Thank you.

We have — we have — now that we've put aside a few of these minor details, we have something that might be of interest to you.

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

We have some material — material concerning Scientology which is the difference between a workable process and an unworkable process. This material is just a little bit technical. I hope those of you who are not fully acquainted with earlier material in Scientology won't find this too abstruse.

Audience: Yes.

We will start in by saying at once that life is a game. What is life? Life is a game. "Yes, I know. But what are people doing?"

Thank you.

They're playing a game.

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

"Well, yeah but what kind of games are they playing?"

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

Well, they're playing games they know they're playing and games they don't know they're playing.

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

"Well, there must be more to life than that."

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

Yes there is, there's no games.

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

"Well, do you mean to tell me that there's only — only one item, then, do you — really concerned with games? That's impossible because there wouldn't be just one thing going on."

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

Well, it isn't just one thing. All life in its various involvements is involved in games. That's all there is to it.

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

It works out that way. It processes that way and the whole problem and difficulty solves that way. Do you see this? No matter what, and no matter how we try to analyze and reanalyze existence, there doesn't seem to be any method at this time which is better than calling it a game.

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

A game has many factors and these factors are all very nicely answered so that we have four types of games — that is four game conditions you might say. There is a game condition "knowing." A man knows he is playing a game and therefore he is living. A man thinks he is playing a game of living but is actually playing five or six other games he doesn't know he's playing. Well, that's an aberrated condition.

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

What is the aberration? The aberration is totally concerned with a unknowing game condition in which he is involved. If he doesn't know he's playing these games, why, then they are aberrative to him.

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

Well, how about no-game conditions? Well, actually no-game conditions are quite interesting since they are the stuff of which a thetan is made.

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

For many millennia man, able to write, has sought for truth. Able to write, able to talk, able to think, observe — he's sought for truth. Scientology might have been called at one time or another just another search for truth. It's a hideous thing to realize that man's search for truth was bound to failure. It could not have been possible for man to discover truth since the totality of the barriers which lie between him and truth consist of games, lies, difficulties, and unless he goes in a game condition, unless he goes into a condition of nonfactuality, he never arrives in a condition of truth.

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

It was almost more likely that some gambler, some drunken gambler on a Mississippi River steamboat, would have discovered more about living than a swami sitting on the highest mountain in the Himalayas. It was almost certain that such a condition would have benefited in its chances the gambler. Why? The gambler is in a game condition. Not because he plays games with cards — because he's living. He is in contact with life. He is living life and therefore he has to estimate the elements of life. And estimating the elements of life, he is then and there capable of coming up with some truth.

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

The road to truth, for a man who has been living, lies through lies. By examining and processing the lies that are told, he achieves truth. If he tries to achieve truth directly, he perishes on the road. And thus we've had a narrow squeak.

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

We were seeking for truth and if these factors had not been discovered, it is very, very likely that our search would have dead-ended since a man cannot handle truth alone and come up with answers to anything.

All right.

This is the most hideous little booby trap that was ever rigged. Life is a game. You have to address the games the man is playing and has played in order to restore him to a condition where he is able to sit serenely or play a game at will.

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

The road out led through the path of lies. Pilgrim's Progress is a terribly interesting thing. I've run it out of enough preclears. But they talk about the primrose path, and it goes this way and that way and winds up in thises and thatas and it's a — it's pretty tough, you know. It's a pretty tough path. So what you want to do is stay on that straight and narrow path, brother. That straight and narrow path that just goes on and on and on and is — fades into the far distance — straight and narrow. And that would be a method of dying slowly by inches or millennia.

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

The primrose path which you were supposed to avoid is the trouble with truth. This is for sure. One goes through the dark and thorny ground and over and under and around and above and below and he says, "Sooner or later, I'll come out on the highroad." Well, I'll tell you, it's a funny thing. He does, providing he's willing to walk the primrose path.

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

But if all he's interested in is just walking down that straight and narrow road, I wouldn't give you that for his chances of survival, for his ability or for anything else. In other words, the road to truth detoured through games, through aberrative conditions, through stress and strife; games is the common denominator of it. And those games contain freedom, barriers and purposes.

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

And the road back is the same road. And to sit with a nice turban on and contemplate your navel or whatever they do in the upper, snowy regions of India (pronounced Indjuh) might benefit other people whom you would not trouble but is not likely to do anything for you.

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

Life comes apart at the seams and is understood and restores itself to any condition you care to have, only so long as — only so long as it follows through games.

