
THE GAME OF LIFE (EXTERIORIZATION AND HAVINGNESS)

A lecture given on 7 February 1956

Want to talk to you about the highest goal or activity evident at this 
time in this universe; to wit, games. We look at a great many things, we 
examine a great many things and we try to read purpose into them. When 
we try to examine anything as broad, big, deep and thick as this 
universe appears to us (especially Christians), we come to the 
conclusion - you'll have to delete that, I mean, you just didn't hear 
that - we come to the conclusion that, golly, there could be an awful 
lot of purposes. In fact, there could be a complete confusion of 
purposes. There could be as many intentions, possibly, as a thetan could 
invent. And, golly, that's an awful lot of intentions.

And so, if there could be an intention from every separate thetan in 
this entire universe, for this universe, they would probably all be 
different intentions. But somewhere there may be a common denominator of 
what a thetan is doing and where he is going and why.

Now, you ask a lot of chaps - come up to you and they want to know, 
"What is this thing called Scientology? What is it? It's no good, of 
course, but what is it?"

And you say, "Well, it's a modus operandi of making people better, more 
able."

And they say, "Well, I understand it has something to do with God and 
the universe."

And they - "Oh," you say, "yes, yes, yes."

Always agree with everybody. Agree with them before you call them a 
liar. At least make the communication line exist before you knock them 
over with it.

And, they say, "Well, that's all very well, but why?"

And you say, "Why what?"

"Well, why are we all here?"

And you say, "Well, that's fine. Scientology can make people more able 
and raise IQs and do various things and so on."

"Yes, but why did God do it?"

And we say, "Well, we're not particularly interested in that particular 
aspect at this time. It's very true that there's a Tone Scale and 
there's the dynamics, and there's this and that." And you explain it all 
for a half an hour, an hour.

And then they say, "Yeah, but why?"

A lot of people seem to have this - have this ... A lot of people have 
thetans; other people have this on the brain. "Why?" Okay.

Well, just as a mean, dirty, nasty trick, I dug up the answer to that. 
And this answer is, however, only satisfying to those people lucky 
enough to still be able to look up and see that there might possibly be 
a game involved. To other people, the answer: "Why?" "It's a game," is 
not satisfying.

They know that it's serious. They know nobody can have any fun. And they 
know it's all going to wind up very, very poorly. They don't know 
anything else, but they know these things.

Now, the actuality is, however, that in its behavior the human race 
responds nicely and neatly only on this definition. If you wanted to get 
a great deal of cooperation, activity and enthusiasm, if you wanted to 
get everybody's energy stretched out to the absolute limit, you would 
invent a game everybody could play.

And if they really knew they could play this game, if they had any 
feeling they could really play this game, they would all of a sudden 
feel fine about the whole thing. It wouldn't matter whether that game 
was Monopoly or tiddlywinks or shooting policemen or any other kind of a 
game, if everybody could play this game, it would be a very fine thing.

And so we have war. The response of the human being to war is one of the 
darnedest things that anybody ever cared to study; but nobody ever 
studies it. He's involved in the war. But if you were to exteriorize 
from a war and take a look around, you'd find everybody busy. You'd find 
them shooting or making things to shoot or ducking people who were 
shooting, one or another activity. And everybody's interest would be 
focused upon this thing, and the activity, the amount of energy 
invested, the things done and to be done rather escape the imagination 
of a peacetime - involved populace.

Why all this activity? Does that mean man is nuts? No, it means man is 
capable of playing a game, and as mankind, the closest he can get to it 
is war.

Now, that's pretty far down. To have to go out and shoot people and so 
forth just so that you can have a game that's convincing is a little bit 
lowtoned. In fact, the last time I ducked, I didn't say, "low-toned."

Now, wherever we look in a war we find activity, concern and 
participation, since in this particular instance, because it is 
destructive, pervasive and anybody is a target, we have a participation 
element. People are not disenfranchised in a war. Anybody can come in 
and play war. Anybody can get killed. Anybody can get shot at. And if we 
look around, almost anybody can become a general or an admiral. It's a 
wonderful thing to look at the amount of participation that is permitted 
in war.

We go into peace right after a war, and participation drops to 
practically zero. They say, "Now, if you train very carefully for 
eighteen or nineteen years, why, we will permit you to stand on the 
bridge of a vessel and watch somebody act like Officer of the Watch. 
This is if you're a good boy and don't get any black marks."

Look at the difference. In war they say, "Have you ever been to sea?"

The fellow says, "I stood on a dock once."

They say, "Fine. You're CO." Gone.

Difference of participation. If you wanted to get as much activity as 
there is in a war, going in peacetime, all you would have to do is open 
the doors to that much participation in the game called life, and you'd 
have just that much enthusiasm. But how to do this?

We've got an awful lot of people playing "only one." We have a lot of 
people that are holding all the money there is over here, and a lot of 
other people holding all the goods over there, and a lot of other people 
over here holding all the not-haves that want the money and the goods. 
And when we get through, we have a complete participation of only one 
thing: "Why?" Now they all want to know why.

In wartime they very seldom ask why - very seldom. I have talked to men 
during wartime, and they had a lot of things to talk about, but they 
very - only in a spare moment, such as just before the attack at dawn or 
something like that say, "I wonder what this universe is all about?"

They have a feeling they may exteriorize, you know. But it's momentary 
and it's fleeting. It's an unserious thought.

Now, if you wished to restore man's ability in general, all you would 
have to do is restore his willingness to have people participate in a 
game. In fact, one day I was reading a long textbook; it was a fellow by 
the name of Marl Karx, and he was writing some balderdash or another, 
someplace or another, and he was writing this stuff up. And, by the way, 
you know, I keep hearing that book quoted, but I can't find anything in 
the book that's quoted out of the book. This is one of the great 
miracles of our times. Nobody ever really has given me the right copy, I 
guess, of Das Kapital, because it doesn't have the right quotes in it.

