You think of an elephant, you think "elephant." There's an elephant, mental image picture, only it's one you saw in the zoo or one that chased you a few generations back.

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.

What kind of a universe is this? Well, it's very personal because those particular scenes and pictures actually do record and make a permanent record of — until a Dianeticist gets hold of you — events through which you have passed. You have a picture of something that happened.

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"?

Now, once in a while you actually mock something up or you get a picture of something you would like to invent — something of that sort — and you get a similar picture. That we call a "mock-up" — something that is not a picture of the physical universe.

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.

Now, one of these mental image pictures we actually call a "facsimile," which means a copy of, and it's just a copy of the physical universe. And you will find out that the facsimiles which a person most readily has to hand are facsimiles he has taken or manufactured to record items which he is about to lose or is losing. And he cherishes those. He keeps the picture of the item, instead of the item he lost.

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?

Now, if you had a universe of your own, I'm sure that the floors in that universe would be as solid as this one.

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?

Now, just take a look at your own bank. Go ahead, take a look at this universe of pictures. Get a picture of something. Got it?

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."

Audience: Yeah. Uh-huh.

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.

All right, now, I want you to stamp on the floor. Okay, how solid is that floor?

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.

Audience: Real solid.

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.

Got that?

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.

Audience: Yeah.

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, now get that picture you had of something. Now stamp on it. Is it as solid as the floor?

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.

Audience: Yes. No.

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.

All right, maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but there's a difference, isn't there?

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

Audience: Yes.

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.

Now, the other fellow's universe may or may not be solid, but certainly there is something very comforting and reassuring about this floor. Would you tell me why it is that an individual gets sick to the degree that he cannot tolerate a physical universe solid such as that pillar? And why does he get well when you tell him he can have the pillar or to look around and find things he can have? In other words, when you increase his physical universe possession, he observably gets well. This is therapy.

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.

Doctors dramatize this. They can't let people have too much, so they take little grains of barbiturates or something and they take little grains of the physical universe and little granules of the physical universe and little capsules of the physical universe and ... And they think it'll make some-body well.

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."

Well, I told you that we Scientologists are always thinking big. We don't know how to think small and the theory is that if you can ... and make somebody well, well let's get him to take a building.

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

The question is: Does it work? Does it work? All right, you tell me, Scientologists, does it work to increase somebody's havingness?

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.

Audience: Yes!

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!

Ah, what the devil do you suppose does that? Is it actually true that this stuff that these floors and ceilings and walls are made out of are therapeutic in some fashion? Is it actually true that they are?

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!"

Audience: Yes.

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?"

Yes, well that's a peculiar thing. What's the matter with a preclear? What is the matter with a preclear?

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!

Male voice: He can't have any planets.

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

That's right, he can't have it. And up here we have "Know" and then of course, we have "Not Know," "Emotion," "Effort" and "Solids," but we'll put "Solids" here. And under "Solids" we have "Think." Down here we have "Mystery." As an individual decreases in mental capability and ability he goes down this scale — "Eat," "Sex," "Mystery" — whatever it is. He gets stuck on some part of this scale.

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.

Actually, if he were at the top of the scale and he could really think a thought, in other words, postulate a thought, he would be able to do some-thing quite interesting. He would be able to make that thought felt on anything else in this scale of Know to Mystery.

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.

In other words, here he's thinking about something; up here he thinks at something. This is the difference between a pocket adding machine and a lightning bolt! This thing called "Solids" in a game condition is of course a barrier, or it's a missile. And when an individual can't tolerate a solid, he can't have a playing field and if he can't have a playing field, he can't have a game. And that's all you can say about it.

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.

An individual who could think a direct thought, cause — a direct thought, by the way, is quite interesting — a direct thought is exactly a communication. It is cause-distance-effect. Cause-distance-effect. He thinks a thought — boom! Now, if he is very aberrated indeed he can only think thoughts that cause horrible results. It isn't necessary to think that kind of a thought unless you are hard to convince that you have achieved an effect.

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."