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

You haven't got much choice about it. We would love to say to somebody, "Be three feet back of your head. You're Clear." I hate to confess to you that there were numbers of processes that we had, that violated these conditions. They were no-game conditions.

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

We didn't have the information, so we can't say that we were right or wrong, but there were a number of them that violated these principles I'm talking to you about. In other words, a process which was a game condition process — you process straight at games — was workable and I don't care when that was. But a process which was not a games condition process, which was a no-game condition process, just dead-ended, thud!

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

Now, where you have a great deal of difficulty — where you have a great deal of difficulty with a case, where somebody's being aberrated, where some-body's doing something that is incomprehensible to you and the rest of the world and is damaging to those around him; it all seems to sum down to just this alone. And this is the one thing it summates to — he is in this sort of a condition: He's played a game; he was hurt while playing that game; the game itself is now a sort of an engram. He doesn't even know he's playing it and he is still playing that game.

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

The game itself is actually a no-game condition because it's lost and gone and back on the track, but it was a game. There was some sort of a game that he was playing at some time or another. Now he's forgotten he was playing that game and there he goes. You take an old football player — take an old football player. All right, he doesn't play football anymore. To some slight degree he still plays football, but that's not aberrative. His football was not aberrative. He could have been chewed up and walked over with, however they do it at Notre Dame with their cleats on guys' faces and chests. He could have just been stamped on. He could have lost his girl because he played football. He could have had his career ruined. He — I mean, you know, I mean you can just pile this on. You say, "Well, obviously, what's wrong with this man is he was playing football and he no longer has a game," and so forth. Boy, that would be about the shallowest look at it you ever saw. Why? He knows he was once a football player. So, at once it takes it out of the aberrative category.

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

Yes, he is suffering to some degree from a game condition but that is not what is wrong with the case. The unknown games condition — the games condition he does not know about — is the condition from which he is suffering. All aberration must contain the element of unknowingness. When it becomes known fully, it will no longer be aberrative, which makes people ransack their pasts. But there are many ways to make these things become known — very, very many ways to make these things become known.

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

We have processes today that do it much more rapidly than preclears like. The force and velocity of processes is of great interest to us today because their force and velocity and effectiveness depends entirely upon the rock foundation of games condition and no-games condition.

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

This isn't just something that I thought up. This is something that was gradually being borne in upon me, that there was a category here that was one thing and a category that was another thing, and these things didn't agree with each other, and there was something wrong here. We — I tried in vain really to discover fully why some processes worked and some didn't work. Some were limited processes. That is to say they'd only process, but maybe even very effectively, for two or three auditing commands or two or three hours or in the case of running engrams, probably maximally about five hundred hours. Those processes were all limited. They dead-ended somewhere. Why did they dead-end? And what were these other processes which were, you might call, unlimited processes?

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

Well, they were elements here for which there was no accounting. Now, I'll give you an example: We have a fellow who is having trouble with the fact that his mother has been rather mean to him. So we say something on the order of this, we say, "Look around the room and tell me something your mother can have." Now, we can say, "Look around the room and tell me some-thing you can have." And the fellow gets well. We tell him, "Look around the room and tell me something your mother can have," and he gets sick.

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

What is going on here? It's practically the same auditing command. Well, you say, "His self-determinism, or his basic greed or this and that, something else was being violated here." Yes, something else was being violated but I'm afraid it was nothing that you could brush off with a word like greed.

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

There was something going on; some great difficulty probably sufficiently complex as to make it escape attention entirely. Why wouldn't the auditing command run on Mother as well as the preclear? It just wouldn't though.

And he says, "All right."

Well, we say, "This is very easy. This is easy. Look around the room and tell me something your body can have," undoubtedly would work because most preclears are their bodies. So, we tell him "Look around and tell me something that you could have." It's just a process. "Look around the room and tell me something your body could have." We already know "you could have" works and makes him feel better; why not "body"? "Look around the room and tell me something your body could have" does not work. He runs it an hour or so, he's got a headache. Why? Now that is the goofiest little puzzle that I ever got mixed up with.

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

I won't give you a blow-by-blow account of the — of the oddities and the peculiarities which were fought through and the number of staff auditors which all but blew their brains out auditing little slips of paper which would be passed to them on preclears, you know. They'd audit something on a pre-clear and they'd say, "Well, Ron says this was a good process so, heh, go ahead." And all of a sudden the preclear goes . . . They say so and Ron checks off another one. Ptock!

