All right. Now we take a departed ally. People going around and saying, "My grandfather is dead. (sniff)" Or black screens, and so forth, see? What's the thing? You could have said "my grandfather" — that would have made him very solid — right up to the moment he died. And you would have said, "Genetic line body's grandfather no longer exists. Cause of death, his. Picture of death, mine." No reaction. That's cancellation of reaction. Merely state the truth of the situation. In other words, when you stop playing a game, straighten out its ownership before you leave the field; because if you don't, you won't leave the field. So how do you get off a playing field? Just get the correct ownerships of everything. You loused all these things up so you could have a game. Now let's admit that we did this and then admit the correct ownership of all the pieces and spaces in which the game was being played and you can leave the playing field.

Here's your football player who was the star of the college team and so forth, and now he's selling bonds. And they say, "Well, that's Mr. Grange or somebody, and he was all-American for such and such a time." We look at this fellow and we say, "Why in the name of common sense can't this individual stop playing football? He's now forty-two years of age. He was once an intelligent man. Why is he still playing football?" Well, you don't recognize entirely the complete mechanism behind it. He's not only playing football; he never left the game with Army. He's still there. And he gets to be forty-six and all of a sudden develops what they call athlete's heart. Why should he develop athlete's heart? His heart is still playing football.

In other words, any playing field is a playing field because you're misowning the game and players and the ground on which it's being played. The musician says, "My music, my organ, my piano." Says this very consistently, and so keeps in mass form, music, the instrument — stays in there playing the game. And then one day for some reason or other decides to be a painter. You should ask yourself, why doesn't a musician every now and then suddenly become a painter? Well, the oddity is, they do. They do. They get tired of playing music and start painting or something like this — they'll swap fields. But oh, my goodness, the person who does this is practically a Clear — I mean, they're just natural, you know — and boy, are they in good shape if they can do this.

Now, we take this person who's not in this terrific condition and they're saying "my musical instrument, my music, my career" so forth, talking about this, you see, and then one day they find they're not getting much attention for this or something, and they decide to paint. Where are they? Where are they, really? Where are they stuck on the track? They're sitting at that instrument. They'll be there for years, because they never left the playing field.

Now, sharpen up your ears, you people who know your Dianetics. This is the mechanism of getting stuck on the track. And although the word can stick a person on the track — a phrase and all that, a person can get stuck on the track with these — there is a more basic, a more fundamental mechanism than this. And that is, they misowned things till they had a playing field, and then when other factors entered and the game ceased to be playable, they never left the playing field. In other words, they never straightened out the misownership they started with. They had to have misownership. You know, it wasn't their field at all. They didn't have anything to do at all with making this field — nothing whatsoever. And then they say, "my playing field." See? Misownership. They have a body, a doll — a biological doll, such as you wear. And this biological doll is the piece they are using to play the game. And so they say "my body," you know, "I made it." But they make very sure that they stole one, so they didn't. And they say "my fellow players." Well now, that is actually correct. So they have to find something a little bit wrong with them so they don't quite own them. You know, they have to be a little critical, introduce some feeling of doubt about the "my-ness" of "my fellow players." And that keeps a crowd around!

And then they say "the enemy" — they belong to "them." But the funny part of it is, to have a really good enemy you had to have a lot to do with creating him and then you had to say "I didn't have a thing to do with it," and you'll have a nice, solid opposition. Nice enemy. See how easy it is? Then when the game's over, just straighten out the factors of ownership of that game. There's no consequence or liability to it; you exteriorize from that game.

Now let's take language. Why is it if your genetic entity was once French, you do not like a nightingale speak French? In the first place, you haven't stirred it up. In the second place, the GE has never left the French playing field. And it's sort of a stuck line on the whole thing. This is a fascinating fact. The GE isn't going to up and talk French anyhow. You've got to talk the language that the GE talks.

But why, if you as a thetan had a French body, why don't you talk French now? Why can't you talk French? Well, as a matter of fact if you did an improper jump out of the French playing field, if you didn't separate from it at all well, you'll get yourself into the beautifully stuck condition of being so confused about French, not being French, that the whole thing becomes a mystery. "I can speak French, but obviously I am not French, so why should I be able to speak French? But I can't speak French, and that makes a nice mystery." And you go around not even able to learn French.

