GAMES CONGRESS LECTURES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 1956

GAMES CONGRESS LECTURES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 1956

Сообщение Timecops » 26 дек 2015, 11:08

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/

GAMES CONGRESS LECTURES, WASHINGTON, D.C. 1956

CONTENTS
Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man 1
Group Processing: Crave to Know 13
The Anatomy of Human Problems 35
Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions 49
Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles 63
Group Processing: "Keep It from Going Away" 77
Auditing Procedure 1956 85
Universe 99
Havingness 111
Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa 127
Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (cont.) 139
Effectiveness of Brainwashing 153
Demonstration of SCS 167
About the Author 191
Glossary 193
Bibliography 241
Address List of Scientology Churches 265
and Organizations

STUDENT USE OF TRANSCRIPTS
The tape transcripts in this volume serve a vital purpose for students. With a written text of the tape in hand, students can follow the tape rapidly and spot their misunderstoods.
Such transcripts do NOT supplant the tapes, as how the words were said and how preclears in auditing demonstrations actually responded are quite important.
L. Ron Hubbard

SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF MAN
A lecture given on 31 August 1956
You never quite saw anybody as happy as I am to be home. Honest.
Over in England when I left they said, "You won't be able to get away from there if you go home. You'll leave, you'll stay in America." And the boys have been hinting around here—they've been hinting that it might be a good idea if I remained in America now. And that's all very well and I—they have been on their good behavior; they've done everything I have asked them to do; they've done a lot of things that I haven't asked them to do. They made a grand job out of this congress; they're—these boys night and day, about twenty-four hours a day—have been going around here for the last week get¬ting this congress ready for you people and for us. And this is very, very touching—very touching. So, right here at the outset I will have to confess to being a very weak man. I—I can be swayed; I can be influenced; I'm not the strong character I should be. People's opinions and expressions, particularly from my dearest friends, do have an effect on me. And so I've just tossed in the sponge and I am going to stay.
Thank you very much. I seem to have detected there was some—one or two in the audience that wanted me to stay, too. So, thank you.
A great deal has happened in a year, a great deal. We are making progress at a rate which I have never before seen. It doesn't mean that there have been enormous numbers of changes. You can hardly call them "changes" when I'm dumping about three-quarters of it on you right here in the congress— thud for the first time really.
But during this last year we have been able to bring Scientology up and put some long pants on it, dress it up, bring it into a level of workability that it's never before even vaguely been able to approach. We have been working— the lot of us—with preclears, with cases, for six years now. And we've slaved away, we've ground away. Some of us have used a little Carborundum on the case, you know. Somebody else has whittled; somebody else has used a sol¬vent of some sort to clean the spots off the case. We've gotten along, we've worked hard, we have striven—every one of us with very good intention—to do the very best we could for the cases, for the people on the various dynamics in order to achieve a higher ability and a better state for man.
The past six years have been a testing ground, a research area whereby we were getting together the tools necessary for a task. I feel ashamed of myself because it didn't happen in 51, it didn't happen in 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 —not until now, at the end of 56 here, toward the end, that I could honestly

1

2

31 AUGUST 1956
say . . . Now just—let's just kick out the optimism, let's just kick out the sales talks, let's just say, well, he had to keep people interested and we were doing more for man than anybody had ever done before. The difficulty on the origi-nal state of Clear came about mainly because the techniques used to produce one in 1947 were never put in anybody's hands. We had a special method of running engrams: You simply built the man's confidence in being able to handle them till he threw them all away and he was a Clear. And that hap-pened in a great many cases, but it didn't happen in 50. People were grinding away hard and slow.
In 51, 52, 53, 54, 55 we were doing more for man individually, than man had ever done for man before, but that was not enough, that was not enough, nowhere near enough. It's the idea of sitting down and grinding away on a preclear, auditing him, making him do this and do that and bringing up his state of health to a level of being human, of being able to function, of being able to mote somehow or another, that wasn't enough. That wasn't what we were shooting for. It wasn't high enough!
All right. I've given you the best I knew. I've given you the best research and test reports that I could. I've kept things going forward one way or another. Sometimes tired, but never without hope. I knew that somewhere forward just as you did—there was coming into being, better and better proc-esses, and there was coming into being, a time when we could process somebody above the level of merely being human or merely being well.
What this society needs is ability. Have you tried to hire anybody lately? Even the Irish agree—even the Irish agree that man could be more able. In fact they agree so thoroughly that when our office opened up a Personnel Efficiency Course in Dublin, the Irish—the Irish came in and said, "What are you fellows doing here?" This, I said, this is the American College of Personnel Efficiency."
And the Irish said, "Oh? Oh?" And they said, "Do we need that!" This seems to be man's opinion the world around. It's one thing on which man is fairly well agreed—that man could be more able.
But the devil of it is, you have to reduce his disabilities somehow and get them disposed of or get his attention out of them before you can actually begin to make him more able, and most of us have been involved in making his disabilities less troublesome simply in the hope that he would then extro-vert and do better, and those are the results that we normally see.
But a great deal has happened in the past year; a great deal has hap-pened!
Now, let's just lay aside the sales talk; let's just forget about—be chari-table, forget about the nice things I've said about what Dianetics would do and what Scientology would do. Be kind. That is what you're supposed to do here, see? It's what you are supposed to do. You're supposed to be kind and charitable and forgive all—even Ron, you see.
And when preclears sat there and Ron said that this and that ought to do this and that for him, the phenomena was there—I think you will agree to that—the phenomena was there; the process did have a biteability; it did bring him up; there was—thing—things did happen. But you were never sat-isfied with the final result, were you? Let's speak honestly—not entirely, completely, uniformly, preclear to preclear satisfied with the final result.
You've seen a preclear here and a preclear there that—you could have done more for him. You just knew somehow that if you knew how, you could have done more for him than you did. Now, that doesn't mean that you didn't

SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF MAN
do plenty for him, but we're extremists! You did more for him than the witch doctors—than—well, the witch doctors . . . Just a minute, I'll think of some modern practice that is outside this classification of witch doctor. Well, the witch doctors couldn't have done as much as we've done by about half. The fact of the matter is that 22 percent of man gets well anyway. You come in and you give him a glass of water and you say, "Sir, if you will merely drink a glass of water every morning before breakfast, your symptoms of epiglosis will disappear." And they do—they do. This gives the entire field—it's not a field—something or other of medicine. Just a moment, I've been over in Great Britain. I've had to speak correctly all this time. The modern abattoir of medicine disrespects healing done by the mind—by means of the mind. They don't respect it, because they say, "Somebody comes in, I give him flour and water mixed up into a pill and he takes it and he gets well, and there's nothing in it, so therefore the mind does have an influence, so therefore mental healing has no validity or purpose or application!" I think you'll agree with me that that is the conclusion they take.
Audience: Yes.
I think you will agree with me.
Well, 22 percent of man get well no matter what you do for them. You make the sign of the Comanche on their forehead and they say, "Well, what do you know! Arm moves again." But that's only 22 percent.
How do you make any betterment of that figure? If we were able to bring it up to an average 30 percent, we would have bettered the results of any organization or school of healing or treatment or practice of the past; just 30 percent is all we would need in order to top it. What if we took it to 40? Well, Dianetics took it to 50 in 1950; on an average, 50 percent of the people who would consent with . . . Oh, what trust!
When I think of the way we used to audit! "The somatic strip will now go to ... When I snap my fingers the first phrase of the engram will occur." Curl up in a ball, on the floor—the birth sequence. "Oh, you want to say something? Well you're just avoiding, shut up! Get into valence."
The poor guy gets three feet back of his head, you know, and he says, "Wheee!" You know, "What do you know, I'm not a body." And he says, "You know, I'm looking at this from a distance."
And the auditor says, "Get back into valence!" The things we didn't know have filled the remaining books since. Very, very wonderful, but we pushed it up to 50 percent. And just about 50 percent of the cases couldn't run engrams. If we could get a case to run engrams smoothly and so forth, we could generally in oh, a few hours of—I mean, a few hours for us at that time—five, six hundred hours—get him over his asthma or something of the sort. It was pretty successful—pretty successful by and large, and it was an awful lot of fun. Could you produce an effect upon people—wow!
I remember one time there was an attorney out in California, down in Palm Springs, and he had heard something about Dianetics—making such a horrible commotion up in Los Angeles—and he says, "What is this thing, Dianetics?" He says, you know, "What is this thing?"
And I said, "Oh, it's a way of handling the mind."
And he said, "Well—uh—what—uh—what good's that?" You know, stand-ard reaction.
So I said, "Well, supposing you could say a magic phrase, snap your fingers, and a witness on the witness stand that you didn't want to testify, would curl up in a ball and fall out of the chair on the floor?"

3

4

31 AUGUST 1956
"Oh," he says, "that would be useful."
Now, you don't have to believe this, but I had witnesses. So I said, "The somatic strip will return to three months after conception. The first phrase of the engram will occur." It's an absolute fact that the somatic strip will obey you much better than it obeys the preclear. What fantastic things we did; how much we learned.
And time went on and we pulled out of that and recognized some things that were not very palatable to people. But I must confess to you that I have never consulted palatability in terms of data. If I saw it, I said so. If I noted it happened, I didn't consult the Ladies' Aid Society as to the publishability of the material. I didn't consult anybody. I simply published the material, that's that. If I found a new way and a better way of doing something, I published the material.
And exteriorization came along and a very large percentage of the Dia-neticists didn't. We know why since: they can't look at a static. It hurts them. They can't look at a thin spot in space up here and stay comfortable in the midriff; it's too upsetting to them. It's just a mechanical fact—it's too bad. We have a process today that they could be run on for five, ten minutes— they'd be able to look at a static and they would have come right along with us, but this is a long time since. They're coming back. I am trying to get in touch with most of them as a matter of fact, saying, "Hey, guys, come over here. There's an indoctrination course running in there. How about you get-ting a couple of boilerplate patches on your engram bank and square it around and put you back in the running?"
Well, an astonishing number of things have happened. And during the last six months we find ourselves completely and entirely back in Dianetics, running engrams at a rate of speed you never dreamed of, and having to run them to really clean up a case well. We find ourselves back where we came in. All of the phenomena, all of the "curl up in the ball and fall on the floor," the screamer, the sperm sequence, those horrible things that came up and actually effectively in the long run completely blew up the Foundation in Elizabeth that couldn't agree on them. Preclears kept lying down on the couch and presenting past deaths and the board there tried to make it illegal to run one. It's very, very bad to—I know, to have something that's unacceptable —hasn't been acceptable to most people; it's been known about for a long time but hasn't been acceptable.
In the engram, a moment of pain and unconsciousness contained in a mental image picture containing an instant of exteriorization—pain, uncon¬sciousness, exteriorization—is found to be the engram we were looking for, all up and down the track. And we have a way to run it that doesn't run it very directly, but simply blows it out of existence. We have a way now of getting a "case computation"—remember that word, sound familiar? The service facsimile—remember that? The main engram on the track and the psycho-somatic problems as they exist in present time, abolished with maybe fifteen hours of running. Twenty-five, thirty-five hours of running probably would straighten out a lifetime, but I don't have exact data on how long it takes to clean up seventy-six trillion years. But it's less time than you think.
Why I use this "seventy-six trillion years"—you old-timers remember that—Time magazine one time devoted a whole page to ribbing me. A year later they were saying that I had discovered it. Two years from now they will probably be saying they've always been my friend.
But here we have—here we have an incredible piece of news and not one

SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF MAN
of you have taken it in yet. We don't have to, maybe. The processes we have in Scientology are sufficiently good that they handle it in some other fashion, but the problem of the thetan is the problem of the mind; the problem of beingness, the problem of the spirit, is his problem with the mind. Unless we solve that very directly, we can't make fast progress. But we're making that progress. I'll get it through to you in a minute: you're back in Dianetics! There's a lot of old Dianeticists sitting there. And some of you new Scien¬tologists, and some of you guests that were patient enough, if with some misgivings, to come along with your overenthusiastic friend—you want to know what Dianetics is. You came to hear about Scientology.
Well, Scientology is a science which even includes Dianetics! No, Scientol-ogy is a study of the construction of universes and the role played in them by a spiritual being; the background of masses, spaces, energy, thought and its relative positions person to person, dynamic to dynamic. It is a very broad technical subject.
Dianetics was a pretty—pretty good subject. It went up to the fourth dynamic and it handled a thing called a mental image picture, called an engram, and these mental image pictures were discovered to be housed, kept, maintained, stowed, hidden, stashed, in a reactive mind which was over this-a-way—on some preclears that-a-way. On other preclears it was a little electric train that went across with a word in each car. Dianetics believed— and very, very agreeably—that there was such a thing as the analytical mind and the reactive mind. And the analytical mind was what you were con-sciously thinking with and doing; thinkingness turning into doingness. And most of that was done by the analytical mind.
But a great many hidden responses—automaticities we called them later— were hidden in a mind called the reactive mind which operated on a stimulus-response basis. Somebody says "cat," the mind said "cat." Somebody says "mother," the mind said "meowww!" We tried to love our neighbors and some¬thing said "hate." You say, "Where did that come from?" You say, "I love my neighbors." Something said, "You know you hate your neighbors." Circuitry. Fellows had little—little things that sat up here and every time they said something, why, the little circuit said, "You boob." You know, all these little gimmicks and gadgets talked about in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and succeeding publications and the tapes of that period all comprised Dianetics.
Now, there was one item in Dianetics which was not very well looked over. We didn't look over this particularly. There was very little said about this. I knew it existed. I wasn't particularly interested in it since I didn't understand what I was looking at on a lower level, and I was not prone to leap over large hurdles and grab at material I didn't know about, when I didn't know what the hurdle was, you know. In other words, I am not, you might say, a standard issue research man that—that you know he—he says, "Well, undoubtedly Professor Umph knows about that. We'll go over here. This is more interesting over here. Old Jones probably knows about that. . ." And these "probably knows" finally accumulate into a science. And then somebody examines all this hash that is an alleged science and finds out it all boils down to "probably knows" without saying what. Well, that was the state of affairs of the mind when Dianetics came on the scene.
But there was this little thing called an "awareness of awareness unit." The unit that was aware of being aware. It wasn't even discussed very much. But that "horrible little germ" came along and corrupted and ruined the whole science.

5

6

31 AUGUST 1956
I remember an old—an old auditor in Elizabeth. He and I were having a—having a very, very good time talking about the probabilities of this and that and why decay came about if survival was the only thing things did. And by the way, that's true, you know, apparency is—of decay is all the decay there is. Thetans go on forever. Anyway, we were talking about this and we went along very nicely and very smoothly, trying to find out why things caved in if their total ambition was to be destroyed. So, we decided—we decided—I advanced this theory and said—said, "All things"—now this was just a hypothesis, you know, not a real theory—"all things might be said to carry with them the germs of their own destruction." That was a possibility—why things became ill. They seem to have to have along with them each one a germ of its own destruction.
Governments construct themselves perfectly except for a little flaw over here, and one day the flaw suddenly becomes a crack and the crack suddenly becomes a chasm and the government suddenly becomes a hole in the ground. So, advanced this interesting hypothesis. We kicked this around for some time. We abandoned it as untenable. Untenable hypothesis. Ha! And all the time, in the back of Modern Science of Mental Health, it said there is an awareness of awareness unit. And that was the germ that destroyed, apparently, Dianetics. Do you see that?
We kept talking about mental image pictures, the reactive mind, the somatic mind, the analytical mind, how man thought, how he combined pic-tures, emotions, perceptions, so that these things would reapply themselves to his body and he could do this and he could do that with them and he could do something else with them. And we never said what was looking at them! Come on you old Dianeticists, think about that. That's true, isn't it? We never said who was looking at them! We simply said you. Didn't we?
Audience: Yes.
And the engrams might be on cells and get blown up and they might be here and they might do there, but they undoubtedly were the basic cause of aberrated conduct. We can prove this. You—don't let an old Dianeticist near you if you are a new Scientologist to run an engram. You want to look at a real engram, you say. You know, what is all this stuff: mother, sex? The news-papers used to say pornography. What is all this stuff? Prenatal chains . . . Well, what is this stuff here? Goes on and on. A fellow can remember every-thing that happens to him at all times, including everything that occurs, even in the depths of an operation. Boom! That's too uncomfortable!
And I'm sure—I'm sure that you as a new Scientologist would be very wise, educationally, to calmly lie down on a couch. That, by the way was the sign of the coffin case. He would come in to get audited and lie there, stiff, stark, flat out on the couch, pulse—clammy. We would say, "How are you getting along?"
"Fine."
You'd run engram after engram after engram. We had a lot of these cases along and several of them were on the board at Elizabeth that voted not to research any past deaths. They were in them, see.
In other words, a person gets stuck in one of these engrams and then he is the pictures of the engrams; then he does the things the engram perception says. It's like looking at a big piece of motion picture film, you know. And you as a modern Scientologist say, "Well, I think I ought to lie down and let this old Dianeticist run an engram," see. Dianeticists are horrible people to restrain.
The Dianeticist is saying, "Ha-ha-ha! The somatic strip will—ha-ha—

SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF MAN
return to the incident necessary to resolve your case." It used to, too. Anyhow, whether you could run it or not or hold the preclear in it while he screamed dismally was quite something else.
But anyway, preclears would blow up, roll on the floor, scream, lie there and have nothing happen at all and then for the next four days have measles, except no germs were present. All kinds of wild manifestations would occur.
I ran one time—thinking of the adventures of Dianetics—I ran a preclear one time for—two preclears as a matter of fact—for the benefit of a couple of medicos who slithered into the scene. I was foolish in those days; I thought they were interested.
And I put the preclears down on the couch and I was running an incident and—out of one of them and he started to writhe and look pale and he started to get sort of flushed looking, and the medico says, "What's wrong with him?"
And I said, "No, nothing, nothing. He's just going through an old illness."
And the medico said, "He's doing what?"
"Well, he's running a mental image picture—a picture which is contained in his reactive mind which has the power of reimposing on the body every¬thing that the body had experienced while the incident was taking place. And of course, it has in it fever and chills and perspiration and sensations. It has the various tactile of beds and tea cups or soup bowls or anything else he was doing at that time. And he feels these things and that puts the picture back in action. Or an auditor audits him and puts the picture back in action and runs it out, and of course, he reexperiences all these things all over again."
Now, they know all about reexperiencing—they have vast textbooks with people—they have known about it for years. They could make people reexperi-ence everything. They don't know what they are talking about. The individual actually can be put right straight back through the incident—bing-bing-bing-bing-bing, just as nice as you please! They don't, you know, get the traumatic effect, "Well, I remember when I was a little boy and a puppy ran over me and this has been very, very bad because it had sexual connotations; I've never been the same since."
"Oh, well, Mr. Jones, we now have the most significant incident in your life. We'll spend the next four years analyzing it." Ha-ha! How careful those people were being. Maybe they instinctively felt that maybe somebody would walk in the door one day and say, "The somatic strip . . ." Because that isn't what made his life aberrated; it was pain and unconsciousness and he was still carrying the picture around with him and it was still capable and impos¬ing all its force and ferocity upon his body, his mind and his beingness.
And in order to run one of those things out, it practically took one of these big jackhammers—out of some cases. You'd erase and erase. You know this idea that you recount an incident enough times—this is not necessarily new, you see—you recount something a lot of times, why, it'll worry you less. That was about as much as society knew about this sort of thing. Actually, the guy has to go back on the track to the moment; he has to progress com¬pletely through the entire experience from one end to the other; he has to come back to the beginning and reexperience the whole thing all the way through again from one end to the other. He has to go back to the beginning again and reexperience the whole thing and all of a sudden the unknown points start coming up. And it isn't contained in figure-figure-figure, think-think-think; it's contained in hurt-hurt-hurt, gag-gag-gag, bluh-blooh-bluh! Society didn't have enough nerve to find this one out; that's all it is!

7

8

31 AUGUST 1956
I'm not exaggerating. I'm—am I, old-timers? Am I exaggerating?
Audience: No!
Wild business!
So—so anyway, an individual lying there flush, the medico says, "You know, he looks like he's getting sick. Looks like he's coming down with something." Quick! Out with the thermometer. "Do you mind if I take his temperature?" Right in the middle of an auditing session. I've got the fellow being scolded by Father while he's lying there with a temperature of 106 or something like this, you know. The doctor says, "I should take his temperature. You know I've got to stop this one way or the other." And he muscled me aside.
I decided, well, I might as well get the preclear's temperature taken. I've never done this. I know he's got a fever. The doctor puts it in. Waited. "103! My God!" he said, "This man has got to get to bed! I can't permit this by my medical knowledge, authority and mission to the AMA to permit this session to go on any further. So, you get him up to bed."
And I said, "And so, we get you over in the chair." Ptock! And I said, "Now, let's go back to the beginning of the incident again. That bother you, that monkey business?" "No! No! No! Let's go back to the incident."
The doctor's friend was coming up to come to the defense of his colleague because he's obviously in the hands of madmen—and he was going to say, "You are certainly not going to do anything more, are you?"
And I said, "I don't know about me, but you're not. You're going to sit still." And they sat there looking, because they knew a sick man was having something bad done to him.
And I finished off the engram, wiped it out, brought the preclear up to present time. Put the other one down, ran the engram and all of a sudden he looked flushed!
The medico said, "Look! You realize, don't you, that you can be arrested for impersonating an angel of mercy like myself."
"Oh," I said, "you want to take his temperature?" So, I let him take his temperature. I picked him up and put him back in the chair. Ptock! Erased it; brought him up to present time. They are both feeling pretty good, both preclears, "Ha! I feel a lot better." Measles was off the case, see. They felt a lot better. They felt pretty good about the whole thing.
Medico sat back there, "Something wrong with these people; they look normal." He took his thermometer—103. And he said, "George, let's go home." Well, if you could shoot somebody's temperature to 103 and bring it back to normal again in a half an hour, you are not practicing medicine, I've always contended.
So, anyway, we slaved along. We got along well in old Dianetics. We had a lot of fun and we completely neglected this horrible thing that suddenly made an appearance in the middle of 1952. And Hubbard was fool enough to start talking about it—a thetan. He discovered a spirit—hallucinatory, of course!
But a spirit had been discovered. Spirits had been discovered. Hubbard, with his usual optimism, said you could discover them in everybody.
And so, what with a lot of legal maneuvers and other things, it really was true that we were in a different field and it was also true that Dianetics was sort of—sad but true—it was a sort of a dead issue at the moment. We were interested in spirits, following them around, wondering how many horse-power they develop, trying to measure their capacitance, resistance. We had them on E-Meters. Remember E-Meters—Volney Mathison—got so they were

SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF MAN
this big and then they were this big. And he had eighteen settings on the front of them and suddenly a little light would flash and that told you what time it was to go to lunch. We had them on oscilloscopes and bacilloscopes and everything else, trying to measure them and figure out exactly what this was all about.
A fellow out in California one night showed up—I was in Phoenix, had a house out in the desert. It's all been built up since but it was a nice house then—coyotes mourned quietly every night. I like coyotes mourning every night, they sort of add to the—you know, the scene. They add to the flavor of things when you're researching spirits. And the boy came at about—come to think about it, there had been a little congress over there, a little meeting and he came and he sat down—well, he knocked on the door and he said, "Ron," he said, "I've got something hot and I want to see you."
Now, I've heard this before. I hear this regularly. And I never say, "No, don't tell me." I—yeah, I will say factually, "We've had that for a little while," or I will say, "That is darned interesting, I will look into it." You know, it's a communication line; I really am there—I mean—solidly hit me. I mean, when you write me a letter it does arrive here. I might not answer it at any length, but I normally get a reply back one way or the other.
And I said—however, that night since we just had a big meeting and I was tired, I said, "No." And Evans knocks again. I say, "No, Evans." I say, "Go away, please. I am tired and exhausted."
He goes out and he lies down in the front yard on the couch—couple of sun couches out there, sitting in the middle of the desert. He lies down. Moon—sun goes down—moon comes up; he's still there. Somebody stuck his head out and said, "Evans, why don't you go home. Ron isn't going to see you."
And he said, "I've got to see him. I've got to see him."
So, finally after the TV programs were all over and I had wakened, I happened to be passing by the window and I looked out in the front yard, in the bright moonlight, and here was Evans Farber still lying there looking up at the moon philosophically. And I said, "Why, that boy will catch his death of moonbeams or something. I'd better go out."
So I said, "Evans," I said, "this is cruel of you. I have just been up about 48, 80 hours or something and why can't you see me about this some other time?" And he said, "It's important, Ron, it really is." He says, "I can exteriorize thetans at will that you've been talking about." We'd been looking for a process that would; we knew it theoretically; we'd run into the phenomenon; we'd tried to do something with it. Not very much had occurred and he turns up and he says he can exteriorize them by an auditing command. Well, I said, "Evans, that's—that's interesting, but. . ."
He had some kind of a theory behind it and quoted it out of Scientology 8-80 and told me exactly how it worked—that something or other happened, or there was a little preadvance release of the material. And he had read it over and he said, "All you have to say to them is 'Try not to be three feet back of your head.'"
I said, "Is that so?"
And he said, "Yeah, look," he says, he puts me down in the chair and he steps back and he says, "try not to be three feet back of your head." And I go sphewwww! And I haven't been able to get back in since.
So, a few months later we were all ghosts! That technique is not advised since it has a tendency to wear out and thetans flip back in and all sorts of things happen, but it was the first direct exteriorization technique. A little

9

10

31 AUGUST 1956
later on we found out you could get about 50 percent of the people you walk up to in the street and you just look at them, get their attention, you know, "Be three feet back of your head." And they go sphewwww! "Well, what do you know! What was I doing in there!" You know, that kind of a reaction. Very amazing.
Here's a phenomenon that existed, that was right there waiting to be discovered for a very, very long time, nothing known about it. Real—talked about—I mean, old-time religion talked about a soul and a spirit and how you had to be good and you would do this and that. They talked about all the various odds and ends about it, but nobody gave its dimensions, capacitance, inductance and resistance. You got the idea? In other words, we didn't have an accurate scientific description so that no phenomena could be produced really as a result of the knowledge that man was a spirit. So, people could doubt it, people could say, "Well, man isn't a spirit—and man is and man isn't."
Well, this is all ancient history to a lot of you. It's all ancient history. It's interesting though, but the germ of the destruction of Dianetics was a thetan: launched, theorized, calculated and everything else. The first one launched— Mark 1-type carrier—in Phoenix, Arizona, by—or no, in Los Angeles, really, earlier by Evans Farber in 1952—launched. We have been launching them ever since from time to time.
As a matter of fact, now it's very difficult to keep from launching some-body. If we are very careful and break all the rules, we can keep somebody in his head, but otherwise it's pretty difficult. He has to be really poorly audited.
But we advanced the field of the mind—and my discoveries that suc-ceeded that and the other material which followed it—well we also advanced, entered and to a very marked degree described and resolved the sphere of religion. Man had only had that name for it previously and we were in the interesting position of not being religious and being in the possession of all the materials that religion ought to have, which is a very bad position to be in.
If you know that being holy has nothing to do with being Clear, it's a very hard thing for you to understand why you should be holy—a lot of com-plexities of this character.
In other words, the different oddities, materials, the conflicts—we'd launched information man was not in possession of and that information was very difficult to communicate. To some degree we went out of communication —maybe it was a good thing.
The years went along. We developed more material. We got more certain. We know today an awful lot of things—an awful lot of things about this sub-ject. We have the most—probably the only complete records of a complete research on anything, probably, just regardless of what, that has ever been undertaken. We've got our complete records. We have gone all the way along the line. We followed along carefully with books and tapes and other equip-ment, other recordings of the work that's been done—very voluminous material.
All of the material's gone on in London and work's gone on. I've been in London and Camden and Phoenix and London and it's—Washington in between—more and more and more information, more and more information, more and more information, more and more information. Well, you finally get so you know enough about this. You do! I mean, you finally get so you know enough about it. Say, "The devil with it." That is probably why they invented hell. They got tired of the whole thing about the human soul, you know, and they invented hell just to have someplace where they could threaten to send it if they got tired of playing with it.

SPIRITUAL AND MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS OF MAN
And what do you know! What do you know. Just a very short time ago, a very short time ago, found myself walking along minding my own business and all of a sudden I said, "The unit of awareness of the mind is looking at a facsimile, a mental image picture, and usually looks at it in preference to looking at the physical universe directly. The basic game of a spirit is: him¬self not capable really of being solid—to then put up solids to look at because they can't be unsolid and he can't be solid, so there isn't any complete commu¬nication possible. So we have a basic game going on and it must be that the thetan who had gone down scale can't tolerate solids."
And I went back home and sat down at a desk to make a couple of research notes. I said, "Well—" you know I was writing along, a couple of research notes —"the one solid that he does not care to make solid anymore would be a mental image picture containing pain, unconsciousness and loss by exteriorization. Oh no, we're back in Dianetics!" And so we are.
Actually, just in the last few weeks I managed to bring pretty close to a level of perfection, methods of handling the reactive mind: to handle all of the reactive mind, to ungroup the track and put the whole thing back together again—paying no attention to phrases, just by using solids in particular ways—stretch the track out, pat it in place and achieve greater results than we have ever achieved before in Dianetics and working with bodies, and quite incidentally working with the mind and the physical universe and the principles involved with solids. There's several sets of principles which we probably won't even go into this congress. But these principles lead us back to the fact that we have to know Dianetics. If we hadn't known Dianetics, we never would have discovered the rest of it. And having discovered the rest of it; we find ourselves totally, totally beaten, pounded, hammered, herded, corralled, nailed down into running Dianetics again.
So the "Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man," which is the title of this lecture, include first and foremost a good grip of Dianetics. And if you were able to handle Dianetics once upon a time, you will say, "Gee-whiz, why didn't we know how fast we could make a bank run!" We used to scan them, and we used to do this, and we used to do that.
Now, I'll give some of you old-timers—I'm not going to leave you in mystery on the subject. You just pick an arbitrary point in the middle of the preclear's age and you have him find an incident which is later than that time and have him look at it. And when you decide that it's not another engram—you see, you don't run the engram, you just pick an arbitrary point, an engram or not in the middle of the person's life—and you tell him to get a picture later than that moment. And when you discover that that picture is not a mental image picture that contains pain, you tell him, see, "Okay." You say, "Make it more solid," so he ...
You say, "That's fine. That's fine. Now, can you find one earlier than this incident"—old engram, old tonsillectomy, automobile accident or something or just an arbitrary age in the middle of life and you say, "What is it?" And you discover as the auditor that he isn't really looking at something that contains physical pain. Because if you let him make it solid while it contained physical pain, why, you'd get the pain and you'd have to handle that engram and you'd be handling another part of the track, you see. And you say, "All right, make it more solid—just the picture."
So the fellow . . . "Yes. Yes. Yes. It's more solid."
And you say, "That's fine. Now, find an incident later than the arbitrary
incident of (age)." Determine what it is. Don't let him get out of control,

11

12

31 AUGUST 1956
you see, because he's liable to start making it solid the second he finds it and you don't let him do that because you'll just stick him. And you say, "What is it?"
And, "Oh," he says, "it's my mother throwing chickpeas to the chickens," or something like that.
And you say, "That's fine. That's fine. Make it more solid."
He does. And you go earlier and make it more solid. And he does. And you go later and make it more solid. You go earlier and make it more solid and you go—and earlier and later and earlier. And all of a sudden service facsimile and the rest of the material he—you've been looking for in this case for a long time—life computation and all that sort of thing—he suddenly gives it to you—nothing much to it. And then you—earlier and solid, and earlier and solid and all of a sudden, "Well," he says, "I'm—got a picture here of me lying here dead."
"Earlier—" you say, "well, can't you get one a little earlier than that?"
"Oh, yes, got one of me here at a ball, looking at a—at the queen."
And you say, "That's fine. Make it more solid. That's good. Now, go later. Later. All right. Can you get one later than the arbitrary age—middle of life time?" Never change that age, by the way, never change it. He comes up with another juicy incident, just let him have it. And make it more solid. Earlier, make it more solid. Later, make it more solid. Earlier, make it more solid. Later, make it more solid. Ten thousand years ago, fifteen thousand years ago. Twenty thousand years ago.
"Oh, you've got a—somebody is standing there ready to clout you with a stone ax. Oh. Well, can't you get an earlier one than that?"
"Yes, I can. I've got this woman, dragging her by the hair over the rocks."
"Good!" You say, "Make it more solid."
Well, that's the way you run it; that's the way you run it and that's what Dianetics has come down to. The most effective single process that we know today, a very workable one; and during the break maybe you'd like to try it on your friends.
So, here we are—we find ourselves back in Dianetics because we're in Scientology. So, we'll just have to get ambivalent and put up with it all. I just wanted to start this congress out with something that you could talk about, because we haven't got much time to really go into these little details like having completely solved Dianetics.
I'm awfully glad you're here. We are going to take a short break and then I'm going to come back and it says I have to talk about children. And maybe I will and maybe I won't. Who knows? There might be—even be some-thing to say about them. I'll try to find my notes in the interim! But if I can't I'll have to do something else.
So, I will see you in about fifteen minutes.

GROUP PROCESSING: CRAVE TO KNOW
A lecture and Group Processing demonstration given on 31 August 1956
We had to get that out of the road and get that all squared away and get Dianetics all wrapped up, finished, so that you won't have to know any more about that, because there's a lot of mysteries around here of one kind or another.
We look up and down the wall there, we find Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations. You wonder what on earth do we have to do with that. We look back here, we find a terrific number of flags and we say, "Well, that all goes in with the United Nations program." No that isn't. We've got people in every single one of those countries.
Yes, sir.
And in addition to that—in addition to that I will show you shortly that we're a little bit better supported than the United Nations.
I hope nobody will tell you—the United Nations that because I wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.
But the truth of the matter is that the people who were in those coun¬tries aren't trying to chisel the people in those countries into some program or favor which makes the people in the other countries subservient to the people in those countries, you know?
In other words, there's no United Nation program mixed up with those flags at all. Even the United Nations and ourselves are at peace. I mean there's just peace reigning everywhere. There's hardly anybody fighting any¬body right at the present time. Oh, of course, there's a little matter of Sydney fighting Melbourne and Melbourne fighting Sydney. Johannesburg fighting Pretoria, Pretoria fighting the HASI. The small matter of—of Los Angeles fighting Phoenix and Phoenix still trying to scrap Washington. But little— this is—that's nothing, see? That's understandable warfare.
Because, what are they fighting about? Each one of them is fighting to be better than the others. Each one of them is fighting for better recognition for what they are actually doing to help mankind. And our people in those countries in the last week have actually done more to help mankind resolve its problems than any other organization on the face of Earth. And therefore, it's not entirely a gag or a joke that I tell you that what you're looking at there might mean more for man than the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
And that's not because of what I'm doing; I'm just a workhorse. I just work, you know. I just try to keep—keep in people's roads and—I mean keep out of people's roads.

13

14

31 AUGUST 1956
But wherever the sun rises and sets today, Scientology is bringing them up Tone Scale. Wherever the sun shines, and during the entire revolution of its shining, the sun—I'd never dare say this in England—but the sun might be setting now occasionally on some parts of the British Empire, but the sun does not set today on this little empire of a human mind of which we're all a part.
Two years ago we had lots of hopes. Today we have lots of facts.
A few years ago, we were trying to figure out what we were doing and where we were going. Today we have a very, very good idea of where we're going and most of us, particularly those who have been through recent material, certainly know what they're doing.
A Scientologist really knows better what he's doing than any other skilled professional on the face of Earth. That's a fact. He could do his job better—any of us could do our job better. There are things that one could learn that exist right now and are being taught which would greatly better one's ability to handle any given situation. But, Scientology as a little, tiny empire, even though it has tremendous area, is very peculiar. A lot of auditors lacking enough opponents—a lot of Scientologists occasionally say, "Oh, this Scientologist—that Scientologist is not so good, and so forth." They just want a little bite. But from where I sit—from where I sit I have never known a Scientologist to have other than the best possible intentions toward his people and mankind. When you hear a rumor of some kind or another, remember that. I've been in a position to observe it all these years.
And whatever he was doing, he was doing what he was doing because he thought it was the right thing to do. In other words, you can trust the people in Scientology no matter which one of those flags he flies. You understand that—that there's a body of people on Earth today who can be trusted, whose intentions are good and whose intentions get better.
No, you shouldn't have applauded that one really, because I'm talking about you.
Now, wherever we have—wherever we have people, wherever we have an office, we have good intentions and willing hearts. It has been a little bit heartbreaking to me as the years went on not to be able to do my particular job faster. It's taken me six years to wrap these subjects pretty well up.
I'll tell you a funny story. It's a joke on me. I wouldn't permit anybody else to mention it. A couple of months ago I was slumped on the sofa in my office. I was feeling bad—I was feeling very bad. That's very unusual. I was in a turmoil. I was upset. I was staring straight into the teeth of an end of a game called research. And I knew why I felt bad. I said, "What am I going to do?"
I said there's—here it is. I said the Tone Scale has come to life, and preclears are walking up it. And the auditors that we get ahold of and train, they're doing the darnedest things with people. Well, I just guess I'll have to retire, because my job's pretty well done.
Mary Sue got ahold of me and she gave me some auditing. She knew better than to say, "What's the matter with you?" "Yow, yow, yow, yow, yow . . ."
So Suzie, giving me the business and "problems of comparable magnitude to finishing up research" and a few minor things like this—and I said, "Just a minute"—I was getting a cognition, you know. "Just a minute," I said. "There's just something here that's right on the tip of my mind." I said, "Don't ask me that question again." I said, "I really—really . . ." Then I said, "What

GROUP PROCESSING: CRAVE TO KNOW
do you know—what do you know, we've been six years assembling materials and tools so that we would have a game to play. Research never was a game. In other words, we're about to start."
Well, I don't know whether you think the congress has started or not. The congress started yet?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Hello!
Audience: Hello.
Okay. In other words, we've got this thing wheeling, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
It's going?
Audience: Yeah.
Good. Very, very good.
Now, I'd hate to have to—I'd hate to have to ask you this because I know it's—I'll have to persuade you. I know I'll have to persuade you a lot. And I know there are a lot of new people here that'll have to be persuaded likewise. I—and it kind of embarrasses me because I've never asked you before—but would you like some Group Processing?
Audience: Yeah!
So —so what we really ought to do here then, wouldn't you say, is have a little session, huh? That's all right?
Audience: Yeah.
I take it then—I take it then on the slight hint that you've given me, that it would be all right if I audited you?
Audience: Yes.
Okay?
Well now, a word of warning—a word of warning to new people who are here: You new people—anybody that's only been in it four or five years is new people. I get a kick out of these old auditors; they walk around and they speak about these modern auditors. "Never run any engram, huh? Well now, back in the old days . . ."
It's very funny, when this new material came out on engrams—I'm not going to audit you on engrams—but when this new material came out on engrams why, almost all of the (quote) modern auditors (unquote) went around to the old-timers and they said, "rrrrrrr-rrrrrr ..." And the old-timer would say, "Well, I'll run an engram on you. Lie down."
All right. Well, enough of this shilly-shallying. I want to tell you who, if you haven't been in Scientology too long, I would like to caution you—very definitely caution you about just sitting there and not running the process. I'm not joking now. Anybody around you can tell you that this is a fatal course in Group Auditing. After a while, why, you feel—you say, "What is he talking about?" Thud!
Then the seminar leaders who are standing by here and their assistants will have to say, "Lie down on the couch." But I'll tell you that's not a good way to get an engram run because some of these seminar leaders are very, very good but they're modern auditors—they've never run one. And that's pretty bad. So there they are, up and down there. They're the boys that you'll be seeing tonight and they're standing by on this Group Auditing in case some new—newcomer is foolish enough not to do any of these commands and in case some old-timer does them too well. All right. All right.
Now, Group Processing is an exercise by which the auditor stands up in front of a group and asks them to do silly things which they do obediently

15

16

31 AUGUST 1956
and it's just, you know, funfest-like barn dancing and nothing happens and at the end of that time, everybody feels cheerful, okay?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? Is that a good description of it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, I would dearly love to actually run you on some—some tough proc-esses, but we do have new members in our midst. So, I'm afraid that you people who have had lots of Group Auditing will be disappointed because— well, as a matter of fact—matter of fact, I'm going to run you on nothing but very, very old processes. Is that all right?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, I invented the process I'm going to run on you Monday. And they're out of date now. They're all out of date. But we'll run them anyway. And another word of caution is, don't audit these on a preclear till you've been through indoctrination; you'll find he won't be able to take it. What's the matter? "You mean he's going to audit Group Processing commands on some-body, that he advises us not to audit on preclears. Is that right?" That's right.
I'm going to audit you on some stuff—some commands—that have been audited successfully on groups by Hubbard. So, just lay aside your notebook and if you buy a set of congress tapes or do something foolish like that, take tape number two out and burn it.
Now, in Group Auditing we do something very peculiar. We look up front here and find out if there's a wall. Well, when I ask you if there's a wall up here, why, you pick anything that you can see that vaguely looks like a wall, you understand? Hm? Vaguely looks like a wall. You just do—take any— anything up there or here or that or if your tolerance is very high, why, you can pick a wall as solid as that, but. . .
If I ask you to look at a wall there that is over on your right, I mean that wall there, see? Now, a wall runs all the way up there. Any place on that wall is legitimate and that is the wall on your right. You got it? Huh? All right.
Now, if you—this wall over here—this wall over here is the wall on your left, you got that? It's the wall on your left. Now, it's legitimate all the way to the back. You can look anywhere on that wall when I say "that wall," you got that?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, you new people, that's all right, we haven't gone mad. There is a purpose in this. Now, I've been meaning to write a book about it or get one of you to write a book about it or something like that. There is a purpose in it. Now, you see that. . . Well, anything back there—anything there at the back end of the room is quite legitimate as a wall. How's that? Huh? You got anything you pick back there. So we say the wall in the back of the room or the back of the room, why, you look back there, and you got that. Okay?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, that there is the floor. And we say "the floor," you touch that part that's under you.
Got that?
Now, up above, you will find a ceiling. You see a ceiling up there, huh? All right. Is it up there?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Well now, we call that the ceiling. And if any of you run too

GROUP PROCESSING: CRAVE TO KNOW
strong a postulate and knock it down, why, I don't know whether the congress is insured or not, so take it easy.
Anyway. . . Now, anything along that aisle, that aisle or the center or inside or—that's all legitimately the ceiling, you got that?
Audience: Yes.
Oh, you really got that real good.
Now—now, do you see that pillar there?
Audience: Yes.
Huh? Well now, that is pillar number one. You got that?
Audience: Yeah, okay.
Now, any angle or look at that anywhere from any viewpoint, that's still pillar one.
Audience: Okay.
I don't want to get any semantic mess-up here. I don't want some of you preclears getting up and telling me that that isn't really pillar number one because it isn't a pillar but a column. We don't care about that. We'll call it pillar number one and that's that, see.
This over here, we call pillar number two. You see it there?
Audience: Yeah.
Look at it. You see it there? All right.
Now, back here we have pillar number four.
Audience: Four? Three?
No, that's four. Oh, you mean I woke you guys up. And that is number three. Got that real good?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now these—one, two, three, four. We will simply substitute if anybody happens to be running this as a pat, set process with no variation of com¬mand, we will simply use one, two, three, four as the corners of the room vertically, you see. But we'll use one, two, three and four. You got them now? One, two, three, four. Got it? Got it real good?
Audience: Yeah.
And you do have a front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, is there anything there resembling—now I want you to take very good care with it. Do you have a chair?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let's find out. Find out if you got a chair. It is really there?
Audience: Yes.
All right. All right.
Now, the process we are going to run, unless you object to it too much— unless you object to it too much, the process we are going to run—I don't know—just at the last moment—I do have a conscience after all—and just at the last moment here a little qualm just strikes me so I'll throw in a commu¬nication bridge right at the beginning of this, huh? And I'm going to ask you if it's all right if we run this.
Hey, seminar leaders, is it all right if I do run that first process we ran on the kids the other night? Do you think that'd be all right? Can you guys take it? Got ambulances standing by out there? All right. Okay. They got them. All right.
Now, would it be all right with you if we put into the wall a craving to know, so that it craves to know?

17

18

31 AUGUST 1956
Audience: Yeah.
Would that be all right? Oh, you won't be so glib in a moment.
Now, you understand that I want you to put into the wall or item named, a craving to know? Okay?
Audience: Yeah.
So that it craves to know. About what, we don't care. It craves to know.
Audience: Okay.
And you put it in there.
Audience: Yeah.
Is that agreed?
Audience: Yeah.
Well some of you haven't agreed to that yet. Everybody agreed to that?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, it doesn't matter how you do it. By postulate, by just saying so, by putting a—however you want to do it. Do you understand?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, all right.
The wall on your right, into the wall on the right, put a craving to know.
Audience: Yeah.
Got it real good?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. You got it in there?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's fine.
Now, into the wall on your left, put a craving to know.
Audience: Yeah.
Real good?
Audience: Yeah.
Let's do a thorough job of it. All right.
Now, into the front of the room, put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
You do that?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, into the back of the room, into the wall at the back of the room, put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay. I did it.
Let's really do that. Did you do that well?
Audience: Yeah.
You did that real good, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, that's fine.
Now, into the floor put a craving to know, so it craves to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got that real good, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, you see a ceiling up there?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Into the ceiling put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got that?

GROUP PROCESSING: CRAVE TO KNOW
Audience: Yes.
There's a couple of people not doing this! Have you got the ambulances standing by? Okay. Fire and rescue squad too!
All right. Now, how did that go?
Audience: Fine.
Now, let's see if you can do it a little bit better and this time, get that wall really craving to know. Craving to know. Get the idea? Rrrowww. Right over there. Right-hand wall, make it craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Did you make it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. All right. All right. All right.
Now, in the left-hand wall put into it a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
All right.
Now, into the front of the room put a craving to know. You put it into the front of the room.
Audience: Okay.
Easy, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
Like a breeze.
Audience: Uh-huh.
Good. Good. That's fine. All right.
Now, into the back of the room, put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Did you make it?
Audience: Yeah.
Did you really make it?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
Now, into the floor put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Is it craving to know?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Let me ask you factually right this moment, is that floor crav¬ing to know?
Audience: Yes.
All right. If there's any doubt about it in your mind, make it crave to know. You do it. You make that floor crave to know. Once more.
Audience: Okay.
All right. That's fine.
Now, let's look up at the ceiling. Now, let's put into the ceiling, craving to know. It really craves to know.
Audience: Okay.
Real good, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. You got it in that real good?
Audience: Yeah.
Okay. Now, how do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
Anybody feel horrible?
Audience: No.

19

20

31 AUGUST 1956
Everybody feels okay, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. This time we're going to refrain carefully from putting any effort into this.
Male voice: Okay.
Okay. Is that all right with you?
Audience: Yeah.
Now, we're just going to put it in with the lightest possible thing and with avoidance of effort. We're not going to use any effort or strength. We're just going to put it in there lightly, you understand. But really put it into the wall.
Female voice: Yeah.
Got it? All right.
Into the wall on the right put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Okay? Did you do that—nice?
Audience: Yeah.
Good.
Now, remember, avoid effort in this. Avoid it. All right.
Now, into the wall on the left put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Real, real lightly, huh? Delicately.
Now, into the front of the room put a craving to know, avoiding effort— craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Good. Good.
Now, into the back of the room put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
All right. How are you doing?
Audience: Fine.
Still doing all right, huh? Still alive and everything?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, into the floor put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Okay. You do that real good?
Audience: Yeah.
Now, into the floor put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
All right.
Now, look at the ceiling and into the ceiling put a craving to know.
Audience: All right. Okay.
How's that, huh?
Audience: Fine.
Are you doing real good now?
Audience: Yeah.
Doing better?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
Now, you understand, I want you to avoid effort. I don't want you to use crunch effort, you see, in this. I want you to do it lightly, carefully avoiding using any effort, you understand?
Audience: Yes.

GROUP PROCESSING: CRAVE TO KNOW
All right.
Now, into the wall on the right—and I mean into it— you put, as a sin or an overt act or anything you care, a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Did you get that good?
Audience: Okay, yeah.
All right.
Now, into the wall on the left put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
You really got that wall so it craves to know?
Audience: Yes.
Are you convinced that wall craves to know?
Audience: Yes.
It really craved to know?
Audience: Yes.
Well, you'll get better at it. You'll get better at it, don't worry about that.
Now, into the front of the room put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
How's that?
Audience: All right.
You got a craving to know into the front of the room?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
Now, into the back of the room put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got that real good?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Do you believe the back of the room craves to know?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
Now, into the floor—you still got a floor there?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Well, into the floor put—you put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
All right. That's fine.
Now, look at the ceiling.
Audience: Okay.
Have you got a ceiling there?
Audience: Yeah.
Now, into the ceiling put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
How's that?
Audience: That's fine.
Okay.
Well, how you making out? Huh?
Audience: All right.
Nobody's felt anything here?
Audience: No. Yeah.
Oh, somebody has? Well, that's good. He's probably doing the process and the rest of you are goofing.
Now listen, you make sure now that that wall on your right craves to know.
Audience: Okay.

21

22

31 AUGUST 1956
Make sure of it. Good. Make sure of it. It craves to know. We don't care what but it really craves to know. How's that?
Audience: All right.
Got it now?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, into the wall over here on your left put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
All right. That's fine.
Now, can you—you really—you really getting it in there?
Audience: Yeah.
Some of you people are a little less fast here on it?
Audience: Yeah.
A little more conscientious. Can you really get it in there?
Audience: Yeah.
Get it in there good?
Audience: Yes.
Could you guarantee that it craves to know?
Audience: Yeah.
Really craves to know?
Audience: Yes.
And that you made it crave to know?
Audience: Yeah.
You got that? Got that? You made it crave to know. It really craves to know, huh? All right. That's fine. That's fine.
I'm glad you're satisfied with that one because I'm getting a little more satisfied with you.
Now, get the front of the room here craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
Front of the room craving to know. It really wants to, huh?
Audience: Yes.
It really wants to know. Any of you people who've been instructing stu-dents get restimulated on this?
Now, into the back of the room—into the back of the room let's put crav-ing to know.
Audience: Okay.
That's easy, huh? That's real easy? Huh?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Is there anybody not satisfied yet that—anybody who feels that he has not yet put a craving to know into any of these walls? Anybody who feels he hasn't done it? It's perfectly all right for you to volunteer, I won't do anything to you.
Male voice: No.
You don't feel you've done it yet?
Male voice: No.
All right.
Male voice: But I want the auditing.
All right. Now, you really don't feel you've done it yet, real good, huh? Well, I'll tell you what you do this next time as we go around—I'll tell you

GROUP PROCESSING: CRAVE TO KNOW
exactly what you do. Just do the best you can to the wall on your right to put a craving to know into it. You try to put it into it. Do your best to get a craving to know so that that wall craves to know.
Audience: Okay.
How's that now? A little better?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? All right. Good. Good. That's fine.
Now, this wall over here—this wall over here on your left, let's get a craving to know into it.
Audience: Okay.
All right.
You getting better at it?
Audience: Yeah.
Is anybody getting worse at it?
Audience: No.
Getting better at it? Just a little bit better?
Audience: Yeah.
A little bit?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's good.
Now, see this front of the room up here, these walls and things up here? All right. Now, you put a craving to know into it.
Audience: Okay.
Got it? You get—really getting a little better at it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, let's take a look at the back of the room. Got it there?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, you put into the back of the room a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
You really getting it into the back of the room there?
Audience: Yeah.
Does it crave to know?
Audience: Yes.
All right. That's fine. You're getting just a—I don't care how much better, but just a tiny bit, huh? All right. Good.
Now, the floor. Let's put a craving to know in the floor. It really craves to know.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Good. That's fine.
Now, let's take a look at the ceiling. Now, let's put a craving to know in the ceiling.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Good. Good. Really got one in there that time?
Audience: Yeah.
Really got a craving to know in there?
Audience: Yeah.
It really wants to know now?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's good. That's very, very good.
Now, are we doing better?
Audience: Yeah.

23

24

31 AUGUST 1956
Huh? We going about the right speed now?
Audience: Yes.
Going too fast for anybody?
Audience: No.
Going too slow for anybody? Yes?
Audience: No.
All right. All right. Does anybody feel bad? Sick? Funny? Somebody back there? Well, if you do—if you do, for heaven's sakes at this time, this is not the time to stop. Now, just keep doing it and you'll feel better. All right.
That wall over there on your right, now put into it, you put into it a craving to know. Hear the auditing command: You put into it a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
Better?
Audience: Yeah.
Yeah? All right. Good.
Now, the wall over here on your left, you put into it a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got that?
Audience: Yes.
Got that pretty good, huh?
Audience: Yes.
All right. All right.
Does that wall crave to know better this time than it did before?
Audience: Yes.
You coming up a little bit? Who's still restraining himself so that he won't get sick? I guarantee if you feel sick at your stomach, if you do the process, you'll get over it in just a very few minutes. All right.
Now, let's take a look at the front of the room. Put it in me if you want to, I don't care. You can get short-circuited just as easy as the next one.
Put a craving to know into the front of the room.
Audience: Okay.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, are you getting just a little better at it? Huh?
Audience: Yeah.
Is it getting more real?
Audience: Yeah.
You know, actually this is asking a heck of a lot of you just because of the distance you are to the walls. You'll find that's a little strain but you're overcoming that even, I'm sure. Remember there's something solid at the other end. All right.
Let's take a look at that back wall. And let's put into that wall now a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got it? Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, that's real good.
Now, you got a floor there?
Audience: Yeah.

GROUP PROCESSING: CRAVE TO KNOW
All right. Now, let's put into that floor a craving to know. Make sure that floor craves to know.
Audience: Okay.
Let's do it again just for good measure because you know it's right up close there. I mean, it's easy to do that one. So let's do it again. Let's get it really craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
Easier to do when it's the floor?
Audience: No.
No? Oh, you mean you guys are getting sharp, huh? Well, all right. Well, all right.
Look at the ceiling.
Audience: Okay.
Got the ceiling there?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, let's put—into the ceiling a craving to know.
Audience: Okay, okay, all right.
Good. Is it really craving?
Male voice: Yeah.
Has it just got to?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. All right. Let's do that again with the ceiling. Only this time, let's carefully avoid doing it with any effort.
Audience: Okay. All right.
Got that? Do it lightly.
Male voice: Yes.
Did you get away with it better the second time?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. All right. That's fine. That's fine. There we went round and round. And how are we doing now? We finding this easier to do?
Audience: Yes.
Huh? Finding this much easier to do?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Some of you are wondering why I am running this process. I am running this process because it's the top process of "think."
Let's look at that wall over there on your right and you put into it a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
You got that real good?
Audience: Yeah.
Okay. Now, just for good measure let's put it into that wall again.
Audience: Okay.
How's that, huh?
Audience: Fine.
Fine.
All right. Good. Good. You did it?
Audience: Yeah.

