THE LUDULOGUE MANUAL

By Don Cerveris
 1

INTRODUCTION

Though interrelated, social problems can be distinguished from physical and per-

sonal problems as being those that affect, and in a sense are caused by, every member of

the society in question. Unlike natural disasters, they are problems that humans create for

themselves, and insofar as they are social rather than personal problems they are created

by the society as a whole. A society is defined by whatever designation its members have

in common as well as by the implicit or explicit exclusion of those who are not members

of the society. Without that exclusion there can be no social identification. It may be that

early in human history small groups lived in such isolation from one another that each

community could think of itself as all of humanity, in which case there would have been

no exclusion. But as the human population grew, groups merged into larger and larger

communities, with the result that various societies developed within the larger societies

considered as a whole. At present the most inclusive societies are nations and those relig-

ions that are international in scope, with innumerable less-inclusive social identifications

mixed in amongst them.

As the avenues of communication have become both more and more widespread

and progressively more immediate, especially with the explosion of the Information Age,

certain social problems have become problems for the whole of humanity. Terrorism, for

instance, which was once confined to a particular country, is now worldwide in its range.

As for the economy, now that it is global, its fluctuations that once were localized have

become a concern for the whole of humanity. Since interconnection will inevitably be-

come even more widespread and refined as new technologies develop, the tendency for

social problems to become problems for all humanity can only increase.
 2

The difficulty in approaching social problems that have become problems for all

humanity is that there is no identifying element within humanity itself that contains an

exclusion. Humanity simply means all humans. Without some form of social identifica-

tion, there is no framework for dealing with such problems, as there is with even the rela-

tively massive societies of nations and religions. Since the only identification of human-

ity that does contain an exclusion is its designation as a species, the search for a way to

deal with social problems that have become problems for all of humanity must begin with

that distinction. The strictly biological differences between the species are of no help in

this search, because they establish no exclusion that provides a usable identification. But

there are two ways in which the human differs from all other species that do provide a

viable exclusion.

One obvious distinction of the human from all other species is its tendency and

capacity to change its ways of living, the ability to create ever-new environments. Other

species may live in collectives that can be considered societies, but only the human spe-

cies has created what can be defined as a civilization, which is an ever-developing enter-

prise involving constant change in ways and means of living. Though many species, such

as bees and beavers, construct their environments, they do it repetitiously, not creatively,

as is the case with humanity. All of the other animal species maintain the same pattern of

life unless forced to adapt to changes in the environment they inhabit. Such adaptations

may bring about an evolution of a new species, but so far no species but the human has

fashioned a civilization. Even the chimpanzees, that have such a genetic similarity to hu-

mans, continually maintain the same pattern of life in relation to their environment as

they find it. Because of the similarity, they may be taught by humans to become more
 3

like humans, but there is no evidence that, as a species, they will become more like hu-

mans on their own. Whether or not the human species evolved from an earlier species in

no way alters the contention that the distinction of the human species is that it has the

tendency and capacity to change its way of living and create new environments.

Related to this is the other distinguishing feature exclusive to the human species,

which is the faculty for make-believe playing. Most activities, for all species, can be

categorized as either Practical or Play. The essential difference between the two is that

with the Practical the action is performed in order to achieve what is wanted, whereas in

Play what is wanted is given in the action itself. This is the “fun” of playing, and it ranges

from the trivial to the profound, both in its quality and the level of commitment. As an

activity Play is not the opposite of the serious, but of the Practical. Whether or not Play is

serious has to do with the level of commitment and the difficulty of the challenge that the

participants are expected to meet.

Except for make-believe playing, humans share most other forms of Play with the

rest of the primates. All primates engage in some kind of playing that involves bodily

movement and sound-making for the fun of doing it, which in the human can be classi-

fied as singing and dancing. All primates also participate in competitive playing. To the

extent that humans share these kinds of playing with the other primates, they can be

eliminated as the significant factors in the emergence and advancement of civilization,

though the joining of singing and dancing with make-believe playing in the form of my-

tho-rituals has definitely been an important element in that development. Make-believe

playing could not on its own account for the movement of change in civilization because

Play, insofar as what is wanted is given in the activity, remains self-enclosed. If it were
 4

done with the intention to achieve something beyond the activity itself, it would be Prac-

tical, rather than Play.

As stated, all animals including the human engage in Practical activity, which,

among other things, is necessary for survival. The Practical, by its very nature, is conser-

vative. It is not a seeking of the new, but rather a doing what has to be done in order to

maintain the status quo. Because of its conservative nature, the Practical could not di-

rectly account for the development of civilization, but by utilizing the imaginary possi-

bilities that make-believe Play evokes, the Practical can and did bring into being new ac-

tualities. Technologically, these new actualities run the gamut from the invention of the

wheel to landing on the moon. Socially, new ways of living together have continued to

develop, culminating, at their most expansive, in the various forms of national govern-

ments and religions that now exist.

Going back to those isolated communities that could have considered themselves

as the whole of humanity, it is important to note that almost every member of the com-

munity was then in possession of the totality of knowledge and skills of the given culture.

The only ones set apart as possessing special knowledge were either the individual sha-

mans or members of some kind of priesthood, and they could be considered as the origi-

nal “experts.” As the population grew and civilization advanced, more and more kinds of

“expertise” came into being, that, while increasing knowledge generally, progressively

limited the individual’s possession of the total knowledge of what was known. An exper-

tise is a combination of information, skill, and experience exclusive to the group to whom

it applies. Though the shamans practiced their craft independently of one another, they

could be considered as all possessing the same expertise. Their effect on the ordinary
 5

members of the community, as was that of a priesthood where such existed, would be the

earliest instances of the influence of expertise on the community as a whole, and would

be a significant factor in the ever-changing development of civilization. Even as commu-

nities merged into larger and larger communities, more and more kinds of expertise came

into being, with the result that the individual members of the community became more

and more limited in their ability to possess the knowledge and skills of their culture as a

whole. By the same token, they became more and more dependent on the experts. Jump-

ing forward to the present, the continuous narrowing of specialization, especially in the

sciences, has made everyone, including the experts, ignorant of the bulk of what is

known. Essentially, all that an expert knows, as an expert, is what is presently known

within his/her* specialty.

In the present stage of civilization, the new discoveries and changes that come

about by the combination of the Practical and make-believe playing are channeled

through specific areas of expertise. The knowledge of the experts is Practical. It is what

they know that has to do with their field, and as long as they are working with the known,

their efforts are practical. When a problem within their field is recognized, and they have

made every Practical effort to solve it but without success, the experts realize that some-

thing new is needed. That is when they must engage in make-believe playing. There are

as many different kinds of make-believe playing as there are kinds of expertise, and only

*Because the concern in this emprise is with humanity as a whole, it is necessary, among other

things, to dispense with gender differentiation. To encourage this, a double-gender for the third person is

being used. Though some readers may find this awkward, it should serve as a reminder that “our common

humanity” means everyone.

 6

the experts know the kind of make-believe playing that is appropriate to their expertise.

What brings about the actualization of the “new” is the attaching of the energy of the

Practical effort to the possibility evoked by the make-believe playing.

There may seem to be a contradiction in this process. If the experts are engaging

in make-believe playing in order to bring about a result beyond the playing itself, how is

it Play? That is the element of genius within the expertise. Regardless of the category of

make-believe playing of the particular expertise, the playing itself must be for the pure

fun of it, and here it bears repeating that fun can be serious. The make-believe playing of

the experts is a leap in attitude from the Practical, which is limited to the known within

the expertise, to the freedom of the unknown what-could-be. The genius is the one who,

in making the leap, brings something new into being within the field of her/his expertise.

What propels the leap is the energy of the Practical effort, but the strings of the known

have to be cut loose before the new can come into come into being, and that cutting loose

is the shift to the mode of Play. This is the movement of change and development within

the specific field of expertise.

Because of specialization, social problems must now be dealt with by the collabo-

rate efforts of those experts whose fields of expertise are pertinent to the particular prob-

lems. Social problems are defined as such by a specific society, which means that the ex-

perts involved are members of that society, and that will be the basis of their collabora-

tion. Without a social identification, the experts have no basis for collaboration in dealing

with social problems. In this regard, it is illustrative to point out again the difference be-

tween social problems and those caused by nature. Often when major disasters occur,

many experts from different nations and of different religious affiliations will collaborate
 7

in coming to the rescue. The urgency of the situation temporarily overrides their social

exclusions. They need no basis for working together except their common humanity.

One of the aftermaths of many disasters is widespread hunger for the population

involved, and until things return to normal this will be attended to by the experts coming

to the rescue. But what about widespread hunger if the worldwide interconnections make

it into a social problem for all humanity, which means it would be a problem both affect-

ing and caused by all of us. Even now it could be understood as such, because it is well

known that the expertise needed to feed everyone in the world is available. If a solution

to a social problem is possible and the members of that society fail to engage in solving

it, then they are responsible for maintaining it. If a solution to a social problem that has

become a problem for all humanity is possible, then we are all responsible for maintain-

ing it. This is the position of those individuals and groups dedicated to doing what they

can for what they consider the good of humanity, and one of their goals is to feed the

hungry of the world. Due to the fragmentation of knowledge and skills resulting from

specialization, that goal could not be achieved without the collaboration of experts in

many different areas of expertise.

Having neither a nationality nor a religion in common to rely upon, the only basis

left for the experts dealing with social problems that have become problems for all hu-

manity would be their common humanity, what those concerned with the good of human-

ity often call “the brotherhood of man,” a phrase meant to include all of the Earth’s hu-

man inhabitants. As an expression, it does not refer to the biological differentiation of the

human from other species, but rather to some family-like aspect or quality that all hu-

mans, and only humans, share. As a concept, it is based on the assumption that there is
 8

such a thing as “our common humanity,” a concept with which most people will agree, in

spite of the incredible diversity of human experience throughout the world.

