is a communication bridge? It is a bridge between one state of beingness and another. It is a bridge between the destroy and the create of any cycle of action. A cycle of action is create-survive-destroy. How do we get onto another cycle of action?

You say — you have twelve stenographers here, and you have three of them who are actually doing the correspondence and the other nine actually walk back and forth and originate communications to each other. Only they get so much in the road that the other three can't do the correspondence they're supposed to do. Now, the solution is to find some work of the organization for these remaining nine girls and put them in the places on fixed communication lines where they really can contribute to the situation. In other words, let's straighten out these communication lines. It seems to be the most reasonable thing you could think of. And you walk in, tell him this. "What are you trying to do?" Sort of "Throw this bum out" sort of an attitude. "You're just trying to mess us up, that's all."

All right, we are running a process. A good process on somebody called "Do Fishes Swim?" Oh, somebody is familiar with that process? That's a very workable process. Anyway, I'll tell you a joke about it in a minute.

How would he be messed up? Because a game called confused secretarial directionalism would be at end — that would be the end of a game. And he's got this mixed up with pain and agony, and he knows (reactively) what would happen to him if he actually did straighten out his secretaries. He knows what would happen to him. He'd be in agony. He'd be broke. It would be the end of existence. In other words, he is playing this game called business with the same desperation that somebody tries to avoid an avalanche which is falling on him. And you have threatened to hit him with one pebble, and he knows that one pebble is followed by the mountain.

So, here I was working away trying to get between one cycle of action and another. We say — we start in with a preclear, we start saying, "Do fishes swim? Do fishes swim? Do fishes swim?" We run out the communication lag that is developed by the process — gets flat — and we consider the process has done everything that the process can be expected to do; it's just as simple as that.

What can you sell him? Just telling you this to show you a little of the gold that falls out of this theory of games. It tells you what he'll buy; he'll buy a game condition.

Now, how do you get from that end of process to the next process? It requires a bridge. You have to wind up the old process, establish the session somewhat, and begin the new process.

What's a game condition? Confusion, motion, problems, difficulties, getting stuck in things, going to jail, these are game conditions.

Now, let's look at that more carefully. In other words, if you flattened the process you would reach an end of session as far as the preclear is concerned, because that process has been audited, and that's all there is to that process. That is the end of that process. So, he equals it up as "end of session," and he could be expected to go out of session somewhat.

So, you walk in — he has nine secretaries that merely swap notes to getin the road of the other three secretaries and so forth. You persuade him to hire three more! You make up some forms for them to make out that report on the remaining nine, and they have to survey each one of the reports and add to it, and this takes up their whole day. He buys this and, actually, some work comes out of the office. Why? You covertly nailed down nine secretaries who were being random by making them make out too many reports, you see.You actually can use this sort of thing. Now, I'll give you another example of this — give you another example of this. You have this big department.And this department is in charge of waterworks and rivers and harbors and stuff and this big outfit is all involved with paper chains. And you appoint people so that you can relieve people so that that ends that communication line, but — not positively. There still is a confusion at each end, you see. They have their desks so fixed that the reports on the water levels all wind up in the accounting department so that they have to be misrouted because accounting doesn't know anything about that. And they've got these things going round and round, and you see this horrible confusion.

All right, how do you get between one state of livingness and another? You have to declare that one is ended, that this state still exists and that a new action is going to be taken.

One of the first things you could do to straighten it out for yourself would be to look for a stable datum somewhere in it; something that is still, motionless or stopped. That would be the beginning of your workout of this confusion.

You do that this way: everything is done on agreement, this world is here because we agree it is, so therefore we have to get an agreement that in a command or two or three, we are going to end the process. We are thinking about it. We wonder how it is and we're thinking about it and we say — in — "Will it be all right with you if a couple more commands we end this particular process? Is that all right with you?"

And then, because you've got to sell a lot of people who know that to solve anything is to die, you really fix them up. You say, "What you should do now: Look this situation over carefully. You've always been worrying about floods. You've always been worrying about floods." You've said, "If you put up enough waterworks and dams and so on that you'd have these floods — you'd have these floods under check." They've never done this, you know, the floods just keep rolling down, taking cities away and smash up the countryside and carry away all the farms and topsoil and everything. You said, "Now, we're supposed to stop all these floods."

The preclear says, "All right," or "No." If he says no, you'll have to keep going.

And they just said, "Confusion, confusion, confusion."

All right.

And you said, "Now, stopping those floods you've always thought of as a problem. Man, you haven't got a problem even vaguely in that compared to this other problem! Wow! The problem of drouth! Now, the truth of the matter is you will have to flood all kinds of valleys and surrounding countryside and so forth, in case there's a drouth." Never has been a drouth, never has been one.

Now, we carry it over then, and we have given him warning, we've given him no abrupt stop, and we say to him then, "Well, all right, that's the finish of that particular thing. Now, how are we getting on? How are you doing?"

You would be amazed. Sensible men at this time, you say to yourself, they say, they'd look right through this, you know, and they'd say, "Ha! Ha! There's never been any drouths in this area and we don't have to store any water, our trouble is to get rid of the darned stuff!" That's what they'd say. But you have estimated the organization as a sensible organization. You believe that it depends on good reasoning and it follows out its goals, and that's what it does. It's a sensible organization. It isn't! It doesn't intend to not even vaguely!

We don't ask him how he feels because that as-ises things. We might as well ask him "How do you cry?" as "How do you feel anyway?"; it's just another part of the Tone Scale.

But you come along and you want to actually put them into the business of stopping floods so that you can save some of the farmland that's being swept away and some of the cities. All right, that's what you do. You say, "It's a big problem of drouth. Have you ever handled this problem? Have you ever realized what it meant — to have all — think of it — the Mississippi without a drop of water in its bottom!" You'd be surprised. Fellows will sit there and they'll say, "Umm! That's pretty terrible!"

So, we say, "How are you doing? How are we getting along?" and he says, "So-and-so and so-and-so."

You say, "But the problem of trying to find enough valleys and to build enough dams to store this water is insurmountable. Just building dams to keep the Mississippi in check, ha, that's nothing! But just think of trying to — think of the horrible legal consequences of seizing land, seizing farms, you see, confiscating property. Why, it'd just be a violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and everything else, and the legal work involved in it is terrific! You'd have to add eight legal departments just to take care of the confusion of kicking people out of these valleys so that you can flood them! And that's a problem! How are you ever going to get over that?"

Why do you do that? You say, look — look preclear, I am still here; you're still here; the room's still here. And we do that by saying, "Well, how are we doing? Do you think you're getting anyplace now? Do you think that you could be doing a little better or a little worse? What's your general reaction?" And he talks with you about this for a moment or two. And then you say, "Well now, I was thinking about running another little process on you that was so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so. Now, what do you think about that?"

And they figure and they worry and they work and everything starts going more confused, and while they are not watching, the actual machinery of stopping the floods goes back into action. Why? They've got a bigger problem so they can afford a solution to a little problem!

And he'll say, "Well, I think that is a pretty good idea."

Now, nations and organizations and individuals actually work on this principle. Any of you have run "Problem of comparable magnitude to will know that.

And then you say to him, "Well now, the wording of this process is so-and-so. Do our finny friends fluctuate through water?"

We say to somebody, "Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to your mother." There are very specific ways of running it. "Problem of comparable magnitude to your father." "Problem of comparable magnitude to your grandfather." "A problem of comparable magnitude to your name." Anything you want to say. And the fellow all of a sudden comes unfixed off this problem and looks over and sees a bigger problem. Then you give him a bigger problem. You unfix his attention on the second one; you put it over here on the third and gradually he is perfectly willing to solve this problem over here. It's quite interesting, quite interesting mechanism. But it works on big organizations.

And he says, "No, I don't understand that."