25

26

31 AUGUST 1956
All right. Good.
Now, let's look at this wall over here on your left. Now, we're gonna do this one twice, too. So, put craving to know in that wall.
Audience: Okay.
You get it craving to know. All right. You do that?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, all right. Let's do it again. Now, you put into that wall on the left a craving to know. It really craves to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got that?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's fine. That's fine.
Now, into the front of the room put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
How about you people in the back? You making it okay?
Audience: Yeah.
Remember, seminar leaders have a license to kick you, if you're not doing the process. All right. You get that real good?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Let's do it once more. Into the front of the room let's put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Making a good job of it now?
Audience: Yeah.
Did you get it really craving to know?
Audience: Yes.
Huh? Got that real good?
Audience: Uh-huh.
All right. That's very, very good.
Now, let's look at the back of the room. Now, into the back of the room put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay. All right.
Got that?
Audience: Yeah.
Got that real good, huh? Once more into the back of the room put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got that?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's fine. That's fine. All right.
Now, once more, you got a floor there?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, you put into that floor a craving to know.
Audience: Okay. All right.
All right. You got that?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? Very, very good. You got that real good?
Audience: Uh-huh.
Now, once more into the floor put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
You're good at this, huh? Getting better at this?
Audience: Yeah.

GROUP PROCESSING: CRAVE TO KNOW
Is anybody getting worse at it?
Audience: No.
Well, let's once more into the floor put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Did it really crave to know?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's fine.
Now, let's look at the ceiling.
Audience: Okay.
Now, into the ceiling put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
How's that?
Audience: Fine.
Making out better?
Male voice: Sure.
All right.
Let's look at the ceiling again and put into it a craving to know. Now, let's get that—you get that ceiling craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
Well, it's getting better now. How are you making out—really a lot better?
All right. That's fine.
Now, we've been around once more and have we had any casualties?
Does any person still feel ill while they're doing this? Huh?
Audience: No.
Well, have you stopped doing it because you feel ill?
Audience: No.
You still doing it? Is the illness getting better or worse?
Male voice: It's getting harder to do it.
That's the boy. That's good, we're coming right up on it. This is good. Don't worry. Don't worry. You're in good hands.
All right. Into the wall on your right, you put a craving to know and make sure that you do it—that's why it's getting harder— you do it. You put a craving to know into the walls.
Audience: Okay.
That's right, isn't it? Was that good?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, into that wall on your right again, you put once more a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
You got that?
Audience: Yes.
Getting much smoother now, isn't it? Huh?
Female voice: Yeah.
All right.
Now, this wall on your left—now you put into it a craving to know.
Audience: Okay. All right.
All right.
You did that well, huh?
Audience: Yeah.

27

28

31 AUGUST 1956
All right. That's good.
Once more into the wall on your left put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
You got that real good, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
Good. Good. How you doing?
Audience: Fine.
Doing better?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, into the front of the room put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Doing that real good?
Audience: Yes.
Doing it better?
Audience: Yes.
Are you doing it?
Audience: Yes.
Are you doing it to the wall?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Just check these things and again into the front of the room, put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
All right. All right. Is that more satisfactory?
Female voice: Yes.
Okay. All right.
You see the back of the room? Now, you put into the back of the room a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got that real good?
Audience: Yes.
Oh, you're getting better at it, huh? All right. Once more, let's look at the back of the room and put a craving to know into it.
Audience: Okay.
You get it craving to know. That's good. Do it?
Audience: Okay.
Do it real good?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, that's fine.
How about—how about these sick tummies? They getting better? Does anybody feel sicker than he did?
Male voice: Yeah.
We got a couple that feel sicker, huh?
Male voice: Right.
Ah! This time—this time why, you really make sure you put it into the walls. Now, you put it into walls and it's all right. It'll go away.
Into that floor—into that floor right now, particularly you people who are sick, let's put a craving to know. Really craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Did it really crave to know?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. All right.

GROUP PROCESSING: CRAVE TO KNOW
Now, once more—once more you put into the floor a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Did that real well?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
And into the ceiling—look at the ceiling—and into the ceiling I want you to put a craving to know.
Audience: All right. Okay.
Get that ceiling really craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
All right.
Now, once more into the ceiling let's put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Now, how's that?
Audience: Fine.
Hm? Okay, well that isn't too bad, huh?
Audience: No.
Not too bad?
Audience: No.
Well, all right.
Now, how about—how about these people that were feeling a little bit sick over this? You feeling sicker still?
Male voice: Same.
About the same? Well don't—don't—don't renege from doing it. You do it a few more times and you'll be all right.
Now, listen—listen. This time around please—please! I don't ask you to do anything for me very often. But this time, please—please get the wall craving to know so that it is in a psychotic fit. All right.
And into the wall on your right put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Okay. Now, let's check it to see—make sure it's in a psychotic fit.
Audience: No.
Well let's—let's try it again. Into that wall on your right you put a crav¬ing to know.
Audience: Okay.
Is it in a fit?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's very, very good. That's very good. You're doing real well.
And into the wall over here on your left you put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
Got it real good?
Audience: Yeah.
Now is it in a fit?
Audience: Yeah.
Does it really crave to know?
Audience: Yes.
Real good? Huh? How's that? All right.
Now, once more into that wall put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
This time did you do it well enough so that you felt we oughta send for

29

30

31 AUGUST 1956
the wagon? Okay. Did you do it well enough so that we should've sent for the wagon to take the wall away and pad it up? Huh? All right. That's pretty good. That's pretty good.
Now, into the front of the room, I want you to put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
How's that, huh?
Audience: That's fine.
Got that real good?
Audience: Yes.
Is it in a fit?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
Once more, then, into the front of the room you put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? Well, let's check it now and let's make sure it's in a fit.
Audience: Yeah.
Really craves?
Audience: Yeah.
Commit suicide and everything else if it doesn't find out.
Audience: Yeah.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? All right.
Now, once more into the front of the room you put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
How's that, huh?
Audience: Fine.
How's that?
Audience: Fine.
All right. That's just fine, that's just fine. Is it in a fit?
Audience: Yes.
All right. That's good.
Now, into the back of the room—the back of the room—the back of the room—into the back of the room, you put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
How's that?
Audience: Fine.
Good, good.
And once more into the back of the room, you put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Is it in a fit?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's good.
Now, into the floor—into the floor you put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
You got it?
Audience: Yeah.
Good. You did that?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's fine.

GROUP PROCESSING: CRAVE TO KNOW
And once more into the floor, you put a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
Everybody now, you put a craving to know into that floor.
Audience: Okay.
No dogging off on me. I'll get three feet back of your head and part your hair. Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
Did you do that?
Audience: Yeah.
You getting much better at it?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right.
Now, let's look at the ceiling and you put into the ceiling a craving to know.
Audience: Okay.
You're real good at that, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
Does it crave to know better than it did when we began?
Audience: Yes.
Very much so?
Audience: Yeah.
You can do this stuff much better?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, you put again into the ceiling a craving to know.
Audience: All right. Okay.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
Now, did you—you did this much better this last time than you did, let's say, halfway through.
Audience: Yes.
You did?
Audience: Yeah.
Now, what do you—what do you feel now?
Male voice: Boredom.
Is anybody still upset?
Female voice: No.
Somebody bored with it now?
Male voice: Yes.
What are you doing having an emotion? I told you to make the wall have an emotion. The idea of having an emotion!
Well, we'll just have to pick this up later. I'll tell you why, because I want to know if you got a floor,
Audience: Yeah!
I want to know if you've got a chair.
Audience: Yeah.
Got a floor?
Audience: Yeah.
Got a chair?
Audience: Yeah.
Got someone on your right?
Audience: Yeah.
Somebody on the left?

31

32

31 AUGUST 1956
Audience: Yeah.
You got somebody in the audience?
Audience: Yeah.
Got anybody on the stage?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
Is there anybody in the audience?
Audience: Yes.
Let's be sure of that.
Audience: Okay.
Thank you. All right.
Now, is there anybody on the stage?
Audience: Yes.
Good.
Is there anybody in the audience?
Audience: Yes.
Good.
Is there anybody on the stage?
Audience: Yes.
Good.
Is there anybody in the audience?
Audience: Yes.
Good.
Is there anybody on the stage?
Audience: Yes.
Good.
Is there anybody in the audience? .
Audience: Yes.
Good.
Is there anybody on the stage?
Audience: Yes.
Good.
Is there anybody in the audience?
Audience: Yes.
Good.
Is there anybody on the stage?
Audience: Yes.
You mean I'm here?
Audience: Yes.
Hey! What do you know! All right. Okay.
Now, you got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
You have?
Audience: Yes.
You got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
You got a floor?
Audience: Yes.
You got a chair?
Audience: Yes.
Well, hello!
Audience: Hello!

GROUP PROCESSING: CRAVE TO KNOW
Well, hello!
Audience: Hello!
Well, hello!
Audience: Hello!
Hello!
Audience: Hello!
Hello!
Audience: Hello!
Hello!
Audience: Hello!
Hello!
Audience: Hello!
Hello!
Audience: Hello!
Hello!
Audience: Hello!
Hello!
Audience: Hello!
Hello!
Audience: Hello!
Hello!
Audience: Hello!
Hello!
Audience: Hello!
Well, I thought you could get up so that I could hear you. All right. All right.
It's a big mystery actually if you want to know why I ran that process on you. But I merely wanted to say goodbye to all the thinkingness processes we have ever done. Because that's the top and most effective button of them, so I just thought I would run it on you and you could see how an old-time process looked.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
So we ran that one just so we could say goodbye to it. You got it?
Well, you think the congress has started now?
Audience: Yes!
All right.
Let's take a twenty-minute break.
Audience: Okay.

33



THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN PROBLEMS
A lecture given on 31 August 1956
There are those you know who—who know and there are those who know; there are those who know. And then there are no—those who don't care if they find out or not. And then there are those, you see, who—who better not find out.
Audience: Yeah.
Now, just ran a little process on you here which is a very, very interest¬ing process, just to say goodbye to the figure-figure band.
As I say, it flattens on a preclear, individually audited, just exactly as I did it—putting it in the walls, making sure he puts it into the walls. It flat¬tens in about three to five minutes. That is, the worst of the results and effects come off.
It's a genetic entity implant and is the higher harmonic of eating.
Did you ever run into a preclear who sort of digested his engrams? Did you? Did you ever run into one?
Well, I see that this phenomenon is not entirely unknown.
Now, the difficulties, the general difficulties which a preclear has are— stem really from curiosity. And this is a very high button, you see. And it's a fabulous thing, this curiosity. And one of the better and more understandable explanations of what a preclear is doing, who pulls in engrams on himself, is explained in that one button, "craving to know." Only his body pulls them in, he doesn't. A thetan would pull them in and look at them, a body pulls them in and digests them. Do you see that as a possible phenomenon?
In other words, an individual has to know about his past—"Mirhuhhh, if I don't find out..." see? No telling what will happen if he doesn't discover whether or not. . . Well, let's—let's not go Freudian because we're not talking about psychoanalysis.
Well, let's see, let me think of another example. Well, let's say, he—he has to know whether or not he was buried or married during his tonsillec-tomy. Some simple mental problem.
Well, what makes him so anxious? It's just that some thetan or other has played the trick on him of planting in him "craving to know." That's really all—all there is to it.
Because he doesn't crave to know anything, he merely craves to know. Got that?
And the funniest part of it is, is that any person simply does want to know things, but when he craves to know things, he can't learn! Because the

35

36

31 AUGUST 1956
second he starts to know something he gets sick! Do you understand?
He craves to know and somebody starts to oblige him and he said . . . Only he does it so fast, he doesn't realize there's a somatic involved. Follow me? He does it so fast he doesn't realize there's a somatic involved in it. Craving to know.
Therefore, a healthy desire to know is balked by a craving to know.
A person, a student who is craving to know something, never finds it out.
Give you an example. Husband jealous of wife. Why? No evidence. But he still craves to know who she's been out with.
You see, he really doesn't care whether it—whether she's been out or not. It's just that he craves to know. And if he can't find out—buhahhhah, see? That is the jealousy somatic that so many of you have seen.
Now, somebody arrested, for instance suddenly, craves to know why he is being arrested; but again, this "why he is being arrested" is simply just the same manifestation all over again. You got it?
The case that doesn't have any—very good luck in processing is running this way. You audit out four or five incidents, he finds out about what he's doing. You see? He finds out about these hidden points in the time track and he gets them very smoothly down, and so forth. And you say, "Boy, now that man will feel better," we say. "Oh, that man will feel very much better."
Three, four days later, he's craving to know what happened before then. So we audit out a few more engrams and he finds out by the picture system what happened to him. He feels so relieved and then next week he's got to find out why his father married the girl. In other words, his curiosity has fallen down the line from simple interest and curiosity, into a somatic desire and this physical desire, this craving to know, gets him into jealousy, gets him into problems, problems, problems, problems, problems. He finally gets problems so that he'll have a craving to know about problems. And he has to have more problems so that he can know the answers to those because he knows that he has to have the answers to problems, because he craves to know the answers to problems. So naturally, he has to have problems in order to know about them.
I know that doesn't make sense because it doesn't make sense.
But this is a congress on human problems, so I just thought we might as well take the first day and just dish this whole thing in. Do you see?
Problems are the lower harmonic of curiosity and that's all they are.
Now, they have other anatomies—problems fit into games. A person wants a game, wants problems.
But problems only cross up where an individual has to know the answer to the problem!
Now, let me assure you that a research man going on a "craving to know" never learns anything because he is made so impatient by this somatic that he never can stand still long enough to find out!
So that we get the view of somebody who takes test tubes and Bunsen burners and prefrontal lobes and other material objects and he keeps looking at these things, and he's just about to discover something, when he says, "I'll find out about that. .. No, we'll leave that up to Professor Upjohn." "Now, Professor Upjohn, why don't you do a connected series of three cases. That's plenty to establish it as the national remedy for this." And he doesn't ever find out.
It becomes painful to know, because he wants to know.
Knowingness can even be a blow. It's a very odd thing, that if you were

THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN PROBLEMS
to take a man and hit him very hard, he would get up believing he had found out something. Do you follow me? He would actually believe he'd discovered something. He'll have all sorts of rationale concerning this.
But let's say—let's say we were being Schutzstaffel or something of the—of another age and time, that seemed to specialize in this sort of thing; but their idea of "human rights" was to put somebody up to his neck in foul water for thirty days. That was human rights: the right to be tortured.
And the Schutzstaffel then—let us say would get this fellow and they would hit him and he would get up feeling he possibly might know some¬thing, you see. And they didn't have to say anything, they just hit him! And then he might know something. And then they would just hit him and then he figured out, "You know, there's something I might know. Let's see. Why are they punishing me? I must be guilty of something. I do know something, I'm sure. It's just on the tip of my mind in some fashion that—" so on.
So, they get him out in the water and they hit him again! And they hit him again! And they hit him again! And they say—then after they have given him this regimen—they say to him "Confess!" And he, if he's really been handled and he was crazy in the first place, he now confesses. To what? To anything. Because he knows something and it's a great relief to him to give voice to somebody else. Do you understand that? That he knows something.
And the only thing his accusers will listen to is a confession of his own deeds which he never performed.
Now, I assure you that there's something quite peculiar about this. He doesn't confess because he wishes to escape further punishment—that is a rationale. He confesses because he believes he did it.
Now, how does he believe he did it? Well, he must know something. Obvi-ously, they keep hitting him. It has nothing to do with the fact they're accusing him. They just keep hitting him. And every time they hit him, he's got the sensation of having received some information. And eventually he becomes the information he thinks he's receiving and he will actually remem¬ber having sabotaged the railroad cars or done something filthy like—oh, I don't know—thought a dirty thought about a general or something.
And he will come up and he will say, "Well, I did it."
How does this mechanism occur? It occurs in a very, very simple fashion, actually. Knowingness is a common denominator and so blows, food, anything else, would be either on a desire to know, which is curiosity, or knowingness itself. And these things play off one against the other and we get as a result of this a very tangled state of affairs. Because it might be in the first place that there's nothing to know. It just might be that there's nothing to know! It just might be that everything that there is to know has to be invented in the first place so you know about it. Do you follow me?
So, right along with "Craving to know," we get another button which isn't auditable particularly, called "Inventing something to know about."
A thetan, native state, not-knows anything about it, makes something, invents something to know about it, gives parts of the body internally all kinds of Latin names. And then says, "You see, I know something about this. Look at all this list of names." Well, that's idiotic, but he thinks he knows something about it.
You take a—oh, I don't know, a brain—a brain collector—one of these chaps—one of these chaps who makes a whole long list of things, and he says, "These things are psychosis. There's epiflavus; there's manic obulous; there's schizophrenia class one, class two, class three, class four and schizophrenia

37

38

31 AUGUST 1956
unclassified. Then there's legulla oblongata, schizophrenia paranoia—unclas-sified." You know?
Did you ever see some of the Germanic insanity classifications? They go page, after page, after page and at the end of that page after page after page, we get down to something very, very interesting indeed. We get "other types." And at—under these "other types" we find all the insane people that they pulled into the sanitarium. They have a very good system there—nobody ever uses it.
Well now, that system was imported into America from Germany, along with psychiatry some fifty years ago. And the system has not been changed materially, but it has been added to and added to and added to and added to until there are as many psychoses, pretendedly, as there are parts of the brain. And believe me, there are a lot of parts of the brain.
I look in a brain and I don't see very much, except some neurons that are going snap against the synapses. It's not a very complicated arrange-ment. It is not even very electrical, it is not even very helpful, but you wouldn't want sawdust in there. Brains don't do any thinking.
And what do you know. We have a lot to know about on the subject of insanity then, all of which is invented knowingness.
Now, somebody comes along, thinking about this, in this congress of human problems, and puts a bill down here through the United States Con-gress and enacts it into law, the first line of which says, "In view of the fact that 775,000 people are admitted every day into American mental institutions..." And a little further down, ". . . and in view of the fact that the better institu-tions cure 75 percent of those who are sent to them . . ." And a little further down, "We hereby demand and receive an appropriation to create better public relations for psychiatry ..."
And only one association in the United States was permitted to use or to make a bid for any part of that money. And those facts that appeared in a bill before the United States Congress and were enacted into law are lies— complete utter falsehoods. And the individuals who put them in are guilty of fraudulent misappropriation of United States funds! That's theft!
Because 775,000 Americans aren't admitted every day into institutions! If that were true, how long would it take to put the whole country in?
Now, here could be something to know about. There really could be some-thing to know. That is to say, a being mocks up, let us say, a table, and he says, "You put things on it." And people say, "Well, we can agree to that. That's good. That's fine. That's useful."
And then somebody else comes along and invents a whole classification of tables by manufacturer. Well, this is useful, too. There are Chippendales and Steinways and other furniture makers who ... I see we have some other pianists in the audience. And these people, of course, classifying those are simply classifying something that's real and actual. The table is real, it's solid. You've got something there, you can put things on it, you could take things off of it, you could build it in various ways, you can cover it with various cloths. It is something with which we can associate with, handle, feel-it's there. That's all.
Now, you could know about that. You could even have a catalog of the people who build tables and all of the types of tables, and this is all factual, because they did build them and there were various types.
But what would we think of somebody who came along after all this and made a totally completely phony classification on the subject of tables?

THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN PROBLEMS
He said that tables were ordinarily used to dry shoes. He gave us thou¬sands of uses all of which were assigned to tables. None of them were useful to tables. He gave us types of tables that were never built, never observed, never seen!
Well, we would say, that man—that man has no sense of utility or the fitness of things. Right?
Audience: Right.
What would you think of somebody who—great—gave numerous classifi-cations of insanity which were not discovered in real life?
Do you know that you could keep on classifying insanity on and on and on and on until every slightest eccentricity was then classified as an insanity—every slightest eccentricity. The fact that somebody didn't always put his shoes on when he got out of bed, but walked around barefooted for twenty minutes. We could then finally say, "This is insanity!" couldn't we?
We keep adding to this classification, adding to it, adding to it, more and more insanity, more and more insanity, more and more types until we would have achieved this goal of every American in an institution.
Now, I ask you, would insanity be on the increase? Or would the classifi-cations be on the increase?
Audience: Right.
In other words, it might not be true today at all that insanity is on the increase! It might be declining enormously—unless it was worth money to somebody to have it increase.
Now, I realize that it's a serious charge to say that any group has fraudu-lently obtained funds from the United States. And if I were not in possession of the bill, and if I had not had the exact appropriation located, if we had not found the money and had then thereafter seen the program in action, I would not tell you those facts. But that bill can be procured from the printing office down in Congress.
Male voice: What's the number?
The bill number? Forgotten at the moment. The copy of the bill, however, is in our files. They change numbers on bills every time they go from the House to the Senate and then to the printing office again. And then it's public law and it gets very confusing keeping track of them. So it's no sense trying to look for copies of bills—you merely look for "Appropriations— psychiatric." And you'll find that bill.
There have been other such bills. Bills and bills and bills and bills, all of which seem to have to do with increasing facilities, increasing payrolls and increasing insanity! Now that is important.
That is important to us here at this congress because we are the only people at this time in America who are doing anything for mental health! And we aren't considered even vaguely fit to be near insanity, and so we don't handle it. We don't want it actually. Our business happens to be in the field of ability.
But the fact is that we can do something about it! Then please answer the question: Why hasn't somebody stepped forward—because we've talked enough, we've written enough, we've demonstrated enough. Why hasn't some¬body stepped forward and said, "Boys, if it is true that insanity is increasing at this alarming rate so that very soon we're going to have to put an electric wire fence all the way around America—here's a government institution— show us what you can do." We'd show them.
I've seen an old Dianeticist walk down the hall of an institution and

39

40

31 AUGUST 1956
leave—out of all the many people he addressed—two or three of them perfectly sane behind him. He just told them to come up to present time. Everybody he met in the institution, he'd say, "Hello. Come up to present time."
One girl came up to present time and gave a speech that night on how glad she was to be there. Factual—factual.
No, I wouldn't lead you astray or lay myself open to libel suits by giving you information on this very interesting subject.
But there is something to know about the mind: that it exists, that it has reality, that it has existence, that it follows certain rules and patterns. And that is only as true as we find those amongst us who have those pat-terns and who do follow that existence, and who do share with us an agreement upon the reality of this physical universe.
But if we invariably discover this to be the case, then there is something to know about the mind. And we can stop inventing things to know about it.
I'll give you an example of inventing something to know about the mind. "All insanity stems from childhood sexual peccadillos." You people can handle minds and making people more able. And have you ever found one preclear whose case and life resolved because you could eradicate some small sexual experience or guilt in his life? Have you ever?
Audience: No.
Has anybody found one?
Well, then, let me tell you something. You have handled amongst you thousands and thousands of people and, therefore, the datum couldn't pos-sibly be real, could it?
Well, then what's it doing still being sold, at what expense, to the United States government? If it isn't there, why are they treating it? Unless, of course, they might have other fish to fry. But that we don't know—that we don't care about.
We can appreciate a man trying to hold a job just like we can appreciate a hog trying to lie in the food trough, if he holds that job only to keep other men from holding jobs as well.
So, it's very pertinent, this congress of human problems, to take up this thing called knowingness—very, very pertinent indeed. Because there is something to know about the mind—there is something to know.
Maybe man didn't know it a few years ago, but we certainly can demon¬strate that it's there to know about. And that by knowing it, a great deal of return to sanity and ability can result. That, I think you will all agree on, don't you?
Audience: Yes!
Very well then. Isn't it time that we kissed goodbye to all this invented knowingness?
How we go about doing that happens to be the business of this congress, because it is the primary problem in our own lives and is a primary problem in the public life of our country.
What we do to discourage misappropriation of funds on misrepresenta-tion of facts; what we do to swing forward a broad, effective program to bring into being a saner look at insanity, a saner look at neurosis—and more importantly and better and more intimately in our own activities—a better use of our ability to create higher abilities in man. Do you agree with me that that is a good enough reason to have a congress?
We have a great deal of technology. I suppose we have examined over ten thousand, certainly, separate phenomena in the mind, body and spirit since

THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN PROBLEMS
1950. We have probably examined more per month than are taught in a uni-versity in four years. We have isolated the relative importances of these things and we have it down to a point now where we know what is important to handle, and what is unimportant to handle.
And the importance of a datum is of equal magnitude to the datum itself. If you don't know how important a datum is, there's no sense in know¬ing the datum at all.
We knew an awful lot of data in 1950, but we hadn't sorted out all of its importances.
It's very interesting to see an old-timer or a newcomer look in and say, "I thought this was a discovery of last month," and he finds it in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. It's very interesting and it would be very pleasant to take such a compliment of having been so far—farseeing.
The only difficulty is this: that I didn't know how important it was. But now, knowing Scientology later on, he does know how important it is. So, he does the evaluation of it and brings the importance out and sees that it was written before, and he says, "Ah-ha," he says, "Ahhh—Ron's pretty smart." And of course, I don't go around saying, "Well, luck off that..." I say, "Well, we do have certain insights."
But the selection of importances has occupied the greater proportion of our time doing this work. And we've got it narrowed down now to some very interesting importances—very interesting and very simple.
Now, to give you this information at the same time that I talk to you about using it, seems to me to be quite pat. It seems to me that's what I ought to be doing. Because I can't talk to you forever about the first dynamic if the third dynamic won't permit a first dynamic to exist. And if first dynamics won't permit third dynamics to exist, we will have a very, very unbalanced culture to say the least. You know what would happen if you had a society of cats. Every cat going around is "the only one." I dare say, there'd be some interesting randomity connected with observing such a society, but I seriously doubt that the society itself could handle any of its problems.
And do you know I sincerely believe that it has been necessary to make men who were able enough to handle the problems of the third dynamic before we could have solutions on the third dynamic, and I think we have done that.
I came back here to Washington—the people in the organization are bright, alert people. I look at your faces out there, they aren't the faces I looked at a few years ago. They're younger, more vital, more interested. You look at me—I should have been dead long ago. According to some people if only for the public security.
But we have answers. Then are we going to take these answers and file them under some professorial classification and say, "Well, we did a good job. And now that we've finished off the task of research, why should we do any¬thing about it at all?" Are we going to do that?
Audience: No!
Well, if we're not going to do that, then I'm afraid that we have a little work ahead of us. I'm afraid there's an awful lot of game just over the horizon.
You see, you have to feel comfortable, in addition to your own ability, you have to feel comfortable about your ability to handle aberration in other people. You have to be comfortable about that.
You, yourself, have to feel a security in your handling of it before you would ever have a subjective reality on the fact that we were actually at end of research track.

41

42

31 AUGUST 1956
Development—certainly—anything can be refined. Anything! Anything can be smoothed down. But I'm afraid we're over the major hump. And with that, we can look toward action.
What sort of action? Bombastic, irresponsible action of a kind that tears more things down than they build up?
No, I think our actions should be to prevent irresponsible action and place forward action which is comprehensible to people of whatever degree or social level.
But we will take all that up a few days hence before the congress is over. And right now I'm just talking to you about knowingness, and I wouldn't for a moment influence you.
Now, here we have an old friend—to show you where research has gone— here we have an old, old friend. It is a scale which is known as the Know-Mystery Scale.
You remember this scale?
Audience: Yes.
Of course you would. It's a scale. It's a degree of knowingness, actually, and it all comes together under the titles of something to know about. That's all the scale consists of. That's all the life there is.
Well, right under that scale we have a thing called "not-know," which you ordinarily know as "forget."
Now, a person knows everything there is to know and then he has to "not-know" something so he'll have some game. He'll have something to do— he'll have something to think about. So he "not-knows," or he forgets his past.
Some man who is the greatest authority in the world on sponges, let us say, quite frequently likes to forget the whole thing and become an absent-minded professor so that he can go and study about sponges all over again. It gives him something to do.
All right, forgettingness is, of course, in this.
But the next step we get down from there is a very old friend of ours known as "look."
What does look consist of? Look consists of all perceptions. Do you follow me? All perceptions. The principal four and the fifty others we discovered in the Foundation years ago. There are about fifty-four of these perceptions. Quite an amazing number of them. But they are a perception level of things. You see things, you hear things, you feel hot, cold, the sense of position—all of these things are perceptions of one kind or another.
But we have summed them up under look.
But down below this we have emote—emotion. So that below lookingness we have emotion. And below emotion, we have effort. So that an individual who cannot feel emotion does usually, generally feel only effort. He cries— only feels no grief. Because emotion is above his effort.
And down below this we have a thing called think, and that's what the brain is supposed to do. Figure-figure-figure-figure.
And below think, we have, of course, very rapidly here, symbols. And below symbols, we have eat. And below eat we have sex. And below sex we have mystery. An individual can be seen to go upwards, as he is processed, in terms of interest.
In other words, at first he's interested only in mysteries, and that's what we just audited, really, the bottom of all of what we audited there, "craving to know" is a mystery. Only a mystery could be so bad that you wouldn't even know there was anything to know about, or know that there was a mystery

THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN PROBLEMS
there, and that would be the mystery of so-called mysteries. And that's what we are talking about at that band.
Just above that we have sex. Just above that we have eat. Just above that we have symbols. Then we have think. And then we have effort.
But, you know, it takes—just shows you what auditing can do for a person, when I could stand up in front of this many people and say, "I've been wrong." It just shows you what auditing can do. I don't know that I'd do it.
But let us say—let us say I am "omitted." Oh, isn't that a lovely word. I don't have to be "wrong," I'm merely "omitted."
I didn't notice something as we sailed by. There's another part of this scale which tells the whole story of auditing—symbols, down here, and above it—solids. And those two things flank think.
And when one has sym—solids made into symbols, he thinks.
A symbol is anything that has mass, meaning and mobility. If you've got something with mass, meaning and mobility it's going to run into things and get dislocated one way or the other, and if you notice this you're liable to think about it. Do you see this?
So let's just magnify, for your own curiosity, this scale, and put it down on this basis.
Here we have our old friend, effort, which is to say forte main, strength, and so forth, and under effort we have solids, and under solids we have think, and just to keep us on the scale, we have, of course, below here symbols.
Well, that's quite amazing, since that gives us the anatomy of problems. This is a congress on human problems; there's the anatomy of them.
An individual trying to pass from effort upwards would have to go through the emotional band. In other words, he can't lift the table, so he cries—some such thing. Now, that's an inverted look.
Much better than that, after an individual can no longer feel apathy, he feels sort of thick, you know, he's sort of woody, you know, sort of dah!
And we go right down from there and we find this is part and parcel of it, as he goes down from simply feeling—tactile is the last perception to move out—he gets into solids, and it is just that solid there.
Well, the only knowingness left to him is a thinking and symbolization. He figure-figures. He doesn't ever quite arrive at any information. He wants to know about things all the time; he invents things to know about. But actually, here we have a level where he is "craving to know," because he "can't know," you see. He's below being able to know, so he just really "craves to know."
And down here we have inventions—to know about. He craves to know, so he invents a lot of things to know about—none of which are actual. Do you follow me clearly?
In other words, when an individual can no longer actively really know, he comes on down scale, he can't emote, he usually can't perceive—is passing. He gets into solids and he can't—follow this carefully—he cannot any longer tolerate solids, then where does he go? Figure-figure-figure.
And his solution is not a solid, but a symbol. Mathematics does this. Mathematics does not confront the bridge girders, mathematics confronts a piece of paper about bridge girders, doesn't it? But if the individual using the mathematics is actually capable of knowingness then the mathematics has some use.
If the individual who is using the mathematics does not have any knowingness, then he is not capable of any use. Don't you see? If he's not

43

44

31 AUGUST 1956
capable of knowing what he has just written down as symbols, then what good are the symbols?
So, suppose you then had people who just wrote down symbols and thought about them without ever knowing anything! Symbols—he thought about them, and thought about them, and they were symbols. And he thought a little bit more, so he wrote some more symbols, but he didn't know what they mean, so he thought about them. You see how this could be? And this is the basic problem. An individual who is at this band has problems in such legion that to solve any of his problems would be a great disfavor for the excellent reason that he can't tolerate a solution.
Now, hardly anybody, thinkingly speaking, can really well tolerate solu-tions. You try to run too many solutions on a person before you also give him the ability to have a few more problems, he's liable to become upset! You follow me? Making sense to you?
Audience: Yes.
Any way?
In other words, what I'm trying to tell you about is, that is the basic anatomy of human problems!
Human problems are that the individual cannot face the actuality of the problem—he can't face the mass anymore. He can no longer look at his wife, let us say, he can no longer look at his children, he can no longer really look at his car. These are all solids, you see.
But something is keeping him in the house, but he doesn't want to be there. There's only one thing left for him to do! That's think! Do you see that?
When they can no longer face solids, they think! Figure-figure-figure, think-think-think-think-think. Let's see. Let's see. And it drives them mad not to have something to think about. So they get symbols as substitutes for solids and getting these symbols in various juxtapositions so that they are incomprehensible, they then have something to think about. And this ordi-narily passes for thinking.
I've just given you an example of that. Because they cannot face the actual fact of a psychotic, some practitioners are likely to think about psycho¬sis, not look at it. Don't you see? They can't confront the solid, so they think about it in terms of symbols. And they wind up in thinking psychoses and neuroses that don't exist. And they become a problem. They themselves are now a problem as people, as a practice, because they're not solving anything, they're not doing anything, they're just running via. They write down some more symbols, and they think about these symbols, and then they write down another book, and so on, and they never look at this at all. Do I make my point?
Audience: Yes.
They just never look at a solid at all, so how the devil could they know anything about the subject if there was no way, whatsoever, for them to com-municate with the subject itself?
Supposing they couldn't tolerate solids at all! Supposing nothing in the world could be solid to them. They couldn't look at a person. A person is pretty solid. They couldn't look at a—at any time, they couldn't look at the actual instruments with which they were dealing, they could just think about looking. And this is one of the more curious things you ever saw.
You say to some fellow, "How are your children?" If he can't look at his children, you will see him go, "Well—uh—I think they're all right. Uh—they're doing fine. I think." See?

THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN PROBLEMS
In other words, a person who can no longer confront the object he is supposed to know about can no longer know about it! If one cannot confront the object one is trying to know about, he will never know about it!
So, the first mechanism necessary to know about a subject, the first mechanism to know about a subject is: Is it? The first thing you'd have to know about a subject: Is it? Does it exist?
There's no sense in knowing all there is to know about the Rocky Moun¬tain ibex if there are no Rocky Mountain ibex and never have been.
Then one comes into a dream world, a complete fantasy. So therefore his problems and his worries have nothing to do with the actual masses or objects with which he's surrounded.
A person with marital problems cannot confront the objects connected with marriage! So he has problems about them, and thinks about them, and that is all! He never looks!
You could say then that a man who has major overwhelming and over-powering problems is in—unable to confront the objects which are the subjects of those problems! Do you follow me?
Audience: Yes.
This gets very plain then, doesn't it?
Audience: Yes.
In other words, an individual who has problems with cars can't look at a car. And you'll find this is true in society. You'll see some old rattletrap bucketing along one way or the other. Well, maybe it's just running on a wish and a prayer because the guy can't afford anything else.
Now, there is another manifestation entirely. A car is going along, and its wheels are kind of going this-a-way and that way, it's going dah-dah-dah and no money problem really involved, or maybe there is, but you say to the fellow, "How are you getting along with your car?"
"Oh, the thing won't start."
"Oh, it won't start?"
"Oh, in addition to everything else, it won't start."
You say, "Well, well, what are we going to do with this thing? What are we going to do with this thing?"
He'd say, "I don't know."
The car is sitting there, see.
"Yeah, I don't know. I wonder why it won't start? That's all right, don't tell me, I'll think of it in a month. I wonder why the car won't start? I wonder if it wasn't the—oh, I don't know, it might have been the type of gasoline, it might not have been, dah, dah. . . Let's see, who used that car last week? Oh, I've forgotten, but I bet it was that person that used the car last week must have done something to the car to make it start..."
And he's liable to walk right off from the car and start complaining to people about the person who used the car last week, and trying to find out who it was. The car didn't start because he didn't turn on the ignition key! Why didn't he turn on the ignition key? Because he can't look at the car.
I did this one day myself in a very interesting way. I dismantled the little ignition system because I couldn't get it to work and put it back together again at considerable cost and effort and time. We wanted to use the vehicle and I put the little ignition system back together again, and so forth and noticed that a battery terminal wasn't connected. There wasn't any sense in taking the ignition system to pieces. It didn't have any juice through the wires.
And we were at that time running the motto, "Look, don't think." We

45

46

31 AUGUST 1956
knew that, but we didn't know how important that was going to be to Scien-tology. And me, I just really, actually had not looked all the way around on the circuit and noticed that the battery terminal was disconnected.
We all do things like that whether we're in a hurry or otherwise. Well, don't confuse that with an inability to look at a battery—an inability to look at an ignition system. An individual will take them all to pieces and strew them all over the floor and you'll never get them back together again. He has to create a new problem, don't you see.
He creates a new problem every time he attempts to solve the old one! And he creates the new problems which are worse than the problems that they solve. Once upon a time we used to call this the "principle of the intro-duction of an arbitrary." And that's just how they did it, that's all. That explains how they did it. This explains what they're doing.
An individual who can no longer confront the mass thing with which he is dealing will have problems with it—and that is the totality of human aber-ration. There isn't anything more to it than that. I'm sorry, I'd love to be complicated.
The funny part of it is, that an individual's confronting of solids must contain his looking and participating in the solidity. In other words, he must be willing to make that solid before he can perceive that it is solid. When he depends on something to be solid which is not very solid to him, it eventually sort of disappears.
In other words, he goes all around the world depending on everything to be solid and he never makes anything solid. He has placed a childish faith in things—we won't say what—in the creation of these things. He doesn't think that he himself had any part in their manufacture, and so he says, "Well, here's all of these objects, and they're all solid, I see."
Look! If he doesn't make them solid, they won't stay that way! And they become thinner, and thinner, and thinner to him.
Now, they become as solid to other people as they make them solid, or don't make them solid. But he goes around depending on other people to make the wall solid so he can look at it. Do you see how that is? And do you know after a while he won't see it, because it isn't solid to him?
In order to have a solid wall, you've got to make one. It isn't enough to just suppose it's going to stay solid for the rest of time. It won't.
So something else enters into here. A person who no longer creates, will have problems. And a person who no longer creates solids, will be in grave trouble if he goes on fooling with solids.
So the answer to problems broadly is, you might say, causative solids. I just coined that for you, it's not a technical term. It's much too fancy for Dianetics and Scientology—causative solids.
In other words, the individual falls away from life because he got into a sort of a parasitic frame of mind of expecting everybody to make everything solid for him. Everybody was going to make the whole universe solid for him. Everybody was going to make everything solid for him. And all he had to do was look at it or weigh it, or rap on it. And he will go downhill until he himself reenters and consciously plays the game of "I'm a thetan that can make nothing solid and I am making it solid and it is solid because I now perceive it is solid." Have you got the game?
Audience: Yes.
That's the game he plays. When he no longer plays the game, the game does not continue to be played, and he won't have anything solid. That's all.

THE ANATOMY OF HUMAN PROBLEMS
When you stop playing a game, you're—you're not playing the game, the game is playing you.
And when the game starts to play you, you get into this situation, and you never come up scale above that.
Human problems consist of a refusal to observe human conditions. That's all.
Except that an individual who refuses to participate in a forward con-structive attitude toward life refrains thereafter from living. If a person cannot participate in life, he can't live as we know livingness.
All you have to do to get back in the game is just play the game. And we've been six years trying to find out what game we were playing, and it's a very simple game.
It's the game of "make it solid, look how solid it is." And that's about all the game there is.
And when you run solids, the figure-figures all drop out. When you run the figure-figures, you make no real progress in the case at all. No real progress.
So, although Dianetics appears to be revived, it is simply this—we have now a mirror image of Dianetics. We used to run the thoughts and problems of the engram, we now run the engram off the thoughts and problems and they vanish. You understand there is a difference?
And that's all really I have to tell you technically, and I guess that's— that's about that, and you go on and get your Personal Efficiency Course and then settle down and have a lazy tomorrow and—practically nothing to do. I have very little to tell you beyond that. Yeah, that's about it.
You know, I detected there's somebody in the audience that doesn't believe me!
Well, I am very glad you are here for many reasons, because you are my friends, and because I'm glad to be home, and because there's a lot of infor-mation to give you. And there is an awful lot of help in putting things to rights and into action that I need from you. And I need that very much.
And as these next three days roll along, why, you'll find out what it is.
Just now, we're overtime. I will see you all tomorrow at one o'clock.
Good night.

47



GAMES CONDITIONS VS. NO-GAMES CONDITIONS
A lecture given on 1 September 1956
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.
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.
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?"
They're playing a game.
"Well, yeah but what kind of games are they playing?"
Well, they're playing games they know they're playing and games they don't know they're playing.
"Well, there must be more to life than that."
Yes there is, there's no games.
"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."
Well, it isn't just one thing. All life in its various involvements is involved in games. That's all there is to it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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

49

50

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
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.
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 gam-bler. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
You haven't got much choice about it. We would love to say to somebody,

GAMES CONDITIONS VS. NO-GAMES CONDITIONS
"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 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, 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.
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 aberra¬tive category.
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 con-dition 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.
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.
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

51

52

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
did they dead-end? And what were these other processes which were, you might call, unlimited processes?
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.
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.
There was something going on; some great difficulty probably suffi-ciently 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.
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.
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!
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.
All right, so we had all these various types of things. You see, philoso¬phers, from the beginning of time practically have been saying, "Why, it's all whyness," and Skip-skop Schopenhauer, a German that had more bad temper than good grammar. . . He—pardon me—Schopenhauer does write impec-cably good grammar. The only trouble is you can't understand it even in German. A sample of Schopenhauerian wit is "Stubbornness is the state of the will taking the place of the intellect." It's nicely involved, isn't it? It doesn't go anyplace. Well, anyway, he said that, "Life was living in order to die." Oh, so I put that down on the list, too, you know. "Life was living in order to die." All this sort of thing about death wish. The only thing you could 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, the German, from the various barbaric philosophies and so on that one runs

GAMES CONDITIONS VS. NO-GAMES CONDITIONS
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.
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.
"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 experi¬ment. Anyhow. . .
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 Having-ness is concerned.
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."
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."
"She can't have? She can have everything." No-no-no.
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."
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?"
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

53

54

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
and so forth." He can't find enough things that a jail can have.
And we say, "Now, look-a-here, look-a-here. We obviously had an aberra-tion 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."
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.
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.
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 bring-ing preclears up to apathy and I thought it was driving them down to apathy.
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!
I'll give you—I'll give you the pat example that sets this. How could anyone guess that on one or more subjects anybody would be so far below apathy that he didn't even know he was in trouble. And he could process in that band and evidently feel all right and feel better about it and never get over it. Most fabulous thing you ever saw.
And that some cases across the boards were below apathy—body plus thetan. The body would have had to have gotten well to die.
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 mys-tery. 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.
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 apa-thetic 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.

GAMES CONDITIONS VS. NO-GAMES CONDITIONS
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."
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 other words, the processes that were really good processes were then disguised and hidden under the fact that when they were used on the difficul¬ties 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.
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.
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 happen¬ing to him. He gets upset; he is—he feels miserable. So, we said his ambition is to be separate.
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.
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."
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 proc¬ess 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

55

56

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
way out is the way through." And that has always been true.
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.
A long time ago when we had our first rudimentary communication for-mula, 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.
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 condi-tion. Follow me?
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. Atten-tion 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.
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?
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.
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.
And these are the processable buttons, game conditions: Attention Identity
Effect on opponents No-effect on self
Can't-have on opponents and goals and their areas Have on tools of play, own goals and field Purpose

GAMES CONDITIONS VS. NO-GAMES CONDITIONS
Problems of play
Self-determinism
Opponents
The possibility of loss
The possibility of winning
Communication and a no-communication factor
Nonarrival
And we will add to this: Control.
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.
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?
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 eradica¬tion of the untruthful condition.
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.
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 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, 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."
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 to some athlete—he's been in there fighting you know and he's getting all set and he wins the championship and they put him up or whatever they do to

57

58

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Although Scientologists, I notice, are getting more and more perfunc¬tory. 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 Por-tugal. 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.
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.
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.
All right, "Now, let's figure out a way where you could be a lying—a

GAMES CONDITIONS VS. NO-GAMES CONDITIONS
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."
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, 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 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.
So as hard as it is for people to take, I hate to mention this thing called past lives—they've been outlawed! In the minute books of the—of the Hub-bard Dianetic Research Foundation, Elizabeth, New Jersey, you will see a motion discussed there to just make Ron shut up on this subject because it's unpopular. Well look, if it's so unpopular, somebody must have some kind of a resistance to it of some kind or another. I don't think anything aberrative happened to you during your whole current lifetime. Your mother beat you, fed you through a sausage grinder. Your father was mean to you. You were dropped on your head when you were one. You had fifteen AAs and you were boiled in oil and you were captured by the Japanese and shot regularly every morning. So what. See? You know all about it.
You 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 funni¬est 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."
And the auditor somehow or another, by making him spot objects, has

59

60

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
all of a sudden found that he couldn't spot a book. He said something outra-geous like, "Well, I don't spot books because they're angry at me," or something like that, and just passed it along, you know—perfectly normal. And the auditor says, "Well, all right. Let's spot that book over there."
And he says, "Well, I—there's nothing wrong with books. What's the matter with you? You're nuts!"
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."
You say, "Spot another book."
"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."
And all of a sudden, why, books start looking so funny to him. They start leaping up in the air and doing peculiar things. Figures start walking out of them. I mean, with his naked eyes. Books lying on the table and a figure suddenly walks out of it and says, "You jerk," and drops off the table. He's liable to tell the auditor, "Well, I've had it now. I didn't know I could ever have a delusion."
And 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.
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!
And that's—that's—that's just the way it goes.
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 con-ditions 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, 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."
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.

GAMES CONDITIONS VS. NO-GAMES CONDITIONS
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 vacu¬ums. 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 vigor¬ously 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.

61



THIRD DYNAMIC APPLICATION OF GAMES PRINCIPLES
A lecture given on 1 September 1956
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.
Now, why can't you walk into a large business corporation, why can't you walk into a government, why can't you walk in to Mr. Big and say to him, "I have a solution to your difficulties"?
Now 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.
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?
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, 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."
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

63

64

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
can win, he can lose, but he doesn't have to, and it isn't the end-all of exist-ence if he does either. Then a man can have a game.
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.
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.
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.
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 organiza¬tion 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 atti-tude. "You're just trying to mess us up, that's all."
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 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.
What's a game condition? Confusion, motion, problems, difficulties, get¬ting stuck in things, going to jail, these are game conditions.
So, you walk in—he has nine secretaries that merely swap notes to get in 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 exam-ple 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

THIRD DYNAMIC APPLICATION OF GAMES PRINCIPLES
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.
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.
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."
And they just said, "Confusion, confusion, confusion."
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.
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!
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!"
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 Constitu¬tion 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 they figure and they worry and they work and everything starts

65

66

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
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 prob-lem so they can afford a solution to a little problem!
Now, nations and organizations and individuals actually work on this
principle. Any of you have run "Problem of comparable magnitude to "
will know that.
We say to somebody, "Give me a problem of comparable magnitude to your mother." There are very specific ways of running it. "Problem of compa¬rable 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 prob-lem 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.
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, 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.
You go in and you say, "I have a way to cut out form 82, 85 and 86 by combining it in the original form number 1." They would say, "I'm very sorry today. I'm very busy. We'll have to talk to somebody else about this."
You 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 rela-tive 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."
And you'd be surprised. Mr. Big ordinarily—open those doors, and he'll say, "Son, you have a future."
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 com-munication 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 communi¬cate 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!

THIRD DYNAMIC APPLICATION OF GAMES PRINCIPLES
Every time you add identities into a situation you're all right. Now, you have to have some identities present in order to have a game condition. You wouldn't have any communication lines or any business at all unless there were some identities involved. See? But there gets to be too good of a thing there along the line someplace and you have so many identities involved that nothing could be done.
Well, I'll tell you something amusing that happened in the HASI London, something very, very amusing, something that you laugh at if this happens in a central office of Scientology.
We 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 audit¬ing 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.
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 what¬soever 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 run¬ning more quietly and smoothly than I have ever seen it run before! What's happened?"
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 per¬fectly 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 dis¬turbed 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 beauti¬ful smoothness.
Now, that's a terrible argument. No labor union would buy this argu¬ment. 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?
Audience: Yes. Sure!

67

68

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
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 accom-plished 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!"
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.
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?
Well, we could advance a Scientology principle. We could say people inte-riorize 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, interior¬ized, 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 Freud-ian. Anyhow.
We give them this as an explanation because it's true, you see, it's per-fectly 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 inter-ested in the environment, that he will stop worrying and being obsessed with the materials he was handling."
That's terrifically good therapy. It's very simple. We simply say to some-body, "Go take a walk around the block."
I'll tell you how I evolved that as a process. I'm writing a little book called Security in the Workaday World which is to go out with the PE Courses. People come in, they want to know about work, we talk about princi-ples of Scientology, put them into the framework of how you work. And this little book then had to have a couple of pat solutions, and one of those solu-tions 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

THIRD DYNAMIC APPLICATION OF GAMES PRINCIPLES
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.
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 walk¬ing around the block. Of course, you could probably walk yourself Clear walking around the block eventually.
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.
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 disas¬trous, but somehow or other with great watchfulness, we will make sure that they do a. good job of this.
They say, "What's job planning got to do with this?"
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."
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."
"That's right. Morning shift, afternoon shift."
"Oh," they say, "think of the books. Yeah, think of—think of the account¬ing 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!"
You make it practically against the law for a fellow to work at an intro¬verted 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 execu¬tive to go fishing six times a week?
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!
If you're going to have a vital nation, you have to to have vital people!

69

70

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
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 . . .
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.
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?
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.
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 consid-erable 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, orna-mented beautifully!
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?"
He said, "I don't know. Isn't that the way you write?"
But down through the years we discover that the writing in these min-utes 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.
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.
Somebody, a calligraphist, once accused me of having achieved an ulti-mate in artistic presence and complete undecipherability. I thought it was quite a compliment—it put me in a no-game condition right there.
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 aber-rative factor, it's a very mildly aberrative factor, but it only—restimulator of some sort or another, it isn't that kind of thing which makes men mad.
If 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 deteriora¬tion in their character. You would reduce their havingness. Does that make sense to you?
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

THIRD DYNAMIC APPLICATION OF GAMES PRINCIPLES
and so on. But he managed to do things at night I am told. I remember.
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.
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.
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.
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 adven-turous 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."

71

72

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
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 proba-bly 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 ade-quate 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.
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.
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

THIRD DYNAMIC APPLICATION OF GAMES PRINCIPLES
can't have the language in absence of the objects.
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 edu-cation, they haven't got one.
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 examina-tion? Is that the final course of this sort of thing?
You actually could get him enough havingness as a student to disentur-bulate 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 ath¬letic 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.
Now, where do we get—where would we enter this problem for its solu-tion? 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 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.
All right, children come along and that becomes then an economic diffi¬culty of great magnitude. The more difficult it begins to be, I am afraid the more children there will be, though.
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 neces¬sary 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 chil¬dren simply wouldn't be abandoned and forgotten and kicked overboard just on the basis of the fact that people worked. You get the idea?
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 guar¬antee that these kids aren't just going to be abandoned in the nurseries

73

74

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
themselves? How are we going to guarantee that they're going to be perfectly happy about it? How can we get a system like this worked out? How are we possibly going to get employers to contribute a small amount of money for each one of their—of their employees in order to support such a nursery system through the city?" Now, these are problems.
And the 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'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?
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 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 reas-sure them that they're not going to perish for having adapted a solution. You follow me?
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.
So, you move him over, you move him then over into the category of having enough reassurance that he'll keep on going. In other words, you give him enough survival in terms of future game in order to let him let go of some little, tiny portion of the game he's playing. In other words, solve it. And therefore, in selling industry, in selling government, in selling businesses or groups of people of a civic nature, it's necessary for you to do that.
Now, 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,

THIRD DYNAMIC APPLICATION OF GAMES PRINCIPLES
but you have to be pretty darned good to really get in there and sell a group.
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.
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 monop¬oly 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, 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?"
They say, "The city dump? Yes, what are we doing about the city dump?" See, it's outside their jurisdiction.
"Well," you say, "it's actually—an old street used to go under it!"
And they say, "Good heavens! How are we going to clean up the city dump? Well, we'll have to call a special meeting!"
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."
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 Hub-bardic. It doesn't mean a thing. It doesn't, because they aren't the parts of games that work. So just saying, "Well, give them more game," would only work if you said it to a Scientologist who knew the parts of games. See? "Give them more game." Yeah, that doesn't work.
You 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.
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?
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

75

76

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
game condition. And of course, curiosity is a game condition too, but prob-lems 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.
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 counter-ness—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.
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 . . ."
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 per-fectly 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 knowl-edge of games condition, and we are above that level, but no other part of life is.
I hope you fellows like the climate.
Thank you.

GROUP PROCESSING: "KEEP IT FROM GOING AWAY"
A lecture and Group Processing demonstration given on 1 September 1956
All right. Now, this Group Processing session consists of erecting in our midst four posts. We're going to build four posts here first off and we're going to put these four posts right out in plain sight. Okay?
Audience: Okay.
We're going to put them up there right in plain sight and we're going to put post number one right there. Now let's put a post there, okay?
Audience: Okay.
Got a post there? All right. Now we're going to put post number two right there.
Audience: All right.
Good. You got that?
Audience: Yes.
And we're going to put post number three right there.
Audience: Fine.
Good, you got that?
Audience: Yeah.
And post number four. You got it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, what are we going to do with these posts? You got them there?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
Now from here on you don't have to acknowledge this. I merely want you to spot post one. Fine.
Spot post two. Good.
Spot post three. Good.
Spot post four. Good. That's good. All right.
Now look at post one. Now you keep it, you keep it from going away.
Well, that's fine. That's fine.
Now let's take post two. We don't care whether you won on that one or not, you'll win shortly. Take post two and you keep post two from going away. You do it.
All right. That's real good.
Now, there's post three over there. Now you keep post three from going away.
Well, that's fine.

77

78

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
Now post four. Post four. Now you keep post four from going away.
All right. That's good.
Now, there's post one. Now, you should be much better at it this time. Now post one. I want you, I want you to keep it from going away. Now don't you dare just look at it and see whether or not it's still there. You keep it from going away. You got that?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now you keep it from going away. You do it.
All right. Making it a little better on that, I'm sure. Making it a little bit better on that, I'm sure.
Now let's look over here at post two, post two. Now you keep post two from going away. You keep it from going away.
Well, all right. All right. Very good.
You people in the back of the room can use the nearest post. The nearest post is one, two, three, four.
Now look at post three. Post three. Now you keep it from going away. You keep post three from going away.
All right. All right. Did you do it? All right.
Now, you people in the back of the room can use the one, two, three pole—posts that are nearest to you.
Now post four, post four. Now you keep post four from going away.
All right. All right. Let's everybody do this now. Don't dog off on this. Everybody do this.
Now look at post one. Those in the back of the room can look at the foremost post on your right as post one. Post one there. Now you keep it from going away. Don't dare just let it sit there. You keep it from going away. You do it.
Did you keep it from going away?
Audience: Yeah.
Have you kept it from going away? Huh? Now, could I ask this question: Is it still there because you kept it from going away?
Audience: Yes.
Can you answer that? That's a boy. All right. That's fine. That's good.
Now let's look at post two. Now you keep it from going away.
All right. That's good. You winning?
Audience: Yes.
You getting any better at it?
Audience: Yes.
Getting better at it?
Audience: Yes, you bet.
All right. Now let's look at post three. Post three. Now you keep post three from going away. Understand the auditing command. You keep it from going away. You keep post three from going away.
All right. All right. You sure you did it?
Audience: Yes.
You winning?
Audience: Yes.
Is it getting easier to do?
Audience: Yeah.
Is that—those posts, are they getting more solid?
Audience: Yeah.
Are they getting quieter?