It is one thing to have a concept of “our common humanity” and another to actu-

ally experience it. Because it is an aspect or quality that all humans possess “in com-

mon,” it would have to be experienced between people in the physical presence of one

another. Otherwise it would simply remain an idea. Being something that all humans

have in common, it would necessarily be experienced as a feeling of connection, a sense

of oneness not only with those present but, insofar as that quality is the same for all hu-

mans, it would be an experiencing of a feeling of oneness with all humanity.

What prevents the experiencing of a feeling of connection based on our common

humanity in the everyday world is the uniqueness of individuality. The most general

definition of individuality is that it is a reaction/behavior pattern, reaction being a charge

of energy resulting from response to a stimulus, and behavior being the utilization of that

energy. Given the same stimulus, no two individuals react in exactly the same way, and

given similar reactions, no two individuals behave in exactly the same way. This unique-

ness begins at birth, if not before. As any maternity nurse or parent of multiple siblings

would attest, from the time they are born, no two infants react and behave in exactly the

same way. Because each child has her/his own way of reacting and behaving from the

beginning, s/he meets every succeeding circumstance with that pattern already in place.

Whether raised in wealth, poverty, or in between, whether growing up to be strong and

healthy or weak and sickly or some other combination, whether considered physically

attractive or otherwise, whether growing up in a peaceful or a violent environment, these

and the innumerable factors that impinge on a human life are all met with a specific reac-
 9

tion/behavior pattern. This continuous meeting life’s circumstances with a unique way of

reacting and behaving forms what is recognizable in the everyday world as the character

of “that particular individual.” Those individuals and groups actually working for what

they consider the good of humanity may very well feel connected to all of humanity, a

“we are the world” experiencing, but as long as it is based on their individuality that feel-

ing of connection is restricted to the reaction/behavior patterns of those individuals in-

volved, which rules out the bulk of humanity.

Ludulogue is a group activity totally directed toward meeting the challenge of a

single Question: Can there be an experiencing of a feeling of connection between people

based solely on our common humanity?

Ludulogue is a speaking/listening activity. The name is derived from a compila-

tion of lusus, the Latin root-word for play, and logue, the suffix referring to speaking. A

loose translation of the word Ludulogue would be “play talking.” Even though it utilizes

the Practical, because the experiencing that it intends can only occur within the activity

itself, Ludulogue must be treated as a form of Play. In its own way Ludulogue recapitu-

lates the same combining of Practical energy with make-believe playing that has brought

about changes in civilization. This is not to claim that Ludulogue can solve the kinds of

problems that have been discussed, for those problems must be solved in the everyday

world, whereas Ludulogue is an activity deliberately removed from the everyday world.

Like all forms of Play, it occurs in a prescribed playing field.

As mentioned, the actual solving of the problems that are social problems for all

humanity can only be achieved by the combined efforts of the experts in the pertinent

fields of endeavor. What Ludulogue offers to those experts is the actual experiencing of a
 10

feeling of connection based on our common humanity, and that experiencing resolves the

difficulty raised by the lack of exclusion and provides a basis for working together.

For the connection based on our common humanity to occur, there has to be a

temporary adjustment in the individuality of those involved. In essence, this is what

Ludulogue is designed to bring about. The playing field of Ludulogue is not the physical

environment in which the activity takes place, but a grid of agreements that amounts to a

social contract between the participants. The intention of the social contract is to clarify

what must be done and why it must be done for the challenge of the Ludulogue Question

to be met. As for the “how” it is to be done, because of the uniqueness of individuality

the only guides that can be offered are those that do not violate that uniqueness, proposals

based on what presumably applies to everyone. Beyond that, each participant must find

his/her own way of adjusting his/her individuality in meeting the challenge.

The social contract contains a number of facts and theories. A fact is either true or

false, whereas a theory is neither true nor false but reasonable or unreasonable. The vali-

dation of the facts in the contract is that they make sense to the participant. For instance,

that the human species differs from all others in its tendency and capability for change is

a statement of fact. If it makes sense to the participant, it can be considered as true. That

only the human species engages in make-believe Play is another statement of fact. Pre-

suming that the participant agrees that humans do engage in make-believe Play, to prove

the statement false, evidence that some other species also engages in make-believe play-

ing would have to be provided. That the changes that come about in the development of

civilization are derived from attaching the energy of Practical effort to a possibility
 11

evoked by make-believe playing is a theory. It is up to whoever appraises the theory to

decide whether or not it is reasonable.

Ludulogue is not a teaching as to how to live your life, nor some kind of philoso-

phy. It is an activity, something for a group of people to do together. Like experts in

search of the new, the participants who are trying to meet the challenge of the Question

will have to cut loose from the effort of the Practical and enter the make-believe playing

for the fun of it. As should be apparent from this Introduction, it is fun at the most serious

level imaginable.
 12

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

Because it involves a temporary adjustment of individuality, to know what must

be done and why it must be done to meet the challenge of the Ludulogue Question, the

participants must first come to a mutual understanding of individuality as it is in the eve-

ryday world, both in terms of relationship, and in regard to the reaction/behavior event

itself. Once this description of individuality in the everyday world has been dealt with,

the elements applicable to the necessary adjustment of individuality will be presented. All

of this combined represents the grid of agreements that comprise the playing field of

Ludulogue.

CONNECTION AND SEPARATION:

Even though no two individuals have the same reaction/behavior pattern, when

any two or more are compared, they will always be found to have both similarities and

dissimilarities. That is why, in the everyday world, there can occur events of group to-

getherness, because in those instances something has caused a temporary holding in

abeyance of the dissimilarities of those in the group, so that only the similarities are being

stimulated. It is not that the dissimilarities have ceased to exist, they are simply not being

brought into attention at the time. A telling example can be found in the history of suc-

cessful revolutions. The only similarity the rebels need for cohesiveness is hostility to

those in power, and during the revolution, the feeling of togetherness can be very intense.

It is the rebels’ hostility to those in power that holds their dissimilarities in abeyance.

Once their goal is attained, however, the dissimilarities are quickly exposed, as the lead-

ers struggle among themselves for power.

 13

In all us-against-them experiences of unity, as with revolutions, it is the hostility

to “them” that holds the dissimilarities in abeyance, but there are many occurrences of

togetherness that are not based on antagonism. People caught in an emergency often feel

a deep sense of connection with one another, the danger being the factor that holds their

dissimilarities in abeyance. Working together to achieve a common goal can bring about

a feeling of oneness that does not necessarily include opposition to “them.” Certain kinds

of entertainment events can evoke an abeyance of individual dissimilarities in the mem-

bers of the audience that brings about a tremendous feeling of oneness.

What is significant for Ludulogue about the instances of togetherness that do oc-

cur in the everyday world is that, whether or not they are us-against-them situations, they

all establish an us/them dichotomy. With the goal oriented group, those not involved in

achieving the goal are “them.” With the cohesiveness in entertainment events, those who

do not find them entertaining are “them.” With the emergency situation, the “them” are

all those not caught in the emergency. Even in the experiencing of the feeling of togeth-

erness that most closely resembles the connection in Ludulogue, that which occurs in

families and friendship groups, an us/them dichotomy is implied, all those not of the fam-

ily or the friendship group being “them.” An experiencing of a feeling of connection

based solely on our common humanity can have no us/them dichotomies at all.

Except, perhaps, for extremely dysfunctional families, members of the same fam-

ily usually share many similarities in their reaction/behavior patterns. The same can be

said for friendship groups, often even more so since, unlike one’s family, friends are cho-

sen. What causes the dissimilarities to be held in abeyance during family and friendship

group experiences of connection may not always be discernable, but there has to be some
 14

occurrence to account for it. Otherwise the family and friendship group would be living

in an unbroken mode of blissful togetherness, which is hardly the case in even the most

functional of families or those friendship groups with the highest percentage of individual

similarities.

With families and friendship groups, in their daily lives, as long as what is being

considered is a matter of shared similarities, the understanding of one another is given in

the direct experience of those involved. They like the same things, fear the same things,

value the same things, and so on. When it comes to the dissimilarities, however, it is pre-

cisely the direct experience that can cause disruption.

To take one of the most basic elements of individuality, a preference for and an

abhorrence of various foods: Can one understand how her/his brother or good friend

could possibly like the food s/he finds detestable? Yes, if it is an understanding by anal-

ogy. Knowing that s/he, too, likes certain foods that some people find detestable, s/he

feels that s/he does understand. On the other hand, if s/he strictly consults her/his own

direct experiencing, then s/he finds s/he really cannot understand how anyone could like

the food s/he detests. This double viewpoint is one of the essential factors in human rela-

tions in everyday life, and each deals with it as s/he will. It is unlikely that any wars have

ever been fought over dissimilarities in food preferences, but the same cannot be said for

dissimilarities in values and beliefs. What makes tolerance possible when dissimilarities

in values and beliefs are confronted is the understanding by analogy. Tolerance is not a

feeling of being connected, but rather an acceptance of separation without a concomitant

hostility.
 15

To complete the description of relationship in the everyday world, there is a fur-

ther complication to be considered that has to do with situations where one party feels

s/he understands the other, but the other denies that understanding. This is illustrated

most readily by the fact that those who have had certain experiences often feel that only

those who have had them can understand what it is like to have had those experiences.

For instance, most, if not all, of those in the military who have been in combat probably

feel that those who have not experienced it can never understand it. Women who have

given birth probably feel that no man can ever understand it. Most members of minorities

who have suffered prejudice probably feel that they are the only ones who can understand

that experience. These are fairly obvious groupings in which those who have had certain

experiences may feel that those who have not had them can never understand those expe-

riences. What they point to is the conflict that can occur between people when one feels

that s/he understands the other, while the other denies that understanding. For the combat

veteran, the analogous understanding by the one who has not experienced combat is not

acceptable, and if the subject matter actively enters the sphere of the relationship it is an

element of separation that can lead to estrangement. The same can be true with families

and friendship groups whenever the dissimilarities come to the fore. The father may feel

he understands his son, based on analogy with his own experience at that age, whereas

the son may not feel understood at all. A comfortably well-off person may feel s/he un-

derstands what it is like for her/his friend to live from paycheck to paycheck, but proba-

bly finds it best to leave the subject out of the conversation.