Now, if you were to go into a big organization, you want to become a great success — you want to be a big success, don't go around solving their difficulties. Boy, they'll hate you. They'll look at you like you are a murderer; you're about to kill them. "Get out of here with those solutions. We know it's reasonable to file everything that begins with A under A, but we don't do it that way." The thing for you to do is to figure out a more complicated filing system than they already have, a more complicated paper chain than they already have; figure out more forms to be filled in and to go more places to bother more people; make enough confusions here or there to a point where you are elected to chairman of the board. This man's a good man.

You say, "Well, do fishes ever dunk themselves?"

Now, some of you who are working with corporations recognize the truth in what I am saying, but you think I am joking — you don't think these outfits would buy that. They would! They'd buy it.

"No," he says, "I don't like that. Don't — don't — it just doesn't make sense to me."

You go in and you say, "I have a way to cut out form 82, 85 and 86 by combining it in the original form number 1." They would say, "I'm very sorry today. I'm very busy. We'll have to talk to somebody else about this."

You say, "Well, all right. Do fishes swim?"

You go in and you say, "You know, form number 1, 85, 86, 97 and 102 are inadequate! I can't make out my reports with this little data! We have got to originate another form which I have typed up here, which gives us the relative birth rates of the office employees and this has to be added in for cross analysis, and we'll call these form 150, 151, 152 and 153 in addition to the existing forms! Then we'll have it."

"Ah, yeah," he says, "that's pretty good. That's pretty good. Yeah, I can understand that. That's easy to understand."

And you'd be surprised. Mr. Big ordinarily — open those doors, and he'll say, "Son, you have a future."

And you say, "All right, now let's begin the process now." And you ask him, "Do fishes swim?"

Most organizations solve their problems by increasing the number of identities on their payrolls. More identity is a game condition. They have very great difficulties. They just can't get in touch with New York, or keep New York straight. So instead of analyzing the communication lines to New York, what the Chicago office does is hire five more people to pound at New York, change the New York manager, put in some guy that they know will flop and then hire twelve more guys in New York who are supposed to maintain communication with Chicago. This doesn't work, so they hire ten more people in Chicago and ten more people in New York. This doesn't work so they buy a new building in New York just to house the employees in order to communicate with Chicago where they have to buy a new building to file the messages. Two outfits still aren't working and thus General Electric is born!

That's a communication bridge. That keeps people in-session — also keeps up their havingness.

Every time you add identities into a situation you're all right. Now, you have to have some identities present in order to have a game condition. You wouldn't have any communication lines or any business at all unless there were some identities involved. See? But there gets to be too good of a thing there along the line someplace and you have so many identities involved that nothing could be done.

Well, that was very neat. We had a number of processes; we found auditors did much better when they understood this thing called a bridge. Now, the funny part of a bridge is that every session begins with a half-bridge. The last half of the bridge is used at the beginning of session, and the first half of the bridge is used at the complete end of the session.

Well, I'll tell you something amusing that happened in the HASI London, something very, very amusing, something that you laugh at if this happens in a central office of Scientology.

We would go at it this way. You say, "I'm going to audit you now. Are you all set? Get braced, get ready to turn on the no-effect."

We had a great many business people who had been hired, one of them an office manager, and he was doing all right. But we had a lot of clerical help that had been hired straight out of the market, the labor market of London, and we brought this — these clerical people on and so on. And we found out that work was doing a little bit worse than it was, so they hired over there some more people to expedite it. The first thing you know, the payroll was getting astronomic, and the bank balances of the organization were drop-ping and so on. And so the Association Secretary and I went to the mat about this and we worked out a budget, and I pushed the budget down into an extremity. It was to be within the income of the organization, which seems rather a reasonable thing to do. Because I had altitude and did it with auditing procedure, he bought it and put it into effect with great difficulty, but we got it in effect. We got it into effect. He's actually a real good boy.

And he says, "All right."

He was aware of this principle too and we were — we got to laughing about this because we did something terribly arbitrary. We merely removed all personnel exterior to Scientology from the office without any regard whatsoever for their functions. Obviously this would have left terrible holes in the organization by all planning known to man. This would have been a terribly desperate step to have taken and so it was a desperate step. It was in effect for two days — those people had been missing for two days! And all of a sudden the office manager came to me and he says, "You know, something odd is happening, Ron. Everybody is getting work done. The organization is running more quietly and smoothly than I have ever seen it run before! What's happened?"

And you say, "Well now, I am thinking of running a little process on you called 'Do Fishes Swim.' I'll ask it over and over and you answer it and we'll see how we get along. Is that process all right with you?"

Well, what's happened is that the clerical and staff that was hired was just following standard business routines, and they were originating enough communications so that other communications could be answered to those and they were taking in their own washing! And this would have been perfectly all right if they hadn't disturbed the Scientology personnel working on the job and their own business manager. But it so happened that we disturbed the — they disturbed the Scientologists on the job and the bankroll and the accounts. And when they were removed from the situation — all of those extraneous communications were removed from the situations — and we uncovered two or three Scientologists who were also working on clerical staff who, up to this time, had been completely snarled up continually trying to keep the other communication lines unsnarled, which were always snarled. And the operation at half the payroll was suddenly getting along with beautiful smoothness.

And he says, "Sure, that process is good with me."

Now, that's a terrible argument. No labor union would buy this argument. So in order to sell that, you have to give somebody a bigger problem. All right, let's put that same kind of an incident on a national basis. You interested in a third dynamic application of games?

And so you start in and you say, "Do fishes swim?" And you're in-session. You see?

Audience: Yes. Sure!

All right, at the end — at the end of the session, you then use the first part of the bridge. You say, "I think — I'm thinking of ending this session after two or three more questions, is that all right with you?"

All right, let's put this on a national — let's put this on a national basis. Let's put it on a labor union basis. We tell the labor union flatly, that if they got rid — in industry and factories and that sort of thing — if they got rid of about three-quarters of the people they had employed, they'd be able to get something done. Ha! Can we get their agreement on anything? Ha! Ha! Ha! No! No! No, they'd only agree with us if we had guaranteed to hire two more for every one they've got on. The trouble is already that every post has got too many communication lines mixed up in it. Work isn't necessarily accomplished by numbers. Somebody said, "Many hands make light work." I just reduced this to "Many hands make work." And carry it further to "Many hands make work work!"

And he says, "Yeah — yeah, I don't see why not."

See, a few of us have run organizations and that sort of thing in this when we were all wearing all hats. We were taking it in from all directions and actually, the field and public at large got more service during those times even if things were more hectic than at any other time.

And you say, "Well, all right." And you ask the "Do fishes swim?" and he answers you; and "Do fishes swim?" and he answers you, and "Do fishes swim?" and you say, "Well, that's all right. How — how are you doing now? How are you getting along?"

Well, how would we do something like this? We would take a national level and we'd do something weird. We would hand out a problem to industry and government which was so close to unsolvable that they would be willing to reduce their personnel. How would we do that and still not upset the wage earner and the amount of pay he was getting? How would we do that?

And he says, "Oh, I'm — I'm doing all right. I'm just a little bit anaten. I can almost see you."

Well, we could advance a Scientology principle. We could say people interiorize into their work and become inefficient and, becoming inefficient, interiorized into their drill presses and books and so forth and becoming much, much too pinned down and introverted, are therefore and thereafter liable to riots, commotion, disturbance, agitation. They fall for labor agitation, they strike, they cost us lots of money and so forth. Why? Because the people have actually slightly gone mad! They've been interiorized, interiorized, interiorized, interiorized until they no longer see further than the ends of their noses. They don't see the health of the organization. They don't see the health of the factory or the corporation or the government. They only see the little gadget they've got right in front of their face. So, they look at this little, tiny thing and they get interiorized into that. Somebody comes along and says, "You're being done in! Everybody's doing you dirt! Strike! Workers of the world arise! Workers of the world go to bed!" Whatever it is. Oh, I'm sorry, that's Freudian. Anyhow.

And you say, "Well — uh ..." You know the comm is a bit flat on the process, and you realize he must be a bit out of present time, so you simply have to put on what? The rest of the communication bridge, start a new session and close it off. How do you do that? You don't simply say — you see he is groggy, so you say, "Well, spot some things in the room." No, that's wrong. Shocks him, startles him, and sticks him in session because of the sudden change.

