PROBLEMS AND GAMES

Thank you.

We look over life, we understand very, very completely and conclusively without any slightest quibble along the line, that here and there, somebody at least to some slight degree, gets done in. This is fairly easy to behold, and we restrain ourselves from looking at the grimness of this sort of thing.

This is the last lecture of this particular congress. Hope to see you all tonight at the party.

For instance, when you sit down to a steak dinner, do you realize that some poor, innocent cow had to die so that you could have that dinner? You realize that? And yet you hold that fact away from you. You try not to look at that fact. (laughter)

We haven't really covered to the degree that we could have, Dianetics 1955! There's quite a little bit of information in that volume. There is, for instance, a chapter there on another process called Make Some Time. A very interesting process.

Do you realize that when you pick up a piece of celery and start eating on it, that it too was trying to live? And the injustice of it, it was doing good, it was doing well, it was obedient, it was trying to do exactly what it was supposed to do and you up and ate it. We don't even know whether or not a piece of celery feels any pain when you chew upon it.

A very able auditor I know comm lagged on it for two and a half hours before he finally fell through and started to make some time. This would be a companion process to Make Some Space, Make Some Energy, Make Some Matter. Time is the single arbitrary factor.

This is all very grim and very terrible, but I am afraid that studying in the field of Dianetics and Scientology has shown me a couple of factors involved in this, and I would feel very badly about it, if it weren't for these couple of factors.

There's other information in that particular book we could have covered. And then we could have gone into and covered completely, from beginning to end, The Creation of Human Ability, which only runs some hundreds of pages and contains at this date, I think, seventy-six processes, all of which are of greater or lesser magnitude and which repeats some of the processes contained in Dianetics 1955!

Now, in SOP 5, in Scientology, we had a very interesting system called GITA, Give and Take Processing. And that became, by the time we got to SOP 8 — Standard Operating Procedure 8 — Step IV, Expanded GITA. Bears no relationship to the Indian practice Gita, or books. It just does the work they're supposed to do.

Where it comes to processes we're very rich. There is no doubt about that. If there is any sudden phenomenon contained in the human mind that we have not observed and cataloged, then — well, I don't know, to tell you the truth — it just doesn't seem possible. Because you get out and scout around and look at anybody's machinery and it sort of runs that way.

And this process said that you could have the preclear waste, accept and desire various commodities. And in that list is the word pain. And entirely as an experiment today, but a workable process, you could take a preclear and have him waste pain — waste pain for himself, waste pain for somebody else and have somebody else waste pain for somebody else, in other words, in a bracket. And at the end of this time of processing, an hour or two, this individual will say, "There's the strangest thing, but you know pain is terribly valuable? Do you know I have actually been covertly sitting here trying to make this body hurt a little bit, here and there?"

And on the creation of machinery and games, and things like that, an individual begins to do this rather ably under processing. We don't have in processing, of course, the finest possible process. That will be invented in the year 3627 AAD. That AD, you know, stands for After Dianetics.

And do you know that to see a body writhing in pain is almost sufficient to make the thetan go down and say, "Slurp!" And the reason for this is, is a thetan can't really hurt, unless he says he hurts, and it's much better if some-thing else says he hurts. Then it's easier to believe.

The auditors who use these processes should remember to use them in good two-way communication. Communication is very important and the auditor who uses these processes upon the deranged mind — if he wants to do that — should remember that if he employs two-way communication, that he should never validate the bizarre, the weird, the peculiar. When processing the psychotic, validate or mimic or answer only the rational, the average, the agreed-upon manifestation behavior. Any failure anybody has in processing of psychosis is entirely delineated under this heading: They validate the bizarre, the strange and the unusual and they disregard any average manifestation the person has left.

So, life would be very grim if it weren't for the fact that the life-energy production unit is actually thirsty for suffering. It's a good game. It's hard for somebody to realize this unless he's had this process run on him. And in want of having the process run on you, you just have to take my word for it for a moment, that it's not quite as grim as life makes it out to be. The grimness is part of a game, too.

The psychotic nods his head with a yes — that's a normal manifestation. The psychotic jumps up and down and screams — that's an abnormal manifestation. The auditor in getting into communication can mimic the head nod, but if he mimics the jumping up and down and screaming, he will have given strength and power to the machine or machinery which is driving this psychotic.

I remember when I first tumbled to this fact. I was sitting in a car parked alongside the road. I'd been pulled over to the side of the road by a traffic cop, not to be given a ticket but to get the highway clear. And I pulled over obediently and I sat there not knowing quite what was going on, and all of a sudden, why, I saw the first funeral car and then the second funeral car and then the third funeral car and then the fourth funeral car, and looked at all these people, you know, and they were puddling up the upholstery most horribly, you know? And, "Poor old Joe. Poor old Joe," you know.

Psychosis itself is simply one game amongst many games. That's a fact. If you look on it like that, it doesn't look quite as weird as it has looked. This individual who is psychotic simply believes that he has rendered himself proof against further punishment. He is trying to say, "Well, I've lost and I've lost so thoroughly. You see what you've done to me? I have no further responsibility even for my own actions, and I'm crazy. And that's what you did."

And the fifth funeral car and the sixth funeral car and the seventh funeral car and the eighth funeral car and the ninth funeral car and the tenth funeral car, and boy, that upholstery was taking a beating, you know — "Poor old Joe."

If you could only get a psychotic to mock up somebody saying — communication — "I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry," this individual would probably become sane. There's a thousand ways to tackle this problem.

And I started to feel a little bit bad about it for a moment. I said, "Gee, you know, that fellow had an awful lot of friends."

But they're trying to say to people, with all of these weird and wild manifestations — trying to say, "Look what you did to me."

And then all of a sudden, an individual that I had known in a Maryland backwoods town came to mind. This was a man that attended every funeral — he attended every funeral. He had a big car, and he'd go to the funeral and he'd pick up people, and he'd go along in the funeral procession.

Of course, in a time and place where death is not allowable — you know, there are such places, you know, death is not allowed; death doesn't occur — an individual can't say, "I'm through and you've won," by falling dead. He isn't able to do that in these places so the only other thing he can do is say, "Look, you have driven me crazy. I am now crazy and I am insane and I am not myself and I'm no further — I have no further responsibility for my own actions. And you've done it. And you've won, so you might as well go away because I don't even know myself anymore." And this, of course, ends a game, too.

He was a deacon in the church. He was also the local bank manager. And this individual had the very interesting habit of weeping copiously for the departed husband and foreclosing swiftly upon the left widow.

The problem of ending a game and of declaring oneself the loser is a much more difficult problem than declaring oneself the winner.

And this gentleman seemed to me — I just got to thinking about this fellow — it seemed to me he had a sort of a thirst for this sort of thing. And it suddenly occurred to me that his foreclosure upon the widow was just an effort to get more weep. That's another opportunity to cry, you know? Inflict a little more pain, death and suffering around about the place. This fellow had an appetite!

Now, this is so much true that if you were to buy yourself a few yards of blue ribbon and go out on a street corner with this blue ribbon pinned on — you know, the way they put it on bulls and so forth at the state fairs — and you were to say, "Well, look, I won, everybody." Nobody would question that at all. Nobody would go into communication with it either — so unusual for anybody to win. People believe you if you go out and say, "You know, I won. I won. We won. We won." They don't believe you if you say, "I lost." They don't believe you.

And the twelfth funeral car and the thirteenth and the fourteenth and the fifteenth were going by, by this time and then the hearse.

Fellow comes out of a poker game and he says, "Well, I've lost everything I have in the world."

And we saw this hearse, you know, it was just jammed full of flowers. And it suddenly occurred to me that probably nobody had ever sent this poor guy any flowers while he was alive. But here he is dead, you see, and he's got all these flowers. It seemed to me to be very peculiar.

Fellow comes out of a poker game and says, "You know, I won everything that those fellows had." People think that's just a good joke and they let it go. They'll accept this. Maybe it's not true.

A very short time before this — a very short time before this I had been successfully completing the exteriorization of a preclear from an endless number of deaths. Now, this wasn't exteriorization from the body, I was merely picking him out of engrams — the process which I had been working with, way back in middle 51, late 51 — picking him out of these engrams one after the other, and they were all death engrams. And the individual would be worry, worry, writhe, writhe, agony, agony, dead — way up here, "Well, what am I worried about that for?" Get the idea? And each cycle was that way.

After somebody has blown his brains out at Monte Carlo — people can always be heard to say afterwards, "Well, just look at that; he must have had something to live for. Must have had something to live for." In other words he couldn't possibly have lost everything he had in the world. Isn't that a funny thing?