These individuals who work so hard to achieve an effect actually are not achieving one or they simply can achieve a bad one. A nation which can only kill another nation on a battlefield is already so disabled that it can't really tolerate a game; it can't think a nice direct thought, and your cause-distanceeffect is, however, possible only up here.

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."

Now, did you ever read a book written by a professor? I mean one of these real lovely articles that say, "This is the story about — this is the tale of ice ages. This is the cause and so on of ice ages. The ice ages begun, it is said according to Professor Wumph, at a certain period of time which by an analysis of the fossilized remains by the archaeology department of the University of Michigan did seem to occur. However, this is contested by Professor Spath."

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

You know, I well remember the first time — the first time I ever ran up against this phenomena, because it's phenomenal, believe me. I got into a state of mind — I wanted to write a story about the ice ages back in the good old days, so I, of course, went and got the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I opened it up and it says, "Ice Ages." So I read and that was what I read: "According to the fossilized remains of Professor Spath," why, and so on and so on and so on. And I read, read, getting groggier and groggier. I couldn't find in there anywhere where the ice ages had been caused by anything! Evidently as far as I could discover about these ice ages is they were being discussed. There was no description of when the ice ages began, why they began, what happened, no direct statement of any kind. But, boy, was there a lot of discussion! That subject of the ice ages was so thoroughly discussed that I was disgusted. In fact, I almost became allergic to ice ages.

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!

Needless to say I wrote the story about tropical times.

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, look at the difference — the fellow who writes about something and the fellow who writes something. Get the difference?

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.

Now there is nothing wrong with writing something about something or discussing something — there is nothing wrong with this at all. It's a common pastime. It's perfectly okay, but don't seriously pass it off as the thing. In other words, because we write about something we are not writing the thing, you see that?

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.

Male voice: Yeah.

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?"

It should be very clear.

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.

A handbook on how to start and maintain diesel engines has great value. If you read it, you know how to run, handle and use diesel engines. Another book which gives types of diesel engines and their inventions and that sort of thing is actually equally interesting. There is nothing wrong with it. A fellow who is in good shape should be able to write all over the Tone Scale. But, how about the fellow who writes a book entitled How to Start, Handle and Maintain Diesel Engines and then starts it out this way, "The first diesel engine was evidently discovered or invented — whereas there is some question about this — by a Swedish individual who — however, in his own writings credited his idea to the Italians."

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?

Chapter Two: "Diesel engines are said to be very difficult to maintain at times, but other authorities claim they are very easy to run."

Audience: Yes. Sure!

Chapter Three: "In maintaining diesel engines there are many books available ..."

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!"

You see, he's written a book here that pretends to be here. Get the difference? In other words, the difference is that of honesty. If you write a book about something and say it's about that something, all right. But if you write a book about something and say it is the thing, you are being very dishonest.

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.

There is a subject called — I forget its name — just a minute, it's phrenology. Phrenology. It's taught in most universities. No, it's not its name. "Psychic phenomena," I think it's called. It's taught in most universities anyway. I have forgotten — it used to be taught and it says that it is this book on the subject of the mind, when it is this book on the subject of the mind. You got the difference?

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?

Male voice: Yeah.

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.

That's a singular difference, isn't it? Because this book will never do anything else but shy away from solids. This material will never think or pose a causative thought. It's perfectly all right to write about things if you're writing about things and it's really necessary and interesting to have books about things.

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."

You ever read a book about stamps? Well, it's perfectly legitimate to have a book about stamps; they're a lot of fun. A book about paintings, a book about this, a book about that — perfectly all right. But a book which discussed paintings from Rembrandt backwards or something of the sort, but had a title — all it did was discuss paintings and say what museums they were in and how much they cost people — and title itself, How to Paint and Become a Famous Painter, is a fraud. It's a complete fraud, see?

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

So, we have to differentiate between the professorial figure-figure material which pretends to be the subject and actually this. You see that? Well, it's all very well to look over that and run down those good people who actually are making a living. I wonder if they sometimes don't go on an interesting motto.

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.

