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.

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.

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.

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"?

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?"

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.

They're playing a game.

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?

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

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?

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

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."

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

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.

Yes there is, there's no games.

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

"Well, 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."

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.

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

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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!"

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.

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?"

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 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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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 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."

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.

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."

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

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?

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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!

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.

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.

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?

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.

Audience: Yes. Sure!

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.

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!"

"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 .. .

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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."

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."

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

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

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."

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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

And 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."

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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."

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!

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

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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!

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

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."

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 .. .

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?"

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."

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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, 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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

And these are the processable buttons, game conditions:

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.

• Attention

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.

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.

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?"

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

"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?

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

"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."

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

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 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."

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.

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.

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.

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?

Audience: Yes.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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."

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

You 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."

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

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."

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

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

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

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."

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."

You say, "Spot another book."

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.

"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."

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.

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."

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

And 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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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..."

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.

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.

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."

I hope you fellows like the climate.

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.

Thank you.

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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, 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.

Thank you.