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

Some long time ago I made up a list of about five hundred different reasons why. They were the reasons why life was living. What was it living about or for? There were five hundred possible motives, more or less. Life was being lived on the basis that one — give you sort of an idea, what is the motive of life — so that one could love one's neighbor. That's why. Dzzzzt! You audit this on a person, they go tzzrrruuuu boom.

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

All right, so we had all these various types of things. You see, philosophers, from the beginning of time practically have been saying, "Why, it's allwhyness," and Skip-skop Schopenhauer, a German that had more bad temperthan good grammar ... He — pardon me — Schopenhauer does write impeccably good grammar. The only trouble is you can't understand it even inGerman. A sample of Schopenhauerian wit is "Stubbornness is the state ofthe will taking the place of the intellect." It's nicely involved, isn't it? Itdoesn't go anyplace. Well, anyway, he said that, "Life was living in order todie." Oh, so I put that down on the list, too, you know. "Life was living inorder to die." All this sort of thing about death wish. The only thing youcould really do about life was really get even with it and just kill everything.Well, such things as this, scraps and bits and pieces from the Greek, theGerman, from the various barbaric philosophies and so on that one runs across; put all these things down and almost accidentally, along about 205, why I remember they use — people used to say all the time that writing was a game and business was a game and this was a game, so I put down "life is a game." And went on, you know, happily on down the rest of the list, putting down very deep philosophic things, you see, that had good substance and solidity and had been respected for generations.

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

And then I went back and started this, tested this one, tested this one precomputation, you see; all possible types of reasons why. I got down and almost, oh, about a 150 down the line, I found games again before I came across it on the list.

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

"Can-have" on self works. "Can't-have" on body does work. You see, "can-have" on body doesn't work. "Can-have" on Mother doesn't. Why? Because everybody alive is engaged with playing a game and is capable, particularly as he falls down through the dynamics, of taking on any item as an opponent and he is very, very scarce on opponents. And to let your opponent have some-thing is defeat. And this works out so fantastically. You just put a preclear in the chair and you smile like a crocodile, you know, on the Nile and you say — you say to him very, very cheerfully and very happily, you say, "All right now, look around the room and find something that your mother can have." Just keep it up and obviously it's a generous, good, self-sacrificing impulse that no child should be without. And your preclear goes "Duuuuhhhh, duuuuhhhh, duuuuhhhh," and finally says, "You know, something is wrong with my head." And you say, "Well, that's all right. Just look around the room and tell me something else that Mother could have." And he eventually just sort of drops out the bottom and you sweep him over to one side and make another experiment. Anyhow .. .

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

What — what on earth though, if this were a game condition, then there would be only one command that would run about Mother as far as Havingness is concerned.

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

We'll take up Havingness in a little while. I'll give you just a fast pass at it. You know that yesterday I told you about solids lie below effort. Well, that's Havingness. Anyhow, tolerance of solids is first approached by this process called "What can he have."

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

Now, we take this next person and we process this ungenerous, mean, vicious thing that nobody would subscribe to, particularly parents. And we start running this fellow on "Now, look around the room and tell me some-thing your mother can't have."

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

"She can't have? She can have everything." No-no-no.

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

And it just runs by the hour and he gets better, and he gets better, and he gets better and better. But it sounds so outrageous that only somebody as monomanic as myself on finding the end of track on Scientology would ever have let it be run that many hours because obviously it's not right. It isn't. Goes against the Ten Commandments, the Bureau of Ordinance, even goes against the apparency of the case that every time you really ask that: "What could your mother have?" You walk up to somebody on the street and say, "What could your mother have?" He'd say, "Oh, I would buy her the world if I could."

"Well ..."

See, people don't even — people — people don't even cognite on this one. Now, another funny thing — if you ask an individual what a jail could have. Ask him "What can a jail have?"

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

Did you ever run into anything quite so greedy? And a preclear will tell you at once, "A jail can have anything. Everything! You, him, us, we, every-body. Yes! It can have that pillar and that clock and that ceiling and the roof and so forth." He can't find enough things that a jail can have.

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

And we say, "Now, look-a-here, look-a-here. We obviously had an aberration there, and it was that the jail could have things and if we simply fill up the jail vacuum . . ." See the reasoning that is all wrong? "If we just fill up the jail vacuum, he'll get over being afraid of jails."

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

Ah, another phenomenon occurs that escaped all of us. And I'll show you what was fouling up our research from beginning to end as well as games. Did you ever hear of this small matter of a below zero Tone Scale? Audience: Yes.