But anyway, he actually figured out a game there. He says, "Labor should 
be permitted to labor." And look what's happening. You know, that's 
about all he says: it should be permitted to labor. They shouldn't be 
excluded from laboring or something of this sort. They should be 
permitted to work for the military or whatever the tenets are of that 
particular political ideology.

But he says, "Participation is possible on the part of labor." And look 
at this thing. I mean, it's about five-sixths of the civilized populace 
of Earth now is gobbling it up madly. And that's all he's saying.

So, I got wise to this and I says, "Let's see, what will we do here? 
This looks like a good opportunity."

So, I invented the philosophy called co-operism. Be much more, much more 
popular than communism. The philosophy would have as its basic modus 
operandi, "Let the other fellow play too." It'd be terrifically popular. 
That's actually the meat which keeps communism rolling. All right.

Now, that could be very pervasive, because the common denominator of 
activity is participation. In the first place, unless you have some 
agreement, you don't have any universe. And if you have a universe and 
nobody to do anything in it, you haven't got a universe. And little kids 
will figure out all kinds of things to do with some of the darnedest old 
tin cans you ever saw. And so does man figure out what to do with this 
particular universe.

But the moment he stops figuring out what to do or just carries on with 
some old plan, the moment he's saying, "All of you guys over here can't 
play," we get something like the standard American or British sport 
picture where everybody is in the grandstands watching a bunch of 
fellows bust each other's collarbones or shins. A very few people there 
are really playing.

Of course, watching is playing too, to some slight degree. It's better 
than the fellow who never goes near the stadium. He's kind of sunk. If 
you talked him over and said, "Is it possible to play a game?" or "How 
long has it been since you played dominoes with your kids?" you would 
get an awful comm lag.

Participation is the keynote of games. And where man is participating, 
where he's in communication, and where he has not, from man to man, 
forbidden participation, he has a civilization and he's leading a happy 
life.

Now, on some of these rather cursorily examined tenets, we conclude that 
there is a common denominator to this universe in terms of purpose, and 
the purpose is to play a game. The universe as itself could be summated 
to be a playing field. When an individual is disenfranchised from 
playing the game entirely, he has an awful lot of trouble finding 
another body.

Death is simply a disenfranchisement from playing the game. When one 
loses something, he begins to feel he's losing the game. When one 
engages in certain definite, positive activities toward a certain goal, 
he will be as enthused about them as he feels that he is engaged in a 
game. Therefore, a game is something we should examine very, very 
carefully.

And one of the first things that is requisite to playing a game is 
living beings. It's quite odd, but that's true. It's doubtful if robots 
would be able to play a game amongst themselves. You could, if you were 
monitoring them, you could mock up a bunch of robots going through the 
motions of playing a game - if you were monitoring them. But who would 
be playing the game? You would.

You could even sort of split yourself on a schizophrenic basis and play 
one side against the other side and be the only one monitoring the 
robots. But after a while, you get tired of that and start looking for 
Joe to come over and give you an argument.

Now, here we have this first condition: it requires living beings. And 
the next condition that it requires is something on the order of 
communication. This, at once, gives us space and then we have to have 
limits to communication, and so we get barriers, such as communication 
terminals and boundaries of various characters. And then we have the 
elements necessary to play a game.

This is really all that's necessary, because imagination and what to do 
to whom will furnish the rest of it.

If we have these things, the first thing that a man thinks - a being who 
isn't entirely crushed down and disenfranchised from all games - first 
thing he thinks when he sees a big scope of something or other and a 
bunch of material and some other guys, he sort of thinks to himself, "I 
wonder what we could do with all this."

And if you get them all together, they'll talk for a while. They will 
all agree upon some purpose which might be specious, it might seem very 
actual to you, but on some purpose or another, they will get busy using 
all this to do something with this. And they will invent more and more 
limits and restrictions, and more and more rules, and eventually they 
have some sort of a game like building houses or they have a game going, 
like railroad, or they have a game going like army - only that's not 
much of a game these days.

Now, here's where we see man investing his livingness, his beingness, 
and the materials and the playing field with certain purposes. But the 
purposes he invests them with are all junior to this one: game.

What do we mean exactly by a game? It's another thing that's quite 
interesting. We mean an involvement and consecutiveness of incident 
participated in by living beings, which contains an element of chance or 
unknownness. We have satisfied all of our requirements but one: the 
element of unknownness.

If you know the outcome of a horse race, it is highly doubtful if you 
will go to see the ponies run. In fact, you couldn't care less. You know 
that Ginger is going to be second and Rachmaninoff is going to be first, 
and so forth and so what? No, there must be an element of chance for you 
to take interest in horses.

In presidential elections and other low-toned sports, you must at any 
time be prepared to have your expectations overwhelmed and to have your 
mind changed on the subject. If you didn't feel that your mind was going 
to be changed sometimes in life, the expectancy of the thing would have 
insufficient randomity, and as a result we would have no game.

So, knowing how to play the game is very, very interesting. And somebody 
who is relatively disenfranchised will sit around for a long time 
wondering what he did wrong in playing the game. The only thing he 
possibly could have done wrong was not to have played the game.

But what is the game? Well, that's what he agreed was the game. That's 
an interesting thing. You agree that something is a game. It becomes a 
game. You play it. That's it. But an individual requires some 
knowingness to play a game. He has to know where the limits are, know 
who the boundaries are, know who Joe is. He's got to know what color the 
other side is wearing. He has to know usually the weight of the rifle or 
the pen or whatever he's wielding in this game. And then he has to have 
some not-knowingness as to the involvement's conclusion. He has to 
not-know the end of the game. Now, maybe he's very capable of knowing 
the end of the game, but the oddity is that he won't play it unless he 
has not-known the end of the game.