Because, in the first place, when you separated from the French race, youdid an immediate "they," if you were a smart thetan — "those Frenchmen." See,you got about twenty-five feet above that dead body and you said, "Look atthose Frenchmen down there." There went your French. Because you werevery, very careful to say so if you were smart. If you wanted your French back,just start realizing how French you are. One liability goes along with it,however. You're liable to get out of your head and find yourself over Nimes orReims. You'll move back over the old playing field and you will move back outof present time and will things look funny! See how you would go about that?So if you were at all able, when you exteriorized from a dead body yousaid, "Their body, those Frenchmen, their Earth," you know — bing, bing, bing — "partially mine, not mine," and you'd have it, you see, because you do havesome slight series of incidents connected with it that you did contribute to.But the ordinary job that is done on exteriorization of death is simply this one: they say, "Those Frenchmen, that body" — no more, wipeout, forgotten, gone, period. In other words, the guy does an almost violent proper ownership of the whole works and detaches from it and still leaves himself with a little fragment of the whole thing by then introducing some other factor and then by saying, "Now I will have to forget it all."

See, that is another factor and not a necessary one at all unless you're trying to convince somebody that you shouldn't be locked up in the Bastille. Most thetans have a fear of past crimes, so on. You know, what I told you yesterday — they're hit and then they think "I'm guilty," you know? They get hit and then they say, "Well, I must be guilty of something because I was hit." So they're killed, so they say, "Well, I must have been guilty of something, because there it is, dead." And his immediate conclusion is, "I'm wanted, by the wrong people." You get the idea? The shock of death is sufficient to convince somebody that he's done something. That's why he very quickly reverses on the responsibility scale. And that's why he has a dwindling spiral.

So an exteriorizing thetan ordinarily is not going through a really proper procedure at all. He's merely saying, "No responsibility." But he just happens to hit this Ownership button properly and then he adds the extraneous "Forget it" — you know, otherwise he's liable to be arrested or something of the sort — and that's that. And he's gone, he's out, he's no longer interested, and that's the end of that game as far as he's concerned. So he does this — bang-bang! Just — he knows enough to do this.

But there is extraordinary pressure on it that shouldn't be there. Because he's dead, he must have been guilty of something. This proves it, doesn't it? He's dead, isn't he? There was a blow or a shock or an explosion or something happened, because even a quiet (quote) "natural" (unquote) death — whatever that is — generally, on exteriorization there'll be some explosions of ridges or something like that. There'll be a disturbance, an electrical disturbance — there'll be a shock-back as far as the thetan is concerned. He goes then believing that it was he who killed the body. That's about the least thing he'll believe. And maybe in the next life he floats along with the body, you know, killing it. Why? Because he's a killer. Well, why is he a killer? Well, the last body he had died, didn't it? See the stupidity of the — there is no real logical .. .

If you wanted to rehabilitate this — just that — you start exteriorizing by whatever process, Ownership or anything else, you exteriorize somebody from his body and then have him get again the correct ownerships of the forgetters. Who said, "Forget it"? This between-lives area thing is merely so a person can say, "They said forget it." And that makes the forgetter persist. See, the forgetter has been misowned and this gives a bad memory that psychology talks about and so forth, and about which we are not interested. See, the forgetter has to be misowned to be effective. But the odd part of it is, the memory doesn't. Because a thetan basically knows everything, so the only thing he can misown is his stupidity if he wants it to stick. That's why you can change people's IQs — you just get the ownership of their stupidity. Very simple.

Now, you see how you would use this practically? Let's get it real straight. If you want to possess and have, you'd better misown. See? And by "misown," we say just assign the wrong creator, and you'll have something and it'll persist. Assign the wrong creator. "This car was built in Florida." "It was made by me." "This beautiful John Alden yacht that I designed." You see? And then when one changes his game, to go through the very nice little ritual of assigning back the proper ownerships, and bother the forgetter. First thing you know, you'll wind up with all your experience intact, and none of the playing fields.

There are people walking up and down the street all day long, they're stuck in playing fields all over the place. They're in a factory in their youth, they're in space opera way back when, they're in a time when they were a priest. You say to some old-time Dianeticist who's come into Scientology, "Now, we're going to ordain you as a minister."

And the fellow goes, "Nnyyeeeoww! No! None of that!"