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

Did you ever hear of that? Boy, I tell you, I looked back at myself with absolute awe here the other day. I said, "You know, that's three years old?" I said, "Gee, boy," I said, "are you bright. Think of that. Three years ago you wrote this thing." And I said, "You dumb (blank). Why didn't you ever use it?" That's the question "Why didn't we ever really use it?" We had it right there. We've had it for years. And it tells us something that we even knew in 1950. We used to say, "You know arthritis, you can always process the fellow into apathy so he'll lose his arthritis." You know, we know that's the case.

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

Well, what's this below zero thing? Preclears on at least one or more items are below apathy and have to be processed like mad before they ever get into apathy. And the processes which were being functional were bringing preclears up to apathy and I thought it was driving them down to apathy.

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

I'm afraid that my first reaction of "Gee, Ronnie, you're smart," has never been able to counteract the feeling of stupidness which I've had since. Whew!

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

I'll give you — I'll give you the pat example that sets this. How could anyone guess that on one or more subjects anybody would be so far below apathy that he didn't even know he was in trouble. And he could process in that band and evidently feel all right and feel better about it and never get over it. Most fabulous thing you ever saw.

And he says, "Yes. Yes."

And that some cases across the boards were below apathy — body plus thetan. The body would have had to have gotten well to die.

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

Now, up here — up here we have our — our Tone Scale just as I was showing you yesterday. It contains know, not-know, on down the line. Perceive, emote, all the various categories of emotions in their proper light, and then effort and then solids and then think and then on down through symbols, eat, sex and mystery. Well, we could get all the way down there. Where are these things called think and mystery? Where are these things? Well, I'm afraid — I'm afraid that they're down here at 0.0 and that's mystery. And then we go south.

See? See what a bridge is?

The preclear's problem is clear down there, so far below zero, it's in a band where he cannot think about it particularly. But he can think about it, but it doesn't worry him, but there's no emotional content to it but it's all right; he doesn't care, it doesn't make any difference to him, it isn't worrying him a bit. And you process him on it for about three hours and he all of a sudden says, "I feel like I'm dying." And you say — obviously, under old research, we would have said, "You know this process isn't working. This process isn't working because he's getting worse." And that was not right because we processed him another three hours on the same problem and he came right up the Tone Scale. He got to a point of where he could be apathetic about his problem. And from being apathetic, he could move up and he'd cry about it and he'd be afraid of it and he'd be angry about it and antagonistic and bored and then he'd be enthusiastic about having such a lovely problem.

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

We used to think, you see, that your preclear went down scale when we processed the wrong process on him. Because he would start to feel some-thing. We'd run a process for a little while and he'd feel bad. And we'd say, "Well, that's not a good process; it doesn't make the preclear any better at all."

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

And this was the observational factor which was messing up our test processes. It's unthinkable that somebody could be processed for a couple, three hours on a very heavy biting process with no reaction at all before they reached apathy. But having reached apathy, be processed two or three more hours up scale gradually until they are over the hump on the problem and feel very, very good about the whole thing.

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

In other words, the processes that were really good processes were then disguised and hidden under the fact that when they were used on the difficulties the case was really having — when they were used for a little while — the case felt worse. I'll give you one. Let's take separateness. Do you know that separateness runs easily, runs well. People feel better with it. You don't even run into havingness problems particularly if you're a very gentle auditor. You say, "Look around the room and find something you wouldn't mind being separate from." And he gets to feeling a little bit better, and so forth, and it just processes on and on and on and on and then all of a sudden he gets jittery. He gets — you say it's a loss of havingness or — something is wrong.

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

But he is incapable, usually, on such a line of expressing any emotion for the excellent reason that he is below the tone in which he can feel. He can't feel, emote or react. He's below that tone in which he can actually experience.

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

That's a fantastic thing. So we run the other one. Now, the reason why this is important is we made a basic test and this was the deciding test as to whether or not a thetan was going into things or coming out. And the test went this way: "Look around and find something you wouldn't mind being connected with." And that run for about twenty minutes practically plows a guy in. He starts feeling bad; he doesn't want to have all these things happening to him. He gets upset; he is — he feels miserable. So, we said his ambition is to be separate.

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

Separateness is the truth. Connectedness is the lie. And you have to process the lie in order to reach the truth. And if you process connectedness, he gets to feeling worse and worse and worse and worse and we always thought feeling worse was going down scale. In this case, it's going up scale. And he keeps feeling worse and worse and finally gets to be apathetic about it.