So, not-knowingness is one of the barriers and limitations of a game. 
And we find out it is very necessary in processing. Well, as we look at 
this universe and we see man struggling, and we see beasts and beings 
dying and living in agony and poverty, and we see the pain and turmoil 
and confusion, concern, and all of these various things, we say, "Good 
heavens. No game could be this way. This couldn't possibly be the game."

That's because we have become pantywaists on the subjects of how tough a 
game should be. Now, that's a good thing for you to know. If there 
wasn't this much penalty, you wouldn't get that much game. You see that? 
Do you see all the misery and suffering as just-well, just rack it up 
and say those are the penalties. You miss here, and you fail to win 
there, and that's you there. Other people are very convinced. They see 
you lying there and they say, "Well, you know, I just better play this 
game just a little bit harder over in this direction."

What happens to a society then, when it really starts going to pieces? 
Well, let's look over history and find those societies that have gone to 
pieces are those societies which have no longer had stresses, no longer 
had contests, which no longer had anything in doubt, where everything 
was known and predictable and nice.

If you really want to put a people on the rocks, just give them plenty 
to eat and lots of leisure and nothing to do. And then insist that they 
conduct their lives that way. Add into it enough discipline so that 
they're totally protected from anything that might menace them. That 
would become a psychotic society.

It's an interesting thing that during the war in London it is reported 
that nobody went psychotic while the bombs were falling. But as soon as 
the war was over, everybody seems to have racked up a nice record in the 
mental homes. Interesting, isn't it? Why shouldn't people go crazy under 
that much stress and strain?

And the answer is, is people don't go crazy under stress and strain. 
People go crazy in the absence of stress and strain. And they get to a 
point of where they have so little stress and strain that somebody comes 
along and drops a straw on their big toe and the big toe breaks. That, 
they will have to consider as a penalty. They've been expecting some 
penalties, there's - must be a game going on somehow; they can see Bill 
and Joe walking around, and so they take anything as a penalty.

It's quite interesting. They're trying to say, "There is a game here. We 
are doing something," when they know very well that they are not. So, a 
conviction that something is going on and that - a conviction that we 
are participating is absolutely necessary to the game.

Now, moving a person out of a game and driving a person mad is 
practically the same thing. If you just exaggerate a disenfranchisement 
from the game sufficiently, you will bring about a condition of neurosis 
or psychosis. You'll find, if you really want to take the E-Meter and 
find the big jolts and shocks in a person's life, it's when he no longer 
could play the game, or he was not permitted to play the game. All 
right.

We'll find, for instance, he's stuck all along the track on deaths; even 
the death of an ally will be sufficient to more or less stick him on the 
track. A lot of people come up and they got a big, black field and they 
got huge, black energy. Did you ever - probably you've never heard of 
one of these guys. They don't see mock-ups, they see blackness. You ever 
heard of one of these people?

Audience: (various responses)

Yeah, I thought you might have.

Anyhow, these people are in this interesting state of being partially 
disfranchised from the game. They lost a piece or they lost the maker of 
the game, like Grandma. Maybe Grandma was the maker of the game. Grandma 
dies, where are they? Well, they're still playing the game that Grandma 
played. There might have been a bunch of other games presented 
themselves in the interim, but they didn't notice. And so they lose 
their primary game; therefore, they're disenfranchised.

And, on the death of an ally, we get the most remarkable upsets on the 
part of people. When an individual is processed, you discover these 
various things. Whenever you discover that he's having a hard time or 
had a hard time during a certain period, you can boil all the things, no 
matter how significant they seem, down to this one thing: You can say 
this person, at that moment, was disenfranchised to some degree from the 
game and his actions after that were consequent to that point, and he 
went along rather badly until he found another game.

Now, a person doesn't just go crazier and crazier as he gets older and 
older. This is a natural conclusion one should make, but a person would 
go crazier and crazier to the degree that he had less and less game. And 
if it got to be less game and then less game, and if it was always less 
game than it had been, yes, this would be true that a person would get 
crazier and crazier the older he got.

But that doesn't happen to be the case. The state of game varies. In 
fact, this Earth was in a wilder turmoil within all of our easy memories 
than it's ever before been, perhaps, since the days when the volcanoes 
were blowing their stacks. It was an interesting mess, World War II. You 
talk about chaos and a game involvement.

Well, what's very funny is, World War II, of course, produced an 
enormous amount of insanity in the armed forces. It must have because 
there are a lot of people in hospitals. The first time I ever suspected 
this fact was the first time I ever confronted that fact: that there was 
some coordination between being disenfranchised from a game and going 
mad. Found that out. It was quite interesting.

I was flown in from the South Pacific as the first casualty to be 
shipped out of the South Pacific war back to the States. The war had 
been started in Pearl Harbor, and I'd been down in the South Pacific and 
- a lot of things happened down there. And the outfits down there were 
pretty well wiped out, as you can remember before the US and Great 
Britain started to fight and go back in. All right.

Most of the guys that were shipped out of there who had been wounded, 
were shipped out by slow boat. And I didn't, I wasn't that seriously 
done in. I hooked a ride on the Secretary of Navy's plane; produced the 
right set of orders (I hope nobody ever kept them on file) and got flown 
home. And when I got home, they turned me in to the hospital.

And I thought, "That's an interesting place to get turned in to, and - 
but it's nice. Fine as far as I'm concerned."