This is as wide a description of relationship, in reference to feelings of connection

and separation in the everyday world, that can be made without violating the uniqueness
 16

of individuality. What it indicates is that in order to meet the challenge of the Question,

the Ludulogue participants will have to deal with and somehow go beyond not only the

separations, including tolerance and conflicts that can arise from analogous understand-

ing, but also the various kinds of group connections that do occur in the everyday world.

If this is done, the only thing remaining upon which to base relationship will be the fam-

ily-like aspect or feature of our make-up that is being referred to as “our common human-

ity.”

INDIVIDUALITY:

For the Ludulogue participants to discover for themselves how to make the neces-

sary adjustment to their individuality, what is needed is an operational understanding of

the reaction/behavior event as it occurs in the everyday world. Reaction has already been

defined as a charge of energy resulting from a response to a stimulus. It is more famil-

iarly referred to as emotion. The expertise that most specifically focuses on the subject of

emotion is Psychology. However, no Psychological expertise is of any use to Ludulogue

because there is no branch of Psychology whose goal in theorizing, experimentation, or

therapy is to engender the experiencing of a feeling of connection based solely on our

common humanity. The kind of understanding applicable to Ludulogue that could be

considered “psychological” must be restricted to what “makes sense” to the reader, irre-

spective of all knowledge derived from Psychological expertise as such.

In treating of the reaction/behavior event, the first theory proposed is that even

though an emotion is experienced as a singularity, it is actually a combination of sensa-

tion and thinking. Because the energy of an emotion can so take over one’s whole being,
 17

and because it is that very energy which creates and controls the whole fabric of human

relationships in the everyday world, to reduce emotion to a combination of sensation and

thinking may, at first hearing, seem absurd. After all, emotions “come from the heart,” an

expression that intends to convey the idea that one’s whole being is in the emotion as it is

occurring. The familiar derision of intellectual understanding as against passionate in-

volvement, reiterates the theme. Nor is the theory in any way denying or contradicting

this as far as the everyday world is concerned, but the playing field of Luduolgue is set

apart from the everyday world, and its theories are for one purpose only, which is to fa-

cilitate the meeting of the challenge of the Question. As for the presumption that the sig-

nificance of emotion is somehow demeaned by treating it as a compound, it might be re-

membered that water is generally considered to be a “thing in itself” in spite of the fact

that it is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.

In developing the theory that an emotion is a combination of thinking and sensa-

tion, what is first to be clarified is the difference between perception and the reaction to

what is perceived. Because the reaction follows the stimulus with “apparent” immediacy,

it is easy to confuse the reaction with the perception itself. For example, as far as the

sense of sight is considered, there is no such thing as a beautiful sunset. The seeing is the

seeing of the display of colors and light. The valuation is in reference to the reaction of

the individual spectator. As with perceptions, so, too, with sensations: labeling that sud-

den twinge as a pain is a classifying of the reaction not the sensation. The sensation is

just what it is, a certain feeling occurring within the body. In itself, it is neither painful

nor pleasurable. It is the reaction that characterizes it as such.

 18

The next thing to be clarified is what happens between the perception of the

stimulus and the reaction, and in order to understand that, what has to be examined is the

“apparent” immediacy of reaction. Take a situation in which the very same insult is lev-

eled at three different individuals. Presumably the understanding of the actual words of

the insult is the same for each, but one reacts with anger, another feels hurt, and the third

reacts with amusement. Obviously each is not only understanding the words, but also in-

terpreting them in his/her own way. Since what was said in the insult was interpreted, that

means that it had to have had more than one possible meaning for the listener, who would

then have had to reflect on those meanings to decide which one to choose. But for the one

who was insulted, his/her experiencing of the reaction was immediate. There was neither

time for, nor awareness of the reflecting and deciding. For the person reacting with anger

there was simply an experiencing of a sudden charge of energy seeking release in some

form of action. Though that is the more noticeable case, it can be assumed that the other

two reactions were just as immediate and that they also contained a charge of energy

seeking release. The reaction of amusement may have been based on a feeling of superi-

ority, with the intention to express that superiority, and the reaction of hurt may have had

the intention to hurt in return. Though reactions can be of different degrees of intensity,

they are all charges of a certain amount of energy directed toward the taking of an action.

The fact that one may not follow through with the intended action is simply an aspect of

that person’s individuality.

To explain the apparent immediacy of reaction, the theory proposed is that think-

ing sometimes moves too fast to register in consciousness. The theory is derived from

reflecting on the relationship of two facts drawn from observable experience. The first of
 19

these facts is that thinking can move at different speeds. In an emergency thinking can

move with incredible speed. The level of interest in a subject one is thinking about can

also be a factor in gauging the speed of thinking. Caught in the excitement of a vital in-

terest, thinking can run through a great deal of information in a short space of time. On

the other hand, when daydreaming or simply allowing thinking to drift from one associa-

tion to the next without any apparent intention or purpose, it hardly seems to move at all.

The other fact to be taken into account relates to the thinking involved in acquir-

ing a skill. Learning how to drive an automobile will serve as an example. (Non-drivers

can substitute something comparable from their own experience.) When you first start

learning to drive there is a great deal to think about. Presuming you have an instructor,

s/he is probably giving you so much to think about right off that it may seem impossible

to ever be able to drive. Little by little, however, as you practice it feels like you have to

think less and less about what you are doing. At some point along the way you find that

you are able to drive without thinking about it at all. Not that it is advisable, but you can

be thinking about a thousand other things while you are driving because it has become

automatic. What is inexplicable is the transition from having to think about what you are

doing to not having to think about what you are doing. Though it may have seemed that

you were thinking less and less as you were learning to drive, this cannot be the case

since you would still have had to deal with all the same things your instructor told you

about. If you bring in the fact that thinking can move at different speeds, it becomes ap-

parent that you were not thinking less and less but faster and faster. At the point where

driving becomes automatic, it can be said that the thinking is moving so fast that it does

not register in consciousness. That thinking can move too fast to register in consciousness
 20

is a reasoned explanation of how it is that a skill, which involves thinking in its develop-

ment, eventually becomes automatic. The same explanation can then be applied to the

apparent immediacy of reaction, because in the process of becoming “that particular indi-

vidual” one’s reacting has become automatic. If thinking occurred between the stimulus

and the reaction, even though it was moving too fast to register in consciousness, then the

actuality of interpretation and reflection can be accounted for. This would imply that

thinking is an element of reaction. Insofar as the charge of energy must be felt as a sensa-

tion of some kind, it can be said that a reaction, though experienced as a singularity, is a

combination of thinking and sensation. Because the thinking that brought on the reaction

is simply one’s familiar way of thinking speeded up, it can be directly accessed by

“thinking out” the movement of interpretation from the stimulus to the reaction. The im-

portance of this for Ludulogue is that it puts the authority and responsibility for one’s

thinking on the individual participant him/herself, and it is necessary for the participant to

take that authority and responsibility if s/he is to meet the challenge.

The second major aspect in the operational understanding of the reaction/behavior

event is the behavior that utilizes the reactive charge of energy. Just as no two individu-

als react in exactly the same way, no two individuals, given a similar reaction, behave in

exactly the same way. Using the insult again for an example, say, in this instance, the

three individuals all react with anger. One person behaves by returning the insult in kind,

giving full verbal expression to the roiling sensations going on inside. The second person

is even more forthcoming: s/he literally strikes out with both fists. The third person,

though just as angry as the others, does nothing overtly. For some reason, in this case the

intention of the reactive charge is forestalled, with all the inward seething rendered, most
 21

likely, in thoughts of revenge. It is important to note that the third person’s behavior illus-

trates the clear difference between acting and thinking. Though the thinking in this case

is impelled by the intention to act, it utilizes the energy of the reaction precisely by not

acting. Though, as this example demonstrates, there can be thinking without acting, the

question is, can there be acting without thinking?

The only way there could be acting without thinking is if there had been no

choosing what action to take and no decision to act. Most likely the second person struck

out with his/her fists without pausing to decide to do so, but the presumption of acting

without choosing what action to take and deciding to act presents the same inexplicability

as the immediacy of reaction. Once again the theory of thinking moving too fast to regis-

ter in consciousness provides an explanation. To choose what action to take and to de-

cide to act is necessarily to think. The action is the verbal tirade or the striking out. If the

action is apparently immediate, then the thinking has failed to register in consciousness.

On the other hand, when there is a sufficient delay between the reaction and the action,

the decision to commit a certain action may very well register in consciousness. When

that is the case, the individual can observe for her/himself that the decision is based, in

one way or another, on validating and/or defending her/his individuality. It may be ob-

jected that sometimes decisions to act are based not on validating one’s individuality but

on concern for others. However, concern for others comes out of an individualistic man-

ner of reacting and behaving, and therefore the exercising of that trait would constitute a

validating of one’s individuality.

Because it is a speaking/listening activity, the only acting which is of direct con-

sideration in Ludulogue is speaking. The theory in regard to speaking in the everyday

 22

world is that it is always a combination of communicating and expressing. As with emo-

tion, it is experienced as a singularity. What is communicated are the thoughts chosen

from among those that have occurred as a result of the reaction. What is expressed is the

energy stimulated by the reaction. As demonstrated by the illustration of the person strik-

ing out with her/his fists when insulted, language is not needed for expressing reactive

energy. With the person returning the insult in kind, the reactive energy was likely ex-

pressed through body language, that is, voice tone, facial manipulations, and accompany-

ing gestures. As reaction always carries an intention to act, what would have been com-

municated in the speaking would be the thoughts applicable to the intention. When acting

from reaction, one is always choosing what action to take, and that choosing comes out of

one’s unique way of thinking.