And I hadn't really applied this to life yet. And I suddenly recognized that this corpse riding along there had gone about seventy-five or eighty feet up in the air and had taken a look at the clay that was still lying there, you know, and said, "Why am I interested about that?"

One of the easiest things in the world is to win, and one of the rarest things is to win. It is so isolated, these wins, that one would think the scarcity of win would make it incredible, but it doesn't. It's so scarce that everybody just says, "Well, he says so. That's that."

And here were all these people weeping, you know? And I thought, "Well, this is a very strange puzzle. I wonder why they are paying so much attention to this fellow when he's dead, when they didn't pay very much attention to him when he was alive?" The answer finally occurred to me: He was no good to them alive. Dead, there was a wonderful opportunity of experiencing a lot of pain, which was as high on the Tone Scale as they could come — pain and sadness. And so we had this wonderful funeral. But it didn't have anything to do with the departed or deceased, nothing whatsoever.

Oddly enough a person's life and time track can get more stuck on wins than loses. People will let him win, but they won't let him lose.

It's a curious thing. So, life is involved in playing some of the more interesting games.

Look at us guys, auditors — look at us. This fellow has worked for years to develop a gimpy leg. He's worked for years to develop some tubercular lungs.

What Freud called "the subconscious" or "the reconscious" — we have developed by the way a new subconscious called "the resubconscious," and this is just two cellars below the subconscious which is below the reconscious. And this interesting stairway of unconsciousnesses was developed in direct controversion to the "controversial theory," a well-known theory that's used by science. And the reconscious apparently is engaged in being the opponent that you don't know about — while you know all about it.

He has slaved in order to dull his eyesight down to a point. And we come along, and we say, "Be three feet back of your head. And do this and do that and so forth and so on." And now after we've gotten him well straightened out, "Is there anything you'd like to straighten up in that mock-up?" And he, of course, will go ahead and straighten it up, mostly because he knows wins aren't obtainable, so he goes on and wins. And look at us, we've taken an exception to the loser.

One of the most damaging experiences to somebody's aplomb about his sadness and sorrow and the grimness of life, is to run one of the Route 2 steps from The Creation of Human Ability, that book which contains all the Route 1, and all the Route 2 steps and all the Axioms.

Life actually doesn't like a loser. It comes around and pokes at him and bothers him. That is one of the dwindling-spiral mechanisms that you'd better understand as an auditor. You actually cannot lose. Not even the insane has lost. There is no bottom in the game. It's a horrible game that has no bottom in it at all. It's got some tops — you can win — but it has no bottoms.

The Route 2 step is, "Ask the fellow for some problems he could be." And if he runs that very long, he discovers something very horrible, he discovers something excessively terrible: He's making up problems so he can be a problem to himself without knowing that he is being the problem to himself but so that he can retain an interest in existence and in life. And this is one of the neatest tricks anybody ever did.

The way an individual gets into this lineup in playing in life and so on is a simple way. He gets into it in a very simple thing. He says, "If I just let that fellow think that he has won, he will go away. If I could just convince him that he's won, he'll go away."

And you run, "Give me some problems you could be." "Some more problems you could be." "Some more problems you could be." And this datum will inevitably, sooner or later, fall out in the individual's lap — bang. And he'll say, "Huh! My golly! You know what? I'm just making up these problems, so I can be these problems to myself and then not know that I'm being the problem to myself. That's what I'm doing." And he will stay in a state of levity or cheerfulness about this fact for many minutes before he suddenly grabs this as a problem and buries it real quick and gets it out of sight. He almost inevitably will do that.

So that if people can convince you that you have won, then you have to leave, don't you? If you want to stick around, you'll have to say, "Well, I'm really not quite that hot. I just had a good day today and that's why I won that fifteen-hundred-meter race," you know. Then we attribute all this to the fact that we have to be modest, or we give it some social grace.

All life can do, then, is pretend that it's serious. All life can do then, is to make up problems of such magnitude that even it can be interested in its own problem.

Matter of fact, if you were to hang up the all-time record across the boards in the field of sport and so forth, you'd have to quit. Just like Wild Bill Hickok out here in the West had to quit. You see, at the end there, he didn't even lose at the end. I mean, you couldn't have lost to anybody like the fellow that shot Wild Bill Hickok. I mean, this little guy couldn't possibly have won. He had to catch Wild Bill when Wild Bill was sitting with his back to a door and he walked up to him and blew his brains out. That was hardly a win. But it was so bad for Wild Bill in the later years of his life, it was so bad that nobody would fight with him. And that's the definition of a complete win: A state in which nobody will fight with you.

And if you come along as an auditor and solve too many of a preclear's problems, you have taken away from him too many games. And having taken away from him too many games, he'll invent a new one. And it will probably be one that has more pain and more suffering in it than the other game you took away. He will now insist that the game is a serious game, all the while knowing that it is just a mockery. All right.

We have not discussed pan-determinism, but in The Creation of Human Ability there is a little bit of a booby-trap which I would like to point out to you. The uninitiated will not make Creation of Human Ability work as well as somebody who knows the book and knows auditing, for this reason: There are four steps in it numbered backwards.

That is the woof and warp of existence. But it has a dependency upon games. Did you ever see anybody paying much attention to psychosomatic aches and pains during a moment of high emergency? What we use as high emergency — all we use for high emergency — is simply some exterior combination of factors which makes a problem in present time, which we can say demands so much attention that we are forced to deal with that problem over a priority of all others.

Isn't that a mean thing for Ron to do? Here he's handing out information in all directions and yet he numbers these four steps backwards. They are supposed to be run in reverse order to the way they are numbered. That actually was on no design, particularly. It just happens that that was the way they were set down and tested and so that's the way they got numbered.

So, therefore you see what we have as "necessity level" about which we spoke in the first book. Remember "necessity level"? Well "necessity level" is simply this: It is recognition of a bigger problem. And when you give a fellow a problem out here, he pulls his attention at least temporarily off of problems in here. He extroverts. And the way he extroverts is because he's got a bigger problem.

But somebody running The Creation of Human Ability Intensive Procedure might not discover that these steps are backwards and might plunge in to the top-echelon step before he had graduated up to it, and so would discover that top-echelon step not winning. And that top-echelon step is pan-determinism.

Now, during the bombings of London, during the bombings of Berlin and of Japanese cities, it was recognized that the incidence of psychosis and neurosis dropped, and that the incidence of suicide dropped to zero. And it's fantastic.

This is a very controversial subject: pan-determinism. We have graduated up from self-determinism. Self-determinism is nonexplanatory. It works all right for man. He can say, "Well look, I fight with myself only and therefore I am self-determined." He can say it in some fashion so that himself — he determines himself, but he doesn't determine anything else.

I mean, you'd think these people would feel real bad about having all these eggs laid on their heads, you know. And instead of that, they just 100 percent extroverted on the emergency of the situation and went around and fought the fires, and picked up the wounded and dying, and cleaned up the rubble and squared things around.

Self-determinism could mean all this, but it really doesn't express it. So the invention of this word, pan-determinism. And that means the willingness to start, stop and change — in other words, control — the willingness to control two or more identities, whether or not they are opposing.

In other words, there was enough of an exterior problem there so that nobody kept his attention on his own terminals. The war is over, there is no further exterior problem of this magnitude, then we would immediately expect a greater incidence of psychosis, neurosis, suicide, psychosomatic illness than prior to the war, and certainly than during the war when it became zero. Fascinating, hm?

If you were pan-determined, you'd be perfectly willing to control the activities of two football teams whether they were playing other football teams or each other. Get the idea? It takes at least two.

So, here we have life set up as a problem or a series of problems, all of which are calculated to obtain the interest of, and invite action in life. And all these problems can be categorized as games. We have then, games.

Now, when you have somebody say, "Hello" to you in mock-up, you are actually exercising pan-determinism, aren't you? You've got this other spot and you're making it talk. So you're exerting your pan-determinism, and that's one of the reasons why this particular process works as well as it does, because pan-determinism is being exercised.

Let's go way upstairs on such a theory of games and discover that the first thing you need, to play a game, is an opponent. And let's see that as we bring preclears up Tone Scale, that they very often look around and find all kinds of strange opponents. They will look around their environment and find an opponent. If the person is quite psychotic, the first person he recognizes as an opponent is his auditor, and he should fight this auditor. He's liable to do this anyway — the auditor is liable to make him feel a little bit better, he's liable to go out and tell all the neighbors that this auditor is the most horrible fellow that ever lived.

But there is a graduated scale into this thing called pan-determinism, which is a terribly interesting scale. Because Pan-determinism starts, as far as a process is concerned, with What Are You Willing to Repair? And it goes into the next process up from that: Give Me Some Things That Mustn't or Must Happen Again. And it goes from there into What Are You Willing to Fight? And it goes from there into What Are You Willing to Control? — pan-determinism.

