((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
 
                    CAN GAMES BE PROCESSED DIRECTLY?
 
                                FG - 10
                                No Date
 
                       Copyright (C) Frank Gordon
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
     I. Background:
 
     In "Scn:  A New Slant on Life," games are discussed in the chapter,
"The Reason Why," and the answer is to have a game.  Thus:  "Life is a
game.  A game consists of freedom, barriers and purposes." p.38.
 
     Given the central importance of life as a game, I looked for
processes which addressed this directly.  The only clear-cut one appears
in "Dianetics 55" on p.158 as a One-Shot clear process:
 
     "Having established the fact that an auditing session is in
progress, and established some slight communication with the preclear
(Note:  I think he's slyly implying here that this is a weak spot with
most auditors), the auditor says, 'Invent a game.'  When the
communication lag on this is flat the auditor then uses the command,
'Mock up somebody else inventing a game.'
 
     "..  It is a workable process, it does function, it is fast, but ..
it has the frailty of the ability of the auditor.  It has the frailty of
failing when a two-way communication is not maintained with the preclear
.."
 
     I have not run this process on a pc, nor have I heard of anyone
else using it.  I did, however, attempt to invent an actual game for
sale, similar to "Monopoly" called "Stock Market."  This was shortly
after I had received a copy (#713) of "Dianetics 55," while working in
Indiana as a research biochemist.
 
     I initially ran into a very heavy apathy while trying to invent
this.  But after I interested a chemical engineer in helping me, we came
up with a playable board game.
 
     I found this a very heavy process.  In theory the create factor
could beef up the bank (the Step 6 phenomena), and it could rapidly
restimulate GPMs.  I did succeed in partially running it, though, by
making it into an objective process in present time, like an expanded
CCH.  Further work in this direction could be worthwhile.
 
     Ron noted in Tech Vol II, p.417:
 
     "It is evidently true that no part of games is processable and the
entering into games is not necessarily therapeutic except this idea of
overwhelming things.  This process is 'What would you permit to
overwhelm?'  'What would you permit to be overwhelmed?'"
 
     A variation was run on me by an old-timer now deceased, Roman
Mazurek of Chicago.  He would point to someone and ask, "What could
overwhelm that person?"  Later, I cognited that he had done this in
front of the county courthouse, and that he had formerly been an
attorney.  So legal overwhelms were certainly real to him, but not to me
at that time.
 
     At this point, it appeared that games could not be processed
directly.
 
     II.  What is Important in a Game?
 
     In chemistry, resonance is the number of possible configurations
which a compound can assume.  A compound gains stability (and
flexibility) in ratio to this resonance.  An example would be the
benzene ring, where stability is enhanced by the flowing interchange of
single and double bonds.
 
     One may go from chemistry to radio in looking at resonance.  If one
relates freedom of choice (or lack of limits) to self-determinism the
result is similar to curves for resonant electronic circuits.  This
illustrates an optimum balance between freedom and barriers.  If I can
do anything, this is boring, and if I can do nothing this is apathy.
But if I can do some things with a little effort and ingenuity, a new
factor emerges.
 
 
                   .
          Self-    .
                   .            .
       Determinism .           . .
                   .          .   .
                   .        .       .
                   .     .             .
                   ..........................
 
                        Freedom of choice
 
     Resonance can be used as a term for this new factor, which implies
a richer connectedness and includes the presence of higher and lower
harmonics.  These add depth and richness to a sound or event, as they do
to a life.
 
     Reality could even be defined gradiently as resonance and its
quality:  the meaningfulness and depth of one's experience.  A reality
gradient scale would rise from the shallow and superficial (flat rote
acks, e.g.) to the full and meaningful (understanding and caring).
 
     In games, the important thing is not that one might win or lose,
but positioning oneself delicately on the edge of either winning or
losing:  thus raising the quality of the game and becoming alert,
expectant, and energized.  One is not concerned so much with losing the
game, but with losing its VITALNESS.
 
     Let me propose the following:  The basic impulse behind every game
is to attain and maximize resonance.  This resonance is the essential
heart of the magic of communication.  When it is not present the magic
is gone.
 
     Absorbed pleasure in the game is the important thing.  The goal is
secondary, as are winning and losing.  These are merely justifications
for being fully alive.
 
     Many games are zero-sum, i.e., if one wins, the other loses.  But
the best game occurs when, win or lose, both players gain.  This mutual
co-operative gain is a key element for a workable game process.
 