We give them this as an explanation because it's true, you see, it's perfectly true. And we advance, as a reality, a single process which is very workable. We say, "When a worker is tired and exhausted and he's only been doing clerical work and that sort of thing, do you know that if you send him out and make him walk around the block until he's actually looking at the environment (give him havingness) — walk around the block until he is interested in the environment, that he will stop worrying and being obsessed with the materials he was handling."

So what you do — he says, "I'm a bit groggy."

That's terrifically good therapy. It's very simple. We simply say to some-body, "Go take a walk around the block."

You say, "Well, all right. Well, let's end this 'Do Fishes Swim' anyway, and let's start in now on something else. Now, how do — how do you feel? Do you feel all right? And you're doing okay. You say you're groggy. Well, how are you doing? You know, you're groggy?"

I'll tell you how I evolved that as a process. I'm writing a little bookcalled Security in the Workaday World which is to go out with the PECourses. People come in, they want to know about work, we talk about principles of Scientology, put them into the framework of how you work. And thislittle book then had to have a couple of pat solutions, and one of those solutions had to be on the first dynamic and one of course had to be on the third.How do we extrovert a worker? How do we keep him from spinning in by being too pinned down to his job? Well, we had to have something simple that would work without an auditor present, so we had him walking around the block until he extroverted.

"Well ..."

I told several people about this. They do now, they walk around the block until they're not tired. It's very funny but they can walk around the block until they're not tired. If they only walk around the block far enough to get tired and then quit, they've just restimulated themselves. They have to keep on walking around the block. Of course, you could probably walk yourself Clear walking around the block eventually.

You say, "Well if — would it be all right with you if we just . . ." (see, here you are on the rest of the bridge) "Would it be all right with you if I tell you to spot walls and objects in the room, and so forth? Would that be all right with you?"

Now, how would we ever sell a third dynamic solution of this character? How would we ever make the third dynamic alert to this? We'd have to give them a bigger problem, wouldn't we? Just like we have to give the preclear a bigger problem to get him off his fixation on how terrible it is that all Ford cars cough at him when he walks by them.

And he says, "Ah — why not. Why not," he says.

We actually have to teach him on the third dynamic that there is a bigger difficulty. The horrible difficulties of government job planning — it's just terrible, the difficulties of government job planning. The government has never been efficient and to let them do this at all is almost completely disastrous, but somehow or other with great watchfulness, we will make sure that they do a good job of this.

And you say, "Well, I'm going to ask you, 'Look at that wall' and then you look at the wall ... and tell me when you've looked at it. Is that all right?" And he'd say, "Ah — ah, yes, that's fine."

They say, "What's job planning got to do with this?"

And you'd say, "All right, we're going to do that now. Now, you look at that wall . . ." and so forth.

You say, "You're going to keep people working in automobile industry eight hours a day, they drive home, they sit down in front of a television set, they go to bed, they get up in the morning, they work eight hours in their office or at their drill press. Ha! What gives? The guy's going to introvert. He's going to get tireder and tireder and tireder. His job is going to be done less well and less well and less well. He's going to be more and more liable to strikes and agitation. It is going to take more and more force and duress and persuasion to get him to work at all. He's going to pull blunders. What's the solution? I am afraid that you had better take four hours of that man's eight and have him spend them outside on civic or construction programs."

And then pretty soon he is alert again, and you say, "Well, I am going to ask you to look at two or three objects now, and then how would it be if we ended the session?"

Everybody says, "You mean double — double the number of people that will be working in the factory? How horrible! You mean we'll have twice as many people working here."

And he would say, "Oh, that would be all right."

"That's right. Morning shift, afternoon shift."

So you say — you ask him, "Look at the ceiling. Look at the floor. Look at the ashtray" or something of the sort. And you say to him then, "Well, all right now. You're doing okay now?"

"Oh," they say, "think of the books. Yeah, think of — think of the accounting problem. Think of the tax problem involved to supporting that many civic projects? Think of the difficulties you'll have with politicians trying to keep their hands out of the pork barrel while they're building all of these things!"

And he says, "Yes. Yes."

You make it practically against the law for a fellow to work at an introverted job unless he has an extroverted one. You say it's very difficult. How are you ever going to sell to the public the idea that you should permit an executive and enforce an executive — not just permit — but enforce an executive to go fishing six times a week?

So you say, "All right. End of session."

Well, because part of game condition is kicking the other fellow out of the game. This is one of those nice, smooth, workable solutions. Why is it workable? Because it's so idiotic. But it would do exactly what we know — if we look it over we will know — would have to be done in order to bring sanity into industry and labor and government and government — worker relations. You can't keep the man in the office 24 hours a day and expect him to stay up and do otherwise than to get old and creakity and inefficient and upset!

See? See what a bridge is?

If you're going to have a vital nation, you have to to have vital people!

If you envision a bridge as a sort of a mechanism here that goes like this. This is a processing area, see, this is a processing area, see. Those are two processing areas; this is simply a "you're here and I'm here" area. See? So, we go — we end a processing area and we begin over here.

We'd start in on some sort of a thing — if you were going to carry out a program like this as an example. There is a problem today in the schools. Let's just go over into this, I'm going to cover — just notice as we're going by that I'm covering some of the titles that you have in your .. .

Now, when we start a whole session, a whole session looks like this — looks like this. Here we're both here and here's a processing area, and then no matter how many comm bridges occur in here, we finally wind up like this. And here we both are again, don't you see? You end here, see. So, this is a session. And that is a — that's just a bridge itself. Were always trying to get across the bridge in old Book One and there's the bridge.

In schools we notice that children have a difficult time learning any-thing. The end product of modern education is a child being able to arrive at the age of twelve without being able to write, read, spell or even get to school. That's evidently the end product.

So anyway, if you know these auditing dodges, you actually know how to talk to people so that they listen to you if you know them.

I know I used to do traveling ovals and all of that sort of thing and — by the hour — and used to slave away and work and labor in order to learn how to write. And I did all that work on the subject and people can't read my writing worth a nickel even today, you see?

You can walk into anybody, talk to anybody if you use a bridge. Now, how would you use a bridge talking to somebody? You've just been talking about the big fire, and so forth. Well, you say, "Well, I don't know, that fire, there's been lots of fires around town. How's it going in your family?"

So now, we give a fellow one-eighth that amount of training and he writes eight times as bad, or maybe we train him sensibly and he really learns how to write.

"The family is okay, and so forth. Everything is all — doing all right and so forth."

I've opened up some old books from way back when — minutes. One of them here that I ran into — I've been a member of many of the societies, by the way, and organizations here in Washington, DC. And as an officer very often your accounts and so on or your minute books will extend back a considerable length of time. And the Columbian Society, for instance, goes back to about 1821 and its first minutes are its formation and contain a speech by the Marquis of Lafayette which was given at the banquet. He was over here at that time. You ought to see the penmanship, perfect copperplate, ornamented beautifully!

And you say, "Well, how about the floods that we've been having?" See, a new subject.

And I ran into a fellow one day who could write like this, and I said, "How did you ever learn to write like this?"

In other words, if you end a subject, say, "We're here talking," and begin a subject again, the person you are talking to stays in communication with you.

He said, "I don't know. Isn't that the way you write?"

But if you go rattling along with him madly about fires, fires, fires, fires, and then you suddenly say, "Floods are bad too."

But down through the years we discover that the writing in these minutes is deteriorating. By 1870, to make a C, you merely make five or six curlicues, not like 1830 where you practically drew pictures of everything under the sun to make a C, you see? Different. But you see this writing deteriorating right on up to now.

Much worse, you're talking about business and suddenly you say, "She sure is a pretty girl." He actually, goes out of communication with you because there is no agreement on the subject of the communication, so you end agreement on what you were talking about. You say, "We are still talking here, aren't we," and start again.

My handwriting in these books I assure you doesn't add to their artistic abilities, although people say my handwriting is quite forceful. I am very proud of that if they didn't add the fact that it's seldom readable.