One needs an opponent in order to play a game. Well, that's fine. One needs a lot of other things in order to play a game. But, the first thing you need to play a game is an opponent. You couldn't really have a satisfactory game without an opponent.

Those steps are just exactly backwards in The Creation of Human Ability. They run Pan-determinism, Fighting, Must/Mustn't Happen Again, and Repair. That is their order. They should be run: Repair, Must/Mustn't Happen Again, Fighting and Pan-determinism. And they make a package of four and a tremendously interesting process, and tremendously interesting results occur from that quartet.

Now, let's look at the communication formula and discover that in the lack of somebody at the receipt-point, life quite ably puts somebody at the receipt-point. We don't care whether there was just one thetan and then he went ahead and invented or created all the other thetans. Or whether or not there were other thetans who got in communication with each other. We don't care which way this worked out because it will all amount to the same thing. But it's a necessity, if you're going to have a communication, to have a receipt-point — isn't it?

Individuals get to a point where they are only willing to repair — not willing to fight. They are preventing many things from happening again one step up from there. And up — only when they get up above that are they willing to fight. But fighting is not civilized, is it? Well, I'm afraid an individual, to be free, must be willing to fight, and that is not a philosophical opinion that Ron has derived; it just happens to be the way preclears behave.

And the funny part of it is, is nothing short of a live receipt-point is satisfactory. If you could always have had a live receipt-point on communication, you wouldn't have gotten into very many barriers.

Now, to leave a preclear in a level where he has to fight is an unkindness, but that's a lot higher than an awful lot of preclears are. He's willing to fight something. When we bring preclears up Tone Scale, we very often find them fighting.

But the first thing that you would say about the receipt-point that you have mocked up or which appeared there, was that it was a different person across a distance, and that distance is the first barrier even though you're in good communication.

It's quite amusing in an organization to watch several people who are undergoing processing come on up the line. They start fighting their fellow auditors. They start fighting the management. They start fighting each other. And they get a little more processing and so forth and they start determining these things. You see, instead of doing it by fighting and making a game out of it, they start to get something done.

Take a look at this on chart 6: [see chart 6 in appendix] we have here cause, distance, effect. Now, when we play this back on the same communication, we have here cause prime, effect prime. And then to have a full communication here, we would have to have this same thing in reverse: cause, effect, cause prime, effect prime.

Any team starts fighting itself, inside of itself, before it finally coheses into an operating unit which is willing and able to turn outwards and fight the environment. You've seen this very phenomenon occurring in Dianetics and Scientology in its organizations.

And this is the same two-loop cycle as before, where we had Bill, Joe, Joe prime, Bill prime. And over here originating the communication this time we have Joe, receiving it we have Bill, answering it we have Bill prime, and then receiving or acknowledging we have Joe prime. That's the same thing, see?

People would get processed; they'd come up along the line. The biggest thing around there to fight was probably the organization, so they start to fight it. Oh, and they'd have a good time fighting the organization, dream up all sorts of reasons why they ought to be fighting the organization, and then process on up through there and start pushing the organization forward as a team.

This, by cause and effect, is how we graph two-way communication. This would be the first opening gun of a game. (tapping chart) You'd have some distance, you'd have some space, and you would have some acknowledgment and you'd have some answer.

There's where we're trying to get — teamwork. We'd sure love to have a few hundred horribly effective fighters who operated smoothly as a team. That's an unbeatable combination. We have ways to do that.

Now, in order to even start a game, you've got to have some communication. But after people get a little bit anxious about this game called communication (which by the way is quite adequate as a game — quite adequate), people get a little bit anxious about it as we see here on chart 7, [see chart 7 in appendix] this kind of thing starts happening: we get this first cause, distance, effect, and the individual at effect says just to make a game, you understand, not for any other reason — says, "I mustn't be an effect of that particular cause." And although there recognizably is space in between, this individual barriers it in some way and puts up some sort of a barrier.

What are people willing to control? Well, that lies above what they're willing to fight, and we come back to the communication formula. We don't know but what Bill on that chart didn't create Joe in the first place.

Well, that's all right. But, by duplication here, if he won't — this fellow, at cause 1 here, sees that his effect isn't going through, then he becomes completely unwilling to be an effect, too. He says, 'Well, let's make a real game out of this." So, here we are at effect prime.

But there's Joe and there's Bill, and they start building barriers and after a while they are fighting. Makes a game, but after you have all the Bills and all the Joes fighting, then somebody comes along as an umpire and says, "It is now illegal to fight." And the umpire does something horrible enough to Bill and Joe, in their conception, so that they are not willing to have something happen again — a punishment. And having made Bill and Joe unwilling to fight, they have made them willing to prevent something from happening again. And now when they've got an enormous number of things which they're trying to prevent from happening again, their only activity is devoted to repairing. And after a while, they even stop repairing. But at the moment they stop repairing, they're dead.

We have your cause prime now, just to make this a two-way cycle. You know, you understand that this is the curve that we've been drawing all along. He says, "I don't want to be an effect either." And he puts up a barrier. Space wasn't enough of a barrier. Now you get a more serious game. You get a game with secrets in it, with elements, with mysteries and more particularly with particles, and you have descended immediately from space into energy.

A person who is busy repairing or who is fixated entirely upon repair is actually unable to create or destroy. Repair would be an activity engaged upon to continue survival as a form — not to create a new form or an end of form.

And the second you get into energy with a game, you're in trouble. All that's wrong with any preclear — is he doing something by energy that he ought to be doing by postulate? You find that — he's saying, "Muscle" when he ought to be saying, "See?"

Now, these people who are pan-determined would be willing to create and willing to destroy. They would probably do far more creation than destruction. Under actual test, this is the case.

And by the way, you've seen preclears play games like this — one kind or another. They sit there and grit their teeth. They say, "Rrruuh, well, rrarragh I'll get this concept run out here in just . . . ffroik!" forceful, you see. And one of the greatest surprises and reliefs they get is when all of a sudden they find out they don't have to try that hard. They can just do it by a postulate.

But they drop down in their creation to create competitively. You know, "Let's all be writers and in competition with each other." "Let's all be painters; only let's be in competition as painters." Kind of a silly thing, but that they drop into the category of contest — competition.

People handle their bodies by energy lines. They put big communication lines on bodies. It isn't that this is bad, it's simply that it makes barriers. All right.

And man even writes it into his documents — his political documents — such as the Constitution, which says, "There must be competition. We mustn't have trusts and monopolies of any kind."

You ever see the strongman in the circus? I remember there was a very, very upset strongman one time. He was strongman in a sideshow, and he had been pulled on out front, you know, to lift dumbbells and so on. And there was a farmer kid that was along with me, and he got real curious because boy, those dumbbells looked heavy and this kid kept looking at these dumbbells, you know, and the strongman was picking up these dumbbells, you know, and straining every muscle, "Rrurrrrh," was going to . . . "ererrruhh" wham! See? And then he'd drop them, bang! 'Whew!" Wipe off his hands.

And they get down below this level of fighting and then they're merely trying to prevent fighting from occurring. They're saying certain such-and-so mustn't happen again.

And this farm boy, after the strongman went off — and this farm boy pushed one of these dumbbells. Barker was gone, so he climbed up on the side of the platform, and he was not very restrained or bashful, he'd been keeping company with me for a while. Anyhow . . . I was, by the way, at the time barn-storming out through the Middle West with a Waco 10, having a lot of fun.

Well, that leaves them with just one mock-up, usually — a couple of little old moldy biscuits or a spare head would be about the most that they could acquire in addition to just one mock-up. So they have to keep it repaired. It's a sad thing.

But, anyhow, this kid fell to this thing, found out it rolled quite easily and picked it up and started examining it. And he was reading the balls on the end of it and it said, "200 pounds" on the end of each one of these. And he was looking at it and smiling, and there was quite a crowd around there and they thought that was very funny. They laughed.

Why don't they create another mock-up? Well, you process them enough, and they will.

But the essential of the act was for the strongman to demonstrate that there was energy, that there was difficulty, that there was a seriousness to all this weight and gravity. And the truth of the matter was, these things were featherweights. All right.

Of course, keeping a mock-up going that's already fallen apart is some-times an interesting activity. A mock-up gets some desirable identity which fits into a certain game and set of goals, and instead of creating one like it, an individual is, to some degree, forced to carry along this mock-up. Well, that's the condition most people explain themselves into on this problem with mock-ups.