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

We ran a preclear who had had no results on his case at all for about two or three years. He'd not been audited by anybody very significant or they probably would have done something to him. But he had never seen an engram, never done this or done that. And he finally was running a problem and — problem came up to apathy and he says, "I'm bored with it." And the next day he came back to the auditor and said, "You know, I've made a fantastic discovery. You know that apathy and boredom are different." And he says, "I wasn't being bored, I was being apathetic about it and that's what I've always mistaken for boredom."

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

Now there — there was a case that was functioning, evidently doing all right, and so on. But we had to know the games condition of it even to process that much. We had to know that. Connectedness. People are always getting into games. A game condition is to get into it. So you process "get into it." A no-game condition is "get out of it." So we don't process "get out of it." The only way he could get out of his old unknowing game condition would be for you as an auditor to shove him into it. And there's where we get "the way out is the way through." And that has always been true.

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

So, this thing untangles. Starts to make very, very interesting sense. And it becomes remarkably easy. Now, quite by accident, we had the exactly correct game condition formula.

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

A long time ago when we had our first rudimentary communication formula, it says, "Cause, distance, effect." Cause, distance, effect, with the preclear at cause. And that is the way you have to process. You have to get the preclear to do it and the preclear to create an effect. And that is the proper formula: cause, distance, effect.

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

With the preclear at effect, a process that's supposed to put him at effect is a process which will spin the preclear in, because it's a no-game condition. Did you ever see a dead man playing a game? Well, death's a no-game condition. Follow me?

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

Now, here in this Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, in the printed edition which was the Translator's Edition, we have in here at the back a partial list of game conditions. And these game conditions are, and I'll read them very rapidly: Attention. Now, part of attention is interest. Attention is a heavy button. Interest is a light button. These are all parts of games. You see, games are basically — basically freedom, barriers and purposes. That's basically a game. But none of those things process. Which was — what was remarkable to make this discovery of games — and at first, by the way, in research this would have knocked your brains out if you had been doing it; it's — was horrible — that although I knew it was games conditions, none of the elements I could isolate as a games condition worked on a preclear.

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

Games consist of freedom, purposes and barriers. Now, you tell a pre-clear to, "Mock up a wall so that you can't go through it. All right, that's fine. Mock up a wall so that you can't go through it." You know it's not a good process? "Figure out some way to restrict somebody else's freedom." It's not a good process? "Invent some purposes for life." It's not a good process?

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

And so if a game was what life was doing, why didn't its three basic elements process? Well, that's because a thetan is a tricky little fellow. He's tricky. He's much worse than that. He's devious. He only plays games that have specialized conditions. He's a snob. And you get these games conditions, then, arduously arrived at by just trial and error. Because once we had games condition — that wasn't enough because freedoms, purposes and barriers wasn't — it describes a game perfectly. And you can write things and talk to people and they'll agree with you, but they don't process.

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

So, games had to be all broken to pieces — just broken flat down into pieces in order to make the full conditions — all of the conditions — valid — that were valid processing conditions. And my golly, here was another list of about a thousand possible game conditions. And out of these, only these seemed to work in processing. There are undoubtably some others. I'm sure of it. But in a couple of months, I haven't been able to find any. I'm sure there are some others.

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

And these are the processable buttons, game conditions:

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

• Attention

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

"What?"

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

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

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

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

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

Say, "No. Nope. No."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can just add that into your notes. Control: start, change and stop. And it was actually Control, which has to be added to that list, that was the most significant of these buttons.

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

But regardless of all that, what on earth were we doing fooling around with somebody who had to do something or be processed in a direction which was something more than desperate. You have to process him in the direction of "How would you kill everybody?" "How would you stop everything from going?" "How would you knock off your mother?" "How would you cut your own throat?" in order to get any recovery, because his former action on these things so badly violated truth that he himself was unable to return to truth thereafter. You see that?

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

By entering an untruthful circumstance to the degree that your preclear has entered it on life's track, his recovery of truth lies through the eradication of the untruthful condition.

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

Now we get — we get no-game conditions and we get knowing all; being able to not-know everything; serenity. These are no-game conditions. I said it about — I think it was the 8th ACC, Phoenix — just the last one. You know, it's a funny thing, but everything that seems to be wrong with a thetan is a — is a — evidently some lower harmonic on what he is.

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

It's an odd fact. A thetan is motionless and dead bodies are motionless and therefore a dead body is a harmonic on a thetan. You see? And that's true, too. Listen to this list. These don't process. You just don't dare pay any attention to these at all. These take place if you process games conditions. "Serenity," "namelessness," "having no identity at all" — doesn't process. "No effect on opponent," "effect on self or team," "have everything," "can't have nothing," "solutions." If you ask a guy for a solution and solution and solution and solution and solution — a little mistake that was made on a Release at one time, he just spins right in.