And I was lying very comfortably in my bunk about eight o'clock in the 
morning when there was a funny looking joker with glasses about a foot 
thick standing down at the bottom of my bed. And he looked at me very 
piercingly and he said, "How many fingers am I holding up?"

Well, I did a double take, and I was all of a sudden going to give him a 
facetious reply in . . . and - because my morale wasn't very bad; his 
was, though. And I remembered a friend of mine had been thrown into 
Bellevue Hospital for ten days one time when he was drunk, simply 
because he had answered silly answers to these obvious absurdities. So, 
I said carefully, "One.

And he looked at me very piercingly and he prowled around the side of 
the bed and he grabbed ahold of the clock that was sitting there and he 
pulled it around and he says, "What time is it?"

So, I told him. He looked very disappointed. He asked me for my name, 
rank and serial number and I gave them to him. He left.

All day long there was a parade of people walking in and saying strange 
things to me. At the end of that day, the whole hospital had deserted me 
except, of course, one very good-looking nurse. But anyhow, the point 
was they had lost interest and they were very confused.

Everybody knew, up to that time, that no man could stand the stress of 
modern war. They knew that a Stuka bomber, in diving, drove men mad. 
They knew that the terrific, unexpected attacks and heroic forces being 
employed were such as to plow you in. Your psyche would get unpsyched in 
a hurry if you were shot at enough.

And yet here, a fellow, a young officer, had the utter brass to come 
along and throw aside this theory. They didn't like me anymore. In fact, 
they simply reported to Washington, DC that I was in good condition - I 
was, by the way, walking with a cane. I was in good condition. I 
couldn't see. I had dark glasses on, but I, you know, I was doing all 
right in a kind of a dumb sort of way, and they sent me to sea in the 
North Atlantic the following week. That shows you what happens to people 
that disprove people's theories.

But during the remainder of that week, I became very curious at their 
tremendous and absorbing interest in neurosis, not in me, but in this 
fact, because their psychoneurotic wards were full - jammed from door to 
door with members of the armed services.

From where? There were no casualties home yet - till I established this 
very interesting fact: they had all gone nuts in navy yards. Of course, 
I can imagine somebody going crazy in a navy yard. But not with this 
wild abandon. And as the war progressed, I discovered consistently and 
consecutively that the people who were going into these places were the 
people who were not being permitted to fight the war.

Interesting, isn't it? During the armed - the amphibious forces, I had a 
vessel that was carrying attack cargo during the last few months I was 
at sea in the war, and that vessel, for a long time was getting - 
because it was pretty upset and there were a lot of people aboard it - 
it was getting a couple of psychos a week. It was not a combat ship.

There was a story made about that vessel, by the way. It was called 
Mister Roberts. You may have seen this picture or read the book. Now, 
the boys were going crazy on that ship. Inactivity. They would very 
often be permitted to see a beachhead being blown up, and take no part 
in it at all. They were beautifully protected. They always slept in warm 
bunks, and it was too much for them, and they were going mad.

So, if we look at madness, we had better also examine not-doingness. We 
had better also examine where did this fellow get disenfranchised? Where 
was this fellow not permitted to play the game? That is actually more 
important than any other single factor in the case.

Well, let's get more factual than that. Let's look up here very, very 
carefully and get off memoirs of the old soldier. You know, the old 
sailors and soldiers have a horrible habit of discussing their memoirs 
all the time. Yeah, I'd better write mine in a hurry though, because the 
next war's going to be a lot more interesting.

Anyhow, where we have a game, we have at the same time ideas, actions 
and barriers. If we have barriers of one kind or another, an individual 
then can measure the amount of action and doingness in which he is 
involved.

And let's be very plain and break this right down to processing, just 
snap. Processing becomes the improvement of the ability to play a game. 
It is not, definitely not, freeing a thetan. That is not its goal. The 
goal of processing is to improve the ability to play the game.

What's the matter with the criminal? He can't play the game called 
society; he's got to play some stupid game called cops and robbers. As 
if any cop can play a game. And we get this interesting thing, that the 
man is involved in some game we know not what of and that is not real in 
his day and time, really. He's not playing the game that the citizen in 
general is playing. He can't participate.

In order to keep him from descending lower into criminality, or to raise 
him, actually, out of criminality, we have to restore his ability to 
play the game.

Now, here's something very, very funny: that this works. And what I'm 
talking to you about now, after this lapse of three years, is based upon 
empirical data of such startling content that we really cannot overlook 
it. The matter is very well proven at this time because we use these 
tenets I'm giving you right now, and we arrive with excellent results. 
We restore this criminal's ability to play the game - no matter how we 
do it - and we discover that we have an honest man on our hands. That's 
an oddity, isn't it?

Now, supposing we merely ran out J. Edgar Hoover's idea of a criminal. 
J. Edgar Hoover thinks ... Did you ever hear of J. Edgar Hoover? He's an 
interesting chap. He's a criminal uh-uh-uh-uh investigator in the United

States. And he tells you, at once, that the criminal has a criminal mind 
and that is why he is a criminal, and that's all there is to it. And 
this sage observation has, to date, led to no cures of criminals: "His 
mind is different than other people's."

Mind works just the same as everybody else's, with this exception: He is 
less able to play the game called "citizen." In fact, he's less able to 
play all games, oddly enough, so he has to get that hectic in peacetime 
in order to convince himself there's any game going on.

Well now, as we look over the situation, then, and we apply this to 
preclears, we find out if we simply restore the elements of the game, we 
push him into a position of where he'll play the game.

How do you restore the elements of a game? Well, the elements of a game 
consist of separatenesses and barriers, and in auditing terms that would 
be exteriorization and havingness. Exteriorization versus havingness. A 
chap can be as able as he is capable of leaving a game and coming back 
to it, by the way, and that's an exteriorization.