It should be obvious from all of the foregoing that in order to meet the challenge

of the Question, the adjustment to individuality will involve the coming into a new way

of thinking. This is where the respect for the uniqueness of individuality is most crucial.

Any positing of what that new way of thinking should be is a violation of the uniqueness

of individuality. Each participant has to find his/her own new way of thinking for

him/herself, and that will be dependent on, and derived from the way of thinking with

which s/he is familiar.

Though the coming into a new way of thinking is something the participant must

do for her/himself, the social contract is necessary because the experiencing of a feeling

of connection based on our common humanity is a here-now-happening event that can

only occur when people are in the presence of one another. The grid of agreements allows

the participants to move together while each is discovering his/her own new way of
 23

thinking for him/herself. In “going into” that new way of thinking, it is the mutual under-

standing of individuality as it is in the everyday world, both in terms of relationship and

in regard to the reaction/behavior event itself, that provides each participant with both a

personal and a collective grasp of the way of thinking they are all “coming from.”

To complete the social contract, it only remains for those elements applicable to

the necessary adjustment to individuality to be presented.

EAST AND WEST:

Because meeting the challenge of the Ludulogue Question involves a temporary

adjustment of the participant’s individuality, the subject of “intentional self-changing” as

it is in the everyday world has to be taken into account. Insofar as a personal goal of self-

changing will always be determined by the uniqueness of individuality, for Ludulogue no

personal goal can take precedence over another, and therefore all personal goals are ruled

out for consideration. But there is a different category of intentional self-changing that

has to do with humanity as a whole. This is what can be defined as a self-changing with

the intention of achieving an ideal. Unlike the goals of personal self-changing, an ideal is

something that everyone can strive for, regardless of the rarity of its accomplishment. If it

were potentially achievable only for certain individuals, it would simply be a personal

goal held in common by that group of individuals. What is significant for Ludulogue is

the fact that there are actually two ideals which apply to humanity as a whole, and the

striving for them is in different and seemingly opposite directions. The two ideals derive

from the way in which the human is like and unlike all other species, as discussed in the

Introduction.
 24

Because the human is like all species in engaging in Practical activity, one of the

ideals is related to the maintaining of the status quo. As the only species having the ten-

dency and capacity for change, the other human ideal has to do with seeking the new. The

two ideals, though they apply to all of humanity and thus found everywhere, are com-

monly associated with the East and the West, respectively. The Eastern goal, which is

usually embedded in some form of mysticism, is the attainment of a state of being that

could be said to be in line with the maintaining of the status quo. Regardless of the differ-

ent kinds and methods of mysticism, the one feature applicable to them all is the seeking

of an experiencing that involves the loss of a sense of oneself as a separate entity and a

consequent being-at-one-with-all, an experience that has been called, among a number of

different names throughout the world, the unitas mystica. As described by the mystics,

this experiencing can be inwardly directed or outwardly directed. If the latter, it is gener-

ally expressed in such terms as “ I was the butterfly on the rose, and I was the rose. I was

the stone on the path, and I was the soil the stone rested upon. I was the crow on the

branch of the tree, and I was the sound of the wind through the leaves.” In other words,

whatever the mystic perceived through her/his senses, the experiencing was that there

was so absolute a connection to what was perceived, there was no cognition of being an

observer as such. There was no consciousness of a “me” as a separate entity. When in-

wardly directed, the sense of oneself as a separate entity is also obliterated, but the expe-

riencing of the “all” cannot be effectively conveyed because descriptions of experiences

are dependent on sense perception references. At best it can be talked about in such para-

doxical terms as “a full emptiness” and “a tangible nothingness.” Though the Practical as

an activity is a doing what has to be done to get what is wanted, the reason the unitas
 25

mystica is related to the Practical is that in the state of oneness-with-all there is no

movement of change, no seeking for anything to be other than it is, and consequently no

past or future. There is only the eternal now, which is the here-now-happening movement

of existence as it is. It is the ultimate realization of the Practical, a state of being in which

nothing is wanted; a perfect stillness.

Whereas in the Eastern ideal all traces of individuality are dissolved in the one-

ness-with-all, it is precisely individuality that is at the core of the Western ideal, which is

more in keeping with the human capacity and tendency to change. Because of being ori-

ented to the movement of change, the Western sense of time is past-present-future.

Though once again there are many versions, the essence of the Western ideal is to “be-

come your true self,” or as certain Western philosophers put it paradoxically, “become

who you are.” To become who you are means to find out what you are really capable of

doing and doing it, which, in one way or another, means bringing something new into

being. To achieve the Western ideal is to make a uniquely individualistic contribution to

the movement of civilization.

Even with this brief survey it can be seen that with the Eastern ideal the self-

changing striving involves a quieting down to a non-acting, whereas the striving for the

Western ideal is toward an absolute commitment to whatever acting is determined by

one’s authentic character. The tension between these two efforts is exactly the tension

between the tendency to change and the urge to maintain the status quo, and it is a tension

that affects not only an individual’s personal life, but that of every society of which s/he

is a member.
 26

Though both ideals can be found anywhere, certain cultures will tend to favor one

or the other, and the fact that it is so widely accepted over the whole culture in spite of

the rarity of its achievement, indicates that it corresponds to something in everyday expe-

rience. The implication is that those who accept the ideal, even though they have not per-

sonally achieved it, validate it by analogy with something in their own experience,

whether it be with moments of relative peace and quiet for the Eastern ideal, or instances

of total commitment to a particular activity for that of the West.

Ludulogue has nothing to do with the achieving of either ideal, for these must be

pursued in the everyday world, not on a playing field, but if the prospective participant is

willing to grant the authenticity of both ideals, based on her/his own analogous under-

standing of them, s/he will be provided with evidence not only of the possibility of the

necessary adjustment to one’s individuality, but also suggestions for “how to” bring it

about. Regardless of the fact that the striving for either ideal is in different and seemingly

opposite directions, they are not incompatible. Their implicit compatibility resides in the

human body itself. The body is composed of two fundamental systems: the involuntary

neuromuscular system and the voluntary neuromuscular system. Because the involuntary

neuromuscular system maintains life itself, it must always be functioning whether the

body is in action or at rest. By analogy, to be completely at rest while fully conscious re-

lates to the stillness of the Eastern ideal. As for the Western ideal of becoming who you

are, the voluntary neuromuscular system is necessarily utilized. The Western

hero/heroine cannot accomplish his/her deeds without acting, even if it is only by talking

or writing. The point of this, as far as authenticating the two ideals is concerned, is that

both stillness and movement are attributes of the body. Furthermore, being attributes of a
 27

single body they are not only necessarily compatible, the two systems are united by the

action of breathing which is an attribute of both.

What the inclusion of the Eastern ideal provides is that it is the only experience on

record that gives evidence of a human capacity to observe with full attention without re-

acting. If in the state of oneness-with-all the mystic was reacting, that would mean his/her

individuality was functioning, but it is precisely his/her individuality that is eliminated in

that experiencing. Though the mystic may refer to the experience as one in which there

was no “self,” s/he does not mean that her/his physical body disappeared. Certainly the

involuntary neuromuscular system was functioning. What was absent was his/her aware-

ness of being “that particular individual.”

The universally inherent possibility of achieving the Eastern ideal is important for

Ludulogue because it offers evidence of a different kind of or source of energy than that

of reaction. Though it is not intentionally created, it is somehow self-created. It has to do

with the body’s very aliveness. In the unitas mystica, because this energy is in response

to what is perceived without reacting, the experiencing of the feeling of connection is

without any distinction between the perceiver and what is perceived. For the Ludulogue

participant, the only observing which is of consequence is listening to the others speak-

ing. In order to successfully meet the challenge of the Question, the participant has to

find a way to listen so attentively that all sense of separation between speaker and listener

is eradicated. S/he must, in fact, listen-without-reaction, a response vitalized by the same

kind of or source of energy as that of the unitas mystica.

Though Ludulogue is drawing on the mystical experience for evidence of a kind

of or source of energy other than that of reaction, what occurs in Ludulogue is a different
 28

type of experience altogether. The difference between the feeling of connection in the

mystical experience and that of Ludulogue can be inferred by those instances when one

of the things perceived by the mystic, while in the state of oneness-with-all, was another

human being. As with the rose, the mystic did not “see” the other person, s/he “was” the

other person. However, from the various accounts there is no evidence that the other per-

son was experiencing the oneness that the mystic was experiencing. This is by no means

to devalue the mystical experience, but simply to point out that it is a one-way connec-

tion. The Ludulogue experiencing, on the other hand, is a two-way connection. It is not a

oneness-with-all, but a strictly human-to-human oneness, everything else in the environ-

ment, at the time, being relegated to the background.

Though the connection in Ludulogue is of a different order than that of the unitas

mystica, they do share another important similarity. What the mystical experience vali-

dates is that more than one person can have exactly the same experience. If the experienc-

ing of the oneness-with-all was merely similar and not the same for the various mystics, it

would be an idiosyncratic experiencing, applicable only to the reaction/behavior pattern

of that particular mystic. The reason the various mystics do not all sound alike when re-

counting the oneness-with-all experience, even though it is the same for all, is because

they can only talk about it in retrospect, and therefore individualistically. To describe it

while experiencing it would be to separate themselves from the experiencing itself, and

thus no longer be “in” it.

The fact that the mystical experience is the same for all means that it is already

there as a potential happening for every human to experience, otherwise it would be

something individually created. So, too, is the case with the Ludulogue connection; it
 29

must already be there as a potential and be the same for all. In order to experience it, the

participant has to discover what it is about his/her own individuality that is preventing its

being experienced.