We say, "Stop!"

You have to ask him for a problem and don't let him solve it, and a problem and don't let him solve it, and a problem — don't let him solve that one. And all of a sudden he says, "You know I can have a problem. I don't have to solve it."

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

Now, we get this thing called "pan-determinism" — doesn't process. Self-determinism process: "How could you be more of an individual than you are?" That processes like mad. "Invent some additional names for yourself." That processes. "Invent some more names for yourself." "Invent some more faces you could wear."

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

But, "Pan-determinism of being able to run both sides of it" doesn't work."Friendship for everybody" doesn't work. "Understanding everything and every‑body" doesn't work. "Total communication; being in communication with every‑thing." "No communication whatsoever; being in communication with nothing."Win and lose are no-game conditions. The dirtiest thing you can do tosome athlete — he's been in there fighting you know and he's getting all setand he wins the championship and they put him up or whatever they do to him and hang him up with belts and give him a cup, and so forth. And there he stands. You come along and process him. There he stands. But the funny part of it is, you can't process it. It's a win or a lose. He got knocked flat; he lost the championship and never boxed thereafter. There he lies on the canvas. You say, "Obviously, that is the engram to run on the case, obviously, now." Boy, you'd sure better leave that alone. Leave a win or a lose alone.

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

Having no universe whatsoever, having no playing field, arriving any-where and dying — these are all no-game conditions. Now, that's a fabulous state of affairs, isn't it. Those are all the things where the thetan should arrive. They're the things a thetan should be. An able man should be able to have and assume those things. Those are the truths of life. These are the precious jewels of life. Hah. You try to process them directly and he flips his lid, and hence the enigma.

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

Now, we're not talking about the enigma of Scientology. We're talking about the enigma of about fifty thousand years of figure-figure on this same subject. Why didn't anybody crack it? That was because this: Obviously, if a person was in good shape, he'd know an awful lot.

And the fellow says, "Okay."

Obviously if he's in good shape, he'd be able to forget or not-know anything — obviously. He'd be serene. He wouldn't have to have a name or fame or identity. He'd have to be willing to have no effect on anybody; let them do as they please. "God bless you, my son, go and sin some more."

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

It should be possible for him to have everything there is. He should be pan-determined about everything. It should be able — he should be able to solve things. Obviously these things should be able to take place. He should be able to be anybody's friend. He should be able to be — to understand any-thing. He should be able to communicate or not communicate. He should be able to take wins and loses. He should be able to have no universe or a universe. He should be able to have a playing field or no playing field. He certainly ought to be able to arrive. And he ought to be able to die comfortably — after all, it's pretty things, these funerals.

We say, "Stop."

Although Scientologists, I notice, are getting more and more perfunctory. They say, "My mother died this afternoon, would you like to come down to the funeral? Well, I know you're busy." Then they say, "That's besides the point," and then they tell you how she's got some mock-up picked out in Portugal. That's right. I mean it's real wild. They tell you some mock-up that they got — baby being born in Portugal tomorrow morning at eight o'clock so she died this afternoon.

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

You hear these wild things. I'm not — I'm not responsible for them. I mean, people just come around and tell you and they happen to be true. I'm not trying to put anything off on you.

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

Now, if you can't process any of these truths, then how could you ever attain them, since they are desirable. Because unless you can have some part of those truths, you can't enter games knowingly, willingly or play them well. Now, you take somebody who is really in a good, high level of truth in a no-game condition — if he's in a good level of truth, he should be able to turn around and play almost any game that he ever confronted. Any game — he ought to be able to think one up, play one, have a good time, enjoy it and knock it off when he wanted to knock it off. He should be able to do this. Very interesting, isn't it, that by processing him straight at that condition, of a no-game condition, he never arrives. You have to run out, you might say, the old games. You have to run him through games conditions.

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

All right, "Now, let's figure out a way where you could be a lying — a lying, thieving cheat. That's good, that's good. Oh, invent a better lying, thieving cheat." "Mock up an identity for yourself which would actually cope with it. Oh, get stronger, get bigger." Now, "How — how — how could you get to be taller than that?" "Invent a way to use more strength on your wife."