And he's as capable of having a game as he is certain there are barriers 
wherein to play this game. Those are the two elements of auditing; all 
the mind changes you get evolve from those two elements. So, we at once 
get the two key processes of Scientology, and that's quite important to 
us to have the two key processes.

Number one, are they key processes? Well, their omission in auditing 
produces minimal gain in psychometric tests, if any. If you just drop 
exteriorization and havingness out of auditing and use anything you find 
there left, you get no tone rise in the profiles, you get no increase of 
IQ, no changes in ability or personality.

It's fun. You sit in the chair and he sits in his chair and you chew up 
energy, but it doesn't change any preclears. That's fascinating. We 
introduce havingness just all by itself and all of a sudden we get a 
change of game level, because the individual has to be reassured that he 
can have a barrier, and as soon as he gets certain that he actually can 
have a barrier, and he's certain there is a barrier there ... Remember 
old-time Certainty? Well, that applies very definitely right with 
havingness. You have to have a certain element of certainty, and "Can he 
have?" before he really benefits from any of his havingness.

He finally discovers there's a barrier, and as he discovers there is a 
barrier, he then says, "Well, there are some limits, you know? Maybe I 
can rack around a little bit, maybe I can move in a couple of small 
circles, maybe I don't have to sit here and hold on tight. Maybe there 
is a wall over there, you know?"

There are limits. Therefore he gets to thinking, "Let's see what we can 
do with these limitations. This freedom within these limitations."

The next thing you know, he's in the same frame of mind as a fellow, 
walks out, sees a big field, a lot of material and he gets a 
figure-figure, "What are we going to do about it?"

All right. You as an auditor know better than to tell him what to do 
about his new-found case level. You know that doesn't work, so it's up 
to him, actually, to reenter the game. And you get him to reenter the 
game, you could, just on this one basis only, simply remedy his 
havingness until he is sure that there are limitations.

Sounds funny, doesn't it. Your preclear will tell you, "I don't want 
this body. I don't like this body."

He will tell you, "I don't want that wall."

He will tell you, "This is the most horrible universe anybody invented. 
I don't want anything to do with it. I don't want that floor, I don't 
want that ground. Get it away from me."

He will give you eighteen different varieties of things that are too 
terrible to look at. He will quote you papal bulls to tell you there are 
some things in life which must not be confronted or confused, or you 
will go someplace where you won't like the barriers.

Now, he will give you all sorts of arguments. And if you are a very, 
very foolish auditor, you will listen to him and you will say, "All 
right. He doesn't want his body. He doesn't like bodies. Well, we'll 
just help him out, and we will take his body away from him."

And he gets so unhappy. Now, he says he doesn't want his body. All 
right, let's as-is it. Let's chew it up. Let's keep on running 
significances, significances, significances until he's eaten his head 
hollow. Let's get him so he chews himself and is in clear space right 
down to his neck. And he sits there getting less and less head, and less 
and less body, and he's getting less and less happy. And as you exhaust 
this energy, these masses and these barriers for this preclear, he will 
eventually jump up and tell you, you are doing him in.

He'll find that out, usually, quite late, but he'll still tell you. 
Well, you were helping him out. You were trying to take his body away 
from him. You were being a nice guy. He wanted it lost and you were 
trying to lose it for him and he still objects. Shows you how ungrateful 
some preclears are.

Now, that, we can demonstrate empirically is the wrong way to go about 
it. What, then, is the right way to go about it? Well, there are several 
tricks and dodges. You could get him to waste bodies until he could have 
one; we know that works. Or you could simply ask him what kind of a body 
he'd like to have, and then have him mock up bodies like that and ask 
him what he could have of the body he just mocked up. You know, we could 
run on all kinds of gradient scales and do all sorts of interesting 
things with mock-ups, until he suddenly says, "You know, well, I could 
probably have a goat's body."

You know, he's all set. Now he can have a goat's body. He'll feel better 
about that thing. He doesn't want this old thing, he'll tell you, that 
he's sitting in. He'd like that goat's body. That's fine. He can mock it 
up and remedy havingness ...

We go on running bodies, making him mock up more bodies or black bodies. 
A person who sees only blackness can still mock up black bodies. And he 
goes on working with more and more bodies, and more and more bodies, and 
more and more bodies, and more and more ... And all of a sudden you say, 
"Well, now how do you feel about it?"

And he says, "You know, this body I've got is not so bad; I - I - I 
don't - I don't have to stay with it, but, you know, it's not so bad."

Very funny part of it is, its chronic somatics were his expression that 
he didn't want it. An interesting thing. They cure up. You gave him 
enough bodies. Then, the direction he was actually going was toward more 
bodies, saying the while that he wanted less.

So, we find these fellows that say they don't want anything to do with 
the universe, we find they don't want anything to do with the universe 
because they don't have it. He didn't want anything to do with his body 
because he doesn't own it. He doesn't have it, actually. He doesn't have 
anything to do with, and he objects to, all the problems he has because 
he can't have a problem.

And if you improve his ability to have any one of these things, you then 
improve his ability to play the game because, of course, you have added 
the factor that he can have some barriers. And as soon as you give him 
some barriers, he gets real happy with it.

Well, as I say, we could solve the whole thing in this category of 
havingness, very interestingly solve it. There is one series of commands 
which are fascinating, and one of those commands is "Look around here 
and tell me what you could have."

First thing he's liable to say is, "Anything, everything, I could have 
everything around here -uh-da-duh."

Shoot him. He's no good to himself or anybody unless you finish the 
auditing session. That's a fact. He finally picks up a grain of dust or 
something like that, and he says he can have this, and he improves his 
consideration until he can actually have many things in the room.