Being a speaking/listening activity, in Ludulogue, every participant is both a lis-

tener and a speaker, and the two-way connection is a result of the interchange. As the

Eastern ideal applies to the listening, the Western ideal applies to the speaking. As dis-

cussed in the Introduction, each infant has her/his own unique reaction/behavior pattern

from birth. The usual explanation for this is that the pattern is conditioned. What is im-

plied by the word conditioned in regard to reaction and behavior is that the individual

does not decide to react and behave in a certain way. That just happens to be the way s/he

reacts and behaves.

Insofar as becoming who you are implies an intentional self-changing, as an ex-

hortative message the assumption is that the “you” to whom it is addressed is not “who

you really are.” Those aligned with the Western ideal acknowledge that the way one has

responded to various experiences over the course of one’s life in becoming “that particu-

lar individual” has somehow distorted one’s true character, and therefore the essential

task is to undo the mutation and let that character emerge. In consideration of this for

Ludulogue, what can be called the theory of the Two Conditionings is proposed. What

the theory claims is that one’s Actual Conditioning is a distortion of her/his Essential

Conditioning. Whether the original reaction/behavior pattern is given genetically or im-

printed by the unique environment of every birth, in either case it is “given.” This is then

subjected to the various pressures of subsequent experience so that the resulting “particu-

lar individual” can be understood as acting out of his/her Actual Conditioning. In other
 30

words, one’s Actual Conditioning is formed on the basis of the initial conditioning, which

can then be considered one’s Essential Conditioning. In relation to the Western ideal,

what the theory of the Two Conditionings implies is that to “become who you are” is to

act out of your Essential Conditioning.

Even though, individualistically, one is acting out of his/her Actual Conditioning,

because it has formed around the Essential Conditioning that is always in place, the char-

acter of “that particular individual” tends to remain fairly consistent throughout her/his

lifetime. Extreme experiences of one kind or another can effect deep changes in the char-

acter of “that particular individual,” so that s/he may feel like a different person, but no

experience, regardless of how extreme, makes all those who go through it the same. That

is because the Actual Conditioning may be altered by experience, but not the Essential

Conditioning.

Because a person’s Actual Conditioning has developed in response to the pres-

sures of experience, it is inevitably self-defensive and self-sustaining. In order to have a

“self” to defend and sustain, one has to have an image of what that “self” is, which means

that there is a division or separation between actually being who one is and having an im-

age of who one is. It is the forming of a self-image, whenever this occurs in an individ-

ual’s life that brings about the emergence of his/her Actual Conditioning, which then can

be seen as a distortion of his/her Essential Conditioning. When one acts out of one’s Es-

sential Conditioning, there is no choosing of what action to take because there is no im-

age to protect. What allows for the possibility of the Ludulogue participant to speak out

of his/her Essential Conditioning is the confining of the action to the playing field.
 31

Speaking out of one’s Essential Conditioning is to communicate-without-expression. It is

to act from the same kind of or source of energy as that of listening-without-reaction.

Because everyone’s Essential Conditioning is unique, the communicating-

without-expression, unlike the listening-without-reaction, will be individualistic. The rea-

son the listening-without-reaction is non-individualistic is because it is a non-acting. It is

a pure observing, and because there is no interpreting of what is said, there is no indi-

vidualization. Whereas observing does not of itself bring about a change in the environ-

ment, acting does. Whether one is acting out of his/her Actual Conditioning or Essential

Conditioning, s/he will still be affecting the environment in some way.

The difference from acting out of one’s Actual Conditioning is that when acting

out of one’s Essential Conditioning, though it is done by oneself, it is not done for one-

self. One simply does what one is given to do. Any choosing of what to do comes out of

one’s Actual Conditioning. The claim of Ludulogue is that if the participants are listening

to one another without reaction and communicating without expression, they will be ex-

periencing a feeling of connection based solely on our common humanity. What is ironic

about such an experiencing is that it is the only way that a person in the presence of an-

other can fully relate to the other as the “other.” When relating individualistically one’s

relation to the other, whether it is with a feeling of connection or separation, is always

qualified by “what it means to oneself,” which is, of course, the reaction, and therefore

the other is not totally the other as an individual in his/her own right. In Ludulogue, if the

challenge of the Question is met, the others actually become “other” in the oneness of our

common humanity.
 32

With non-reactive listening there can be neither agreement nor disagreement with

what the speaker is saying, nor can there be any determination of the truth or falsity of

what is said, all of which is based on reaction. The only concern for the listener in Ludu-

logue is the clarity of what the speaker is saying. As for the speaker, in communicating

out of his/her Essential Conditioning s/he has no motivation to convince or persuade the

listeners of the truth or significance of what s/he is saying, because s/he is simply saying

what is given her/him to say. The Ludulogue participant, even when still acting out of

his/her Actual Conditioning, realizes that her/his total concern in listening is to be clear

about what the speaker is saying. It is not that one does not want to be clear about what

the other is saying in the everyday world, but that there is always an individual purpose

attached to the wanting to be clear about what the speaker is saying. In Ludulogue the

only guide to the listening is to be clear about what the other is saying. The acknowledg-

ing of this changes the very function of language from what it is in the everyday world.

Because of that, it is necessary to consider language usage in general, and this cannot be

done without also dealing with thinking.

LANGUAGE USAGE AND THINKING:

Because clarity is the only aim in the speaking/listening of Ludulogue, if the par-

ticipant acknowledges that in speaking and listening to one another as individuals in the

everyday world, there are always personal motives attached to the wanting to be clear,

then by observing for him/herself what his/her own motives are and discovering for

her/himself how to set them aside, the temporary adjustment to her/his own individuality

needed to meet the challenge of the Question will be made. What must be kept in mind,
 33

and is so easily forgotten while studying the social contract, is that one will not be doing

this by oneself. In doing for him/herself what has to be done to meet the challenge, the

participant will be helping the others do for themselves what has to be done and be

helped by them in return.

As already suggested, the adjustment of the participant’s individuality involves a

change in her/his way of speaking and thinking. Though language usage and thinking are

different kinds of behavior, when talking or writing about them what becomes apparent is

that any attempt to deal with either will involve the use of the other. The process of un-

derstanding language usage is a movement of thinking, and any discussing of thinking is

dependent on the resources of language. The situation is further complicated by the fact

that in both cases one is forced to use the thing one is trying to understand in the very

process of trying to understand it. When trying to understand thinking, one is thinking

about thinking. When discussing language usage, language is being used. Though the ex-

perts in those fields related to the two subjects may hope to arrive at definitive conclu-

sions, no such promise is available for the Ludulogue participant. Until s/he is actually

listening-without-reaction and communicating-without-expression, the Ludulogue par-

ticipant must treat language usage as a miracle, and thinking as a mystery. Though not

seeking an ultimate understanding of either, by exploring each of these as far as the mak-

ing sense and reasoning allows, the participant can utilize what s/he discovers to facilitate

her/his own adjustment.

One aspect of the miracle of language usage is that in listening to someone speak-

ing, the actual perception is only the hearing of the sounds that the speaker is making, and

yet, from that listening one is able to come in contact with the speaker’s thinking, which
 34

is what s/he is communicating, whether with or without expression. What compounds the

miracle is that words are incapable of referring to actual “things.” Even the most basic

words, those that supposedly denote observable things and actions, are abstractions. The

definition of “abstraction” being used here is that it is a general concept, without refer-

ence to any specific instance. It is customary to regard abstractions as larger and larger

containments or classes of what can be generalized, but what can be incorrectly assumed

is that there are certain basic words upon which the abstractions ultimately rest that in

themselves are not abstractions. These are the words that denote specific things and ac-

tions, such as “tree” or “running.” On examination it will be found that even these basic

words are also abstractions. The word “tree” does not refer to any concrete thing, but

rather to a category of those things that have certain properties in common. The same can

be said for the word “running” and all of the other basic words.

To be able to define even these most basic words, one would have to list the prop-

erties that all of the actual instances of what those words refer to have in common. This is

what dictionaries attempt to do, and in the everyday world, when the definition of a word

is in contention, recourse to a dictionary is the court of last resort. It may be the best we

can do under the circumstances, but it does bring the very definition of “definition” into

question. A dictionary can only define words with other words, which also must be capa-

ble of being defined. By insisting on the necessity of being able to define every word

used in every definition, one could never get to a final definition. What prevents this from

being a problem, at least with the words we know how to use, is that at some point in our

lives we learned how to use them, and now we know how to use them. This means that

we are able to understand what the speaker is saying without interpretation. It is this
 35

knowing how to use words because we know how to use them, even though we may not

be able to completely define them, that makes possible a listening in which the only pur-

pose is to be clear about what the speaker is saying.

Another important feature of linguistic usage has to do with the fact that we

learned how to use words in the presence of other humans who already knew how to use

them. Because of that continuity, linguistic thinking always maintains its social dimen-

sion. Linguistic thinking can be considered as a kind of sub-vocal talking, as though

someone were listening.

If all thinking were linguistic thinking, the difficulty of discussing language usage

as a category separate from thinking would be less than it is, but such is not the case.

Thinking, in its most basic function as a tool for survival, can be seen as a delaying of

action while figuring out what action to take, and in its overall sense it can be considered

a metaphorical stepping back in order to examine by reflection. As long as one is step-

ping back from the immediately accessible, thinking can complete itself in action, but

when the thinking is confined to thinking about thinking, the thinker can never step back

from the stepping back. Because of that, “the whole” of one’s own thinking is “unthink-

able.” To put it another way, even though there may be limits to one’s thinking, in order

to know those limits, one would have to somehow go beyond them, but the knowing of

what is beyond the limits would still be thinking, which means that one is still within the

limits. This is why a total comprehension of thinking is a mystery. The positive use that

the Ludulogue participant can make of this mystery is that to the extent that one cannot

know the limits of one’s thinking, to all intents and purposes there are no limits. This re-
 36

alization is very important when it comes to venturing into the make-believe that is part

of the Activity.