Anyway, an interesting book can be written on any subject under the sun — about it. But if the book pretends to be it, what use is it? What use is a universe which is only about another universe? What is it? What use is a book that is only about things except as a matter of passing interest? It's not a causative book, is it? What use really is a universe which is only about another universe? It's a sort of a discussion. What most people call their own universes are a discussion of the physical universe. And that which you have been calling and which I call "own universe" is only a false universe picture gallery of the physical universe.

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.

I told you I didn't have anything very important to talk to you about. All I am describing is the actual anatomy of the reactive mind and that's dead so long that it's hardly any use at all.

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.

So, do you have your own universe? Is there a universe that you can call your own universe? Is there one? Hm? Is there one, really?

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.

Audience: Yes.

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

What is it?

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."

Audience: This one.

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."

Huh, you're right. That's your universe. Well, why do you think that you don't have a total ownership on the thing? That's because in the process of games, people disenfranchise people gradually, a little bit. They say, "You can't play this game. You can't come close to it." They say, "You have to have a deed before you can walk on this property." Get the barriers? "You have to pay a certain sum of money with the Recorder of Motor Vehicles before you can drive this car." You got the idea?

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

Well, it changes our thinking considerably on this whole subject. This universe — physical universe was evidently actually built by us. We built it. And then after a while we mocked up things that we couldn't stop often enough and we decided not to create that solidly anymore, and we stopped mocking things up that solidly. We stopped putting things together with that much glue and we said, "You know, we get in trouble mocking this stuff up and never unmocking it." Or "We sold ourselves and other people sold us a bill of goods and they told us we had to get out of the universe somewhat." And a fellow draws back at last and he only keeps pictures of the physical universe and he said that's his own universe.

"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!"

Why can't you or don't you mock up a better floor, a better car, a better house? Why? When a bullet comes at you that's traveling mighty fast and you can't stop the bullet, why don't you mock up a piece of armor plate in front of you? You know, these bodies don't stop bullets well. There have been many clinical tests made on the subject. Well, why don't you mock up an armor shield to have the bullet go clang against it?

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?

It's because you began to be intolerant of solids. That's the answer. You said, "There are enough barriers around already. I won't be guilty of mocking up another one." Here's this huge universe, huge, with a handful of planets in it and a few suns, and we decided there was already enough walls. There were already enough walls. We didn't need any more. Let's not be quite so solid in our mock-ups.

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!

We ourselves as thetans are not solid. We therefore begin to find fault with solids because we cannot completely duplicate a solid, and a solid never duplicates us and so the communication formula is violated.

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

And a communication formula has this interesting fact connected with it. Here we have at cause a certain idea or entity. At effect, a perfect communication would have the same duplicate or entity, don't you see? Supposing at cause we had a small pebble; at effect we would still have to have a small pebble. When we have effect — small pebble — we would have a small pebble back here at cause. In other words, for cause to hit with a pebble, it is really necessary for cause to be able to tolerate a pebble back. Therefore, we get that thing called, "Love thy neighbor. If thou does not smote the other cheek thou shalt be in violation of Covenant 83" or whatever it is. I'm not quite sure what the quotation is. You possibly could help me out.

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, we have this situation here. We've got a problem in cause and effect. A thetan looks at a solid. Here's this board here — it's solid. I am back up here about three feet of my head — I look at that board, see the board real well. I sort of have a feeling like I ought to be a board. If I'm unwilling to be a board I don't see the board very well at all. You get what the problem is? Well, as an individual is disabused of the idea that he should mock up things, that he does own this universe — as he gets disabused of this idea, he is less and less willing to perceive it. And in view of the fact that if he doesn't mock it up all the time it isn't there as soon as he falls down on the job and stops mocking it up that solidly, he starts to have trouble with it!

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.

Now, let's get the idea of a great big ice cube here — great big ice cube and we look at this ice cube and we realize that it's going to melt. If we don't put more ice cube there, we're not going to have any ice cube. Is that right?

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?

Audience: Yes.

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.

It's inevitable.

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!