It might or might not be safe at that time to change the auditing 
command to "What wouldn't you mind remaining right where it is?"

And he tells you finally there's a lot of things that just - he just as 
soon they remain where they are.

And you say then, "What things could you dispense with?" And you are 
then running the exteriorization part of havingness.

You might also ask him at the same time, "What are you separate from in 
this room?" You'd get the same result. All right.

So, you run this very simple gradient scale, and you could run it in 
sequence, and then again in sequence, "What could you have around here? 
Would it be all right if it remained?"

And you could run it and run it and run it until you had included the 
entirety of the universe in that scope. And at that moment, he could 
have or not have the universe at will, and you would have exteriorized 
him from the universe as long as you ran that third step. That third 
step: "What are you separate from around here?"

You could express it, "What are you separate around here . or "What 
could you dispense with around here?" Now, that's the exteriorization 
part of havingness.

A remedy of havingness, then, to some degree, is a misnomer. It's a 
remedy of havingness so that one can have or not-have. It's a little bit 
of a misnomer. That's not quite right. What it is, is he is put in a 
condition where he can have or exteriorize. And that would be a better 
statement of what we are doing.

If one can leave the game under his own determinism he, then, isn't 
kicked out of the game, is he? Well, that's a nice, neat, mental dodge 
for a person to make. But on that dodge depends his sanity. Is he 
choosing to enter or leave the game? Or is the game choosing whether or 
not he leaves or enters? And when it's the game that's choosing, watch 
out! And when he still has a power of choice on the game, he'll be all 
right. Therefore, we have exteriorization versus havingness as the two 
elements.

Now, let's look over here and take a look at exteriorization. And here's 
something very interesting. Could you use this totally? Could you 
totally put a preclear way upscale by only using exteriorization 
processes and never touching any havingness or barriers? Not with 
ninety-nine and forty-four one hundredths percent of the preclears you 
will handle. Why? Is they can't have what they're exteriorizing from. 
What they're exteriorizing from is so unreal that they would not be able 
to leave it. You see that? It's a very simple thing. You disenfranchise 
them by exteriorizing them.

Do you know that there is an interesting process, though, that attempts 
to do this? And I'll tell you about this process and this is new to you 
- most of this material is not. Very interesting process. You'll find 
your preclear gets very nervous the second his havingness runs down just 
a little bit - oh, very nervous. Or he dopes off almost at once.

You - for instance, there's an ashtray sitting there, and you move the 
ashtray from the arm of his chair over onto the side table while you're 
auditing him and he boils off. You know, you just reduced his havingness 
one ashtray and that's too much for him, you know. All right.

Now, we take this critical preclear, we take this highly critical level 
preclear, and we find that he is worried about exteriorization. Now we, 
as an auditor, come along and say, "Well, now if you just get an 
intensive I'll exteriorize you." Uh-uh. No, you could sell him an 
intensive quicker by saying, "I'll interiorize you so you'll never come 
out again."

No, he won't like that. He won't like too much. Or he's obsessively fond 
of it. He'll say, "I've got to get out. Yes that's what I want you to 
do. I want you to exteriorize me."

The second you say, "Be three feet back of your head," he says, "What 
are you doing to me? You are killing me." You've had this sort of thing 
happen, I'm sure. All right.

Now, is there a process which would blow him out? Yes, but 
unfortunately, you'd have to remedy his havingness the while. But maybe 
if you did it very delicately, you could almost get away with doing it. 
You would just ask him for something which unfortunately remedies 
havingness off the track. So, you're not quite escaping from havingness. 
You would ask him for a time when he wasn't exteriorized. Very 
fascinating process: A time when he wasn't exteriorized. You've asked 
him for a time when he hadn't been told to leave the gamea time when he 
wasn't exteriorized.

"That's fine," he says, "this morning."

You say, "A time you're not exteriorized."

"Well, I don't know, I was in an automobile accident once and pinned 
inside. I certainly wasn't exteriorized on that car."

You say, "That's fine."

Of course, you realize if he's picking things up off the track like 
this, you would, in the ordinary course of events have to remedy his 
havingness in one fashion or another, otherwise he would start to boil 
off. So it's not practical to assume that you could just exteriorize him 
without reassuring him of the barrier. But you keep on asking him this 
question: "A time when you weren't exteriorized. A time when you weren't 
exteriorized."

And this is what becomes fascinating. And this would become very, very 
fascinating to anybody researching man, because they would discover past 
deaths at once.

Most of the preclears that are having a great deal of trouble one way or 
the other have disenfranchised from the game too often. They have been 
pushed out of a game and they've been convinced they can't have a game. 
That's the one thing they can't have. They've been shoved out and shoved 
out and shoved out. They don't like it. They get the idea after a while 
that "Oh, there's a game going on, I'd better leave." This sort of a 
reaction is an immediate reaction.

But you ask them (this type of preclear) for times when they weren't 
exteriorized from something or weren't separate from something, and they 
will almost invariably pick up an operation or accident which is totally 
buried and forgotten about on their part in which they did exteriorize 
from the body in this lifetime and did experience the phenomenon of 
death and have since covered it up absolutely.

Interesting observation that I have made with regard to it. There's a 
hidden this life exteriorization.

Fellow's in a tonsillectomy and all of a sudden, bang; and he went out 
and he said, "Oh, no, here I am with no body." And he came back in 
woosh! (sigh) "Well, they didn't kick me out this time. The body will 
still wiggle when I wiggle."

"All right. That's better," he'll say. And then he will forget about it 
or he'll try to tell somebody about it and they'll say, "Oh, no, that 
didn't happen."