That linguistic thinking is not the whole of one’s thinking but rather a specific

mode of thinking can be directly demonstrated by reference to at least one other move-

ment of thinking that is clearly independent of language usage. The fact that humans are

able to imagine reveals at once that thinking linguistically is not the totality of thinking.

Though the word “imagined” can be used to differentiate something from the “real,” as in

make-believe playing, the application in this context has to do with the essential function

of imagining as it relates to memory. One can picture, in one’s present thinking, some-

thing that has been perceived in the past, and this can be done without any verbal refer-

ence. The point is that the capacity to imagine, which is re-perceiving, though it can

combine with the linguistic mode, is a distinctive mode of thinking in its own right.

The range of thinking can be further expanded by reflecting on the question:

When does thinking actually begin in a human life? Children generally learn how to walk

before knowing how to talk. From what can be observed, they seem to learn how to walk

by a process of trial and error. They keep falling over until they get it right. But to recog-

nize error as error and correct it is, in some sense, to think. As for the process of acquir-

ing language usage, it must involve some form of thinking which, in itself, would have to

be non-linguistic. Unlike the imaginative mode of thinking, the modes of thinking in-

volved in learning to walk and learning to speak can only be inferred, rather than directly

demonstrated. Even so, unless one can answer the question “How did I learn to think?” it

is just as well to assume that, in its largest sense, thinking begins at birth, if not before,

which means that thinking is a continuous movement in one’s lifetime.

 37

If thinking is a continuous movement, that would imply that, in some sense, at

least when one is conscious, thinking is always going on. This runs counter to something

that the mystic contends when describing the state of oneness-with-all: in that state of

consciousness, there is no thinking going on. There is a basic confusion in the idea of be-

ing in a state of “no thinking” while conscious. In the first place, in order to grasp what

that means you have to think about it, and it’s impossible to think about no thinking. If it

can be understood that the mystic means that there was no linguistic thinking going on,

that would clear up the confusion by allowing that, in the unitas mystica, there was an-

other mode of thinking occurring, a mode of thinking unique to the oneness-with-all. This

would also explain another difference between the mystic’s connection to “all” and the

human-to-human connection. Where the means of the human-to-human connection is

linguistic usage, the unitas mystica is free of the linguistic link to humanity.

To the extent that one’s thinking is a continuous lifetime movement, in a certain

sense the whole of one’s thinking is always present in consciousness, to be specifically

utilized as the situation demands, which means that the whole of one’s thinking is always

available. Though the miracle of language usage makes it possible to communicate one’s

thinking, the movement of thinking as it is occurring is private. This is, in itself, not a

problem. It simply means that one cannot directly observe the process of another’s think-

ing. When speaking individualistically, however, the element of privacy is modified as a

result of selectively. Based on the purpose for which one is speaking, one is not only

choosing from the whole of one’s thinking, but is at the same time leaving unspoken what

was specifically rejected. In the sense that what is being conveyed can be considered a

reduction on the part of the speaker’s thinking, because of the reaction/behavior pattern
 38

of the listener, it will entail an expansion in her/his thinking as s/he accommodates it to

her/his purpose. This mutual reduction-and-expansion of thinking is the ground for both

understanding and misunderstanding in the everyday world.

In the listening-without-reaction and communicating-without-expression, there is

no occurrence of this reduction-and-expansion of thinking. Though the thinking itself re-

mains private, there is no awareness of thinking as “my thinking.” It is this thinking as

one that is the feeling of connection, and the reason it is based on our common humanity

is because what we have in common as a thing in itself is human language, and it is be-

cause of language and through language that we are able to think as one. It is the learning

of language usage in the presence of others who know how to use it that maintains the

inward continuity of humanity, which is that aspect or feature that is the same for all hu-

mans, for as long as humans have existed and presumably for as long as they may con-

tinue to exist.

What humans share with all creatures is the fact of existing. What humans share

only with one another is human language. That is why an “experiencing of a feeling of

connection based solely on our common humanity” is arrived at through a speak-

ing/listening activity. One can experience a feeling of connection with those of other spe-

cies, but it is only with other humans that “our common humanity” can be experienced.

What is communicated through language usage is thinking, and when the thinking

is a thinking-as-one, the Ludulogue participants are in touch with one another in terms of

what can only be described as something “internal” within each, that which in the every-

day world is the privacy of one’s thinking. Because of the nature of this “touching,” the

use of the gender conjunction for the third person singular is not merely for political cor-
 39

rectness. It also implicitly calls attention to the fact that all distinctions of not only sex,

but age and physical appearance as well, are by-passed when the challenge of the Ques-

tion is successfully met. It is not that the participants are not seeing one another as they

are speaking and listening to one another, but that rather than reacting to what they see,

they are seeing through the external in the act of touching something within that is the

same for all humans.

This completes the social contract, the intention of which is to provide the partici-

pants with a framework that allows them to move together as each finds her/his own way

to the all-as-one of our common humanity. The reason it is necessary to have such a play-

ing field is because of what has already been called attention to as the incredible diversity

of human experience throughout the world, which is an easily overlooked fact because of

the tendency of people to mostly associate with those of their own kind. It is simply im-

possible to find a “one-size-fits-all” version of reality.

The social contract is not a version of reality, but rather a temporarily agreed upon

way of looking at the reality of human relationships. As with any playing field it must be

treated as real by the participants. It is the facts making sense and the theories seeming

reasonable that will allow for the attaching of the energy of the Practical effort to the

make-believe playing, which is necessary if Ludulogue as a form of Play is to bring

something new into being. The new in this case being the experiencing of a feeling of

connection between people based solely on our common humanity that, no matter how

often experienced, will always be new.

 40

THE ACTIVITY

As with any kind of playing, the activity must be kept within its playing field,

which, in the case of Ludulogue, is the grid of agreements that the participants have ac-

cepted because the facts make sense and the theories are reasonable. It is assumed that,

having read and understood the contract, the participants are convinced that if they all

listen to one another without reaction and communicate without expression, the experi-

encing of a feeling of connection based solely on our common humanity will occur. They

are convinced of this not because others have claimed to have experienced it, which

might well be illusion, but by the reasoning capacity of their own intelligence. Though

the expressions listen-without-reaction and communicate-without-expression have a

negative or neutral quality as far as the everyday world is concerned, for the Ludulogue

participant, the two terms refer to something very positive and vital in the area of human-

to-human relationship, an excitement of feeling that is non-emotional.

The activity consists of three basic components, identified as THE DIRECTLY

EXPERIENCE-ABLE, THE MIRROR, and THE SUBJECT MATTER. The discussion

of these three will be followed by OPTIMUM CONDITIONS, RULES AND GUIDE-

LINES, and THE SAFEGUARD BREAK.

THE DIRECTLY EXPERIENCE-ABLE:

The directly experience-able is a particular kind of knowledge and is exactly what

the name implies: knowledge of what can be directly experienced. Whereas knowledge in

specialized fields is generally cumulative and reflective, the directly experience-able, be-

ing as close to experiencing as thinking about experiencing can get, refers to life as it is
 41

actually felt in the living of it. Essentially it is knowledge of perception, sensation, rela-

tionship, and emotion. One’s primary knowledge of what is directly experience-able is

based on what s/he has actually experienced for her/himself. This “lived” knowledge is

expanded by analogy to include the experiences of others, so that one has a basic under-

standing of what is directly experience-able for all humans. Without that basic under-

standing one would not be able to relate to others at all. Because it is grounded in one’s

own experience, and insofar as no two life experiences are ever the same, the knowledge

of what is directly experience-able will be different for each individual. Even so, as a

form of knowledge, the directly experience-able keeps the potential for separation be-

tween people to as low a minimum as possible.

The directly experience-able is not ordinarily recognized as a particular kind of

knowledge because in every individual consciousness it is blended into a larger whole,

that also includes what can be termed “expertise” and “secondary source knowledge.”

The totality of every person’s knowledge is a combination of the directly experience-

able, expertise, and secondary source knowledge, and in the everyday world, all three are

used intermittently, as the occasion warrants. The first task of the Ludulogue participant

is to set aside his/her expertise and secondary source knowledge, so that all of his/her

thinking will be confined to the directly experience-able. Relating to one another while

keeping within the directly experience-able not only reduces to a minimum factors that

potentially incur separation, it brings all participants closer to the here-now-happening

immediacy that is absolutely crucial for meeting the challenge of the Question.

Expertise is potentially a factor of separation because of the hierarchy it estab-

lishes between the one who knows and the one who does not know. As defined in the In-
 42

troduction, expertise is a combination of information, skill, and experience exclusive to

the group to whom it applies. For the purpose of Ludulogue, the definition of “expertise”

is expanded to include any major interest that one knows is not generally shared. To stay

within her/his own directly experience-able knowledge, the participant must first deter-

mine which activities and special interests in her/his life can be qualified as expertise.

Distinguishing the obvious forms of expertise is not difficult. Professionals in any field

are cognizant of the knowledge that is specific to their calling and in the everyday world

will generally avoid the use of that knowledge when speaking to those unfamiliar with it

unless they are intentionally giving instruction. Other kinds of expertise can be identified

by reflecting on one’s own particular skills and areas of interest, and in so doing, recog-

nizing their exclusivity. Once such specialized areas are identified, they can be set aside

as easily as the commonly acknowledged professions.

