Author: Hubbard, L. R.
Document date: 1956, August
Document title: Games Theory
Document type: lecture transcript
Event: Games Congress
Location: Washington, DC
Document ID: 5608Cxx
Description: Hubbard says there are "Games Processing" processes that, if run improperly, would put preclears in their graves; discusses the semantic difference between "attention" and "interest." Later in the lecture he talks about how a general semanticist would argue about terms, and gives instructions.
There are processes in Games Processing which I well imagine, if run inexpertly, would simply pick up the preclear and, well, you’d dust him off afterwards and maybe find enough pieces to put in the coffin, but even that has its doubts.
There is one process in Games Processing which is sufficiently rugged as to turn on the feeling of insanity in the preclear. If it’s run on the right valence, no matter how expertly audited, it would still tum on the “Nyaow, I’m going mad.”
And that is simply “Invent a way to get attention1 from (valence2).” Now, that sounds like such an innocent process, doesn’t it? It sounds like such a sweet, innocent process. There’s obviously–obviously nothing under the sun could be more pleasant. (Obviously, getting attention from somebody is nothing.) But let us take somebody like Father, “Invent a way to get attention from Father.” Nyaow. Now. If Father is the person in the family who was most out of communication, although apparently most in it–you know, Father might have been the person who was dramatizing sanity all the time, you know–and this process were run on him, why, we are likely to discover our preclear just spinning3 quietly in in the chair.No, you have to lighten that process up: “Invent something that would get father’s interest.” And that runs. A little bit rough but it runs. And only after that was flat could you run “Invent a way of getting Father’s attention.” So a preclear differentiates very, very closely between attention and interest4. What a semantic difference. What a light difference to cause with one process a feeling of insanity and the other a feeling of relief. And so are all the buttons of games very precise buttons, very precise buttons.We have be, do and have. And those, obviously, are three conditions of existence. Nothing more obvious than this. A fourth condition would, of course, be attention. And as I’ve just told you, Games Processes run a very, very fine line, a thin thread, because you’re processing straight on into the complete background and life of your preclear, and so we take this little thing of attention, be, do and have and what do you know? None of them are processable directly on a preclear without considerable ramification.
And now we go on and say, “Now, I–you know, I’d really like to run this process on you.” And you give him the process and you sort it out that he knows what you mean by this process and he does and so you carry on from there.
Well, this becomes very necessary, you see, in Games Processing because words can mean different things to different people. Actually not to the degree that a general semanticist would love to have you believe, but certainly individuals have aberrated importances for certain words.
And I have seen a preclear going up through the roof because somebody continued to use the word can’t instead of can’t. You know? I mean, they’re just–they’re touchy.You get somebody in the scientific line–just imagine if you ever processed a nuclear physicist or if you processed a Doctor of Literature or something of this sort, you’d probably spend 50 percent of your time on the communication bridge and arguing about what this word meant and that word meant and so forth. You shouldn’t pay too much attention to it if he starts to argue with you, you shouldn’t do it. You should just run some more SCS5 and get that out of the road.
If you ask him to look out there in the street and tell you what was important out there in the street he would look at the signs on the trucks and on the shops and he would tell you those were terribly important–the words, you see. And he would not see the trucks or the shops or the street; he would merely see the words.
So, nevertheless, even on a preclear who is not in this fixed condition on the subject of semantics, we have to be very careful in Games Processing6. These words in Games Processing mean exactly what they mean. They are the dictionary definitions of these words. They are also words which are in common usage and they are very commonly understood. And it’s amazing, and it really shouldn’t be since we’re on the exact center of aberration, the agreement on exactly what these words mean is much better than on any other words in the English language. Nevertheless, we must be careful that we and the preclear and the auditor understand exactly what is going forward.
Hubbard, L. R. (1956, August). Games Theory. Games Congress, (5608Cxx). Lecture conducted from Washington, DC.