He'll sort of know about it all the time and have it all covered up. And 
he's liable to tell you about this if you start asking him this 
question, "A time when you weren't separate from things," or "A time 
when you weren't exteriorized." Either way, you get the same response. 
To a Scientologist you say, "Times when you weren't exteriorized."

To a person who didn't understand anything about it at all, you could 
run it and sneak up on him and practically ruin him because he wouldn't 
know what was happening: "A time when you weren't separate."

He'll tell you about these times if there are hidden times in this 
lifetime when he did get blown out of his head. Maybe he was a little 
boy riding down a hill on a bicycle and the bicycle hit a stone, and he 
went appetite over tin cup and hit his skull, and he went out, and he 
came back in. And that's the deadliest engram you'll find on the track.

What is the deadliest engram? That one. It's a disenfranchisement from 
the game. He made it back, but ever since, he's been a little anxious 
and a little worried. And somebody comes along to him and says, "You 
can't play marbles" and he'll go into a fit. This one particularly, 
he'll go into a fit about it. All right.

If you kept on asking him the question, any preclear, this question, and 
remedying his havingness the while, he would suddenly say, "Just a 
moment. What am I doing in Brighton? That's funny, I seem to be ... I 
got a picture of being up above Brighton. Hmm, that's very funny. I have 
the funniest recollection. You know, I think I lived once before."

And you could say, "Oh, no, course not," and skip it over and keep on 
asking the question.

He'd get awfully upset with you. He'd say, "I did. My name was Harvey 
Doakes. I lived at 862 Plum Street, Brighton and that's that. (sniff) It 
was a good game, too." And he's liable to blow a grief charge on his own 
death. You ever wonder why people blow grief charge on death?

Now, there is a process which, even run by a psychologist, would produce 
the same phenomenon. That's a lot of latitude, I know.

Now, you would have to know how to remedy havingness though, to keep it 
run. To keep it running, you'd have to remedy his havingness because 
he'd get nervous, agitated and start to flick out, one way or the other, 
because you're as-ising-there are a bunch of these as-ising processes 
which are killers. Anything with importance in it becomes a fascinating 
process because it apparently adds to the person's havingness on the 
whole track, you see?

You say, "Now tell me a time when pictures seemed important to you." 
He'll get another one, another one, another one, another one and 
hisapparently his havingness will be good. And it'll stay just fine 
until that night when he collapses.

Why is this? Because you've picked up the energy masses off the track 
and you've actually left a hole in the bank that nothing fills up. And 
he gets a temporary burn-up of energy. And it's just like you take, 
well, did you everof course you never have done this - but did you ever 
take a couple of good, quick drinks that made you feel fine and walk out 
and practically fall flat on your face?

The only thing that happened there is you burned up a great deal of B1 
and energy out of the body at one fell swoop, you see? And that kept you 
going just fine, you know. And then the next day you're going like this 
...

That's because the havingness is reduced, that's all.

Well, similarly, you can beef up a preclear in this fashion by pulling 
stuff in off the track. You ask him this auditing question without 
directing his attention to present time. "What could you have?"

Oooh. Why, he'll just feel fine. For the first session, he'll just feel 
wonderful. He'll think that's the greatest process he ever heard of 
until next day and he's going like this ...

What did he do? He picks the stuff up off the track, you see. He caves 
his bank in on himself to give himself havingness. His reassurance for 
barriers comes off the body's track or off of his track. And that's what 
occurs. All right.

As long as we keep his havingness repaired, we could exteriorize him. 
The person who doesn't exteriorize is actually actively worried about 
exteriorization. And he is worried not about some odd phenomena 
connected with exteriorization, he is worried about exteriorization. 
That's it. He is worried about going three feet back of his head.

Why, I knew a chap one time that was so worried about exteriorization 
that he kept worrying about the fact that he wasn't exteriorized, but he 
knew that he - kind of fashionable in Scientology to be exteriorized, 
and he wasn't, and he - it upset him. And finally he got an auditor to 
audit him and he - they exteriorized him and he got about three feet 
back of his body, complete with a theta body and everything, you know. 
He got about three feet back of his body and started to shove off for 
the between-lives area, you know, the callback. You know, "You're 
supposed to report back here before you pick up another body and . . . " 
you know. And he started to shove off just because an auditor said, "Be 
three feet back of your head."

He almost went back. Scared him half to death. Nobody's been able to pry 
him out with a crowbar for - or nobody was - for a couple of years.

If we were to run this process on him now, "A time when you weren't 
exteriorized," if he'd forgotten this, this one would turn up. But this 
one would turn up on another one in this lifetime, not just a past life, 
and that would turn up on top of perhaps another one and then all of a 
sudden he would hand you some kind of a past death.

And if this is antipathetic to those people who sell hell for a bit, 
that this sort of thing can be plowed up and presented on a silver 
platter of this character, and found in anybody, why, I'm sorry for it. 
But I won't refund what they lose in the collection plates. I refuse to 
do that.

Now, the main thing about it is, the fellow's concern about 
exteriorization or his concern about havingness is all you really audit. 
Life and its activities are based on postulates, considerations - 
postulates, considerations. One considers there is a wall, so there is a 
wall. The wall is actually an animated order. It stands there and says, 
"I am a wall, look at me, here I am, you are seeing me," whatever you 
want to phrase it up as. And if you go over and hit it and boy, it's 
nice and solid and you say, "Boy have we got a game going here. That's 
good. That's good. That's fine."

But if you can't accept an order, it gets thin. It gets thinner and 
thinner and thinner. And pretty soon you go around wearing specs; 
directly coordinated with "can't receive orders."

You start running, "What order would you be willing to receive?" Or 
"What kind of order . . . " on those that are very nervous about it. Or 
"What idea could you receive?" for those who are very touchy and 
delicate. Or "What kind of idea. . . " on the average preclear.