The first time that strongman was ever in a circus, he probably found out the crowd was not at all impressed when he picked up this elephant. He walked over and grabbed the elephant by the loose skin and picked him up and set him down again, you know, and walked off, and nobody was impressed. So, he went around and he says, "Well, it's hard to pick up elephants. It's difficult, and I'm a great guy because I can pick up an elephant, see? You see, it's hard to pick up an elephant — ahhP" And so we got gravity.

But wherever we see an individual getting up high enough in tone to fight, we know the next place he's going to go. He's going to be high enough in tone to pan-determine at least his own team.

And here we have this barrier erected between these two fellows, and we get a body in evolution. A body doesn't come about simply on the communication formula alone. The body comes about by somebody putting up a ridge.

Now, if you had all the players on a team perfectly willing to control or exert control over, start, stop and change all the other players on the team, you know that they would work in very, very smooth harmony. They wouldn't fight.

Now, there could be another reason for this ridge. These individuals could say, "Well, although I know perfectly well that Joe is over there, I am going to tell Joe that I don't know he's over there so that then Joe will have to put up an energy mass in order to show me that he is over there. And I will claim that I see the energy mass and can feel it, and that will convince Joe. And after that, he'll have to pack around this energy mass all the time before I'll recognize him." See what kind of a game this could be?

But where you get a team full of stars, where you get a team where everybody is the star quarterback — did you ever see an all-star football game? The number of flubs which occur is a fascinating thing to watch. They get all the champions in there and they fall on their faces. Any scrub team could whip them. They're all stars. They are not willing to control the other players on the team. They are only willing to demonstrate their competitive skill in comparison with these other players.

And so, we get a couple of terminals (drawing on chart) which gradually grow arms and legs. And people carry these energy masses around and put clothes on them and so forth, which is not a bad game.

Now, when they really get up, they're perfectly willing to start, stop and change any other man on the team. And that is a horrible thing to think about — a team like that. That's a horrible thing. You just think that over for a moment. That would be a rough thing for an organization composed of Repair or composed of Mustn't-Happen-Again levels to contest because these fellows would probably never have to fight to win. They'd just go on winning, and the game would be wins, or at least close up to the top on wins.

But when it comes down to these two bodies, having to have bodies in order to converse, that is not true. That is a lie. They don't have to have vocal cords, mouths, teeth, vocabularies or anything else to converse. But to make a game, they insist they have to have.

Now, there is no bottom to the game. Below Repair is an inability even to repair. And below that level would be a slight remaining ability, maybe, if we worked at it covertly to slightly deteriorate something — if we are assisted by time and the physical universe. That's a nice level. And below that's nonexistence.

Even speaks, by the way, of "the tongues of angels," in the Bible. There is one, I think it's Corinthians I, Chapter Thirteen, line one, yeah, paragraph one. "If I speak with the tongues of men or of angels and if I have no charity, I am as sounding brass and the tinkling of a temple bell." Well, "tongues of angels" — what would be "the tongue of an angel"? It would be communicating without vocabulary or masses; that would be that. But that would be "the tongue of an angel."

But how deep is nonexistence? It's unfortunately unobtainable. There's no bottom to the game. Why could there be no bottom to the game? Because a thetan can't do anything else but survive. He can lie to himself. He can change his identity. He can say, "I don't remember." He can say, "It never happened before." He can walk up to this piano and find out that he goes into a screaming rage just at the idea of touching a key on this piano, and then simply explain to himself that, well, it's because of something his dog did in its youth, or some psychoanalytic description of it. And he can explain it all away.

Well, the further back on the track — if people keep going on a dwindling spiral, we could see that further back on the track you're liable to have a clearer state of being here or there or a greater state of awareness on the part of some people that they are exteriorized or can do certain things.

The only real use of psychoanalysis is to explain how all the traumas occurred early enough so that you don't remember them. It isn't true. Doesn't work that way. All right.

So, these things aren't necessary. All we need here is just C and E, and C prime, E prime. Not even the line is necessary — not even the line — not even the space; but the space makes a good game and it makes the difference between thee and me. But the essential difference between thee and me is simply a space — that's all. Energy masses be damned.

If this individual cannot do anything but survive, how could there be a bottom to the game? Well, only by forgetting, only by changing in his existence and accepting no responsibility for it could he alter toward the bottom.

Mamie Glutz might conceive that she is better than the other girls at the factory because she has acquired a necklace and they haven't; but they say she's no good because of how she acquired it. And this makes a good game too. But, it isn't the necklace that makes Mamie Glutz. An awful lot of people forget this. (laughter) All right — puns aside.

But because it's an unobtainable goal, a complete lose, I'm afraid an awful lot of people tend in that direction. They say, "If I could just lose utterly — if I could just lose entirely, I'd be all right."

Well, here we have cause, distance, effect. Cause, distance, effect. And the game, there, is the distance. And when we want to make the game more serious, more complicated or less workable, want to create more problems, we start throwing in these barriers, such as barrier 1 up here and barrier 2. And we get these barriers working up to masses of energy and forms and things like that.

They come in and they sit in an auditor's chair and they say, "Now you process me so I'll be outside of my body when I kick off." (laughter) And of course we're ornery people and we know this would be an unsightly thing.

Well, the funny part of it is there's nothing sillier than a barrier when it comes to a solid-mass barrier. This is a silly barrier because no barrier could possibly restrain a thetan. We say to somebody, "Be three feet back of your head." Now, I'm reminded of something in connection with this one.

And an old lady who did this — she was a very old lady — she came in, she said to me, "Well, I just don't want to be caught in my body when I die and therefore I want you to process me in such a direction that this can all be very easy." Little further questioning elicited the fact that she actually expected me to have her drop dead as a body in that chair. And this is not the social thing to do. So I fixed her.

A British auditor who was not himself exteriorized, and he did one of the more remarkable things. He got ahold of a preclear that didn't know anything about Scientology — just a preclear — no instruction at all. And he sat this person down in the chair, and he says to this person — because it was routine at the time to do so — and he said, "Be three feet back of your head."

I said, "Mock up yourself dropping dead."

And the fellow didn't say anything, so the auditor said, "Well, I wonder, let's see now, Ron has said that if we have a little picture — sometimes they have a little picture of where they are on the track or something like that. So, he said, "Well, I'll ask him what he sees." All right.

So she says, "Gee, he's really going to do it," you know?

So he says to the preclear, "What do you see?"

"Mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. Now mock up yourself dropping dead. Okay. How do you feel?"

And the fellow says, "I see a train."

Something very bad had occurred. She no longer had an obsession on the subject of dropping dead. We'd run it out with one of the oldest forms of processing we have in Scientology just plain Mock-ups and End of Cycle.

And, auditor says, "Oh, okay. Now what do you see?"

That was a long time ago and she's still alive. She has a hard time, though. She can see while outside, but she's bound and determined her body is going to do the seeing. And that's the game she's playing. So she gets a double image, one of which is the proper image — the proper and correct image — and the other is very bad.

"Oh, I still see a train."

So if she'd just close her eyes, she reaches, contacts, walks with great accuracy, with her eyes shut. But that's not the game she's playing. I should get a hold of her again and say, "Mock up yourself totally blind. Okay. Mock up yourself totally blind . . ." She's obviously trying to do something in that direction.

And he said, "Well, all right." Now, he says, "Look around, what else do you see? Do you still see a train?"

Thus an auditor armed with the understanding he has, actually can considerably alter the game that the preclear is playing. As a matter of fact he can entirely control it. It's an interesting thing, isn't it?

And the preclear says, "No."

But if an auditor is unwilling to control the game the preclear is playing, if he's unable to start, stop and change the preclear, then his auditing is to a very marked degree going to be in vain. Because the most he'll do is get the preclear to patch up a hangnail.

So the auditor said, "Well, huh, that's good. See, I've cleared up this facsimile. See? Pretty cute." And he says, "Now," he says, "I want you . . ."

But the horrible part of it is if the auditor's in that condition where that he would only permit the preclear to change that much, if the auditor is so low on pan-determinism that this is all he'd permit in the preclear, he doesn't even effect repair. Why doesn't he effect repair? Because it's the preclear's hangnail.

"Oh," the preclear says, "Oh, wait a minute, here comes another train."

So he sits there and waits patiently for the preclear to repair it while the preclear sits there and waits patiently for the auditor to repair it while the auditor sits there and waits patiently for the preclear to repair it, and they'll play various games called, "You have broken the Auditor's Code." But they won't get anything else done.

And the auditor said, "Ron didn't say anything about repeating facsimiles at all."

Now, I'm not telling you that case level is the monitoring factor. I'm just telling you that when an auditor or anyone working with Scientology pulls a remarkable error, you know, like suddenly getting up and falling over the coffee table — preclear is in a semi-boil-off and he falls over the coffee table, you know? Bang. (sigh) That knocked out any gain that preclear had made, didn't it?