GROUP PROCESSING: "KEEP IT FROM GOING AWAY"
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Now let's look at post four, post four. Now you keep post four from going away.
All right. All right.
The organization will not spend or be responsible for any eyeglass changes. We won't change or give you a new prescription because you did this process. If you want to keep the same eyeglasses you've got, I guarantee that you better not do this process.
There's number one, post number one. Are you making it a little better now, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now you keep—do you understand? You're being causative. You're the one this time that is making it not go away, see. You're the one that's doing this. You got that real good? You're the one. All right. You keep post one from going away.
Well, all right.
Now look at post two, look at post two, look at post two. And you keep post two from going away. You keep it from going away.
All right. Is that getting mighty still? Is it getting more still, more solid? Did it do that? If it's not, why, you work at it and you really keep it from going away.
And let's look at post three, post three. Right over there, post three. And you keep post three from going away.
All right. All right. All right.
Post four, look at post four. Now you keep post four from going away.
All right. Now let's look at post one, post one. Now you keep post one from going away.
All right. You getting easier at that, huh? How's that? Getting a little easier?
Male voice: No.
Not getting any easier? Well, are you trying?
Audience: Yes.
Is it getting more still?
Male voice: No. It's moving more.
Oh, it's moving more? That's all right. That's good. You're getting some change. Is anybody here, outside of a couple over there that are not doing it and the seminar leaders—better count you out. All right. Is there anybody who's getting no change on this at all, just no change of any kind? Hm?
Male voice: Nobody.
Nobody getting no change at all? All right. Better do this process, don't resist it.
Now, here's number two. Post number two, number two. Now you keep post number two from going away.
Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
That a little better?
Audience: Yeah.
A little worse?
Audience: Yeah.
A little better or a little worse?
Audience: A little better.
A little better. Is anybody still on the getting—it's getting worse cycle?

79

80

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
Audience: Yeah.
Well, all right. Good. Good.
Now look at post three, post three. Post three. Now you keep post three from going away.
All right. All right. All right.
Now let's look at post four, post four. Everybody look at post four. And you keep post four from going away. You keep it from going away. You're the one that's making it stay there.
All right. Well, you're doing real good, aren't you? Huh? Boy, you're a good group. You're good to audit. Has anybody gotten into serious irrevocable difficulties? Yes?
Audience: No.
Is anybody got those posts wobbling badly still?
Audience: No, no.
Let's see your hand if anybody's got them still wobbling. They getting stiller? They getting more quiet?
Audience: Yeah.
You really calming them down and taming them?
Audience: Yeah. I think so.
All right. All right. If you're doing that, should we keep on with this?
Audience: Sure. Yeah.
All right.
There's post one. Now you keep post one from going away. Don't let it move a sixteenth of an inch away from you. It doesn't matter if it falls on you, but just don't let it move away from you.
Well, all right. All right. Let's look at post two. Post two. Now you keep— you keep post two from going away.
Well, all right. All right. That's fine. Let's look at post three. It's all right—those at the rear to be using the nearest post. Now you keep post three from going away.
All I'm asking you to do is just keep it from going away, but you do it. You keep it from going away.
All right. You making out a little bit better with that post?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? Is it wobbling quite so much? Is it getting more solid to anybody?
Audience: Yeah.
Getting more solid? Well, let's hit a zenith on that and let's find out how thoroughly and how insistently and how mean and ornery you can keep it from going away. Not a sixteenth of an inch must it move that-a-way. Got it? Look at post four and you keep it from going away.
All right. All right. You doing better?
Audience: Yes.
Anybody doing worse?
Audience: No.
Aw, heck.
All right.
Now look at post one, post one there. Look at post one. Now you keep post one from going away. Now you do it this time. You do it more than you've done it before. You insist that it is you. You are the one who is keeping post one from going away and you're keeping it from going away.
All right. That's good. That's good.
Now there's post two, post two, post two. It'll get solider than that and

GROUP PROCESSING: "KEEP IT FROM GOING AWAY"
it'll get quieter than that. Now post two—and you keep post two from going away. If it threatens to be a sixteenth of an inch away from you, boy, you just clamp her right down. Crunch!
You do it. You keep it from going away.
Don't chicken now. You do it. You keep it from going away. If you think you've reached the limit on this process you have yet to discover how solid things can get.
All right. That's fine. Now let's look at post three. And you keep post three from going away.
Are you keeping it from going away?
Audience: Yeah.
Hm? Are you?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. You keep it from going away.
All right. All right. All right.
There's post four, post four. Now you keep post four from going away. You keep it from going away.
All right. All right. Boy, you're certainly doing well. Would you like to run around on there a few more times?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? Is anybody groaning "no"? Nobody groaning "no"? If they did, they didn't groan loud enough! There's post one.
Now this time, this time let's make a good job of it, huh—all the way around a good job of it. We're going to keep that thing from going away to such a degree that if it moved a thousandth of an inch, why, it'd just smatter to bits. Got that? Got that real good?
I know somebody's thought right now that you can't keep it still or some-thing because the Earth's spinning or something like that. But if that has entered your mind, why you just keep Earth from spinning too.
All right. Now you keep post number one from going away.
Ah, you're doing a much better job that time. I can see it myself watch¬ing the post. I can see it. Much better job. You're being much more effective. All right.
Now you look at two, post number two. Now you keep post two from going away.
All right. All right. You're getting to be an expert, huh?
Male voice: Sure.
You're getting sharp, huh? All right. All right. Some of you old-timers might remember the Phoenix lectures on the base of the motor.
Now let's look at post number three, post number three. And you keep post number three from going away.
All right. All right. Is it still wiggling?
Audience: No.
Stopped wiggling, huh? Is it wiggling for anybody?
Audience: No.
No? All right.
Post number four. Let's look at post number four. Now you keep post number four from going away.
Do a real good job on this one.
Well, all right. Well, all right.
Now, what do we say we just take two more posts and then knock off this process. All right? Is that all right with you?

81

82

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
Audience: Yes.
For the moment. For this afternoon. Okay?
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now look at post one. And you keep post one from going away.
All right. That was a good try. That was a good try. That was a good try.
Now, remember when you did post one before? All right. Are you doing it better now than you were originally?
Audience: Yes. Yeah.
Markedly?
Audience: Yes. Very much.
Well, that's all right. All right. Now, that's good.
Now, let's look at post two and this is the last one—post two, last one. Pick your last post, there in the back. And you keep post two from going away.
Do a real good job on this one, this is the last one. You keep post two from going away, now.
Well, all right. Well, all right. Well, okay. All right.
Just to take the stress off of them now, let's do a one, two, three, four.
Look at post one. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
Look at post two.
Audience: Yeah.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Good.
Look at post three.
Audience: Yes.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Good.
Look at post four.
Audience: Yes.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Good. All right.
Look at me. Are you here?
Audience: Yes.
Am I here?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Good.
All right, do we have any casualties?
Audience: No.
You mean to say we got away with this with only one casualty?
Well, you like to call that an end of session?
Audience: Yes, No. Yeah.
Would you?
Audience: No. Yes.
Well, we could get a little bit more in tomorrow, but if we're going to get any Group Processing in tomorrow, when am I going to get that lecture in on —that are on the programs?
Audience: Now. Now. Do it now.
Well, you're scheduled to have a PE Course tonight.

GROUP PROCESSING: "KEEP IT FROM GOING AWAY"
Audience: Who cares! Do it now. Right now.
I don't think we ought to take that up at all. Look, I'm going to show here, I was—I was legal in processing you. That's a professional auditor's pin.
Audience: Good!
See, that's a new professional auditor's pin ordered from London. But now that I've stopped processing you, I'll just show you it's end of session. We'll just take that one away, and so on. And now I'm an Associate Member.
Well now, as an Associate Member—by the way, you don't really— nobody's caught up with the gags about the Associate Member yet. You're a member for life if you're an Associate Member at about a dollar. At higher-level memberships you're not at all, you're only a member for a year. Of course, you don't get anything but you're a member for life.
So I'm a legal member of the HASI and I just hate to see you getting out of all of this good, perfectly good, wonderful personal efficiency that you're supposed to get tonight. And I frown on this extremely. But I am faced with the idea that the HASI does want certain materials disseminated and the congress itself has written a great many names down on a program, and there are an awful lot of lectures to get through and I haven't touched any of them yet. So, if you want a couple of quick lectures tonight, why . . .
Audience: Yeah! Yeah!
Okay, see you at 7:00.

83



AUDITING PROCEDURE 1956
A lecture given on 1 September 1956
Thank you.
A great deal of work has been done in the last year on many subjects and you might like to know about some of it. Would you like to know about some of that work?
Audience: Yes.
Thank you.
A year ago I left Washington here intending to stay abroad for a few weeks. Well, I got abroad and I found something very remarkable. I found cases tougher than American cases. And I found a subject which was very, very intriguing to me; the effect of modern war on a population. And I found something else abroad; I found it was very easy for me to get very excellent assistance within the limits of the exchequer. That was very important.
So, I sat down and started to do some work. And the first of that work that was developed immediately after the not-know, the first and second pos¬tulate work that was done in Washington here, was the communication bridge. And I found out that it was very, very easy to dream up a process (we'd always known this) but I found out it was much easier to dream up a process than it was to get it audited on somebody. I found out there might even be said to be a small amount of difficulty connected with getting an actual process audited on somebody.
And I set out a year ago to understand why—why? You know there was an old tradition in the field of mental healing (an old field, it has been laid aside these many years) but there was a tradition that "there were some mental healers who had a certain insight into a case, who had a touch, who were able to—by some personal magnetism—pull the aberration out of somebody." There was such a tradition.
Do you know that the entirety of Dianetics was discredited in the field of psychology and psychiatry because they said, "It's very probable that Hubbard can get these results on his patients ..." They didn't know I wasn't even in practice. "It's very probable he could get these results—but that is because a magnetism or a personal factor exists which gives him an insight." And they told people this; they really did. Some of you have heard that. And they told people this was why Dianetics worked when it worked, but that as a science it didn't exist, but was simply an attempt to explain this thing called "insight."
Well, five years later, in October of 1955 I decided I would study this

85

86

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
thing called "insight." Why was it one person got results with a preclear and another person didn't get results with a preclear? Why? It was a big study and I thought I could wrap it up in a few weeks with my usual optimism.
So, a year later I am telling you about it.
First, there was the communication bridge. What is a communication bridge? It is a bridge between one state of beingness and another. It is a bridge between the destroy and the create of any cycle of action. A cycle of action is create-survive-destroy. How do we get onto another cycle of action?
All right, we are running a process. A good process on somebody called "Do Fishes Swim?" Oh, somebody is familiar with that process? That's a very workable process. Anyway, I'll tell you a joke about it in a minute.
So, here I was working away trying to get between one cycle of action and another. We say—we start in with a preclear, we start saying, "Do fishes swim? Do fishes swim? Do fishes swim?" We run out the communication lag that is developed by the process—gets flat—and we consider the process has done everything that the process can be expected to do; it's just as simple as that.
Now, how do you get from that end of process to the next process? It requires a bridge. You have to wind up the old process, establish the session somewhat, and begin the new process.
Now, let's look at that more carefully. In other words, if you flattened the process you would reach an end of session as far as the preclear is concerned, because that process has been audited, and that's all there is to that proc-ess. That is the end of that process. So, he equals it up as "end of session," and he could be expected to go out of session somewhat.
All right, how do you get between one state of livingness and another? You have to declare that one is ended, that this state still exists and that a new action is going to be taken.
You do that this way: everything is done on agreement, this world is here because we agree it is, so therefore we have to get an agreement that in a command or two or three, we are going to end the process. We are thinking about it. We wonder how it is and we're thinking about it and we say—in— "Will it be all right with you if a couple more commands we end this particular process? Is that all right with you?"
The preclear says, "All right," or "No." If he says no, you'll have to keep going.
All right.
Now, we carry it over then, and we have given him warning, we've given him no abrupt stop, and we say to him then, "Well, all right, that's the finish of that particular thing. Now, how are we getting on? How are you doing?"
We don't ask him how he feels because that as-ises things. We might as well ask him "How do you cry?" as "How do you feel anyway?"; it's just another part of the Tone Scale.
So, we say, "How are you doing? How are we getting along?" and he says, "So-and-so and so-and-so."
Why do you do that? You say, look—look preclear, I am still here; you're still here; the room's still here. And we do that by saying, "Well, how are we doing? Do you think you're getting anyplace now? Do you think that you could be doing a little better or a little worse? What's your general reaction?" And he talks with you about this for a moment or two. And then you say, "Well now, I was thinking about running another little process on you that was so-and-so and so-and-so and so-and-so. Now, what do you think about that?"

AUDITING PROCEDURE 1956
And he'll say, "Well, I think that is a pretty good idea."
And then you say to him, "Well now, the wording of this process is so-and-so. Do our finny friends fluctuate through water?"
And he says, "No, I don't understand that."
You say, "Well, do fishes ever dunk themselves?"
"No," he says, "I don't like that. Don't—don't—it just doesn't make sense to me."
You say, "Well, all right. Do fishes swim?"
"Ah, yeah," he says, "that's pretty good. That's pretty good. Yeah, I can understand that. That's easy to understand."
And you say, "All right, now let's begin the process now." And you ask him, "Do fishes swim?"
That's a communication bridge. That keeps people in-session—also keeps up their havingness.
Well, that was very neat. We had a number of processes; we found audi¬tors did much better when they understood this thing called a bridge. Now, the funny part of a bridge is that every session begins with a half-bridge. The last half of the bridge is used at the beginning of session, and the first half of the bridge is used at the complete end of the session.
We would go at it this way. You say, "I'm going to audit you now. Are you all set? Get braced, get ready to turn on the no-effect."
And he says, "All right."
And you say, "Well now, I am thinking of running a little process on you called 'Do Fishes Swim.' I'll ask it over and over and you answer it and we'll see how we get along. Is that process all right with you?"
And he says, "Sure, that process is good with me."
And so you start in and you say, "Do fishes swim?" And you're in-session. You see?
All right, at the end—at the end of the session, you then use the first part of the bridge. You say, "I think—I'm thinking of ending this session after two or three more questions, is that all right with you?"
And he says, "Yeah—yeah, I don't see why not."
And you say, "Well, all right." And you ask the "Do fishes swim?" and he answers you; and "Do fishes swim?" and he answers you, and "Do fishes swim?" and you say, "Well, that's all right. How—how are you doing now? How are you getting along?"
And he says, "Oh, I'm—I'm doing all right. I'm just a little bit anaten. I can almost see you."
And you say, "Well—uh . . ." You know the comm is a bit flat on the process, and you realize he must be a bit out of present time, so you simply have to put on what? The rest of the communication bridge, start a new session and close it off. How do you do that? You don't simply say—you see he is groggy, so you say, "Well, spot some things in the room." No, that's wrong. Shocks him, startles him, and sticks him in session because of the sudden change.
So what you do—he says, "I'm a bit groggy."
You say, "Well, all right. Well, let's end this 'Do Fishes Swim' anyway, and let's start in now on something else. Now, how do—how do you feel? Do you feel all right? And you're doing okay. You say you're groggy. Well, how are you doing? You know, you're groggy?"
"Well. . ."
You say, "Well if—would it be all right with you if we just. . ." (see, here

87

88

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
you are on the rest of the bridge) "Would it be all right with you if I tell you to spot walls and objects in the room, and so forth? Would that be all right with you?"
And he says, "Ah—why not. Why not," he says.
And you say, "Well, I'm going to ask you, 'Look at that wall' and then you look at the wall... and tell me when you've looked at it. Is that all right?"
And he'd say, "Ah—ah, yes, that's fine."
And you'd say, "All right, we're going to do that now. Now, you look at that wall. . ." and so forth.
And then pretty soon he is alert again, and you say, "Well, I am going to ask you to look at two or three objects now, and then how would it be if we ended the session?"
And he would say, "Oh, that would be all right."
So you say—you ask him, "Look at the ceiling. Look at the floor. Look at the ashtray" or something of the sort. And you say to him then, "Well, all right now. You're doing okay now?"
And he says, "Yes. Yes."
So you say, "All right. End of session."
See? See what a bridge is?
If you envision a bridge as a sort of a mechanism here that goes like this. This is a processing area, see, this is a processing area, see. Those are two processing areas; this is simply a "you're here and I'm here" area. See? So, we go—we end a processing area and we begin over here.
Now, when we start a whole session, a whole session looks like this— looks like this. Here we're both here and here's a processing area, and then no matter how many comm bridges occur in here, we finally wind up like this. And here we both are again, don't you see? You end here, see. So, this is a session. And that is a—that's just a bridge itself. Were always trying to get across the bridge in old Book One and there's the bridge.
So anyway, if you know these auditing dodges, you actually know how to talk to people so that they listen to you if you know them.
You can walk into anybody, talk to anybody if you use a bridge. Now, how would you use a bridge talking to somebody? You've just been talking about the big fire, and so forth. Well, you say, "Well, I don't know, that fire, there's been lots of fires around town. How's it going in your family?"
"The family is okay, and so forth. Everything is all—doing all right and so forth."
And you say, "Well, how about the floods that we've been having?" See, a new subject.
In other words, if you end a subject, say, "We're here talking," and begin a subject again, the person you are talking to stays in communication with you.
But if you go rattling along with him madly about fires, fires, fires, fires, and then you suddenly say, "Floods are bad too."
Much worse, you're talking about business and suddenly you say, "She sure is a pretty girl." He actually, goes out of communication with you because there is no agreement on the subject of the communication, so you end agreement on what you were talking about. You say, "We are still talking here, aren't we," and start again.
Now, a salesman doing this sort of thing very often discovers something very peculiar. He can sell razor blades very nicely, but all of a sudden he brings out a washing machine. The guy wanted razor blades, he bought some,

AUDITING PROCEDURE 1956
but he doesn't want the washing machine, apparently. But the truth of the matter is something else took place entirely. He was not part of the conversa¬tion about washing machines. He was part of the conversation about razor blades. If a conversation existed and communication was taking place on the subject of razor blades, then, of course, there was some wire for the razor blades to travel on, don't you see, to get over to him. But there is nothing to roll a washing machine down! He's not part of the conversation about wash¬ing machines. Do you follow this use?
Now, you know the use of all of these communication mechanisms in everyday living is very fascinating. If you can audit well, and if you know these mechanisms so that you are totally relaxed about them, you're still not learning to act on the basis of "Let me see, where—where do I put my thumbs? Do they. . . ?" You know. Get the idea now—"What'll I do with my hands?" You know, sort of thing.
If we have—if we have a conversance—if we have a conversance with our subject we don't have to put very much strain on it. The newness is out of it; we can use it.
Like trying to drive a car the first time. You very often take a hubcap off on the curve or something. But you never did that before, but it's just a new car.
Now, you get so you could really use your communication formulas, you could do the darnedest things with conversation, particularly with a non-Scientologist. You could even do strange things with a Scientologist. In his case just omit some of the steps. And he goes, "Zzzzzzz."
But it isn't just something we invented to know. That's the single differ¬ence about this particular subject. It's not simply invented so that we could know something about it. No, we have something else involved here, some¬thing entirely different involved here. We talk to somebody in society and they are going chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, chop, you know, "It's all bad over here. It's all bad over there. It's all bad over something else."
Communicationwise, if you want to stay in communication with them, they're—you have two choices—chop! or be a Scientologist. Now, the way you be a Scientologist without putting them in-session is to "outchop" him!
He's doing something to create an effect on you. That puts you in a no-game condition. Do you see? So, you just, you know, pop! swing it the other way and he says, "Do you know that Mrs. Aster—Mrs. Aster actually said the other day that her maid ..."
You know, and you said, "Oh, wait, that's—that's nothing. That's noth¬ing. Do you know that—what her husband told me?"
"What?"
"He said that her maid . . . Well, you know how maids are?"
This person says . . . They're not chopping.
In other words, you use a communication and put it—somebody is trying to put you in a no ... You see, you can talk to anybody about anything as long as they are not trying to make a super game out of it, whereby they are trying to put you in your place and stop you cold! Get the idea. They are trying to fix you up good. You know, chop, chop, chop. Well, all right.
Now, here we go. This person is talking not to inform you, not to spend a pleasant time with you, not to enjoy your company, but simply to cut you to ribbons by cutting somebody else to ribbons. See? Ha-ha! Just outchop him. This person wants to be in a game condition—put him in one from your standpoint, which puts him in a no-game condition, he stops. Do you get the idea?

89

90

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
You can always end a game; that is the easiest thing to do in the world. The first requisite to ending a game, however, is to find out what game is going on.
Very often in organizations I am—somebody on staff will—an executive post or something like that over in London or here, they look at me, and they'll say, "We're going to do what? But that newspaper reporter said so-and-so and so-and-so. And you mean, we aren't going to get him down and run birth on him?"
Say, "No. Nope. No."
"Well, how—what do you mean—what do you mean then when you want him back in for a pleasant talk? Do you really want to see him again?"
"No. I don't want to see him again."
"Well, what's—supposed to do when he comes in?"
"He's supposed to look over these child group profiles on crippled children."
"Oh, you dog. See, you've got him." Cognite suddenly. See?
What are we doing? This fellow chopped us up one way or the other. He said a bunch of things he shouldn't have said and didn't know anyhow, and tried to chew us up one way or the other, so, we just find a good method of reversing the effect.
Theoretically, we would now hate him. We wouldn't have anything to do with him, don't you see. But we send for him! You'll find out that holding the post is a game condition. Not letting it approach is a no-game condition.
We send for him, we bring him in, we show him some profiles, we ask him if he wouldn't like to write a story on this now after he's chopped us all up otherwise, and he finds himself looking at the profiles of crippled chil-dren, and it was free processing given by the organization at the local hospital. He goes, "Oh, zzzzzzz-ssssss."
Handling a communication line is quite necessary. Did you ever think that communication was a subject that was subject to control? Communica-tion is something that one starts, stops and changes.
The fellow who cannot stop talking when he wants to stop talking is in a pathetic state.
Here's a little process you want to run on somebody. It's not particularly therapeutic because it doesn't have masses or objects connected with it. But you ask somebody to do this. Ask him to—you tell him that you will tell him when to stop talking, and he is then to stop his voice from going. We go it this way:
He says, "One, two, three, four . . ."
We say, "Stop!"
And he says, "Ff-iv-ve, ff-iv-ve."
Quite interesting. He knew he could handle his voice. After we get through with him, he wonders if he ever did say anything. Something around there was talking but was he? And we run him a little bit further and he says for the first time, "One, two, three" and we say "Stop," and he says, "Four." See? He stops. He's in control of his communication.
Now, a person who has a compulsive communication lag, in other words, they can't stop talking. They've described something to you and described something to you. They were trying to render an effect of some sort on you, possibly a bad one. And at no time while they were talking to you did you drop dead! So they, of course, have not reached end of line. They're in a position—they're in a position where they wait on something else to tell them when to stop talking. Got the idea?

AUDITING PROCEDURE 1956
Well, you run this person on something like this; you say, "Now, I want you to stop talking when I say 'stop.' Now, I want you to count and then at some point, well, I want you to—I am going to say 'stop' and you are to stop talking at that moment. Is that right?"
And the fellow says, "Okay."
And we just go through the same exercise. He starts counting, "One, two, three, four."
We say, "Stop."
And he says, "F-f-i-ive, f-fi-ive, f-f-i-ive, fi-ive, fi-ive, fi-ive, fi-ive, fi-i-ive, fi-i-ive, fi-i-ive, fiv-ve-e, fi-i-ive, fi-ive, fi-i-ive, five."
And you say, "Did you stop yourself from talking?"
And he says, "Noo-ot no-ooot nooot verrrry w-verrry ww-wwell."
Now, this is all that stammering is. That's all stammering is. He's on a mechanical stop talk. See, he's sitting right on a stop talk. And every time he tries to say something it says, "Shut up!" The stop is out of his control.
So, we ask the stammerer to do this. I'll drop a pearl in your pocket. If you're supposed—if you can stop stammering on somebody, if you could make somebody stop stammering rather easily, you're supposed to be really hot, you're supposed to be really good. I never quite figured out why this was, since personally I've looked around at a lot of people, and I wish some of them stammered more.
But, you're supposed to be able to stop stammering, and the hypnotist tries to do this, everybody tries to do this, and they have very little luck. Well, this one I've just given you will do so.
You say, "One, two, three, four, five . . ." You know, you have a—is what the fellow is going to say and then you say, "Stop." He—you have him count up and he's supposed to stop. Well, he's having an awful time getting to five. Now, that's very interesting. See? But you don't run start or change, you simply run the stop.
You say, "One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight."
You say, "Stop."
And he says . . .
Good. You've made it.
The way it runs basically, a stammerer starts like this. He says, "Wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha."
You wait, it's all right.
"Wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha-wha—one! Tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-tw-two! Th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-th-three!" You let him get up to about "Ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei-ei—eight," and you say, "Stop."
And you know what he does then, he says, "Nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen. . ." Very interesting. In other words, this fellow doesn't have his speech under control.
Now, some people are obsessive—are obsessive not-listeners. Did you ever run into an obsessive not-listener? Well, they've gone through a double inver¬sion on the thing.
Remember, however, that you make a body talk—you are making a body talk. Therefore, you—making a body start talking, stop talking and change talking—are playing a game. You aren't talking! A body is talking. Don't you see? So this becomes a game condition because you are doing it. That's the key-note of a game—a game condition. You're doing it. The game isn't being played for you the way they handle professional football, and so forth; you are playing the game. And you're getting no-effect on self and making an effect on somebody else.

91

92

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
So, an individual who is trying desperately to make the body talk better is actually in a no-game condition. You see? He is trying to help the enemy talk. From his standpoint he couldn't be friendly with a body if you gave him $1,000 in bonds along with it. He couldn't be friendly with a body. He'd never come around and put a beam on it and shake hands with the body actually and say, "My pal."
You start to process him and the first thing you know he gets his foot against the back of the body, you know and he says, "Oof—aaahhh." And he says, "Oh, I hate that thing! I hate that thing. Rahhhhhh."
That's merely an obsessive game condition. He's fighting his body.
A fellow finds that his—something is happening; he's got ulcers, see— got ulcers. He's having a hard time with ulcers. Holes appear—swiss cheese sort of thing. And then they come along and they take x-rays of him—shoot x-rays in through it so more holes appear. Anyway, there's a case of ulcers.
What's the fellow doing getting ulcers? He must be fighting his stomach. Obviously if he wanted to control his stomach he'd have to be able to stop his body from eating. Now, one doesn't change or start an enemy, one only stops him. And that is the last vestige of control one has in a game condition. So, one can stop one's enemies. He can sometimes by threatening to stop them change their course, but one doesn't have positive control over his enemies or there'd be no game.
Did you ever play—did you ever play chess with somebody that says, "All right, move your pawn now." And you moved your pawn, and then he moved his knight, and he says, "Now move your king's rook." It doesn't look like much of a game, does it?
It is like some old-time professional auditor being audited by one of his students. Hey, you know we can cure even that today, we can cure even that today. You know even I can be audited. You know I can be audited without telling the preclear what process to run. You're pretty swell. Yes, we've really come along.
Well, if—if the body was on your team—you see, this would be different. But, of course, you never process the body as though it were because the preclear never considers, if it's in bad shape, that it is. He never considers the body really on his team. Down basically someplace he considers it a deadly enemy that he has had to accept—if he's having a lot of trouble with it.
Now, you take some very pretty little girl or something like that, she's getting along fine, she doesn't have any trouble getting into her body, out of her body, doing things with her body, learning to do things with her body, and so forth. She and her body are friends. You know, "Hiya."
But you take somebody who is having a lot of trouble you know, has creak—arthritis—so on, having a real bad time. And what do we discover? The first thing, we examine his attitude toward a body we find out, "Well, let's see, what effect could I have on a body? Let's see now. Well, I could kill it. No, no, no, no; that's not enough. No. No. Now, let me see, I could—uh—I could—uh—well, I don't know, maybe push it slowly into a hot fire. No. No. No. How about falling endlessly through empty space? No, no, no, that is no effect on a body; that's not—that's not a good effect. I mean, that's not con-vincing. Let's see, what kind of an effect could I have on a body? Let's see, I could take each cell in it in a nutcracker and I could crack each cell very thoroughly. If it were screaming while I did that, yes, I would say that would be having an effect on a body. Yes! Good! Good!"
That's his level of reality. That is actually—level of reality. It's with a

AUDITING PROCEDURE 1956
great shock that a preclear will realize this suddenly that his attitude toward a body falls somewhat short of a friendly spirit of fair play.
Well, we examine this then and we discover that the one thing he can do with a body is stop. And that is, then, a good game condition. You start to put a body into motion as a process, and you violate this condition of enemy. And we don't care whether he considers the body a friend or an enemy, he can still stop the body, don't you see.
So, I—I'm very happy about one thing—that we don't have to have him stop the body eating in order to cure ulcers. Only the medical profession does that.
Well, here we have—here we have actually a very interesting condition. That the first and foremost point of control when he gets in a game condition with a body is stop. No change, no start, just stop, that's all. Anything else he does to it, he considers to be a sort of a—of a betrayal to—of himself, so he could stop one.
Well, you can stop a body from having things, you could stop a body from eating, you could stop it from walking, you could stop it from growing skin, you can stop it from breathing, you can stop it from eating. You get all these stops? And that's what the common denominator of illness is—stop.
But after a while he really goes down scale. He has just been able to make a body thoroughly ill, see. And he goes down scale and he can no longer stop a body. Wow! Now what happens? The same thing happens that this fellow—he did find he could stop a body from talking. See, he'd go, "O-o-one, t-t-two, th-three, fa-f-four, f-f-five."
And you say, "Stop."
And he goes, "Seven, eight, nine, ten."
See? He inverted. So, when he thinks of stopping the body, it starts run¬ning.
He's walking up and down, see, walking up and down one way or the other. And he says, "You know, I'd better stop this." Get the idea? I mean, the thought of suppressing a body's actions puts the body in control of him so thoroughly that he's not controlling its actual actions. Follow me?
In other words, he inverts: the thought of "stopping" causes him to "start."
This is so true that—the button wears out rather rapidly, but we'll take some—take some artist—he's a painter and he stopped painting, you know, standard artist. And he's laid away all of his brushes. He has laid away his canvas. He doesn't ever anymore feel that he can just get up energy enough to paint.
You come around to him and you say, "I'll make you a bet that you have no control over your painting!"
Supposing we were just as ornery and as mean as this (which we aren't) but supposing we said this to him, "I'll bet you have no further control over your painting."
He says, "Ahh-ahh. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong."
And you say, "All right now. I want you to decide to stop painting."
And he says, "All right. I'll stop." He says, "That's silly, you know I have."
You say, "That's all right. You just decide to stop your body from paint¬ing anymore. You don't want to paint anymore. Just decide that."
He does.
"All right, decide to stop painting." This is not a good process, just a demonstration. "Stop painting."
All of a sudden, he says, "Well, all right, I'm going to stop painting."

93

94

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
You say, "All right, you decide to stop your body from painting."
"Okay. Stop my body from painting."
You see, he's trying to start painting all the time. He starts painting-starts painting. It's the painting that stops him! It's done.
See, when he finishes a painting, and it's done, then he stops. Do you get the idea? When he finishes a job of any kind, he no longer has that job and so he stops doing the job. What stopped him? Did he stop doing the job? Or did the job stop?
And after a while he gets so that he can't stop. But his body could stop, so he stops working. He stops painting. He stops doing an awful lot of things that might have been very interesting. He stops kissing pretty girls. Any-thing can happen. He never—he never decided to stop himself. Something else decided.
A fellow walking along a dark street, walking along, he has no intention of stopping whatsoever—he is walking along and—a fireplug right there, you see—he's walking along, and bang he hits it! And he says, "Ow!" It stopped him, didn't it? He didn't intend to stop, but the fireplug intended to stop him or did it?
Now, that's the way it is. That's the way—that's the dwindling spiral of life. Everything stops you, you never stop and you stop stopping others and you're dead.
For instance, do you know that there are people alive ... I'll betcha there are some people right here in this audience—I'll betcha there are people right here in this audience that if a .44-caliber bullet were to come flying up here in some fashion or another and they put out a hand or something like that, it wouldn't stop. I'll betcha there are people in this audience that are weak that way.
Now, there's an oddity. That's a curiosity that you ought to examine. What's the matter with you that you couldn't stop a 16-inch shell, huh? You slippin'?
If you've depended on everything in the universe to do the stopping for you, why eventually you go through these two things; you get so that you stop everything, you don't control anything, you just stop everything, you know, bank presidents, and so forth, you just stop things. And then after a while you get so you can't even stop them anymore, and that's that. You've had it! Then's the time—then's the time when you should call your attorney, write out the last will and testament and take a ride with one of these hot rod drivers you see around town.
So, the common denominator that bridges between a friend and an enemy is stop. Do you get that? But stop is part of control. So, you have a control over your enemy to the degree that you are attempting to stop him— attempting to stop him. When you can stop him utterly he is no longer an enemy. He's dead.
Now, I hope I don't restimulate anybody on this. I hope I don't make any people feel suddenly still. I hope—I was running—running a preclear one day on a process like this, and the preclear all of a sudden looked at me and says, "Shhhhhh."
I says, "What's the matter?"
He says, "We must be very still."
I says, "Okay. What's the matter?"
He says, "What you whispering for?"
Well, so as we worked along one way or the other throughout this last

AUDITING PROCEDURE 1956
year, I've been developing the games condition material, I've been developing this stop material. And the reason I've spent so much time telling you about stop is for the simple reason that an auditor who is on obsessive stop could never audit a preclear.
And an auditor who can't stop a preclear in his tracks usually doesn't make him well. Why? Because it requires good positive control of the pre¬clear. And the anatomy of control is start, change and stop.
If you can't control the session so as to get the preclear in control of things, then, of course, you are going to have the preclear out from under you. You are going to have difficulties every time he has difficulties and you're not going to control him through his difficulties. So that's the other requisite I learned about auditing during the past year—control of the session, control of the case.
There is no nice delicate insight nor a bunch of mechanics that can get you across if this stop factor is out of gear in your own—in your auditor's frame of reference. Don't you see that? If he has to obsessively stop every¬thing, he will do the darnedest things to you as a preclear.
Ashtray—sitting there, you know, and you are getting deeper and deeper in, deeper and deeper—pop, crash goes the ashtray, and you go "Dahhhhh! What was that?"
Why did he do that? He couldn't simply stop you by telling you to stop— that would be something he couldn't do. But he could knock an ashtray off the table, slam the door, make the telephone ring, do something. Don't you see? So, we've isolated then—this.
Now, if an auditor can't stop on a communication bridge, what happens? What happens? The processes all just take their course, and the session just takes its course, and the processes take their course, and it just goes on and on and on, don't you see? Don't you—don't you see how this would go? I mean, there is nobody stopping anything. The preclear is in a kind of a condition so he can't stop it. And the auditor is in a condition so he can't stop the preclear and he can't stop the process and he doesn't ever know when to end the process and so he merely changes the process. And he has to change it rap¬idly because he can't stop the process. And this communication bridge enforces a stop on the auditor and preclear.
A little bit of break, you know, and then, clunk! stop! Okay, and we've got the session—we've got a stop in the session. Don't you see that? So, this bridge gets the session under control.
Well, anyway, a lot of other things about that—but the whole itinerary of indoctrination, and so forth, worked out of a study of this start, stop and change and formula of communication. And I developed the materials—the basic materials and dummy sessions on this—over in London and then devel¬oped the other things that went alongside of them. And we all got to working on it very heavy putting it in practice, and the next thing you know, we were having a very delightful time. Let me assure you.
But there were some people at executive level that hadn't been through indoctrination yet. Terrible thing! But, they weren't convinced that indoctri¬nation was absolutely necessary. It had merely been developed and used with a little bit to give people the communication formula and then to teach them the communication bridge and its use—and then to teach them the control of preclears and then to teach them how to use these various factors in order to put the preclear under his own control and square him around and put him in a condition where he could or didn't have to have a game as the case may be.

95

96

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
And we went along in this wise, and we got no cooperation—I got no cooperation particularly from the organization at large.
One day I was sitting in my office, and I decided—you've been watching these dummy process sessions in the morning, haven't you? Do you find them interesting?
Audience: Yes.
Well, I hate to tell you this, but the Director of Training in London didn't entirely approve of this kind of thing. He wasn't working in this direction very much. So, one night he was sitting in the office and a couple other of my pals over there, were sitting there . . . So, he says, "You know about this funny kind of auditing that you have been developing in the research unit?" He says, "What's this—you know, it's kind of funny," he says, "putting somebody through a couple of weeks just doing auditing that doesn't do any case any good." See? He says, "I haven't had time to read over these processes."
I says, "Yes, yes, yes" I says. "Well, I'll tell you, they go this way. They go this way. We'll take this command here, we'll say 'Are mullets wet?'—we'll take that as an auditing command."
"Okay," he says. "Okay, are mullets wet?"
"And then we'll take another auditing command here," I said, " Are cats lonely?' And then we'll take another auditing command, 'Is red red?' All right, fine. Fine."
"Okay," he says, "all right. What am I supposed to do?"
I said, "Well, you take a communication bridge, such as you've been hear¬ing about and you'll use a communication bridge to get into the session and out of the session. You'll deliver the auditing command and acknowledge each time it's executed. You will handle the origin of the preclear and here we go. Okay?"
"Oh, yeah. Yeah! Yeah! I've been auditing for years—old-timer. Nothing to that."
So, I was sitting there at my desk.
He starts in. He says, "All right, are you set?"
And I says, "Yeah. Yeah. Yeah."
He says, "Are mullets wet?"
See.
Was that a session?
Male voice: No.
No! He hadn't even started. Well, he was an old-timer. So, I was an old-timer myself once.
So, he says, "Are mullets wet?"
And I says—being the preclear in this dummy session—"Well," I said, "I don't know. I just don't know. Ummmm, yes."
And he says, "Good. Good. Fine. Are mullets wet?"
"I-well-I don't know."
Well, he says, "Good. Good." He says, "Are mullets wet?"
And I said, "Well. . . What's a mullet?"
And he says, "Well," he says, "uh—well—uh—you know what a mullet is!"
I says, "No, I don't!"
And he says, "Well, just answer the question!"
And I says, "Well, all right, all right. What do you want me to say?"
He says, "Say yes, of course."
I says, "All right. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. Yes, of course."
And he says, "Well, now . . . Are cats lonely? Oh, now, are cats lonely?"

AUDITING PROCEDURE 1956
And I said, "Yeah, I suppose so. Suppose so."
And he says, "Well, are cats lonely?"
And I said, "Suppose so."
And he says, "Well, are cats lonely?"
No acknowledgment, no ...
And I said, "Hummm," I said, "What's a mullet?"
And he says, "What are you doing thinking about mullets?"
I said, "I don't know! I—what is a mullet?"
Completely lost his head. He says, "Now! Don't think!" He says, "Stop thinking! And be quiet." He says, "It's all right now!"
So, I said . . .
And he says, "Is red red?"
And I says . . .
He says, "Answer my question. Is red red?" He said, "Come on," he said, "you can talk!"
I said, "Well, thank you. Well, red—is red red?"
He says, "What's the matter with you!"
I says, "You said, 'don't think!' "
The next morning I found him in Indoctrination Course.
Yes. And then he went out the door out of the office that night terribly embarrassed because two auditors—other auditors had been sitting in the office, his closest friends, and he finally says, "Damn it, Ron!" he says, "It takes a sane man to act that psychotic!"
Well, what with him and other little minor matters and getting the sub¬ject wrapped up—that's what I've been doing the last year. And if not productive, it's at least been interesting. But it has been intensely productive.
I think the last year—the last year has been in terms of actual advance the most interesting of all these six years because it's given us actually almost the entirety of refined auditing procedure which is about 60 percent of modern auditing, and it's given us the remaining 40 percent which tells you what to use the procedure on.
We were in a very interesting condition last February by the way; we had dropped Havingness out of the auditing procedures—processes, see; no Havingness was being audited. We're doing it with perfect procedure and never remedying anyone's havingness. We never gave anybody anything. He couldn't have anything of any kind, it just dropped out of sight.
But we were doing our auditing with perfect procedure. Of course, if you dropped all Havingness out of sight entirely in auditing, you, of course, never would make anybody well.
But, the insight, the skill, the way the auditor had learned how to hold his little finger as he audited the preclear was so good, so perfect, and was done with such consummate aplomb that even without a technique to handle anything, they were making people well—better than 22 percent, too!
Well, we've had a very, very fascinating time of it. My only regret during the past year is not being with so many of my good friends. I don't particu¬larly enjoy Europe. I don't particularly enjoy fumbling around with foreign languages—such as cockney!
But the level of case was sort of this way. I figured out if I could crack one of those, why, any of yours would be a pipe. And by golly! We even started to crack the cases of old auditors in England!
The last year was very productive. The material picked up along it actu¬ally is relatively simple; it is very easy to use; there is nothing to handling

97

98

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
preclears now, as long as you know it all perfectly. That's all you have to be able to do. Handle it perfectly and get perfect results. I am not studying that sort of thing now.
For the last three, four years, people have been asking me, "What's an Operating Thetan?" You know they have been asking me this: "What's an Operating Thetan? What is this thing? I want to be an Operating Thetan." Or, "What are the techniques used to make an Operating Thetan?" and so forth.
So having wrapped up auditing procedure, I am going to spend the next few months trying to find out. I coined the phrase a long time ago and made some notes, but I lost the notes. You know how I am with notes.
Evidently an Operating Thetan would be somebody who—well, I don't know, we'll have another congress one of these days and I will tell you then.

UNIVERSE
A lecture given on 1 September 1956
You think of an elephant, you think "elephant." There's an elephant, mental image picture, only it's one you saw in the zoo or one that chased you a few generations back.
What kind of a universe is this? Well, it's very personal because those particular scenes and pictures actually do record and make a permanent record of—until a Dianeticist gets hold of you—events through which you have passed. You have a picture of something that happened.
Now, once in a while you actually mock something up or you get a pic¬ture of something you would like to invent—something of that sort—and you get a similar picture. That we call a "mock-up"—something that is not a picture of the physical universe.
Now, one of these mental image pictures we actually call a "facsimile," which means a copy of, and it's just a copy of the physical universe. And you will find out that the facsimiles which a person most readily has to hand are facsimiles he has taken or manufactured to record items which he is about to lose or is losing. And he cherishes those. He keeps the picture of the item, instead of the item he lost.
Now, if you had a universe of your own, I'm sure that the floors in that universe would be as solid as this one.
Now, just take a look at your own bank. Go ahead, take a look at this universe of pictures. Get a picture of something. Got it?
Audience: Yeah. Uh-huh.
All right, now, I want you to stamp on the floor. Okay, how solid is that floor?
Audience: Real solid.
Got that?
Audience: Yeah.
All right, now get that picture you had of something. Now stamp on it. Is it as solid as the floor?
Audience: Yes. No.
All right, maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but there's a difference, isn't there?
Audience: Yes.
Now, the other fellow's universe may or may not be solid, but certainly there is something very comforting and reassuring about this floor. Would you tell me why it is that an individual gets sick to the degree that he cannot

99

100

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
tolerate a physical universe solid such as that pillar? And why does he get well when you tell him he can have the pillar or to look around and find things he can have? In other words, when you increase his physical universe possession, he observably gets well. This is therapy.
Doctors dramatize this. They can't let people have too much, so they take little grains of barbiturates or something and they take little grains of the physical universe and little granules of the physical universe and little capsules of the physical universe and . . . And they think it'll make some-body well.
Well, I told you that we Scientologists are always thinking big. We don't know how to think small and the theory is that if you can. . . and make somebody well, well let's get him to take a building.
The question is: Does it work? Does it work? All right, you tell me, Scien-tologists, does it work to increase somebody's havingness?
Audience: Yes!
Ah, what the devil do you suppose does that? Is it actually true that this stuff that these floors and ceilings and walls are made out of are therapeutic in some fashion? Is it actually true that they are?
Audience: Yes.
Yes, well that's a peculiar thing. What's the matter with a preclear? What is the matter with a preclear?
Male voice: He can't have any planets.
That's right, he can't have it. And up here we have "Know" and then of course, we have "Not Know," "Emotion," "Effort" and "Solids," but we'll put "Solids" here. And under "Solids" we have "Think." Down here we have "Mystery." As an individual decreases in mental capability and ability he goes down this scale—"Eat," "Sex," "Mystery"—whatever it is. He gets stuck on some part of this scale.
Actually, if he were at the top of the scale and he could really think a thought, in other words, postulate a thought, he would be able to do some-thing quite interesting. He would be able to make that thought felt on anything else in this scale of Know to Mystery.
In other words, here he's thinking about something; up here he thinks at something. This is the difference between a pocket adding machine and a lightning bolt! This thing called "Solids" in a game condition is of course a barrier, or it's a missile. And when an individual can't tolerate a solid, he can't have a playing field and if he can't have a playing field, he can't have a game. And that's all you can say about it.
An individual who could think a direct thought, cause—a direct thought, by the way, is quite interesting—a direct thought is exactly a communication. It is cause-distance-effect. Cause-distance-effect. He thinks a thought—boom! Now, if he is very aberrated indeed he can only think thoughts that cause horrible results. It isn't necessary to think that kind of a thought unless you are hard to convince that you have achieved an effect.
These individuals who work so hard to achieve an effect actually are not achieving one or they simply can achieve a bad one. A nation which can only kill another nation on a battlefield is already so disabled that it can't really tolerate a game; it can't think a nice direct thought, and your cause-distance-effect is, however, possible only up here.
Now, did you ever read a book written by a professor? I mean one of these real lovely articles that say, "This is the story about—this is the tale of ice ages. This is the cause and so on of ice ages. The ice ages begun, it is said

UNIVERSE
according to Professor Wumph, at a certain period of time which by an analy¬sis of the fossilized remains by the archaeology department of the University of Michigan did seem to occur. However, this is contested by Professor Spath."
You know, I well remember the first time—the first time I ever ran up against this phenomena, because it's phenomenal, believe me. I got into a state of mind—I wanted to write a story about the ice ages back in the good old days, so I, of course, went and got the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I opened it up and it says, "Ice Ages." So I read and that was what I read: "According to the fossilized remains of Professor Spath," why, and so on and so on and so on. And I read, read, getting groggier and groggier. I couldn't find in there anywhere where the ice ages had been caused by anything! Evidently as far as I could discover about these ice ages is they were being discussed. There was no description of when the ice ages began, why they began, what happened, no direct statement of any kind. But, boy, was there a lot of discussion! That subject of the ice ages was so thoroughly discussed that I was disgusted. In fact, I almost became allergic to ice ages.
Needless to say I wrote the story about tropical times.
Well, look at the difference—the fellow who writes about something and the fellow who writes something. Get the difference?
Now there is nothing wrong with writing something about something or discussing something—there is nothing wrong with this at all. It's a common pastime. It's perfectly okay, but don't seriously pass it off as the thing. In other words, because we write about something we are not writing the thing, you see that?
Male voice: Yeah.
It should be very clear.
A handbook on how to start and maintain diesel engines has great value. If you read it, you know how to run, handle and use diesel engines. Another book which gives types of diesel engines and their inventions and that sort of thing is actually equally interesting. There is nothing wrong with it. A fellow who is in good shape should be able to write all over the Tone Scale. But, how about the fellow who writes a book entitled How to Start, Handle and Maintain Diesel Engines and then starts it out this way, "The first diesel engine was evidently discovered or invented—whereas there is some question about this—by a Swedish individual who—however, in his own writings credited his idea to the Italians."
Chapter Two: "Diesel engines are said to be very difficult to maintain at times, but other authorities claim they are very easy to run."
Chapter Three: "In maintaining diesel engines there are many books available . . ."
You see, he's written a book here that pretends to be here. Get the differ-ence? In other words, the difference is that of honesty. If you write a book about something and say it's about that something, all right. But if you write a book about something and say it is the thing, you are being very dishonest.
There is a subject called—I forget its name—just a minute, it's phrenol¬ogy. Phrenology. It's taught in most universities. No, it's not its name. "Psychic phenomena," I think it's called. It's taught in most universities anyway. I have forgotten—it used to be taught and it says that it is this book on the subject of the mind, when it is this book on the subject of the mind. You got the difference?
Male voice: Yeah.

101

102

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
That's a singular difference, isn't it? Because this book will never do anything else but shy away from solids. This material will never think or pose a causative thought. It's perfectly all right to write about things if you're writing about things and it's really necessary and interesting to have books about things.
You ever read a book about stamps? Well, it's perfectly legitimate to have a book about stamps; they're a lot of fun. A book about paintings, a book about this, a book about that—perfectly all right. But a book which discussed paintings from Rembrandt backwards or something of the sort, but had a title—all it did was discuss paintings and say what museums they were in and how much they cost people—and title itself, How to Paint and Become a Famous Painter, is a fraud. It's a complete fraud, see?
So, we have to differentiate between the professorial figure-figure material which pretends to be the subject and actually this. You see that? Well, it's all very well to look over that and run down those good people who actually are making a living. I wonder if they sometimes don't go on an inter-esting motto.
Anyway, an interesting book can be written on any subject under the sun—about it. But if the book pretends to be it, what use is it? What use is a universe which is only about another universe? What is it? What use is a book that is only about things except as a matter of passing interest? It's not a caus-ative book, is it? What use really is a universe which is only about another universe? It's a sort of a discussion. What most people call their own universes are a discussion of the physical universe. And that which you have been calling and which I call "own universe" is only a false universe picture gallery of the physical universe.
I told you I didn't have anything very important to talk to you about. All I am describing is the actual anatomy of the reactive mind and that's dead so long that it's hardly any use at all.
So, do you have your own universe? Is there a universe that you can call your own universe? Is there one? Hm? Is there one, really?
Audience: Yes.
What is it?
Audience: This one.
Huh, you're right. That's your universe. Well, why do you think that you don't have a total ownership on the thing? That's because in the process of games, people disenfranchise people gradually, a little bit. They say, "You can't play this game. You can't come close to it." They say, "You have to have a deed before you can walk on this property." Get the barriers? "You have to pay a certain sum of money with the Recorder of Motor Vehicles before you can drive this car." You got the idea?
Well, it changes our thinking considerably on this whole subject. This universe—physical universe was evidently actually built by us. We built it. And then after a while we mocked up things that we couldn't stop often enough and we decided not to create that solidly anymore, and we stopped mocking things up that solidly. We stopped putting things together with that much glue and we said, "You know, we get in trouble mocking this stuff up and never unmocking it." Or "We sold ourselves and other people sold us a bill of goods and they told us we had to get out of the universe somewhat." And a fellow draws back at last and he only keeps pictures of the physical universe and he said that's his own universe.
Why can't you or don't you mock up a better floor, a better car, a better

UNIVERSE
house? Why? When a bullet comes at you that's traveling mighty fast and you can't stop the bullet, why don't you mock up a piece of armor plate in front of you? You know, these bodies don't stop bullets well. There have been many clinical tests made on the subject. Well, why don't you mock up an armor shield to have the bullet go clang against it?
It's because you began to be intolerant of solids. That's the answer. You said, "There are enough barriers around already. I won't be guilty of mocking up another one." Here's this huge universe, huge, with a handful of planets in it and a few suns, and we decided there was already enough walls. There were already enough walls. We didn't need any more. Let's not be quite so solid in our mock-ups.
We ourselves as thetans are not solid. We therefore begin to find fault with solids because we cannot completely duplicate a solid, and a solid never duplicates us and so the communication formula is violated.
And a communication formula has this interesting fact connected with it. Here we have at cause a certain idea or entity. At effect, a perfect commu¬nication would have the same duplicate or entity, don't you see? Supposing at cause we had a small pebble; at effect we would still have to have a small pebble. When we have effect—small pebble—we would have a small pebble back here at cause. In other words, for cause to hit with a pebble, it is really necessary for cause to be able to tolerate a pebble back. Therefore, we get that thing called, "Love thy neighbor. If thou does not smote the other cheek thou shalt be in violation of Covenant 83" or whatever it is. I'm not quite sure what the quotation is. You possibly could help me out.
Now, we have this situation here. We've got a problem in cause and effect. A thetan looks at a solid. Here's this board here—it's solid. I am back up here about three feet of my head—I look at that board, see the board real well. I sort of have a feeling like I ought to be a board. If I'm unwilling to be a board I don't see the board very well at all. You get what the problem is? Well, as an individual is disabused of the idea that he should mock up things, that he does own this universe—as he gets disabused of this idea, he is less and less willing to perceive it. And in view of the fact that if he doesn't mock it up all the time it isn't there as soon as he falls down on the job and stops mocking it up that solidly, he starts to have trouble with it!
Now, let's get the idea of a great big ice cube here—great big ice cube and we look at this ice cube and we realize that it's going to melt. If we don't put more ice cube there, we're not going to have any ice cube. Is that right?
Audience: Yes.
It's inevitable.
Well, what's the difference between that ice cube and that pillar? There is no essential difference except the ice cube leaves some water when it disap¬pears, and the pillar leaves a headache.
When you become the total effect of the physical universe, you believe it is no longer your universe. You can still see it because misownership is at work, but you don't mock it up anymore, you don't assist it to appear, you don't keep time going clickity-clack, all because of what? Because you don't want to look at solids anymore. You think that solids are something you want to avoid here. You want to stay below it.
Let's think about walls, let's don't mock them up. It's very funny—we've had this for a long time, "Look, don't think." Got a car, it isn't running. You take it into a garage mechanic who is in terrible condition—the garage mechanic is. You run the car in the garage and he says, "Well, let's see, what

103

104

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
could be wrong with that car?" Drive on, find another garage. When you get back the wheels will be off of it, too.
But you drive into a garage, drive your car in—something wrong with it—mechanic doesn't start arranging with you about the bill or anything. He—up with the hood . . . It's quite remarkable. Why? As one becomes aller¬gic to solid masses, walls, books, brooks, pebbles, kings, cats and coal heavers, he stops looking at them. Some part of him is still mocking them up sort of back over here, you know. "I'm scared of that thing." See? But he can't remedy anything about them.
In order to solve a problem it is necessary to confront the solids con-nected with the problem. If you can confront the solids connected with the problem, you can solve the problem. We explain this in many ways.
A fellow is mad at us; he's going yap-yap-yap-yap, chop-chop-chop. We say, "I'd better not go over there and talk to him, he's mad. Better stay away from that." I believe Scientologists know better now. They have rationaliza-tions and explanations for it. That fellow is over there chop-chop-chop and he's saying, "Hiya, Joe! What's wrong? Is something wrong?" Joe . . . You see, confronts the solid.
Now, it isn't true that thetans are solid. They're not—they're not solid. I was talking to a thetan one day and he said something. He was using Ameri-can slang or something and he said, "That's solid, Jackson."
I said, "What?"
He said, "That idea."
I says, "Is it? I can't see it."
"Oh," he says, "you're just being a purist." He says, "You belong down here in Hubbard's symbols."
But as we put this universe back together again, as we're willing to put this universe back together again, we can handle it, we can control it. There isn't anything in it which can stand before us and if we can handle it and control it, we can also make it disappear.
There is a process that rides right up here just below Know, which is Not Know. Auditors have a lot of fun with this process. They take a preclear out—it's very, very hard to train an auditor to run the process who himself has not experienced the phenomena. Very hard.
I've thought of several examples. Takes a preclear out and you audit him. "Well, all right look around here. Tell me if there's anything you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that wall, about that person, about this, about that." Person—"Well, I wouldn't mind not-knowing that curtains were hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing that Declaration of Human Rights is hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing it had a light hanging on it. Wouldn't mind not-knowing this. Wouldn't mind not-knowing that," so forth.
He goes along—auditor is perfectly happy—nothing is happening. "All right, now, tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that person over there."
"Well, wouldn't mind not-knowing her head, wouldn't mind not-knowing her shoes, wouldn't mind not-knowing her dress."
The auditor says, "Okay, that's enough. Tell me something you wouldn't mind not-knowing about that girl over there."
Preclear says, "Well, I wouldn't mind not-knowing her hat. Hey!"
The auditor says, "What's the matter? What's the matter? Something happen? Get a somatic?"
Preclear says, "I did!"