What is more difficult is the setting aside of secondary source knowledge. Secon-

dary source knowledge is information initially applicable to some particular expertise that

has filtered down to segments of the general public through the various media or commu-

nicated in some other way. Even the least informed among us have a great deal of secon-

dary source knowledge. It comprises the bulk of what people generally talk about on so-

cial occasions, when they are not recounting personal experiences. Whereas expertise in-

volves knowing a lot about the activity or interest, secondary source knowledge is a

knowing a little bit about a lot of things. Unlike expertise, which can be set aside as a

whole, secondary source knowledge has to be set aside piecemeal, as it is known to be

such when it appears in one’s thinking. Fortunately, once the participant has set aside

his/her expertise, if s/he persists in the observing of secondary source knowledge as it

 43

arises and then setting it aside, s/he will eventually experience the staying within his/her

own directly experience-able knowledge as a very natural way of thinking, one that keeps

her/him as close to experiencing as thinking can get.

Though the ultimate determination of one’s own directly experience-able knowl-

edge is something that each must accomplish for her/himself, there are some general con-

siderations that can clearly separate a certain amount of secondary source knowledge

from the directly experience-able. Though they hardly account for the whole of what

must be set aside, what they suggest is the direction for the focus of actively thinking in

terms of the directly experience-able.

With apologies to those who may be lacking one or more of the five senses, a ba-

sic commonality is assumed concerning the process of being informed about the reality of

the world outside one’s skin; therefore, any fact that contradicts what is normally vali-

dated by perception is excluded from the directly experience-able. For example, it is a

fact of astronomy that because of the distance light has to travel, there are stars that can

still be seen in the sky even though they burnt out long ago; and, what is experienced as

solid matter, such as a chair or a rock, can be proven by the science of physics to be ei-

ther a whirling mass of particles or a configuration of waves, depending upon the obser-

vation selected. Because they contradict our perceptions, such facts cannot be proven

true by the directly experience-able and, therefore, must be set aside.

Along with knowing facts that contradict perception, the reader probably knows

that s/he has certain internal organs, such as a heart and a brain. As far as the knowledge

of the directly experience-able is concerned, there is no way to prove that you have a

heart and a brain. Headaches and palpitations may be caused by activities in these organs
 44

and they can be experienced, but not the organs themselves. Just as the knowledge of the

reality outside the skin is given by the five senses, the knowledge of the activity inside

the skin is given through various sensations. Along with the brain, something usually

associated with it, the mind, must also be dismissed as being inapplicable to the directly

experience-able. What is experienced, presumably by the functioning of the mind, is the

process of thinking.

By first setting aside all knowledge that cannot be validated either by perception

or sensation, the setting aside of the rest of the secondary source knowledge that one has

gathered in a lifetime can be more easily accomplished. Though each detail of secondary

source knowledge must be set aside as it arises, the staying close to the immediacy of ex-

periencing by the setting aside of what cannot be validated by perception and sensation,

quickly exposes information one has acquired that is derived from some form of exper-

tise. The Ludulogue participants are expected to keep their thinking and talking within

the confines of the directly experience-able throughout the Activity.

THE MIRROR:

Though to this point, all discussion of reaction has been in reference to emotion,

as far as listening-without-reaction is concerned, what also has to be taken into account

are what can be termed low-threshold reactions. Insofar as individuality is a reac-

tion/behavior pattern, it can be assumed that an individual is always reacting to what s/he

is observing, whether externally or internally. The alternative would be that sometimes

one is reacting and sometimes not, but that would mean that while functioning in one’s

usual state of consciousness, one is sometimes an individual and sometimes not. Unless
 45

there was some change in the state of consciousness, such as in the case of the unitas

mystica, there would be no way to account for the going in and out. The simpler expla-

nation is that an individual is always reacting to what s/he is observing, but because of

the ordinary complexity of daily life, s/he only becomes aware of it when the intensity of

the reaction reaches the level of emotion.

To discover what is interfering with the listening-without-reaction, the participant

must become aware of the low threshold reactions that do not rise to the intensity of emo-

tion. All emotions in the two-way exchange of human-to-human relating are either to-

ward connection or toward separation. For example, fear, anger, and hurt are movements

toward separation, whereas admiration, loyalty, and trust are movements toward connec-

tion. Because they call attention to themselves, there is no intentionally becoming aware

of emotions, but the low threshold reactions must be deliberately brought into attention.

To the extent that the participant is actually feeling the low threshold reactions, because

of their low intensity they will be experienced merely as a generalized movement toward

connection or toward separation. If they were any more specific than that they would be

emotions. The low threshold feelings of connection and separation can be directed toward

individual participants or to the group as a whole. By staying within the playing field, the

usual complications of everyday living are reduced to a minimum, and this is what makes

it possible for the participants to become aware of the low threshold reactions.

Once aware of reacting, whether it rises to the level of emotion or not, the task for

the participant is to discharge the reactive energy without expressing it. In the everyday

world, the energy of reaction will either be expressed or repressed. Maintaining attention

on the reaction will keep it from being repressed, but as long as the reaction is experi-
 46

enced as a singularity, the charge of energy will continue. To discharge it without ex-

pressing it, the sensation and the thinking that went too fast to register in consciousness

have to be separated. This can be done by focusing attention on the sensation purely as

sensation; or by accessing the thinking “that went too fast,” or doing both, alternately. To

access the thinking that went too fast, the participant must identify what was said that

stimulated the reaction, and then determine how s/he must have interpreted what was said

to bring about the reaction. Since it is one’s usual way of thinking speeded up, it makes

no difference whether or not that was the exact same thinking that constituted the inter-

pretation. What is important is the separating of the thinking from the sensation. Focusing

attention on the thinking that brought on the reaction will displace the quantity of energy

that was invigorating the sensation, putting all the reactive energy on the thinking. The

same breaking up of the singularity occurs when the attention is focused on the sensation.

When the participant puts all attention on the sensation, the energy of the thinking ele-

ment of the reaction drops away. In both cases it is the separation of the singularity of the

reaction that discharges the energy without expressing it.

Knowing that listening for clarity is the single aim for listening in Ludulogue, the

participant must be attentive not only to her/his reaction but also to the being clear about

what is communicated. Whether it is on the thinking or the sensation, the direction of the

focus on the reaction is inward, whereas the direction of the focus on clarity is outward,

toward the speaking, and the alternating of the two directions brings another movement

that has to be taken into account in the process of coming to the state of listening-

without-reaction.
 47

Just as when listening to the others speaking the participant is trying to discover

what is interfering with listening-without-reaction, when speaking, s/he is trying to be-

come aware of what is interfering with communicating-without-expression. If s/he is still

functioning within her/his reaction/behavior pattern, what the speaker has to do is to be-

come aware of the choosing implicit in his/her reflecting on what s/he intends to say. It is

this choosing that sustains the self-image, and it is the self-image that interferes with

what the speaker is given to say. Because the choosing has, most likely, gone too fast to

register in consciousness, the participant will have to recover it by consulting his/her fa-

miliar thinking, as s/he does with the listening.

With this much of the “how to do” what must be done to meet the challenge un-

derstood, the participant will have come as far as the Practical can take him/her in the at-

tempt to listen-without-reaction and communicate-without-expression. That is because

the participant is trying to achieve a kind of experiencing with which s/he is not familiar,

and the Practical is limited to functioning on the basis of what is known. As an aspect of

the seriousness of the playing, the participant when speaking must make every effort to

let go of the self-image, and when listening make every effort to discharge the energy of

reaction without expressing or repressing it. It is the gathered energy of that effort and its

being held in check by the lack of success that is ready to meet the new possibility

evoked by the make-believe playing.

The make-believe, in this case, is what is being referred to as “the mirror.” In us-

ing the mirror, the participant is making believe that all of the other participants are

speaking-without-expression and listening-without-reaction. It is mirror-like insofar as it

objectifies the fact that, when listening to others individualistically, one is actually creat-
 48

ing his/her own reactions, and when speaking, s/he is presuming the motives of the lis-

teners. The participant must make-believe that the others are already at that place that

s/he is trying to get to. There has to be a cutting loose from the Practical and a lifting into

the fun of playing, while still retaining the energizing force of the Practical. If the make-

believe were strictly for the fun of pretending, with no relation to the Practical, the “new”

would not emerge. On the other hand, even if the Practical effort were pushed to its limit,

without the shift to the make-believe, the necessary adjustment to the participant’s indi-

viduality would not occur. It is the combination of the Practical and the make-believe that

opens the way for the “new.”

The fun of the make-believe mirror is theatrical in the sense that the participant is

“playing a role” in his/her relating to the others. Not only that, s/he is both on stage and in

the audience at the same time, because to her/him, in terms of the mirror make-believe,

the others are like characters on a stage. Insofar as s/he is observing her/his own reac-

tion/behavior pattern in action, s/he is distancing her/himself from that pattern, and there-

fore seeing her/himself as a character on the stage with the other characters, but in a dif-

ferent state of consciousness than they are. S/he is taking part in a fictional reality, in

which the other participants are in the very state of experiencing that s/he her/himself is

trying to make happen. What is startling about the situation is that s/he has no way of

knowing that it is actually not real. S/he only “knows” that the others are not in that state

of consciousness on the basis of her/his own reactive/behavior pattern. There is not and

cannot be objective evidence that the “others” are not listening-without-reaction and not

communicating-without-expression. In effect, the Ludulogue participants, as a group, are

using the make-believe to convert what they are pretending into reality.
 49

As long as the listening-without-reaction and communicating-without-expression

is something the participant is not experiencing in the here-now-happening, in order to

make-believe that the others are doing that, s/he has to determine, as far as s/he is able,

what effect that would have on her/his own speaking and listening. When speaking, s/he

can assume that none of the listeners are passing any kind of judgment on what s/he says,

nor are they concerned with whether what s/he is saying is true or false. They simply

want to be clear about the thinking that s/he is communicating. As for listening to the

others speaking, the participant can assume that they are only saying what is given them

to say, without any need or intention to convince or persuade, and therefore s/he has no

reason to be concerned with anything other than being clear about what the speaker is

saying.