And so he very, very carefully and quietly with a horrible suspicion asked the preclear, "Where are you?"

Why does he fall over the coffee table? Well, he's playing a game, too, but that game doesn't include letting the preclear change. If the preclear shows any sign of changing, the auditor's liable to cancel it.

And the preclear said, "Why, I'm sitting here alongside of one of the tracks," he said, "here on the railroad station."

Preclear all of a sudden looks up alertly and says, "Good heavens, there's my body!"

And the auditor says, "Let's see . . ." and then suddenly remembered that he had also done other things to this preclear, and the preclear had obviously been outside with full ability to experience the entire physical universe. And had been sitting there waiting for himself to get run over with the train, and had been doing all sorts of interesting things, but had been passing in and out through walls with great ease.

And the auditor says, "Touch the wall."

It was this thing, which amongst others mostly struck the auditor as astonishing, as startling, as very fascinating, that the auditor suddenly woke up to the fact that a barrier did not restrain or contain a thetan unless he really insisted on it. So you see, it's really impossible, unless he wills it strongly, for an individual to sit over here (tapping chart) at this first E on the chart, behind a barrier, and get out and keep out this individual, by reason of a barrier. And he's not able to do it at all unless this individual at E prime here (tapping chart) in the first graph, has decided to carry around the mass of energy.

The preclear says, "But I'm trying to tell you. I've exteriorized," and so forth.

Because the thing that won't go through energy is energy. Energy won't go through energy easily — it does things to the other energy it's going through. But a life unit can simply go through energy — zip! It means nothing. Any barrier — Fort Knox, walls, Chateau d'lf — wouldn't even vaguely restrain anybody who was not packing around energy.

And the auditor says, "Touch the wall." The preclear goes pseewwwboomp. Ptock. No acknowledgment. No communication. I guess that auditor won, but whose game did he win? He won his game. And what's his game? No change.

So, in order to get restrained at all, this individual here has to believe himself to be the energy. He has to say, "I am the energy." Mamie Glutz has to say, "I am the necklace." See? "I am. And the necklace which I am, cannot pass through this wall. Therefore, I can be contained inside these walls. And therefore walls are barriers."

Well, the definition of no change is survival in some people's character, but believe me, if you can't change, you don't survive. That is this universe. When you can no longer make time yourself, you don't survive.

And if we could just get everybody to grab hold of a bunch of energy and say that he had to hold on to it, and that it was precious and that it was valuable — and if we could sell everybody on this utterly — then we could mock up walls which nobody would pass through, and then we could have forts and fortresses and armor and bullets and governments and games of all kinds and descriptions. But there is your entrance point of games, right here. (tapping chart) All right.

What do you mean, you don't survive? I'm talking about you as the knowing identity that you are at this moment. When you lose the faculty of yourself making time, of making space, of making energy and causing those things to vanish, when you lose that faculty, you're having a rough time. And one of the roughest times you'll have, is you have no choice from there on but to try to lose so that maybe you can get in another game.

If that's the case, and if an individual becomes shy of games, then it's indicated that we have a scarcity of games as well as a scarcity of communication which we should remedy. And you will discover that after you've processed somebody just so long on straight Communication Processing as contained in Dianetics 1955!, you will discover that this individual is getting a scarcity of games.

And people stand around and won't let you lose enough. Try to jump out of a ten-story window, they come up and pull you back in. They make it illegal for you to buy strychnine. Only in Arizona can you walk into stores and say, "Give me a .45." The clerk says, "Okay, what size waistband do you have?" (laughter)

But the funny part of it is, is that Communication Processing doesn't bring about the scarcity of games which yanking energy away from him does. If you were to make him get rid of every piece of energy he was holding on to (Let's say we made him join a monastery, that's a good way to make an individual get rid of everything. You know, throw it all away, give it to the church, endow the bishop with it, live a holy life thereafter. We could make somebody do this.), he would have a pretty bad scarcity. His havingness would have been injured.

The problem an individual faces on the level of nonsurvival is to try to forget it or muck it up in some fashion so that he could at least pretend he's not surviving. And most of the preclears you get hold of are well along the line — I mean the roughies — they're well along the line on this, you know. They're saying, "Look, I've almost got it nonsurviving. Now with just a little more help from the auditor, I'll have it all the way out."

But you can take Communication Processing and by running it on a preclear, you can do the most fantastic thing you ever heard of. You can start taking energy away from him — making energy actually vanish — without influencing his feeling that he has to have. Now this is a little bit interesting, isn't it? It stands separate from the havingness.

And the auditor — the dog — says, "Touch the wall." He says, "All right. Now, you see that book? Okay, walk over to it. Look at it. Pick it up. What color is it? See that bottle? Walk over to it. Look at it. Pick it up." Etc.

But the havingness actually goes to pieces. The masses of energy which he has posted there — these masses right here and here — (taps chart) these masses of energy actually go to pieces. And if you ran Communication Processing long enough, down here, in the second section of this chart, we wouldn't even have a line left.

Fortunately these processes bring him up above the level where he no longer is so anxious to lose, and where he gets some little glimmering that he might win. If a man believes he can no longer win, if he believes he has no chance to win, then he will work actively in the direction of losing, and he will try to lose as fast and covertly as possible so nobody will detect it because people won't let him lose. They think they have a vested interest in him.

In other words, we'd start to run Communication Processing, we'd do just this trick — just this trick and no other trick — we'd have this fellow, this preclear say, "Hello." Have a spot out here in front of him say, "Hello." Then have the preclear say, "Hello," and the spot say, "Hello," and the preclear say, "Hello," and the spot say, "Hello," see. And we'd do that bang-bang-bang-bangbang-bang-bang-bang.

But it's only when a man believes he can't win that he goes in this direction and becomes one of these nonchanging cases, you know? He'll change sort of downward, but he won't change in any other direction.

Up to this time this fellow had a sensation that he had a sort of a mask on. He had energy masses around his face, he had energy around his eyes, various weird things like this, you see? And we'd run this for a while, and he would tell us that he feels these energy masses moving.

And the auditor at this time can take such an individual that — he could say to him, "If we were playing a game, and I was blindfolded and I had both hands tied behind my back, and there's a checkerboard lying there set up where you had eight kings and I had one piece, could you win?"

But with any other process it would be necessary for you to have him mock up energy masses and pull them in, in order to remedy this havingness which he was losing. He would get sick at his stomach. He'd get real sick at his stomach if you didn't remedy his havingness which is one of the basic and elementary steps of Scientology and Dianetics today.

The preclear says, "Yes, of course" — one-up. All right.

But we could do this: Have him say, "Hello," and something out there say, "Hello," and him say, "Hello," and something out there say, "Hello," and him say, "Hello," and something out there say, "Hello," — back and forth, back and forth, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang. And this area up here which we've labeled "area 1" would become this area at the bottom of this Chart 7. (tapping on chart) Now, what do you think of that?

And we could just go on from there sort of on this basis and all of a sudden the preclear would get some glimmering of this win–lose scale. He'd get some kind of a glimmering, "You know, there's some vague possibility that if the cards were all stacked, the dice loaded and everybody had gone mad I was playing with, that I might possibly have one white chip fall off the table and be disregarded at game's end, and so I'd have a white chip. There's some possibility if the gods, of course, are in their proper houses."

You've still given him a game. The game is communication. So, therefore he doesn't too seriously object to losing all these masses which we had up here as barrier 1 and barrier 2.

Most people's ideas of what they can win is fantastic. So therefore, we take an auditor who isn't too well up on wins, anyhow, and we give him a preclear who makes him lose--aaaagh! How horrible.

Let's give this a more simple look, a much more simple look, and we will find ourselves comprehending it, perhaps a lot better.

Now, let's take the field of work with the human mind and with human ability, and look at it frankly and give it a good solid stare in the eye. And let's discover something: Everyone has said in the past that if you let somebody fool with your mind, this would be horrible. Bad consequences would result. Psychology has agreed upon that. Psychiatry has agreed upon that. It knows. It has experience. But that observation was based on a lack of information, a lack of data, a lack of a codification and organization of material which would win.

Let's make here on Chart 8, (writing on chart) let's make here a nice big barrier. And let's put Bill on this side of it and Joe over here, and let's have Bill start saying, "Hello," and Joe here start saying, "Hello," as an answer in reply, and as an originated communication.

Why was it dangerous with psychoanalysis, psychiatric processes, witch doctoring, to fool around with somebody's psyche? Because it would give the practitioner a lose, every time — except in that 22 percent who, if fed flour and water pills, would have recovered from an acute infection of the corpse. But otherwise it wasn't safe.