Well, what's the difference between that ice cube and that pillar? There is no essential difference except the ice cube leaves some water when it disappears, and the pillar leaves a headache.

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?"

When you become the total effect of the physical universe, you believe it is no longer your universe. You can still see it because misownership is at work, but you don't mock it up anymore, you don't assist it to appear, you don't keep time going clickity-clack, all because of what? Because you don't want to look at solids anymore. You think that solids are something you want to avoid here. You want to stay below it.

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

Let's think about walls, let's don't mock them up. It's very funny — we've had this for a long time, "Look, don't think." Got a car, it isn't running. You take it into a garage mechanic who is in terrible condition — the garage mechanic is. You run the car in the garage and he says, "Well, let's see, what could be wrong with that car?" Drive on, find another garage. When you get back the wheels will be off of it, 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.

But you drive into a garage, drive your car in — something wrong with it — mechanic doesn't start arranging with you about the bill or anything. He-up with the hood . . . It's quite remarkable. Why? As one becomes allergic to solid masses, walls, books, brooks, pebbles, kings, cats and coal heavers, he stops looking at them. Some part of him is still mocking them up sort of back over here, you know. "I'm scared of that thing." See? But he can't remedy anything about them.

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.

In order to solve a problem it is necessary to confront the solids connected with the problem. If you can confront the solids connected with the problem, you can solve the problem. We explain this in many ways.

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.

A fellow is mad at us; he's going yap-yap-yap-yap, chop-chop-chop. We say, "I'd better not go over there and talk to him, he's mad. Better stay away from that." I believe Scientologists know better now. They have rationalizations and explanations for it. That fellow is over there chop-chop-chop and he's saying, "Hiya, Joe! What's wrong? Is something wrong?" Joe ... You see, confronts the solid.

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.

Now, it isn't true that thetans are solid. They're not — they're not solid. I was talking to a thetan one day and he said something. He was using American slang or something and he said, "That's solid, Jackson."

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?

I said, "What?"

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.

He said, "That idea."

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.

I says, "Is it? I can't see it."

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.

"Oh," he says, "you're just being a purist." He says, "You belong down here in Hubbard's symbols."

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.

But as we put this universe back together again, as we're willing to put this universe back together again, we can handle it, we can control it. There isn't anything in it which can stand before us and if we can handle it and control it, we can also make it disappear.

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.

There is a process that rides right up here just below Know, which is Not Know. Auditors have a lot of fun with this process. They take a preclear out — it's very, very hard to train an auditor to run the process who himself has not experienced the phenomena. Very hard.

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.

I've thought of several examples. Takes a preclear out and you audit him. "Well, all right look around here. Tell me if there's anything you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that wall, about that person, about this, about that." Person — "Well, I wouldn't mind not-knowing that curtains were hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing that Declaration of Human Rights is hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing it had a light hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing this. Wouldn't mind not-knowing that," so forth.

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 goes along — auditor is perfectly happy — nothing is happening. "All right, now, tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that person over there."

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

"Well, wouldn't mind not-knowing her head, wouldn't mind not-knowing her shoes, wouldn't mind not-knowing her dress."

"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?

The auditor says, "Okay, that's enough. Tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that girl over there."

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

Preclear says, "Well, I wouldn't mind not-knowing her hat. Hey!"

"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."

The auditor says, "What's the matter? What's the matter? Something happen? Get a somatic?"

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

Preclear says, "I did!"

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!

And the auditor says, "You did what?"

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."

"I not-knew her hat!"

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.

Auditor says, "You did? What do you mean?"

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.

"Well, her hat disappeared."

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.

"It did? How did that happen?" Auditor spends the next two hours trying to find out what occurred.

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?

I was being audited on this subjectively one time by an auditor whose name I won't mention. And I really won't mention it because of the Code of a Scientologist, but I ought to.

Audience: Yes.

He was giving me a quick assist. He walked into the office and I'd just got through talking to a couple of preclears. I wasn't auditing them; I didn't have a chance to. They came in the office, they were screaming at each other. They were both in training and they had gotten into an argument during an auditing session over some breach of the Auditor's Code. And they were in the contention that they were both — they were both auditors.