UNIVERSE
And the auditor says, "You did what?"
"I not-knew her hat!"
Auditor says, "You did? What do you mean?"
"Well, her hat disappeared."
"It did? How did that happen?" Auditor spends the next two hours trying to find out what occurred.
I was being audited on this subjectively one time by an auditor whose name I won't mention. And I really won't mention it because of the Code of a Scientologist, but I ought to.
He was giving me a quick assist. He walked into the office and I'd just got through talking to a couple of preclears. I wasn't auditing them; I didn't have a chance to. They came in the office, they were screaming at each other. They were both in training and they had gotten into an argument during an auditing session over some breach of the Auditor's Code. And they were in the contention that they were both—they were both auditors.
And I had just finished a couple of lectures—or anything like that—and they were so mad at each other. I was sitting there listening to this. I finally settled it; I said, "You guys, you think you are both auditors. As far as I can see you are both preclears. Go on back and find some more about it." So they did.
This other auditor walked in the office immediately afterwards and says, "What's the matter with you?"
I was sitting there at the desk, "Oh, no," you know. And I says, "This is just too much."
And he says, quickly, brightly, you know—coffee shop auditing—he says to me, "What wouldn't you mind not-knowing about what just happened?"
And I says, "Oh, I don't know, that they were standing there. Hey, what do you know, ha, I did not—wait a minute. What was I supposed to not-know? I've not-known it."
And he looks at me and he says, "The two students that were just in your office!"
So, at the next meeting of the board we yanked his thetan.
Anyway, you can actually not-know this stuff. Well, that's one action—it disappears for you. In other words, you remove your participation from it. This is an absolute phenomenon. There's another phenomenon which is of a higher level; that is merely the first stage of it. You actually can not-know such a thing as a pillar, so thoroughly, evidently, that nobody could see it. Something like this could occur. But certainly an individual can not-know it himself personally.
Now, you want to turn on mock-ups with some pc, all you have to tell him is, "Decide to put a beautiful mock-up on that wall. Now decide that if you did it, it would spoil the game and don't do it." And he makes these decisions in order and you just keep telling him just those same phrases. "Decide to put a mock-up on the wall—a beautiful picture. Now decide that it would spoil the game if you did it and don't do it." And he does this and he does this. He does this a dozen times and all of a sudden this fellow that has never had mock-ups suddenly has a 3D, full color, full visio, full smellio mock-up.
Evidently we keep thinking that this sort of thing would spoil the game.
Now, why can't you mock up a body right there, you see, that everybody can see? Why can't you do that? It isn't lack of talent. It's evidently merely aberration. An "aberration" is simply falling back from your fullest capabil¬ities. You can run this one, you can say, "Now decide to mock a mock-up there that everybody can see. Now decide that if you did that it would spoil the

105

106

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
game and don't do it." You just keep running this drill, running this drill, running this drill. All of a sudden he says, "Oh, no, you don't."
You say, "What's the matter?"
"Look, if I put that there, if I started mocking up mock-ups it would spoil the game. It would. I could mock up dollar bills that would pass. I could mock up banks, trucks, cops, armies, anything. There wouldn't be any game; it's a no-game condition. You would be able to mock up everything."
Well, I left him in that because it was in session. But a couple of days later I was having lunch with him and he went over this routine. And I said, "Did you—it ever occur to you that if I drilled on it too, it wouldn't be a no-game condition?"
"No," he says, "you're a friend of mine, I wouldn't go into contest with you." Well, evidently we are restrained for fear of spoiling the game one way or the other, for fear of as-ising the universe and so forth. But we get to a point where we are not aware of what we are doing, we hide it too carefully, we hide it too thoroughly and the next thing we know we can't do it. About then we become human. And a long time too late we send for an auditor.
But I will tell you what importance this little theory of universes has. And it's very important. In February of this last year I made myself quite ill. I was trying to resolve atomic fission, body reaction to, doing quite a few experiments on this line. Some understanding of why I was not in the United States will come to you when you realize that actually you're not supposed to do experiments with fission in the United States. There are some people down here that frown at it. I've written a series of letters asking whether or not one could indulge in experiments in atomic fission in the United States these days, and the government has answered them very promptly, but each time has said that I ought to go contact some nonclassified, nonsecurity university group someplace. I don't know what the university group has got to do with it. I was talking about practical research, and actually there is no answer. They say, "Well, maybe you can and maybe you can't, and is it—it's against the law, but maybe it isn't against the law," and they are quite confused about it. But there's nothing about atomic fission in Ireland, I assure you.
Well, anyway we were doing some experiments along in this line, and it was obvious that the best way to keep an atomic war from doing anything interesting to the country such as denude it of its population—which is, of course, I realize not as full an effect as a usual nuclear physicist would like to have a country have—I realize it's below his acceptance level, but it's the best he could do. You know, you've got to make allowances. He's a scientist, he has his drawbacks and his level of acceptance is—well, they're trying to figure it out now, so, they suffer for six or eight months before they finally kick off. But there are some humane generals around by the way who object to this. They say that it ought to kill everybody instantly. They have a much higher level of acceptance.
Anyway, I'm being very snide, but I don't think that the atomic efforts which are being made actually merit anything but very snide remarks. I don't know if you agree with me or not, but that's the way I look at it.
Well, I was trying to do what I could in order to discover whether or not auditing could actually proof a body up against atomic fission. In other words, could you audit somebody in such a way that when they were hit with gamma and the rest of it, they would not be badly burned or affected. Could you do this?
Ha, I learned it the hard way. I do not think it can be done. It is a total

UNIVERSE
failure. That project dead-ended in February. And when I got well sometime in March I had to postulate a new line of research on the same subject. And I said, well, the silliest line of research, the reductio ad absurdum that would end all absurdities everywhere would be to solve atomic fission this way: All you do is fix a preclear up so that if he loses a body he could mock up one. And mock it up with a postulate that atomic energy doesn't affect it. See? Somebody drops a bomb on you, you mock up another mock-up, move over here and say, "Well, hello, Joe."
Well, life, when I am doing research, may not be sensible but it's always interesting. Well, that was—that was the one solution I put down. That was one way to go about it, one direction for research to take; and I wrote down five or six more, but five or six more, they just were nothing. I looked over the situation. If you cannot fix up a civilization so that it will dispose of its man-killing weapons, then the next step would be to fix up the civilization so that it would be defended against such things. But if you can't do that and both of these things have failed, then the next best thing to do would be to fix up its population and the food supply so that it wasn't too allergic to atomic radiation. And if you couldn't do that, let's at least cure some of the burns which have occurred. Well, we can do that; we're on safe ground there.
People who would probably die within twenty days, something like that, could probably be saved rather uniformly with some good auditing. We do have the only known cure for atomic fission.
Well, it may be the only cure but it's not good enough; it's not good enough. Too many people go up in smoke when these bombs hit. There aren't enough auditors around to patch them all up right at once, so it's not very good unless we got on an all-out program and squared it around. It's almost easier to go out on a program which actually takes care of the bomb itself, which insists on international control in a sensible wise, and straightens out this mad tangle. Nevertheless, it's a very good thing to have a cure.
All right, we are—a book* is in composition right at this moment, by the way, which informs the public as to the exact status of atomic radiation warfare and burns and situations—a factual book which is not any flight of fancy. It's merely a fast rundown on what it is and what could be done for it—a practical book, not something by, you know, "It is said that there's atomic radiation, and molecules and atoms and they all wiggle ..." Something...
What this book takes up is—for about three-quarters of its length—is simply the cause and prevention of radiation difficulties. And the last third of the book, or a little less, takes up how you solve the serious—or less serious burns with Scientology processes. This book is in composition at this time and probably will be written—completely written in a few months, since my part of it has to be written after the other part is finished. It's a composite of practically all of the books on radiation that have been written, but more importantly it's a composite of armed forces courses on the subject of the prevention of radiation. But that book will be out in a few months and we'll at least have this little bit and piece in the bookstores for people to read, because there is nothing else for them there on the subject.
The US Government Civil Defense Program says the first thing you have to know about civil defense: "That in the event of an attack by enemy atomic bombs, you're on your own. There's nobody going to help you." That's right.
*[Editor's Note: The book discussed here was subsequently published in 1957 and is entitled All About Radiation.]

108

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
That's the first paragraph of their book—you think I'm joking. "Nobody is going to help you. You're on your own." In other words, the country is gone the moment an A-bomb goes boom. That is as far as I can figure out. That may not be their program but I have been given to understand that it is, by their own literature. They should write their literature a little bit better.
Well, this book—this book will be of interest to you because it will attract attention to you. People will be very happy to have about—to have some solution about this but that still was not a line of research, was it? And I was left in this horrible state—I was left in a horrible state. Something terrible! I was left with the only direction of search being you mock up a body—"Hiya, Joe." You know. Somebody burns down your mock-up—you'll have to be able to mock one up yourself. It's the only direction of research there was so I followed it—silly thing to do. And since March have wrapped up the subject.
Thank you.
So you see, it wasn't as silly as it sounded, but it led one into some other conclusions which were quite evident—that an individual, as he becomes incapable—as he becomes incapable of mocking up pillars, floors and walls, falls out of the game. He thinks about it, he doesn't do anything about it and he doesn't play it.
It became obvious that there were three universes: the other fellow's universe that he could mock up in addition to the physical universe if he were Clear, the physical universe that you and he mocked up and the universe that you could mock up if you were Clear. So, there is such a thing as your own universe, and it's very solid, but we haven't seen any yet. Now, that's quite important.
We mistake the reactive mind for our own universe. You see how that would be? Because it has pictures, because it has barriers, we say, "Well, that's my universe and the other fellow's reactive mind is his universe, and mock-ups, mock-ups, and then there is this big solid thing called the MEST universe." No, reactive mind, MEST universe, reactive mind is the way it is at this time, but it could be home universe, physical universe, the other fellow's home universe. Do you see how that could be?
Well, that's highly theoretical—that's almost Alice-in-Wonderlandish, a book we have become acquainted with lately. And these universes are pos-sible.
But a thetan makes a reactive mind solid and comes into control of it. Or he becomes causative in making pillars and walls and houses solid and gets in control of them. And the road up evidently is simply to become better at it. We have the processes; you just have to become better at it. That's all. What's that take?
It takes a little practice and a few wins, a little reassurance. That's all. It's evidently a solved problem—requires to be placed into effect, however— with what disasters we don't know.
I can expect sometime in the future legislation that reads like this, "Scientologists will refrain from mocking up barriers across city traffic during rush hours." "A thetan who is married must not mock up more than one body every twenty years." "People who like pets must keep all the pets in their yard that they mock up." "Completely mocked-up fingerprint and identi-fication cards are not acceptable at FBI." "Mocked-up money will be accepted only to the sum of 10 dollars only, when detected." "On anything mocked up, a 3 percent of current value tax will be assessed."

UNIVERSE
Well, it wouldn't be a brave new world; it would be an awfully compli¬cated one, but by golly it's in the direction of more game.
Well, that's this story of universes. It's something quite valuable. A person becomes a victim of a reactive mind or mental image pictures or engrams merely to the degree that he cannot tolerate their solids. He doesn't become a victim of their thought—he becomes a victim of their thought only when he cannot stand their solids. Do you see that? So if you make them solid the thoughts come off of them. You don't run the thought out of them, you run the solid into them.
When you can take an engram and throw it up against the wall contemp-tuously and have it go clank, your reactive bank won't bother you. Well, this is a new way of making a Clear. We used to have a—in the navy. . . "Oh, God," somebody says, "he's going to get off into that." No, no, we're not going to get off on the navy. We used to have a signal system and there were code words that carried the communications through. There was "Roger," oh, I don't know "30s" and "73s"—there were all kinds of signals and symbols, and so forth, but they were kind of long and complicated. And I got so that when¬ever I would sign off from other ships in my squadron, why, I would say, "Roger, wilco, over, under and out." The other boys started picking this up. We kept hearing, "Roger, wilco, over, under and out," as the final communica¬tion. That was, of course, a complete stop. That was a complete period. You shut off the set then and removed the tubes—full stop!
Well, I don't know why it is but some people have time tracks that run this way and some people that—have time tracks that run this way. And I have met a few nuts that went down this way. But we have been referring to this "Before and After Solids," are run on the engram bank as Over and Under, as a slang phrase, because obviously an indiv—most individuals you run on it have the sensation of diving from something when they get an earlier one, and sort of pulling back on the throttle and the stick at the same time when they get a later one. It's quite interesting, but you can take an engram bank and you can straighten it out and you can get it solid. It is a level of entrance of the preclear, because the solidity of the facsimile is probably more real to him than the solidity of the wall. A picture of the wall is more solid than the wall. Sounds incredible but it's true. He'd rather have a picture of it than the wall.
So, when he starts down scale he gets to a point where he sees pictures of walls with his physical eyes. He doesn't see walls, he sees pictures of walls. You start running a person on modern processes that hasn't been getting along well on processing, you can fully expect this to happen. The individual says, "Wait a minute."
You say, "What's the matter?"
He says, "The wall is rippling."
You say, "Yes, what's the matter?"
"Oh," he says, "it's moving!"
Did anybody have anything move today?
Male voice: No.
Well, it means that you had a—some kind of a picture of the thing in addition to the thing or it was just all picture. You got the idea? And after you work at it for a while the preclear finds something very astonishing. He doesn't any longer see a picture of pillars or walls, he sees pillars or walls and it's very upsetting to him for a while. That's right, very upsetting to him.
Now, you can make an engram sufficiently solid—let us say it's an engram received on Brandywine in 17—whatever it was. You can make that

109

110

1 SEPTEMBER 1956
solid enough—if the preclear could hold it—that he sees himself fully and completely and utterly and only at the Battle of Brandywine—smoke, powder, flame and all—the British Redcoats lined up. Got the idea? In other words, he can construct a strata of time sufficiently solid that it fools him for a moment. He just goes all the way back into it, just boom! "What's this? What's this?" It's the Battle of Brandywine going on, of course! Yeah, but the Battle of Brandywine was 100 and Lord knows what—how many years ago. Or was it?
Well, if you say it was Lord knows how many years ago, you're saying, "You know, I can't bring that thing up fully solid. I can't make it now." You'll hear a preclear one of these days complaining bitterly, he is not in good shape. He can only get a thenness of the discovery of America. He's—feels rattled today, he feels upset, he can only get a thenness of the Spanish Inqui-sition. You know, he only gets pictures of the thing, he—you know, they're not very solid—it's not very convincing.
This sounds very peculiar but this is evidently an open sesame as to what the universe is about in relationship to time. We have many questions to ask. Do forms actually change? Is the Battle of Brandywine still in progress? Has the future been formed already and we are merely living toward it? Do you really mock up your own body or do you steal one? Terrific number of questions unanswered, but these are merely observational questions having to do with the anatomy of the physical universe, all of them more or less solvable. The trick is to get the procedures and the processes that solve them. We have those and that's what I meant when I said—I was very silly when I said, "The game of research is over." Now, the game of research might have been over, but that merely meant that the game was starting.
Well, you might say here we are at the beginning. Boy, if this is the beginning, what was that we've been through?
Well, the congress has begun by this time, hasn't it?
Audience: Yes!
All right. You're here, aren't you?
Audience: Yes.
All right, that's good.
You're in very, very good condition, you know . . .
Male voice: Sure.
. . . very fine condition. You're in sufficiently good condition that I have a feeling, I have a definite feeling, that tomorrow I'll really be able to pull out a good, beefy process. I have been going light on you. Trying to—what's the matter? Well, I have, I've been going light on you in order—so that—to let you catch up so that I wouldn't startle you or something of the sort.
But tomorrow after the first lecture—and I've got to look at that pro-gram again to see if there's anything. . . After that first lecture tomorrow, why, we'll be able to get in some processes that are effective. I've got you built up now to them.
There isn't really any more data to tell you about this congress and— given you most of it. There's hardly anything to take up. But somehow or other I think we'll manage to have a couple of more days. We'll get through them somehow. I hope that something will happen. Maybe you'll think of something that will be interesting.
So, thanks a lot for being here. Thanks a lot for listening. Good night.

HAVINGNESS
A lecture given on 2 September 1956
Thank you.
Thank you.
I take it that the congress has started.
Audience: Yeah!
You might wonder about what this is, but over in England—over in Eng¬land where all American styles go but from which American styles used to come, we find that most professional men—clubmen, sports and that sort of thing—they wear blazers with pocket badges. And we couldn't be outdone by that and so we up and got a blazer with a pocket badge.
We couldn't get them made anywhere in the Western Hemisphere for anything reasonable, so we got the badges made in Hong Kong, China. Very, very interesting—clear from Hong Kong.
The international character of Scientology then, you see, is all squared up. Here I am on an American stage with a British jacket with a badge from Hong Kong, China, you see?
Speaking of the international character of Scientology, I have pointed out the fact that you have to mock up a Canadian flag there. And back here, there's a couple of flags that are in error; not very large error, but there are a couple of flags that are in error. This one, because we are really not a member of the United Nations. The fact of the matter is that no petition has been made to the United Nations to include us as a chartered organization of that organization. We do not have a delegate in the United Nations at this time. We're processing them first!
Well, I guess you—I guess you have decided that you're here and the congress has started and it's a very, very good thing that you're here in such a complacent frame of mind because I haven't got anything to talk to you about today. I have talked myself out, completely!
First I blew out the PA system 100 percent. Now I'm blowing my voice out.
Actually, it isn't very difficult to talk here in this hall, aside from the fact that the pillars kick back the voice, but we'll work on the pillars perhaps a little bit more today and they'll be gone!
So, wherever we get together like this, however, if I talk to you for a few minutes I sort of get the idea that there might be something I could say to you that would have some small value—perhaps of no great extent. And just saying I didn't have anything to talk to you about reminded me that I have never really talked to you about havingness.

111

112

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Now, the funny part of it is, is I had to talk to you about game conditions and solids before I could talk to you about havingness. So, you see that there might be something that we have yet to learn about this subject of having¬ness if it is preceded by games and preceded by solids and the Know to Mystery Scale.
All right. Do you want to hear something about havingness?
Audience: Yeah!
It's quite a peculiar subject—peculiar subject.
Since Havingness appeared on our scene as a process by accident, it was obvious that masses had something to do with the state of health of a pre-clear. But we thought so little of Havingness just seven months ago that we dropped it almost entirely from our memories and knowledge. We just forgot to put it on the list.
Now I had—I've always told students in the ACC Course—of course, I have told them so doggone many things—often, probably from their view-point, so contradictory, so unreconcilable with any other data, that they sometimes don't cognite on them for a year or two. We get long comm lags on this sort of thing here. Very interesting.
But Havingness itself is one of these peculiar, peculiar things. We didn't even get upset when people were not remedying havingness for a while. And I didn't even notice there was anything gone out of our processing tools—hey, that's pretty good. I said "processing" this time. That's pretty good. You know, I must be in America!
Well, we didn't even notice there was anything gone from our processing tools until Julia started shipping over the tons of tests she ships me every week and the London Director of Processing started unloading me some more tests, and there was nothing happening in these tests! And for a week, two weeks, three weeks—and I said, "Practically every auditor in the HGC has suddenly gone mad! They're all breaking the Auditor's Code. Lord knows what they are running; they're probably reporting one thing and running something else. What's happening here, I don't know." But it became obvious that there was a process in Scientology that was being omitted somehow or another from the regular and routine processes generally used by the clinic.
We used to say in ACC Courses, "When in doubt, remedy havingness. When in doubt, remedy havingness." You remember that old phrase?
Audience: Yes.
Well, evidently nobody was in doubt except the tests! And I didn't know what was wrong! It took about three months for me to square this thing around and look at it and see what process was missing.
When you have 10,000 processes, then you might have 10,000 things missing and the whole 10,000 processes were not being run on preclears, so it became guesswork. What had become wrong with Scientology that it sud-denly wasn't working smoothly? Only a few gains here and there. No big gains were taking place. What was happening? What was gone?
I finally found out what was gone—Havingness. We had dropped this as a process.
Now, for those of you who have—feel a little shaky about your auditing or aren't auditors, let me tell you what we mean by Havingness. We have the preclear—the old style—mock up something like a mass and shove it into his body. This is on the rationale that people eat and people do take in masses and solids and so as we process we feel that we should make people take in masses and solids. That's—was the basic theory behind Havingness.

HAVINGNESS
We found out that an individual could be processed for a little while and he'd start to—he'd start to shake, get a little bit upset, twitch, get agitated. What's wrong? He's uncomfortable.
We processed him a little bit further without doing anything about his havingness and he would say, "You've broken the Auditor's Code. You've done something bad to me. You are telling me to do things I can't do." In other words, he'd argue and argue and start arguing. He'd get argumentive. He'd go down Tone Scale—something would happen to him.
But, if you had him mock up or create a mental image picture contain¬ing some mass and take that mental image picture and shove it into his body, he would recover from this agitation. He would feel better. So, it became a rule after this was omitted from that and we found it again, that havingness had to be remedied.
We already knew about havingness. We said any time an individual began to twitch, become restive or go unconscious during processing, his hav-ingness had been dropped or changed.
Now, it isn't necessarily true that he will go unconscious during a ses¬sion simply because his havingness has been dropped. Funny part of it is, is you remedy some preclear's havingness and they go unconscious and you have to say, "Come on. Come on. Mock it up. Push it in. Mock it up. Push it in." He goes dong! you see?
"Ah. Yeah. Yeah."
"Well, mock it up and push it in. Mock it up. Push it in"—dong!
And all of a sudden after they've done this for quite a while, they don't go buong anymore.
I'll give you an example of the use of this: I had a preclear who had a totally black field. This is called an "occluded case"—actually should be called a "black case" or a "lightless case."
Tell a person to close his eyes, he sees a blackness that is not the black¬ness simply occasioned by his eyelids. Actually, eyelids are blackish but slightly red to most preclears. So, if he closes his eyes and doesn't see any¬thing, if you ask—that's very funny—you ask most people, you say, "Close your eyes." The person closes his eyes. You say, "What do you see?"
He says, "Nothing!"
And you say, "That's good! That's fine! Good! Now, what do you see?"
"Nothing."
"Come on. What are you looking at?"
"Nothing."
"Well, just try. Just look, will you? What do you see?"
If he's doing this, he then normally says, "Blackness. I do see blackness."
And it doesn't come to him as a surprise that he is looking at something when he never has looked at anything before. He is in such a state that he isn't looking at anything. First thing he sees when he starts to see is black¬ness.
What is this blackness? It's actually masses of energy which are a total effect on the thetan on which he has little or no effect. Do you follow me? He has little or no effect on the blackness, the blackness has a great deal of effect on him, so he then and there puts the consideration into consistent practice that it is all black and there's nothing he can do about it.
Actually there are energy masses of a mental sort sitting in his skull and around in front of his face and they are black and they are almost inde-structible. When you try to get a preclear to chew one of these things up or

113

114

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
do something to these things, he has great difficulty. You've all had experi-ence with this. It's because the blackness has normally put him in a no-game condition.
Well, give you an old Remedy of Havingness—an old-time Remedy of Havingness. You ask somebody to mock up something and shove it into his body. Mock up something else, shove it into his body.
You never did a complete Remedy of Havingness. Later on Remedy of Havingness meant you mock up something and shove it into his body. You mock up something and shove it—throw it away. Mock up something and shove it in. Mock up something and throw it away. That was a complete Remedy of Havingness—we could do both of these.
But the early nomenclature simply said a Remedy of Havingness—he mocked up something and shoved it into his body.
All right. I've taken a preclear who was totally black, as far as the field is concerned, couldn't see anything but blackness. The blackness was a qual¬ity and character of black basalt. And we expected this preclear to be able to do something with mental image pictures, to see engrams, to do this, to do that. Very interesting—he couldn't do any of these things at all. Why? Because he couldn't really see what he was doing. He had a black screen in front of his face and this blackness acted very badly on any processing efforts that we made.
Well, I have had a preclear on whom no other process to recover vision from all this occlusion—I've had a preclear actually go through this sort of an action. (Nothing else had ever touched this person's blackness.) "Mock up a black mass and shove it into the body."
"Mock up a black mass and shove it into the body."
"Mock up a black mass and shove it into the body."
"Mock up a black mass and shove it into the body."
The preclear had a great deal of trouble with it, went anaten, went upset, did this for fifteen minutes and during the entire fifteen minutes I don't believe the preclear was actually conscious more than one or two of those minutes, but yet was going on with the process even though completely unconscious.
And at the end of this time, all of a sudden the black field changed and I had the preclear doing mock-ups. The preclear then did very brilliant mock-ups and I did another couple of processes and the preclear was able actually to get rid of energy.
By the way, it was very amusing, the process used to have the preclear get rid of something—everything snapped in on this preclear only—the proc-ess used to make this preclear get rid of something was to—oh, I'll tell you, first the mock-ups were just that big.
I finally said, "How big are these mock-ups?"
"Ah, they are pretty good size. They're that big."
I says, "We'll see if we can't get them just a little bit bigger."
And we started building them up and they finally got to be life-size, and had the preclear do several innocent things, mock up various innocent devices of one kind or another, you know, images, and push them in, do things with them.
And then had the preclear mock up an elephant and the preclear was perfectly happy to mock up this elephant. The elephant at first was this big, the second time this big and then it got this big and then it got to be an elephant, see?

HAVINGNESS
When the—when the elephant was sufficiently big that the preclear was not comfortable, I said, "Now have the elephant walk away."
The preclear had the elephant walk away. He said, "He is having a dreadful time getting through the door." The elephant managed that. Boy, were barriers real to this preclear.
He said, "He's having an awful time now with the front door. He can't manage the knob." The elephant walked out on the street.
And I said, "Now, just have him keep on walking."
He was out of sight by this time and the preclear said, "Yes."
And I said, "Well now, have you gotten rid of something?"
And the preclear said, "Hey! What do you know!"
And we had more elephants walk away and camels walk away and finally we got down to where anything would walk away and we finally got to the point where the preclear could mock up a mental image picture and push it in with great ease or mock up a mental image picture—the preclear could take it and just go phewww! and away it was gone. In other words, the pre¬clear could throw it away and pull it in. Now that was a total Remedy of Havingness.
What happened to that preclear's processing? This preclear began to make progress for the first time. Up to that time only little, tiny things had taken place and none of these things were really real. Somebody else could see that the preclear no longer had a toothache or something but the preclear wouldn't admit it.
In other words, this preclear was in one of these almost total no-game conditions—game conditions. You see? That was Scientology theory applied to the case.
Well now, that's very interesting. A person should be able to handle his mental image pictures. If he cannot, they handle him.
Now, that just gives you an idea of an old-time Remedy of Havingness. It's workable.
Auditors have very often avoided this with some disaster. I'll tell you part of the disasters which could occur.
A preclear is run on figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure-figure, you know, "All right. Now get a concept. Get an idea. Get a concept. Get another idea. Now change the idea. Now get a concept. Get an idea. Get a concept. Get an idea."
Those are all think processes, see. They lie below solids.
But thinkingness as-ises solids! Thought destroys solids!
A preclear starts thinking a little bit, he'll think a little bit more. Why? He thinks a hole in his head.
Let me show you exactly how that is. He really does think a hole in his head.
You'll get this whole basic mechanism here. Here's a preclear. Nice com-fortable preclear with a lot of vision. It's in—he's in there. He's in there someplace. There's the preclear. He's fairly comfortable. He's got all that nice mass next to him.
So he says, "Well," he says, "there must be something wrong because I don't see all there is to see and I feel impatient and I worry once in a while."
An auditor comes along and he says, "All right. You worry once in a while, huh? All right. Well now, think of a—of a—something to worry about."
The preclear does.
The auditor says, "Worry about it."

115

116

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
The preclear does.
The auditor says, "Now think of something else to worry about."
The preclear does.
All of a sudden something peculiar happens—a new energy mass of some sort or another turns up and pulls in on the preclear. What essentially has happened? The preclear thought a hole in his head.
Here he is here, see, and he has started to do this. Well, what have we got here? We have an area of no mass sitting in the area of mass and there's pressure out here. Get it?
So, what's the final result of this? The final result is this: The preclear is sitting in the middle of that now. Do you see how this is? In other words, he gets solider.
A preclear is—boy, there is nothing more like a thetan than a thetan. They try to get themselves into more trouble than they're in, if you give them half a chance on the reasoning and belief that if they get into enough trouble they won't be in any trouble. Only nobody has ever found bottom on the amount of trouble you can get in.
You know, the old song—the words of "Turkey in the Straw." The fellow lost everything and a cyclone came and took the house and barn away and then a tax collector—he's lost everything by this time—and a tax collector came around and charged him up with a hole in the ground. Well, that's essentially what happens here. See?
He's thought a hole in his head. That's all. And the pressure vectors— it's quite mechanical, it's just like handling bread dough or something— finally winds him up twice as pushed in and only half as able; and yet that's evidently a very fine process. It's—evidently restores the preclear's power of choice and his ability to decide and everything.
"You worry, huh? All right, well, think of something to worry about. Good. Now worry about it."
It doesn't work. Why? Because—I'll tell you what's wrong with thinking-ness: Thinking!
Now, if you could just run out thinking without thinking you could stop him from worrying. And you can. You can. You can run out thinking without thinking.
Here he is, we've got him down to this now. Now let's get him down a little further and have him mock up a black mass out here—he's here, see— and push that in. Mock up another black mass. Push that in. Mock up another mass out here. Push that in. First thing you know we at least got him back up to this. He didn't have to think to do that, did he?
And the next thing you know, you have him—if you are very good and you work at Havingness very well and you run Havingness of the physical universe and Havingness of the bank both, you get him into this interesting condition.
I am now going to draw you a picture of a preclear who is out of this mess. There. There he is.
But the funny part of it is, is when he wanted to get out of this mess, he got into that. So, when we simply gave him more mess, we got that. Do you follow me?
So, that by apparently pushing him down scale with the exact situation he is in, too much mass, we actually bring him back up scale again.
When he—we let him think, he tries to go in the direction of less mass directly. He's in a no-game condition here. Everything is having an effect on

HAVINGNESS
him. He's having an effect on nothing. We have him think and he goes into a further no-game condition because he himself is not creating the thing which is victimizing him.
And that is the basic rule of the whole of auditing. You make the pre-clear create what is victimizing him. And he's not being victimized by thought; he's being victimized by masses he cannot control. So you have him make some—up some masses and put them under his control. Now, that's the theoretical fundamental of Havingness. Do you understand that?
Audience: Yes.
The preclear believes fondly that what is wrong with him is, let us say, that ceiling. It is so solid. He can't duplicate it. It can't duplicate him.
You have to push him up to a point of where he himself can create the ceiling before the ceiling doesn't ever worry him anymore. Why? It's a game condition.
Now, the first rule I gave you is a rule out of old Creative Processing: Whatever is wrong with the preclear, make him do it. Remember? It doesn't matter what's wrong with the preclear, make him do it.
Now, there was an old field of—I don't know what it was, say, it was phrenology, I think it's named—and they went so far as to say, "He has to do what he is afraid of doing or he has to do what he is upset about doing."
See, that's almost right. You'll find top sergeants subscribe to this. A fellow is afraid of climbing a flagpole and the first thing the sergeant thinks of is to make him climb the flagpole. See? Unfortunately, it's not therapeutic. It works sufficiently often to give it credence, but it's not really therapeutic. Every now and then somebody dies of heart failure. Of course, that's nothing to a sergeant!
But here we have this condition and if we merely knew that you make the preclear create what is wrong with him—if you just do that—you'd think he'd get out of anything then, wouldn't you? But that's not the story. I wish I could just say that, but that was a fallacy we had for years and it was a mistake—it was an error. It was an error of magnitude because it put the emphasis on creativeness and that is not where the emphasis should be. The emphasis should be on playingness.
Now, why was he upset about being in the middle of a mass?
You mean to tell me that a thetan is going to be upset about being in the middle of a black mass? I've been in black masses, maybe you have too. They didn't upset you.
Well, then what's upsetting about this? There must be some other condi¬tion that is upsetting rather than mass. Yes, there is. He has the sensation of "being done to." It's been done to him. He didn't do it. He's in, in this condi¬tion, a no-game condition. I was talking to you yesterday: no-game condition.
To put it into a game condition, you have to get him to make a game out of this.
And now we say, "Mock up a mass and shove it in. Mock up a mass and shove it in."
It worked. Why didn't it work all the time? It should have worked uni-formly. If it had been wholly right, it would have worked all the time, but it didn't work all the time. Every now and then we got ahold of some black case and it didn't respond to this sort of thing, we said it wasn't real and it wasn't this and it wasn't that—a lot of critical lines because we didn't know quite what we were doing.
All right. The truth of the matter is you put him into a game condition

117

118

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
of "no effect on self, effect on others" and you have him mock up these black masses and put them on other people and we find out it's one of the basic tricks of a thetan—is to put another thetan in the dark. The game has been done to him and he's stuck in a lose. You've got to make him play the same game again!
Now, you see this business about creativeness and so forth wasn't true. See? It happened to approximate a games condition. See? Have him mock it up and shove it in isn't quite the right circumstance. Have him mock it up and put it on another thetan—a theoretical thetan—a few times does what? It continues the game. Therefore, it takes him out of a lose and we've got a game condition again where he himself is saying, "I am no effect—no effect on me, effect on others," see?
So, you've got to get the game started again to get him to come out of it. And his efforts are mainly along the lines of "let's get the game going again" rather than "let's get a game going." Got that?
He's got lots of games. Actually he has to invent a few more every now and then in processing or he will run out of them. But it's the truth—the actual factual truth is that whenever he's in this kind of a condition—it doesn't matter what silly condition he's in, and let me assure you, a thetan can get into some of the silliest conditions I have ever seen.
Here's a young man. He looks good, strong, virile, you know, going up and at them, walking down the street, girls whistling at him and he says, "Women don't like me."
We say, "What's the matter with this guy? Maybe he's just that way. What's the matter with this guy? Hm?"
I'll tell you what's the matter with him. He was playing a game of "girls don't like me" and he lost. So he's always trying to get this game going again. Eventually he'll do the darnedest things. He'd take up smoking Mexican ciga-rettes. He finally goes through all sorts of fads and devices and so forth, all of them calculated to drive girls away!
He comes up to us as a preclear and he tells us, "Women don't like me," smoking Mexican cigarettes. Kicks off his shoes, we say, "Dzahhh." Says, "When do we start processing?" We find out he should use Listerine too. He's wearing some old rags no girl would ever look at. And we say, very obviously—now get where our failure would be there—we say, "Look, girls don't like this fellow because he's doing all these things."
So, we as practical people, would simply say, "Stop smoking the ciga-rettes. Use Listerine. Take a bath once in a while. Get some decent clothes. And straighten yourself up." You got it?
So, we start to work on him. And we burnish him up, you know, and we shine him and we shine him up some more. We see him the next day and he goes, "Phuh," and we go, "Dzahhh." And we see him a few days later and you just never saw a guy revert so fast!
Now, if we just said, "Well, he has an engram that tells him to do this," we would be partially right. This thing does stem from an engram.
But what is the rationale and use of that engram? A very simple ration-ale, I assure you.
He had a game going once and he lost. Or he won! But in any event, it was a good game and it stopped. And ever afterwards he's trying to start this game up again!
I'll give you some sort of an idea about it. He was walking by the Delphi temple, and boy, were there some nice looking vestal virgins—way back in

HAVINGNESS
ancient Greece—and he was walking by and he said, "Hm." So, he had a terrific thought! And he went up the temple steps and he asked the oracle, "Why don't girls like me?" And of course, the whole cast tried to convince him that they did.
Next life as a Roman legionnaire, he was sitting around a baron's table on the Rhine and a beautiful thought came to him because sitting at the foot of the table were three lovely looking maids and there was the baron's wife and so on. So, he thought to himself, "Ah. You know . . ." And he starts drink¬ing the mead, you know, he starts drinking it up.
"What's the matter? You look sad," they all say.
"Well, you see, women don't like me."
"They don't? Oh, no, you're wrong. Ha-ha!" And they prove it to him!
Along about 800, he's got a good racket going with the church up near Pisa or something and he has—varies it by saying, "The Virgin Mary doesn't like me," and the girls in his congregation prove to him that he is likable.
It's been going on like this for ages.
But, the funny part of it is that somewhere along the line it didn't work or it worked too well! Got the idea? In other words, it went into a win or a lose capacity and stopped the game! It's a game he's not supposed to play anymore.
He said to himself, "I mustn't play this game anymore because it is a dangerous game."
But that never stopped a thetan! That never stopped a thetan!
He says after that, "I ought to be playing that game; I don't dare," and that is aberration.
On one side he says, "I must reach with that game."
On the other side he says, "I must not reach with that game."
He says, "I must withdraw from that game. I must not withdraw from that game because look at how successful that game was. Of course, I don't dare play it! But it is a terribly successful game."
You got this?
And he could actually go mad on that computation. And that is the com-putation of madness.
"I must do it. I can't do it. I've got to keep from doing it. I must." Mostly must.
And it's been our task to find out what it is that he must or must not do. And it's just a game. What game is it? That's your job as an auditor.
But all these games boil down to havingness. There is connected with them havingness.
If you have some doubt of that just—I told you several illustrations and so forth—there was havingness connected with each one of them. There was something to gain, some mass to win, in each one of these. And there was some-body to discourage in each one of these.
For instance, the baron—he had to be fought. And in the temple there was probably the grand priestess who was an old bag that was just jealous as the devil. She would have had him fried over the nearest sacred fire if she'd found out what was going on in her sacred precincts. You get the idea.
There was an enemy! There was something to be won, some boodle, some loot.
And he'll run a game to such an extent that he believes after a while it is the only method of procuring. Since a thetan would—believes in systema-tized procuration. He believes in this if in nothing else.

119

120

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
How do you get money? You ask a bricklayer how you get money? If he's a good worker, honest fellow, he'll say, "You lay bricks, of course! That's how you get money. Simple. Anybody knows that."
A fellow who hauls beer, you say, "How do you get money?"
He says, "Well, you haul beer. That's how you get money."
A banker, "How do you get money?"
And he says, "Well, you'd have to understand banking."
But they all have a belief of how you get something. You see? It's a system.
Now, they get convinced of how you get. It becomes a conviction and you get a system going, a method going and that method thereafter is not particu¬larly departed from. And if the fellow suddenly lost this method, you'll find him going along for a long time not able to recognize any other method.
Now, let's do this, let's offer this fellow who rassles beer trucks and beer barrels all day long a perfectly simple job of laying bricks at three times the pay—much easier work. He won't keep the job. He won't stay with it. Why? It obviously isn't a real method of procuring anything. Do you follow me?
Now, we ask the banker, "Why don't you go out and haul beer if you're having such a bad time with finance and you're not even making wages? There's a job down here; they haul beer."
"Oh, no!" And he'll give you all sorts of reasons. He'll say it's beneath his dignity. Although I don't know what dignity would possibly obtain in being a banker. You get the idea?
Fellows get these games going.
Now, we just think of life and work loosely and quickly, you see, on that sudden basis of, "Well, of course you work to get money."
No, let's think of it on a wider basis. Look at its actual mechanics. The money is simply the boodle, the loot, the gimmick. It's just the havingness of the game. That's all. Everybody holds this havingness in common, therefore, you can have some terrifically complicated, widely agreed-upon games with it.
In football it isn't money, it's a piece of leather and rubber, you see, and that's the thing, plus a couple of goal posts in a little area. Now, the having¬ness of the game also includes, of course, the bodies of your own team. The can't-havingness of the game is just as important as the havingness because that gives you the opponent. The can't-havingness of football is the bodies of other players. They're not supposed to have bodies and you're not supposed to have their bodies! In other words, that's a can't-have situation. Your goal posts are a can't-have situation for them. You see?
Now, money is something we don't consider as a game except loosely. And we say, "Well, all right, they're not supposed to be able to have my money, but I'm supposed to be able to have his money." You get the idea? And the money is the money, but it's just the assignment of ownership on what dollar it is, isn't it?
Now, "I'm not supposed to have his house. He's not supposed to have my house." You see? "But I have my house and he has his house." And you get the haves and can't-haves involved in the games of being neighbors.
Now, the actual weenie or football or boodle or loot in playing the game of neighbors can include lawn mowers, garden sprays, wives, all sorts of things. See?
And two guys actually will live in a very friendly atmosphere playing the game of being neighbors and playing it as a game. Not really being neigh-bors, you see, but chop-chop and, "Hello, George. How are you, George? I'd like to borrow your lawn mower."

HAVINGNESS
"You didn't return it last spring, you know."
"Well, that's all right. I'd like to borrow it anyhow."
"Well, I haven't got it, you have."
"No. I lent you mine." You know?
Very involved. Then they can—they can say, "Well, we're enemies today."
And then tomorrow, why, you'll find them sitting down friendly as Punch.
Why do they make friends again? See, it's an end of game if they don't!
If one had said, "Love thy neighbor," whenever no-game conditions are attained—so if we get enough communication to get the game going again it would have been a very workable statement because that's what people do.
You merely said, "You must love your neighbor at all times," you'd have a no-game condition. People would get very unhappy about it and that's a fact. It would be the truth.
You put any of these absolutes into action and you normally get a no-game condition.
Well, you see what this thing is about a game and the havingness of the game? There is havingness in the game.
Well, there are reverse havingnesses; there are desirable havingnesses and undesirable havingnesses.
Now, a bunch of black masses are desirable just to this degree: You can use them on somebody else! And he did and missed.
Now, if you actually asked this fellow. . . I'll tell you the rationale back of this. It actually succumbs to an interesting test.
You say—this fellow with blackness, "All right, now get the idea. . ." Don't make him look at this thetan too long because Conceiving a Static is quite upsetting—they get sick at their stomachs sometimes.
You say, "Get the idea of a thetan going along there innocently. Now you drop a big black mass over him. Now, get another idea of a thetan going along there and quickly drop a black mass over him. Another idea, drop a black mass over him. Another thetan, get—drop a black mass over him."
Now, you'd say offhand that this fellow was mocking up a bunch of new crimes and he's going to suffer from these crimes.
No, the overt act-motivator phenomena is much lower on the Tone Scale and much lower and further below this other games phenomena. It takes place. It occurs.
You beat somebody up; you feel beaten up. But that's only from a fellow who is in, really, a good solid no-game condition. He's in bad shape if this overt act-motivator sequence happens. It happens.
But up higher on the scale this process works. But even on a low-toned preclear it works, but it's just a higher scale process. All right?
He does this for a while—he does this for a while—and he all of a sudden says, "You know, I shouldn't do this. I feel apathetic about those poor little thetans that I'm messing up."
He's come up to apathy.
Now, normally we would have stopped before because we would have thought we were driving him down to apathy. Now we ask him to do it some more.
You say, "Get the idea of a thetan walking along there. And you drop one of these black masses over his head. And get a thetan over there . . ."
If he's very queasy about this, you say, "Get an idea of a thetan perched on that lamp. A thetan over on that picture. A spirit over there someplace.

121

122

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
And you drop this mass on him. And you drop it on him. And you do it to him. And you do it to him."
All of a sudden he comes up Tone Scale on the thing. He reverts. And his field clears!
In other words, you got the game going again and then you did better than that. You didn't put it on a win, you put it on the one thing he was trying to do with it to give it a consistent continuation. And he has achieved a consistent continuation of game. He feels he can now play the game any-time. And you've completely spoiled the obsession to play the game by putting it into a rational games capacity. In other words, you've taken it out of an unknowing condition and put it in a knowing condition.
Now, he didn't know he was playing a game. He's just dead in his head, you see. It's an unknowing games condition. He doesn't know about it, where it came from or anything else. Now, you tell him to play that game again— drop a black mass on a thetan and do it again and again and again—he'll tell you, he'll cognite he must have done this at some time or another. You get it into a knowing condition and suddenly, why, he's no longer playing that game.
You get it into a knowing condition, you give him power of choice of being—over being able to play the game and he is able to play it.
Do I make myself very clear?
Audience: Yes.
Well, havingness—havingness, as I say, is the gimmick, the boodle, the reward, the—and in the case of a black mass—the penalty. And it has many sides. That it simply, bluntly and blatantly works is remarkable.
You just say—you run everything on the basis of have and you have some small workability.
But actually, it has to be selectively run to be very effective. Havingness is really run in this fashion: First dynamic: have. And then all other dynamics of which one does not consider he is a part: can't-have. That's it! That's the rule.
It's "you have." You see? "It, he, she, they, anything else can't have," and you'll usually be safe.
But when that becomes flat—in other words, when you run "Look around the room and find something you can have" flat, you could then run "Look around the room and find something your body can't have," and that goes flat.
The next time you say "you," something new and peculiar has happened. Without your differentiating it at all, he says—when you say, "you," he takes himself plus his body. Have you got it? So, you run "self plus body" flat.
And then, "Tell me something that your family," you see, "can't have." "Look around the room and tell me something your family can't have." And he selects all this out, and he runs that nicely flat.
And the next time you say, "you" he takes himself and his family as "you." Got the idea?
So, you say, "Look around the room and find something you can have," he is sort of including into that the whole family and himself and his body and so on.
So, you just pick out enemies up the dynamics one way or the other and run can't-haves on those and every time you turn around and run haves on the preclear he has a tendency, just a tendency—he very often would deny that it exists, in which case it isn't flat—to include the dynamics that you have flattened on can't-have as his friends. Got the idea?

HAVINGNESS
You make friends right up—right through the dynamics for the guy. You see? By running them out as enemies.
First, he considers everything in the whole universe, except himself, an enemy. Now that is really a compulsive game condition. There are no friends or anything anywhere.
Now, people object to this. They say this couldn't possibly be. It is not a natural or a good thing. Well, it's natural, but it's not good because it isn't even a good game condition.
Would you consider it a good game for you all by yourself to be standing up there versus seven other dynamics and everything in them? Pretty good, huh? You going to win that fight or are you going to lose it?
Audience: Lose it. Win.
Now, that actually, weirdly enough is and becomes almost a total no-game condition.
Now, how does a guy get into that sort of a thing? How does he get into a total no-game condition? That's by—in an anxiety to have a game, and every thetan has an anxiety to have a game—every one of them does. They're nuts! I mean, it's true. There's something basically wrong with the beast! I've exam¬ined him. I say, "What's the matter with you? What've you got to have a game for? You are always in trouble with it."
"Yeah," he says, "isn't that what a game is? Ha-ha."
When it gets down to the third dynamic and one is no longer able to operate on any third dynamic at all, one starts to get too much game and it's when one departs from all thirds that he goes below 2.0 on our own Tone Scale.
When all thirds are gone, he's below 2.0. In other words, he's in awfully bad shape.
Now, he is only in an unknowing games condition. Everything is above this level and it is his enemy! The whole world is his enemy.
And then he gets down to an inversion, which is very peculiar to wit¬ness. This fellow has been chop-chop, cut-cut, slash-slash and he's been going around and he's been cutting throats and tying up people's clothes when they're in swimming and doing other insidious acts.
And one fine day—one fine day he says, "I've sinned."
Well, this thing of "I've sinned" is a recognition that he is suddenly all alone somehow and he makes an effort to get back into the game. But what game is he trying to get into?
He's now trying to get into a game where he's offended everybody. Every-body, anywhere, no matter what their race, color, creed, description, form or politics might be is an enemy. He knows that! The other person doesn't know it, but he does. You see?
So, he has to go in and he goes on a very low-scale propitiation. "Please. Won't somebody talk to me?" You see, he really doesn't have very much to offer, so nobody talks to him. You get how this is?
Now, there's a disgraceful thing, that all insanity, neurosis and mental difficulty, each and every one and all of them, are simply exaggerations of sane actions.
Get that very clearly. If you don't have that already—it's an old part of Scientology and Dianetics—but if you don't have that, you're missing some¬thing; you're missing something there.
All you have to do is take one sane quality. You know, a fellow likes to have some candy in his pocket to give kids when he meets them on the street.

123

124

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
That's a sane action. See? Exaggerate that on and on and on and on and on and it becomes a psychosis. All he can do is—you see, this psychosis is all he can do is—limitation of, total limitation—all he can do is, is go around and any way he can get some hand—get his hands on some candy and shove it into kids' throats. You see? It's just a slight (it's not even a twist), it's just exaggerating an action and that—he say—you say he's nuts.
Now, for instance, you and I have an idea that we have something to offer the world or something to do for the world. Well, you see, we have that. We're not obsessed by this in any way. But we believe that this is the case.
Now, one day—I was just walking down the steps at the HASI the other day and a chap—a chap was walking down with me that we had just cured recently of being Napoleon. And I was thinking about some third dynamic plans that we have that are pretty workable plans. They're all right and— third dynamic organization—and I was getting along okay. And I just got through talking to some people about it and here this fellow says, "You know—you know, Ron, you've got to process me some more."
I hadn't processed him at all, but this was his tete-a-tete.
"Got to process me some more because with this Suez Canal crisis coming up, I won't know what to say to Nasser. I can do so much for England," he says.
It hurts sometimes to talk to these psychos. Because they're playing an insane, fixed version of a perfectly legitimate game.
See, if there was nobody on Earth who could do anything for the British, they'd be in a hell of a mess. You see, if there was nobody on Earth that could do anything for the American civilization, it would be in an awful mess, too!
I mean, a social service nurse that goes around and knocks on doors is doing something for the whole country, actually, as you build it up, don't you see? But the difference is she is actually doing something! And the psycho never does! He just stands in one place and jitters about this game. See? There's no action involved in it because he must withdraw; it's so dangerous that he must do it, that he—dzuhhh.
So, you take any sane manifestation, exaggerate it, it becomes an insane or a neurotic manifestation. Do you follow that closely? So that you might say insanity and neurosis were systems of making a dirty crack at sanity and your ability. In other words, they're an exaggerated method of insult.
A fellow doesn't dare come up to your face and say you're a dog, so he dramatizes something you're doing in a bad way that makes you feel like a dog. You see, he sets an example that he wants you to follow.
Now, the direct sensation and manifestation of neurosis and psychosis is very, very easy to understand. All you have to do is process a psychotic—if you could audit him—or a neurotic on this process and you'd have it all set.
Have him sit out on a porch or something and look at traffic go by and have him put his peculiar fixation into every person that passes by in the street and after a while he feels better. In other words, you let him continue the game that he must not continue. And so he comes out of it.
You say, "This is an awful dirty trick to play on a bunch of people walk-ing by on the street."
Well, where did you get the idea that fellows who went nuts had any horsepower? All they have is agitation and confusion. They don't have horse-power.
We speak of the "horrible strength" sometimes possessed by insane people. Ha! It's horrible strength just on the same order that an electric

HAVINGNESS
charge or something is a horrible charge—it doesn't happen to have adequate direction in order to do anything.
If you had this fellow with "horrible strength" out there on the porch having him put "horrible strength" into the people that went by, it would actually fly up and go into roofs and do all sorts of things. It just wouldn't exist. It wouldn't affect anybody.
The common denominator of all this, by the way, is "thought has no effect on." As a person goes down Tone Scale, his thought does not have an effect on thoughts or masses anymore and these people do not have any power.
They—you can get quite agitated around them. That's because they've got a bunch of old engrams. Here they are sitting here and then all the way around them you've got this sort of a picture. You come along and you stand there.
All of a sudden you feel this—you say, "What's going on here? Makes me uncomfortable to be around that person," you say. You say, "Oh, I feel all right now."
Why? He's in an engram powerful enough to influence his body and it will influence yours. But all it is, is a rest point surrounded by motion and you get into the motion area. But that is simply a case of his last havingness, his last game, his last havingness.
Here he is with some small mass. This motion threatens to take it away from him. He is always on the verge of losing what little mass he has left. Always he's in danger of losing that little, tiny bit of mass. So he has to hold on to that mass.
Unfortunately, connected to the mass is all this wild motion and confu¬sion and painful reactions which have a total effect on him, you see?
But he has to hold on to this mass because it's all he's got. He's only surrounded by the Empire State Building, the Atlantic Ocean, New York City and millions of people. See, and he has this little, tiny mass.
In other words, he's got to win. He won this mass in a national contest. He doesn't play that game anymore. He is it! He is the game! He isn't playing a game.
You make him play this game again and he ceases to be it. In other words, you've got to get him back in a game condition.
He'll hold on to his wins or loses because these masses are something on the order of the old lady's medals. These masses are the old lady's medals.
He says, "Well, I was in a game once. See? See this scar?"
"I was in a game once," is all a scar says. Any fellow that scars up easily, by the way, he's been short on games when it happened, to have to keep around the tokens or havingness of the game.
Do you know there are fellows that get into automobile accidents and get hurt? Well, that just shows you what a scarcity of automobile accidents they have. They just aren't in enough of them.
People get into automobile accidents, by the way, because they're not sup-posed to cause them. You follow me? "Don't you dare cause any accidents."
You could take any accident-prone, by the way, and give him an old jalopy on a playing field that's rigged up for it and let him run it into a few walls and run it off of things and run it in ditches and turn it over a few times and so forth and he'll say, "Boy!" But it's twice as good if you gave him some levers and signals that he could juggle around and wreck cars. That's a real game, you see—like is played by traffic engineers. Well, anyhow . . .

125

126

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
You might say American traffic is being ruined, stopped and wrecked in order to promote the sanity of a few traffic engineers who were potty before they got the job.
Well, this thing called havingness is the subject of prizes and sometimes, they're—you might say, the prizes and penalties. And sometimes they're prizes and sometimes they're penalties. If the thing the fellow has is a pen-alty, you want to have him mock it up one way or the other of giving it to somebody else. And if it's a prize, well, you want to mock it up so that he gets it. Do you understand?
In other words, he gets what he considers prizes and you have him put off on somebody else what he considers penalties. But I'll tell you something. You'll just have to consult the preclear as to what's a prize and what's a penalty.
Well, I've often said there's just no understanding a thetan. But this is havingness. Havingness is the award or the penalty and in both cases it has mass, actually, bringing him into command of solids in general, bringing him out of an upset about havingness itself or possession.
Now, the subject of havingness is not the subject, then, of possession. And that which is havingness is not necessarily possessed at all.
This fellow has some crossbow bolts all ready to load and fire. The inten-tion of that havingness is, of course, a penalty in somebody's back. Do you see that? He himself doesn't want the crossbow bolts. He wants the bolts so that another guy can have them.
Now, this is in contradistinction to a pretty girl. He wants the pretty girl so he can have the pretty girl, so the other fellow can't have the pretty girl. And to resolve the problem of women with some man—or men with some woman—you have to run Have and Can't-have. Can't-have on the man's oppo-nents, you see, and Have on women. You see that? And on the girl, if you were trying to get her over upsets and scarcities on this, you would have to run, as far as she's concerned, Have on men and Can't-have on other women.
It's just as necessary to run one as the other. Now you wonder why these things haven't resolved? They haven't resolved because it—to no great extent have we been totally in possession of the exact facts. We haven't had dossier: thetan, type: Earth 1950, very closely filed until now.
But right at the top of the tag you have havingness and solids as to identification of desire and reason why you have, so he can continue a game that was once an awful lot of fun but got dangerous.
Thank you.