Now, a salesman doing this sort of thing very often discovers something very peculiar. He can sell razor blades very nicely, but all of a sudden he brings out a washing machine. The guy wanted razor blades, he bought some, but he doesn't want the washing machine, apparently. But the truth of the matter is something else took place entirely. He was not part of the conversation about washing machines. He was part of the conversation about razor blades. If a conversation existed and communication was taking place on the subject of razor blades, then, of course, there was some wire for the razor blades to travel on, don't you see, to get over to him. But there is nothing to roll a washing machine down! He's not part of the conversation about washing machines. Do you follow this use?

Somebody, a calligraphist, once accused me of having achieved an ultimate in artistic presence and complete undecipherability. I thought it was quite a compliment — it put me in a no-game condition right there.

Now, you know the use of all of these communication mechanisms in everyday living is very fascinating. If you can audit well, and if you know these mechanisms so that you are totally relaxed about them, you're still not learning to act on the basis of "Let me see, where — where do I put my thumbs? Do they . . . ?" You know. Get the idea now — "What'll I do with my hands?" You know, sort of thing.

Well, anyway, we see that the earlier student did something the later student doesn't do. It doesn't have to do with mechanics and it doesn't have to do with machines. Let's just knock out the idea that having some machines, that having some electric lights and having a little entertainment around, something like that would do much to a society. You see, it's not a very aberrative factor, it's a very mildly aberrative factor, but it only — restimulator of some sort or another, it isn't that kind of thing which makes men mad.

If we have — if we have a conversance — if we have a conversance with our subject we don't have to put very much strain on it. The newness is out of it; we can use it.

If you denied men the bulk of the solids they were used to, if you made them stay indoors when they should be outdoors, you would see a deterioration in their character. You would reduce their havingness. Does that make sense to you?

Like trying to drive a car the first time. You very often take a hubcap off on the curve or something. But you never did that before, but it's just a new car.

In other words, the old-timer spent most of his time out in the park or riding around. There wasn't anything to do inside anyhow, you didn't have much in the way of electric lights. You just had a candle and they were expensive and so on. But he managed to do things at night I am told. I remember.

Now, you get so you could really use your communication formulas, you could do the darnedest things with conversation, particularly with a non-Scientologist. You could even do strange things with a Scientologist. In his case just omit some of the steps. And he goes, "Zzzzzzz."

Anyhow, he got outside. He was able to live in the world, not in a house or an office or at the playing table of a machine. He lived in the world! The world consisted of fields and valleys and rivers and mountains. That was the world. It consisted of rather boisterous weather, it consisted of a lot of things. He had havingness, he had solid objects! He had not yet learned to be afraid of them! And therefore he could solve things, he could write things like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence without a qualm. It didn't upset him at all. And he could then afford, when he did spend some time working on something to really work at it, not work at working at it. He could learn fast.

But it isn't just something we invented to know. That's the single difference about this particular subject. It's not simply invented so that we could know something about it. No, we have something else involved here, some-thing entirely different involved here. We talk to somebody in society and they are going chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, you know, "It's all bad over here. It's all bad over there. It's all bad over something else."

His havingness was up because he had the whole wide world, as much of the whole wide world as he could look at within a lot of walking in any direction. He had more world than the airline pilot who is skipping back and forth between London and New York. That fellow doesn't have world, he has distances.

Communicationwise, if you want to stay in communication with them, they're — you have two choices — chop! or be a Scientologist. Now, the way you be a Scientologist without putting them in-session is to "outchop" him!

Now, if this is a salient factor, it might apply to education in a very interesting way. Supposing we had a classroom in which a child had to spend five, six, seven hours a day grinding away, grinding away and he never got outside. We would suppose that with that much study he'd learn something. But we see by experience that the more time he spends inside evidently over a certain ratio the less he learns. There is something wrong here then with education.

He's doing something to create an effect on you. That puts you in a no-game condition. Do you see? So, you just, you know, pop! swing it the other way and he says, "Do you know that Mrs. Aster — Mrs. Aster actually said the other day that her maid ..."

What could be right with education? Supposing you did this, supposing you said — you see they have a lot of problems. See, you couldn't be able to do anything about this — but supposing you said this: For every hour a child spent at a school desk and in a schoolroom, he had to spend an hour on the athletic field under coached athletics which really were athletics. Not "Here's a ball, boys, you play volleyball for 15 minutes while I go over here and talk to Miss Brown who has just been appointed to staff." I mean real athletics, flat out.

You know, and you said, "Oh, wait, that's — that's nothing. That's nothing. Do you know that — what her husband told me?"

They have a lot of problems in education right now. They have so many problems they might even be willing to be rid of a few of them. That's adventurous to say, but you certainly could make them get rid of them if you introduced some new problems.

"What?"

You said, "Now, you are worrying about hiring teachers. You say that we are understaffed, we don't have enough teachers, and you are worried about handling teachers, you silly people! Hiring teachers! How are you going to hire as many athletic coaches as you have teachers?"

"He said that her maid . . . Well, you know how maids are?"

And they'd say, "Dahh! As many athletic coaches? What do you want athletic coaches for?"

This person says . . . They're not chopping.

"Well, you've got to get the children outside onto the athletic field. Don't you know the latest theory of creative education? That a child must have guided exercise before it can learn. How are you going to hire this many coaches?

In other words, you use a communication and put it — somebody is trying to put you in a no ... You see, you can talk to anybody about anything as long as they are not trying to make a super game out of it, whereby they are trying to put you in your place and stop you cold! Get the idea. They are trying to fix you up good. You know, chop, chop, chop. Well, all right.

But, you're just wasting time, how are we going to hire this many coaches?",

Now, here we go. This person is talking not to inform you, not to spend a pleasant time with you, not to enjoy your company, but simply to cut you to ribbons by cutting somebody else to ribbons. See? Ha-ha! Just outchop him. This person wants to be in a game condition — put him in one from your standpoint, which puts him in a no-game condition, he stops. Do you get the idea? You can always end a game; that is the easiest thing to do in the world. The first requisite to ending a game, however, is to find out what game is going on.

"Well, I guess there would be this many Bachelors of Arts that have found out nobody wanted their ticket so that they would be willing to come in and to be athletic coaches, because they don't want to be in classrooms, they're allergic to those, but they might like to come in and coach children."

Very often in organizations I am — somebody on staff will — an executive post or something like that over in London or here, they look at me, and they'll say, "We're going to do what? But that newspaper reporter said so-and-so and so-and-so. And you mean, we aren't going to get him down and run birth on him?"

"Oh, yes," you say, "Well ..."

Say, "No. Nope. No."

They'd say, "That's a pretty sparse problem, we probably could solve that." Oh, don't let them do that. You'd say, "Well, I'm not talking about that problem. How are we going to get enough appropriation to build this many gymnasiums to take place of athletic fields during wintertime? How are we going to get enough money to do that?" Wow!

"Well, how — what do you mean — what do you mean then when you want him back in for a pleasant talk? Do you really want to see him again?" "No. I don't want to see him again."

And they'd say — they'd say, "Gee! Gee! That is a tough one. Gee, how would you get — how would you get people to believe this in the first place? How would you do this? Oh, my. Well, that's pretty rough. Gee, that's a tough ... Well, I'll call the committee together and we'll take this up to see how we can get enough — enough coaches and get enough gymnasiums, but I really don't know how they'll — how they'll go for this."

"Well, what's — supposed to do when he comes in?"

You've done it. Don't ever discuss your program, it's a solution. As long as you make a solution into a nearly insurmountable, nearly insurmountable — that's advised — problem, you can sell it. You can always sell a solution if it creates a nearly insurmountable problem in somebody's mind. You see how you could sell a solution on the third dynamic.

"He's supposed to look over these child group profiles on crippled children."

All right, you wonder why this garageman down here hasn't ever put in a proper hydraulic lift. He is still using some sort of a pit and he's having an awful time with this pit and so on. Do you realize that if you told him they were having an awful lot of trouble with hydraulic lifts lately and he probably shouldn't get one, that he probably would acquire one? The entrance to the trap is curiosity. And to a garageman, the entrance to havingness is repair.