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.

And I had just finished a couple of lectures — or anything like that — and they were so mad at each other. I was sitting there listening to this. I finally settled it; I said, "You guys, you think you are both auditors. As far as I can see you are both preclears. Go on back and find some more about it." So they did.

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.

This other auditor walked in the office immediately afterwards and says, "What's the matter with you?"

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.

I was sitting there at the desk, "Oh, no," you know. And I says, "This is just too much."

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?

And he says, quickly, brightly, you know — coffee shop auditing — he says to me, "What wouldn't you mind not-knowing about what just happened?"

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.

And I says, "Oh, I don't know, that they were standing there. Hey, what do you know, ha, I did not — wait a minute. What was I supposed to not-know? I've not-known it."

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 looks at me and he says, "The two students that were just in your office!"

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.

So, at the next meeting of the board we yanked his thetan.

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.

Anyway, you can actually not-know this stuff. Well, that's one action — it disappears for you. In other words, you remove your participation from it. This is an absolute phenomenon. There's another phenomenon which is of a higher level; that is merely the first stage of it. You actually can not-know such a thing as a pillar, so thoroughly, evidently, that nobody could see it. Something like this could occur. But certainly an individual can not-know it himself personally.

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?

Now, you want to turn on mock-ups with some pc, all you have to tell him is, "Decide to put a beautiful mock-up on that wall. Now decide that if you did it, it would spoil the game and don't do it." And he makes these decisions in order and you just keep telling him just those same phrases. "Decide to put a mock-up on the wall — a beautiful picture. Now decide that it would spoil the game if you did it and don't do it." And he does this and he does this. He does this a dozen times and all of a sudden this fellow that has never had mock-ups suddenly has a 3D, full color, full visio, full smellio mock-up.

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.

Evidently we keep thinking that this sort of thing would spoil the game.

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.

Now, why can't you mock up a body right there, you see, that everybody can see? Why can't you do that? It isn't lack of talent. It's evidently merely aberration. An "aberration" is simply falling back from your fullest capabilities. You can run this one, you can say, "Now decide to mock a mock-up there that everybody can see. Now decide that if you did that it would spoil the game and don't do it." You just keep running this drill, running this drill, running this drill. All of a sudden he says, "Oh, no, you don't."

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?

You say, "What's the matter?"

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.

"Look, if I put that there, if I started mocking up mock-ups it would spoil the game. It would. I could mock up dollar bills that would pass. I could mock up banks, trucks, cops, armies, anything. There wouldn't be any game; it's a no-game condition. You would be able to mock up everything."

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?

Well, I left him in that because it was in session. But a couple of days later I was having lunch with him and he went over this routine. And I said, "Did you — it ever occur to you that if I drilled on it too, it wouldn't be a no-game condition?"

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.

"No," he says, "you're a friend of mine, I wouldn't go into contest with you." Well, evidently we are restrained for fear of spoiling the game one way or the other, for fear of as-ising the universe and so forth. But we get to a point where we are not aware of what we are doing, we hide it too carefully, we hide it too thoroughly and the next thing we know we can't do it. About then we become human. And a long time too late we send for an auditor.

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.

But I will tell you what importance this little theory of universes has. And it's very important. In February of this last year I made myself quite ill. I was trying to resolve atomic fission, body reaction to, doing quite a few experiments on this line. Some understanding of why I was not in the United States will come to you when you realize that actually you're not supposed to do experiments with fission in the United States. There are some people down here that frown at it. I've written a series of letters asking whether or not one could indulge in experiments in atomic fission in the United States these days, and the government has answered them very promptly, but each time has said that I ought to go contact some nonclassified, nonsecurity university group someplace. I don't know what the university group has got to do with it. I was talking about practical research, and actually there is no answer. They say, "Well, maybe you can and maybe you can't, and is it — it's against the law, but maybe it isn't against the law," and they are quite confused about it. But there's nothing about atomic fission in Ireland, I assure you.