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA
A lecture and Group Processing demonstration given on 2 September 1956
We put this lady and this gentleman up here* because we didn't have enough pillars.
Now, I'd like to introduce to you on my right, at probably 50-75 pounds, Mama.
Female voice: Okay, Mama.
And over here, on my left, the contender—Papa.
Now, if any of you good people are unable to see both Mama and Papa, there's lots of chairs at the back; let's start pulling them forward and squar¬ing yourselves around so that you can see both these notable people.
These two good people by the way, were mocked up whole cloth by the HCA students. I want to thank them right now for this good job done.
This just shows you that after somebody gets through a modern HCA Course, he can really mock up.
You realize—you realize now, some intuition must have told you that we were going to have some Group Processing.
Audience: Really?
Now, is there anybody—is there anybody doesn't want any Group Proc-essing? There's somebody at the back doesn't want any Group Processing— that's real good. There's an empty chair up here.
Now, Group Processing is an activity participated in by the group and directed by the Group Auditor.
Group Processing came in several years ago and was very, very successful at the time it did. It's been very successful since. It's an oddity that group instruction—in the same way that you receive group instruction on the first night PE Course—which by the way was all I guess there was to the PE Course there, unless of course—oh, it's on again tonight. I don't lecture tonight, do I?
Audience: Yes!
Well, it's a democratic world. I actually do have to give some of those lectures that are on the program. We have covered one to date.
Anyway, Group Processing was very successful and it's a strange thing, however, that with the processes we were using a year ago, that group instruction actually did more for IQ and for the general state of case than processing. But that was a year ago.
*[Editor's Note: A large, lifelike dummy of a man and a woman were each placed on a table at the front of the room for the Group Processing.]

127

128

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Now, if we can do as much for a case as we can do under group instruc¬tion today using the type of instruction more or less that you saw the first night here, what would happen if we really developed some group processes and a Group Auditor procedure? Hm? What would happen?
Well, there actually exists today a Group Auditor procedure. There exists a sort of a regimen of what you do and what you don't do and one of the things you don't do is to keep changing commands on the preclears. You attempt to run things somewhat flat. At least take the kick off of them for the group.
Now, Group Auditing with our modern processes can be terrifically success¬ful. Can also be terribly disastrous. I hate to have to say that but there have been a very, very great many people entirely changed by Group Processing.
Now Group Processing, of course, cannot and never will supplant individ¬ual processing. But as individual processing moves forward in its results, Group Processing moves up—lagging a bit, of course—considerably—but Group Processing is still quite effective.
Now, what process do you suppose you could possibly run with these two nice dummies in the front of the room? Hm?
Well, you could run that but you notice here you have some mass. Is that some mass? Let's look at Mama. Now, you realize anybody such as yourself that's had several hundred Mamas up and down the track one way or the other, actually—you don't need to get too specific about mothers. Mothers are simply a subject. They're very, very nice things to have around sometimes. Sometimes mothers aren't very nice to have around. I mean it's just one of those things. Sometimes a matter of an opinion.
However, I have had a preclear who had told me what an awful mother he had, suddenly discover that she wasn't such a bad old girl after all. And I have had a preclear that was saying, "Oh, I had the dearest mother in the world," suddenly find out that she had been made, to say the least, in a careless moment.
Boy, you're slow!
Yeah, that's the way it is.
Well anyhow, fathers of course—fathers of course are another subject— another subject entirely. In fact they're another object. And fathers are of course—well, fathers. And it's very, very hard to generalize on fathers because they all act so much like fathers most of the time. Except those that refuse to be fathers.
There's many a little baby has spent most of his time trying to convince Papa that Papa was a Papa. You'd be surprised how much concentration some children have put into that. But both of them, of course, have had some role in the formation of the person.
It's an odd thing, isn't it, that a broken home where father or mother is amiss or gone produces in the main the bulk of unsettled people.
In other words, you take somebody down here in the juvenile delinquency ward, something like that; you find out normally he comes from a broken home. That's quite peculiar. Well, you go up in the sacristy and you'll find out that the priests up there, many of them, have come from a broken home. And you go and look over famous authors and so on and you'll find out a lot of those came from a broken home.
You look over judges, magistrates and police officers and you'll find out many of them came from a broken home. In other words we see that a broken home plays a very significant role and being well aware of this, why don't we just group audit a little bit here on broken homes, huh?

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA
Not that you have one—not that you have one, but I am sure unless you sprang full armed from the brain of your auditor, you had a mother. Right?
Audience: Right.
You have some recollection of this. And some of you have had a father. Is that right? That's correct, isn't it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. In view of that fact, do you suppose that you could see in this charming lady here some vestige of some mother you may or may not have had at some time or other?
Audience: Yes. No.
You might also see in her somebody else's mother such as the preclear's. Got that?
In other words this symbol we have—although it doesn't have mobility at the moment—is nevertheless a symbol. You see that the symbol must have had mobility, however, because it appeared there. I don't think it was there during the lecture.
And over here—over here we have Papa and I think we can see in Papa some of the Papas that you might have been associated with, right? Hm? How about that?
Audience: Yeah.
You can do that?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, now let's look at Mama again. Let's look at Mama again and see in her the symbol of womanhood.
And then let's look at Papa again and see in him the symbol of man-hood.
Now, these are very charming people. I know, I talked to them for hours and they were very obedient. They don't originate well but do you suppose Mama over here could receive a communication in any way?
Audience: Yeah.
Oh, you do think so. All right. That's good.
Now, do you suppose Papa could receive a communication?
Audience: Yeah.
Well now, can you get the idea more or less that that figure of Mama is there?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
Can you get the idea that the figure of Papa is there?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's fine.
Now, we're going to run a process which is a very, very simple process and is run in exactly the same way that we ran our process yesterday on the posts. Okay?
Audience: Yes.
You don't have to acknowledge the execution of this at all. You just do it as best you can. Anything that happens is of course the responsibility of the seminar leader and neither mine nor yours, okay?
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, let's once more look at Mama—charming figure.
And now, let's look at Papa. All right.
Now, let's look at Mama and hold her still.
All right. That's fine, that's fine.

129

130

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Now, let's look at Papa. Now, you hold Papa still. You hold Papa still.
You making it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. All right. That's pretty good. That's pretty good. You having difficulty doing this?
Audience: No.
Huh?
Audience: No.
All right.
Now, once more look at Mama and you hold Mama still.
All right.
How are you getting along with that, huh?
Audience: Fine.
Oh, you find a little more success in that this time?
Audience: Yes. No.
No—yes, so on, so on?
Well, I'll tell you, the task of holding these still of course is quite—is quite considerable because you aren't using enough force.
Now, I want you to use more force than you're using. I'm not joking now. And there's Papa and I want you to hold Papa still.
Is he really getting quiet?
Audience: Yeah.
Hm? All right. That's good, that's good. That's fine.
Is—anybody hasn't had a win yet? All right.
Is anybody still wondering why we're doing this because they're already still? Well, if that's the case, why, you'd have missed the point. The point is you—you see it's still because—maybe because of gravity and a whole lot of other things—but you hold it still. You be the sole agent that's holding that still. All right.
Now, let's look at Mama and you hold Mama still.
All right. That's fine. That's fine.
If you're still getting a wobble or if you're still finding that there isn't anything to it, try a little harder.
And there's Papa—there's Papa there—now, that's Papa, you under¬stand? That isn't our Papa, that's your Papa. Okay? Your Papa. Now, you hold Papa still.
All right.
You getting Papa a little stiller? You kind of getting your hands on him?
Audience: Yes.
Huh?
Audience: Yeah.
Ah, you've been—you've been thinking I've been joking. You think I've been joking when I said use some force. I want you to, really. I want you to hold him still. Grrr-grrr-grr-grrr-grrrr. Got it? You know?
Audience: Yeah.
Now, if you find out you can't reach up and put your theta paws on these relatives of yours, why you just try a little bit harder. Don't go sitting back and say, "It's all done with postulates anyhow."
Here's the way I want you to hold her still, see—crunch! Cruhh-ruhh!
Now, you're going to find out how still something can get before you're through with this. Now, if you think anything else is connected with this figure, that is in motion, hold it still, too.

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA
Now, there's Mama, your Mama, your dear Mama, your dear sweet Mama. The Mama, the pal of your cradle days. There she is. Now, you hold Mama still.
Okay, okay. You're getting a little more successful, aren't you? Huh?
Now, is somebody still thinking very foolishly this is done with postu¬lates? Oh, you got the idea now?
I want you to hold, get the command, hold!
All right. Now, there's Papa, the pal, the fellow that used to give you a dollar every time you asked for it. The fellow who loaned you his car any¬time, gave you his little black address book—there he is, your pal, Papa. Your Papa. Now, you hold Papa still.
All right.
How you doing now? Huh?
Audience: All right.
You sort of getting the idea of holding Papa still?
Audience: Yeah.
You know, not—well, there he is, he's still.
Now, you hold Papa still, you know, putting that postulate—"Well, hold still." Now, hold him still, hold him still. I don't care if you're clear at the back of the room. Get your theta paws on these characters now.
Now, you hold—see Mama there? All right. Now, you hold Mama still.
All right. That's good.
You getting a little more beef into it now?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? You getting a little more forte main—strength? Hm?
The reason I want you to do that is parents [children] very seldom man-handle their mothers or fathers—very seldom beat them up—very seldom touch them. Isn't that kind of obvious? Huh?
Well now, there's Papa there—there's Papa. Now, you hold Papa still! And I mean still.
All right.
How's that? Hm?
Audience: All right.
Anybody getting better at this?
Audience: Yeah.
Getting a little better at it? Who's getting worse at it? All right.
Now, look at Mama, your Mama, the one that used to feed you skim milk—there she is; now you hold Mama still.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Okay.
Now, you getting so you get a little more force in it?
Audience: Yeah.
Can you hold her a little stiller?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? Getting so you can hold the whole thing still? You getting so you can use more force on it?
Audience: Yeah.
How about you guys there in the back? You getting so you can get a little more force on it, huh? You can? All right. That's quite a long range there but I'm sure you can do it.
Now, you look at Papa—handsome dog—there he is, the fellow who used to get all of Mama's attention. Now, all right. You got him there?

131

132

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, you hold Papa still!
All right. How's that? Hm? You getting better at it? Can you put more force in it?
Audience: Yeah.
You getting so you can really connect there better? All right.
Now, how are you doing on pretending it is Papa or is Mama, huh?
Audience: All right.
Oh, you're doing all right at that, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, look at Mama. Now, remember, get over this old kick of doing it with a postulate. Let's get some force in there and you hold Mama still.
All right. All right. Okay.
Does anybody still think there's a wind blowing her dress around?
Audience: No, no.
All right. Now—good.
Look at Papa, dear old Papa that always got the first crack at the funny page and the most comfortable chair—the best cut of meat at dinner. Look at him. Got him there?
Audience: Yeah.
You got him for sure?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
Now, you hold Papa still.
Okay. How's that? Hm?
Audience: Fine. Good.
Let me ask you this question as we go by this point. Now, are you able to use more force than you did before?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, let's see if you can use even more force than you have been using and you hold—look at Mama now, look at Mama. All right. Now, you hold Mama still!
Okay. How's that? Hm?
Audience: Fine. Mama's easier to hold.
Mama's easier to hold now, huh? Now, there's—you finding it easier to use force on this?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, I want you to use lots of force on it; I want you to use more than you've been using and I want you to introduce the idea of an absolute into this—an absolute stillness.
Now, some of you've been arguing around and saying well, "The worth— the world is going around and we're going in various directions. There's molecules in that mass and all of that sort of thing and aside from this, why, we will hold those still." Now, that's true, isn't it? Some of you been doing that. Huh?
Well all right now, we want an absolute entered into this and I want you to hold all of those items absolutely still, too. You got it? Any molecules that you happen to think of, any turn of Earth—anything that's been bothering you about holding this thing absolutely still, you hold that still, too. You got that?
Audience: Yeah.

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA
Huh? All right.
We're going to introduce the idea of an absolute here.
Now, look at Papa. Look at Papa. Now, you hold Papa still!
Okay. How's that?
Audience: Good.
Hm? Is that better? That better? Now, come on now, let's not dog off now, let's do this up as a good job.
Now, are you finding out that there's a stillness that occurs sometimes just for an instant?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, you've held it still haven't you?
Audience: Yes.
You've won, haven't you?
Audience: Yeah.
Isn't that a little bit of a feeling of relief when you do that— ping! It's absolutely still, huh? Just an instant of stillness. Well now, if you haven't been getting too still, you work for that instant of stillness and you'll find it'll lengthen. Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, look at Mama—look at Mama. Look at Mama there. Good. Now, you hold Mama still.
Okay. How you doing?
Audience: Good. Fine.
Getting any wins?
Audience: Yes.
All right. All right.
Now, get the idea of force in this now. Get the idea of, "Hold them still with force," actually making contact with them, clamping them down right where they are.
Look at Papa. Look at Papa. Now, you hold Papa still.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Good.
Are you getting better at this?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? You really getting better at this now, huh? You mean some of you are having some ridges blow or something? Aw, I didn't mean for that to happen. It's not supposed to have any effect on you. You have the effect on the dummy.
Now look, look at Mama. Is she there?
Audience: Yeah.
Look at her. All right.
Now, you hold Mama still.
All right. How are you doing?
Audience: Fine. Okay.
Doing better?
Audience: Yeah.
Now, can you use more force than you did?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? Are you the one that's using the force now?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, look at Papa, look at Papa. Now, you hold Papa still.

133

134

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Okay. How is that? Hm? Are you getting better at it or worse?
Audience: Better.
Oh, you're getting a little better at it, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
A lot better?
Audience: Yes. No.
No. Just a little better?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Is anything wrong? Anybody feel like he's going mad? Any feel—body feel like that? Huh? Anybody feel real restless?
Audience: Yeah.
You feel real restless, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
Hey, listen. What did I tell you? I want you to hold this still—not your Mama back on the track but your Mama right here. Now, if you feel restless, you're holding the wrong Mama. This is the one we want to hold, okay?
Now, let's just establish this Mama again. Is this Mama here?
Audience: Yeah.
Has this Mama got a little mass?
Audience: Yeah.
Has this Mama got some mass?
Audience: Yeah.
Well all right. Is that Mama standing there?
Audience: Yeah.
Well all right. It does exist then?
Audience: Yeah.
You can see it?
Audience: Yes.
Well all right. All right.
Now, you hold Mama still.
All right. That's a little better now, isn't it?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? Is that a little better? Easier to do it that way?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. All right.
Now, just look at Papa again. Look at Papa. Got Papa there?
Audience: Yeah.
Is Papa standing there?
Audience: Yeah.
Now, look actually, factually, is that there?
Audience: Yeah.
That right there?
Audience: Yes.
That is there?
Audience: Yes.
Now, this is what you're holding still—not something back on the track. I want you to use force to hold this still. Force, that's right. All right. Got it now?
Audience: Yeah.
Now, you hold Papa still.
Okay. How's that, huh?
Audience: Okay, fine.
Now, you still feel as restless as you did or more so? Be honest.

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA
Audience: No.
You still feel as restless?
Audience: No.
Huh? Feel a little better? Well now, let's establish this real good. Estab¬lish Mama real good—real—very well here. Establish her very well.
What year is this?
Audience: Nineteen fifty-six.
That got it.
Well—what year is this?
Audience: Nineteen fifty-six.
All right. You know that?
Audience: Yeah.
You know that.
Where are you sitting?
Audience: Here.
Where am I sitting?
Audience: There.
All right. That's fine. That's fine.
It's kind of a tough row to hoe, isn't it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, there's Mama right there. Look at Mama.
Audience: Okay.
Got her?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, you hold Mama still.
You doing it?
Audience: No.
I'll give you a little tip. If you keep losing at this you're going to be in horrible shape very shortly, I assure you.
Now, look, tell you what you do. You kind of say, "There she is," you know, and you say, "Crunch," you know, and she's still just for a split instant. You're sure she is, see. "Crunch," you know. Ghk! And then she goes wobble-wobble-wobble. We don't care about that. Just as long as she's still just pop! Got that? Huh? All right. That's all we want. That's all we want.
Now, let's look at her again and let's just try that. Let's just try for an instantaneous stillness if you're having any difficulty.
Now, did you make it this time?
Audience: Yes.
Is anybody—hasn't made it yet? All right. Okay, okay. You did it that time, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
I don't care how much force you have to use or what you have to put up around them or how hard you have to scrunch them—let's make it.
All right. Now, look at Papa, look at Papa. Is Papa there?
Audience: Yes.
Got Papa?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, if only for an instant or a longer time, you hold Papa still.
All right. How is that?
Audience: Fine. Okay.
Is anybody still losing? Is anybody winning now more consistently?

135

136

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Audience: Yeah.
You winning real consistently now?
Audience: Yeah.
Is it better?
Audience: Yeah.
You really doing better now?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? All right.
If you can get her still with whatever force just for an instant—why, see if you can get her still for just a little bit longer and if you can finally relax down to the level of a lightning bolt to hold her still, that's okay. All right?
Go on, look at Mama, look at Mama now. Look at Mama. Got her?
Now, you hold Mama still.
Okay. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
You getting winnier about this, huh?
Audience: Yes.
Well okay, all right. That's fine.
Now, look at Papa, look at Papa—anybody losing badly on Papa still? Hm? All right. Look at Papa there—use force but do it more absolutely. You hold Papa still!
All right. How's that? Hm?
Audience: All right.
Oh, you're winning more and more and more?
Audience: Yeah.
You are, huh? Well, all right. All right. All right.
Let's look at Mama again—we're going to run this about two more times and then we're going to wind it up. Is that all right with you?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. All right. Oh, we'll get another hour later.
All right. You look at—look at Mama there. Now, you hold Mama still!
All right. How is that?
Audience: Fine.
Get a win?
Audience: Yeah.
Has she for anybody jumped off the table and run around it a couple of times and sprung back up on it again or anything like that? Huh? Now, tell me—has she done that? Huh? Has she wiggled a little bit to some people?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, you're supposed to hold her still.
All right. Look at Papa. All right. Now, you hold Papa still.
Okay. How's that?
Audience: All right. Great.
All right. It's going to be just one more command here. Look at Mama, look at her. Establish her. What year is it?
Audience: Nineteen fifty-six.
All right. Now, look at her real carefully. She is there.
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, you hold Mama still.
How's that?
Audience: Very good.
Did you get a win?

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA
Audience: Yeah.
We quitting on a win?
Audience: Yeah.
Is anybody quitting on a lose? No? All right. All right. All right. All right.
Just look at Mama.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Good. Look at Papa.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Good. Look at Mama.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Good. Look at Papa.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Good. All right. How are you?
Audience: Fine.
All right. Where's the floor?
Where am I?
Audience: Right there.
Good. Where's the rest of you?
Audience: Right here.
All right. Good. Where are you?
Audience: Here.
Good. Where's the right-hand wall?
Audience: There.
Good. Where's the left-hand wall?
Audience: There.
Good. Where's the back of the room?
Audience: There.
Good. Where's the ceiling?
Audience: There.
Good. Where's the floor?
Good. All right.
Now, as difficult as it is, I know, to leave this fascinating pastime, I really factually believe that we ought to have a break, don't you?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
You've been very, very good preclears and I will see you again at five minutes past four.

137



GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA (CONT.)
A lecture and Group Processing demonstration given on 2 September 1956
All right. Now, let's look over here.
Audience: Okay. All right.
Now, somewhere or another you've gotten the idea that that's Mama. That's women!
And somehow—somehow you have gotten the idea that's Papa. Nah-uh-uh—men! Men.
All right. Now, look at her—look at her. She epitomizes. She does. She does. She epitomizes. She does!
It isn't generally known, but he epitomizes too.
All right. Now, look at her.
Audience: Okay. Yeah.
That's women—women. Got that?
Audience: Yeah.
That's all the dames you ever knew, see?
Audience: Yeah.
Got that now? Women?
Audience: Yeah. Okay.
All the dames you ever knew. Got that?
Audience: Yeah.
And over here this other dummy—this other sad sack, that's all the men you ever knew, right?
Audience: Yeah. Right.
See, he's darn near a group. You got him—you got him reidentified now—you got him placed? You got him placed?
Audience: Yeah.
You girls have got him placed?
Audience: Yeah.
Okay. Now, look at her—look at her now.
Audience: Yeah.
That's women. Is that women?
Audience: Yes.
That women—that really is?
Audience: Yes.
Dames?
Audience: Yeah.
Skoits?

139

140

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Audience: Skoits.
Broads?
Audience: Yeah.
You got that?
Audience: Yeah.
And noble womanhood.
All right. Look at him.
Audience: Yeah.
Masculinity. Virility. Strength. Brutality. Ignorance. And utterly wrong.
That's guys.
Audience: Yeah.
Fellows.
Audience: Yeah.
Chaps.
Audience: Yeah.
Pals.
Audience: Yeah.
Buddies.
Audience: Yeah.
Rats.
You got them?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's real good. That's real good.
Do you know that there are several—several people present that look much more alive than he does but I ask you to stretch your imagination just to the degree—but can you grant him a little beingness?
Audience: Yeah.
He needs it.
All right. Now, look at her.
Audience: Yeah.
Look at him.
Audience: Yeah.
Good. All right.
Now, what we're going to do here is just a little bit different than we've been doing before, just a little bit different. What we're going to do is easier. Is that better?
Audience: Yeah.
I feel some people don't quite believe me. Nevertheless, it's true and we're going to do this because it's a bigger subject that we're covering. Got that?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
And I'm going to ask you—I'm going to ask you to look at one of these and then I'm going to ask you to hold her still. Is that okay? And keep her from going away. Complicated, isn't it?
Audience: Yeah.
I'm going to ask you to do two things at once, so to speak. Would you rather have the command "Keep her from going away and hold her still"?
Would you rather have the command that way?
Audience: No.
No? "Keep her still and keep her from going away" is all right with you, huh?
Audience: Yeah. —

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA (CONT.)
All right, and then I'll ask you to look at him and I will say—I will say, "All right, now, hold him still and keep him from going away." How's that?
Audience: Okay.
All right? Okay. Are you all set?
Audience: Yeah.
We're ready to begin? Okay.
You got an auditor?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, look at her.
Audience: Okay, yeah.
Okay.
Hold her still and keep her from going away.
Okay. All right.
It is easier, isn't it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, look at him. Now, hold him still and keep him from going away.
All right. You winning already?
Audience: Yeah.
Well all right. Good.
Now, let's look at her. Now, hold her still and keep her from going away.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
It's easier to do now, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, look at him. Now, hold him still and keep him from going away.
Okay. That's good. That's good.
Now, look at her. Remember this is women. This is women now. Now, hold her still and keep her from going away.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
Getting some wins?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. You'll have a lot more before it's over now. Not having any real difficulty, huh?
Audience: No.
All right. Do you find you have to hold them sti—keep them from going away and then hold them still?
Audience: No.
No? You do them both at the same time?
Audience: Yes.
All right. All right.
Is it getting more solid when you do that? Well, you see if it gets more solid when you do that. By the way, some of you have a bad idea of solidity. You think something is solid if it's simply solid. There's a part of the star dumbbell of Sirius, one teaspoonful of which on Earth would weigh one ton. And that's light compared to how solid I want you to be able to get these things. All right.
Now, you look at him. Now, look at him. Hold him still and keep him from going away.

141

142

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
All right. All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
You winning better?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, look at her. Now, you hold her still and keep her from going away.
All right. All right. That's fine. That's fine.
You winning real good?
Audience: Yeah.
Okay. Okay. Now, remember to use force.
Audience: Okay.
I want you to use force.
Look at him. Got him?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, you hold him still and keep him from going away.
All right. All right. How's that?
Audience: Okay.
Getting better?
Audience: Yeah.
Getting a lot better?
Audience: Yeah.
The first hour running out a little bit too?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, remember—use all the force you want to, I want you to use force on this. Don't want you to just sit back with a little postulate and do it. Now, let's use force.
Look at her. Now, hold her still and keep her from going away.
Okay. How's that?
Audience: All right.
All right. Getting better at it?
Audience: Yeah.
Getting any ridges moving around in front of your face or anything like that?
Audience: Yeah.
Hm? All right.
Now remember, use force. And we want this "keep her and keep him from going away" to be pretty absolute, you know. And we want that stillness to be stiller than still ever was. Got the idea?
Audience: Hm-mm.
All right.
Look at him. Now, hold him still and keep him from going away.
All right. How's that doing now, huh?
Audience: Okay.
Are you getting much better at it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, let's establish this critter over here again.
Look at her. Look at her. Got her?
Audience: Yeah.
She there?
Audience: Yeah.
She's women. Okay?
Audience: Yeah.

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA (CONT.)
That's women. Dames. Ladies. Laidies. And noble womanhood. You got it now?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Look at her. Now, hold her still and keep her from going away.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Okay.
Getting even better?
Audience: Yeah.
Getting smoother at it?
Audience: Yeah.
You having a lot less trouble than you did in the first hour?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? Well you know she's just any woman now, any woman.
All right. Now, let's look at him. This is a guy, a fellow, a noble and virtuous sire. Man. He's men, you gals. Men. Got him? All right.
Look at him. Now, you hold him still and keep him from going away.
All right. How's that?
Audience: All right. Fine.
All right. Now, look at her. Look at her. Look at her.
Now, I want to call something to your attention. There's a lot more body there than you've been looking at. Notice she has hands. She has feet. She has a head. Got it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Look at her. Now, you hold her still and keep her from going away.
All right. All right. You find out there was more of her?
Audience: Yeah.
Hm? Got two hands and legs.
Now, notice that he has two hands too and he's got a head and he's got a hat and he's got feet and shoes—everything. Now, we want the whole thing held still, see? And the whole thing kept from going away. You understand? We don't want—we don't want him standing there keeping from going away going like this or something like that.
Now, let's impose your will upon this situation. Look at him. Hold him still and keep him from going away.
You're making it?
Audience: Yeah.
Did you discover there was still a little part that wasn't quite under control?
Audience: No.
No? Some of you did?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Okay. All right. That's fine. That's fine.
Now, look at her. Look at her. We want you to do this to all of her now. Now, you look at her—now you hold her still and keep her from going away.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
You doing pretty good now, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
You doing pretty good, huh? Well that's pretty good. I want a seminar— two seminar leaders up on this side and two seminar leaders up on this side. Front and center. Chop-chop. Good. Attaboy.

143

144

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Each one of you grab each end of that table and very carefully, steadying the dummy the while, turn him around. Easy. All the way around.
Okay. Thank you boys. Thank you.
All right now, all right now. Did that disturbance bother you?
Audience: No.
Oh, it did, huh? Well, well run it out. Okay.
Now, here she is and here he is. Same process. Look at her. Now, you hold her still and keep her from going away.
All right. All right. That's a little different, isn't it?
All right. Now, look at him. Look at him now. Look at him. Now, you hold him still and keep him from going away.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
Little different, isn't it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, I want you to do it with strength, force, power. I want you to be doing it, you understand? You got that? You do it. Don't depend on any other force or automaticity to do it. Just check yourself over and make sure you're doing it. Not some machine you've got or something.
Look at her, hold her still and keep her from going away.
All right. How's that, huh?
Audience: Okay, yeah.
That's pretty good, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
You're getting real sharp at it?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? All right. Now, look at him. All right. Now, you hold him still and keep him from going away.
All right. How are you doing on that now, huh?
Audience: Okay.
You getting better at it?
Audience: Yeah.
Much better?
Audience: Yeah.
All right.
Now, look at her. Now, you hold her still and keep her from going away.
All right. How's that? Hm?
Audience: Okay.
You're getting sharp at this now, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
You're getting sharper? You people toward the back having a better time of it, too? Huh? All right.
Now, I don't care how much force and power you use, I'd like to see you use some for a change, you know? Roooof!
Look at him. Got him?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, look at him. Hold him still and keep him from going away.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine. Okay.
All right. Am I going too slow for you?
Audience: No.

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA (CONT.)
Going too fast?
Audience: No.
All right.
Now, look at her. Look at her. She there?
Audience: Yes.
Okay. Note the fact that she does have appendages, appurtenances and other things. All right.
You're doing it now, aren't you?
Audience: Yeah.
You're holding her still, aren't you?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, you hold her still and keep her from going away.
They ought to be getting pretty doggone still by this time. All right. All right. All right.
Look at him. Look at him. Got him?
Audience: Yeah.
Is he there?
Audience: Yeah.
He is there?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, you hold him still and keep him from going away.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
All right. Look at her.
Audience: Okay, okay.
All right. Now, you hold her still and keep her from going away.
Got that?
Audience: Yeah.
You do it?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. That's fine. That's fine. Now, look at him. Got him?
Audience: Yeah.
Is he there?
Audience: Yeah.
Does he exist?
Audience: Yeah.
What's the date?
Audience: 1956.
All right. Look at him. What's the date?
Audience: September 2nd, 1956.
All right. Now, hold him still and keep him from going away.
All right. Is that a better win?
Audience: Yeah.
Huh? It isn't taking you quite so long to do it now, is it?
Audience: No.
Is that right? All right. Look at her.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Got her there?
Audience: Yeah.
Got her real good?
Audience: Yeah.
What's the date?

145

146

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Audience: September 2nd, 1956.
All right. Look at her. Where is she?
Audience: Right there.
All right.
What's the date?
Audience: September 2nd, 1956.
All right. That's fine. Now, you hold her still and keep her from going away.
Audience: Okay.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
Good. How about you in the back there?
Audience: Fine.
Making okay, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Now, look at him.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Now, you hold him still and keep him from going away.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
Better, huh?
Audience: Yeah.
Better, huh? This thing getting flat?
Audience: Yes.
Process getting flat now?
Audience: Yes.
Huh?
Audience: Yeah.
Well good. That's good.
Look at her.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Look at her real good. Is she there?
Audience: Yeah.
What's the date?
Audience: September the 2nd, 1956.
Well, what do you know? We're really getting it now.
Now, you hold her still and keep her from going away.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
Hm? You mean you—how are you doing now really? You're doing much better on this?
Audience: Yeah. Okay.
Does this have some semblance of kind of flattening a little bit?
Audience: Oh, yeah.
You can do it better than you did?
Audience: Yeah.
Well, I got another little process I want to run in, but how about me running this just a couple of more times and then we knock off this particu¬lar process, okay?
Audience: Yeah, okay.
All right. Look at him.
Audience: All right. Okay.

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA (CONT.)
All right. You hold him still and keep him from going away.
All right. How's that?
Audience: Fine.
Good. Good.
Now, look at her—this is the last command now—last command. All right. Look at her now and you hold her still and keep her from going away.
All right. How is that? Hm?
Audience: Fine.
Anybody in terrible condition?
Audience: No.
Aw, shucks!
Did you get much better at it?
Audience: Yeah. No.
No? Somebody say no back there? Was there anybody around that couldn't do it at all? Was there anybody around that didn't really see any¬thing difficult in it because it was just standing there anyhow? All right.
How about just leveling this whole thing off with a little bit of spotting, huh?
Audience: Okay.
Want to do some spotting?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Well now, what I'm going to do is point out the sides and the walls and the things and stuff in the room and you're going to spot them, okay?
Audience: Okay.
And every time you do you tell me okay, all right?
Audience: Okay.
All right. And then I, dutifully, because I have heard you, will acknowl¬edge your communication, okay?
Audience: Yes.
All right.
Find the floor.
Good. Good. Find the wall on your right.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Find the wall on your left.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Did you do that?
Audience: Yes.
Good. Find the ceiling.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Find the front of the room.
Audience: Okay.
Good. Find the back of the room.
Audience: Okay.
Good. All right.
Now, how're you doing? Does that make you feel a little better?
Audience: All right.
All right.
Well, you seem to have that one pretty flat as a matter of fact. I don't think there's even any reason to give you warning of end of process on it. Is there any particular . . . ? You doing all right? Huh?
Audience: Yeah.
You doing all right. Will you mind if I change that process a little bit?

147

148

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Audience: No.
All right.
Now, we're going to run a little process on you whereby I'm going to ask you to put the objects in place which I call out to you, okay?
Audience: Okay.
You sound a little doubtful. Now, you understand the auditing command will be to "put a floor down there," for instance, and then you see if you can put a floor down there, you got it?
Audience: Okay.
And put a right-hand wall over there and you do that, okay?
Audience: Okay.
Is this all right with you?
Audience: Yeah.
Do you like the phrasing in the auditing command?
Audience: Yeah.
All right. Doesn't do any good if you were to say no, I mean . . .
You put a floor down there.
Audience: Okay.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right.
Now, you put a right-hand wall over there.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Did you?
Audience: Yeah.
Well good. Now, you put a left-hand wall over there.
Audience: Okay.
All right.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right.
Now, you put a ceiling up there.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well good. All right. You put a front on the room.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Now, you put a back on the room.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right.
Now good. You put a chair under you.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's try that again. Now, you put a chair under you.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right.
Now, you put a floor under the chair.

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA (CONT.)
Audience: Okay. All right. Did you? Audience: Yes. Well, okay. All right. Now, you put an Earth under the floor. Audience: Okay. All right. Did you? Audience: Yes. Well, all right.
Now, you put a MEST universe underneath the Earth, okay? Audience: Okay. All right. Did you? Audience: Yes. Well, okay.
Now, let's get back to the chair and you put a chair under you. Audience: Okay. All right. Did you? Audience: Yes.
Well okay. Is there something for it to sit on? Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Now, you just make sure and you put something there for it to sit on.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Good.
Now, you put a wall on your right.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a wall on your left.
Audience: All right.
Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Now good. You put a front on the room.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a back on the room.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well okay. Now, you put a floor under you.
Audience: All right. Okay.
All right. Now did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well okay. Now, you put a ceiling over you.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a front on the room.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.

149

150

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Well, all right.
Now, you put that dummy there.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put that dummy there on ...
Audience: Okay.
All right. Did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a floor under you.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Let's do it better. You put a floor under you.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, you do better than that. You put a floor under you.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you do that?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a wall on your right.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a wall on your right.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a wall on your right.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a wall on your right.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a wall on your left.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a wall on your left.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, you put a wall on your left.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Okay. Now, you put a back on the room.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a back on the room.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?

GROUP PROCESSING: HOLD IT STILL, MAMA AND PAPA (CONT.)
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a back on the room.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a front on the room.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a front on the room.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, you put an audience here.
Audience: Okay.
Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put an audience here.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put me up here.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put me up here.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, that's okay. Now, you put an audience here.
Audience: Okay.
Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you create a congress.
Audience: Okay.
Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
All right. Now, you create a congress.
Audience: Okay.
Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, all right. Now, you create a congress.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
That's all right. Now, you create a congress.
Audience: Okay.
Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, that's okay. Now, you create an organization.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?

151

152

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Audience: Yes.
Well, that's okay. Now, you create an organization.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, that's okay. Now, you create an organization.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, that's okay. Now, you create an audience.
Audience: Okay.
Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
That's okay. Now, you put me up here.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay. Now, you put a whole room here.
Audience: Okay.
All right. Now, did you?
Audience: Yes.
Well, okay.
How do you feel?
Audience: Fine.
How you doing?
Audience: Fine.
Where are you?
Audience: Here.
What's the date?
Audience: September the 2nd, 1956.
Well there, does that sound different than it did! Good.
I'll now give you the Chinese custom.
Good audience.
Good preclears—good preclears.
Good congress.
Thank you.
Supposing—you intimated earlier that you were going to make me work tonight.
Audience: Yes.
All right. If you're going to do that, however, I think that we ought to take till 7:00 o'clock, don't you?
Audience: Yes.
Huh?
Well you know, this time I might even be on time.

EFFECTIVENESS OF BRAINWASHING
A lecture given on 2 September 1956
You know, we've had a—we've had an interesting time here for six years, haven't we?
Audience: Yeah!
Oh, heck, we've had a more interesting time than that.
And I hope that's nothing compared to the interesting time we're going to have for the next six.
Now, I want to clarify something. People have been walking up to staff members and they've been saying, "What's all this about Ron says he's all through with research? Yeah, I've heard that before. Isn't true."
Well, that isn't essentially what I said. I said the critical point of research—I didn't say this, but let me be very clear, concise—the critical point of research has passed. It actually has. It was critical up to a relatively few weeks ago when I finally got in the returns on what processes were doing to cases of various types here and there in various auditors' hands.
Given indoctrination—thorough indoctrination and in particular what we call High School Indoctrination of the type that those attending the ACC will get, I don't believe now—I know I have said this before; I'm telling you a fact now—I don't believe now that there is a case that is still breathing that talks the language that you happen to be speaking, or not, as the case may be, that can actually remain in a status quo under modern auditing. I really don't believe there is such a case. Now, that's no dare. That's not myself talking. I would have told you this years ago. Because I don't know any cases I couldn't crack.
But I'm now speaking of the auditor who is well trained and knows his business, and cases have actually ceased to give them a bad time.
It becomes an interesting—very, very interesting consideration of how long is it going to take—how long is it going to take to crack a case. That's a problem: How long is it going to take? What are we going to be able to do with this number of hours?
And from where I sit, and I am sure in the next few months you will find this to be a reality, I don't know now how tough a case would have to be because I haven't seen one.
Here's a fascinating thing. A case can be awfully resistant in one way or the other, but when you're—can unlock resistance itself, you find the resist¬ance was resisting the preclear also and he's very happy to have this unlocked.

153

154

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Well, therefore, if you can—if you can unlock the resistance that he is putting up to having his case washed up, well, wonderful. It would be good roads and good weather. He doesn't argue with you, that's all. He just doesn't argue with you.
Now, it should—it should be rather encouraging to you. We've had a lot of cases around dragging their heels. They shouldn't, not now, and I hope they won't.
As far as future research is concerned, as far as the tomorrow of audit-ing results are concerned, the situation is sufficiently in place that we have passed the critical point.
In other words, there are people who believe that the only direction they can now pursue is down! You got that? Their upswing or ability to recover is doubted by them. Do you get that point of doubt?
Well, when you run a modern process on them a great change takes place because he realizes he can get well, and that is an awfully high point of realization. He might not realize it for eight or ten hours, but he will find it out, and after that he knows there is something on Earth which can pull him out of the mire. Now, that in itself is a terribly heartening thing—very, very heartening, very wonderful thing.
People for years have been—well, at a low case level have been sort of held in place, not slipping any further. Well, we're at a point in research where there is a point of return and they can start up again. It's quite remarkable.
Now, what does this mean to Scientology? Well, it means first a much broader reality on the part of the professional auditor regarding his own capabilities because the processes today have crossed a boundary which is most astonishing.
We could have said a few months ago—did intimate it—that auditing should not be restimulative. Nobody should go downhill simply because he was auditing. Well, that has turned to this degree and an important degree it is. Auditing has taken the turn today where it is therapeutic.
That's a very important factor, very important. Because one of the rea-sons auditors start sliding out of auditing and stop professional practice is they find they can't stay in there and take the battering they've been taking from preclears. They get a run of very rough preclears and all of a sudden they have a feeling that they just don't want to audit the next one; they'd rather go out and play golf.
All of you have had that feeling. I've had that feeling. I've had somebody walk into the office and say, "Ron, there's somebody out here and they want you to audit him." Happens fairly often. And I say—sitting there—I remem¬ber the last one, see. I say, "I'm awfully busy writing a book." And they say, "But Ron, the organization is broke."
You know, I never get any auditing fees. I—this—aren't any auditing fees as far as I am concerned. I have the lousiest professional practice in Scientol¬ogy. It's terrible! If I do any auditing it is for the purposes of research and if I have to do some auditing in the organization, I never collect a penny for it. The organization goes south with the cash. I never see it. They say, "But Ron, you know, you know, those new drinking fountains—mighty expensive." "Yeah," but I say, "I—my tires are almost off my car. I mean, can't I do something about this?" And they say, "Yes, we've got another preclear out here."
Well, I've spent quite a few hours in an auditing chair, quite a few. Huh! Wow! Time track—time track. And by this time I've audited French, Spanish,

EFFECTIVENESS OF BRAINWASHING
Italians, Chinese, Negroes, Africans, English, Mexicans, Canadians, Hawai-ians, Japanese—must be some other race.
Male voice: Americans.
Oh, yes, Americans!
It has been said that I have audited more people per square yard of engram than any other auditor. This may or may not be true because I don't audit all week, every week. Somebody may have been sneaking up on this by this time.
But I was auditing some people recently and I planned on having a ses¬sion before I came over here to the congress so I could stand the mock-up up a little more—betterwise. And I had a very interesting session all planned. I had it all figured out, and I started to audit a preclear on very modern pro¬cedure. And I audited the preclear and I audited the preclear and I felt—I thought, "This is interesting" and I kept on auditing the preclear and I kept on auditing the preclear. And the next thing you know, why, things were clearing up all around and the slime and the dust of London was kind of going away from my theta perception and I kept auditing the preclear and I thought, "Gee-whiz. What do you know! I mean, I'm—here it is"—I better not tell you this story—a breach of the Auditor's Code—"here it is 11 o'clock at night and I'm not even tired." As a matter of fact the preclear went home — came back the next day and I audited the preclear and I audited the preclear and I audited the preclear. And the preclear shoved off about 2 o'clock in the afternoon and I went out for a walk.
A little—my little copper nob, Diana, she always comes around, and she says, "I want to go shopping with Dada." She knows what she's doing. She's a smart girl. He always buys her candy, you know. She's almost four now. So anyway—very bright—and she's walking along the street alongside of me and she started to run into a fruit cart. You know, busy English traffic—the English are—well, a lot of them wear glasses but I'm not sure why they do because they can't see through them. And a couple had walked past her, one on one side and one on the other side and they just spun her around. And she came out of it—and she'd been sort of half-running to keep up with me—and she tipped over and started to go into a fruit cart. So, I was about ten feet from her, so I turned her around and put her on the sidewalk and we went walking on up the street.
I, all of a sudden said, "Now, wait a minute. Now, just a minute." She was chattering along madly—couldn't think. I said, "There's something to all this." So I very carefully watched some people stepping up a curb, and there was an old lady there who was about to step up on the curb and miss it. So I took her foot and put it more solidly on the curb. And I suddenly realized there isn't the least bit of difficulty controlling any number of bodies, if you do enough auditing.
Now, very oddly, what I've just told you happens to be the truth. It hap¬pens to be the truth.
There's some processes today which are the best processes to run on preclears, very smooth, easy processes, best processes to run. There are ways to run them. But the auditor has to refrain from doing it. By refraining from doing it, however, he gets into an interesting situation.
Remember, in 8-C, I've often said you can monitor the preclear's body without letting him participate in the session at all? You know that? That's real wild. The auditor's sitting there and he is saying, "Go over and touch that wall." The body will—the preclear's body walks over and touches the

155

156

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
wall. "Well, go over and touch that wall." The preclear's body goes over and touches that wall.
You have to actually add another thing. You have to add another thing to that process in order to make it a good process. You have to say, "All right, now, go over and touch the wall." You have to say, "Who touched it? Did you touch it? Are you sure you touched the wall?" You got the idea? You have to make the fellow aware of it and build his awareness of it; otherwise, if you're pretty hot at this sort of thing, you will just simply walk this other body around and it just goes walking around. And it's a very funny thing to watch this kind of a situation. It's really remarkable!
Now, I'm sure some of you have had this happen. We have a little process that handles an object. And we were handling this object the other day and Smokey back there said, "Well, it must have been telepathy or something. But the fellow said that just before he intended to stop it—I told him to stop it—but just before I said stop it, his hand stopped it. I tried to tell Smokey that there was a distinct possibility that he had done enough of the process so that he had to start avoiding this sort of thing, otherwise, auditing session would consist of Smokey sitting there running this other body, see. You have to get in there and get the other fellow aware that he's running his own body and then he gets well.
Now, that sounds spooky, doesn't it? That sounds bad. That sounds like a terrible invasion of privacy! It sounds like one interrupts the preclear's self-determinism, doesn't it? Well, at a certain level of case, you can ask this nasty question. What self-determinism? I'm afraid out of self-defense pre-clears being audited will have to get better!
You could take all that with a grain of salt if you want to. It's worse than that except you wouldn't believe me. When you start picking up old ladies' feet and putting them on curbs, making horses walk sideways just to embarrass a mounted policeman; when you start putting on the other drivers' brakes and stopping all traffic on the side streets, whether there are stop signs or not, just so you could go through, I'd say we are absolutely ruining self-determinism. And it's about time somebody got pan-determined!
You know, they tell a story about the wolves and the rabbits. Somebody comes along and he gets a bunch of rabbits and he makes them into wolves, see. And then these rabbits over here have got to become wolves, too. As soon as they become wolves then these do and then somebody comes back here and makes a superwolf. And then these wolves in order to get along have to be superwolves. Isn't that a horrible thing to happen? Well, it would be horrible if you were making wolves but we're not in that business!
The only time I've seen preclears fight and start to become wolves and start to be very upset about the whole thing—you could practically see lycan-thropy coming like sparks up above their ears—they are just about to bare their teeth and really get going—was when you were collecting your auditing fee. This has—this has a certain restimulative action on some preclears. But naturally, now it is very easy for an auditor to do that. He just reaches into the fellow's pocket and . . . No, it's not as bad as that.
Do you know actually, it's—there's something funny that I had to tell people over in England, but I had to tell them this because it's a fantastic—an utterly fantastic situation. You think it's possible to make people worse, don't you? You think it's possible to make people worse by auditing. We learned something in 1950 and I see some faces in this room that will confirm this. As terrible as the auditing was, it was better than no auditing!
I sat down one day to find out what this was all about. And you know

EFFECTIVENESS OF BRAINWASHING
what I discovered? Man is basically good. I hate to tell you this, since good and bad are apparently merely adjectives and considerations as we have often said. Well then why is it that a man will go toward good but not toward bad? I don't know. I don't know that.
In order to change a person, you have to make him better. And that is the total success of Dianetics and Scientology, owing to the fact that they went on a reverse vector to every other psychotherapy and activity in the mind that was ever advanced or invented. That's an interesting point. We went straight reverse.
Now, don't tell me—don't try to tell me that we should be charitable. Don't, please, tell me I should be charitable. I'm so damned tired of being charitable! Charity begins at home.
I recently made a study, and published it in a PAB and I'm sure quite a few of you have seen it already, called, A Critique of Psychoanalysis.*
Male voice: Yeah, yeah.
Now, you probably thought I was just being mean. Actually, the reason I had to write that was to tell auditors something about what made cases go a bit off beam, to tell auditors what was bad auditing. And I found out that all of the things—I think there were some ten things psychoanalysis does. I got a letter of protest from Sweden on that PAB. I got another one, a letter of protest from Switzerland and got another letter of protest from Vienna, Aus¬tria, all of which were incomprehensibly stupid in their real—in their rationalization of the subject.
The only criticisms I got on it were indecipherable. I don't care what language they were written in. It was something on the basis of "Freud was a kind man. And everybody was a kind man. And the sublimation of the ego self is the real self and that isn't the self because the self is the self is the id is the self is the real self." This is just about the way they read. "And you haven't any right to criticize because to criticize because to criticize because to criticize. Sincerely yours." Boy, have they been analyzed!
But you would think immediately that I published those things to indi¬cate that psychoanalysis was making people sick! I didn't say that. I merely said it was dishonest and it would keep a case from advancing and it would make a case feel sort of funny in auditing if they were done.
But there is, it seems, a sort of a mechanism about the mind that when it finds out it is being abused it cuts the circuit. That's an interesting thing. This is so much the case that short of surgery or the installation of an engram directly, so-called therapeutic measures are actually powerless to materially injure a mind. The only thing they can do is make the person a little more careful or a little more worried or a little more upset. But as far as actually injuring his IQ and his intelligence profile, they can't do it.
Three to five years of psychoanalysis—and I have this on very, very bad authority (a psychoanalytic report)—demonstrated no worsening of cases by reason of having been analyzed over that period of time. No betterment but no worsening.
There are a lot of people who commit suicide after analysis, I am told. But the funny part of it is, is they simply delayed the suicide until they found out that analysis didn't work either. So you can't even really assign a suicide to analysis.
*[Editor's Note: A copy of the Professional Auditor's Bulletin referred to here can be found in Volume III of the Technical Bulletins Volumes as PAB 92 of 10 July 1956 and its continuation at PAB 93 of 24 July 1956.]

157

158

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
If anybody says we have a large rack of suicides and deaths and casu-alties and so forth, boy, are they spreading propaganda. Let me guarantee some-thing to you, if we'd had a lot of that sort of thing I would have heard about it.
Years ago there were two or three—three or four political deaths, you might say—politics: people arguing with people and so forth over the relative merits of this and that and it got messed up that way.
The only death, I think, that ever occurred in the eastern area occurred on the part of a boy who came into the New York Foundation to be—to receive some Dianetic auditing. We had a psychiatrist there who was on duty, because the publisher there in New York said that that was the legal thing to have. And anybody who came in and looked a bit desperate or something of the sort would be a mental case and therefore should be interviewed by the psychiatrist. He went in, saw the psychiatrist, the psychiatrist said there was nothing could be done. The psychiatrist told the auditor in question that he wasn't to audit him and they sent the boy back out of the Foundation, and he went home and killed himself. That happened in New York City. It was smoothed over very quietly but there's no particular reason to smooth it over because we didn't kill him. That was an interesting thing.
He was turned away from being helped. He was in a frame of mind to commit suicide; somebody told him he ought to go down to the Foundation and get some help. He went down and ran into a psychiatrist. It was a dirty trick to pull on a man, wasn't it? Boy, I had that psychiatrist out of there so fast, he's probably still running. No, that's about the only casualty I know of in the East Coast. That's a pretty terrific record for all the God knows how many people have been handled and audited in Dianetics and Scientology, believe me.
You must understand they are different subjects.
The difficulties that psychotherapy had were not the difficulties really of bad treatment but of not helping. Do I make a point there? It wasn't that the treatment was terribly harmful. It's that their hope, raised, was never answered. And it was so poorly responded to that there was no further hope and they occasionally committed suicide and knocked off and did things like that. But they were simply on a waiting period and cases didn't worsen actu-ally because of it.
As nearly as I can find out, even an expert auditor a few months ago could not have worsened a case. He could have worked at it. He could have done funny things to it. But you know, I actually conducted a series of experiments—I have in three different occasions conducted a series of experi-ments to find out how you could mess up people. Volunteers—they knew I could pull them out of it. We went ahead and tried to get a real flat-out mess and we've never succeeded.
Well, I tell you, some of those tests are really grim. Some of those tests are just too grim to—huh, wow! Have a fellow take an IQ test. Then he sits over here on the couch. Gets pushed back into birth, run halfway through, invalidated, evaluated for, restimulated and struck. Then he's set down in this chair over here to do an IQ test and he does better!
You can say, well, the intention in that room was pretty good and he responded to it but, no, the fellow's intention was really to get worse. We found out eventually we were adding to their havingness and improving their intelligence and profiles in just that wise. We were restimulating engrams and this made them smarter.
Now this is—this is a fact. You go before a class. You explain to them all about birth, prenatals and backtrack and everything else, you'd think you'd

EFFECTIVENESS OF BRAINWASHING
just spin them in. Well, once in a while you have somebody there who has a game of spinning. You know, this person lived this kind of a life before that. Mother came in, dusted off the top of the table. "Oh, you've killed me."
They were at school and the teacher dusted some chalk off the board and sat there and said, "Huh, huh, huh, huh, huh." Auditor comes in the room. They say, "You've broken the code."
And he says, "How did I do that?"
"Now you've invalidated me."
You stand up in front of them and give a lecture on electronic-type engrams and they say, "Huh, huh, huh, huh, huh," same one. In other words, we assume this person goes "Huh, huh, huh, huh." So what?
Well, we ran another series of tests. We wanted to find out how bad instruction was. This was out in Phoenix. Some of you people right here were part of this.
We practically did nothing to one whole unit but teach them. Did a little Group Processing—didn't amount to anything—and then just taught them. Taught them anything; I lectured to them about anything I could think of. And when they all finished up they were all better and it was a more success¬ful group than groups which had indulged in auditing.
So we went ahead to find out further how bad it was to restimulate people with Scientology data. We set out overtly to do this—audit for twenty minutes, evaluate for twenty minutes, audit for another twenty minutes, evaluate for another twenty minutes—on volunteer preclears. They wanted to die. They tried hard and didn't make it. They got better! They actually got better.
Of course, evaluation isn't too bad unless it contains a lot of contradiction— invalidation along with it. But we actually did inform them of this and that.
Now, we've taken somebody—we've given them some book like What to Audit. You know, that book's name—real name should be now What Not to Audit. But, oh no, I beg your pardon—I just thought of something. That book at one time was, What to Audit and then for a while was What Not to Audit and is now What to Audit. Yeah, book title finally came due.
Anyway, person starts reading this book, you know, "Gee, gee, the
Bouncer—the jumper—the Clam." Person says, "Ohhhhh, what horrible
somatics I've got. Ohhhh, man—I've ju . Boy, I'm stuck in something."
Unfortunately, stuck in something he is smarter and has a better profile than not stuck. We've given him the book to read—given a preclear, that is to say, a volunteer, What to Audit to read—with four or five people, unbe¬knownst to him that they were part of the test, telling him, "Oh, man, you don't want to read that. Now, look—now, for once Ron's gone too far. He's gone too far. He wants you to read that late at night without having eaten any supper."
We've gone too far now—and actually say that they were going to protest to me about it—and got the person nice and worried. So it was about all that somebody else could do to push him into the experiment. You know, "You volunteered. It's too bad. You can't go back on it now. You know, mankind and all that."
So, person read it, got restimulated, got very upset, took an after-test and it was better than the former test. I don't know, what are you going to do with these people? Person, of course, is basically running on the postulate that Scientology makes people well so he just gets well. They don't know how to do anything else, I guess!