And we have these two fellows say, "Hello, Hello, Hello, Hello." You know, one says, "Hello," the other says, "Hello," one fellow says, "Hello," the other fellow says, "Hello." And we will eventually get this — when I say, "eventually we get this," why, it's very simple. We get Bill and we get Joe and we don't have anything between them, see, here in this second section.

And perhaps there have been times in the last four years when it wasn't safe for an auditor to audit. He might not have had in his possession sufficient information to do a good job of auditing. And therefore it wouldn't be safe to audit because he'd have loses. And these loses were very easily come by. Anybody will give you a lose and then prevent you from having one.

Given enough communication, an individual recognizes with great clarity that he is not dependent upon his ridges, his barriers, masses or individualities or eccentricities. Because communication itself is a game — fantastic.

You process this fellow. He's had acute lumbosis, that famous disease, and he's had this lumbosis most horribly for a long time and it starts to let up. You run an engram, you run a secondary, you found out his father had lumbosis and his father is dead, and you spill the secondary on Papa's death and you get that all run out and this individual is in wonderful condition and then he turns around to you and he says, "You see what this Anacin I take does?"

What I'm showing you here actually works in processing. It's not just a demonstration process. I mean this would occur — actually would occur.

Now, therefore, loses could be real bum if an auditor were fixated solely and completely upon repair, if he would never do anything but repair, if he never thought of restoring ability or raising ability or pulling people out of the mud with regard to various qualities of beingness, if he couldn't conceive an individual as being a better individual, as having more ability, as being able to control life around him much better. If he couldn't conceive of these things and all he could think of was a little mediocre, minor repair of somebody's secondhand anatomy, and he got some loses, we'd lose an auditor. He'd stop auditing.

Now, we've already covered the fact that when we remedy C, A and R also remedy. Isn't that interesting? A and R also remedy, these various eccentricities remedy. Well, look-a-here: I want to show you something here before anybody gets scared over this situation too badly.

Let's go at it the other way. Let's take an auditor that has enough wins and enough potentiality in winning in any one of these four brackets of Repair, Must/Mustn't Happen Again, Fighting, Pan-determinism. He knows he can have some wins in these brackets. This is his experience. You take this boy — he can take a very relaxed look at two things. One, the possibility of losing. So, he'll lose! So what? And the other one, he'll dare put into life another individual who is able. And by making another individual pan-determined, the pan-determined character of that other individual might, you see, by cautious extrapolation, cause the person who put him there to lose. Who is to say after Bill has created Joe, that Joe did not create Bill? That's very tricky.

Chart 9 — this chart will go in reverse. Let's start down here at the bottom. And we have here Homo sap. And there we have the ARC triangle. Now, they're really there, I really wrote them there — they're microscopic. That's Homo sap.

And so an auditor must be in a frame of mind to afford loses or afford wins. This tells you he has to be a pretty go-to-hell sort of fellow. He has to be relaxed — really relaxed.

Now, remember that a person's understanding is as good as that triangle is big! So, this fellow walks down the street and he sees that an electric light is out. And he says — if he's in pretty good shape he says, "Look, there's an electric light out." His understanding of the situation is good.

And we get a psycho in — it's not that psychos are hard or interesting or anything of the sort, we just get a psycho in, you see, and the psycho is saying, "Look, I've lost. I've lost. Don't convince me I could win, please. I've lost. I've lost. Really, I've lost." He'll tell the bedpost or the auditor or anybody that he's lost, and we get this preclear in. And we get an auditor who's there stuck on repairing hangnails as the end-all of existence. And we get this auditor in and we say, "Now, Oscar, see that psychotic? Now you process him."

Now, somebody else, not quite so good, who's got a pretty good communication lag, also has a reason lag, and they say, "Umm, I wonder why that light is out? What do you suppose we — uh — let me see . . ." Deep significances — do you understand? And, "Somebody had a motive of some kind or another in turning out that light. That's probably — you know, do you suppose that the police department has gone into collusion with the criminal element in order to . . ." In other words, his understanding is poor — understanding of the situation is real poor — this electric light.

The fellow says, "Ps-ps-ps-ps-psychotic! Mmmmm! Brrrrr! Mmmmmm! Sure, I-I-I-I will. I will (sigh)." "Supposing I did something wrong?" he's saying to himself. "Supposing I really got this guy lost? Supposing I really let this fellow lose? Gee, how could I possibly make him win, though? He's awfully far gone. It's an utterly impossible thing, to do anything for him! (gasp)"

And now let's get some fellow that's completely spun in, and he comes around and he says, "Let's see ..." (pause) (laughter) He just dimly senses there must be something wrong in the environment but he doesn't know why. And one step below that, he's dead!

You know what he'll do with that psycho? He will cross up his communication so thoroughly that he can't possibly have any responsibility for what happened. He's liable to get the window to slam on the back of the psychotic's neck, if possible. See, anything to cross up the line so nothing can be traced through to him. He's scared! What's he basically scared of? He isn't basically scared that he himself is going to go psycho. He knows better than that. He's scared this psycho is liable to lose entirely. That's impossible. Well, then he's scared that the psycho is going to win somewhat! Oh, man, wouldn't that be horrible, to have a completely able psychotic? (laughter)

Now, there's his understanding. His A, R, C comprise his understanding. Let's look at that real clearly. ARC comprises understanding. The fact of the matter is that you can work out all mathematics just on the basis of ARC. The interrelationship of symbols, factors, figures, relationships, quantities, qualities and so forth can all be worked out of ARC.

I asked an auditor that one day, and that was really what he was afraid of. "Think if I built this fellow up. Think of sending this fellow completely recovered and cleared back into the society doing all these things!"

We just take this triangle and we get the relative affinity of this commodity to that commodity, we get the agreement of this commodity or that commodity, you know, whether or not they have a likeness for each other, and we get in the equation itself a communication. But as we look over mathematics, we can actually evolve these.

Well, wherever we look we discover a very distinct necessity to know what we're doing. And we discover that an individual who knows his materials as contained in The Creation of Human Ability, Dianetics 1955!, even Book One if he knew that well, professional auditing courses, well trained on the subject, we find by experience that this individual can no more get restimulated — he'd have to try hard to get restimulated by a case — because he has become, through experience, completely accustomed to big and little wins and big and little loses. He finds out that he can do these either way. And he also knows what he can do and he can also forecast the fate of the case. Well, so much for auditing. What happens on the remaining dynamics if this is the state of mind one has to have?

I'm very, very sorry that in 1950 when I first ran across that — it was in September, I think, that I had a paper, the notes of a paper on this — demonstrated the conversion of the ARC triangle into logic or mathematics. I didn't finish the paper. There was a lot of wild things going on of one kind or another and I had to give them too much attention, and I didn't finish this paper. And when I didn't finish that paper by the way, I turned my back on organizations, the first and foremost thing that had to be attended to. So, right now I would love to have that paper. I could work it all out again, but it was quite lengthy.

Never look to win in a gambling game if you have to have the money — one of the oldest saws of the gambler. Awfully true, too. Naturally, if you have to have the money, your anchor points are far enough in so that you don't even dare look under the other guy's card stack.

And it was quite conclusive that if you don't have these three things present in a mathematical equation, if you haven't measured them to some degree, the reality of the equation is very poor. Whatever is missing in the equation, it would be missing out of the ARC triangle. Reason itself derives from ARC.

You wonder how these great gamblers are always so confident when they're sitting there with two deuces. I used to get a lot of prop wash on this, see. They'd say, "Well, you read it off people's faces. You get their reactions," and so forth. And the best gambler I knew of fell into my hands as a preclear one fine day. And I said, "Be three feet back of your head."

But the test of the matter, of course, is understanding in a preclear. Does a preclear's understanding come up as his communication lag goes out? You said it. As his communication lag goes out, does his acceptability to and his acceptance of the environment go up? You said it. And does his affinity for life and those around him increase? You said it.

And the fellow says, "Why?"

But more important, does he measure up differently on intelligence? You said it!

And I said, "Well, just be a good idea. Be three feet back of your head." "But why? Why come in that close?" (laughter)

So, here we find this man down here who's being an individual; he is a rugged individual. He's straight out of Dickens. He is an eccentricity compounded with a couple of more eccentricities. And we find that as he goes along, his understanding of the life — his life around him is real bad, it's real poor, he just doesn't grasp things easily.

Of course, you can play the game of going and finding a gold lode and then coming back and, by some bird augury as the Romans did it or by noticing that the moon is in such and such a position or by casting some dice or by a witching wand or something — anything you could think of, then let it have the responsibility of leading you to the gold lode. I mean you could play that game if you wanted to. But if you were in real good shape you wouldn't have to play that game. You'd find too many other interesting things to do.