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.

Well, anyway we were doing some experiments along in this line, and it was obvious that the best way to keep an atomic war from doing anything interesting to the country such as denude it of its population — which is, of course, I realize not as full an effect as a usual nuclear physicist would like to have a country have — I realize it's below his acceptance level, but it's the best he could do. You know, you've got to make allowances. He's a scientist, he has his drawbacks and his level of acceptance is — well, they're trying to figure it out now, so, they suffer for six or eight months before they finally kick off. But there are some humane generals around by the way who object to this. They say that it ought to kill everybody instantly. They have a much higher level of acceptance.

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.

Anyway, I'm being very snide, but I don't think that the atomic efforts which are being made actually merit anything but very snide remarks. I don't know if you agree with me or not, but that's the way I look at it.

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?

Well, I was trying to do what I could in order to discover whether or not auditing could actually proof a body up against atomic fission. In other words, could you audit somebody in such a way that when they were hit with gamma and the rest of it, they would not be badly burned or affected. Could you do this?

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?"

Ha, I learned it the hard way. I do not think it can be done. It is a total failure. That project dead-ended in February. And when I got well sometime in March I had to postulate a new line of research on the same subject. And I said, well, the silliest line of research, the reductio ad absurdum that would end all absurdities everywhere would be to solve atomic fission this way: All you do is fix a preclear up so that if he loses a body he could mock up one. And mock it up with a postulate that atomic energy doesn't affect it. See? Somebody drops a bomb on you, you mock up another mock-up, move over here and say, "Well, hello, Joe."

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

Well, life, when I am doing research, may not be sensible but it's always interesting. Well, that was — that was the one solution I put down. That was one way to go about it, one direction for research to take; and I wrote down five or six more, but five or six more, they just were nothing. I looked over the situation. If you cannot fix up a civilization so that it will dispose of its man-killing weapons, then the next step would be to fix up the civilization so that it would be defended against such things. But if you can't do that and both of these things have failed, then the next best thing to do would be to fix up its population and the food supply so that it wasn't too allergic to atomic radiation. And if you couldn't do that, let's at least cure some of the burns which have occurred. Well, we can do that; we're on safe ground there.

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

People who would probably die within twenty days, something like that, could probably be saved rather uniformly with some good auditing. We do have the only known cure for atomic fission.

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

Well, it may be the only cure but it's not good enough; it's not good enough. Too many people go up in smoke when these bombs hit. There aren't enough auditors around to patch them all up right at once, so it's not very good unless we got on an all-out program and squared it around. It's almost easier to go out on a program which actually takes care of the bomb itself, which insists on international control in a sensible wise, and straightens out this mad tangle. Nevertheless, it's a very good thing to have a cure.

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."

All right, we are — a book*[Editor's Note: The book discussed here was subsequently published in 1957 and is entitled All About Radiation.] is in composition right at this moment, by the way, which informs the public as to the exact status of atomic radiation warfare and burns and situations — a factual book which is not any flight of fancy. It's merely a fast rundown on what it is and what could be done for it — a practical book, not something by, you know, "It is said that there's atomic radiation, and molecules and atoms and they all wiggle ..." Something ...

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.

What this book takes up is — for about three-quarters of its length — is simply the cause and prevention of radiation difficulties. And the last third of the book, or a little less, takes up how you solve the serious — or less serious burns with Scientology processes. This book is in composition at this time and probably will be written — completely written in a few months, since my part of it has to be written after the other part is finished. It's a composite of practically all of the books on radiation that have been written, but more importantly it's a composite of armed forces courses on the subject of the prevention of radiation. But that book will be out in a few months and we'll at least have this little bit and piece in the bookstores for people to read, because there is nothing else for them there on the subject.

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.

The US Government Civil Defense Program says the first thing you have to know about civil defense: "That in the event of an attack by enemy atomic bombs, you're on your own. There's nobody going to help you." That's right.

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?

