The Ludulogue Manual
The Ludulogue Manual
The Ludulogue Manual
By Don Cerveris
1
INTRODUCTION
personal 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
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 religions that are international in scope, with innumerable
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
become 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
identification, there is no framework for dealing with such problems, as there is with even
the relatively massive societies of nations and religions. Since the only identification of
humanity 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
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
enterprise 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 humans, 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
3
become more like humans, but there is no evidence that, as a species, they will become
more like humans 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
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
classified 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
though the joining of singing and dancing with make-believe playing in the form of
believe playing could not on its own account for the movement of change in civilization
4
because Play, insofar as what is wanted is given in the activity, remains self-enclosed. If
it were done with the intention to achieve something beyond the activity itself, it would
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
conservative. 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 directly account for the development of civilization, but by utilizing the imaginary
possibilities that make-believe Play evokes, the Practical can and did bring into being
new actualities. 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
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
community 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 shamans or members of some kind of priesthood, and they could be considered
as the original “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
the group to whom it applies. Though the shamans practiced their craft independently of
5
one another, they could be considered as all possessing the same expertise. Their effect
on the ordinary 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
civilization. Even as communities 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. Jumping 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,
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
something 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
6
being used. Though some readers may find this awkward, it should serve as a reminder that “our common
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
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
collaborate efforts of those experts whose fields of expertise are pertinent to the particular
problems. Social problems are defined as such by a specific society, which means that the
experts involved are members of that society, and that will be the basis of their
collaboration. 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
7
difference between social problems and those caused by nature. Often when major
disasters occur, many experts from different nations and of different religious affiliations
will collaborate 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
affecting 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
maintaining 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
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
humanity would be their common humanity, what those concerned with the good of
humanity often call “the brotherhood of man,” a phrase meant to include all of the Earth’s
8
the human from other species, but rather to some family-like aspect or quality that all
humans, and only humans, share. As a concept, it is based on the assumption that there is
such a thing as “our common humanity,” a concept with which most people will agree, in
actually experience it. Because it is an aspect or quality that all humans possess “in
one another. Otherwise it would simply remain an idea. Being something that all humans
of oneness not only with those present but, insofar as that quality is the same for all
humanity in the everyday world is the uniqueness of individuality. The most general
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
uniqueness 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
strong and healthy or weak and sickly or some other combination, whether considered
environment, these and the innumerable factors that impinge on a human life are all met
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
patterns of those individuals involved, which rules out the bulk of humanity.
compilation 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
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
from the everyday world. Like all forms of Play, it occurs in a prescribed playing field.
10
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
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
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
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
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
validation 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
true. That only the human species engages in make-believe Play is another statement of
fact. Presuming 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-
11
believe playing 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
Ludulogue is not a teaching as to how to live your life, nor some kind of
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
be done and why it must be done to meet the challenge of the Ludulogue Question, the
event itself. Once this description of individuality in the everyday world has been dealt
presented. All of this combined represents the grid of agreements that comprise the
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
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
successful 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.
13
Once their goal is attained, however, the dissimilarities are quickly exposed, as the
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
occur 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
togetherness 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
based solely on our common humanity can have no us/them dichotomies at all.
family 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
14
chosen. 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 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
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
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
analogy. 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
relations 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
further 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
experiences. 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 understands what it is like for her/his friend to live from paycheck to paycheck, but
and separation in the everyday world, that can be made without violating the uniqueness
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
understanding, 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 family-like aspect or feature of our make-up that is being referred to as “our
common humanity.”
INDIVIDUALITY:
For the Ludulogue participants to discover for themselves how to make the
has already been defined as a charge of energy resulting from a response to a stimulus. It
is more familiarly referred to as emotion. The expertise that most specifically focuses on
sense” to the reader, irrespective of all knowledge derived from Psychological expertise
as such.
17
In treating of the reaction/behavior event, the first theory proposed is that even
sensation and thinking. Because the energy of an emotion can so take over one’s whole
being, and because it is that very energy which creates and controls the whole fabric 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
passionate involvement, 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 facilitate the meeting of the challenge of the Question. As for the presumption
sensation, 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 sudden twinge as a pain is a classifying of the reaction not the sensation.