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

You see the — you see the type of process that you run? Well, now it's very odd that he runs this stuff, he gets straightened out and all of a sudden, "Gee, that's a funny thing. I feel — I feel much better. We've been doing all this and all of a sudden I feel . . . By the way I was going to go into business a couple of years ago and I just never got up to do it. I think I'll do it now, and I don't think I can finish the intensive, because I have an appointment with the fellow who was going to finance me." And swish! It's awfully hard to hold on to preclears. I told you this before, that they get into action. Now, why do they get into action? They come up so high and they're able to enter the game of life again and you don't get a chance, really, to process them all the way to zenith, unless you have an agreement that you are going to continue the intensive until you say "quit."

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

Now, what is wrong with a man? He's been playing a game. What's right with him? That he can recover. All games are aberrative.

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

You play a game — a game of marriage. You go out, you find a man. You tell him a whole bunch of stuff. You get married, you have a bad time, you fight, you separate, you get back together, and so on — zzz-www-boof — the game of marriage. And you patch it all up and that's good. And it works out or it doesn't work out, and so on. Somebody comes along and he wants to process out your marriage so that you'll feel better. Your remark would simply be, "You know, I know I've been married." Well, the actual fact is it couldn't possibly be aberrative. If you know you've done it, if you know you've been married, if you know you've played football, nothing can ensue. But when you come along and play football for years and then all of a sudden switch your identity and say, "I've never played football in my life," and you yourself don't remember ever having played football, and so on, boy, are you in for it. That's a tough one.

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

So as hard as it is for people to take, I hate to mention this thing called past lives — they've been outlawed! In the minute books of the — of the Hub-bard Dianetic Research Foundation, Elizabeth, New Jersey, you will see a motion discussed there to just make Ron shut up on this subject because it's unpopular. Well look, if it's so unpopular, somebody must have some kind of a resistance to it of some kind or another. I don't think anything aberrative happened to you during your whole current lifetime. Your mother beat you, fed you through a sausage grinder. Your father was mean to you. You were dropped on your head when you were one. You had fifteen AAs and you were boiled in oil and you were captured by the Japanese and shot regularly every morning. So what. See? You know all about it.

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

You can sit there — now, the auditor sits there and he says to a preclear, he says, "Well, now, let's see. What's happened to you?" Nuts! Why should we ask such a question? If he knew, it wouldn't be wrong. You get the colossal joke about the whole thing? If he knew, it wouldn't be wrong! And the funniest thing happens to a case when he's processed these days. He starts arguing with the auditor. They always do. They say, "But there's nothing on this! There's nothing on the subject of books!" You know, he's going, "Daaa," some kind or another. "There's nothing on books. I have never had any difficulty with books! I've never been hit with a book. As a matter of fact, don't even read when I'm sick."

You say, "Stop."

And the auditor somehow or another, by making him spot objects, has all of a sudden found that he couldn't spot a book. He said something outrageous like, "Well, I don't spot books because they're angry at me," or something like that, and just passed it along, you know — perfectly normal. And the auditor says, "Well, all right. Let's spot that book over there."

And he says .. .

And he says, "Well, I — there's nothing wrong with books. What's the matter with you? You're nuts!"

Good. You've made it.

He'll say, "I know what's wrong with me, it was my mother. That's what was wrong with me. And the fact that I was in boarding school and every day, why, there were three older boys who beat me. That's — that's what's wrong with me, and so on. That's what you're supposed to be auditing."

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

You say, "Spot another book."

You wait, it's all right.

"But there's nothing wrong with books. I don't see what you're talking about. You're just not making sense. You're not a good auditor. They told me you were a good auditor, but I don't believe it now."

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

And all of a sudden, why, books start looking so funny to him. They start leaping up in the air and doing peculiar things. Figures start walking out of them. I mean, with his naked eyes. Books lying on the table and a figure suddenly walks out of it and says, "You jerk," and drops off the table. He's liable to tell the auditor, "Well, I've had it now. I didn't know I could ever have a delusion."

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

And the next thing you know, why — say, "Good golly. You know, I believe I've had some connection or another with a publishing firm somewhere. But I don't know what that's all about." Oh, you've gone about twenty past lives back when he was the — when he was the — you understand, it had to be a games condition — he was cause. We're not looking for the victim now. You can tell your preclears we are, if you want to, but don't process them in that direction. We're not looking for victims. We're looking for villains.

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

And we find out that during the Spanish Inquisition he had sole charge of burning all heretical books and heretical authors. And then what really loused it up in the next life, he was an heretic!

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

And that's — that's — that's just the way it goes.