"Oh, you dog. See, you've got him." Cognite suddenly. See?

You tell him, he — you could explain to him a lot of things about it, and he'd still go on and get a hydraulic lift for some reason or other. Actually, he uses pits. There isn't any difficulty with these pits. You just walk down in them, you drive a car over them, cars seldom fall into them. Nothing really happens with regard to pits — the machinery. They don't leak; they're simple, easy to handle. You could actually get him to abandon that nice solution by telling him how difficult it was to repair these new hydraulic lifts. You could keep crabbing about them and he'd all of a sudden snap terminals with you, and you'd come up one day and somebody at Lord knows what expense would be installing one in his garage. Well, that is just a goofy way to use this sort of thing, because there would be no real point in it.

What are we doing? This fellow chopped us up one way or the other. He said a bunch of things he shouldn't have said and didn't know anyhow, and tried to chew us up one way or the other, so, we just find a good method of reversing the effect.

But supposing you really wanted children educated? If you want them educated, you are going to have to furnish them an extroversion factor adequate to the introversion factor attempted by education. You're going to have to give them enough time outside and under 8-C to unspin them out of their old educational programs. You know everyone of you has probably had to learn arithmetic about 25 or 30 times in the last few centuries! Don't you get tired of it?

Theoretically, we would now hate him. We wouldn't have anything to do with him, don't you see. But we send for him! You'll find out that holding the post is a game condition. Not letting it approach is a no-game condition.

Audience: Yes.

We send for him, we bring him in, we show him some profiles, we ask him if he wouldn't like to write a story on this now after he's chopped us all up otherwise, and he finds himself looking at the profiles of crippled children, and it was free processing given by the organization at the local hospital. He goes, "Oh, zzzzzzz-ssssss."

The funny part of it is if you gave a fellow — a little girl or a little boy enough 8-C, he probably would come up and do arithmetic. I've had them do that. I have some processes worked out now, actually, that'll turn a fellow to speaking Arabic.

Handling a communication line is quite necessary. Did you ever think that communication was a subject that was subject to control? Communication is something that one starts, stops and changes.

You know these spiritualist things, they used to — every once in a while in a seance somebody starts speaking perfectly good Amharic, or something, or whatever language that is. You know, these weird tongues and somebody would listen to it and they'd say, "Hey, what do you know. He is speaking lower Nile blah-blah! I wonder how come he'd do that?" Well, actually you merely put him in control of the objects connected with the language in some former existence and he will be able to get — to have the language again. He can't have the language in absence of the objects.

The fellow who cannot stop talking when he wants to stop talking is in a pathetic state.

You can't have arithmetic in absence of the school where you learned it. That's why people always forget their education afterwards. That's very simple. Unless you give them enough havingness in connection with an education, they haven't got one.

Here's a little process you want to run on somebody. It's not particularly therapeutic because it doesn't have masses or objects connected with it. But you ask somebody to do this. Ask him to — you tell him that you will tell him when to stop talking, and he is then to stop his voice from going. We go it this way:

What are we — what are we going to do? Go on for the rest of our lives and generations in this country with juvenile delinquency and crime and half-educated kids? And is the handwriting going to get so bad that they consider the requisite for a high-school graduation certificate will be to — be able to write the alphabet in a plain hand, given four or five hours for the examination? Is that the final course of this sort of thing?

He says, "One, two, three, four . . ."

You actually could get him enough havingness as a student to disenturbulate him. Well now, theoretically you could give him enough havingness as a student to make him remember what he knew already. Now, this would be quite an interesting program. That'd be an interesting educational program, wouldn't it? You just made it so that everybody who was being educated — have to have so much time doing athletics — you know, it would be an interesting thing. Although athletic programs, I see that you and I have known, have not been successful programs — that's because they weren't athletic programs, they were standing around programs. They were "If I have to put this sweat shirt on just one more time, I will scream" sort of programs. No coaches, no equipment, no arrangement, so on.

We say, "Stop!"

Now, where do we get — where would we enter this problem for its solution? That's just as an example. Where would we enter this problem for its solution? We would enter it by adding problems. We'd add to the problem. We would show people that they really weren't doing a good job of realizing how many problems they did have.

And he says, "Ff-iv-ve, ff-iv-ve."

Now, we could probably sell an employer the idea of giving nursery work to working — children of working parents. It's very important. You know the whole world is working these days. A marriage is that union between man and woman which permits them both to get paychecks. It really has nothing whatsoever to do with marriage as it existed once. The price of living has gotten such that man and woman both have to work if they really are going to make a wide swath on it, and women find this out. It's actually true today that the girl who marries in order to be supported supports. This idea of getting married as a profession is very difficult.

Quite interesting. He knew he could handle his voice. After we get through with him, he wonders if he ever did say anything. Something around there was talking but was he? And we run him a little bit further and he says for the first time, "One, two, three" and we say "Stop," and he says, "Four." See? He stops. He's in control of his communication.

All right, children come along and that becomes then an economic difficulty of great magnitude. The more difficult it begins to be, I am afraid the more children there will be, though.

Now, a person who has a compulsive communication lag, in other words, they can't stop talking. They've described something to you and described something to you. They were trying to render an effect of some sort on you, possibly a bad one. And at no time while they were talking to you did you drop dead! So they, of course, have not reached end of line. They're in a position — they're in a position where they wait on something else to tell them when to stop talking. Got the idea?

Nevertheless, for a healthy future generation it would be necessary for somebody such as us to advocate some sort of a program that made it necessary that if you were going to hire people up above a certain number, you've had to contribute a small amount of money to a nursery fund and you had to maintain nurseries around town that were really good nurseries, so that children simply wouldn't be abandoned and forgotten and kicked overboard just on the basis of the fact that people worked. You get the idea?

Well, you run this person on something like this; you say, "Now, I want you to stop talking when I say 'stop.' Now, I want you to count and then at some point, well, I want you to — I am going to say 'stop' and you are to stop talking at that moment. Is that right?"

But if you wanted to put a solution like that into effect, how in the name of common sense could you do it without adding to the problem? You have to add to the problem to get the solution bought. You'd have to say, "How on earth are we ever going to get enough pickup trucks to pick up all these kids every morning to have citywide nursery systems? How are we going to guarantee that these kids aren't just going to be abandoned in the nurseries themselves? How are we going to guarantee that they're going to be perfectly happy about it? How can we get a system like this worked out? How are we possibly going to get employers to contribute a small amount of money for each one of their — of their employees in order to support such a nursery system through the city?" Now, these are problems.

And the fellow says, "Okay."

And the trick of the matter — working out this situation on the third dynamic — is a very simple one. It's an extremely simple one. All you do is yourself know the solution and advance to the preclear problems. And you advance enough problems till he comes — and in such a way that he comes up with your solution. And this will work — this will work definitely on the third dynamic — most observably on the third dynamic.

And we just go through the same exercise. He starts counting, "One, two, three, four."

It'll work very well in auditing. If you've always wondered how to sell a corporation the idea of Scientology — you've gone in and said, "This'll all be very simple. It works out very easily. It'll increase your efficiency. It'll do away with a lot of your difficulties. Grrch. You see at once that this makes some sense to you, huh?

We say, "Stop."

All right, let's go in and say, "Look! I don't know how we can give you Scientology and its assistance in this plant. You don't have any facilities!" You say, "You don't have the proper kinds of group rooms. There's no testing rooms. Our testing rooms and so forth are clear on the other side of town, and there's no transportation to them. How are we going to utilize some of your space here no matter how poorly in order to carry out a proper program. This is very difficult. Now, I'd show you the results of this, except you have to write a letter, notarized as to your actual position with the organization, to a certain organization back East that has these, and a set of them costs twelve dollars and they only take money orders. Now, you want the — you want the material — you want the material that tells you how good this is. Well, there's the way you get it." Problems, problems, problems. They won't even go up against that many problems.