Well, rather than argue with the guy you simply say, "All right, now get the idea of being a priest. Well, what can you be that's real close to it?" "Well, I could be a demon." (audience laughter)

I just work him around, have him be various things of this character. The next thing you know, he'll tell you confidentially, "Well, I — I feel a considerable confidence in the idea that I could probably be a cardinal, but not a minister."

Have him be a few more things like that and he says, "I don't know why I've been worried about this."

Well, he's been worried about it because some time or another he was either violently antireligious in some role or — he lived that life — or he was a persecuted monk or something of the sort. He's led an unsuccessful life.

Now let me show you this: Every life we lead and die from, we catalog as unsuccessful. Let's just look that over. Every life we lead and die from, we catalog as unsuccessful. Truth of the matter is, you successfully got through that one. All right.

Very germane to this subject of ownership and responsibility and control, because that's all the same little ladder, I'd better tell you something about another process which is quite close to this.

Why won't individuals uncommunicate — break communication? Fellow's stuck to the wall, he won't let go of it. All right, ownership is your first key and clue. This brings about an obsession on his part that he must not break communication once started. And he begins to feel that he cannot possibly break a communication if he has begun it. Now, this is idiocy. Because you wrote Eisenhower a letter means now that you have to write Eisenhower letters. Well, that's the way it figures, isn't it? You started to communicate. If you're unable to stop communicating any time you started communicating, you're being penalized to some degree, aren't you?

Now let me tell you about a completely and utterly and fantastically unworkable process. This is the most unworkable process that anybody ever investigated. It has no benefit; it's all liability. Would simply be this question asked over and over and nicely acknowledged — it'd sound just like an auditing session. I hope no psychologist gets hold of this, because he'd have to do it just to find out if it happens. He would! Have to. So I'll give you the rest of it, how you would solve it. It's just an experiment. It's a wild thing that you could do to somebody. You say, "Now, give me some things you could go out of ARC with" or "Give me some things you wouldn't mind breaking communication with." And he gives you some and you say, "Fine. Fine. Good. Good. Give me some more things you could break communication with" or "go out of communication with."

And he'd say, "Fine" — then he'd tell you some things — "Fine."

And you say, "All right."

See? What a nice auditing session it sounds like, you know. Right up to there. Just sounds like the real McCoy. Sounds real good, you know. And you say, "Give me some more things that you wouldn't mind going out of communication with." Well, this is so logical — so very, very logical. Because the truth of the matter is, the only reason the man is stuck on the track is because he won't go out of communication with the past. See, he just won't. He refuses to. Still got it. Wants it. So obviously we have to repair his ability to break communication. Otherwise, we won't get him cleanly breaking clear of the time track at all, will we? It's the theory behind this. Nice theory, isn't it? So we say, "Give me something else you wouldn't mind going out of communication with."

And he gives us something of "I wouldn't mind going out of communication with my mother."

And you say, "That's fine. Now, give me something else you wouldn't mind going out of communication with."

(said angrily) "Well, I wouldn't mind going out of communication with my boss."

And you say, "That's fine. Now, give me something else you wouldn't mind going out of communication with."

The fellow's saying, "The whole planet!" He'd simply go into a rage. And he'd go into enough, sufficient anger and rage that you would find him unauditable right at that point. He would blow — he would blow the session. I've done this several times just to test it out. (audience laughter)

Having the antidote right to hand, it was very easy to do and get the guy turned around and back in and run the rest of it. Couple of auditors have done this just to make sure that this was the mechanism, and it is the mechanism. The effort to go out of communication with, eventually gets himself so stuck that he goes into a rage. And rage is the emotion which is designed to break communication, but doesn't. It just stacks it up. You recognize the emotion there. It's just the effort to go out of communication, that's all — and to keep on informing people you're going out of communication with them. And the boy does not come up above rage with the process, because he blows the session and goes out of control. Now this doesn't much matter what person you're running it on. That's what they do. That's the end of that. So it's an utterly unworkable process. (Day or so, they'll settle down and start living again.)

But here is this situation. A process which sounds like a legitimate process evidently is completely unrunnable. And obviously, if you wanted to get somebody unstuck on the time track, the most logical thing in the world that you would do would be to rehabilitate his ability to break communication. Certainly you've got to break communication with the past in order to get him totally in present time. He's got to be willing to let go of something on the time track before he'll come out of it.