18
The sensation is just what it is, a certain feeling occurring within the body. In itself, it is
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
leveled 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 interpreting 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 superiority, 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
thinking 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 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
interest, 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
association 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
acquiring 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
20
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
apparent 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
development, eventually becomes automatic. The same explanation can then be applied
particular individual” 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 sensation of some kind, it can be said that a reaction, though experienced
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 importance of this for Ludulogue is that it puts the authority and
necessary for the participant to take that authority and responsibility if s/he is to meet the
challenge.
event is the behavior that utilizes the reactive charge of energy. Just as no two
individuals react in exactly the same way, no two individuals, given a similar reaction,
21
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 likely, in thoughts of revenge. It is important to note that the third
person’s behavior illustrates 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
decide 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
individuality. It may be objected 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 manner of reacting and behaving, and therefore the
chosen from among those that have occurred as a result of the reaction. What is
the person striking 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 expressed through body language, that is, voice tone, facial
what would have been communicated in the speaking would be the thoughts applicable to
the intention. When acting from reaction, one is always choosing what action to take, and
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
23
him/herself, and that will be dependent on, and derived from the way of thinking with
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
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
thinking for him/herself. In “going into” that new way of thinking, it is the mutual
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
it is in the everyday world has to be taken into account. Insofar as a personal goal of self-
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
24
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.
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
tendency 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
commonly 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
different 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
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 generally 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
25
there was so absolute a connection to what was perceived, there was no cognition of
When inwardly directed, the sense of oneself as a separate entity is also obliterated, but
experiences are dependent on sense perception references. At best it can be talked about
in such paradoxical 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 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
Whereas in the Eastern ideal all traces of individuality are dissolved in the
which is more in keeping with the human capacity and tendency to change. Because of
being oriented 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
“become 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
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
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.
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
experience. The implication is that those who accept the ideal, even though they have not
personally 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
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
understanding 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
27
neuromuscular system maintains life itself, it must always be functioning whether the
relates to the stillness of the Eastern ideal. As for the Western ideal of becoming who you
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
single body they are not only necessarily compatible, the two systems are united by the
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
reacting. If in the state of oneness-with-all the mystic was reacting, that would mean
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
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
with the body’s very aliveness. In the unitas mystica, because this energy is in response
without any distinction between the perceiver and what is perceived. For the Ludulogue
28
speaking. 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
of or source of energy other than that of reaction, what occurs in Ludulogue is a different
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
person 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
is not a oneness-with-all, but a strictly human-to- human oneness, everything else in the
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
validates is that more than one person can have exactly the same experience. If the
experiencing of the oneness-with-all was merely similar and not the same for the various
reaction/behavior pattern of that particular mystic. The reason the various mystics do not
29
all sound alike when recounting 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
The fact that the mystical experience is the same for all means that it is already
something individually created. So, too, is the case with the Ludulogue connection; it
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.
listener 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
discussed 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 implied 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
exhortative 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
particular individual” has somehow distorted one’s true character, and therefore the
30
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
“given.” This is then subjected to the various pressures of subsequent experience so that
the resulting “particular individual” can be understood as acting out of his/her Actual
Conditioning. In other words, one’s Actual Conditioning is formed on the basis of the
relation to the Western ideal, what the theory of the Two Conditionings implies is that to
because it has formed around the Essential Conditioning that is always in place, the
her/his lifetime. Extreme experiences of one kind or another can effect deep changes in
the character 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.
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
31
an image of who one is. It is the forming of a self-image, whenever this occurs in an
individual’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 Essential Conditioning, there is no choosing of what action to take because there is
no image 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.
individualization. Whereas observing does not of itself bring about a change in the
environment, 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
oneself. 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
What is ironic about such an experiencing is that it is the only way that a person in the
presence of another can fully relate to the other as the “other.” When relating
32
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
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
Ludulogue is the clarity of what the speaker is saying. As for the speaker, in
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 acknowledging of this changes the very function of language from what it is in the
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,
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
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
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
experts in those fields related to the two subjects may hope to arrive at definitive
conclusions, no such promise is available for the Ludulogue participant. Until s/he is
Ludulogue participant must treat language usage as a miracle, and thinking as a mystery.
34
Though not seeking an ultimate understanding of either, by exploring each of these as far
as the making sense and reasoning allows, the participant can utilize what s/he discovers
speaking, 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 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,
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 actions, 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
properties 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
35
“definition” into question. A dictionary can only define words with other words, which
also must be capable 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 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 purpose 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
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
stepping 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
“unthinkable.” To put it another way, even though there may be limits to one’s thinking,
36
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 realization is very important when it comes to venturing into the make-
That linguistic thinking is not the whole of one’s thinking but rather a specific
movement 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, something that has been perceived in the past, and this can be done without any
verbal reference. 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.
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
recognize error as error and correct it is, in some sense, to think. As for the process of
acquiring language usage, it must involve some form of thinking which, in itself, would
37
have to be non-linguistic. Unlike the imaginative mode of thinking, the modes of thinking
involved 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
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
being 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
This would also explain another difference between the mystic’s connection to “all” and
linguistic usage, the unitas mystica is free of the linguistic link to humanity.