And he says, "F-f-i-ive, f-fi-ive, f-f-i-ive, fi-ive, fi-ive, fi-ive, fi-ive, fi-i-ive, fi-i-ive, fi-i-ive, fiv-ve-e, fi-i-ive, fi-ive, fi-i-ive, five."

You have to get very clever. You have to give them enough problems so that they won't completely balk at them, and you have to refuse to give them so many problems that they at once stop. Do you see? So, what determines it is your judgment of what is enough problem to permit them to have a solution. Enough problem to them is enough to keep them going and to reassure them that they're not going to perish for having adapted a solution. You follow me?

And you say, "Did you stop yourself from talking?"

It's a nice piece of judgment that you have to sort of work with as you are talking to any particular individual. You have to find out how much is too much problem to him by getting him to discuss points where he's kind of flubbed off, you know. How much is enough problem to him, on which dynamic is he operative? What is his acceptance level of problems? And doing that you can feed him just enough problems in auditing individually, of course, to really bring him up to where he'll solve his case. If you don't do that, he won't solve it.

And he says, "Noo-ot no-ooot nooot verrrry vv-verrry ww-wwell."

So, you move him over, you move him then over into the category of having enough reassurance that he'll keep on going. In other words, you give him enough survival in terms of future game in order to let him let go of some little, tiny portion of the game he's playing. In other words, solve it. And therefore, in selling industry, in selling government, in selling businesses or groups of people of a civic nature, it's necessary for you to do that.

Now, this is all that stammering is. That's all stammering is. He's on a mechanical stop talk. See, he's sitting right on a stop talk. And every time he tries to say something it says, "Shut up!" The stop is out of his control.

Now, in selling groups, it's much more simple than the individual. You have to be pretty good. You don't have to be as good as an individual auditor, but you have to be pretty darned good to really get in there and sell a group.

So, we ask the stammerer to do this. I'll drop a pearl in your pocket. If you're supposed — if you can stop stammering on somebody, if you could make somebody stop stammering rather easily, you're supposed to be really hot, you're supposed to be really good. I never quite figured out why this was, since personally I've looked around at a lot of people, and I wish some of them stammered more.

You walk into a civic group. You want this civic group actually to get the streets of this town clean. See, you want those streets clean. You are just so sick of seeing these filthy streets.

But, you're supposed to be able to stop stammering, and the hypnotist tries to do this, everybody tries to do this, and they have very little luck. Well, this one I've just given you will do so.

Now, you could go in and tell them this, but the — you already know that they were organized seven years ago to clean up the streets of the city! And they've done nothing about it. They are the total monopoly. The total monopoly on cleaning the streets of the city is vested in this organization. They are the social betterment league which takes care of it. You try to organize another one, everybody will point out to you that there one exists! And they're not doing a thing! Why aren't they doing a thing? If they did any-thing, they're liable to solve it and that would end their existence, wouldn't it? Hm?

You say, "One, two, three, four, five ..." You know, you have a — is what the fellow is going to say and then you say, "Stop." He — you have him count up and he's supposed to stop. Well, he's having an awful time getting to five. Now, that's very interesting. See? But you don't run start or change, you simply run the stop.

So, you have to walk into that organization in this strange way. You have to say, "I know you are taking care of this street cleanup sort of thing. But, my God, what are you doing about the city dump?"

You say, "One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight."

They say, "The city dump? Yes, what are we doing about the city dump?" See, it's outside their jurisdiction.

You say, "Stop."

"Well," you say, "it's actually — an old street used to go under it!"

And he says .. .

And they say, "Good heavens! How are we going to clean up the city dump? Well, we'll have to call a special meeting!"

Good. You've made it.

And they will! You make sure you're there. And you say, "Well, you know, you can solve that fairly easily. But actually, actually getting the proper kind of steam shovel is an impossibility. They've stopped making them. But if you work very hard and send out enough people and write enough letters in enough directions, you might be able to pick up a secondhand one from the army and the navy. Of course, it's almost impossible to get them to give up anything! You know how psychos are. Anyhow, they just never give up."

The way it runs basically, a stammerer starts like this. He says, "Wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha."

Well, what are you going to do in order to get something going. How can you start an organization moving? How can you do that? Well, you just give them more game, that's all. But that's an awfully simple statement. Because like the statement of "a game consists of freedom, barriers, purposes" — boy, isn't that a lovely statement — that's got onomatopoeia, euphony. It's Hubbardic. It doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't, because they aren't the parts of games that work. So just saying, "Well, give them more game," would only work if you said it to a Scientologist who knew the parts of games. See? "Give them more game." Yeah, that doesn't work.

You wait, it's all right.

You say that to a Scientologist — you say, "Give them more game." He's already experienced in what games conditions are, he knows what you mean. He turns around and says — he gives them more game and they are willing to let go of some of the solutions.

"Wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha — one! Tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-two! Th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th — three!" You let him get up to about "Ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei — eight," and you say, "Stop."

You walk into a print shop. You're trying to have some things done, and they've been holding up some little cards of yours for some time but you have another order sitting there that they're holding up too. Determine which one you really want. You want the cards, okay. Point out some fantastic problem with the other material and they'll give you the cards. See, it's just a matter of more game. You got it?

And you know what he does then, he says, "Nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen . . ." Very interesting. In other words, this fellow doesn't have his speech under control.

But, what is more game? A problem is postulate — counter-postulate. It is itself curiosity. It's two things; it crosses there. It is a game and it's curiosity. A problem has a not-know, wonder about in it, and it also has two or more opposed forces. And so it's right there at a crossroads between curiosity of the CDEI circle that pins everybody to everything, and on the other side it is a game condition. And of course, curiosity is a game condition too, but problems exemplify a game condition. Versus — versus. See, we've got two opposing forces. And a problem is: John wants to go to the theater and Mary wants to stay home. It's a problem. You have to have two viewpoints in order to have a problem. You start running problems and they start getting solutions.

Now, some people are obsessive — are obsessive not-listeners. Did you ever run into an obsessive not-listener? Well, they've gone through a double inversion on the thing.

A problem has to contain the annihilation of one of its opposing forces, one way or the other, before it solves. And if you kill one side of the counterness — you, of course, don't have a game anymore. See, you've got force versus force; we knock out one, there's no game. So that's a solution.

Remember, however, that you make a body talk — you are making a body talk. Therefore, you — making a body start talking, stop talking and change talking — are playing a game. You aren't talking! A body is talking. Don't you see? So this becomes a game condition because you are doing it. That's the key-note of a game — a game condition. You're doing it. The game isn't being played for you the way they handle professional football, and so forth; you are playing the game. And you're getting no-effect on self and making an effect on somebody else. So, an individual who is trying desperately to make the body talk better is actually in a no-game condition. You see? He is trying to help the enemy talk. From his standpoint he couldn't be friendly with a body if you gave him $1,000 in bonds along with it. He couldn't be friendly with a body. He'd never come around and put a beam on it and shake hands with the body actually and say, "My pal."

A solution is a force unopposed, or a rest point achieved. And you've got to have another up here to substitute for the existing side before anybody will be willing to solve anything. So, you don't sell cases on the idea of saying, "George, you can get well!" You say, "George, you've got no idea how many real problems you have. Could it just be, George, could it just be that the problems you think have been your problems all your life aren't? Could it be that much bigger problems lurk just behind you, George, that you are not even yet able to look at? Is that it? Is that it, hm?" And the guy will say, "Bbzzz! How would I find out?" And you say, "Well, 75-hour intensives ought to..."

You start to process him and the first thing you know he gets his foot against the back of the body, you know and he says, "Oof — aaahhh." And he says, "Oh, I hate that thing! I hate that thing. Rahhhhhh."

Now, the funny part of it is is that is a game condition which is the truth. And you have Scientology as a violation of games condition and no-games condition. Scientology now finds itself in the rather silly position of knowing more about life than life does. That's very silly. Because it's perfectly true that he has more problems that he isn't yet able to face, than he ever knew he had. And the problems he is fixed on are the minor problems, that's the truth. It's not the truth in industry or otherwise most of the time, but it is the truth as far as this preclear is concerned, and it is a games condition statement. But that's because we are auditing today in full knowledge of games condition, and we are above that level, but no other part of life is.