All right, where's all this lead? It led immediately to Consequence Processing. The first edition of Consequence Processing ran this way — it's the very first one — "What would happen if you got angry?" On and on and on and on and on, and eventually cleaned that up and the fellow said, "Nothing," you know? He'd swerved. And then you can say, "What wouldn't you mind going out of communication with?" and you'll only get a little sputter and yap about it. You've already solved the consequences of anger. He's fighting anger, and as long as he cannot break communication, time, the single aberration, will continue to depress him down the Tone Scale. With each forward ticking moment, he will get stuck tighter and tighter and tighter down to anger and then blow it, and through to the lower harmonics.

And that is the mechanism of the dwindling spiral. There's no more complex mechanism than that about it. Do you see it now? With each ticking moment, time is breaking communication for him. And if this process "What wouldn't you mind going out of communication with?" winds him up in anger, certainly time, going tick, tick, tick, tick, tick — which is "Break communication, break communication, break communication, break communication" — certainly would wind him up in going down scale. And that's how people descend down that Tone Scale and why they wind up where they wind up. It was the most basic reason. How do you clean it up? Consequence Processing or Ownership Processing — or consequences of ownership, so forth; you could combine these.

But the way that you would handle this would be — most basic and fundamental way — "What would happen if you got angry? What would happen if you got angry?" It is evidently apparent immediately that if we are going to get anyone totally above 1.5 on the Tone Scale, we're going to have to run "What would happen if you got angry?" sooner or later.

Now, a thetan can get up above 1.5 on the Tone Scale with the greatest of ease, but you can get a body up there, too. It's the body that gets stuck in covert ... The game called society is covert hostility — propitiation, politeness, so forth. That's stuck below 1.5. It's very dangerous when it's stuck below 1.5. There's no reason why this game could not be carried on above 1.5, but as years progress and arthritis sets in, the tickety-tick, tickety-tick, tickety-tick of time breaking communication, breaking communication, every cycle is saying, "Break communication, break communication, break communication, break communication." Of course, it's also saying, "Make communication." It's saying, "Make communication, break communication" for its whole cycle. And if an individual cannot have "Make communication, break communication, make communication, break communication," he can't ride along the time track. He'll just simply stick harder and harder and more and more into misowned incidents.

This is the mechanics of this universe. This is how this universe throws down scale the luckless thetan who is living in it. Because he believes, as everybody believes, that there are vast consequences to anger, and every time he starts to get angry — which is to say break through this — he's said, "No, I mustn't get angry. I'll get sick and people will get mad at me and I will starve to death and there are horrible consequences will occur if I get angry, so therefore I've got to kind of float along with this time track one way or the other." And he starts to pull loose from various points on the time track where he's misowning and gotten stuck and he feels himself starting to get mad and he says, "No, no, no. I'll just have to float along with this time track."

We have to restore to the individual the freedom to be apathetic, if he's in pretty bad shape, and then the freedom to be angry — or simply the freedom to be angry.

One case, by the way, fooled me one time very recently right on this same fundamental. I started running this process, "Now, what would happen" — I knew this person was stuck all over the time track and this person was not high enough up scale to run Ownership Processing or Responsibility or anything else, so I simply started in, in just the fundamental that I already had, and this fundamental was simply this: "What would happen if you got angry? What would happen if you didn't get angry? What would happen if you got angry? What would happen if you didn't get angry?" by which we mean plus and minus running as is marked on these charts. "What would happen if you got angry? What would happen if you didn't get angry? What would happen if you got angry? What would happen if you didn't get angry?"

I was getting no comm lag. So I says, "Aha! Process too high. Let's start down at the bottom." I started down to the bottom and chose just at random, at the bottom, "sleep" or "unconsciousness," and ran this flat. "What would happen if you got unconscious? What would happen if you didn't get unconscious? What would happen if you got unconscious? What would happen if you didn't ..." Got that cleaned up. That cleaned up fairly easily; came right on up scale through various other, you know, "What would happen if you hurt? What would happen if you didn't hurt?" which is above anger. No comm lag again, so I dived back down scale once more — said, "Couldn't be, because this person is not an apathy case." Well, as a thetan, this person wasn't an apathy case, but the person's body was stuck solid in apathy. And I said, "Well now, all right, let's just take the Tone Scale now. What would happen if you got apathetic?"