Using the mirror, when the participant finds her/himself reacting to what one of

the others has said, because the speaker is only saying what is given her/him to say, the

participant will experience the reaction as something that s/he is creating. S/he can rely

on no justification for her/his reaction based on his/her interpretation of body language,

which would be the expression. In the everyday world, the reading of body language is

part of the stimulation of reaction, but that is because there are always other motives for

listening besides being clear about the thinking that the speaker is communicating. Body

language has no significance in Ludulogue because it either reinforces the thinking the

speaker is communicating, which would be redundant, or it contradicts it, which would

interfere with the clarity. When speaking, the participant realizes that the listeners are

only concerned with the clarity of what s/he is saying. They are not making any personal
 50

use of what s/he is saying. Any concern s/he has about “how s/he is going over” is en-

tirely of her/his own making.

Listening-without-reaction, as previously stated, is non-individualistic, meaning

that it is not conditioned, whereas communicating-without-expression is individualistic,

which indicates that, in the same situation, no two individuals acting out of their Essential

Conditioning will be given to communicate the same thing. What the participant will be

given to say when acting out of his/her Essential Conditioning will be determined by the

subject matter.

THE SUBJECT MATTER:

Restricting what can be talked about to the directly experience-able brings the

participants into the widest available range of knowledge-in-common. Within that range,

what supplies the participants with a subject matter for discussion is the playing field it-

self. The social contract can be thought of as a type of expertise. The four sections con-

tain the fundamental assumptions of that expertise, on the basis of which all speculation

and exploration is grounded. Each of the sections contains an inexhaustible amount of

subject matter for consideration and speculation. One reason the sections have been kept

to the barest minimum is in order for the participants to grasp the playing field as a single

whole. To have expanded them fully would be to have filled libraries. In effect, the par-

ticipants will be expanding the four sections as their interest determines.

It is assumed that talking about any aspect of the social contract provides a viable

subject for discussion for the participants, because their very choosing to engage in Ludu-

logue is an indication of their interest in the subject, and it is interest in the subject matter
 51

that is the energizing factor for talking about anything. This is why it is so important for

the prospective Ludulogue participant to study the social contract intensely and fully. In

using various features of the social contract as the subject matter for discussion, the par-

ticipants are in no way questioning the validity of the playing field itself. That question-

ing must be resolved before the participants elect to engage in Ludulogue, which is an-

other reason why the social contract must be studied very closely. To question it once the

activity has begun is to negate the grid of agreements that is allowing the participants to

move together. Rather than questioning the social contract, the participants are using it as

the expertise they have in common, and from which they can speculate and explore in

any direction they choose.

What the participants have to decide at the beginning of the session is what aspect

of the social contract they are presently interested in talking about. Insofar as clarity is

always the single aim of the speaking/listening, with listening-without-reaction and

communicating-without-expression being the way to achieve it, this discussion is as

much a part of the Activity as the subject finally elected to be talked about. Therefore,

deciding on the subject matter can go on as long as it takes for all participants to be satis-

fied with the subject finally chosen. Another reason for being certain that all participants

want to talk about the same subject is that once chosen, the participants are expected to

remain with that subject throughout the session, which is necessary to keep the energy of

the discussion from being dissipated by shifting from one subject to another.

Though they are staying within the directly experience-able, the participants are

not to recount events from their own lives. They are using their directly experience-able

knowledge to reflect on humanity as such, not to draw on it for self-expression. If they

 52

discuss a subject in its problematic aspect, they should not be talking about personal

problems, but social problems that are problems for all of humanity. Because they know

that social problems can only be solved by the combined efforts of the appropriate ex-

perts, the Ludulogue participants will not be trying to solve the problems. What they will

be doing is attempting to see clearly what the problems are. Insofar as they are talking

about social problems that are problems for all humanity, seeing clearly what the prob-

lems are would include seeing how everyone is responsible for the problems. Once again

this is not to seek a solution, but simply to clarify that responsibility.

Once the participant has become accustomed to staying within the directly experi-

ence-able, her/his prime focus of attention should be on the using of the mirror. It may be

objected by the prospective participant that while trying to discharge reactive energy s/he

will not be able to be fully engaged in the on-going discussion. That may be so, but it is

not a concern. It is an integral part of the process, and all of the participants are engaged

in it in a like manner. Even if it were to lead to a total silence, it would not be a problem.

As long as it is a silence resulting from all the participants attempting to discharge reac-

tive energy at the same time, it would be re-enforcing the togetherness of the participants

as a group. Nor is the length of the silence a concern. Sooner or later they will come out

of it because they still have not met the challenge of the Question. If they are all silent,

there is no listening-without-reaction because there is nothing to listen to. Individual si-

lences as well as total silence are natural phases of the process, not distractions.

As for discussing relationship in terms of separation and connection on the basis

of the facts and theories in the social contract, the participants can talk about the count-

less ways that dissimilarities in reaction/behavior patterns are confronted or held in abey-
 53

ance in the everyday world. Though necessarily drawing on their own directly experi-

ence-able knowledge, they are not recounting personal instances of connections and sepa-

rations. What they are offering instead are typical examples of connections and separa-

tions that occur in the everyday world. Concerning the operation of individuality, the

many kinds of thinking that bring on various reactions and behaviors can be considered.

Insofar as the “thinking that went too fast” to register in consciousness is always the reac-

tive interpretation of what is said, the participants can discuss the innumerable possibili-

ties of interpretation. As for the two ideals derived from the way the human is like and

unlike the other species, the tension between wanting to change and wanting things to

stay the same provides an endless source of speculation. Here, again, the intention is not

to resolve the tensions but rather to clarify exactly what they are. With the miracle of lan-

guage usage and the mystery of thinking, the endlessness of what can be talked about

reaches its apogee. The inability to “step back from the stepping back” when thinking

about thinking allows no place for stopping at a conclusion, and the fact that when dis-

cussing language the participants are using the thing they are discussing as they are dis-

cussing it keeps the exploration continually open-ended.

The main concern is the collective, concentrated interest for the group as a whole,

for this is what keeps them moving together. As a utilization of the expertise derived

from the social contract, the Activity is dealing with the field of human-to-human rela-

tionship, whereas, in itself, it is an actual human-to-human relating here-now-happening,

the intention of which is the experiencing of a feeling of connection between people

based solely on our common humanity.

 54

OPTIMUM CONDITIONS:

The suggested number of participants is from five to nine. The more participants

the more variety of individuality, and five is a likely minimum for sufficient diversity.

Because it is imperative that each participant continually maintains direct contact with the

group as a whole, nine is a convenient maximum, beyond which simultaneous contact

could become unwieldy. The best environment for the activity is the one with least dis-

tractions, as close to a circle of chairs in a bare room as is available. The circle is, once

again, to keep all participants in contact with one another. The activity should be contin-

ued without interruption if possible, the length of time open-ended or else based on a

prior agreement. More to the point is how long can sufficient energy of attention be main-

tained. In this regard, three hours could be taken as a norm.

The speaker should always speak to the whole group as one rather than direct

her/his words to particular participants. This should be maintained even when the matter

at hand seems to involve the speaker and a single listener. The reason for this is because

all participants must be continuously included in the here-now-happening. At no time is

any participant not participating. As pointed out, even when a participant is privately and

silently dealing with reactive energy, s/he is still fully engaged in the activity as a whole.

RULES AND GUIDELINES

The difference between rules and guidelines is that violations of rules are observ-

able, whereas the following of guidelines is totally subjective. Listening being unobserv-

able, rules apply only to what is spoken. As for the guidelines, they have basically been

implied by the social contract. Calling attention to violations of the rules is the responsi-
 55

bility of every participant. Rather than resent being called on a violation the participant

should welcome it, because the keeping to the rules is an objective way of staying within

the playing field.

The voicing of agreement or disagreement with what a speaker says or challeng-

ing the truth of what the speaker says is a rule violation. Any reference to or reliance on

expertise, other than what is presented in the social contract, is a rule violation. Any ref-

erence to or reliance on secondary source knowledge is a rule violation. Any recounting

of events that a participant has actually experienced is a rule violation. Any indication

that the participant is not using the make-believe mirror is a rule violation. Because of the

guideline of always using the make-believe mirror, for the listener the speaker can never

be “wrong,” because s/he is only saying what is “given” him/her to say. What s/he is say-

ing is either clear to the listener or not. If it is not clear the listener will acknowledge this,

and the speaker will attempt to clear up the confusion. If this attempt continues to a point

where one or more of the other participants feel an impasse has been reached, a “safe-

guard break” can be called for, and will be instituted if the majority of participants agree

that it is warranted. The same course of action will be followed when rule violations are

pointed out. The speaker’s acknowledging the violation can readily dispose of the prob-

lem, but if s/he does not agree that it was a violation and is unable to convince the par-

ticipant who pointed it out, a safeguard break can be utilized to settle the matter.
 56

THE SAFEGUARD BREAK:

Because there is no non-participant to adjudicate conflicts, it is necessary to have

a method to deal with any that should arise. As already described, the potential conflicts

in Ludulogue have to do with rule violations and listener confusion. During the safeguard

break, the participants are to continue staying within the directly experience-able and

maintaining the mirror make-believe. When a safeguard break is instituted to decide if a

rule has been violated, the group as a whole will be trying to decide whether or not what

the speaker said constitutes a violation of a rule. Because the rules are derived from the

social contract, a copy of the manual should always be kept at hand, to verify the actual

wording of the agreements. If the problem is listener confusion, what the group will try to

do in the safeguard break is clear up the confusion.

As far as the goal of Ludulogue is concerned, it does not matter how long it takes

to resolve the conflict in the safeguard break. As long as the participants are staying

within the directly experience-able and using the make-believe mirror, they are continu-

ing the Activity, and the successful meeting of the challenge of the Question can occur at

any time during the Activity.