We've got to speed up — we've got to increase his ability to communicate, before we start increasing his ability in the fields of affinity and in reality, and more importantly, understanding. We've got to speed up his communication. We do all this simply by speeding up his communication and furnishing enough communication in there to be speeded up. All right.

Now, one of the worst frames of mind a person can get into is to think that he has done everything and seen everything. That's a fabulous frame of mind. He doesn't think, then, that there are any other able players anywhere. I'm afraid the guy is in for a shock. If he's had too many wins, if he himself is in pretty good condition, and yet he can find around him no worthy opponents of any kind, he's going to have a hard time. He can't have a game.

We start way down here in state 1. All right.

Such an individual will start playing games with himself. He'll say, "Gold lode. Well, I know there's one over there — now, I'll forget it," you see. "And now I'll get this witching wand and so forth and I'll read this old chart here, and I'll detribute the fact and reinterpret it that way, and then I'll go get me a burro and I will walk across the desert and I will . . "so on. "And then quite by accident, I'll look up and .. .

Now let's go upstairs, and after we've run Communication Processing for a short time, we get state 2. All right.

"No, no, that's too simple. Let's see there . . . No, let's see, I think there's a float from that lode and it's about eight miles down that crick — oh, say, that's pretty good — dry crick bed and there's a piece of that lode eight miles south of the actual lode.

Now, after we've run Communication Processing — let's be real elementary — after we've run the exact process which I told you about there, you know, we just put a couple of guys together and say, "Say, "Hello' to each other."Now, this can be done on a preclear, and done very effectively by having him mock up a "Hello" out here in front of him — something alive out in front of him saying, "Hello" to him. And then where he is, saying, "Hello" to it. And then it says, "Hello" to him, and he says, "Hello" to it, and it says, "Hello" to him, and he says, "Hello" to it, back and forth, bang-bang-bang-bang-bang!

"Now, if I find that, it'll probably take me months to find a second piece. And then gradually I can work my way down the crick bed, you know, until I run out entirely. Then I can decide that it's up the crick bed. And then I can pass it, you know. And ... well, maybe there's another gold lode someplace that has matching ore, but isn't valuable. I'll go off and look for that." Ehhhhh! Because he doesn't think there's anybody around that's an able player.

This is the process, the one I am giving you right this minute, that this was tested on. This was tested with IQ tests, intelligence quotients, everything else you could think of, every kind of a monitor there could be and particularly, skill with mechanical objects — speed in taking apart puzzles. There was a lot of little incidental psychometery run — you know, you got a half a dozen Chinese puzzles and see how fast the guy could take one apart.

The second he really gets up against somebody who's fairly able, this guy's liable to come straight into present time and forget this nonsense. Two of them put their heads together and say, "Well, let's see, we need this gold to do so-and-so in order to play this bigger game. Well, you go out and dig it up and you bring it in, and we'll melt it down. That's fine. That's fine. Now we got that set. Now, get over to this other game," so on — gee!

Well, the preclear this was being worked on looked at it and said — the first time he saw one of these puzzles — he said, "What is that?"

That's why in war you get such tremendous quantities of invention. All these scientists sitting around playing the game with themselves, "Let's see, I'll pretend that I don't know that this combined with this will do that, but I will experiment for a long time to find out."

It was explained to him, "It's a puzzle."

They suddenly get their eyes on a bigger target called "the enemy," and they suddenly can — no longer have to play this game with these little terminals. So they say, "Well, you combine this and this and this and you get that. Now here's a cartridge." See? And away they go. See, it brings them into present time. That's actually the same manifestation of a preclear.

"Yeah, well what kind of a puzzle?"

But what about the society at large? Do you realize that if tomorrow an invasion of Earth were threatened by some other planet, that you wouldn't have any talk about international or inter-nation-al activity like war? Nobody would be worrying about war between Bulgaria and Fulgaria. Nobody would be worrying about war because another game was sitting there.

"Well, it's a Chinese puzzle."

Everybody would get a lot smarter. The incidence of psychosis and neurosis would drop most alarmingly. See what I mean?

"Well, what are you supposed to do with it?"

If all of a sudden some of these flying saucers that occasionally flick around here and cause the army so much upset — they found a couple of them crashed, you know, and they say, "Eek!" They've got molecular sealing construction plates, so you can't find any seam and when you try to go into them with a torch, why, you get cohesion of its seams. And then they can't get it open. And they take x-rays of the machinery through the metal, you know, to get pictures to find out what's in there because obviously nobody .. . They've had a lot of fun. Terrific amount of sport they've engaged in this way. They've found some of these things, but they haven't found enough of them, and it's not comprehensible enough to really upset anybody.

And this was all being clocked on the amount of time it was supposed to — he was being measured on how long it would take him, see, to work this puzzle. Up to a point — and we're getting to that point now — where he was handling them rather well. So, we'd work it a while longer and we would get this triangle, see? (writing on chart)

If you had a saucer suddenly pull in over Chicago and say, "Your money or your life. People of Earth, we don't come in peace ..." At-at-at-at-at! Earth would mobilize. We're not quite sure what it would mobilize, BB guns or something, but it would mobilize. And you certainly wouldn't have any more international war.

And 4 here, we would start to get this triangle. (writing on chart) And then 5, we're off the paper. And at this state 5, this preclear who had now exteriorized on this same process just in one shot, see? He exteriorized on this process and we gave him the last puzzle which was really, if anything, a little more difficult than anything else — or I gave it to him — and I said, "Well, okay."

But after you've got this interplanetary war going, what would you do then? I mean, that's going, and they've finally settled peace and we've got this particular end of the galaxy all straightened out. And war is sporadic and occasional, but we have a police force engaged.

And he says, "What are you giving me that thing for?" he said, "All you do is punch the center of it and it falls apart."

I guess this system would have to go to war with another system in order to make enough fight. And then when that was all straightened out, then this galaxy would have to go to war with another galaxy in order to get it all straightened out. And I guess this universe then eventually would have to go to war with another universe to get it all straightened out.

In other words, the understanding of the individual had increased. His ability had increased — his ability to reach and withdraw and to do everything else. By doing what? By having a spot out in front of his face say, "Hello" to him. And by him saying, "Hello" to the spot out in front of his face — hour in, hour out, with the only other thing being interposed was, "Find the floor," or "Take a break." Curious, huh?

Or instead of such a silly route, we could just get down to work and process the groups of people so that they would be willing to let others live, and live themselves.

Now, I conducted that experiment myself for this good and excellent reason: that there might have been a temptation on the part of somebody else to have gone off onto Route 1 or to have done something else or to have just enough broken communication with the preclear to have damped it. It wasn't that I didn't trust anybody else; I merely wanted, myself, an intimate look at this thing evolving.

Now, there really is no choice, in other fields, than these two. We either put man into a condition where he can extrovert and play a game here on Earth as himself, as individuals and as groups, or we go off and find ourselves a hot saucer and go at-at-at-at-at-at! over Chicago. There's these two solutions. There isn't much other solution. Now, we have a saucer rescue squad ready .. .

And so we had the phenomenon of the expanding triangle. And this is the phenomenon of the expanding triangle, and you can watch that phenomenon increase. You can watch that triangle increase, you can watch understanding come up, and you can see incidence of accident and other things falling down, and you can see reaction time increasing.

We have — all joking aside — I'm joking, you see. We have actually many ways we could prevent an atomic bombing occurring here on Earth — many ways. Atomic bombing, however, is not the sole enemy which we would face. Several things are definitely preventive in the direction of atomic fission, if they are done. And I told you the other day the wrong thing to do was nothing.

Now, we're certainly not paying any attention to memory, are we? Well, I ask you, are we paying any attention to memory?

Several things could be done in this particular direction. The education of the peoples of Earth, however, is the first and foremost thing that should be done. And they might be taught that they can solve each other's games, that they can play each other's games, that there is somebody else alive here and that Earth can be an interesting place to be and that something can happen to these things which we today call civilization, that they can go on upwards. Somebody doesn't have to blink them out.

Audience: No.

Now, wherever we look across the world, we see that man has very, very little hope that anything could be done about anything. The measure of a civilization would be the measure of the expectancy of win by the individuals or groups of that civilization. If they have an expectancy to win, they can play the game. If they have no expectancy of winning, they want to get out of the game and start another game or they start playing games with their thumbs behind their backs — which is goofiness.

Well, then the clue of psychotherapy was not memory. The basic undoing of psychotherapy was not memory. And therapies solely based upon memory, and the functions and systems of recall are therapies which depend upon the automaticity of memory machines. Because when I got this boy to this final top step (tapping on chart) after about twenty-eight hours of processing, something like that, his face started to fall apart, so we had to do it behind his back for the last few hours of processing. I would have ruined him; he would have disappeared right in my parlor.

