6107C20 SHSpec-32  Games Conditions

     A games condition means an agreement of can't have amongst beings.  It's
have for self and can't have for others in a true games condition, but as an
agreement it's can't have on all flows.  It's agreement that nails it in
concrete.  A widespread can't have agreement gives you lots of mass.  For
instance the Christian prohibition on sex, which is very fundamental as a
can't create.  Bodies are necessary as favorite vehicles and identities, but
there's a penalty in the Christian system for creating them.  This results in
a must-must not.  It is in the field of disagreement and can be processed in
various ways.

     But how did you get suckered into a position like this, where you could
accumulate motivators like this?  You must have been party to the can't have
somewhere along the line; you can't suffer any consequences you had no hand in
creating, and you must have done it by agreement with a lot of others.  With
the disagreement you're objecting to the game you helped to create in the
first place.  If you get the disagreement off, you get a considerable
resurgence.  You could undercut it by getting all the agreements to have the
game.

     A games condition process seeks to isolate the basic agreements on some
kind of game.  "Games condition" is a derogatory term.  It means a package
consisting of a fixated attention, inability to escape coupled with inability
to attack, to the exclusion of other games.  There's nothing wrong with having
games, but a game condition is unknown, arbitrary, reactive, performed outside
one's choice, without his consent or will.  It's a sort of mental doingness
trap.  In it, you've got to do things, assume a certain beingness, and have no
communication with anyone not part of the game.  The world thus becomes
massless, timeless, spaceless, and people-less very rapidly.  Most marriages
that go on the rocks are in a games condition, where there's a total agreement
that neither one can have anything, overlaid with another set of agreements
that are in disagreement with that fundamental can't have agreement.  Their
tenderest moments are when they're in disagreement with the basic agreement of
can't have.  This gives us interesting maxims like, "Hell hath no fury like a
woman scorned," which reflects the later disagreement.  When two people get
this fixated, the rest of the world ceases to exist.  They just stay with each
other and shut out the rest of the world.

     Games conditions can exist on any dynamic.  Wars are an example on the
third or fourth dynamics.  One can find portions of the track where one has
repeatedly gotten into the same game, e.g. defending the capitol by being
part of an interceptor squadron shooting down or being shot down by the enemy
right over the middle of the airport.  This was a games condition because it
was an unknowing fixated activity; it did nothing effective for the society.

     The clue to a games condition is that the person is doing a compulsive
confront that makes it necessary for him to assume a compulsive beingness.  In
order to play this game, one must deny a certain havingness.  The US has, in
its last two wars, demonstrated itself to be in a war games condition because
it cannot have the fruits of any of its victories.  In a games condition, no
matter what the person says, he always ends up with no havingness.  So you get
an obsessive beingness and doingness and a can't havingness.  Everybody has a
few games conditions; few have complete games conditions going.  The latter
are in the spin bin.  When you see one of these games conditions, it defies
all logic because it's obsessive.  It has nothing to do with the real world.
This is true of all aberration.  It's out of PT.  The rationale which
rationalizes a games condition has holes in it.  But don't try to argue
someone out of it; audit him out of it.  You can't educate someone out of a
games condition because it's aberrated and he can't look at it analytically.

     The situation of a person who can't influence his bank with thinkingness
is interesting.  The gradient scale of less effectiveness in this regard ends
in no effectiveness.  If you give such a person an auditing command, he
doesn't do it, and even if he did do it, it would have no effect on the bank.
Such a person breaks auditors' hearts and gives people loses.  It is of
interest to understand the anatomy of this phenomenon, which exists to some
degree in all cases, since clearing a person means putting him in control of
the bank.  We've been working on the question of how a person could get into a
condition where they could not affect the bank since 1954.

     The answer is withholds.  The fellow is backing out of life; he's
withholding as part of a games condition; denying something to someone else.
The withhold gives him a can't reach, a pull-back.  Multiply this by a lot of
instances and you find that eventually the person practically exits from the
dynamics.  But this is really not possible to do, so he inverts on them.  As
far as he's concerned, his effort is to leave, compounded with the withhold
and not-reach.  Thus you get an ineffectiveness.  You can't control something
you can't reach and from which you are withholding yourself.  The mustn't
reach is really a mustn't be reached, of course.  This is true especially when
there is punishment involved.  Punishment compounds withholds.  So as we go
downscale on reach, we get:

          1. Ineffectiveness

          2. Destructiveness (the PC can't communicate with something well
             enough to understand it, so when he does reach, he can only be
             destructive)

          3. Inability even to destroy something.

          4. Inability to have any influence at all, of any kind.

          5. Inability even to affect his own mind.

     Add up all these withholds and can't haves on all dynamics and you get
someone who's totally withdrawn, individuated; totally ineffective on his own
bank.  When he runs can't have on people, he makes them less familiar and more
withdrawn from things.  Then, by the overt-motivator sequence, this reacts on
him, so he stops reaching and starts withholding.  At 100% withhold, or 100% withdraw, he can't influence anything, including his thoughts and bank.  If he reads on the meter, you know something is effecting his bank.  Don't be amazed if the PC has never noticed, really, the condition he's in.  He can't think or
rationalize on the subject; he will buy wrong why's on it readily.

     So if you run a command that you haven't tested for read, you are doing
something adventurous, since if it didn't read, you're in an area where he's
still totally ineffective or totally effective.

     A PC can be compulsively exterior: the detached case.  Freud could never
help this kind of case.  That's someone who is backed out of the dynamics and
backed out of his head.  People will tell you they feel detached.  That
indicates a games condition in the area where they feel detached.  Most
homosexuals are detached in this sense.  In any area a person is in a games
condition about, he is detached.  How do you reverse the games condition?
Find something that reads on the E-meter and is therefore something he can
effect, i.e. something real to the PC.  Real means, "Can the PC be effective
in that sphere?" Get the PC's withholds and can't have off the subject on a
gradient scale.  You take off the games condition, and the PC can now reach in
the area and regain effectiveness.  It's basically idiotically simple, but if
you violate that doingness, you don't get results in auditing.  Say you want
to cure psychosomatics with auditing.  You can find people who are so much the
effect of their psychosomatics, you can have more effect on them than the they
can.  You can make them well, but they don't know it!  So they never thank you
for getting well.  What you should do to avoid this situation is to assess all
the person's difficulties, get the best read, get off all the person's
withholds on the area, get the games conditions in the area cured, and the
difficulty will right itself.  You can eradicate illness and upsets, but you
have to assess them first.  The fact that the PC complains about something all
the time doesn't prove anything.  It could be a circuit or a mechanism; or it
could be part of some other games condition.  There is a gradient scale of
difficulties.  The PC may have lots of them, but may be effective only in one
area.  That's where you must start.  That's been the barriered line on healing
and help.

     If you run a command that doesn't read, the PC is ineffective in the
area.  Therefore it's auditor vs the PC's bank, with no help from the PC.
He'll be ARC breaky, hard to audit because you're just auditing bank and the
PC isn't there.  This violates the basic auditing principle: auditor plus PC
is greater than the bank.