That's merely an obsessive game condition. He's fighting his body.

I hope you fellows like the climate.

A fellow finds that his — something is happening; he's got ulcers, see — got ulcers. He's having a hard time with ulcers. Holes appear — swiss cheese sort of thing. And then they come along and they take x-rays of him — shoot x-rays in through it so more holes appear. Anyway, there's a case of ulcers.

Thank you.

What's the fellow doing getting ulcers? He must be fighting his stomach. Obviously if he wanted to control his stomach he'd have to be able to stop his body from eating. Now, one doesn't change or start an enemy, one only stops him. And that is the last vestige of control one has in a game condition. So, one can stop one's enemies. He can sometimes by threatening to stop them change their course, but one doesn't have positive control over his enemies or there'd be no game.

Did you ever play — did you ever play chess with somebody that says, "All right, move your pawn now." And you moved your pawn, and then he moved his knight, and he says, "Now move your king's rook." It doesn't look like much of a game, does it?

It is like some old-time professional auditor being audited by one of his students. Hey, you know we can cure even that today, we can cure even that today. You know even I can be audited. You know I can be audited without telling the preclear what process to run. You're pretty swell. Yes, we've really come along.

Well, if — if the body was on your team — you see, this would be different. But, of course, you never process the body as though it were because the preclear never considers, if it's in bad shape, that it is. He never considers the body really on his team. Down basically someplace he considers it a deadly enemy that he has had to accept — if he's having a lot of trouble with it.

Now, you take some very pretty little girl or something like that, she's getting along fine, she doesn't have any trouble getting into her body, out of her body, doing things with her body, learning to do things with her body, and so forth. She and her body are friends. You know, "Hiya."

But you take somebody who is having a lot of trouble you know, has creak — arthritis — so on, having a real bad time. And what do we discover? The first thing, we examine his attitude toward a body we find out, "Well, let's see, what effect could I have on a body? Let's see now. Well, I could kill it. No, no, no, no; that's not enough. No. No. Now, let me see, I could — uh — I could — uh — well, I don't know, maybe push it slowly into a hot fire. No. No. No. How about falling endlessly through empty space? No, no, no, that is no effect on a body; that's not — that's not a good effect. I mean, that's not convincing. Let's see, what kind of an effect could I have on a body? Let's see, I could take each cell in it in a nutcracker and I could crack each cell very thoroughly. If it were screaming while I did that, yes, I would say that would be having an effect on a body. Yes! Good! Good!"

That's his level of reality. That is actually — level of reality. It's with a great shock that a preclear will realize this suddenly that his attitude toward a body falls somewhat short of a friendly spirit of fair play.

Well, we examine this then and we discover that the one thing he can do with a body is stop. And that is, then, a good game condition. You start to put a body into motion as a process, and you violate this condition of enemy. And we don't care whether he considers the body a friend or an enemy, he can still stop the body, don't you see.

So, I — I'm very happy about one thing — that we don't have to have him stop the body eating in order to cure ulcers. Only the medical profession does that.

Well, here we have — here we have actually a very interesting condition. That the first and foremost point of control when he gets in a game condition with a body is stop. No change, no start, just stop, that's all. Anything else he does to it, he considers to be a sort of a — of a betrayal to — of himself, so he could stop one.

Well, you can stop a body from having things, you could stop a body from eating, you could stop it from walking, you could stop it from growing skin, you can stop it from breathing, you can stop it from eating. You get all these stops? And that's what the common denominator of illness is — stop.

But after a while he really goes down scale. He has just been able to make a body thoroughly ill, see. And he goes down scale and he can no longer stop a body. Wow! Now what happens? The same thing happens that this fellow — he did find he could stop a body from talking. See, he'd go, "O-o-one, t-t-two, th-three, fa-f-four, f-f-five."

And you say, "Stop."

And he goes, "Seven, eight, nine, ten."

See? He inverted. So, when he thinks of stopping the body, it starts running.

He's walking up and down, see, walking up and down one way or the other. And he says, "You know, I'd better stop this." Get the idea? I mean, the thought of suppressing a body's actions puts the body in control of him so thoroughly that he's not controlling its actual actions. Follow me?

In other words, he inverts: the thought of "stopping" causes him to "start."

This is so true that — the button wears out rather rapidly, but we'll take some — take some artist — he's a painter and he stopped painting, you know, standard artist. And he's laid away all of his brushes. He has laid away his canvas. He doesn't ever anymore feel that he can just get up energy enough to paint.

You come around to him and you say, "I'll make you a bet that you have no control over your painting!"

Supposing we were just as ornery and as mean as this (which we aren't) but supposing we said this to him, "I'll bet you have no further control over your painting."

He says, "Ahh-ahh. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong."

And you say, "All right now. I want you to decide to stop painting."

And he says, "All right. I'll stop." He says, "That's silly, you know I have." You say, "That's all right. You just decide to stop your body from painting anymore. You don't want to paint anymore. Just decide that." He does.

"All right, decide to stop painting." This is not a good process, just a demonstration. "Stop painting."

All of a sudden, he says, "Well, all right, I'm going to stop painting."

You say, "All right, you decide to stop your body from painting." "Okay. Stop my body from painting."

You see, he's trying to start painting all the time. He starts painting — starts painting. It's the painting that stops him! It's done.

See, when he finishes a painting, and it's done, then he stops. Do you get the idea? When he finishes a job of any kind, he no longer has that job and so he stops doing the job. What stopped him? Did he stop doing the job? Or did the job stop?

And after a while he gets so that he can't stop. But his body could stop, so he stops working. He stops painting. He stops doing an awful lot of things that might have been very interesting. He stops kissing pretty girls. Any-thing can happen. He never — he never decided to stop himself. Something else decided.

A fellow walking along a dark street, walking along, he has no intention of stopping whatsoever — he is walking along and — a fireplug right there, you see — he's walking along, and bang he hits it! And he says, "Ow!" It stopped him, didn't it? He didn't intend to stop, but the fireplug intended to stop him or did it?

Now, that's the way it is. That's the way — that's the dwindling spiral of life. Everything stops you, you never stop and you stop stopping others and you're dead.

For instance, do you know that there are people alive ... I'll betcha there are some people right here in this audience — I'll betcha there are people right here in this audience that if a .44-caliber bullet were to come flying up here in some fashion or another and they put out a hand or something like that, it wouldn't stop. I'll betcha there are people in this audience that are weak that way.

Now, there's an oddity. That's a curiosity that you ought to examine. What's the matter with you that you couldn't stop a 16-inch shell, huh? You slippin'?

If you've depended on everything in the universe to do the stopping for you, why eventually you go through these two things; you get so that you stop everything, you don't control anything, you just stop everything, you know, bank presidents, and so forth, you just stop things. And then after a while you get so you can't even stop them anymore, and that's that. You've had it! Then's the time — then's the time when you should call your attorney, write out the last will and testament and take a ride with one of these hot rod drivers you see around town.

So, the common denominator that bridges between a friend and an enemy is stop. Do you get that? But stop is part of control. So, you have a control over your enemy to the degree that you are attempting to stop him — attempting to stop him. When you can stop him utterly he is no longer an enemy. He's dead.

Now, I hope I don't restimulate anybody on this. I hope I don't make any people feel suddenly still. I hope — I was running — running a preclear one day on a process like this, and the preclear all of a sudden looked at me and says, "Shhhhhh."

I says, "What's the matter?"

He says, "We must be very still."

I says, "Okay. What's the matter?"

He says, "What you whispering for?"

Well, so as we worked along one way or the other throughout this last year, I've been developing the games condition material, I've been developing this stop material. And the reason I've spent so much time telling you about stop is for the simple reason that an auditor who is on obsessive stop could never audit a preclear.

And an auditor who can't stop a preclear in his tracks usually doesn't make him well. Why? Because it requires good positive control of the pre-clear. And the anatomy of control is start, change and stop.