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
38
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
her/his purpose. This mutual reduction-and-expansion of thinking is the ground for both
one that is the feeling of connection, and the reason it is based on our common humanity
because 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 humans, for as long as humans have existed and presumably for as long as
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
other species, 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
everyday 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 correctness. 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 Question 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
This completes the social contract, the intention of which is to provide the
participants 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 playing field is because of what has already been called attention to as the
overlooked fact because of the tendency of people to mostly associate with those of their
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
40
reasonable that will allow for the attaching of the energy of the Practical effort to the
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
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
accepted 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
experiencing 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
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-
the name implies: knowledge of what can be directly experienced. Whereas knowledge in
being as close to experiencing as thinking about experiencing can get, refers to life as it is
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
understanding of what is directly experience-able for all humans. Without that basic
understanding 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
that also includes what can be termed “expertise” and “secondary source knowledge.”
able, expertise, and secondary source knowledge, and in the everyday world, all three are
42
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
immediacy that is absolutely crucial for meeting the challenge of the Question.
establishes between the one who knows and the one who does not know. As defined in
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 determine which activities and special interests in her/his life can be qualified
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, recognizing their exclusivity. Once such specialized areas are identified, they
expertise that has filtered down to segments of the general public through the various
43
media or communicated in some other way. Even the least informed among us have a
great deal of secondary source knowledge. It comprises the bulk of what people generally
talk about on social occasions, when they are not recounting personal experiences.
Whereas expertise involves 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 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.
knowledge is something that each must accomplish for her/himself, there are some
general considerations 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
With apologies to those who may be lacking one or more of the five senses, a
basic 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
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
44
solid matter, such as a chair or a rock, can be proven by the science of physics to be
observation 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
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
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
sensation, quickly exposes information one has acquired that is derived from some form
of expertise. The Ludulogue participants are expected to keep their thinking and talking
THE MIRROR:
Though to this point, all discussion of reaction has been in reference to emotion,
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 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
explanation 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
must become aware of the low threshold reactions that do not rise to the intensity of
emotion. All emotions in the two-way exchange of human-to-human relating are either
toward connection or toward separation. For example, fear, anger, and hurt are
movements toward separation, whereas admiration, loyalty, and trust are movements
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
46
specific than that they would be emotions. The low threshold feelings of connection and
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
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
expressing 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
interpretation. 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
47
thinking element 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.
Just as when listening to the others speaking the participant is trying to discover
still functioning within her/his reaction/behavior pattern, what the speaker has to do is to
become 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
With this much of the “how to do” what must be done to meet the challenge
understood, the participant will have come as far as the Practical can take him/her in the
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
48
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
using the mirror, the participant is making believe that all of the other participants are
objectifies the fact that, when listening to others individualistically, one is actually
creating his/her own reactions, and when speaking, s/he is presuming the motives of the
listeners. 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
individuality would not occur. It is the combination of the Practical and the make-believe
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
reaction/behavior pattern in action, s/he is distancing her/himself from that pattern, and
49
therefore seeing her/himself as a character on the stage with the other characters, but in a
different 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
using the make-believe to convert what they are pretending into reality.
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
50
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
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
use of what s/he is saying. Any concern s/he has about “how s/he is going over” is
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.
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
itself. The social contract can be thought of as a type of expertise. The four sections
contain the fundamental assumptions of that expertise, on the basis of which all
51
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 participants 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
Ludulogue is an indication of their interest in the subject, and it is interest in the subject
matter 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 participants are in no way questioning the validity of the playing field
itself. That questioning must be resolved before the participants elect to engage in
Ludulogue, which is another 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
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
much a part of the Activity as the subject finally elected to be talked about. Therefore,
52
deciding on the subject matter can go on as long as it takes for all participants to be
satisfied 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
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
experts, 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
problems 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
experience-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 ongoing 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
53
discharge reactive 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 silences as well as total silence are natural phases of the process, not
distractions.
of the facts and theories in the social contract, the participants can talk about the
abeyance in the everyday world. Though necessarily drawing on their own directly
and separations. What they are offering instead are typical examples of connections and
separations 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 reactive interpretation of what is said, the participants can discuss the
innumerable possibilities 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 language 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
54
thinking about thinking allows no place for stopping at a conclusion, and the fact that
when discussing language the participants are using the thing they are discussing as they
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
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
could become unwieldy. The best environment for the activity is the one with least
distractions, 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
continued 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
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
55
at hand seems to involve the speaker and a single listener. The reason for this is because
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.
The difference between rules and guidelines is that violations of rules are
unobservable, 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 responsibility 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
challenging 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
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 saying 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
56
attempt continues to a point where one or more of the other participants feel an impasse
has been reached, a “safeguard 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 problem, but if s/he doesn’t agree that it was a violation and is
unable to convince the participant who pointed it out, a safeguard break can be utilized to
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
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
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
continuing the Activity, and the successful meeting of the challenge of the Question can