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

It really isn't the old overt act — motivator phenomena. This is a later sequence. Now, you understand that way up high, here, are these games conditions and no-games conditions. That's a very high theory. Proceeding from those are all sorts of theories and phenomena that we've been studying; thou-sands of them. The overt act — motivator sequence — that is explained by game phenomena but it isn't at the same level. It's actually a new and different phenomena. It is a planned or agreed-upon phenomena which can bite only because a games condition has existed.

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

Now, we've studied the ways and means of effort on how people resist being shot and we run Effort Processing one way or the other to get them "unshot." Well, it has some workability. But the funny part of it is, is what are they doing getting shot? Now, what explains that? Why can they get shot? You understand? And it's a silly question for anybody to ask, but how is it that you could walk out and get in front of a bullet which would enter your body and shoot you? Boy, that takes some doing. You figure that out. It takes some doing. What are you doing in a position where this can happen? How did you get there? "Well — " you say, "well, I — I was mean to bodies and finally they all fell in on me."

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

Well, this is overt act — motivator sequence. It's a very low reason. No, there was a game sometime or another way back on the track that sort of ran like this: You saw a body walking along and you said, "Isn't that cute. Ha-ha. Very interesting — walking around and so on. Ha-ha. Well, what do you know.

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

What do you know." And then you said — decided it — liable to fall over some-thing, so you tried to get it to work in another direction, and it didn't obey you worth a nickel. You said, "Walk to the right." You know, "Better move over that way." And it didn't. And you said, "Why, the disobedient little something-or-other. Psssst." Well, that was the end of that body. You forgot all about that. Time went on. You had — did a lot of other things and there was another body one day and you saw that body — psssew. And you killed that one for some reason or another.

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

And then you get way down the time track someplace and there's a body walking along and you feel a little bit suspicious of this body somehow or another. And you reach over to feel of its head or something with a beam and chooomp, in you go. And you say, "Now, look what happened to me. Look what happened to me. I touched a body and it pulled me in. Bodies are vacuums. I am a victim."

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

How did you get into a position to be a victim? And that is what you audit out of the preclear. Just how did you make it possible for you to be a victim since being a victim is one of the doggonedest positions for a thetan to get into? It is almost impossible for a thetan, which has no mass, no motion, so on, to be a victim. You see with what pride an individual would display the fact that he was stuck in a paraplegic body, see? Proud. "Look at how much of a victim I got to be." And somebody else's sympathy is really probably more or less awe. Boy! And that — that's — that's kind of the way it is.

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

And then you come along and you audit out his being a victim. Won't work. Doesn't work. He doesn't know how he got to be a victim. He really is a victim. He's upset about life. He can't cope with it. It's out from beyond his control. But you come along as an auditor — you have to find the game he was playing wherein he was cause which precedes all these other games where he got adroit enough to be a victim. Do you follow me?

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

Well, there — there we had this weird, weird riddle of life. A thetan was truth. A spirit was totally capable and it fell from grace and it doesn't regrace itself until you run out the "fell from grace" by giving him enough "falls from grace" to make it worth his while.

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

You have to increase the number of falls from grace on the track before he'll unfall. That's an interesting thing.

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

So, to say offhand that an individual must get in and must play vigorously and must play life desperately, is not true. That's not true.

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

To say that because a man plays life desperately, he suffers from it, isn't true either.

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

To say he must be calm, isn't true. To say he must be active, isn't true. What is true?

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

That if you've played a game, admit it.

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

Well, I had a little something to tell you there about game conditions and I hope they've made a little sense to you. There's much more material on this and some of these processes that stem from this are too violent to audit unless you have a perfect and thorough command of modern procedure. It's for true. I mean, a preclear just doesn't stay under control. They just go psewww and blow. Neurons all over the ceiling, so to speak.

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

But, there are processes along this level which are very auditable. It tells an auditor at once what he can audit and what he had better not. And it tells us also, more important to us, how man got into this mess and gives us ways and means to get him out of it.

And you say, "Stop."

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I says, "What's the matter?"

He says, "We must be very still."

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

He says, "What you whispering for?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Audience: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I was sitting there at my desk.

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

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

He says, "Are mullets wet?"

See.

Was that a session?

Male voice: No.

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

So, he says, "Are mullets wet?"

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

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

"I — well — I don't know."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And I said, "Suppose so."

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

No acknowledgment, no .. .

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

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

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

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

So, I said .. .

And he says, "Is red red?"

And I says .. .

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

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

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

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

The next morning I found him in Indoctrination Course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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