And he'll go on downscale and all of a sudden he'll tell you this 
alarming fact. He'll say, "You know, that wall is an order." And it'll 
go sort of wham to him.

You say, "I better leave this alone."

Had a chap who was an ex-chiropractor and naturopath and he came down 
just to learn how to make people well, and he didn't have any reality on 
the subject or anything of this sort, and he was being audited by 
another chiropractor in one of the clinics. It was quite interesting 
because both of them were arguing madly with each other about what, 
basically, one did to spines in order to bring about all this phenomena. 
And we were having a fine time, and all of a sudden one says, "Uh-oh."

"What's the matter?" the other one says.

"Well, I don't know, but something funny happened to that wall as you 
had me answer that."

And they were running "What around here is an effect?" See. It's a 
leadpipe cinch that this will produce some sort of phenomena. And they 
ran it two or three more auditing commands, and another hole appeared in 
the wall. And the fellow was looking through the wall. This worried him 
considerably. He went around very thoughtful for a couple of days before 
he finally fessed up that he was scared stiff of being audited anymore 
on anything. He wanted to leave.

We repaired his havingness and he finally got so he could look through 
the wall or not look through the wall as the case may be and he was 
happy about it.

So, these things are basically a consideration. We change the preclear's 
considerations. We do it by demonstrating to him his capabilities in 
making postulates and creating things and in making things disappear. 
And when we can show him that he can have a wall or not have a wall, and 
that it is a good, thick, solid wall, he is then perfectly free to have 
or not have the wall, and at that time he's changed his mind about 
havingness.

Havingness is not a quantitative thing. You don't remedy a fellow's 
havingness ten pounds' worth. You remedy his havingness a consideration 
worth that he can have that particular item or not have it at will.

Similarly, with exteriorization. Exteriorization is merely a 
consideration. I am out or I am in. It's still a consideration. But when 
one is in, afraid that he will go out, the tremendous number of 
considerations associated with are liable to worry him.

Now, those that are in and know they should be out can worry about it 
simultaneously and certainly. And yet we exteriorize some preclears and 
they tell you, "I'd just as soon be exteriorized, and I know it's the 
fashion, but every time I get back of my head I feel so sad." Why is 
that? It's the grief charge on his own death. That's all there is to it.

You know these chaps that we could never run the death of the ally off 
of occasionally when we used to be auditing engrams and things - grief 
charge. We just never could clean this fellow's allies up. We never 
turned on any visio with him, so on.

The allies, the people he had lost, were simply locks on his own demise 
a life or two ago. If you run that out, they'll change the other way to, 
and the allies will blow as secondary situations.

But all of these things are changes of consideration. That one must cry, 
that one must laugh, that one must have a game even, are considerations. 
But that one, strangely enough, is something I've never been able to get 
a fellow to change his mind on, except in one direction.

We lose more preclears this way. I know preclears that were the finest 
cases you ever saw and I ruined them. Just ruined them, flatly. The 
finest cases you ever laid your eyes on. I mean, they were all involved 
and mixed up and confused, and I started auditing them and audit them 
and audit them and audit them and say, "Now you need just about one more 
session, and you'll become an Operating Thetan, go soaring around the 
universe and everything is fine."

And you come back and never see him again.

You find out what he's doing. He's gone out and he's got a better job, 
he's working harder, he's having more fun over there, he's something of 
this sort, and you say, "Hey, how about finishing up this project?"

"Oh yes," he said. "Well, that's fine. Sometime. I'm awfully busy now."

They go up to game level and they're gone. You do this in your own 
groups. You audit people in the group: group sessions, group sessions, 
group sessions. All of a sudden they're all busy doing something else 
and they don't come back to the group anymore. And you feel very sad 
about the whole thing. Your havingness has been reduced.

The thing to do is teach them Scientology. Don't keep auditing them in 
these groups. And they will then know enough about the game called 
Scientology so that they don't immediately blow the whole thing the 
second that they themselves feel compelled or interested in the game at 
large. That's the answer back of it.

Now, we could be very exact, we could give you an awful lot of material 
concerning the exact anatomies of the barriers, and so forth, that make 
up the game. Well, we could add this up; we could be so Germanic about 
this thing we could have texts that thick as to what is a game.

But you know what a game is. I know what is a game. And all we really 
have to know about is the preclear wants to play a game, and you want to 
regain for him his ability to play the game, and the game is a game of 
exteriorization versus havingness, one way or the other. You jockey 
these two things together and his imagination will enter in and he will 
start playing the game of life. And when he does that, you're through 
with him. He's no longer a preclear.

Where man is failing is where man no longer feels he is able to play any 
kind of a game. And he's failed, then; he's in a mental institution.

I hope that look at the situation, as you look it over, I hope that look 
at the situation will clarify some of your own ideas. I want you to take 
a good look at this; I want you to take a good look at this in 
preclears. I know in advance you'll find out I'm right, but use your 
determinism on it.

This isn't a game I'm laying in your lap and telling you, you must play. 
Look it over, see how it looks to you. And I think you will find out 
that your preclear is being as well audited as he is being returned to 
an ability to play a game; not as well audited as he is getting free.

Freedom can become a horrible thing. Very horrible thing. Talk to some 
fellow right after he's been discharged from the army. He doesn't know 
what he's doing.

Now, where man fails is where man disenfranchises man. He kicks men out 
of the game and then he wonders why he has trouble with criminals, why 
he has trouble with the insane, and kicks out some more people out of 
the game just to make sure that he'll have more trouble. His game is 
trouble. Our game isn't trouble. Our game is solving it. I wish you a 
lot of luck with these ideas.

Thank you.