159

160

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
It's very funny, though, the mind puts brakes on. You can smell the rubber. When it feels it's getting into too much trouble and that it isn't get¬ting competently handled, it just puts the brakes on, restimulates, pulls itself out of it and so on—fights like mad with the auditor and he insists on going on, pushes the person into it bodily with a thud. You just don't—it just doesn't get there, that's all. There has to be ARC in auditing or it doesn't occur. You all know that. Auditing doesn't occur in the absence of ARC. It doesn't occur at the behest of a club.
All right. We conclude and concluded by many tests that teaching people the data of Scientology was not aberrative. We had to ascertain this. Once in a while we used to get—before we had indoctrination courses—bad auditing in HCA schools.
Now, I know this is a very discreditable thing to have and I would—I hate to have to tell you about it but I have to because there's so many of you here who have had rotten auditing in HCA schools. That's true, isn't it?
Audience: Yeah.
Pretty grim some of it. You know, we finally got to a point though where we realized with modern training—that these auditors trained modernly don't know how bad it can get. In the absence of school auditing, they never learn. But modern school auditing done after indoctrination, so forth, has very defi-nitely minimized if not entirely eradicated this factor.
But back when we were getting real bad auditing on occasion, somebody would come in—he'd run, oh I don't know, a little this and a little of that and a little of something else and call it what he was doing and the preclear would get real upset and we'd get protests on it one way or the other.
And we would have profiles on students. And when one of these profiles would drop, we had to know this answer: Were these profiles dropping because of the data the person was taught or because of the auditing the person was receiving? A dropping profile—terrible thing, awful thing. Profile is going down from where the person had been put by Scientology and we learned that a person can lose gains he makes in Scientology auditing by more Scientology auditing, but the livingness of two or three years doesn't decrease the result. This is goofy, you know.
Only Scientology auditing can undo Scientology auditing but not even Scientology auditing can make a case worse than it was when you first saw it. I don't know, I mean, I'm just giving you the data. It doesn't have to be reasonable. It's true.
In other words, we pick the case up down here on the graph and we audited him up here. And—oh, a preclear of ours—now he's getting training and we get him an IQ test or something halfway through training and he's here. In other words, he's now only this high above where he was originally. He was there. In other words, he's lost some of his Scientology gain. That's what he loses.
And we found out that teaching him anything in the way of Scientology data is powerless to decrease his profile level. Teach him anything you want to. You can say—of course, you don't teach the public this if you want them to stay in class along with you on a group course.
But supposing you said, "Well, I don't know. You have lived before. The proof of the matter is that probably at any given instant you could shut your eyes and see your last dead body before it."
And the fellow would say, "Hey, that's right! Boy, is that a horrible death. Say, you know, Instructor, that was a horrible death."

EFFECTIVENESS OF BRAINWASHING
I don't care what you teach them. Doesn't matter. Because the totality of aberration is not know—not-knownness—it is unknowingness and anything he finds out about himself, anything he finds out about the track, any truth he learns about life pulls him up scale! And because he has some mechanism in him that knows what a lie is, he doesn't buy them.
He can go down scale from having played too many games too long—the games then becoming unknown. That's how far he can go down scale and he does go down scale over long periods of time and terrific duress.
The things I have discovered though that are depressing in life, I don't think you'd be able to write about them. You haven't heard anything really this horrible on this planet.
The stuff that is on the backtrack of the preclear is of such major nature that the little old "tiddlywink" games he's been playing for the last two or three thousand years—except for some of the majesty of Rome, that was fun—aren't aberrative. And you teach him something about his backtrack, he pulls up a picture here and he pulls up one there and he says, "Whee! Look at the picture of the rocket"—boom! "I have a somatic." And he actually feels better for at least knowing that there was a possibility that it happened to him, than not knowing about it at all! How do you like that? Isn't that a terrible thing?
Now, with terrific duress, torture, getting maimed and—he loses the whole planet and he falls through space for 18,000 years and then he's put to work plastering one wall for the next 10,000 years and if he leaves that wall, why, they have a little piece of his flesh in a vat up in headquarters and all they have to do is stick a pin in it and he says, "Ow!" and he reports back. Well, that's sort of rough, you know in a mild sort of whole track way, that's sort of rough.
But that's the past of your preclear, not "Well, when I was a little boy— when I was a little boy, an older girl—she said a nasty word to me and that's why I'm crazy." Oh yeah?
So anything he learns about himself or life that he knows is true, that he has the feel of truth about it, actually makes him feel better.
The actual livingness at Lord knows what duress makes him feel worse and it just takes hundreds and hundreds of years to push a guy down scale. That is our finding. It's an important finding. Does psychoanalysis—you mean sitting on a couch and lying about all the—well, lying has—that aber¬rates somebody? No. No. It does not.
I don't even know if it hurts a thetan to have his prefrontal lobes cut out. We had a fellow come in one day with no prefrontal lobes and we audited him after a while. And he forgot about having no prefrontal lobes and he was as good as anybody else. That's the truth. We actually did that right here at the HGC in Washington. Putting the shock to somebody, pouring the juice to them. Nah! So they dance around for a while and they feel bad. When we get ahold of them, they're a little more explosive than other cases.
One of the reasons we consistently fail on psychos is because they keep—we don't—we don't treat psychos, we're not in that business. We are not equipped to handle psychos and other people keep shooting them with the needle, you know. You know, pick them up, dope them up, give them a shock, something like that, and then they are dumped back on the auditor again. He all of a sudden says, "What's the matter with him?"
"Oh, I don't know. He just. . ." So on. The auditor finds out he's been in eighteen institutions, that sort of thing. He didn't know this. He can't protect

161

162

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
himself. There is no way really for an auditor to protect himself thoroughly against having a psycho pushed off on him which he then is expected to audit. It's not his business. He shouldn't be in that business! Yet there is no law which protects a person—there is no law which says, "It is against the law to walk in and ask for educational ability or spiritual guidance" or some-thing like that "when you really want psychotherapeutic treatment." There is no law like that. The reverse is the law. We don't—we don't care about this law one way or the other, we think it's for the birds.
Every psychiatrist—I'm not talking psychiatrists down. I know you don't like me to cuss psychiatrists. I mean I really know that. I really do. You don't like me to cuss psychiatrists. You think it's beneath my dignity and I want to thank you for it.
But we get into this for an excellent reason that it exists and it's part of life, this little game called, "Ruin them." It's part of life. And if we're in a position where we're so weak-headed that we feel that we must avoid this part of life and that part of life, the first thing you know life will say, "It's avoiding me—sluuuuuup," and we'll all be psychiatrists, and I wouldn't wish that off on you. So we have to cuss them a little bit.
But the finding is a very, very interesting finding and a strange com-mentary on a line in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, a very strange commentary. It said, "Man is basically good." The duress required to make man worse is so tremendous that I do not believe there is known to the communist today, as he operated in the Korean War, any technique that would have worsened the IQ or actual ability of a human being.
Now, you've heard about brainwashing. I happened recently to have gotten hold of the totality of information contained in the book written by Pavlov for Stalin and which hitherto has never been outside the doors of the Kremlin. I have that book. I've tried to boil it down and write it simply because it is an interesting book. It tells the researches of one man. And I can't write that bad! I actually can't. You think I'm fooling. I can't write this book. I can't boil it down. I all of a sudden start filling in all the missing pieces. No, that's right. You would too! You would!
You know so much more about the mind than this guy did that you'd start writing and you'd say, "Boy, did he miss it there. Well, it really is this way. And then it..." And I've started that thing about four different times trying to make a quick synopsis of it to select out the salient pieces on which Pavlov operated because I think it might be of interest to people. And I just pick it up and throw it on the back of the desk. I just can't do it. One of these days I'll be less of a prima donna with my pen.
No, but actually that's true. This book is mentioned, by the way in—I think his name is—Edward Hunter's book on brainwashing, which is cur-rently selling here in the United States. And this book is a fascinating book. It's about 400 pages long and it tells how all of Pavlov's experiments on dogs could be applied to human beings in order to produce a certain given result and that is the text of the book.
That book never left the Kremlin. Pavlov was not permitted to leave the Kremlin while he was writing that book and he was later more or less held in arrest but he didn't realize it to the end of his life. And they started using this in the spy—not the spy trials but the trials of communist officials. Remember, back in the 30s, all of a sudden the world was startled at all these top Russian leaders confessing to everything? Well, I don't know whether they did or not. Nobody has confessed on this pattern since—or using the same

EFFECTIVENESS OF BRAINWASHING
material. And nobody did it in the Korean War.
Along with that I have a summation... I wanted to write a little book called—a technical book on brainwashing, and the only reason I wanted to write this book is because it is not effective. Brainwashing is not effective. I repeat that. It is not effective. It does not do a job.
Evidently a certain small percentage of people can be driven mad if you sneeze at them, but they're mad already. And on these people brainwashing works. But it's such a small percentage that it's hardly worth bothering with.
The number of man-hours concerned in brainwashing one human being is about twice as many hours as were consumed by a Dianetic preclear in 1950! Two or three thousand.
Now, look-a-here, what are we all spooking about this thing called brain-washing for? It's a hoax—a hoax of the first order of magnitude. The communist can't brainwash anybody that isn't brainwashed. He can't do it; he doesn't know how.
Now, you could doubt this because you've heard an awful lot about these terrible duresses of brainwashing and you even heard it from me and you heard it from other people but I had to get down and look. So I—having looked—I might as well tell you that I picked the cover of it up and peeked under the edge of it and found something about as—well, I suppose it's much more dangerous to put small firecrackers in your mouth and light them. It's probably much more dangerous than to get brainwashed.
They did such a bad job and they know so little about the mind that it makes a Scientologist just go, "No! No! We ought to get over and show those guys how!"
Brainwashing. This book I was going to write was a summation of the actual effects that it had on cases. You see, I knew a lot of Japanese war prisoners. In the last part of the war and so forth, I was actually interview¬ing quite a number of Japanese war prisoners as they were returned from prison camps. I was interviewing these chaps and taking down their experi¬ences. They weren't being brainwashed. They were simply starved. Japanese weren't doing anything to them. They were in worse shape than the brain¬washed Korean prisoner! And these guys talk about brainwashing!
It's one of these propaganda weapons. That's all it is. They say, "We have this terrific weapon called brainwashing—we're going to brainwash everybody." Well it would be awfully dangerous if they could. But do you know there is practically not a person in this room that would be permanently harmed by brainwashing except as it related to being starved and kept under conditions of duress. In other words, if you put a guy into a military stockade and fed him poorly for two or three years he's going to be in secondhand condition, isn't he?
Male voice: Yeah.
Well, that's just exactly the effect brainwashing had on them. It had no more effect than this.
If I myself had not known and seen and talked to and interviewed and made the official records of many Japanese prisoners of war, I too, would have been shocked by brainwashing. But remember, the Japanese prisoner of war was not brainwashed, he was simply kept as a prisoner of war under duress, had very little food and very little rest and not much medical treat¬ment over a period of years. And that's rough. But the Japanese prisoner of war was in worse shape than those held by Chinese communists and brain¬washed for two years! That's something to think about, isn't it?

163

164

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
Boy, they tried. And all they succeeded in doing was making a good game which took the ennui out of being in prison!
Pavlov talks about making a dog insane. I'd like to shake the paw of a dog the techniques contained in his book would make insane.
These learned experiments by which we reduce a circle to a square and reduce a square to a circle while ringing gongs and dah-dah bells and feeding the dog and beating the dog—oh, bah.
I had a malamute once, he was a tough dog. The only way he could accept an acknowledgment was if you took a stick of firewood and hit him between the ears. My mother, who is a very little person, very small person, used to take a stick or a chain to this malamute and just used to beat him and beat him and beat him to make him stop chasing cows. And the dog would say, "Hahh-hahh-hahh-hahh-hahh-hahh." He'd say, "I love you too!"
I used to come home after an absence. This dog was very ferocious. He was half malamute, half spitzbergen, very tough dog. He only knew one thing: when you put him on a leash and he felt that harness against his chest, he'd pull! And you went whether you wanted to or not. And he used to come—he'd see me coming up toward the house and he would rush out of the gate. I'd been gone for a month or two or three. And he would rush out of the gate with every fang bared. And I'd wait until he got there and I'd pick up the loose skin on both sides of his jowls and use his momentum and throw him about that far. And he would go over there about 25 feet and he would land, see. And he'd get up and he'd say, "Oh, it's you, Ron. How are you?" That dog was half Russian! And Pavlov said that denying him a little food would drive him crazy.
It's not true—it's not true that the tiny amount of duress recorded would have done anything to anything. A myth was built up, a fear was created in men's hearts that something could be done to their mind by men who did not know how and who had no technology about the mind anyway! And they built this myth up so good that the United States War Department and even the Marine Corps—which is surprising since they have sense—was actually will-ing to brainwash a bunch of people that they had, so as to proof them against brainwashing. You might as well proof a guy against suddenly leaving Earth and flying into the moon. It's just not going to happen. Why proof him against it?
There was no such subject, is all of the technique I am trying to get across to you! Not known to the Russians—there's no such subject as brain-washing. I've read their records and what they've done to people. I've studied them carefully. I've studied the best records existing and those records don't even exist in the United States. And they didn't have a subject and they didn't do it but they meant to scare everybody to death with it.
But they achieved one awful, horrible fact when they started this. They achieved something desperate and deadly: They got us to thinking about the subject.
Well, one time—once upon a time there was a Russian country—a Rus-sian empire. I think maybe somebody will say that someday: "Once upon a time there was Russia."
Possessing almost unlimited means at our disposal in terms of research on the whole track and its unlimited means to be able to research every point and development on the whole track for 76 trillion years—that's a lot of data to look over—we went looking for real brainwashing on the theory that if it frightened people, somewhere on the track it must have happened, actually.

EFFECTIVENESS OF BRAINWASHING
Now, if it actually happened, there would be a record of it, and there was. It did happen; there was a record. Billions of years ago they knew how to do it. And the only result that a modern practitioner could get on the subject of brainwashing would be to restimulate it, but that—at that time, the fellow would know more about it and he'd be smarter than he was before.
Male voice: What about Fac One?
Fac One was a Sunday school picnic. Fac One was so mild that I wonder that anybody ever bothered to let himself get aberrated with it. Boy, must he—he must have been short of problems!
No, there are methods of brainwashing people and you could do them right this minute. You can brainwash a man thoroughly in twenty seconds and the HGC could undo it in about an hour. And we could knock him down to being totally blank in a complete amnesia and then brightened right up and looking good.
In other words, the Russian did accomplish something: He made us think. A brainwashing could be done but Russia does not know how to do it.
There are records of brainwashing on the whole track but the only person that would be able to understand or do anything about it is a Scien¬tologist and I never met a Scientologist who was so stupid as to brainwash anybody.
All a psychiatrist is doing with psychiatric treatments is dramatizing later-day brainwashes. He isn't doing a good job of it; it's just a dramatiza¬tion, not a treatment. I say that advisedly not to be wicked. I mean, that's a technical fact, because the second you try to put him in the patient valence, he goes mad—boom—as is learned by institutions. But the whole subject of brainwashing is too complicated or too simple for anybody to grasp. He'd have to know all about engrams. He'd have to know all about the electronic phe¬nomena of the body and he'd have to be able to group the whole works suddenly and quickly so that it was indecipherable. You got it?
But then, of course, an auditor could come along, run Over and Under, which is the process that straightens it up, and the track would go back together again. Why brainwash anybody? He would benefit perhaps—he would probably be a little bit injured one way or the other because a sudden shock that way would probably upset him. But he would benefit to the degree of having enjoyed an auditor's company for an hour or two.
I will tell you something dreadful. All this sizes up to is just one thing. It's a horrible fact, we might as well face it. It is all but impossible to make a mind worse! And almost anything sincerely done makes it better. But the only direction of change there is, is up as far as treatment is concerned.
In other words, you couldn't make a fellow, by some duress or another, worse. It would take him just thousands of years and lots of Fac Ones and lots of electronics and lots of losses and he—oh, I don't know, two or three times of being an emperor and being dethroned by his own mother and cast in a dungeon while a usurper, you know. It just—it'd just have to be drama, drama, drama, drama, games, games, games, games. You're not going to get that in an auditing room. You're going to get lots of games in an auditing room, but you're not going to get several million years' worth.
And when you finally—when you finally get through with all of this, he can remember it, have that much experience and be much brighter than he ever was before he started playing all these games. So what did he lose? We're here.
The reason why phrenology never changed the IQ of a human being is

165

166

2 SEPTEMBER 1956
because they couldn't worsen it. It doesn't worsen! If they had ever tried to better anybody's IQ, they would have found out that was one of the easiest things there is to do. It tells you which direction they were going. Game dramatization—that sort of thing is a dramatization, don't you see? It's not a study, it's dramatizing study.
And so, it's very difficult to make anybody worse. It's very easy to make them better. All you have to do is change somebody. To change somebody is to make him change in the direction of good, better, and he changes. Make him in the direction of bad and he doesn't change.
Now, that's horrible, and I'm sorry and I'm sorry if it violates the favor-ite tale we used to tell of the little, sweet, innocent sixteen-year old girl who goes out and takes her first drink, meets a guy, he ruins her, he wrecks her life, and so forth, and that is what is wrong with her. I am sorry if it wrecks this kind of a myth. Boy, was she looking for it! You got the idea?
It is so simple, so basically simple to make a person better; it is so diffi-cult to make him worse. The direction that has to be gone is the direction of "toward better" or "toward good." And as that is simpler, it would take a simple-minded fellow such as myself to ever try to go in that direction, it'd be probably because he was too dumb or too lazy to go in the other direction, and that's why we've won.
This whole subject of brainwashing is the greatest hoax of modern times. I hate to have to tell you that, because look at what an exciting game we had all mocked up about it. I wouldn't tell the government down here. Say, "Brain-washing, oh!"
The government shouldn't be robbed of a game like that. It would take us to do it and unfortunately we would be able to mop it up, so of what importance is it? You can't threaten a man with a disease for which there is an instant cure. The funny part of it is that if you really did this type of brainwash of which I am speaking well and thoroughly, he'd probably feel better.
What you do is give him a total amnesia, that's a brainwash, you see. And he wouldn't have any wife to worry about and he wouldn't have any old games to worry about and he wouldn't have anything to worry about and he'd go out and he'd say, "Huh! Oh, what a nice world. I wonder where I got this body? Says here my name is Joe. Well, this is a funny kind of a way to come in, I—but I—here I am. I wonder if I will get educated again?" I mean it'd be this kind of thing. He'd just be in a total amnesia, that's all.
Scientologist would get hold of him, have him pull at least one little image picture out before and a little image picture afterwards and a picture before and a picture afterwards and a picture before and a picture after-wards, and pictures—sluuuuup-urp! He'd say, "Oh, shucks! She nags all the time."
I'll tell you what's serious. I'll tell you what's serious, is having no game at all. That's serious—having nothing at all to do, having no purpose or direc-tion. And having to sit with your existing aberrations inactive! In other words, the state the human race is in right now and from which we are trying very successfully to rescue it.
Thank you.

DEMONSTRATION
OF SCS
An auditing demonstration given on 2 September 1956
Thank you very much.
You've had some announcements and the third day of the congress draws to a close. I've been practicing that way of speaking. The third day of the congress draws to a close. The Committee on Future Programs, Scientology material will be made known to you tomorrow. They have been, I hope, very productive, and I hope they'll be more productive this evening.
But one of the things about Scientology is that its future programs are being lived through right now. One of the very interesting points is the amount of future that was mocked up in 1950 that actually materialized.
Well, I haven't anything to talk to you about. As a matter of fact, that's why I'm filling in with platitudes. And you just think it's a gag right now that I don't have anything to talk to you about but it's an absolute fact. I haven't got a thing. Told you all there is to know about havingness. Told you all there is to know about games. You're getting all there is to know about indoctrination—ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
You know, when the—when the people take this ACC that's starting on October the 15th, they will have had to have been through HCA indoctrina¬tion. I hope that they will have made that a fact by that time, because in the ACC we run an Indoctrination Course right along with the course.
We have what's known as High School Indoctrination. First thing you do in High School Indoctrination is you take the auditor all apart and throw the parts around. Leave him nothing to think with and make him reassemble them. First thing we do is ruin all of his early auditing ability. We ruin him— finish him. Done. Isn't that a terrible thing? It's a terrible thing.
The only reason we do a thing like that actually is because in the old days a fellow used to learn how to fly and he'd fly with one wing just a little bit low. He learned how to fly that way. Felt natural on the seat of his pants! And he'd eventually get an airline job and . . . No, we want nothing but good auditors in that unit, but it's a fact that there is such a thing as High School Indoctrination.
There is also some other material that we might by that time have suffi¬ciently well organized to part with. But I've actually given you right now all there is to know. There's hardly anything else I have to cover now.
Actually, it's the truth. I mean, I haven't another thing to tell you.
Let's see, who looks restimulated here? Who looks restimulated?
I'm going to show you how to audit. Okay?

167

2 SEPTEMBER 1956

168

Audience: Yes!
This is rough. I want a volunteer.
Audience: Oh! Oh!
Male voice: Looks like you got one.
You're not going to volunteer?
Good boy. Thank you Carl, I thought you would. That would be terrific.
Carl, one of the reasons why I was going to give you a little session here, was because I knew it wouldn't be restimulative to you.
Male voice: Thank you.
Actually, only a military man can appreciate this particular process that I'm going to show you this evening. You want to really see a process, now, huh?
Audience: Yeah, sure.
You want to see a process that is as modern as 1958, huh?
Audience: Yes.
All right. This is a mild version of rougher processes, but I'm going to show you a process known as SCS—Start, Change and Stop. Okay?
Audience: Okay. Good.
Now, what I'm going to do—what I'm going to do here is from—in about two seconds, just ignore the audience entirely. And I'm simply going to give him a very serious little session on SCS. Okay?
Audience: Okay.
I'm not going to audit him very long on it since it would start to be restimulative after a little while. But we will just show you how this is done. Okay?
Audience: Okay.



LRH: All right. How are you, Carl? PC: Fine.
LRH: Good. Carl, there's a little process here that is a drill.
PC: Yes, Sir.
LRH: It's a drill. All right. Okay. And you don't mind us doing a little bit of auditing here, huh?
PC: Not a bit, no. Not at all.
LRH: Good. Good. Well, I hate to ask you if you've got an auditing room.
PC: Boy, I've got a big one. Lots of space.
LRH: All right. And you've got an auditor?
PC: I do.
LRH: Have I got a preclear?
PC: You do.

LRH: Well, very, very good. This little
practice here is supposed to work over body control. That is, to put the preclear into better control of his body. And it consists of a little drill, actually three little drills, that are very simple. But all it consists of is I am going to ask you to start the body, you see?
PC: Right.
LRH: I'm going to ask you to start the body and you just start it. When I ask you to start the body, why you start it, okay?
PC: Got it.
LRH: And then there we are.
PC: Okay.
LRH: But I'm not going to ask you, by the
way, to stop it, slow it down or anything. After you've started the body, why, I will tell you, "Very well."
PC: Okay.
LRH: And then we'll practice that again. All right. Is that a session?

DEMONSTRATION OF SCS

PC: Yes, it is. LRH: All right. Okay. PC: Sounds fine.
LRH: Fine. How about you standing right there now.
Okay. Start the body.
Good. Good. That's fine. That's fine. PC: Okay.
LRH: Did you start the body? PC: I did. LRH: You did? PC: Yes.
LRH: Well that's very, very good. Very good. Now, once more I'm going to ask you to start the body and when I tell you "Start the body," you start the body. All right?
Okay. Now, start the body.
Good. Good. That's very, very good. That's very good. Did you start the body?
PC: I've got some doubts.
LRH: Okay. Well, we're getting somewhere. All right. Stand right there now, and when I ask you to start the body, why, you start the body. All right?
Okay. Start the body.
All right, that's fine. That's fine. Did you start the body?
PC: As far as that particular set of actions is concerned, I started the body, yes.
LRH: What's the reservation on, anything in particular?
PC: Start with connection of time of getting the body here and so forth.
LRH: I see.

PC: As far as the time from your command on, I started the body into the actions that were visible and were different from those that took place before.
LRH: All right. Then you did start the body?
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. Did—in that degree you did?
PC: Right. I'm...
LRH: All right. That's all right. That's fine. That's fine.
PC: . . . fine on that. Okay.
LRH: That's fine. All right. Now. Now once
more, when I ask you to start the body, why, you start the body, okay?
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. Start the body.
PC: All right.
LRH: Okay, that's fine. Did you start the body?
PC: I did.
LRH: You did. All right. Apparent to me that you did.
PC: Fine.
LRH: All right. Good.
PC: Good. I like this agreement.
LRH: Okay. I didn't have a thing to do with it.
PC: No.
LRH: All right.
Now, once more, once more, once more, I'm going to ask you to start the body, and you start the body.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Okay, start the body.
PC: All right.

169

2 SEPTEMBER 1956

170

LRH: Good. Well, how was that?
PC: Good, frankly.
LRH: Is that better?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Well, all right, you started the body.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Is that right?
PC: I did.
LRH: Is that a little bit better than it was?
PC: Mm-rnrn.
LRH: Well, okay. All right. Now, once more, I'm going to ask you to start the body and you start the body. All right?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: Okay. Start the body.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Good. Did you start the body?
PC: Yeah, I did.
LRH: All right. Well that's fine. That'll do for a demonstration a little bit. Be all right with you if we just level it off at that point?
PC: Yeah. That's fine.
LRH: Huh? And you're doing all right?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Okay, now . . .
PC: I'm waiting to start marching, frankly.
LRH: Yes.
PC: Oh, it's there. No problem.
LRH: Yeah—yeah, all right. Okay, well, just
for the record, we just wanted you to get the body started so we'd sort of have a session started. But this next one, I would like to have you stop the body in a drill.

PC: All right.
LRH: It's a little drill that runs like this: We get the body moving over in that direction, and when I say "Stop," why, you stop the body. Is that. . .
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right, that's the way it goes. All right, get the body moving in that direction.
Stop.
You get that military one? That's better. PC: Hup, two!
LRH: Yeah, yeah, that's good. All right, once more, once more, we're going to practice stopping the body. Is that okay?
PC: Yeah. LRH: Hm?
PC: That's real good. Yeah, I'm with you.
LRH: By the way, it'd be very amusing to you, perhaps to others, that I would just tell a preclear this at this point. I mean, this is not just a demonstration.
PC: Okay, all right.
LRH: I was running a Grenadier Guard on "Stop the body" and he'd come along and he'd stop! Three paces. All right.
PC: I know just how he felt too.
LRH: All right, all right. Now, let's get the body moving and when I say "Stop," why you see—stop. All right? Get the body moving.
Stop.
Good. Did you stop the body? PC: / did. First time in a long time!
LRH: All right. Now let's try that once more. I'm going to ask you to get the body moving over there, and at some point I will ask you to stop, and you stop. All right?

DEMONSTRATION OF SCS

PC: Ml right.
LRH: Okay. Get the body moving. Stop. Okay.
PC: I'm almost at the point where I don't have to.
LRH: Almost—oh, really! All right. Now once more, I'm going to ask you to get the body moving in that direction.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right, when I say "Stop," you stop. Okay. Get the body moving.
Stop. That's good! That's good! That's real good! That's very good!
PC: Yeah, it sure is. LRH: I saw you do that. PC: Yup, I did it.
LRH: All right. Now once more, once more, we're going to ask you to get the body moving in that direction and when I say "Stop," stop. Okay? Very good. Very good. You feeling all right?
PC: Fine, yeah.
LRH: All right. Good. Get the body moving.
Stop. Very good. Very good. Very good indeed.
PC: Maybe I'll even be able to run 8-C now.
LRH: Well, I'll let you in on something. If you were to run this process on a person that hadn't had—that was having a rough time and you didn't have 8-C flat on them—this looks awful innocent what we're doing up here. But for your particular benefit, just your information . . .
PC: All right.
LRH: ... if there's any doubt in your mind about a case, don't run this on them.
PC: Okay, all right.

LRH: This process has more beef per square inch than you can shake a stick at even though it's very simple. I'm not asking you to now—to expect anything more from the process than what we're just doing. But I'm just telling you the reason I called you out of the front row is I knew you wouldn't splatter yourself all over the stage.
PC: Thank you.
LRH: All right, now, I'm going to ask you to get the body moving over in that direction and when I say "Stop," you stop. Good?
PC: Good.
LRH: All right. Get the body moving.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Stop. Very, very good! Very good. That's fine. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Now, did you stop the body?
PC: / did!
LRH: Good. That's fine. That's fine. All right, now once more, once more, I'm going to ask you to get the body moving and when I ask you to stop, you stop. Okay? All right. Get the body moving.
Stop. Very good, very good, very good. Thank you. Did you stop the body?
PC: / did.
LRH: Good. What's ... How you doing?
PC: Feels flat frankly.
LRH: Feel flat?
PC: No, I mean, feels like the process is—has come to the point where I'm stopping my body.
LRH: Well, very good. Very good. Now, you don't mind if we continue the process?
PC: No. No.
LRH: This isn't an invalidation, you know. PC: Not a bit, no, uh-uh.

171

2 SEPTEMBER 1956

LRH: They just haven't seen it enough.
PC: All right—never sneak up on a preclear, he said.
LRH: Okay. By the way, do you notice
I am touching the preclear's elbow occasionally steadying him down and so on? You'll find that it does maintain ARC after the preclear stops flinching. Don't refrain from doing it these days because it isn't a particularly bad boo-boo.
All right, now once more I'm going to ask you to get the body moving and when I say "Stop," you stop. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right. Get the body moving.
Stop! Very good. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Did you stop it?
172 PC: Yes, I did.
LRH: You just knew you stopped it. PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: Well, all right. Well, all right. You feeling all right about this?
PC: Mm-hm, I am. LRH: How are you doing? PC: Well.
LRH: Well. Good. All right. Now once
more let's get the body moving in that direction and when I say "Stop," you stop it. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: You get the command now. When / say "Stop," you stop it.
PC: Right.
LRH: All right.
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: Good. Let's get the body moving.
Stop. All right. Good. Good. Let's turn it around.

PC: Okay.
LRH: All right, now once more, I'm going to ask you to get the body moving; when I say "Stop," you stop it. Okay?
PC: You desire that I stop at any particular time span following your command?
LRH: I desire you to stop when you know you're stopping the body.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Got it? When you know you're
stopping the body. There isn't any drill here where I expect this to get into a perfectly rigid wham! You see? It'll do that soon enough. Okay.
All right, let's get the body moving. PC: All right.
LRH: Stop! Did you stop your body? PC: I did.
LRH: You did. You did stop your body? PC: Yes.
LRH: Okay. All right. Now you—are you going a little bit further to make sure that you stopped it?
PC: I didn't, but I can. LRH: No, I'm not asking you to. PC: No, I stopped it.
LRH: You stopped it. All right. Now, once
more, it's all right if you continue this process a little bit?
PC: Yep. LRH: Hm? Hm? PC: Yep.
LRH: Is there any—have you—have you recalled any naval marching, and so forth as we have been doing this?
PC: Which life? LRH: That's very good.

DEMONSTRATION OF SCS

PC: Yes, I have. Which life? Yeah, I've had all sorts of it.
LRH: Yes.
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: All right.
PC: A lot of it in front of audiences like this.
LRH: No kidding?
PC: Kind of afraid of those walls.
LRH: Good. All right. Now, once more. When I ask you to get the body moving, why, you get it moving and when I say "Stop," why, you stop the body. Is that all right?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right, get the body moving. Stop! Okay.
All right. Let's turn it around. Good. And once more when I ask you to get the body moving—when I ask, you get the body moving and when I say "Stop," you stop it. All right?
PC: Right.
LRH: That okay with you? You're doing all right?
PC: Yep.
LRH: All right. I don't expect anything to happen.
PC: Well, I don't but, I'm not sure yet.
LRH: All right. All right.
PC: A lot already has happened.
LRH: All right. Let's get the body moving.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Stop. Good. Good. Fine. All right, turn it around. Now, once more, let's get the body moving. When I say "Stop," stop it. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right, get the body moving.

PC: All right.
LRH: Stop! Good. I like that one, two.
PC: I stopped it.
LRH: But you did stop it. You know you stopped it.
PC: Right.
LRH: All right. All right. You stopped it.
PC: In fact, I'm rather enjoying that part,
because before tonight, I had to stop that way.
LRH: No kidding.
PC: Oh Lord, touch a wall. One, two.
LRH: Is that right?
PC: They know.
LRH: Yeah, all right. All right, once more,
when I ask you to get the body moving, I want you to get it moving and when I say "Stop," you stop it. All right?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: Good. All right, get the body moving. Stop. Did you stop it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Good. Good. That's all right. All right. And you don't mind if we continue this process a little bit?
PC: No.
LRH: Do you? Audience: No.
LRH: All right. Now, I'm going to ask you once more to get the body moving, and when I say "Stop," why you stop the body. All right?
PC: Right.

173

2 SEPTEMBER 1956

174

LRH: Good. Get the body moving.
Stop. Good. All right. That's very, very good. That's very good. Fine. You stopped it, huh?
PC: / stopped it.
LRH: You know you stopped it that time. Didn't you?
PC: Yes, Sir.
LRH: Your—you have a good certainty.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: Are you still worried about something that might happen?
PC: No.
LRH: Did you stop worrying about it just
now? You were worrying about it here just a moment ago. That's why . . .
PC: We were talking about it then. LRH: We were talking about it then.
PC: That was when you promised that
nothing was going to happen and I've learned to doubt you.
LRH: All right. All right. Well, I didn't-I
didn't particularly want to upset you by carrying you on too far in the process, you see.
PC: No, I don't feel that I have been.
LRH: No, well, that's all right. Okay, well, let's turn the body around and you feel—you feel this is pretty flat?
PC: / don't feel it's as flat as I thought it was about five minutes ago.
LRH: So you think we really ought to continue it a little bit?
PC: I think we can. We can leave it. It's . . . LRH: It's all right to leave it. PC: Yeah, it's all right to leave it.
LRH: You don't think we ought to continue it a little bit?

PC: Anytime I can get you to process me, we should go on and on and on.
LRH: Okay. All right.
PC: I'll leave it up to your purposes of demonstration.
LRH: Well, all right. Now, just for the fun of it—just for the fun of it this time, you be very doubly sure that you stopped it. Okay?
PC: All right.
LRH: Anything that you have to do to make sure that you stopped it is quite important.
PC: All right.
LRH: All right. And I'm going to ask you "Get the body moving." When I say "Stop," you stop it. All right? Good. Get the body moving.
Stop. Okay. Did you stop it? PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. You did do that? PC: Yeah. LRH: Okay. What's the matter?
PC: You're trying to sneak me out of my head, too.
LRH: I wouldn't do a thing like that. PC: Not the first time.
LRH: Okay, and once more. When I ask you to get the body moving, why, you get it moving; when I say "Stop," you stop it.
PC: Right.
LRH: Good. And this time let's be real sure that you stopped it. That's good. Okay. All right. Get the body moving.
Stop. Very good. Very good. Very good. Did you stop it?
PC: Yes.

DEMONSTRATION OF SCS

LRH: Good. Well, fine. That's fine. Fine. And once more, this—when I ask you to get the body moving, you get it moving, when I say "Stop," you stop it. All right?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right. Get the body moving.
Stop. Good. Did you stop it? PC: Yes.
LRH: Well, very, very good. Very good. There's nothing wrong with that at all, is there?
PC: No, uh-uh. I'm enjoying it.
LRH: Good. Good. That's fine. That's fine. Of course, you guys think we ought to be doing something else up here. Preclear's still alive.
PC: Lucky!
LRH: But the actuality is—the actuality is what—how are you doing right here?
PC: Very well. I'm —you want me to tell them?
LRH: Yeah. Tell them.
PC: Well, I came up here with twelve or
fifteen years, that I'm real certain about in this lifetime—of military experience — eighteen, excuse me. And as I mentioned before when I made a stop, that—my own command or somebody else's — it was more on the military side than I knew about. This is gone now and I can now stop in a military fashion or not, by choice. Also, a lot of stuff has come off that's just ridges, so to speak.
LRH: Hm. Good. Good. That's very good. Now, you're—you haven't got a somatic or anything like that?
PC: No.
LRH: All right. All right. Good. Well, you want to do this a few more times?
PC: Sure.
LRH: Well, all right. All right. Now, I'm going to ask you to get the body moving and when I say "Stop," you stop it. Okay?

PC: All right.
LRH: All right. Get the body moving. Stop. Good. Good. Did you stop it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. Very good. Very good. Very
good. Now, once more, once more—we'll do it again. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right, when I ask you to get the body moving, you get it moving and then when I say "Stop," you stop it. Okay?
PC: Right.
LRH: All right. Get the body moving.
Stop. Good. How's that?
PC: Good.
LRH: Did you stop it?
PC: Yes, I did.
LRH: You know you stopped it.
PC: / know I stopped it.
LRH: You know you stopped it very absolutely.
PC: Yes.
LRH: How do you feel about it?
PC: Good.
LRH: Good.
PC: Very pleased.
LRH: You don't feel upset about anything, huh? You did a moment a—about four commands ago there, didn't you, a little bit?
PC: Yeah, uh-huh.
LRH: What did you feel upset about?
PC: / don't know, I was queasy.
LRH: Isn't that interesting.
PC: Huh-ha.

175

2 SEPTEMBER 1956

176

LRH: All right. All right. Well, that isn't really a thorough run on this. But, there is another one that I would like you to do. You want to do this just a couple more times and then switch to the other one?
PC: It's all right to leave this now or we can do it a couple more times.
LRH: Well, is it all right to leave it now?
PC: Yeah. Uh-huh.
LRH: It really is?
PC: Oh, yeah.
LRH: All right. And you're doing all right?
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. Well, then I'd like to run
another process that has to do with the same thing. This process I'm running on you is actually the elementary SCS. There's another one called Stop-C-S which is quite distinctly different. It's not run any differently, but it is run with a bit more violence.
PC: Okay.
LRH: And we're not doing that one.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right.
PC: Saving it.
LRH: Yeah, no, I've not—really been saving one for you.
PC: All right.
LRH: This one this time is Change.
PC: All right.
LRH: Change. We're going to have three spots here. Okay? And one spot, we will call spot A. See. It'd be right in about here—area.
PC: Okay.

LRH: And we're going to have another area
over here that we're going to call spot B. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: And we're going to have another one
over here that we're going to call spot C. And we're going to have another one over here that we call spot D.
PC: All right.
LRH: And it's run this way: I'm going to ask you to change the body's position on command and it will be from that spot to that spot, you see? And then we will do it again and change over to that spot. And we do it again and change over to that spot and so forth. The—to the spot which is called—we won't necessarily do it in a diamond pattern, you see.
PC: Oh, good. A, B, C, D, right? LRH: It's A, B, C, D. Got it? PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right, let's take on position A here. Now, I'll show you exactly how this is done: Is I will ask you to change the body and actually I will say "When I say change the body, I want you to change the body's position from A to B." That would be it. And when I'd say that, then you would move from here over to here. Now, don't think that I'm considering you a dumb preclear by explaining this.
PC: No, all right.
LRH: That's what we know as changing the body's position from there to there.
PC: Right.
LRH: All right, well, let's take spot A again, and let's really run it this time.
PC: Okay.
LRH: And I'm going to ask you to change the body and when I do that, I want you to change the body's position from A to B. Okay?
PC: Right.
LRH: All right. You got that real flat?
PC: Yeah.

DEMONSTRATION OF SCS

LRH: All right. Change the body's position. Good, good, good. You did that very well.
PC: Thank you.
LRH: You do that very well.
All right, now there's spot C over there. Now, when I ask you to change the— change the body, I want you to change the body's position from B to C. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right. That's very clear, huh? All right. Change the body. That's good. That's good. Did you do that?
PC: Yes.
LRH: All right. Now, you understand the command, I want you to change this, see?
PC: Yes. It's coming through to me. Yeah.
LRH: Well, I'm saying that—I'm not saying that in criticism of what you're doing. I merely want to punch up the fact that I am asking you . . .
PC: Right.
LRH: ... to change the body's position. I'm not asking for the body's position to change, not because I would necessarily not, or be able to change the body's position myself. But unless we picked up some awareness with this, at the same time, I'm afraid we could run this all night and you wouldn't have the slightest.
PC: Yes.
LRH: See, power of choice has got to come in here.
PC: Yeah. LRH: Okay? PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right. Now, when I ask you to change the body this time, I want you to change the body's position from C to D. Okay?

PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. Change the body. Good, good, good.
PC: / did it.
LRH: That's very good. You did it.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: You did it.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: You know you did it.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right, now once more. Once more.
Now, when I ask you to change the body I want you to change the body's position from D to A.
PC: Good.
LRH: Okay. All right. Change the body.
Okay. Did you do that? PC: Yeah.
LRH: What's the matter? PC: Feels different when I do it!
LRH: All right. All right. Now, once more I'm going to ask you to—when I say "Change the body," why, I want you to change the body's position from A to C. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right, change the body.
Did you? PC: I did.
LRH: Good, all right. All right, that's very good. Are you doing all right?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: I mean, this brings on no dizziness or anything of any character?
PC: Not a bit.

177

2 SEPTEMBER 1956

178

LRH: Because I will guarantee to you, folks, that this is not the most therapeutic of these three commands.
PC: No, it doesn't bother me at all.
LRH: All right. Okay.
PC: And I'll tell you if it does.
LRH: Very good, very good, very good. All right. Now, once more I want you to go through this. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: As a matter of fact we can go through it just two more commands.
PC: All right. LRH: All right? PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: And then we've got one to return to that we were doing before.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. Now when I ask you to change the body's—change the body, I want you to change the body's position from C to D. Okay? All right, change the body.
That upset you? PC: No. Not at all. LRH: All right. Change the body.
Got it?
PC: Mm-hm. LRH: All right. PC: I didn't do that one. LRH: You didn't do that one? PC: Uh-uh. I just sort of went along with it.
LRH: Well, you want to do this a couple more times?
PC: All right. Be a good idea.
LRH: All right. Now, this time I'm going to

ask you to change the body and I want you to change the body's position from A to C. All right?
PC: Right.
LRH: Good. All right. Change the body. Did you?
PC: Yes, I did.
LRH: Oh, you did! All right, now this time I'm going to ask you to change the body, and I want you to change the body from C to A. Okay?
PC: Okay. Mm-hm.
LRH: All right, change the body.
Good. How's that?
PC: Fine. Feel good.
LRH: That was pretty good, huh?
PC: Yeah. I did it.
LRH: You did it. You did that real good.
PC: Yes, I did.
LRH: Well, all right now, do you suppose we could consider that flat?
PC: Sure. LRH: Huh? PC: Yeah.
LRH: We can knock off that particular process.
Is it all right with you if I make a few remarks to the audience concerning the process?
PC: Certainly.
LRH: Okay. Now, that in essence is simple
SCS. It's very simple. You would run it at the beginning of a session to get the preclear in-session.
Now the funny part of it is, if I asked Carl right now whether or not the auditing room was more real to him, I could tell you pretty sure what he'd answer.
PC: Yes!

DEMONSTRATION OF SCS

LRH: Uh-huh. Very definitely. PC: It's real real. I'm here.
LRH: You're here, and is your auditor a little more . . .
PC: Yeah.
LRH: .. . squared around? How about you? You're here.
PC: I feel quite a sense of elation . . . LRH: Good!
PC: ... from knowing that I have run the body once in a while.
LRH: All right, all right, all right! In other words, in addition to starting a session which is the basic use of Start, Change and Stop—which is run in almost any order, except Stop first. You wouldn't run SCS with Stop first. That makes it a different process entirely—we then have been able to start a session. Do you see this? We have a preclear in good shape then. And we could run him very easily on processes which he ordinarily might not get much gain on, you see? And we could just run that to start a session with, to get a session started.
Now, you understand that it's awfully good as a sort of an 8-C, but it's an introverted process. It is not an extrovert process at all. 8-C is an extrovert process. Walk over to the wall and touch it. You know, that's a wall! That isn't what he's doing at all. He's walking a body around here, and he's actually right up against the bank when he's doing this. See that? He had marching and all kinds of things mixed up in that.
Well, there are other processes to run. You could have him run processes of a very modern nature, yeah, after this. But the preclear would be sufficiently in-session so that if anything happened untoward, the auditor would have no great difficulty snapping him back into session again. Do you follow that? He wouldn't have a lot of difficulty snapping him back into session again because the preclear already knows he is running the body. He isn't under

some kind of a quasi belief that the auditor is stuck in his head, too. You see this? It's kind of the way it feels.
All right, now that would be the process I would recommend to you to start your sessions with. Got that very clearly? I would recommend that process to you on any preclear to start the sessions with. And I'll show you a couple of minor points here—is it all right? And these are simply this.
We walk with the preclear. You see this. We walk along with the preclear. We don't let him get too far ahead of us. You see that? In other words, don't get that terminal too far apart, see? Another thing, we touch the preclear every now and then. Because we have to keep the preclear slightly extroverted. We make him aware of the auditor by tactile. Now a lot of preclears—go ahead and flinch. That's too good a flinch! Much too good a flinch!
Now, let me show you something. Did you notice that even though he went away from me I still kept hold of his elbow?
Now, jerk the elbow away and say that you don't like people touching you.
PC: / don't like people touching me. LRH: Oh, well, that's all right. PC: You won't get far!
LRH: Well, I know, but-that's one of the
things that happens with this process. You really get over that sort of thing, you know? Smooth, huh?
PC: Smooth as butter.
LRH: But, I'll tell you something. If your preclear continues to have a tactile difficulty with you as the auditor, he hasn't got an auditor. Follow me? If a preclear is always afraid that the auditor is going to touch him in some little fashion, what do you think he thinks about his bank and the auditor touching it? He's going as far as his mind is concerned—flinch, flinch. You see? And he finds out that he doesn't get bitten, but he also finds out that he doesn't get loose.
That's right, isn't it?

179

2 SEPTEMBER 1956

180

PC: Yes.
LRH: The way you handle that is although you touch him on the elbow, you will find that there is a bending joint on the elbow right there, and even though he can jerk a little bit out of it so you don't want to crush him, you're right there again, because he can't jerk his arm very fast that way. He has a tendency to have to turn his body in order to get free from you, do you see? So this is just a little interesting point.
Another thing is, is why do you walk with a preclear? To give the auditor exercise, of course. No, there's an actual fact—there's an actual fact connected with it. I'll show you something.
All right, walk there. That's good. Walk there. Good. Walk there.
You don't like that, do you? PC: Uh-uh. No! There's been a change. LRH: Been a change, hasn't it! PC: Yes.
LRH: Look at that! Why? There's no mimicry! You see? No mimicry at all. And so, there really is no good communication between the auditor and the preclear.
Did I ruin you completely by doing that? PC: No.
LRH: Actually, if you did that to somebody who was real flighty, they would get real flighty.
All right, now listen. PC: Yes, Sir.
LRH: I want to show them another process . . . PC: "Sir," I said it too. LRH: Huh? PC: I said, "Sir."
LRH: Oh, that's good, that's good. That's all right—carry on here.

All right. This I am going to show them is Stop-C-S. You don't run "C" until Stop is flat. If you—this won't happen to you—but if you had to scrape your preclear off the ceiling or something as a result of doing this, remember Ron said, "Take Indoctrination before you run Stop-C-S," okay? I think some of the HGC auditors over there will tell you something about this since I think they've had two or three blowups here that they have handled very adequately. You understand, when the preclear blows up in this, he would blow up anywhere—sometime. But he blows up—he gets it over with and he practically blows Clear, because he comes out of the central engram he's held in.
Well, we're not trying to do that to you. PC: Okay. LRH: But...
PC: / know you're encouraging me —you're discouraging me.
LRH: No, no I'm not trying to encourage you to do anything. I'm just telling these characters that I've—I'm being a good guy and I'm showing them a very recent process.
PC: Okay.
LRH: And I'm also hanging a little tag on it that says "Danger, 10,000 volts."
PC: Body?
LRH: "Call the undertaker." No, I don't think it will kill anybody if you're a good auditor.
All right. This is Stop-C-S. PC: Right.
LRH: And when I ask you to get the body moving, I want you to get the body moving over there. And when I ask you to stop the body, you stop it as still as you can, as quick as you can and hold it absolutely still.
Audience: Phew!

DEMONSTRATION OF SCS

LRH: You got it? PC: Uh-huh. LRH: You got it.
PC: Yeah, as quick as I can, as still as I can and hold it absolutely still.
LRH: That's right!
PC: All right.
LRH: That's right.
PC: And I do it.
LRH: You do it!
PC: All right.
LRH: You do it. All right. Now, you got it? All right. Now, all I'm going to tell you is just "Stop."
All right, get the body moving.
Stop. That's right, that's right. Did you do it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Did you manage it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Is the heart still beating?
PC: I didn't go into those minor details.
LRH: Oh, well. We'll get into this in a minute. All right, all right. It's okay, it's okay. You did well, you did well. All right, now I want you to get the body moving and when I say "Stop," you stop it as quick as you can—you doing it. And hold it absolutely still. Okay, you got that?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right, get the body moving. Stop. Okay, how was that?
PC: I don't know what happened to the heart that time.
LRH: You don't, huh. Were you satisfied though the body was still?

PC: Yeah. I have a reservation here. LRH: What?
PC: If you stop me off balance I'm not going to freeze and fall. In other words, if you said "Stop" when I was like so, oh, Jesus!
LRH: Well, these are your own considerations. I mean I'm not—I'm just saying—just-no responsibility, no responsibility. Okay, all right. Now once more . . .
PC: Really.
LRH: Let's go through that same one. All right, get the body moving.
Stop. Good. Well, how do you think you did that time?
PC: Pretty well. LRH: Pretty well.
PC: I'm not ready to hang it there off balance yet.
LRH: Oh, do you understand there might be a possibility that you could?
PC: Yeah, definitely.
LRH: You all of a sudden recognized that.
PC: That was last time, this was that light I was turning on.
LRH: Oh, I see. He recognizes that you might stop a body that way without falling on its face. That's pretty good.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: That's pretty good. All right. Once more I'm going to ask you to get the body moving, you get it moving, and when I say "Stop," you stop it as quick as you can and hold it absolutely still. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: Good, good. All right, get the body moving.
Stop! Okay, how's that? PC: Kind of shaky.

181

2 SEPTEMBER 1956

182

LRH: Oh, it was shaking.
PC: No, it's quivering slightly.
LRH: Quivering.
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: All right.
PC: Apparently it was a lot of effort tied into it.
LRH: That's an interesting thing. I don't care how much effort goes into it. You don't either. I mean, so what? What do you think about it? Is your critical level on how still "still" is, is suddenly risen. Is that right? Is that what's happening?
PC: Something in here. Yeah. Ten minutes ago, I would have said that I'd stopped four times and my body was getting tired of holding itself, but now I doubt it.
LRH: Yeah? All right, all right, all right.
Once more let's get the body moving and when I say "Stop," why, you stop— you stop the body as quick as you can and know that you stopped it of course, and hold it absolutely still. Okay?
All right. Get it moving.
Stop! Good, it's good. That's good. Did a little better that time.
PC: Mm-hm. Yeah. My eyeballs stopped twitching, too.
LRH: All right, all right. Let's try it again. PC: All right.
LRH: Let's try it again. Okay. That's real
good. Now once more, I'm going to ask you to get the body moving, when I say "Stop," why, you stop it as quick as you can and hold it absolutely still. All right?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right. What's the matter.
PC: I'm thinking of Elizabeth.
LRH: Yeah?

PC: New Jersey.
LRH: Yeah?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: What about it?
PC: Oh, some conversations were going through my mind, frankly. I'm back now.
LRH: What was the matter? What about them?
PC: Oh, it was a whole string of stuff came off there on Dianetics.
LRH: What was it? What did it connect with?
PC: Oh, para-Scientology these days —para-Dianetics in those days.
LRH: Yeah.
PC: Two pencils, a train went by, a
conversation we had at breakfast the other day or lunch the other day.
LRH: Good. Swish, swish. PC: Yeah.
LRH: Well, all right. Well, all right. Okay. You all set now?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right. Let's get the body moving. Stop! Okay. How are you making it? PC: Good. LRH: Was that better? PC: Yes, it was. Uh-huh.
LRH: All right, all right. Good, good, good. All right, once more, I'm going to ask you to get the body moving and when I say "Stop," you stop it as quick as you can—knowing you stopped it—and hold it absolutely still. Okay?
PC: Okay.
LRH: Now, we can actually consider that a
sort of a condensed command, can't we? When you stop it as quick as you can, you also stop it as still as you can.

DEMONSTRATION OF SCS

PC: Right.
LRH: Got the idea?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right, get it moving.
Stop! Okay, all right, all right. Did you do it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You did it. That's a boy, that's a boy. You got a quiver on it?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: Hm?
PC: Coming up.
LRH: Yeah?
PC: A little stronger. I...
LRH: The quiver is stronger . . .
PC: . . . see, I feel a little quiver in the right knee there.
LRH: .. . the quiver is stronger?
PC: Yes.
LRH: Oh, no.
PC: Oh, yes.
LRH: Now look, if you think I'm trying to get you to blow or do something like that just for the audience benefit, I'm not.
PC: No, I know it.
LRH: I'm not. But I will tell you confidentially, that preclears sometimes sit on a rest point surrounded by a lot of motion, and they sometimes come off of them. I don't know what happens when they come off of them but you're ...
PC: I'm in good hands. LRH: You're in good hands. PC: All right, okay.

LRH: All right, all right, once more, I'm going to ask you to get the body moving and when I say "Stop," you stop it. Okay? All right. Does a naval valence have anything to do with this?
PC: No, not much navy here. LRH: Not much navy—what is here?
PC: While you were talking then, I had quite a pain coming up through here.
LRH: Is that right?
PC: Not to mention any old spear wounds. It feels a hell of a lot like it.
LRH: All right.
PC: / won't go into details.
LRH: All right. Now, once more let's go
through the same one. All right? Get the body moving, and when I say "Stop," you stop it as quick as you can and hold it absolutely still. Actually, I might even amend the auditing command there if it'd make better sense to you. Does it make good sense to you?
PC: Yeah. It seems to be perfectly fine.
LRH: All right, good. Well, get the body moving.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Stop. All right, how was that?
PC: Okay.
LRH: Did you make it better?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right.
PC: Also getting more used to the command.
LRH: Mm-hm.
PC: Uh—up till now I've been stopping
and holding it waiting for a command to let go.
LRH: Oh!
PC: I wasn't recognizing your okays and that sort of thing.

183

2 SEPTEMBER 1956

184

LRH: Oh, an acknowledgment suddenly hit. Good.
PC: Fine.
LRH: Good.
PC: Fine.
LRH: Good.
PC: Wonderful!
LRH: All right.
PC: That's what you mean, huh!
LRH: Yeah, that's what I mean. All right now, again, let's get the body moving and when I say "Stop," why, you stop it as quickly as you can and hold it absolutely still. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right, good. Just make sure you're doing it. You know? Understood? You understand that if you have to move a little further to make sure you're doing it, that's all right with me.
PC: Yeah, okay.
LRH: All right, get the body moving.
Stop! Okay. How was that?
PC: Good, much better.
LRH: Better? How's the quiver?
PC: It's the other knee.
LRH: Oh, it's the other knee!
PC: It isn't the quivering—it's just a shock in back.
LRH: Yeah.
PC: Balance, I don't know.
LRH: All right, all right.
Okay, you understand what we're doing up here?
Audience: Yes! Yeah!

LRH: You know what we're doing?
Audience: Yeah.
LRH: Do you really know what we're doing?
PC: Aren't they lucky.
Audience: No.
LRH: What do you think the common
denominator of every accident that a guy has ever been in is?
Audience: Stop. LRH: Hm? PC: Stop.
LRH: He depends on the physical universe to stop him all the time, doesn't he?
Audience: Yeah.
LRH: So he loses control of stop, doesn't he?
Audience: Yeah.
LRH: Because stop is bad, isn't it?
Audience: Uh-huh. Yeah.
LRH: Yet stop is part of start, change and stop, which is the three factors of control, isn't it?
Audience: Yeah. Yes.
LRH: How do you expect a guy to control anything if he can't stop things?
Audience: You can't.
LRH: All right—let's get to work.
Okay, now once more. Did that bother you?
PC: Mm-mm.
LRH: All right. Let's get the body moving and when I say "Stop," you stop it as quickly as you can and hold it that way. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right. What's the matter, you got a tummy diaphragm hitting you?