"Thuhhh! Thuhhh!" Terrific comm lags.

"What would happen if you didn't get apathetic?" Oh, terrific comm lags.

Person was stuck on the lower harmonic of anger — as a body. Cleaned this up, went up Tone Scale, got up — there was nothing much on grief — more or less cleaned up and got up to anger and cleaned that up rather easily and then ran "What wouldn't you mind communicating with? What wouldn't you mind breaking communications with? What wouldn't you mind communicating with? What wouldn't you mind breaking communications with?" and the person just ran like a well-oiled dream and soared right on up Tone Scale — 2.0, boredom, conservatism, enthusiasm as a stable tone.

So I wonder how many cases in Dianetics and Scientology are parked below 1.5 as a physical body, or as a thetan and body, simply because they do not dare be apathetic or angry? How many? And is this the barrier which prevents a person from coming up Tone Scale rapidly? And yes, my experience in the last few months and weeks has told me that it is.

An inability to break communication will depress a person on the Tone Scale. So we have a very interestingly simple mechanism for getting a person up scale. We have to get the consequences of these emotions and the consequences of no such emotion, see? Consequences of apathy, consequences of not being apathetic. We have to get the consequences of these emotions or anything else that occurs. Right along with this are the consequences of unconsciousness and the consequences of pain. We have to clear these up to some degree.

If you wanted to solve an engram all the way across the board, you would certainly have to run something on the order of "What would happen if you became unconscious? What would happen if you didn't become unconscious? What would happen if you got hurt? What would happen if you didn't get hurt?" and run these things flat. Those are pretty high-toned, by the way. But that, of course, runs out the most holding basic of an engram. We knew in Dianetics that it was pain and unconsciousness which pinned the engram where it was. So you can run that by Consequences Processing.

But you won't get people up Tone Scale as long as they're afraid or unable on the subject of apathy and anger. Now that doesn't mean you want everybody going around mad-dogging with anger. The funny part of it is, they only go around mad-dogging with anger when they can't be angry. They only go around being obsessively apathetic when they can't be apathetic. They only go around crying, crying, crying when they can't cry. When they can do these things, they don't have to do them just to prove it — and we get into proof.

Neat process right along there, by the way, is proof. You say, "What have you got that would prove anything to whom?" Or "Invent some proof." Fabulous process. This whole category of "invent" — invent some time, invent a game, invent proof — rather fabulous processes.

Consequences, then, on the Tone Scale is the most vital process that you'd have to get rid of to get a case coming up scale. Because they're going to hit a barricade. And the barricades, if they're above apathy, will be anger, and if they're apathetic or around there someplace, will be apathy. And the mere thought of breaking communication will put them into the solidity of apathy or grief or anger — the three ridges. Just the thought of coming up to present time would be enough to pin them into apathy or grief or anger. "What would happen if you got apathetic? What would happen if you didn't get apathetic?" resolves this.

So this goes along to a marked degree with Ownership Processing. Of course, Ownership Processing is sort of a sledgehammer. You simply say to the person, "Get the idea who owned it and who didn't own it" and so forth, and there's no energy left around to be stuck to. But this doesn't mean he's going to be terribly happy about it. No great liability connected with it such as other processes — Perfect Duplication and so forth — but he doesn't quite like to give up that much MEST, he thinks. He'll have rationalizations; whereas "What would happen if you got angry? What would happen if you didn't get angry?" — he comes out of that cleanly because you change his consideration. And when you change the consideration or the ideas of a man, you make him well; and when you change his MEST, you've changed his MEST.

Well now, do you see these mechanisms? They are quite interesting and they bring processing out of the dark ages of "maybe" into a considerable certainty. Anybody whose case is lagging — he's getting lots and lots and lots and lots of hours, you know, and he keeps piling it up — can remember times when he kind of started to get mad or started to feel apathetic during a session, checked himself or the auditor checked him, and he went on running the process. In other words, he tried to come up scale and go past those bands, and social agreement says, "Thou shalt not rage" and so he just sticks right there. How many preclears have gotten parked below that band, there's no telling. But now that you know this, there's no reason why they should be parked there any longer.

Thank you.