If you can't control the session so as to get the preclear in control of things, then, of course, you are going to have the preclear out from under you. You are going to have difficulties every time he has difficulties and you're not going to control him through his difficulties. So that's the other requisite I learned about auditing during the past year — control of the session, control of the case.

There is no nice delicate insight nor a bunch of mechanics that can get you across if this stop factor is out of gear in your own — in your auditor's frame of reference. Don't you see that? If he has to obsessively stop every-thing, he will do the darnedest things to you as a preclear.

Ashtray — sitting there, you know, and you are getting deeper and deeper in, deeper and deeper — pop, crash goes the ashtray, and you go "Dahhhhh! What was that?"

Why did he do that? He couldn't simply stop you by telling you to stop — that would be something he couldn't do. But he could knock an ashtray off the table, slam the door, make the telephone ring, do something. Don't you see? So, we've isolated then — this.

Now, if an auditor can't stop on a communication bridge, what happens? What happens? The processes all just take their course, and the session just takes its course, and the processes take their course, and it just goes on and on and on, don't you see? Don't you — don't you see how this would go? I mean, there is nobody stopping anything. The preclear is in a kind of a condition so he can't stop it. And the auditor is in a condition so he can't stop the preclear and he can't stop the process and he doesn't ever know when to end the process and so he merely changes the process. And he has to change it rap-idly because he can't stop the process. And this communication bridge enforces a stop on the auditor and preclear.

A little bit of break, you know, and then, clunk! stop! Okay, and we've got the session — we've got a stop in the session. Don't you see that? So, this bridge gets the session under control.

Well, anyway, a lot of other things about that — but the whole itinerary of indoctrination, and so forth, worked out of a study of this start, stop and change and formula of communication. And I developed the materials — the basic materials and dummy sessions on this — over in London and then developed the other things that went alongside of them. And we all got to working on it very heavy putting it in practice, and the next thing you know, we were having a very delightful time. Let me assure you.

But there were some people at executive level that hadn't been through indoctrination yet. Terrible thing! But, they weren't convinced that indoctrination was absolutely necessary. It had merely been developed and used with a little bit to give people the communication formula and then to teach them the communication bridge and its use — and then to teach them the control of preclears and then to teach them how to use these various factors in order to put the preclear under his own control and square him around and put him in a condition where he could or didn't have to have a game as the case may be.

And we went along in this wise, and we got no cooperation — I got no cooperation particularly from the organization at large.

One day I was sitting in my office, and I decided — you've been watching these dummy process sessions in the morning, haven't you? Do you find them interesting?

Audience: Yes.

Well, I hate to tell you this, but the Director of Training in London didn't entirely approve of this kind of thing. He wasn't working in this direction very much. So, one night he was sitting in the office and a couple other of my pals over there, were sitting there . . . So, he says, "You know about this funny kind of auditing that you have been developing in the research unit?" He says, "What's this — you know, it's kind of funny," he says, "putting somebody through a couple of weeks just doing auditing that doesn't do any case any good." See? He says, "I haven't had time to read over these processes."

I says, "Yes, yes, yes" I says. "Well, I'll tell you, they go this way. They go this way. We'll take this command here, we'll say 'Are mullets wet?' — we'll take that as an auditing command."

"Okay," he says. "Okay, are mullets wet?"

"And then we'll take another auditing command here," I said, " 'Are cats lonely?' And then we'll take another auditing command, 'Is red red?' All right, fine. Fine."

"Okay," he says, "all right. What am I supposed to do?"

I said, "Well, you take a communication bridge, such as you've been hearing about and you'll use a communication bridge to get into the session and out of the session. You'll deliver the auditing command and acknowledge each time it's executed. You will handle the origin of the preclear and here we go. Okay?"

"Oh, yeah. Yeah! Yeah! I've been auditing for years — old-timer. Nothing to that."

So, I was sitting there at my desk.

He starts in. He says, "All right, are you set?"

And I says, "Yeah. Yeah. Yeah."

He says, "Are mullets wet?"

See.

Was that a session?

Male voice: No.

No! He hadn't even started. Well, he was an old-timer. So, I was an old-timer myself once.

So, he says, "Are mullets wet?"

And I says — being the preclear in this dummy session — "Well," I said, "I don't know. I just don't know. Ummmm, yes."

And he says, "Good. Good. Fine. Are mullets wet?"

"I — well — I don't know."

Well, he says, "Good. Good." He says, "Are mullets wet?"

And I said, "Well . . . What's a mullet?"

And he says, "Well," he says, "uh — well — uh — you know what a mullet is!" I says, "No, I don't!"

And he says, "Well, just answer the question!"

And I says, "Well, all right, all right. What do you want me to say?" He says, "Say yes, of course."

I says, "All right. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes, of course."

And he says, "Well, now . . . Are cats lonely? Oh, now, are cats lonely?"

And I said, "Yeah, I suppose so. Suppose so."

And he says, "Well, are cats lonely?"

And I said, "Suppose so."

And he says, "Well, are cats lonely?"

No acknowledgment, no .. .

And I said, "Hummm," I said, "What's a mullet?"

And he says, "What are you doing thinking about mullets?"

I said, "I don't know! I — what is a mullet?"

Completely lost his head. He says, "Now! Don't think!" He says, "Stop thinking! And be quiet." He says, "It's all right now!"

So, I said .. .

And he says, "Is red red?"

And I says .. .

He says, "Answer my question. Is red red?" He said, "Come on," he said, "you can talk!"

I said, "Well, thank you. Well, red — is red red?"

He says, "What's the matter with you!"

I says, "You said, 'don't think!' "

The next morning I found him in Indoctrination Course.

Yes. And then he went out the door out of the office that night terribly embarrassed because two auditors — other auditors had been sitting in the office, his closest friends, and he finally says, "Damn it, Ron!" he says, "It takes a sane man to act that psychotic!"

Well, what with him and other little minor matters and getting the subject wrapped up — that's what I've been doing the last year. And if not productive, it's at least been interesting. But it has been intensely productive.

I think the last year — the last year has been in terms of actual advance the most interesting of all these six years because it's given us actually almost the entirety of refined auditing procedure which is about 60 percent of modern auditing, and it's given us the remaining 40 percent which tells you what to use the procedure on.

We were in a very interesting condition last February by the way; we had dropped Havingness out of the auditing procedures — processes, see; no Havingness was being audited. We're doing it with perfect procedure and never remedying anyone's havingness. We never gave anybody anything. He couldn't have anything of any kind, it just dropped out of sight.

But we were doing our auditing with perfect procedure. Of course, if you dropped all Havingness out of sight entirely in auditing, you, of course, never would make anybody well.

But, the insight, the skill, the way the auditor had learned how to hold his little finger as he audited the preclear was so good, so perfect, and was done with such consummate aplomb that even without a technique to handle anything, they were making people well — better than 22 percent, too!

Well, we've had a very, very fascinating time of it. My only regret during the past year is not being with so many of my good friends. I don't particularly enjoy Europe. I don't particularly enjoy fumbling around with foreign languages — such as cockney!

But the level of case was sort of this way. I figured out if I could crack one of those, why, any of yours would be a pipe. And by golly! We even started to crack the cases of old auditors in England!

The last year was very productive. The material picked up along it actually is relatively simple; it is very easy to use; there is nothing to handling preclears now, as long as you know it all perfectly. That's all you have to be able to do. Handle it perfectly and get perfect results. I am not studying that sort of thing now.

For the last three, four years, people have been asking me, "What's an Operating Thetan?" You know they have been asking me this: "What's an Operating Thetan? What is this thing? I want to be an Operating Thetan." Or, "What are the techniques used to make an Operating Thetan?" and so forth.

So having wrapped up auditing procedure, I am going to spend the next few months trying to find out. I coined the phrase a long time ago and made some notes, but I lost the notes. You know how I am with notes.

Evidently an Operating Thetan would be somebody who — well, I don't know, we'll have another congress one of these days and I will tell you then.