DEMONSTRATION OF SCS

PC: No - it's through there.
LRH: It's still through there? You've still got the same somatic.
PC: Right.
LRH: Hey, look, are you slacking off on the amount of effort you're using on that stuff?
PC: No.
LRH: You're not, you're not at all, huh? All
right, good. If it takes effort, you know, it takes effort.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right. All right, get the body moving.
Stop! Okay, how was that?
PC: Okay.
LRH: Did you do it?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You did it.
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: Still got a somatic?
PC: Mm, barely.
LRH: Barely! Oh, you mean something's
happening to the somatic? Aw, this is bad. You'll have to—have to invent some somatics.
PC: I think I have.
LRH: All right. Once more, let's get the body moving, when I say "Stop," you stop it, and having done so, why, make sure that the stop is sufficient so the body is absolutely still. You know, that's what I mean.
PC: After I make the stop, I check to make sure it's still.
LRH: That's right, that's right. Would you do that? I'm not—I'm changing the auditing command just a little bit but I'm just trying to communicate a better understanding.

PC: Okay.
LRH: All right, let's get the body moving.
Stop! Okay, how's that? PC: I didn't check afterwards. LRH: You didn't check. PC: Uh-uh.
LRH: Well, that's all right, all right. Let's try it again.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Let's try it again, let's do the same thing only let's make sure we check.
PC: All right.
LRH: All right, get the body moving.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Stop! All right. All right, you did it.
PC: Yeah.
LRH: You did it. Body seemed stiller than it was?
PC: Yes it did. Actually it's very difficult for me at least, to check — use a mental process immediately after making a hard stop. Ughhhhh! Why not!
LRH: Why not!
All right. Well, let's just do this a couple of more times. How's that somatic?
PC: Faint but there.
LRH: Faint but there. Well, now listen.
PC: It's standing still that gives it to me.
LRH: You really object to stopping the session after a couple of more times.
PC: No, I don't.
LRH: Standing still gives it to you?
PC: Yeah, I'm suspicious of what we've been stopping.

185

2 SEPTEMBER 1956

186

LRH: Oh!
PC: No, it's lack of effort I think.
LRH: Lack of effort.
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: You have a curiosity about what's wrong?
PC: No, uh-uh. I'm cur—I have a curiosity about what it is but not the detail of an incident or anything.
LRH: Well, all right. All right. Now I'm going to ask you to get the body moving and when I say "Stop," you stop it as quickly as you can, and hold it absolutely still. Got it?
PC: You want me to check this now?
LRH: Yes, and I sure want you to check it so you're satisfied. All right, let's get the body moving.
Stop! All right, what you got?
PC: After you stop it you don't need effort anymore.
LRH: Interesting, isn't it? PC: Yes, it is.
LRH: Interesting, yes! All right, well now, how's the somatic?
PC: A little heavier than it was last time.
LRH: Oh! Heavier! That's all right. We can take care of that.
PC: All right.
LRH: All right, now once more let's—we'd
better run it, oh, about three, four more times, huh?
PC: All right.
LRH: All right, now once more, let's get the body moving; when I say "Stop," why, you stop it as quickly as you can, and hold it absolutely still and find out if you did. Okay?
PC: Okay.

LRH: All right, let's get the body moving.
Stop! How'd that seem to you? PC: / did it. LRH: You did it. You did it all right.
PC: And actually, this period of seconds
after I stopped, the somatic is completely gone.
LRH: And now, it's back again.
PC: Very — less—at a lesser rate however.
LRH: Well, all right. Let's do that again. I'm going to ask you to get the body moving, and when I say "Stop" . . .
Do you know why I'm repeating this auditing command to him every time? Do you know why?
Audience: No. Why?
LRH: Because it's a new instant of time.
We're not running a session dependent upon the first command I gave him.
PC: We couldn't run this with one command. LRH: That's right. It'd go blooey.
All right. Now, let's get the body moving and when I say "Stop," you stop, and then hold it absolutely still. All right? Good, let's get the body moving.
Stop! Okay, all right, all right. You did—you doing better on it?
PC: Oh, yeah.
LRH: You've still got a somatic, I suppose.
PC: No.
LRH: It's gone down, it's gone down
appreciably. All right, let's do it a couple of more times.
PC: All right.
LRH: I think we've got three more coming on this.
PC: Okay.

DEMONSTRATION OF SCS

LRH: We just may. All right now, I'm going to ask you to get the body moving—I want you to get it moving. When I ask you to stop, why, you stop, and hold it absolutely still. Stop it as quickly as possible and hold it absolutely still. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right, now, let's get the body moving.
Stop! All right, how's that? PC: Okay.
LRH: Pretty good? Pretty good? All right now once more, once more, I'm going to ask you to get the body moving, and when you get the body moving, I will say "Stop" somewhere along the line and when I say "Stop," I want you to stop the body as quickly as possible and hold it absolutely still. And then sort of check it to make sure you did it. Okay?
All right, good. Now, let's get the body moving.
Stop!
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right. How was that? PC: All right.
LRH: How's the self-critical factor here. You're doing better?
PC: Yeah, I think so. LRH: No quiver?
PC: No, the quiver's been gone for four or five times.
LRH: Just been gone, huh. How's the somatic? PC: Very faint. LRH: Too faint, huh?
PC: / don't—I don't think a few more would do it any good . . .
LRH: Oh, you think it's stuck now. Well, let's see—we did one, two; we got one more, one more.

All right. Now I'm going to ask you to get the body moving and when you get the body moving, I'm going to ask you to stop and when I say "Stop," I want you to stop the body as quickly as you can and then hold it absolutely still. Then check it and find out if you did it. Okay?
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right, get the body moving.
Stop! PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: You did it. All right, how are you feeling?
PC: Good.
LRH: Doing all right?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: Doing all right?
PC: Really am.
LRH: Okay, still got a somatic?
PC: Faint.
LRH: Faint somatic. Oh, all right. You're not having too rough a time of it.
PC: No, no — it's gone — it's gone.
LRH: Oh, no, no we're not worried about the people.
PC: All right.
LRH: Preclear, you're doing all right, though?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You still got a little somatic?
PC: Yes.
LRH: You got any tummy quiver?
PC: No.
LRH: Just a somatic goes with this.
PC: Mm-hm.

187

2 SEPTEMBER 1956

188

LRH: Well, can we consider this—it isn't and it wouldn't be for another ten to fifteen hours of processing—but you can consider this momentarily flat.
PC: Yes.
LRH: Momentarily flat, and you don't think it would be of any vast disturbance if we knocked it off. Huh?
PC: Oh, not a bit, no. LRH: You're doing all right. PC: Yeah.
LRH: You mind if we run another little
process which is a cute little gimmick process; it goes about five minutes. Huh?
PC: Sure.
LRH: Would you like to do that?
PC: Love to.
LRH: All right. Now, hand me his chair.
Okay, now I want you to sit down there. Would you please?
PC: Surely.
LRH: Okay. All I want you to do—this is a—this is a kind of a funny looking process and they're going to laugh like hell, but I want you to do this process anyway. You see we've got a little somatic and I want to clean it up fast.
PC: Okay. LRH: See?
And we're going to run a little process that's known as Curiosity.
PC: Okay.
LRH: And the only reason we're running Curiosity at all—don't you people do this by the way, just the preclear, you understand? The only reason we're going to do this is just to maybe knock out the somatic slightly.
PC: All right.

LRH: Or make it so horrible that you won't be able to sleep all night. No telling.
PC: Okay.
LRH: All right, now I want you to—actually what happens is I'm going to wiggle my hand, and I'm going to ask you to become curious about what I'm doing.
PC: Okay.
LRH: Got it? I'm going to ask you to become curious about what I'm doing. That's all there is to it.
PC: All right.
LRH: You just manage a curiosity about what I'm doing. Is that okay?
PC: Good.
LRH: All right.
Did you?
PC: Yep.
LRH: Did you really become curious about it?
PC: Yeah.
LRH: All right, how's that?
PC: Good!
LRH: Good. All right, now I'm going to ask you to become curious about this motion, and you do so. Okay?
PC: Mm-hm.
LRH: All right.
PC: Okay.
LRH: You did that?
PC: Yeah. You know, this is not flattering to the auditor. This is not flattering to you.
LRH: Why?
PC: To my curiosity — why would any so-and-so do a thing like that?
LRH: Pretty good! Pretty good.

DEMONSTRATION OF SCS

PC: It's good for somatics too.
LRH: That's very good. Huh?
PC: It's good for somatics too.
LRH: What happened to the somatic?
PC: It's gone completely.
LRH: No kidding.
PC: Uh-huh.
LRH: Well, all right! Why should we worry
about this.

PC: I'm through, if you are.
LRH: You all right then?
PC: Yeah, thank you very much.
LRH: Okay. Well, do you consider you've had any benefit from this session?
PC: Yes, I do, very much so.
LRH: You do. Do you think that they had any benefit from it?
PC: / don't even give a darn. LRH: End of session. End of session.



You'll have to give the man his chair back.
Well, that's it. That's Stop-C-S you just saw. Now, some of you who are new to Scientology might think that there was very little significance in this or that it smacked of drill parades or it smacked of something. But, by golly, there's one thing it doesn't smack of—mental healing. Primarily because it's very effective.
This little gadget—you want to turn off somebody's little somatics or stomach quivers, something like that, why, just tell him, "Become curious about it," and flap your hands at him, and it'll go.
Male voice: Sure will!
Ah, yeah well, I didn't have much to talk to you about this evening so I kind of filled in.
Thank you very much.

189



ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Throughout his lifetime, L. Ron Hubbard had a vast interest in the nature of man and how he reacted to others and the environment around him. His works express a firsthand knowledge of the nature of man —knowledge gained not from standing on the sidelines but through a lifelong experience with people from all walks of life.
He began his quest for knowledge on the nature of man at a very early age. By the age of eight he was already well on his way to being a seasoned traveler. His adventures included voyages to China, Japan and other points in the Orient and South Pacific, covering a quarter of a million miles by the age of nineteen. In the course of his travels he became closely acquainted with twenty-one different races and cultures all over the world.
In the fall of 1930, Ron pursued his studies of mathematics and engi¬neering, enrolling at George Washington University where he was also a member of one of the first American classes on nuclear physics. He realized that neither the East nor the West contained the full answers to the prob¬lems of existence. Despite all of mankind's advances in the physical sciences, a workable technology of the mind and life had never been developed. The mental "technologies" which did exist, psychology and psychiatry, were actu¬ally barbaric, false subjects—no more workable than the methods of jungle witch doctors. Ron shouldered the responsibility of filling this gap in the knowledge of mankind.
Financing his research through his fiction writing, he became one of the most prolific and well-known authors in the heyday of pulp adventure and science fiction in the 1930s and 1940s. His work and writing were inter¬rupted only by his service in the US Navy during World War II.
In 1950 when Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was pub-lished, it marked the beginning of a new era for man. The book became an instant bestseller and has remained so ever since. This was the first book of its kind—a practical book on the mind that any layman could read and apply and immediately experience increased awareness, relief from unwanted physical conditions and a new life. An excited public began to use the technol¬ogy of Dianetics processing daily as they audited each other with consistent successes and results. This was indeed a practical technology that anyone could use—something totally new to any past field of mental healing.
Ron maintained his practice of writing up each new discovery for others to use and apply while he pushed on with his own research into the realms of

191

192

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
the human spirit. From the breakthrough of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, he ascended into higher and higher uncharted realms of knowledge at a furious pace.
In his research, Ron discovered that during Dianetics processing many people contacted past lives as they searched for incidents which were causing them pain, psychosomatic illness or upset. Although he had not specifically instructed these people to look earlier than their present lifetime, earlier-life experiences began to appear in auditing sessions with regularity. It was this phenomenon that led him to the discovery that man is an immortal spirit who has inhabited many bodies through many lifetimes. His findings were verified by thousands of hours of processing on hundreds of individuals.
Ron's work did not stop with the success of Dianetics but accelerated, with new discoveries and breakthroughs a constant, normal occurrence. In his further research he discovered the very nature of life itself and its exact relationship to this universe. These discoveries led to his development of Scientology, the first workable technology for the improvement of conditions in any aspect of life. Meanwhile he continued to keep auditors abreast of his discoveries through bulletins, magazines, books and taped lectures.
In the fall of 1956 Ron traveled from London to Washington, DC, to deliver the Games Congress, held at the Shoreham Hotel. He gave thirteen hours of lectures and Group Processing to nearly 450 attendees, covering key data vital to success. Ron lectured on how life is a game and one has to address the games a 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.
Through the 1960s, 70s and into the 80s, he continued his research, writ-ing and overseeing the standard training of auditors, amassing an enormous volume of material totaling over 60 million words—recorded in books, manu-scripts and taped lectures. Today these works are studied and applied daily in hundreds of Scientology churches, missions and organizations around the world.
With his research fully completed and codified, L. Ron Hubbard departed his body on 24 January 1986. His work opened a wide bridge to understand-ing and freedom for mankind. Through his efforts, there now exists a totally workable technology by which the native abilities of beings can be rehabili¬tated and restored.

GLOSSARY
To assist in your understanding of these lectures, hard-to-find terms and other words which you may not be familiar with are included in this glossary. An example of usage from the lectures is included at the end of each defini¬tion. These definitions give only the meanings of the words as they are used in the lectures; this glossary is not meant as a substitute for a dictionary.
AA: an abbreviation for attempted abortion (used especially in Dianetics). You had fifteen AAs and you were boiled in oil and you were captured by the Japanese and shot regularly every morning. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
aberrated: affected with aberration. See also aberration in this glossary. And the engrams might be on cells and get blown up and they might be here and they might be there, but they undoubtedly were the basic cause of aberrated conduct. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
aberration: a departure from rational thought or behavior. It means basi¬cally to err, to make mistakes, or more specifically to have fixed ideas which are not true. The word, used in its scientific sense, also means departure from a straight line. If a line should go from A to B, then if it is "aberrated" it would go from A to some other point, to some other point, to some other point, to some other point, to some other point and finally arrive at B. Taken in its scientific sense, it would also mean the lack of straightness or to see crookedly as, in example, a man sees a horse but thinks he sees an elephant. Aberrated conduct would be wrong conduct, or conduct not supported by reason. Aberration is opposed to sanity, which would be its opposite. From the Latin, aberrare, to wander from; Latin, ab, away, errare, to wander. You see, you have to feel com¬fortable, in addition to your own ability, you have to feel comfortable about your ability to handle aberration in other people. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
ACC: abbreviation for Advanced Clinical Course, one of a number of theory and research courses delivered by L. Ron Hubbard during the years 1953 to 1961 which gave a deep insight into the phenomena of the mind and the rationale of research and investigation. The ACC referred to in

193

194

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
this lecture was the Fifteenth American Advanced Clinical Course, which was given by L. Ron Hubbard in Washington, DC, 15 October-23 November 1956. Given indoctrination —thorough indoctrination and in par¬ticular what we call High School Indoctrination of the type that those attending the ACC will get... —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
ACC Course: short for Advanced Clinical Course. See ACC in this glossary. Now I had—I've always told students in the ACC Course—of course, I have told them so doggone many things—often, probably from their view-point, so contradictory, so unreconcilable with any other data, that they sometimes don't cognite on them for a year or two. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
address book, little black: (slang) a variation of little black book, the note-book in which bachelors are reputed to keep girls' telephone numbers. The fellow who loaned you his car anytime, gave you his little black address book —there he is, your pal, Papa. —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (2 Sept. 56)
Alice-in-Wonderlandish: like or characteristic of the story Alice's Adven¬tures in Wonderland, written in 1865 by Lewis Carroll (1832-1898). The story is about a little girl named Alice who falls down a rabbit hole into a strange country where very illogical things happen. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is used in a series of training drills that were developed by L. Ron Hubbard in early 1956 to help students increase their communi¬cation abilities. Well, that's highly theoretical—that's almost Alice-in-Wonderlandish, a book we have become acquainted with lately. —Universe (1 Sept. 56)
AMA: abbreviation for American Medical Association, a professional physi-cians' organization, established in 1847, with the stated purpose of pro-moting public health, protecting the welfare of doctors and supporting medical science. "103! My God!" he said, "This man has got to get to bed! I can't permit this by my medical knowledge, authority and mission to the AMA to permit this session to go on any further." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
American College of Personnel Efficiency: a Scientology organization at the time of this lecture that gave lectures on basic Scientology subjects and delivered auditing and training to public. / said, "This is the Ameri-can College of Personnel Efficiency." —Spiritual and Material Require¬ments of Man (31 Aug. 56)
analytical mind: the conscious, aware mind which thinks, observes data, remembers it and resolves problems. It would be essentially the con-scious mind as opposed to the unconscious mind. In Dianetics and Scien-tology the analytical mind is the one which is alert and aware and the reactive mind simply reacts without analysis. See also reactive mind in this glossary. Dianetics believed—and very, very agreeably —that there was such a thing as the analytical mind and the reactive mind. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
anaten: short for analytical attenuation: a diminution (lessening) or weaken-ing of the analytical awareness of an individual for a brief or extensive period of time. If sufficiently great, it can result in unconsciousness.

GLOSSARY
(It stems from the restimulation of an engram which contains pain and unconsciousness.) See also engrain and restimulated in this glossary. "I'm just a little bit anaten." —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
apparency: something that seems to be, that appears to be a certain way; something appears to be but is different from the way it looks. In Dia-netics and Scientology it is used to mean something that looks one way but is, in actual fact, something else. "Gives an apparency of health" whereas it's actually sick. From the Latin, apparere, to appear. And by the way, that's true, you know, apparency is—of decay is all the decay there is. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
ARC: a word made from the initial letters of Affinity, Reality and Communi-cation which together equate to understanding. These are the three things necessary to the understanding of something—one has to have some affinity for it, it has to be real to him to some degree and he needs some communication with it before he can understand it. For more infor¬mation on ARC, read the book Science of Survival by L. Ron Hubbard. There has to be ARC in auditing or it doesn't occur. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
as-ises: causes (something) to vanish or cease to exist. This is accomplished by viewing something exactly as it is, without any distortions or lies. We don't ask him how he feels because that as-ises things. —Auditing Pro¬cedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
assist: a simple, easily done process that can be applied to anyone to help them recover more rapidly from accidents, mild illness or upsets. He was giving me a quick assist. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
Associate Member: a member without time limit of Scientology, at the time of this lecture. As an Associate Member, a person did not receive publica¬tions but did receive a pin and membership card. And now I'm an Associ¬ate Member. — Group Processing: "Keep It from Going Away" (1 Sept. 56)
Association Secretary: the person who ran a Central Organization (the name given, at the time of this lecture, to a Scientology organization which provided services such as training, auditing and certification, to the public). 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. — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
atomic fission: the splitting of the nucleus of an atom into nuclei of lighter atoms, accompanied by the release of energy. This is the principle of the atomic bomb. / was trying to resolve atomic fission, body reaction to, doing quite a few experiments on this line. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
attaboy: (slang) a variation of that's the boy. See that's the boy in this glos¬sary. Front and center. Chop-chop. Good. Attaboy. —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (cont.) (2 Sept. 56)
auditing: (1) (verb) applying Dianetics and Scientology processes and pro¬cedures to someone. See also process in this glossary. It's the idea of sit¬ting down and grinding away on a preclear, auditing him, making him

195

196

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
do this and do that and bringing up his state of health to a level of being human, of being able to function, of being able to mote somehow or another, that wasn't enough. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56) (2) (noun) the application of Dianetics and/or Scientol¬ogy processes and procedures to individuals for their betterment. The exact definition of auditing is: the action of asking a person a question (which he can understand and answer), getting an answer to that ques¬tion and acknowledging him for that answer. Also called processing. Mary Sue got ahold of me and she gave me some auditing. —Group Proc¬essing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
auditor: a person trained and qualified in applying Dianetics and/or Scien-tology processes and procedures to individuals for their betterment; called an auditor because auditor means one who listens. See also proc-ess in this glossary. And the auditor says, "Get back into valence!" —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Auditor's Code: a collection of rules (do's and don'ts) that an auditor follows while auditing someone, which ensures that the preclear will get the greatest possible gain out of the processing that he is having. One point of the Auditor's Code addresses the fact that an auditor continues a process as long as it produces change in the preclear and no longer. See also preclear in this glossary. They were both in training and they had gotten into an argument during an auditing session over some breach of the Auditor's Code. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
automaticity: the state or condition of one doing something but being unaware or only partially aware he is doing it; having something "on automatic." An automaticity is something which ought to be under the control of the individual, but isn't. But a great many hidden responses — automaticities we called them later—were hidden in a mind called the reactive mind which operated on a stimulus-response basis. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
awareness of awareness unit: the person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the identity which is the individual. The aware¬ness of awareness unit is most familiar to one and all as you. But there was this little thing called an "awareness of awareness unit." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
bacilloscope: a humorous made-up name for an instrument, etc., for seeing, observing, etc. We had them on oscilloscopes and bacilloscopes and every-thing else, trying to measure them and figure out exactly what this was all about. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
backtrack: the area in time prior to a person's present life. You explain to them all about birth, prenatals and backtrack and everything else, you'd think you'd just spin them in. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
bank: the mental image picture collection of the preclear. It comes from com¬puter terminology where all data is in a "bank." It is a combination of energy and significance which comprises a mass sitting in its own made-up space, plotted against the preclear's own experiential track. See

GLOSSARY
also mental image picture and preclear in this glossary. And if you were able to handle Dianetics once upon a time, you will say, "Gee-whiz, why didn't we know how fast we could make a bank run!" —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
barbiturates: substances that are used as sedatives and sleep inducers. Barbiturates, which work by depressing the activity of the central nerv¬ous system, are sometimes used in the treatment of illnesses such as epilepsy. They can't let people have too much, so they take little grains of barbiturates or something and they take little grains of the physical uni¬verse and little granules of the physical universe and little capsules of the physical universe and ... — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
barn dancing: dancing held in a barn or barnlike building, especially in a rural area. The dancing might include a square dance, a dance in which the couples are arranged in a square or some other set form and have a person calling out the dance steps that they are to perform ("Swing your partner," etc.). Now, Group Processing is an exercise by which the audi¬tor stands up in front of a group and asks them to do silly things which they do obediently and it's just, you know, funfest-like barn dancing and nothing happens and at the end of that time, everybody feels cheerful, okay? —Group Processing; Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
beam: an energy flow. And you reach over to feel of its head or something with a beam and chooomp, in you go. — Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
beast: (slang) anything which is new or complicated, especially something that strikes one as dangerous and fickle. Used figuratively in this lec¬ture. There's something basically wrong with the beast! —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
Before and After Solids: the name of a Scientology process in which the auditor has the preclear select an engram from mid-life, then find a pic¬ture before it that isn't an engram. Then the auditor has the preclear make the picture solid. The same procedure is then done, selecting a pic¬ture after the selected time, ensuring that that picture isn't an engram or painful incident and making it solid. But we have been referring to this "Before and After Solids," run on the engram bank as Over and Under, as a slang phrase, because obviously an indiv — most individuals you run on it have the sensation of diving from something when they get an earlier one, and sort of pulling back on the throttle and the stick at the same time when they get a later one. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
beingness: condition or state of being; existence. Beingness also refers to the assumption or choosing of a category of identity. Beingness can be assumed by oneself or given to oneself or attained. Examples of being-ness would be one's own name, one's profession, one's physical charac¬teristics, one's role in a game—each or all of these could be called one's beingness. The processes we have in Scientology are sufficiently good that they handle it in some other fashion, but the problem of the thetan is the problem of the mind; the problem of beingness, the problem of the spirit, is his problem with the mind. —Spiritual and Material Require¬ments of Man (31 Aug. 56)

197

198

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
betcha: (colloquial) bet you. I'll betcha there are some people right here in this audience—I'll betcha there are people right here in this audience that if a .44 caliber bullet were to come flying up here in some fashion or another and they put out a hand or something like that, it wouldn't stop. -Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
Big, Mr.: (slang) the chief or most important person. Now, why can't you walk in to a large business corporation, why can't you walk into a gov-ernment, why can't you walk in to Mr. Big and say to him, "I have a solu-tion to your difficulties"? —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
bill: a proposed law to be voted on by a lawmaking body. In the United States Congress, a bill may be introduced in either the House or the Senate. For a bill to become law, it has to go through a very precise pro-cedure. First it is assigned a number and then is printed. If the bill is introduced in the House, it first has to be approved through a House committee and then passed by the whole House. It then is sent to the Senate, where it goes through the same procedure. If the Senate makes any amendments to the bill, then it has to go back to the House to be reapproved. When a bill is finally approved by both the House and Sen-ate, it is sent to the President for his signature. See also House and Senate in this glossary. Now, somebody comes along, thinking about this, in this congress of human problems, and puts a bill down here through the United States Congress and enacts it into law ... — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
Bill of Rights: the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States, added in 1791. Among other provisions, they protect the free¬doms of speech, religion, assembly and the press; restrict governmental rights of search and seizure and list several rights of persons accused of crimes. See also Constitution in this glossary. Why, it'd just be a viola-tion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and everything else, and the legal work involved in it is terrific! — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
biteability: a coined word meaning "the ability to bite." Used figuratively in this lecture. And when preclears sat there and Ron said that this and that ought to do this and that for him, the phenomena was there—I think you will agree to that —the phenomena was there; the process did have a biteability; it did bring him up; there was —thing—things did happen. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
blooey, go: (slang) end abruptly in failure or disaster; break down; collapse. Blooey is an echoic imitation of an explosion. lt'd go blooey. —Demon-stration of SCS (2 Sept. 56)
blow: an informal expression for a sudden departure or to suddenly depart. It is usually used to describe either the sudden dissipation (vanishing) of mass in the mind with an accompanying feeling of relief, or someone leaving, ceasing to be where he should really be, or just ceasing to be audited. They just go psewww and blow. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)

GLOSSARY
boards, across the: including everything or all; so that all are included. Originally a phrase in horse racing referring to equal amounts of money being bet on the same horse to place first, second or third. And that some cases across the boards were below apathy —body plus thetan. — Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
boilerplate: a steam plate used in making the shells of steam boilers. Used figuratively in this lecture. "How about you getting a couple of boiler¬plate patches on your engram bank and square it around and put you back in the running?" —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Book One: the first book published on the subject of Dianetics, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. See Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health in this glossary. We're always trying to get across the bridge in old Book One and there's the bridge. —Auditing Pro¬cedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
Bouncer: an incident where a thetan was trapped and then bounced up and down eccentrically (erratically, irregularly) until he had a facsimile which fixed him, it would appear, on his time track. For more information, read the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. Anyway, person starts reading this book, you know, "Gee, gee, the Bouncer—the jumper—the Clam." —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
brains out, blew (one's): (slang) killed (oneself) by a shot through the head. Used figuratively in this lecture. 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 pre-clears, you know. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
Brandywine: a creek in southeastern Pennsylvania. In 1777, a battle of the American Revolutionary War (1775-1783) in which the British defeated the Americans was fought there. Now, you can make an engram suffi¬ciently solid —let us say it's an engram received on Brandywine in 17—whatever it was. —Universe (1 Sept. 56)
British Empire: the empire of Britain, which began in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with the establishment of colonies in North America and ended in the twentieth century as dozens of nations, for¬merly British possessions, became independent. At the Empire's greatest extent, around 1900, it included Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, vast portions of Africa and many smaller territories throughout the world. The phrase "the Empire on which the sun never sets" was applied to the British Empire in its heyday. Wherever the sun shines, and during the entire revolution of its shining, the sun—I'd never dare say this in England—but the sun might be setting now occasionally on some parts of the British Empire, but the sun does not set today on this little empire of a human mind of which we're all a part. —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
broad: (slang) a woman. Broads? —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (cont.) (2 Sept. 56)

199

200

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
bucketing: (chiefly British) moving or driving fast. You'll see some old rattle-trap bucketing along one way or the other. — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
Bureau of Ordinance: a humorous, made-up name for a government department. An ordinance is a statute or law, especially one made by a city government. 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?" —Games Condi-tions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
button: an item, word, phrase, subject or area that causes response or reac¬tion in an individual. Because that's the top and most effective button of them, so I just thought I would run it on you and you could see how an old-time process looked. —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
Carborundum: (trademark) a hard compound of carbon and silicon used for polishing and grinding things. Used figuratively in this lecture. Some of us have used a little Carborundum on the case, you know. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
case: a general term for a person being treated or helped. Case also refers to a person's condition, which is monitored by the content of his reactive mind. A person's case is the way he responds to the world around him by reason of his aberrations. See also aberration and reactive mind in this glossary. We have been working—the lot of us — withpreclears, with cases, for six years now. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
catch (one's) death of moonbeams: (colloquial) a humorous variation of catch (one's) death of cold, catch such a bad cold that one might die of it. And, I said, "Why, that boy will catch his death of moonbeams or something." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
CDEI circle: reference to the CDEI Scale, a gradient scale consisting of the points Curiosity, Desire, Enforce and Inhibit. There are harmonics on this. As one goes below inhibit, he finds these points inverting and all sorts of curious phenomena occurs because this cycle repeats itself. It is a cycle rather than simply a straightforward scale. For more information on this scale, see Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics by L. Ron Hub-bard. 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. —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
chain: a series of incidents of similar nature or similar subject matter. See also incident in this glossary. What is all this stuff? Prenatal chains? —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
chess: a game of skill played on a checkered board (divided into 64 squares), by two players, each possessing an initial force of 16 pieces, including a piece called a "king." There are individual rules of movement for each different kind of piece. Players make alternate moves, each seeking to attack the other's king in such a manner that no escape or defense is

GLOSSARY
possible, thus ending the game. Did you ever play —did you ever play chess with somebody that says, "All right, move your pawn now." -Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
Chippendales: persons like Thomas Chippendale (1718?-1779), English cabinetmaker. He is regarded by many experts as the foremost eight-eenth-century furniture designer. There are Chippendales and Steinways and other furniture makers who ... I see we have some other pianists in the audience. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
circuitry: the components of a circuit, a part of an individual's mind that behaves as though it were someone or something separate from him and that either talks to him or goes into action of its own accord, and may even, if severe enough, take control of him while it operates. Something said, "You know you hate your neighbors." Circuitry. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Clam: reference to a group of incidents involving a scalloped-lip, white-shelled creature resembling a clam which had a number of quite uncom¬fortable adventures. Restimulation of these incidents may cause toothaches and decay, as well as other somatics. For more information, read the book Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hubbard. See also incident in this glossary. Anyway, person starts reading this book, you know, "Gee, gee, the Bouncer—the jumper—the Clam." —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Clear: the name of a state achieved through auditing or an individual who has achieved this state. A Clear is a being who no longer has his own reactive mind. He is an unaberrated person and is rational in that he forms the best possible solutions he can on the data he has and from his viewpoint. See also auditing, aberration and reactive mind in this glossary. The difficulty on the original state of Clear came about mainly because the techniques used to produce one in 1947 were never put in anybody's hands. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
clinic: a Scientology processing center at the time of this lecture whose origi¬nal purpose was to demonstrate to the public by a series of solved cases that Scientology worked, thus acting as a public dissemination line. But it became obvious that there was a process in Scientology that was being omit¬ted somehow or another from the regular and routine processes generally used by the clinic. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
Code of a Scientologist: a code which governs the activity of a Scien-tologist in general. It was evolved from many years of observation and experience and is supported by leading Scientologists. And I really won't mention it because of the Code of a Scientologist, but I ought to. - Universe (1 Sept. 56)
coffee shop auditing: informal auditing of someone, such as that which might be done in a coffee shop. The preclear is never informed at all of the existence of a session. And he says, quickly, brightly, you know —

201

202

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
coffee shop auditing—he says to me, "What wouldn't you mind not-knowing about what just happened?" —Universe (1 Sept. 56)
cognition: a new realization of life. Cognitions result in higher degrees of awareness and consequently greater abilities to succeed with one's endeavors in life. A cognition is a "What do you know, I..." statement. So Suzie, giving me the business and "problems of comparable magni¬tude to finishing up research" and a few minor things like this—and I said, "Just a minute"—I was getting a cognition, you know. —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
Columbian Society: reference to the Columbia Historical Society, the historical society of Washington, DC. In 1824, the Marquis of Lafayette visited the United States and gave a speech at a reception given in his honor by the Columbia Historical Society. Columbia is sometimes used to refer to America or the United States because America was dis-covered by Christopher Columbus. See also Lafayette, Marquis of in this glossary. 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. — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
Comanche: a tribe of North American Indians, formerly ranging over the western plains from Wyoming to Texas, now living in Oklahoma. The Comanches and other Plains Indians used sign language to overcome language barriers. Each tribe had a sign that identified a member of that tribe. For example, to show that an Indian was a Comanche, one would imitate the motions of a snake. You make the sign of the Comanche on their forehead and they say, "Well, what do you know! Arm moves again." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
command: an exact question an auditor asks a preclear which is to be answered by the preclear. Not very much had occurred and he turns up and he says he can exteriorize them by an auditing command. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
comm lag: short for communication lag. See communication lag in this glossary. We get long comm lags on this sort of thing here. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
communication bridge: a procedure employed by an auditor in starting a new process and changing from one process to another. In the first part of a communication bridge, the preclear has an auditing question dis-cussed with him by the auditor and the wording agreed upon. The audi¬tor also covers what he is going to have the preclear do and gets the preclear's agreement for these things to be done. In the second part, when the auditor is changing from one process to another, he uses the communication bridge to close off the process that he is running on a preclear, maintain ARC and open up the new process on which he is about to embark. Now, the process we are going to run, unless you object to it too much — unless you object to it too much, the process we are going to run—I don't know—just at the last moment—I do have a conscience after all—and just at the last moment here a little qualm just strikes me so I'll throw in a communication bridge right at the beginning of this, huh? —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)

GLOSSARY
communication lag: the length of time intervening between the asking of the question by the auditor and the reply to that specific question by the preclear. The question must be precise; the reply must be precisely to that question. It does not matter what intervenes in the time between the asking of the question and the receipt of the answer. The preclear may outflow, jabber, discuss, pause, hedge, disperse, dither or be silent; no matter what he does or how he does it, between the asking of the question and the giving of the answer, the time is the communication lag. We run out the communication lag that is developed by the process — gets flat—and we consider the process has done everything that the proc¬ess can be expected to do; it's just as simple as that. —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
communication line: the route along which a communication travels from one person to another; any sequence through which a message of any character may go. You know, it's a communication line; I really am there—I mean—solidly hit me. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
computation: the aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be con¬sistently in a certain state in order to succeed. A computation thus may mean that one must entertain in order to be alive or that one must be dignified in order to succeed or that one must own much in order to live. See also aberrated and postulate in this glossary. We have a way now of getting a "case computation"—remember that word, sound familiar? —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Conceiving a Static: the name of a Scientology process which contains only the command, repeated over and over, "Conceive a thetan." See also static and thetan in this glossary. Don't make him look at this thetan too long because Conceiving a Static is quite upsetting—they get sick at their stomachs sometimes. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
congress: an assembly of Scientologists held in any of various cities around the world for a presentation of Dianetics and/or Scientology materials. Many congresses were addressed directly by Ron. Others were based upon taped LRH lectures or films on a particular subject. They made a grand job out of this congress; they're —these boys night and day, about twenty-four hours a day —have been going around here for the last week getting this congress ready for you people and for us. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Constitution: short for the Constitution of the United States: the fundamen¬tal law of the United States, composed in 1787 by the Constitutional Convention. It went into effect March 4, 1789. Why, it'd just be a viola¬tion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and everything else, and the legal work involved in it is terrific! —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
Covenant 83: a made-up name for a covenant. Therefore, we get that thing called, "Love thy neighbor. If thou does not smote the other cheek thou shalt be in violation of Covenant 83" or whatever it is. —Universe (1 Sept. 56)

203

204

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
crack: break through the difficulties of; manage to solve. Why didn't any-body crack it? —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
creakity: a coined word meaning "in the condition of moving slowly with or as if with a creaking sound." You can't keep the man in the office 24 hours a day and expect him to stay up and to do otherwise than to get old and creakity and inefficient and upset! — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
Creative Processing: an exercise by which the preclear was actually put-ting up the physical universe. It consisted of having the preclear make, with his own creative energies, a mock-up. See also mocks up and pre¬clear in this glossary. Now, the first rule I gave you is a rule out of old Creative Processing: Whatever is wrong with the preclear, make him do it. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
damn it: (colloquial) an expression of annoyance or dissatisfaction, etc. And then he went out the door out of the office that night terribly embar¬rassed because two auditors—other auditors had been sitting in the office, his closest friends, and he finally says, "Damn it, Ron!" he says, It takes a sane man to act that psychotic!" —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
darnedest: (informal) a euphemism for damnedest, most extraordinary; most amazing. And the auditors that we get ahold of and train, they're doing the darnedest things with people. —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
darn, give a: (colloquial) a variation of give a damn, care at all. Male voice: I don't even give a darn. —Demonstration of SCS (2 Sept. 56)
Declaration of Human Rights: a proclamation made by the members of the United Nations in 1948. It affirms that all men have the right to life, liberty and security of person, to freedom from arbitrary arrest, to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the law, to own property, to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, etc. See also United Nations in this glossary. We look up and down the wall there, we find Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations. —Group Process-ing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
Delphi: an ancient city in Greece which was the location of the most famous oracle (a place where gods were consulted for the answers to questions) of that time. He was walking by the Delphi temple, and boy, were there some nice looking vestal virgins —way back in ancient Greece —and he was walking by and he said, "Hm." —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
devil, as the: (colloquial) exceedingly. And in the temple there was probably the grand priestess who was an old bag that was just jealous as the devil. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
devil of it, the: (slang) the worst part of something; what makes something very nasty. But the devil of it is, you have to reduce his disabilities some-how and get them disposed of or get his attention out of them before you

GLOSSARY
can actually begin to make him more able . . . —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
devil, the: (informal) an intensifier used to express surprise, anger, impa¬tience, etc. They just never look at a solid at all, so how the devil could they know anything about the subject if there was no way, whatsoever, for them to communicate with the subject itself? — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
devil with (it), the: (colloquial) I, we, etc., do not care about (a person or thing). Say, "The devil with it." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Diana: Diana Hubbard, the eldest daughter of L. Ron Hubbard and Mary Sue Hubbard. A little —my little copper nob, Diana, she always comes around, and she says, "I want to go shopping with Dada." —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Dianeticists: persons who practice Dianetics. See also Dianetics in this glossary. And exteriorization came along and a very large percentage of the Dianeticists didn't. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Dianetics: Dianetics technology. It addresses and handles the effects of the spirit on the body and can alleviate such things as unwanted sensations and emotions, accidents, injuries and psychosomatic illnesses. Dianetics means "through the soul" (from Greek dia, through, and nous, soul). It is further defined as "what the soul is doing to the body." See also psychosomatic in this glossary. Now, let's just lay aside the sales talk; let's just forget about —be charitable, forget about the nice things I've said about what Dianetics would do and what Scientology would do. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health: the basic text on Dia¬netics techniques, written by L. Ron Hubbard and first published in 1950. See also Dianetics in this glossary. You know, all these little gim¬micks and gadgets talked about in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health and succeeding publications and the tapes of that period all comprised Dianetics. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Director of Processing: the person in the Hubbard Guidance Center (HGC) of a Scientology organization responsible for auditors, assignment of preclears to auditors and states of cases. See also HGC in this glos¬sary. Well, we didn't even notice there was anything gone from our proc¬essing tools until Julia started shipping over the tons of tests she ships me every week and the London Director of Processing started unloading me some more tests, and there was nothing happening in these tests! —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
Director of Training: the person in a Scientology organization in charge of Instructors and who is overall responsible for the training of auditors. Well,

205

206

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
I hate to tell you this, but the Director of Training in London didn't entirely approve of this kind of thing. —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
disenturbulate: cause to become nonturbulent (unagitated and undis-turbed). You actually could get him enough havingness as a student to disenturbulate him. — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
dish (something) in: (informal) a variation of dish (something) out, give (something) in large quantities. But this is a congress on human prob-lems, so I just thought we might as well take the first day and just dish this whole thing in. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
Do Fishes Swim?: a humorous reference to a question asked repetitively in two training drills developed by L. Ron Hubbard in April 1956. It is not an actual process, but was developed to teach student auditors to give a process command in a new unit of time each time. All right, we are run-ning a process. A good process on somebody called "Do Fishes Swim?" -Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
dogging off: (slang) a variation of dogging it, avoiding or evading work; refusing to exert oneself. No dogging off on me. —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
doggone: (colloquial) damned; very. (Derivation of doggone: American, per-haps from dog on it! euphemistic alteration of God damned.) Now I had—I've always told students in the ACC Course—of course, I have told them so doggone many things—often, probably from their viewpoint, so contradictory, so unreconcilable with any other data, that they sometimes don't cognite on them for a year or two. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
doggonedest: (informal) most extraordinary; most amazing. See also dog-gone in this glossary. 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? —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
doingness: the action of creating an effect. By doing is meant action, func¬tion, accomplishment, the attainment of goals, the fulfilling of purpose or any change of position in space. And the analytical mind was what you were consciously thinking with and doing; thinkingness turning into doingness. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
done in: (slang) ruined or destroyed. Somebody comes along and says, "You're being done in!" — Third Dynamic Application of Games Princi-ples (1 Sept. 56)
down scale: down the Tone Scale; in or into a state of decreased awareness; in or into the lower-level emotions, such as apathy, anger, etc. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. "So we have a basic game going on and it must be that the thetan who had gone down scale can't tolerate solids." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)

GLOSSARY
dramatization: a duplication of reactive mind content, entire or in part, by an aberree (aberrated person) in his present time environment. Aberra¬ted conduct is entirely dramatization. When dramatizing, the individual is like an actor playing his dictated part and going through a whole series of irrational actions. See also reactive mind and aberrated in this glossary. He isn't doing a good job of it; it's just a dramatization, not a treatment. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Dublin: the capital of the Republic of Ireland and the largest city in the country; located on the Irish Sea. In 1956, L. Ron Hubbard undertook a pilot project in Dublin. His main purpose in this was to set up a Scien¬tology activity in an area not previously noted for Scientology interests which would serve as a model for an auditor in any area of the world. In fact they agree so thoroughly that when our office opened up a Personnel Efficiency Course in Dublin, the Irish —the Irish came in and said, "What are you fellows doing?" —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
dummy sessions: a set of drills used at the time of this lecture to increase a student auditor's ability in communicating with preclears. These dummy sessions were later developed into what is now known as training rou¬tines or TRs. And I developed the materials —the basic materials and dummy sessions on this—over in London and then developed the other things that went alongside of them. —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
duplicate: cause something to be made, done or happen again. As it relates to study and communication, duplication is used to describe the action of reproducing something exactly. For example, if Person A communicated the concept of a cat to Person B and Person B got the exact same con¬cept of a cat without any alteration, Person B would be said to have duplicated what was originated by Person A. We therefore begin to find fault with solids because we cannot completely duplicate a solid, and a solid never duplicates us and so the communication formula is violated. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
dwindling spiral: a condition in which there is continuous decreasing or shrinking. That's the way —that's the dwindling spiral of life. —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
dynamics: the urges (drives, impulses) in life. They are motives or motiva¬tions. These are urges for survival as or through (1) self, (2) sex and family, (3) groups, (4) all mankind, (5) living things (plants and ani¬mals), (6) the material universe, (7) spirits and (8) infinity or the Supreme Being. We've gotten along, we've worked hard, we have striven — every one of us with very good intention —to do the very best we could for the cases, for the people on the various dynamics in order to achieve a higher ability and a better state for man. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
East Coast: the region of the United States bordering on the Atlantic Ocean. No, that's about the only casualty I know of in the East Coast. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Effort Processing: a type of auditing done by running moments of physical stress. These are run either as simple efforts or counter-efforts or as

207

208

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
whole precise incidents. Such incidents as those which contain physical pain or heavy stress of motion, such as injuries, accidents or illnesses, are addressed by effort. See also auditing in this glossary. 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." — Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
ego: (psychoanalysis) the personality component that is conscious, most immediately controls behavior and is most in touch with external real¬ity. "And the sublimation of the ego self is the real self and that isn't the self because the self is the self is the id is the self is the real self." —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
8-C: the name of a Scientology process, also used to mean good control. You're going to have to give them enough time outside and under 8-C to unspin them out of their old educational programs. —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
E-Meter: short for electrometer: an electronic device for measuring the men-tal state or change of state of Homo sapiens. It is not a lie detector. It does not diagnose or cure anything. It is used by auditors to assist the preclear in locating areas of spiritual distress or travail. See also pre-clear in this glossary. We had them on E-Meters. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Empire State Building: a skyscraper completed in 1931 in New York City. For many years it was the tallest building in the world, standing at 1,250 feet high and having 102 stories. It acquires its name from the nickname for New York State, "the Empire State." He's only surrounded by the Empire State Building, the Atlantic Ocean, New York City and millions of people. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
Encyclopaedia Britannica: a comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects, arranged alphabetically. It is the oldest continually published reference work in the English language (first edition printed 1771). I got into a state of mind—I wanted to write a story about the ice ages back in the good old days, so I, of course, went and got the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and I opened it up and it says, "Ice Ages." - Universe (1 Sept. 56)
end-all: the central and all-important part. A variation of be-all and end-all. 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. — Third Dynamic Application of Games Prin¬ciples (1 Sept. 56)
engrain: a mental image picture of an experience containing pain, uncon-sciousness and a real or fancied threat to survival. It is a recording in the reactive mind of something which actually happened to an individ-ual in the past and which contained pain and unconsciousness, both of which are recorded in the engram. It must, by definition, have impact or injury as part of its content. Engrams are a complete recording, down to the last accurate detail, of every perception present in a moment of par-tial or full unconsciousness. See also mental image picture and reac¬tive mind in this glossary. We had a special method of running

GLOSSARY
engrains: You simply built the man's confidence in being able to handle them till he threw them all away and he was a Clear. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
engrain bank: a colloquial name for the reactive mind. See also bank and reactive mind in this glossary. "How about you getting a couple of boiler¬plate patches on your engram bank and square it around and put you back in the running?" —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
epiflavus: a made-up name for a form of psychosis. "There's epiflavus; there's manic obulous; there's schizophrenia class one, class two, class three, class four and schizophrenia unclassified." —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
epiglosis: a made-up word. You come in and you give him a glass of water and you say, "Sir, if you will merely drink a glass of water every morning before breakfast, your symptoms of epiglosis will disappear." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
erase: cause (something, such as an engram, etc.) to "vanish" entirely by recounting, at which time it is filed as memory and experience and ceases to be part of the reactive mind. See also reactive mind in this glossary. You'd erase and erase. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
evaluated for: imposed upon by another's data or knowledge. An example would be someone being told why he is the way he is instead of being permitted or guided to discover it for himself. Gets pushed back into birth, run halfway through, invalidated, evaluated for, restimulated and struck. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
exteriorization: the act of the thetan moving outside the body. When this is done the person achieves a certainty of his beingness or identity com¬pletely apart from that of the body. See also thetan in this glossary. And exteriorization came along and a very large percentage of the Dianeticists didn't. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Fac One: an incident known as Facsimile One, or the "coffee grinder," involving the use of a two-handled, portable machine which, when turned, emits a heavy push-pull electronic wave. This was used by an invader force (an electronics people who land on a planet inhabited by people who do things by thought, and then start setting up various kinds of traps and doing all sorts of things in order to control the area). Male voice: What about Fac One? —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
facsimile: a three-dimensional color picture with sound and smell and all other perceptions, plus the conclusions or speculations of the individual. . . . and all of a sudden I said, "The unit of awareness of the mind is looking at a facsimile, a mental image picture, and usually looks at it in preference to looking at the physical universe directly." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
FBI: abbreviation for Federal Bureau of Investigation, a United States gov-ernment agency established to investigate violations of federal laws and

209

210

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
safeguard national security. "Completely mocked-up fingerprint and identification cards are not acceptable at FBI." — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
field: any thing interposing between a preclear and something he wishes to see, whether MEST or mock-up. Fields are black, gray, purple, any sub-stance or invisible. See also preclear, MEST universe and mocks up in this glossary. /'// give you an example of the use of this: I had a preclear who had a totally black field. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
first and second postulate: the first two of the four basic postulates made by a native-state thetan: (1) I do not know about. . . ; (2) I know about that item; (3) I have forgotten about that item; (4) I remember that item. See also native state in this glossary. And the first of that work that was developed immediately after the not-know; the first and second pos¬tulate work that was done in Washington here was the communication bridge. —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
fish to fry, have other: (informal) have things to do that a person falsely considers are more important or profitable. If it isn't there, why are they treating it? Unless, of course, they might have other fish to fry. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
flattens: stops producing a reaction. As I say, it flattens on a preclear, indi¬vidually audited, just exactly as I did it—putting it in the walls, making sure he puts it into the walls. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
Ford: made by the Ford Motor Company: a US automobile manufacturer founded in 1903 by American industrialist Henry Ford (1863-1947). It is one of the largest automobile companies in the world. 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. — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
forte main: strength or force. In French, forte means "strong" and main means "hand." You getting a little more forte main—strength? —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (2 Sept. 56)
Foundation: short for Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. See Hub-bard Dianetic Research Foundation in this glossary. All of the phe-nomena, all of the "curl up in the ball and fall on the floor," the screamer, the sperm sequence, those horrible things that came up and actually effectively in the long run completely blew up the Foundation in Elizabeth that couldn't agree on them. —Spiritual and Material Require¬ments of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Freud: Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), Austrian physician and founder of psycho¬analysis. See also psychoanalysis in this glossary. It was something on the basis of "Freud was a kind man." —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Freudian: characteristic of the works of Sigmund Freud. See also Freud in this glossary. Well, let's —let's not go Freudian because we're not talking about psychoanalysis. — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)

GLOSSARY
gamma: short for gamma rays, radiations which are similar to x-rays, but with a shorter wavelength than x-rays. Because of their short wave¬length, gamma rays are very penetrating. They have a range in air of about 1 1/2 miles and are the principal cause of radiation disease in atomic warfare. In other words, could you audit somebody in such a way that when they were hit with gamma and the rest of it, they would not be badly burned or affected. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
gee-whiz: (informal) an exclamation of approval, surprise, mild disapproval, emphasis, etc. And if you were able to handle Dianetics once upon a time, you will say, "Gee-whiz, why didn't we know how fast we could make a bank run!" —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
General Electric: short for General Electric Company, a large US manufac¬turer. General Electric and its associated companies design, manufac¬ture and sell almost every form of apparatus and device for the generation, transmission, distribution, control, measurement and consumption of electric energy and maintain numerous research laboratories. Two out¬fits still aren't working and thus General Electric is born! —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
genetic entity: that beingness not dissimilar to the thetan which has car-ried forward and developed the body from its earliest moments along the evolutionary line on Earth and which through experience, necessity and natural selection, has employed the counter-efforts of the environment to fashion an organism of the type best fitted for survival, limited only by the abilities of the genetic entity. The goal of the genetic entity is sur¬vival on a much grosser plane of materiality. See also thetan in this glossary. It's a genetic entity implant and is the higher harmonic of eat¬ing. — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
God knows: (colloquial) same as Lord knows. See Lord knows in this glos¬sary. That's a pretty terrific record for all the God knows how many people have been handled and audited in Dianetics and Scientology, believe me. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
grant (someone) beingness: let (someone else) be what he is. Listening to what someone has to say and taking care to understand them, being courteous, refraining from needless criticism, expressing admiration or affinity are examples of the actions of someone who can grant others beingness. Do you know that there are several—several people present that look much more alive than he does but I ask you to stretch your imagination just to the degree —but can you grant him a little beingness? — Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (cont.) (2 Sept. 56)
Group Auditing: same as Group Processing. See Group Processing in this glossary. Anybody around you can tell you that this is a fatal course in Group Auditing. — Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
Group Processing: Scientology auditing techniques administered to groups of children or adults. See also auditing in this glossary. I—and it kind of embarrasses me because I've never asked you before—but would you like some Group Processing? —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)

211

212

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
harmonic: one of two or more manifestations or actions which are them¬selves different yet are related in terms of some quality or qualities. For example, laughing because one was embarrassed would be a lower har¬monic of laughing because something was funny. It's a genetic entity implant and is the higher harmonic of eating. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
HASI: abbreviation for Hubbard Association of Scientologists International: the company which operated all Scientology organizations over the world and was the general membership group of the Church at the time of this lecture. The Church of Scientology International has replaced HASI in the operation of orgs, and the International Association of Scientologists (IAS) is the current membership group. Johannesburg fighting Pretoria, Pretoria fighting the HASI. —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
hat: the title and work of a post (job), taken from the fact that in many pro-fessions, such as railroading, the type of hat worn is the badge of the job. See, a few of us have run organizations and that sort of thing in this when we were all wearing all hats. —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
havingness: the concept of being able to reach. By havingness we mean own-ing, possessing, being capable of commanding, taking charge of objects, energies and spaces. Havingness also refers to various processes which increase the preclear's havingness. 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. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
HCA: abbreviation for Hubbard Certified Auditor Course: an exactly laid out course of theory and practical learning which qualifies an auditor to deliver certain types of processing to preclears. These two good people by the way, were mocked up whole cloth by the HCA students. — Group Proc-essing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (2 Sept. 56)
heaven's sakes, for: (colloquial) an expression of impatient annoyance or surprise. Well, if you do —if you do, for heaven's sakes at this time, this is not the time to stop. — Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
heck of a lot: (colloquial) a great deal; very much. Heck is a euphemism for hell. You know, actually this is asking a heck of a lot of you just because of the distance you are to the walls. — Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
hell, like: (informal) very much, very hard, very fast, etc. All I want you to do —this is a—this is a kind of a funny looking process and they're going to laugh like hell, but I want you to do this process anyway. —Demonstration of SCS (2 Sept. 56)
hell of a: (slang) very remarkable, awful, admirable, distressing, etc. See, if there was nobody on Earth who could do anything for the British, they'd be in a hell of a mess. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)

GLOSSARY
HGC: abbreviation for Hubbard Guidance Center, that part of a Scientology church which delivers auditing to preclears. 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 expect¬ancy. — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
High School Indoctrination: a precise drill with the purpose of training the student auditor to never be stopped by a preclear, to train him to run fine 8-C in any circumstances and to teach him to handle rebellious people. It is now known as Training Routine 7 (TR 7). See also 8-C in this glossary. Given indoctrination —thorough indoctrination and in particular what we call High School Indoctrination of the type that those attending the ACC will get... —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Himalayas: a mountain range in Asia, extending east through Pakistan, India, Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan. It contains the world's highest moun¬tains, including Mount Everest (the highest peak in the world). It was almost more likely that some gambler, some drunken gambler on a Mis¬sissippi River steamboat, would have discovered more about living than a swami sitting on the highest mountain in the Himalayas. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
Hitler: Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), dictator of Germany from 1933 to 1945. Hitler's military advances contributed to starting World War II. He is known for killing millions of Jewish people in the belief that they would contaminate the German people. [Definition of Schutzstaffel] ... formed originally within the German Nazi Party during World War II as a body¬guard for Hitler and other Nazi leaders.
hiya: (interjection) a shortened form of how are you? used as a word of greet¬ing. That fellow is over there chop-chop-chop and he's saying, "Hiya, Joe! What's wrong? Is something wrong?" — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
home universe: the universe a thetan made for himself. See also thetan in this glossary. No, reactive mind, MEST universe, reactive mind is the way it is at this time, but it could be home universe, physical universe, the other fellow's home universe. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
Hong Kong: an island located on the south coast of China. It is the home of a world-famous tailoring industry. We couldn't get them made anywhere in the Western Hemisphere for anything reasonable, so we got the badges made in Hong Kong, China. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
House: short for House of Representatives, the lower branch of the United States legislature (the body of persons given the responsibility and power to make laws, which start out as bills, for the country). See also bill in this glossary. They change numbers on bills every time they go from the House to the Senate and then to the printing office again. — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
How to Paint and Become a Famous Painter: a made-up title for a book. But a book which discussed paintings from Rembrandt backwards or something of the sort, but had a title—all it did was discuss paintings