That's the first paragraph of their book — you think I'm joking. "Nobody is going to help you. You're on your own." In other words, the country is gone the moment an A-bomb goes boom. That is as far as I can figure out. That may not be their program but I have been given to understand that it is, by their own literature. They should write their literature a little bit better.

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.

Well, this book — this book will be of interest to you because it will attract attention to you. People will be very happy to have about — to have some solution about this but that still was not a line of research, was it? And I was left in this horrible state — I was left in a horrible state. Something terrible! I was left with the only direction of search being you mock up a body — "Hiya, Joe." You know. Somebody burns down your mock-up — you'll have to be able to mock one up yourself. It's the only direction of research there was so I followed it — silly thing to do. And since March have wrapped up the subject.

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.

Thank you.

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..."

So you see, it wasn't as silly as it sounded, but it led one into some other conclusions which were quite evident — that an individual, as he becomes incapable — as he becomes incapable of mocking up pillars, floors and walls, falls out of the game. He thinks about it, he doesn't do anything about it and he doesn't play it.

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.

It became obvious that there were three universes: the other fellow's universe that he could mock up in addition to the physical universe if he were Clear, the physical universe that you and he mocked up and the universe that you could mock up if you were Clear. So, there is such a thing as your own universe, and it's very solid, but we haven't seen any yet. Now, that's quite important.

I hope you fellows like the climate.

We mistake the reactive mind for our own universe. You see how that would be? Because it has pictures, because it has barriers, we say, "Well, that's my universe and the other fellow's reactive mind is his universe, and mock-ups, mock-ups, and then there is this big solid thing called the MEST universe." No, reactive mind, MEST universe, reactive mind is the way it is at this time, but it could be home universe, physical universe, the other fellow's home universe. Do you see how that could be?

Thank you.

Well, that's highly theoretical — that's almost Alice-in-Wonderlandish, a book we have become acquainted with lately. And these universes are possible.

But a thetan makes a reactive mind solid and comes into control of it. Or he becomes causative in making pillars and walls and houses solid and gets in control of them. And the road up evidently is simply to become better at it. We have the processes; you just have to become better at it. That's all. What's that take?

It takes a little practice and a few wins, a little reassurance. That's all. It's evidently a solved problem — requires to be placed into effect, however — with what disasters we don't know.

I can expect sometime in the future legislation that reads like this, "Scientologists will refrain from mocking up barriers across city traffic during rush hours." "A thetan who is married must not mock up more than one body every twenty years." "People who like pets must keep all the pets in their yard that they mock up." "Completely mocked-up fingerprint and identification cards are not acceptable at FBI." "Mocked-up money will be accepted only to the sum of 10 dollars only, when detected." "On anything mocked up, a 3 percent of current value tax will be assessed." Well, it wouldn't be a brave new world; it would be an awfully complicated one, but by golly it's in the direction of more game.

Well, that's this story of universes. It's something quite valuable. A person becomes a victim of a reactive mind or mental image pictures or engrams merely to the degree that he cannot tolerate their solids. He doesn't become a victim of their thought — he becomes a victim of their thought only when he cannot stand their solids. Do you see that? So if you make them solid the thoughts come off of them. You don't run the thought out of them, you run the solid into them.

When you can take an engram and throw it up against the wall contemptuously and have it go clank, your reactive bank won't bother you. Well, this is a new way of making a Clear. We used to have a — in the navy ... "Oh, God," somebody says, "he's going to get off into that." No, no, we're not going to get off on the navy. We used to have a signal system and there were code words that carried the communications through. There was "Roger," oh, I don't know "30s" and "73s" — there were all kinds of signals and symbols, and so forth, but they were kind of long and complicated. And I got so that when-ever I would sign off from other ships in my squadron, why, I would say, "Roger, wilco, over, under and out." The other boys started picking this up. We kept hearing, "Roger, wilco, over, under and out," as the final communication. That was, of course, a complete stop. That was a complete period. You shut off the set then and removed the tubes — full stop!