And if man at large had an idea that some of these big secrets and incomprehensibilities were no longer secret, or if he just had the idea that somehow, some way, there was some slight possibility that if all the cards were stacked in his favor, that if the dice were loaded in his favor, that at the end of the game somebody might have dropped a white chip under the edge of the rug, that he could then have — if he was just up that high in the direction of a win, then there could be a game here on Earth. There could be an activity that was very desirable to live in.

This fifth state up here, (tapping on chart) this fifth state produced this kind of a response on memory: "Where were you on July the 17th, 1947?" "Oh," he says, "I was in the living room."

As I have said before, we are in the unfortunate position or the fortunate position of sitting here with answers. Well, the thing to do with answers is not go on sitting there with answers because that's a very, very fatal proceeding. That's always the wrong thing to do — sit still.

"What were you doing?"

And some of you here have markedly contributed by your experience and by your actions, activities, your letters, your contributions to the obtaining of these answers, and so you share some responsibility for the fact that they exist. And I tell you very frankly and very bluntly that the wrong thing to do with an answer is to sit still with it. The wrong thing to do with an answer is not communicate.

"I was reading page 27 of a book called Gone With the Wind." "You were reading it awfully late, weren't you?"

I'm not going to tell you — this congress — what's the right thing to do. All I'm going to tell you is the wrong thing to do. And that would be to sit still, say nothing and do nothing about it.

"Yes, I waited until the servants had stopped talking about it." Pang! Pang! Pang!

If you don't use the material which you have been given, you will find yourself, just in the information itself, with a Frankenstein on your hands — a Frankenstein's monster. Because if you put it back of you and you say, "No, I'm not going to use this in life," after your activities, your reports, your contributions have brought this material into being, you'll find out the backlash on it will be terrible.

Now, these cases, as we will have here in chart 10, these cases that you're looking at with a communication lag are fabulously interesting cases, they're fabulous. Let's go on upstairs again on the same graph system as we had before. One: Where you had your little A, R, C down here, see? All right.

One of the least things that will happen will be to put you slightly out of communication with your fellow man. The way to go back into communication with your fellow man is not to forget what you know or abandon it; it's to teach him.

We ask this boy a question. We say, "How many chairs are there in this room?" This boy does not start to count these chairs, this boy begins to wonder why you want to know how many chairs there are in this room. Now, that's a fairly average response. That is not, by the way, a high-toned response; it's just the average response that you would get.

The answers you can teach him are now basically simple. The first thing you can teach him is that there's some slight possibility of a win — a win in the direction of a better civilization. One of the ways he'll communicate with: there is a slight possibility of a win in the direction of atomic fission. There is a slight possibility — one white chip caught under the rug and forgotten by everybody — of a win on a wide political front. How? Well, I don't think the nations of Earth themselves are going to be able to sit still and confront the idea of wiping out Earth. I don't think they will be able to completely tolerate this idea.

If somebody walked in that door at this moment, and I asked him, "How many chairs are there in this room?" This guy would enter into the communication as why did I want to know how many chairs are in this room? Couldn't I count myself? He was not part of this particular congress. You know, yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap-yap. But no communication.

If you used what you knew, communicated what you knew, you applied it to groups and to individuals and if you went ahead and cut a wide swath of wins in the direction of human lethargy and aberration and psychosomatic illness, you could not help but attain for man a far better civilization.

So, we take state 1 here, and let's take a look at this person's bank and let's find that he has (drawing on chart) C, E, C, E, C, E, C, E, C, E, C, E, C, E, C. C, C, C, but out here with no C leading to it, EE, and then CE, CE, CE, CE, CE, CE, CE, CE. And that adds up to no C.

And the only real message I have for you along any of these lines is the fact that you, through your contributions, your activities, your reports, were actively of assistance in bringing into being the answers which we have been talking about here for four days. They are yours to use. They are yours to work with, and you will find if you use them, they contain a certain amount of efficacity. But knowing this information carries with it a certain responsibility. Communicate it, use it and you can win with it. Don't sit back and forget it.

And the actual behavior of a communication lag is something like this: We enter at the first C, and through all of those CEs I traced, this lag tries to go, see . . . (drawing on chart) and comes out here, "What wall?"

We have a great deal of future in front of us in Dianetics and Scientology. The way to attain that future is to somehow or another attempt to work as a team against the forces which oppose progress, culture and civilization to achieve a better Earth. Not to fight each other or engage in activities which claw each other's eyes out, but to all of us get ourselves up above the level of having to fight and then enjoying a good fight as a team against any force which oppose the progress of man.

And when this man looks at anything, he looks at a bundle, and he says, "There's nothing there." Yet something looked at the wall, and then got lost in this morass here, under 1 — just got lost.

That seems to me to be a real good solution. I myself am putting it into effect in London because very shortly we are hiring the best auditor we can get for the purpose to clear the whole staff there, and here in Phoenix we are going into the same program. It might take months, you understand, but we're going to clear the whole staff in Phoenix as soon as we can get the right auditor for that job. We would, all of us here, throughout the world of Scientology, be a very formidable team if we all did the same.

And those are the masses that start to fall apart when you say — have the preclear say, "Hello" and then have him have a spot in front of his face say, "Hello" to him, and then, he says, "Hello" and so forth. What happens here?

Thank you very much.

This thing starts to fall apart and with a slightly expanded triangle here, we get the communication line of "Hello," "Hello" at least only going through a minor amount of ballup here. See?

Thank you.

All these old C's and E's are dropping out. Because we put enough C's and E's in there to resolve this thing here. And we get up here to — well, let's just skip to 5. Where do you think that line has to travel for the individual to know anything, huh?

Thank you.

Male voice: What line?

Yeah, what line? He knows there's a wall there without looking. He doesn't have to look to find out if there is a wall there. He has perfect certainty there's a wall there, but if he wants to look at it, he can also look at it. If he wants to run into it, he'd have to do something else and say, "Now I'm going to run into it" and so run into it.

But when you ask him a question, "How many chairs are there in this room?" he would tell you the exact number — bang! And now it might suit his game to find out why you wanted to know that number of chairs in the room.

But there is what happens under these processes. This ball, this mask — sometimes somebody feels like he's wearing a mask all over the front of his face. And you say, "Give me some things you're not trying to create at this moment," that being a stickier sort of a Straightwire question — stickier sort of a question.

He's supposed to point these things out, and he'll go, gong! And he will dope off and so forth. He gets right into the middle of that number 1 ball, and what do you think it contains? Hmm? What do you think is at all those C and E lines and so forth? What are these masses and so forth that are preventing other masses from occurring? Facsimiles. Engrams. And of course he goes into restimulation on those lines and he becomes a very interesting piece of dope-off, he does. But that's his life — dope-off.

Now, as he gets on up to state 5, you'd say, "Well, this individual then would care less about existence." Oh, no, he can feel sympathetic quicker and get over sympathy faster than anybody you've ever seen. But you'd say this individual is not persistent, this individual has no great integrity. No, he has something better than that, he has ethics and honesty.

When we get into the problems of communication, we can find a hundred billion catalogable phenomena and we can put these phenomena under the most interesting microscopes.

We can make ourselves some of the most fascinating combinations and puzzles you ever saw in your life. And we do that simply to have a game, to have something to shoot at.

But, every once in a while we get so immersed in hiding the game and in hiding the terminal of the game, we start playing the game of: We don't know it's a game. And we very rapidly and quickly get lost in all directions.

And the funny part of it is, a fellow can stay lost. Now that's the only slightest liability there is to playing the general game called life. The fellow can get lost; he can stay lost.

What do you think a tree out here is doing? It was a life form once. But it still has something vibrating around it, it still is doing something, it still has a game, doesn't it? So, it looks like having a game is more important than getting lost. A person will even get lost and go utterly unconscious and unknowing and stupid — still, to have a game.

So, along with Communication Processing, we use the processes which increase the number of games an individual can have. And that process is simply — as I have run on you earlier — Invent a Game: "Have somebody invent a game for you." And, "Have you invent games for somebody else," and then, "You say, "Okay.' " Well, this of course does communication too. And some of the weightier, heavier somatics start to fly off when you run that particular process.

But, here we find whatever we want to know in life revealed simply by running these Communication Processes from the standpoint that life is a game, and getting the individual to remedy his havingness of games. That is to say, make him realize that he can invent so many games that he doesn't have to hold on to these old games. And if he realizes that, then he'll let go of some of these things and he becomes far, far more able.

Thank you.