     A good game or game process would assist the players to become more
self-confident, competent, self-determined, and cooperative.  Auditing
((the Auditor/PC relationship and the process between them)) could be
defined, in addition to "a process of accessing the inner hero"; as
being both teammates and cooperative opponents.  It would include just
enough opposition from the auditor to evoke and challenge the preclear's
self-determinism.
 
     III.  An Opening Wedge into Games?
 
     I've had some experiences which might provide an opening wedge into
processing games more directly.  The first hint on this line came while
playing checkers with another independent.  I told him that my goal was
to win.  He replied, "Mine is to play well."  This reflects the British
public school code of:  "It isn't whether you win or lose, it's how you
play the game," which forms a personal ethical code.
 
     Next, I noted that while playing checkers, there were times when a
new quality and depth came into the game.
 
     Checkers can be just "pushing wood;" but occasionally it gets very
subtle and complex.  Possibilities open up with certain positions, and
the situation becomes intensely interesting.  A feeling of enhanced
vitality and absorbed attention appears.  At this point the game becomes
alive and resonant.
 
     I've also noted an urge to be fully alive in a state of work-play.
I first experienced this as a youth:
 
     My brother Don and I were helping Dad pick squash, and we made a
game of it.  I would pick them, toss them to Don on the truck, and it
was fun.  Dad told us to stop, that I would have to trudge to the truck
and "carefully" hand them to Don.  Fail-safe stuff.  All the fun went
out of it.  Now there was no rhythm, no "swing," no rambunctiousness, no
play.  It became dull.
 
     Another instance is when I skied down a difficult slope, and was
poised on the "edge of control," exerting my attention and skill to the
limit.  One mistake would have meant disaster.  I've had similar
feelings when sailing, when a nice judgement is required as to just how
far one can go without capsizing.
 
     In the above examples there was this sense of vital and exultant
life which is what games are all about.
 
     I felt suppressed in the squash picking incident, and I could have
broken my leg skiing, or almost drowned when sailing.  Each of these
emotional or physical injuries can be "run out."  But in back of each of
them lies the interrupted intention to exult.  Parallel to "prior ARC,"
and the aesthetic band, when this is recaptured, the failure or injury
seems to reduce in importance and fall away.
 
     As an example of this; at 14 I fell out of the top of a tall maple,
and was nearly killed, but somehow caught myself halfway down.  I've had
this run as an engram several times, but it has persisted.  Then in a
solo session I ran my intense joy in the prior feeling of competence and
control experienced while climbing trees, with good BDs and a relaxation
on the subject.
 
     My conclusion is that an expansion of the above approach may make
it possible to run games directly and very profitably.
 
     ((The most deadly game which needs running out, is the game of
games, the game whereby if you lose the game you lose the ability to
play anymore games.  In these games the penalties of losing outweigh the
penalties of winning, which are losing (not having) the game to play.
If you win, you lose the game but you can create more games.  If you
lose, you lose the game AND the ability to create more games.
 
     This is the core of the ARC break that thetans have with Source and
running it out to the point that the being is willing and able to
indulge in them AGAIN will return Operating Sovereignty to a being.
 
     A confused cognition surfaces here.  Perhaps in the begining when
games were 'merely' games, people became equally unwilling to win or
lose games because, if they won or lost, then they had no game, and thus
had to create a new one.
 
     But maybe there was a scarcity of games because they had become too
hard to invent good ones.
 
     So they tended to solve this by chronic reoptimization of their
playing ability while the game was in progress so that they could never
win and never lose.
 
     This led to an endless game.  This solved the problem of having
games end, but presented its own problem, in that endless games become
boring because people KNOW they will never win nor lose because they
keep adjusting the hardness of the game within the game.
 
     So again people became unwilling to really play.
 
     So then they decided to make the game serious, that is heavier
penalties for losing than for winning, namely if you lose you can't ever
play any game ever again.

     So now people HAD to play to win no matter what or they would never
play again.
 
     Thus being unwilling to lose, they became unable to win because
they had taken away their ability to reoptimize in the middle of a game.
They couldn't make themselves less powerful so they couldn't win as that
was way too dangerous, and so they couldn't make themselves more
powerful once they found themselves losing because reoptimization was no
longer avilable to them.
 
     Eventually they ended up in a game where everyone must play, and
everyone must lose after a while, and the penalties of losing are
endless no more games for you Bud!, the penalties of winning are having
to continue playing in yet another serious game until they lose forever.
 
     This is your classic live once, die once 'Dust in the Wind' case.
 
     Way below that you get your "I've Had Time Enough for Love" case.
 
     There is probably a Scale of Games here somewhere, but as I said
the above cognition is very confused. - Homer))
 
     Frank Gordon