Well, I don't know why it is but some people have time tracks that run this way and some people that — have time tracks that run this way. And I have met a few nuts that went down this way. But we have been referring to this "Before and After Solids," are run on the engram bank as Over and Under, as a slang phrase, because obviously an indiv — most individuals you run on it have the sensation of diving from something when they get an earlier one, and sort of pulling back on the throttle and the stick at the same time when they get a later one. It's quite interesting, but you can take an engram bank and you can straighten it out and you can get it solid. It is a level of entrance of the preclear, because the solidity of the facsimile is probably more real to him than the solidity of the wall. A picture of the wall is more solid than the wall. Sounds incredible but it's true. He'd rather have a picture of it than the wall.

So, when he starts down scale he gets to a point where he sees pictures of walls with his physical eyes. He doesn't see walls, he sees pictures of walls. You start running a person on modern processes that hasn't been getting along well on processing, you can fully expect this to happen. The individual says, "Wait a minute."

You say, "What's the matter?"

He says, "The wall is rippling."

You say, "Yes, what's the matter?"

"Oh," he says, "it's moving!"

Did anybody have anything move today?

Male voice: No.

Well, it means that you had a — some kind of a picture of the thing inaddition to the thing or it was just all picture. You got the idea? And afteryou work at it for a while the preclear finds something very astonishing. Hedoesn't any longer see a picture of pillars or walls, he sees pillars or wallsand it's very upsetting to him for a while. That's right, very upsetting to him.Now, you can make an engram sufficiently solid — let us say it's anengram received on Brandywine in 17 — whatever it was. You can make that solid enough — if the preclear could hold it — that he sees himself fully and completely and utterly and only at the Battle of Brandywine — smoke, powder, flame and all — the British Redcoats lined up. Got the idea? In other words, he can construct a strata of time sufficiently solid that it fools him for a moment. He just goes all the way back into it, just boom! "What's this? What's this?" It's the Battle of Brandywine going on, of course! Yeah, but the Battle of Brandywine was 100 and Lord knows what — how many years ago. Or was it?

Well, if you say it was Lord knows how many years ago, you're saying, "You know, I can't bring that thing up fully solid. I can't make it now." You'll hear a preclear one of these days complaining bitterly, he is not in good shape. He can only get a thenness of the discovery of America. He's — feels rattled today, he feels upset, he can only get a thenness of the Spanish Inquisition. You know, he only gets pictures of the thing, he — you know, they're not very solid — it's not very convincing.

This sounds very peculiar but this is evidently an open sesame as to what the universe is about in relationship to time. We have many questions to ask. Do forms actually change? Is the Battle of Brandywine still in progress? Has the future been formed already and we are merely living toward it? Do you really mock up your own body or do you steal one? Terrific number of questions unanswered, but these are merely observational questions having to do with the anatomy of the physical universe, all of them more or less solvable. The trick is to get the procedures and the processes that solve them. We have those and that's what I meant when I said — I was very silly when I said, "The game of research is over." Now, the game of research might have been over, but that merely meant that the game was starting.

Well, you might say here we are at the beginning. Boy, if this is the beginning, what was that we've been through?

Well, the congress has begun by this time, hasn't it?

Audience: Yes!

All right. You're here, aren't you?

Audience: Yes.

All right, that's good.

You're in very, very good condition, you know .. .

Male voice: Sure.

... very fine condition. You're in sufficiently good condition that I have a feeling, I have a definite feeling, that tomorrow I'll really be able to pull out a good, beefy process. I have been going light on you. Trying to — what's the matter? Well, I have, I've been going light on you in order — so that — to let you catch up so that I wouldn't startle you or something of the sort.

But tomorrow after the first lecture — and I've got to look at that pro-gram again to see if there's anything . . . After that first lecture tomorrow, why, we'll be able to get in some processes that are effective. I've got you built up now to them.

There isn't really any more data to tell you about this congress and — given you most of it. There's hardly anything to take up. But somehow or other I think we'll manage to have a couple of more days. We'll get through them somehow. I hope that something will happen. Maybe you'll think of something that will be interesting.

So, thanks a lot for being here. Thanks a lot for listening. Good night.