213

214

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
and say what museums they were in and how much they cost people — and title itself, How to Paint and Become a Famous Painter, is a fraud. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation: the first organization of Dia-netics in the United States, established in Elizabeth, New Jersey in 1950. In the minute books of the—of the Hubbard 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. —Games Conditions us. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
Hunter, Edward: (1902-1978) American writer. Among the books he wrote were Brainwashing in Red China (1953) and Brainwashing (1956). This book is mentioned, by the way in—I think his name is—Edward Hunter's book on brainwashing, which is currently selling here in the United States. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
hypnotist: a person who practices hypnotism, the act of putting a person into a trance for the purpose of planting suggestions. Hypnotism reduces self-determinism by entering the commands of another below the aware-ness level of an individual's mind. But, you're supposed to be able to stop stammering, and the hypnotist tries to do this, everybody tries to do this, and they have very little luck. —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
id: the Latin word for "it." In psychoanalysis, "id" is the part of the psyche (soul) which is thought of as being made up of unconscious desires, instincts, drives, etc. See also psychoanalysis in this glossary. "And the sublimation of the ego self is the real self and that isn't the self because the self is the self is the id is the self is the real self." —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
implant: an enforced command or series of commands installed in the reac-tive mind below the awareness level of the individual to cause him to react or behave in a prearranged way without his "knowing it." See also reactive mind in this glossary. It's a genetic entity implant and is the higher har-monic of eating. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
incident: an experience, simple or complex, related by the same subject, location, perception or people that takes place in a short and finite time period such as minutes, hours or days. The Dianeticist is saying, "Ha-ha-ha! The somatic strip will—ha-ha —return to the incident necessary to resolve your case." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
indoctrination course: a course, at the time of this lecture, which gave a student a good unshakeable grasp on the procedures of auditing (i.e., the auditor's attitude and the various actual mechanics of putting a preclear in a chair and auditing him). "There's an indoctrination course running in there." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
in for it: (slang) about to suffer trouble, attack, etc. .. . and you yourself don't remember ever having played football, and so on, boy, are you in for it. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)

GLOSSARY
intensive: a specific number of hours of auditing given to a preclear over a short period of time, as a series of successive sessions at regularly scheduled intervals. See also preclear in this glossary. "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." —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
interiorize: go into something too fixedly and become part of it too fixedly. We could say people interiorize into their work and become inefficient and, becoming inefficient, interiorized into their drill presses and books and so forth . . . —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
invalidated: made to feel worthless as a result of someone refuting, degrad¬ing, discrediting or denying something one considers to be fact. Gets pushed back into birth, run halfway through, invalidated, evaluated for, restimulated and struck. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Jackson: (slang) a term of direct address signifying that the addressee is aware, informed, modern, etc. He was using American slang or some¬thing and he said, "That's solid, Jackson." —Universe (1 Sept. 56)
Julia: a staff member in the United States at the time of the lecture. Well, we didn't even notice there was anything gone from our processing tools until Julia started shipping over the tons of tests she ships me every week and the London Director of Processing started unloading me some more tests, and there was nothing happening in these tests! —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
kick: a recoil, as of a gun. Used figuratively in this lecture. At least take the kick off of them for the group. —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (2 Sept. 56)
knight: a chess piece shaped like a horse's head, moved one square vertically and then two squares horizontally or one square horizontally and then two squares vertically. See also chess in this glossary. And you moved your pawn, and then he moved his knight, and he says, "Now move your king's rook." —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
knowingness: awareness not depending upon perception. One doesn't have to look to find out. For example, you do not have to get a perception or picture of where you are living to know where you live. Knowingness can even be a blow. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
Korean War: a war, also called the Korean conflict, fought between the United Nations and Communist North Korea. In 1950, after North Korea invaded South Korea, the United Nations declared North Korea the aggressor and sent troops, mostly from United States forces, to aid the South Korean army. In 1953, with neither side having a prospect of victory, a truce was signed. After the war, it was discovered that cap¬tured American soldiers had been brainwashed by the communists dur¬ing the war. The duress required to make man worse is so tremendous that I do not believe there is known to the communist today, as he oper¬ated in the Korean War, any technique that would have worsened the IQ

215

216

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
or actual ability of a human being. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Kremlin: a fortress in central Moscow that contained the central offices of the government of the Soviet Union. / happened recently to have gotten ahold of the totality of information contained in the book written by Pav¬lov for Stalin and which hitherto has never been outside the doors of the Kremlin. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Ladies' Aid Society: an organization of women who support the work of a church by fund-raising, arranging social activities, etc., and who also engage in reform activities. If I noted it happened, I didn't consult the Ladies' Aid Society as to the publishability of the material. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Lafayette, Marquis of: (1757-1834) French nobleman, political leader and general. He served as a general in the American army during the Ameri-can Revolution (1775—1783) but returned to France after the war. He revis-ited America several times after that. During his visit in 1824, he gave a speech at a reception held by the Columbia Historical Society. And the Columbian Society, for instance, goes back to about 1821 and its first min¬utes are its formation and contain a speech by the Marquis of Lafayette which was given at the banquet. — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
laidies: (dialect) ladies. That's women. Dames. Ladies. Laidies. —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (cont.) (2 Sept. 56)
Latin: the language of ancient Rome. Latin is used today in many scholarly, technical, scientific and legal terms. A thetan, native state, not-knows anything about it, makes something, invents something to know about it, gives parts of the body internally all kinds of Latin names. — The Anat¬omy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
legulla oblongata: a made-up name for a mental disorder. "Then there's leg-ulla oblongata, schizophrenia paranoia —unclassified." —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
Listerine: (trademark) a brand of antiseptic mouthwash. We find out he should use Listerine too. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
look-a-here: an everyday-speech expression meaning simply "look here." And we say, "Now, look-a-here, look-a-here." —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
Lord knows: (colloquial) only someone more powerful than man can pos¬sibly know or realize (usually used to express the speaker's inability to understand or foresee something). 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. — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
"love thy neighbor...": humorous reference to commandments in the Bible said to have been given by Jesus Christ in a sermon. These read,

GLOSSARY
in part: "Ye (you) have heard that it hath (has) been said, 'Thou shalt love thy (your) neighbor and hate thine (your) enemy/ But I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you... Ye have heard that it hath been said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'; but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whatso¬ever shall smite thee (you) on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." See also shalt and thou in this glossary. Therefore, we get that thing called, "Love thy neighbor. If thou does not smote the other cheek thou shalt be in violation of Covenant 83" or whatever it is. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
lycanthropy: a kind of insanity described by ancient writers, in which the patient imagined himself to be a wolf and had the instincts of a wolf. Used humorously in this lecture. The only time I've seen preclears fight and start to become wolves and start to be very upset about the whole thing—you could practically see lycanthropy coming like sparks up above their ears —they are just about to bare their teeth and really get going— was when you were collecting your auditing fee. —Effectiveness of Brain¬washing (2 Sept. 56)
machine: an actual machine in the mind (like ordinary machinery), con¬structed out of mental mass and energy, that has been made by the indi¬vidual to do work for him, usually having been set up so as to come into operation automatically under certain predetermined circumstances. Not some machine you've got or something. — Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (cont.) (2 Sept. 56)
mad, like: (colloquial) very much, hard, fast, etc. Preclears on at least one or more items are below apathy and have to be processed like mad before they ever get into apathy. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
manic obulous: a made-up name for a mental disorder. Manic is a word meaning "abnormal excitability, exaggerated feeling of well-being, flight of ideas, excessive activity, etc." "There's epiflavus; there's manic obulous; there's schizophrenia class one, class two, class three, class four and schizo¬phrenia unclassified." —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
Mark 1-type carrier: a made-up designation for a model of aircraft carrier. Used figuratively in this lecture. The first one launched—Mark 1-type carrier—in Phoenix, Arizona, by—or no, in Los Angeles, really, earlier by Evans Farber in 1952 —launched. —Spiritual and Material Require¬ments of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Mary Sue: Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of L. Ron Hubbard. Mary Sue got ahold of me and she gave me some auditing. —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
mass: a quantity of matter forming a body of indefinite shape and size, usu¬ally of relatively large size. On a thought level, mental mass is actual mass; it has weight (though very small) as well as size and shape. No, Scientology is a study of the construction of universes and the role played

217

218

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
in them by a spiritual being; the background of masses, spaces, energy, thought and its relative positions person to person, dynamic to dynamic. — Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Mathison, Volney: an early Dianeticist who, after listening to a lecture by L. Ron Hubbard outlining the equipment and circuits necessary to detect mental charge, built the first E-Meter, the Model B, in 1951. There were various other models of E-Meters built by Mathison which were used by auditors. The E-Series in 1954 was his last model as his meters had become too complex to be workable. Remember E-Meters — Volney Mathison—got so they were this big and then they were this big. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
mat, went to the: contended over a matter at issue. The expression comes from the fact that a mat is a thick pad placed on a floor to protect wres-tlers while they are fighting. 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. — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
mental image picture: a mental copy of one's perceptions sometime in the past; three-dimensional color pictures with sound and smell and all other perceptions, plus the conclusions or speculations of the individual. For example, if a person were in a car accident, he would retain "pictures" of that experience in his mind, complete with recordings of the sights, physical sensations, smells, sounds, etc., that occurred during that incident. In the engram, a moment of pain and unconsciousness contained in a mental image picture containing an instant of exteriorization—pain, unconsciousness, exteriorization — is found to be the engram we were looking for, all up and down the track. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
MEST universe: the physical universe; the universe of matter, energy, space and time. Because it has pictures, because it has barriers, we say, "Well, that's my universe and the other fellow's reactive mind is his universe, and mock-ups, mock-ups, and then there is this big solid thing called the MEST universe." —Universe (1 Sept. 56)
Mexican cigarettes: cigarettes made in Mexico; thought of as having a very strong odor. He'd take up smoking Mexican cigarettes. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
Mississippi River: the principal river of the United States which flows a distance of 2,330 miles from northern Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico. Many steamboats on which gambling took place in the early 1800s trav¬eled up and down the Mississippi. 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. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Condi¬tions (1 Sept. 56)
mocked up: assembled; made. These two good people by the way, were mocked up whole cloth by the HCA students. —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (2 Sept. 56)

GLOSSARY
mocks up: creates a mock-up of. A mock-up is a full-perceptic energy picture in three dimensions, created by the thetan and having location in space and time. A mock-up is more than a mental picture; it is a self-created object which exists as itself or symbolizes some object in the physical universe. The term was derived from the World War II phrase for minia¬ture models that were constructed to symbolize weapons (airplanes, ships, artillery, etc.) or areas of attack (hills, rivers, buildings, etc.) for use in planning a battle. See also thetan in this glossary. That is to say, a being mocks up, let us say, a table, and he says, "You put things on it." — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
mote: (colloquial) drive, or ride in, a car. Used figuratively in this lecture. It's the idea of sitting down and grinding away on a preclear, auditing him, making him do this and do that and bringing up his state of health to a level of being human, of being able to function, of being able to mote somehow or another, that wasn't enough. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
motivator: an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics. The viewpoint from which the act is viewed resolves whether the act is an overt or a motivator. The reason it is called a "motivator" is because it tends to prompt that one pays it back—it "motivates" a new overt. When one has done something bad to someone or something one tends to believe it must have been "motivated." When one has received something bad, he also may tend to feel he must have done something to deserve it. See also overt act and dynamics in this glossary. [Definition of overt act—motivator phenomena] the sequence wherein a person commits an overt, then believes he's got to have a moti¬vator or that he has had a motivator.
Napoleon: Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821), French military leader. He rose to power in France by military force, declared himself emperor and conducted campaigns of conquest across Europe until his final defeat by armies allied against him in 1815. Now, one day—I was just walking down the steps at the HASI the other day and a chap—a chap was walk¬ing down with me that we had just cured recently of being Napoleon. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
Nasser: Gamal Abdal Nasser (1918-1970), Egyptian army officer and politi¬cal leader, first president of the republic of Egypt (1956-1970). After becoming president, he nationalized the company that controlled the Suez Canal. "Got to process me some more because with this Suez Canal crisis coming up, I won't know what to say to Nasser." —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
native state: the state where the thetan has the potential of knowing every¬thing. He knows everything there is to know without any action con¬nected with it or evaluation because of it or having to look to discover it. He just knows it. See also thetan in this glossary. A thetan, native state, not-knows anything about it, makes something, invents something to know about it, gives parts of the body internally all kinds of Latin names. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
Nazi Party: the National Socialist German Workers' Party which, in 1933, seized political control of Germany under the leadership of Adolf Hitler

219

220

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
(1889-1945). In alliance with Italy and, later, Japan, Nazi-controlled Germany entered into a large-scale war with many other nations of the world, which came to be called World War II. The Nazi party was offi-cially abolished in 1945 at the conclusion of the war. Nazi comes from the German word Nazi(onalsozialist). See also Hitler in this glossary. [Definition of Schutzstaffel] . . . formed originally within the German Nazi Party during World War II as a bodyguard for Hitler and other Nazi leaders.
neurosis: a condition wherein a person is insane or disturbed on some sub-ject (as opposed to psychosis, wherein a person is just insane in general). See also psychosis in this glossary. What we do to discourage misappro¬priation of funds on misrepresentation of facts; what we do to swing for-ward a broad, effective program to bring into being a saner look at insanity, a saner look at neurosis ... — The Anatomy of Human Prob¬lems (31 Aug. 56)
nickel, worth a: worth anything, usually used in negative sentences. And then you said —decided it —liable to fall over something, so you tried to get it to work in another direction, and it didn't obey you worth a nickel. — Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
nob: (slang) the head. Used figuratively in this lecture. A little —my little copper nob, Diana, she always comes around, and she says, "I want to go shopping with Dada." —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Notre Dame: a Roman Catholic university adjacent to the city of South Bend, Indiana, founded in 1842. It is well known for being one of the top schools in the United States in college football. 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. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
nuclear physicist: an expert in the branch of physics that is concerned with atoms and their nuclear (of the nucleus or core) structure. ... which is, of course, I realize not as full an effect as a usual nuclear physicist would like to have a country have—I realize it's below his acceptance level, but it's the best he could do. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
occluded case: a case whose memories are usually largely hidden or made unavailable to conscious recall. See also case in this glossary. This is called an "occluded case"—actually should be called a "black case" or a "lightless case." —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
only one: an individual who is operating on only the first dynamic and is not actually aware of or operating on any other dynamics. In this state the individual must have no effect on self and total effect on everything and everybody else. See also dynamics in this glossary. Every cat going around is "the only one." —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
Operating Thetan: a being "at cause over matter, energy, space, time, form and life." Operating comes from "able to operate without dependency on things." See also thetan in this glossary. For the last three, four years, people have been asking me, "What's an Operating Thetan?" —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)

GLOSSARY
order of magnitude: how large or how small something is in relation to other things. Now, look-a-here — what are we —what are we all spooking about this thing called brainwashing for? It's a hoax—a hoax of the first order of magnitude. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
overt act: an act by the person or individual leading to the injury, reduction or degradation of another, others or their persons, possessions or associa¬tions. An overt act can be intentional or unintentional. Also called overt for short. Now, into the wall on the right—and I mean into it—you put, as a sin or an overt act or anything you care, a craving to know. — Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
overt act—motivator phenomena: reference to the overt act-motivator sequence, the sequence wherein a person commits an overt, then believes he's got to have a motivator or that he has had a motivator. For instance, if he hits somebody he will tell you immediately that he has been hit by the person, even when he has not been. See also overt act in this glos¬sary. It really isn't the old overt act-motivator phenomena. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
PAB: abbreviation for Professional Auditor's Bulletin: one of a series of issues written by L. Ron Hubbard between 10 May 1953 and 15 May 1959. The content of these bulletins is technical and promotional. Their intent was to give the professional auditor and his preclears the best possible processes and processing available at the moment it became available. "A Critique of Psychoanalysis" was published in PABs 92 and 93 in July 1956. / recently made a study, and published it in a PAB and I'm sure quite a few of you have seen it already, called, "A Critique of Psychoanalysis." —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
pan-determinism: the ability to regulate the considerations of two or more identities, whether or not they are opposed. Now, we get this thing called "pan-determinism"—doesn't process. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
para-Scientology: a category of data in Scientology which includes all greater or lesser uncertainties and questionable things; things in Scien¬tology of which the common, normal observer cannot be sure with a lit¬tle study. Para-Scientology would include incidents on the whole track, the immortality of man, the existence of God, etc. Male voice: Oh, para-Scientology these days—para-Dianetics in those days. —Demonstration of SCS(2Sept. 56)
Pavlov: Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936), Russian physiologist. Noted for behavioral experiments in which he sounded a bell while presenting food to a dog, thereby stimulating the natural flow of saliva in the dog's mouth. After the procedure was repeated several times, the dog would salivate at the sound of the bell, even when no food was presented. I happened recently to have gotten ahold of the totality of information con¬tained in the book written by Pavlov for Stalin and which hitherto has never been outside the doors of the Kremlin. —Effectiveness of Brain¬washing (2 Sept. 56)

221

222

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
pawn: one of eight chess pieces of one color and of the lowest value, usually moved one square at a time vertically. Did you ever play —did you ever play chess with somebody that says, "All right, move your pawn now." -Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
PE Course: abbreviation for Personnel .Efficiency Course. See Personnel Efficiency Course in this glossary. I'm writing a little book called Security in the Workaday World which is to go out with the PE Courses. — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
Personnel Efficiency Course: an introductory course for new Scien¬tologists which contained lectures, communication drills and auditing. See also auditing in this glossary. In fact they agree so thoroughly that when our office opened up a Personnel Efficiency Course in Dublin, the Irish —the Irish came in and said, "What are you fellows doing?" —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Phoenix lectures: reference to the 6 January 1955 lecture of the 9th Advanced Clinical Course, "Exteriorization." In this lecture, LRH cov-ered the fact that the reason an electric motor works is because the base of the motor keeps the positive and negative poles stretched apart. For more information, see the Solution to Entrapment (9th ACC) lectures by L. Ron Hubbard. See also ACC in this glossary. Some of you old-timers might remember the Phoenix lectures on the base of the motor. — Group Processing: "Keep It from Going Away" (1 Sept. 56)
phrenology: the practice of reading character from the shape of the skull. Used humorously in this lecture in reference to psychiatry and psychol¬ogy. There is a subject called—I forget its name—just a minute, it's phre-nology. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
Pilgrim's Progress: a novel written as an allegory by English author John Bunyan (1628-1688). The story is about the spiritual life of man. Chris-tian, the central character, flees the City of Destruction and sets out for the Celestial City. Along the way he faces many obstacles, but is always able to get back onto the straight and narrow path that leads him to the Celestial City. Pilgrim's Progress is a terribly interesting thing. — Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
pipe: (slang) something regarded as easy to accomplish. From lead-pipe cinch: a doubly sure or doubly easy thing. Lead pipe refers to a Midwest-ern and Western US form of galvanized iron pipe (which looks as if it were lead). For saddling and cinching (fixing a saddle securely) the sort of horse that expands its belly, a short length of this so-called lead pipe was slipped under the saddle strap and turned like a tourniquet, the work assisted by a few knee jabs in the belly. Thus the horse was forced to deflate and the saddle was cinched tight, that horse now being double (lead-pipe) cinched. I figured out if I could crack one of those, why, any of yours would be a pipe. —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
plows (someone) in: embeds or buries (someone) in the soil by plowing. Used figuratively in this lecture. And that run for about twenty minutes practically plows a guy in. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Condi¬tions (1 Sept. 56)

GLOSSARY
postulate: (1) (noun) a conclusion, decision or resolution made by the indi¬vidual himself to resolve a problem or to set a pattern for the future or to nullify a pattern of the past. And if any of you run too strong a postu¬late and knock it down, why, I don't know whether the congress is insured or not, so take it easy. —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56) (2) (verb) make a postulate. Actually, if he were at the top of the scale and he could really think a thought, in other words, postulate a thought, he would be able to do something quite interesting. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
preclear: a person not yet Clear, hence pre-Clear; generally, a person being audited, who is thus on the road to Clear; a person who, through audit¬ing, is finding out more about himself and life. See also Clear in this glossary. We have been working—the lot of us —with preclears, with cases, for six years now. — Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
prenatal: existing or taking place before birth. What is all this stuff? Prena¬tal chains? —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
process: (1) (noun) a set of questions asked or commands given by a Scien¬tology or Dianetics practitioner to help a person find out things about himself or life and to improve his condition. / knew that somewhere for¬ward just as you did —there was coming into being, better and better processes... —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56) (2) (verb) give auditing to. See also auditing in this glossary. ... and there was coming into being, a time when we could process somebody above the level of merely being human or merely being well. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
processing: same as auditing. See auditing in this glossary. The case that doesn't have any —very good luck in processing is running this way. — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
profile: a graph which plots the ten traits of a person's character based upon a personality test administered to him. "He's supposed to look over these child group profiles on crippled children." —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
proof (something) up: make (something) resistant or impervious. Well, I was trying to do what I could in order to discover whether or not audit¬ing could actually proof a body up against atomic fission. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
psychiatrist: a physician engaged in psychiatry. See also psychiatry in this glossary. We had a psychiatrist there who was on duty, because the pub¬lisher there in New York said that that was the legal thing to have. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
psychiatry: the supposed medical practice or science of diagnosing and treat¬ing mental disorders. Well now, that system was imported into America from Germany, along with psychiatry some fifty years ago. — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)

223

224

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
psycho: short for psychotic. See also psychotic in this glossary. You know how psychos are. —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
psychoanalysis: a system of mental therapy developed in 1894 by Sigmund Freud. It depended upon the following practices for its effects: The patient was made to talk about and recall his childhood for years while the practitioner brought about a transfer of the patient's personality to his own and searched for hidden sexual incidents believed by Freud to be the only cause of aberration. The practitioner read sexual significances into all statements and evaluated them for the patient along sexual lines. Each of these points later proved to be based upon false premises and incomplete research, accounting for their lack of result and the sub-sequent failure of the subject and its offshoots. Also called Freudian analysis. See also Freud in this glossary. Well, let's —let's not go Freud-ian because we're not talking about psychoanalysis. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
psychology: the study of the human brain and stimulus-response mecha-nisms. It states that "Man, to be happy, must adjust to his environment." In other words, man, to be happy, must be a total effect. Do you know that the entirety of Dianetics was discredited in the field of psychology and psychia-try because they said, "It's very probable that Hubbard can get these results on his patients ..." —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
psychosis: any severe form of mental disorder; insanity. You take a—oh, I don't know, a brain—a brain collector—one of these chaps—one of these chaps who makes a whole long list of things, and he says, "These things are psychosis." —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
psychosomatic: a term used in common parlance to denote a condition "resulting from a state of mind." Such illnesses account for about sev-enty percent of all ills, by popular report. The main engram on the track and the psychosomatic problems as they exist in present time, abolished with maybe fifteen hours of running. —Spiritual and Material Require¬ments of Man (31 Aug. 56)
psychotherapy: treatment of mental disorder by any of various means including suggestion, counseling, psychoanalysis, etc. See also psycho-analysis in this glossary. And that is the total success of Dianetics and Scientology, owing to the fact that they went on a reverse vector to every other psychotherapy and activity in the mind that was ever advanced or invented. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
psychotic: like an individual who is out of contact to a thorough extent with the present time environment and is not computing into the future. A person may be an acute psychotic wherein he becomes psychotic for only a few minutes at a time and only occasionally in certain environments (as in rages or apathies) or he may be a chronic psychotic, or in a contin¬ual disconnection with the future and present. Psychotics who are dra-matically harmful to others are considered dangerous enough to be put away. Psychotics who are harmful on a less dramatic basis are no less harmful to their environment and are no less psychotic. But this time,

GLOSSARY
please —please get the wall craving to know so that it is in a psychotic fit.
— Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
Punch, friendly as: very friendly. A variation of the phrase pleased as Punch, which comes from Punch, the main character frequently seen in puppet shows, especially in England, who outwits and triumphs over ennui, disease, death and the devil. Punch is always singing with self-satisfaction in his naughty ways and is conspicuously pleased and proud over his ultimate victory. And then tomorrow, why, you'll find them sit¬ting down friendly as Punch. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
randomity: a consideration of motion. We have plus randomity and we have minus randomity. We can have, from the individual's consideration, too much or too little motion, or enough motion. What's enough motion measured by? The consideration of the individual. The term randomity is often used to mean simply too much motion or action. I dare say, there'd be some interesting randomity connected with observing such a society, but I seriously doubt that the society itself could handle any of its problems. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
reactive bank: same as reactive mind. See bank and reactive mind in this glossary. When you can take an engram and throw it up against the wall contemptuously and have it go clank, your reactive bank won't bother you. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
reactive mind: that portion of a person's mind which works on a totally stimulus-response basis, which is not under his volitional control and which exerts force and the power of command over his awareness, pur¬poses, thoughts, body and actions. The reactive mind is where engrams are stored. See also engram in this glossary. It went up to the fourth dynamic and it handled a thing called a mental image picture, called an engram, and these mental image pictures were discovered to be housed, kept, maintained, stowed, hidden, stashed, in a reactive mind which was over this-a-way—on some preclears that-a-way. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
reductio ad absurdum: (Latin) proof of the falsity of a principle by demon-strating that its logical consequence involves an absurdity. Literally means "reduction to absurdity." It is used loosely of taking an argument or principle to impractical lengths. Example: "The more sleep one has the longer one lives. To sleep all the time ensures the longest possible life." And I said, well, the silliest line of research, the reductio ad absur¬dum that would end all absurdities everywhere would be to solve atomic fission this way: All you do is fix a preclear up so that if he loses a body he could mock up one. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
Release: an individual who has been released of current or chronic mental and physical difficulties and painful emotion. If you ask a guy for a solu¬tion and solution and solution and solution and solution —a little mis¬take that was made on a Release at one time, he just spins right in.
— Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
Rembrandt: Harmensz van Rijn Rembrandt (1606-1669), Dutch painter and etcher; considered one of the greatest painters in history. He

225

226

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
received his most valuable training in the Amsterdam studio of Pieter Lastman (1583-1633), Dutch painter and engraver, who influenced Rembrandt's sense of composition and frequent choice of religious and historical themes. But a book which discussed paintings from Rem¬brandt backwards or something of the sort, but had a title—all it did was discuss paintings and say what museums they were in and how much they cost people—and title itself, How to Paint and Become a Famous Painter, is a fraud. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
restimulated: put into a state or condition of restimulation, a reactivation of a past memory due to similar circumstances in the present approximat¬ing circumstances of the past. Any of you people who've been instructing students get restimulated on this? —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
ribbons, cut (someone) to: destroy or defeat (someone) completely. A varia¬tion of the phrase cut (someone) to pieces. This person is talking not to inform you, not to spend a pleasant time with you, not to enjoy your com¬pany, but simply to cut you to ribbons by cutting somebody else to rib-bons. —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
ridge: a solid accumulation of old, inactive energy suspended in space and time. A ridge is generated by opposing energy flows which hit one another, and continues to exist long after the energy flows have ceased. You mean some of you are having some ridges blow or something? —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (2 Sept. 56)
road, out of the: out of the way; in or to a place that does not block some-one's path or view. We had to get that out of the road and get that all squared away and get Dianetics all wrapped up, finished, so that you won't have to know any more about that, because there's a lot of mysteries around here of one kind or another. —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
roger, wilco, over, under and out: humorous reference to words used in two-way radio communication to signify certain things. Roger is used as a response in radio communication to indicate that a message has been received and understood; wilco is short for will comply and means "I will comply with your request"; over is used to signify that the sender is awaiting a reply to or acknowledgment of a transmission and out is used to end a communication and means that the message is completed. And I got so that whenever I would sign off from other ships in my squadron, why, I would say, "Roger, wilco, over, under and out." — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
Rome: the capital of the ancient Roman Republic and of the Roman Empire (the empire that lasted from 27 B.C., when it was established by Augus¬tus, to A.D. 395, when it was divided into the Eastern Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire); the capital of Italy. During the time of the Roman Empire, the whole Western world became subject to Rome and was at peace for roughly the first four centuries A.D. The Empire was known for its strongly centralized government and for massive public works, such as roads and aqueducts, which helped maintain its power and efficiency. There are many great monuments of Rome's past still standing today. The stuff that is on the backtrack of the preclear is of

GLOSSARY
such major nature that the little old "tiddlywink games" he's been playing for the last two or three thousand years—except for some of the majesty of Rome, that was fun—aren't aberrative. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
rook: one of the two chess pieces shaped like a castle tower which can move parallel to the sides of the board across any number of empty squares. The rook closest to the king at the start of the game is called the king's rook. A rook is also called a castle. And you moved your pawn, and then he moved his knight, and he says, "Now move your king's rook." —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)
row to hoe, tough: (informal) a difficult time, job or situation. A variation of hard row to hoe. It's kind of a tough row to hoe, isn't it? —Group Proc¬essing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (2 Sept. 56)
rubber, smell the: a reference to the smell of smoke caused by abrupt and forceful application of the brakes (made of rubber) on the wheels of a fast-moving vehicle. Used figuratively in this lecture. You can smell the rubber. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
running: performing the steps of auditing on. See also auditing in this glos¬sary. We had a special method of running engrams: You simply built the man's confidence in being able to handle them till he threw them all away and he was a Clear. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
running out: causing (through auditing) something in the reactive mind to vanish entirely, at which time it is filed as memory and experience. See also auditing and reactive mind in this glossary. And I put the pre-clears down on the couch and I was running an incident and—out of one of them and he started to writhe and look pale and he started to get sort of flushed looking, and the medico says, "What's wrong with him?" — Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
sad sack: (slang) a pathetically inept person, especially a soldier, who con¬tinually blunders in spite of good intentions (after Sad Sack, a cartoon character created in 1942 by US cartoonist George Baker). And over here this other dummy —this other sad sack, that's all the men you ever knew, right? —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (cont.) (2 Sept. 56)
scan: run a process in which one contacts an early incident on the track and goes through all such similar incidents straight to present time. We used to scan them, and we used to do this, and we used to do that. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
schizophrenia: (psychiatry) a major mental disorder typically characterized by a separation of the thought processes and the emotions, a distortion of reality accompanied by delusions and hallucinations, a fragmentation of the personality, motor (involving muscular movement) disturbances, bizarre behavior, etc. The word schizophrenia means "scissors" or "two" plus "head"—a two-head, in other words. "There's epiflavus; there's manic obulous; there's schizophrenia class one, class two, class three,

227

228

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
class four and schizophrenia unclassified." —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
schizophrenia paranoia: a made-up name for a mental disorder. Paranoia, in psychiatry, is a form of psychosis in which a person imagines that he is being persecuted or that he is very great or important. See also psy¬chosis and schizophrenia in this glossary. "Then there's legulla oblon-gata, schizophrenia paranoia —unclassified." —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
Schopenhauer, Skip-skop: humorous reference to Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), German philosopher of pessimism. He maintained that the desires and drives of men, as well as the forces of nature, are manifesta-tions of a single will, specifically the will to live, which is the essence of the world. Schopenhauer asserted that since operation of the will means constant striving without satisfaction, life consists of suffering and that only by controlling the will through the intellect, by suppressing the desire to reproduce, can suffering be diminished. You see, philosophers, from the beginning of time practically have been saying, "Why, it's all whyness," and Skip-skop Schopenhauer, a German that had more bad temper than good grammar ... — Games Conditions vs. No-Games Con¬ditions (1 Sept. 56)
Schutzstaffel: (German) an elite corps of combat troops formed originally within the German Nazi Party during World War II as a bodyguard for Hitler and other Nazi leaders. During World War II, they worked, on Hitler's orders, to wipe out the Jewish people by systematic murder. The word literally means "defense echelon." The Schutzstaffel were fre-quently referred to by the abbreviation SS (Schutzstaffel). See also Hit-ler and Nazi Party in this glossary. But let's say —let's say we were being Schutzstaffel or something of the—of another age and time, that seemed to specialize in this sort of thing; but their idea of "human rights" was to put somebody up to his neck in foul water for thirty days. — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
Scientologist: one who knows he has found the way to a better life through Scientology and who, through Scientology books, tapes, training and processing, is actively attaining it. See also Scientology in this glos-sary. And some of you new Scientologists, and some of you guests that were patient enough, if with some misgivings, to come along with your overenthusiastic friend—you want to know what Dianetics is. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Scientology: Scientology philosophy. It is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life. Scientology means scio, knowing in the fullest sense of the word and logos, study. In itself the word means literally knowing how to know. Scientology is a "route," a way, rather than a dissertation or an assertive body of knowl-edge. Through its drills and studies one may find the truth for himself. The technology is therefore not expounded as something to believe, but something to do. But during this last year we have been able to bring Scientology up and put some long pants on it, dress it up, bring it into a level of workability that it's never before even vaguely been able to approach. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)

GLOSSARY
Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought: a book written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1956, containing basic Scientology principles and pro-cedures. First called "Scientology: Translator's Edition," it was origi-nally written as a resume of Scientology for use in translation into other languages and was serialized in Professional Auditor's Bulletins 82-88 (May-June 1956). L. Ron Hubbard then began the job of rewriting the Translator's Edition into book form, which was published in September 1956. 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. — Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
screamer: a type of case in which the person is sitting in almost total charge (harmful energy or force accumulated and stored in the reactive mind, resulting from the conflicts and unpleasant experiences that a person has had). The person screams as the charge is releasing. All of the phenomena, all of the "curl up in the ball and fall on the floor," the screamer, the sperm sequence, those horrible things that came up and actually effectively in the long run completely blew up the Foundation in Elizabeth that couldn't agree on them. —Spiritual and Material Require¬ments of Man (31 Aug. 56)
seams, comes apart at the: (colloquial) fails completely; is ruined; falls into a worse condition. The phrase refers to the fact that clothing falls apart at the seams (the point where the pieces of cloth are sewn together). 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. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
Security in the Workaday World: the working title of a book written by L. Ron Hubbard on the subject of work. The book was released in Decem¬ber, 1956 under the title The Problems of Work. It contains solutions to the basic difficulties associated with work, such as overcoming exhaus¬tion, the secrets of efficiency and handling confusing situations. I'm writing a little book called Security in the Workaday World which is to go out with the PE Courses. —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
self-determinism: a condition of determining the actions of self; the ability to direct oneself. Well, you say, "His self-determinism, or his basic greed or this and that, something else was being violated here." —Games Con¬ditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
Senate: short for United States Senate: which, with the House of Represen¬tatives, makes up the United States Congress. See also House and United States Congress in this glossary. They change numbers on bills every time they go from the House to the Senate and then to the printing office again. — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
service facsimile: a computation generated by the individual to make self right and others wrong, to dominate or escape domination and to enhance own survival and injure that of others. This computation will cause the individual to deliberately hold in restimulation selected parts

229

230

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
of his reactive mind to explain his failures in life. For example, a person may keep an old injury in restimulation so that his family has to look after him. See also computation, reactive mind and restimulated in
this glossary. The service facsimile —remember that? —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
session: a precise period of time during which an auditor audits a preclear. See also auditor and preclear in this glossary. "Do you mind if I take his temperature?" Right in the middle of an auditing session. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
shake a stick at, more (things) than (one) can: (US colloquial) more (things) than (one) can count. This process has more beef per square inch than you can shake a stick at even though it's very simple. —Demonstration of SCS (2 Sept. 56)
shalt: (archaic) shall. Therefore, we get that thing called, "Love thy neighbor. If thou does not smote the other cheek thou shalt be in violation of Cove¬nant 83" or whatever it is. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
shock: (psychiatry) short for electric shock, the practice of administering an electric shock to the head of a patient in a supposed effort to treat men¬tal illness. There is no therapeutic reason for shocking anyone and there are no authentic cases on record of anyone having been cured of any-thing by shock. The reverse is true. Electric shock causes often irrepa-rable damage to the person in the form of brain damage and impaired mental ability. Putting the shock to somebody, pouring the juice to them. Nah! —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Sirius: the brightest-appearing star in the heavens. In the early 1800s, it was discovered that Sirius had a companion star that is so dense that one cubic inch of it has a mass of nearly one ton. The two stars revolve around each other so closely that at times it is hard to separate them by telescopic means. When they revolve closely, they exchange gas which flows between their equators. This causes the two stars to look like a dumbbell. There's a part of the star dumbbell of Sirius, one teaspoonful of which on Earth would weigh one ton. — Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (cont.) (2 Sept. 56)
skoits: (dialect) skirts (slang for a woman or girl). Skoits? —Group Process-ing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (cont.) (2 Sept. 56)
smellio: a humorous reference to the faculty or sense of smelling; used to rhyme with visio. He does this a dozen times and all of a sudden this fel-low that has never had mock-ups suddenly has a 3D, full color, full visio, full smellio mock-up. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
snap terminals with: collapse into or identify oneself with something or someone. 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. — Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
somatic: a physical pain or discomfort of any kind. The word somatic means, actually, bodily or physical. Because the word pain has in the past led to

GLOSSARY
confusion between physical pain and mental pain, somatic is the term used to denote physical pain or discomfort. Only he does it so fast, he doesn't realize there's a somatic involved. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
somatic mind: that mind which, directed by the analytical or reactive mind, places solutions into effect on the physical level. We kept talking about mental image pictures, the reactive mind, the somatic mind, the analyti¬cal mind, how man thought, how he combined pictures, emotions, percep¬tions, so that these things would reapply themselves to his body and he could do this and he could do that with them and he could do something else with them. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
somatic strip: a physical indicator mechanism which has to do with time. The auditor orders the somatic strip. The somatic strip can be sent back to the beginning of an engram and will go there. The somatic strip will advance through an engram in terms of minutes counted off by the audi¬tor, so that the auditor can say that the somatic strip will go to the beginning of the engram, then to the point five minutes after the engram began, and so forth. See also auditor and engrain in this glos¬sary. When I think of the way we used to audit! "The somatic strip will now go to ..." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
south: down; toward a lower level. And then we go south. —Games Condi¬tions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
Spanish Inquisition: a court appointed by the Roman Catholic Church in 1478 to discover and suppress heresy (religious beliefs that the Roman Catholic Church considered to be false) and to punish heretics (those who practiced heresy). The Spanish Inquisition, in operation until 1834, was marked by the extreme severity and cruelty of its proceedings in the sixteenth century. And we find out that during the Spanish Inquisition he had sole charge of burning all heretical books and heretical authors. — Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
Spath, Professor: a made-up name for a professor. "However, this is con¬tested by Professor Spath." — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
sperm sequence: the time period of conception. Preclears sometimes have the feeling that they are sperms or ovums at the beginning of the track; in very early Dianetics this was called the sperm dream and was later renamed the sperm sequence. See also time track in this glossary. All of the phenomena, all of the "curl up in the ball and fall on the floor," the screamer, the sperm sequence, those horrible things that came up and actually effectively in the long run completely blew up the Foundation in Elizabeth that couldn't agree on them. —Spiritual and Material Require¬ments of Man (31 Aug. 56)
spin (someone) in: (slang) cause (someone) to go into a state of mental con-fusion. 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. —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
spitzbergen: reference to spitz, any of a breed of dog having a stocky body, a thick coat, erect, pointed ears and a tail curved over the back. The spitz

231

232

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
breeds were developed in Arctic regions, where they have long been used for pulling sleighs, hunting and as guard dogs. He was half malamute, half spitzbergen, very tough dog. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
sponge, tossed in the: (colloquial) admitted defeat; given up. A variation of thrown in the sponge. The expression comes from the practice of a box-er's second (a person who advises a boxer) throwing a sponge into the ring to concede defeat. And so I've just tossed in the sponge and I am going to stay. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
sprang full-armed from the brain of your auditor: a humorous refer¬ence to the fable from Roman mythology of the origin of Minerva, god-dess of wisdom, arts, industries and prudent warfare, who was said to have sprung, full-grown and dressed in armor, from the forehead of Jove, her father. Not that you have one —not that you have one, but I am sure unless you sprang full-armed from the brain of your auditor, you had a mother. —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (2 Sept. 56)
stable datum: the one datum from which any body of knowledge is built, and around which other data align. A stable datum does not have to be a correct one—it is simply the one that keeps things from being in a con-fusion. One of the first things you could do to straighten it out for your¬self would be to look for a stable datum somewhere in it; something that is still motionless or stopped. —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
Stalin: Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), Russian political leader. As general secre-tary of the Communist Party, he expelled those who opposed him and ordered the arrest and deportation to Siberia and northern Russia of tens of thousands of members of the opposition. He became premier of the Soviet Union in 1941, and established himself as virtual dictator. / happened recently to have gotten ahold of the totality of information con-tained in the book written by Pavlov for Stalin and which hitherto has never been outside the doors of the Kremlin. —Effectiveness of Brain-washing (2 Sept. 56)
static: an actuality of no mass, no wavelength, no position in space or rela¬tion in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, of locating itself or creating space, and in re-relating time. We know why since: they can't look at a static. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Steinways: persons like Henry Engelhard Steinway (1797-1871), US piano manufacturer, born in Germany. The pianos manufactured by his com¬pany, the Steinway company, were known for their quality. After his death, his son William ran the company. Through his efforts, the firm gained an international reputation as noted musicians were persuaded to use Steinway pianos. There are Chippendales and Steinways and other furniture makers who ... I see we have some other pianists in the audience. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
stimulus-response: of or having to do with a certain stimulus (something that rouses a person or thing to activity or energy or that produces a

GLOSSARY
reaction in an organ or tissue of the body) automatically giving a certain response. But a great many hidden responses—automaticities we called them later—were hidden in a mind called the reactive mind which oper¬ated on a stimulus-response basis. —Spiritual and Material Require¬ments of Man (31 Aug. 56)
Stop-C-S: a variation of Start-Change-Stop which specializes in stopping the body. There's another one called Stop-C-S which is quite distinctly differ¬ent. —Demonstration of SCS (2 Sept. 56)
sublimation: (Freudian psychology) a defense mechanism by which the indi-vidual satisfies a socially prohibited instinctive drive (usually sexual or aggressive) through the substitution of socially acceptable behavior. For example, someone with strong sexual drives who paints nude portraits may be engaging in sublimation. "And the sublimation of the ego self is the real self and that isn't the self because the self is the self is the id is the self is the real self." —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
Suez Canal: a canal in northeastern Egypt that connects the Mediterranean and Red Seas. For many years this canal had been open to ships of all nations in peace and war. This changed in July, 1956 when Nasser, the president of Egypt, nationalized the company that controlled the canal and excluded Israeli shipping from the canal. This action was protested by the Western powers, such as England, France and the United States, but to no avail. See also Nasser in this glossary. "Got to process me some more because with this Suez Canal crisis coming up, I won't know what to say to Nasser." —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
Sunday school picnic: (slang) a variation of picnic, a thoroughly good time; anything enjoyable, as any entertainment or social gathering. A Sunday school is a school for religious instruction held on Sunday. Fac One was a Sunday school picnic. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
sun, under the: on Earth; in the world. By 1870, to make a C, you merely make five or six curlicues, not like 1830 where you practically drew pic¬tures of everything under the sun to make a C, you see? —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
Suzie: Mary Sue Hubbard, wife of L. Ron Hubbard. So Suzie, giving me the business and "problems of comparable magnitude to finishing up research" and a few minor things like this—and I said, "Just a minute"—I was get¬ting a cognition, you know. —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
teeth of, in the: directly and forcefully against. / was staring straight into the teeth of an end of a game called research. — Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
Ten Commandments: (Bible) the ten laws forming the fundamental moral code of Israel, given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai. 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?" —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)

233

234

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
that-a-way: in or toward the direction pointed out. It went up to the fourth dynamic and it handled a thing called a mental image picture, called an engram, and these mental image pictures were discovered to be housed, kept, maintained, stowed, hidden, stashed, in a reactive mind which was over this-a-way—on some preclears that-a-way. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
that's the boy: (slang) an exclamation of encouragement or admiration. That's the boy. That's good, we're coming right up on it. — Group Process¬ing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
theta: energy peculiar to life which acts upon material in the physical uni¬verse and animates it, mobilizes it and changes it; natural creative energy of a being which he has free to direct toward survival goals. The term comes from the Greek letter theta (Θ), which the Greeks used to represent thought or perhaps spirit. Now, if you find out you can't reach up and put your theta paws on these relatives of yours, why you just try a little bit harder. —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (2 Sept. 56)
thetan: the person himself—not his body or his name, the physical universe, his mind or anything else; that which is aware of being aware; the iden¬tity which is the individual. The thetan (spirit) is described in Scientol-ogy as having no mass, no wavelength, no energy and no time or location in space except by consideration or postulate. The spirit then is not a thing. It is the creator of things. The term was coined to eliminate any possible confusion with older, invalid concepts. It comes from the Greek letter theta (Θ), to which an n is added to make a noun in the modern style used to create words in engineering. It is also Θn, or "theta to the nth degree," meaning unlimited or vast. See also postulate and theta in this glossary. The processes we have in Scientology are sufficiently good that they handle it in some other fashion, but the problem of the thetan is the problem of the mind; the problem of beingness, the problem of the spirit, is his problem with the mind. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
thinkingness: the combination of past observations to derive a future obser-vation. And the analytical mind was what you were consciously thinking with and doing; thinkingness turning into doingness. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
this-a-way: in this direction. It went up to the fourth dynamic and it han-dled a thing called a mental image picture, called an engram, and these mental image pictures were discovered to be housed, kept, maintained, stowed, hidden, stashed, in a reactive mind which was over this-a-way—on some preclears that-a-way. —Spiritual and Material Require¬ments of Man (31 Aug. 56)
thises and thatas: (informal) various activities, things, etc., (used to give only a general indication of what is being referred to). 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. — Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)

GLOSSARY
thou: (archaic) you. Therefore, we get that thing called, "Love thy neighbor. If thou does not smote the other cheek thou shalt be in violation of Cove¬nant 83" or whatever it is. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
3D: short for three-dimensional, having or seeming to have the dimensions of depth as well as width and height. He does this a dozen times and all of a sudden this fellow that has never had mock-ups suddenly has a 3D, full color, full visio, full smellio mock-up. — Universe (1 Sept. 56)
throat, cut (one's) own: bring about (one's) own ruin. "How would you cut your own throat?" —Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
ticket: a writing in which something is certified or authorized; a certificate or voucher; a warrant, license, permit. "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." —Third Dynamic Appli¬cation of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
Time magazine: a weekly newsmagazine in the United States, cofounded by Henry Luce in 1923. Time has a history of presenting biased articles, tailored to fit the editorial slant of the magazine. Why I use this "seventy-six trillion years"—you old-timers remember that —Time maga¬zine one time devoted a whole page to ribbing me. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
time track: the consecutive record of mental image pictures which accumu¬late through a person's life or lives. It is very exactly dated. The entire sequence of "now" incidents, complete with all sense messages, picked up by a person during his whole existence. The term is also used loosely in reference to the past in general. He finds out about these hidden points in the time track and he gets them very smoothly down, and so forth. — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
tip of (one's) mind, on the: (informal) a variation of on the tip of (one's) tongue, almost remembered; at the point where one can almost say it but cannot because it is forgotten. "There's just something here that's right on the tip of my mind." —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
Tone Scale: a scale, in Scientology, which shows the emotional tones of a person. These, ranged from the highest to the lowest, are, in part, seren¬ity, enthusiasm (as we proceed downward), conservatism, boredom, antagonism, anger, covert hostility, fear, grief, apathy. An arbitrary numerical value is given to each level on the scale. There are many aspects of the Tone Scale and using it makes possible the prediction of human behavior. For more information on the Tone Scale, read the book Science of Survival by L. Ron Hubbard. But wherever the sun rises and sets today, Scientology is bringing them up Tone Scale. —Group Process¬ing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
track: short for time track. See time track in this glossary. In the engram, a moment of pain and unconsciousness contained in a mental image pic¬ture containing an instant of exteriorization—pain, unconsciousness,

235

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
exteriorization — is found to be the engrain we were looking for, all up and down the track. —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
traveling ovals: a continuous connected, overlapping series of ovals about the size of an uppercase letter O, which are done as a writing exercise. / 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. —Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)






236

trials: reference to a series of public and secret trials (1935-1939) held in Russia in which the government of the Soviet Union was "purged" of the persons allegedly involved in a conspiracy to overthrow the government of Joseph Stalin. Many high-ranking government and military officials were tried and convicted. See also Stalin in this glossary. And they started using this in the spy —not the spy trials but the trials of commu-nist officials. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
tube: short for vacuum tube, a sealed tube from which most of the air has been removed; used in radio and television sets, radar, electron micro-scopes and other devices to control flows of electric current. You shut off the set then and removed the tubes—full stop! —Universe (1 Sept. 56)
"Turkey in the Straw": an American folk tune, first published in 1834. You know, the old song—the words of "Turkey in the Straw." —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
2.0: the numerical designation for antagonism on the Tone Scale. See also Tone Scale in this glossary. When it gets down to the third dynamic and one is no longer able to operate on any third dynamic at all, one starts to get too much game and it's when one departs from all thirds that he goes below 2.0 on our own Tone Scale. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
Umph, Professor: a made-up name for a professor. In other words, I am not, you might say, a standard issue research man that —that you know he —he says, "Well, undoubtedly Professor Umph knows about that." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
United Nations: an international organization with headquarters in New York City, formed to promote international peace, security and coopera¬tion under the terms of the charter signed by fifty-one founding coun-tries in San Francisco in 1945. We look up and down the wall there, we find Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations. —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
United States Congress: the national lawmaking body of the United States, consisting of members from each state. Now, somebody comes along, thinking about this, in this congress of human problems, and puts a bill down here through the United States Congress and enacts it into law, the first line of which says, "In view of the fact that 775,000 people

GLOSSARY
are admitted every day into American mental institutions ..." —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
United States War Department: a former federal executive department organized in 1789 to administer the military establishment. In 1949, it was reconstituted as the Department of the Army, a division within the Department of Defense. And they built this myth up so good that the United States War Department and even the Marine Corps —which is surprising since they have sense —was actually willing to brainwash a bunch of people that they had, so as to proof them against brainwashing. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
University of Michigan: a coeducational institution founded in Michigan in 1817. "The ice ages begun, it is said according to Professor Wumph, at a certain period of time which by an analysis of the fossilized remains by the archaeology department of the University of Michigan did seem to occur." —Universe (1 Sept. 56)
unknowingness: state or condition of not knowing, not being familiar with or understanding. All aberration must contain the element of unknowing-ness. — Games Conditions vs. No-Games Conditions (1 Sept. 56)
up and at (them), going: (slang) getting up and going at (people or things); getting active and getting busy. He looks good, strong, virile, you know, going up and at them, walking down the street, girls whistling at him and he says, "Women don't like me." —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
Upjohn, Professor: a made-up name for a professor. Upjohn Company is the name of an American company that markets pharmaceutical and home health care products. "No, we'll leave that up to Professor Upjohn." — The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
up scale: into a better condition or state of being. And when the game starts to play you, you get into this situation, and you never come up scale above that. —The Anatomy of Human Problems (31 Aug. 56)
US Government Civil Defense program: the plan or procedure of the United States Office of Civil Defense which is to be used to protect the citizens of the United States against enemy attack. At the time of this lecture, this included public education, training schools, stockpiling vital supplies and an attack warning system. The US Government Civil Defense program says the first thing you have to know about civil defense: "That in the event of an attack by enemy atomic bombs, you're on your own." —Universe (1 Sept. 56)
valence: a personality. The term is used to denote the borrowing of the per¬sonality of another. A valence is a substitute for self taken on after the fact of lost confidence in self. A preclear "in his father's valence" is act¬ing as though he were his father. "Oh, you want to say something? Well you're just avoiding, shut up! Get into valence." —Spiritual and Material Requirements of Man (31 Aug. 56)
vector: a physical quantity with both magnitude and direction, such as a force or velocity. And the pressure vectors —it's quite mechanical, it's just

237

238

GAMES AND THE SPIRIT OF PLAY LECTURE TRANSCRIPTS
like handling bread dough or something—finally winds him up twice as pushed in and only half as able; and yet that's evidently a very fine proc-ess. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
visio: a thing seen or the recall of something seen, so that it is seen again in the mind in full color, scale, dimension, brightness and detail. He does this a dozen times and all of a sudden this fellow that has never had mock-ups suddenly has a 3D, full color, full visio, full smellio mock-up.
— Universe (1 Sept. 56)
wagon, the: (slang) any vehicle used to remove a person to a place of restric-tion, as to an insane asylum. This time did you do it well enough so that you felt we ought to send for the wagon? —Group Processing: Crave to Know (31 Aug. 56)
washing, taking in (one's) own: only handling work made within (one's) own organization. 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!
— Third Dynamic Application of Games Principles (1 Sept. 56)
weenie: (slang) the big treasure that everyone is after in a movie, novel, etc. For example, if everyone is after the girl or everyone is after a position, etc., that is the weenie. Now, the actual weenie or football or boodle or loot in playing the game of neighbors can include lawn mowers, garden sprays, wives, all sorts of things. —Havingness (2 Sept. 56)
What to Audit: the title of Scientology: A History of Man by L. Ron Hub-bard, when first published in 1952. It is a look at the evolutionary back-ground and history of the human race containing a coldblooded and factual account of your last sixty trillion years. Now, we've taken somebody—we've given them some book like What to Audit. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
whole cloth: (figurative) fully; wholly. Whole cloth is a piece of cloth of the full size as manufactured, as distinguished from a piece that may be cut off or out of it for a garment, etc. These two good people by the way, were mocked up whole cloth by the HCA students. —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (2 Sept. 56)
whole track: the moment-to-moment record of a person's existence in this universe in picture and impression form. Well, that's sort of rough, you know in a mild sort of whole track way, that's sort of rough. —Effectiveness of Brainwashing (2 Sept. 56)
winnier: a coined word meaning "more winning." You getting winnier about this, huh? —Group Processing: Hold It Still, Mama and Papa (2 Sept. 56)
Wumph, Professor: a made-up name for a professor. "The ice ages begun, it is said according to Professor Wumph, at a certain period of time which by an analysis of the fossilized remains by the archaeology department of the University of Michigan did seem to occur." —Universe (1 Sept. 56)

GLOSSARY
x-ray: a form of radiation similar to light but of a shorter wavelength and capable of penetrating solids; used in medicine for study, diagnosis and treatment of certain organic disorders, especially of internal structures of the body. And then they come along and they take x-rays of him—shoot x-rays in through it so more holes appear. —Auditing Procedure 1956 (1 Sept. 56)

Web auditing in any place on the planet http://webauditing.org/
(с) При использовании информации с сайта указывайте ссылку на него.

https://vk.com/galac_patra http://timecops.net https://vk.com/timecopsorg
Одитинг и обучение - создание духовных способностей в любой точке мира через Skype: timecops
Timecops
 
Сообщений: 1883
Зарегистрирован: 25 июн 2011, 15:42

Вернуться в L Ron Hubbard original LECTIONS, TAPES

Кто сейчас на форуме

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 2

cron