Thank you.

Thank you.

We have today a very, very solemn and sad subject to cover — the descent of man. And in your hands at the moment, as have been passed out by the seminar leaders and others, you have slips of paper. These paper slips come from pads of such charts and these pads are so composed so that an auditor in auditing can keep a very accurate track of his preclear and make notes as to what he is doing with that preclear. The pad you have or the slip of paper you have in your hand is a new chart.* I've already discussed this chart, already talked about it, but there you see a graphic representation of the descent of man. But let's take a happier look at it and call it the ascent of man.

Okay. Let's get down to business. Now, we've fooled around long enough, that's a fact.

Now, we'll take a look at that chart and we will see that a great many values or ideas have been fitted into their consecutive places and we have, in effect, a gradient scale of ability. Now, if you call this anything else but a scale of ability you'll be in trouble. Why? Because a person is not insane simply because he hides something. A person is not sick simply because he's trying to protect something. Now, he could get sick in trying to protect something and he could get sick in trying to hide something. But that is not our concern.

I know you expected me to process you in this hour — I'm not going to. Your seminar leader's doing a very, very good job, and when you get along just a little bit further along the line with your seminar leaders — in pretty good shape — I'm going to run a process on you which erases the chair and the body and the room. (audience laughter)

That is a chart of ARC. It is the same old chart of ARC that we've been working with for five years which was originated with the writing of the first book and became ARC in July of 1950, which was a long time ago. And we have borrowed the basics of this chart from Dianetics and we are using it in Scientology. And this chart represents the degree that a person can experience — the degree that a person can experience — affinity, reality, and perform communication. Now, that's — is merely a gradient scale. And the values which are on this chart from top to bottom, from bottom to top, are simply a gradient scale of that ARC triangle.

So, in this particular congress, I sort of have to hold back on the processing. I have to hold back on it a little bit. But you'll get it.

The most fundamental thing you could say about the ARC triangle is that it is impossible — impossible — to communicate in the total absence of an agreement of some kind. No communication is possible without an agreement of some kind. And no agreement is possible unless there is affinity of some kind or type. And no affinity is possible without a communication of some kind.

Anyhow, the most significant developments in research in Scientology have to do, today, with exteriorization and the isolation of the three primary buttons of exteriorization. All right. All has to do with the Tone Scale.

Now, you see how that works out? Now, did you ever try to talk to somebody that you didn't know, had never seen and didn't know where they were? Well, now that would be trying to communicate in the absence of agreement. At least we have to have an agreement on location before we can communicate.

There is, and has been in existence for a long time, a thing called the Tone Scale. Has to do with human tone or human emotion. The first rendition of it is found in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, and we have borrowed it from Dianetics. It's the first chart in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. So this thing really has precedence. I mean, it goes way back.

• Editor's Note: A copy of this chart can be found in the appendix.

Now, this chart was further developed in Science of Survival. And Science of Survival, a rather thick book, is devoted entirely to this chart and various levels on it. Now, actually, Science of Survival treats of what you would call "thetan plus body" — spirit plus body — and these two combined make a certain combination which is predictable. And Science of Survival is devoted to that.

And now you possibly know of somebody in your past who did you in or you did in and who is out of your life and you'd just rather not think about him. Well now, think of your attitude — your communication attitude — about that person. Do you want to talk to that person? Don't want to talk to that person. That's the affinity factor — you don't like that person. That person — nah! So, you have an absence of affinity and you don't have any communication. So every time we drop out a corner of this triangle, we drop out the other two corners. It's just as nice a neat little plan as you ever saw in your life.

All right. Now, the next development along this line — a similar chart — was the Chart of Attitudes. And another development along this line appeared in Scientology: 8-80, which is the subzero Tone Scale, which goes down to -8.0.

The only funny part of it is that it happens to be a very broad highway on the road back to ability. It isn't just a cute datum. It works. And as long as we pay attention to this triangle and as long as we process in connection with this triangle, we then achieve remarkable successes in enhancing and increasing the ability of Homo sapiens. And then increasing the ability of the beingness that he really is.

Now, here we have — here we have, today, a further development of this Tone Scale. Now, there are some little pads which are available to you here at this congress, which we've had made up, which are plotting pads. They plot the preclear on the Tone Scale. And we have gone out sideways and we've put the Know to Mystery Scale at right angles to the Tone Scale. And you will see that on these little plotted sheets, which you can get here. All right.

ARC: affinity, reality and communication. Great deal to be learned from that. If a person knew all the factors involved in affinity, reality and communication he could probably communicate with anything.

These plotted sheets have to do with running cases. We're not interested right now in running cases. What we're interested in is the development of this scale.

Now, there are several little maxims that jump up concerning this. One of the most notable is: When in doubt, communicate. Apparently it's always better to communicate than not to communicate. Because when you stop communicating, you acquire mass on the subject. But if you want to acquire mass, stop communicating. Do you see this? You stand up to a man and you've been discussing things with him and he's rather a violent sort of a man and you all of a sudden say, "I refuse to talk to you anymore," and then just shut up. The next thing you know, you're going to get some mass — a more violent representation.

First and foremost, we should see this scale as a gradient scale of survival — potentialities of survival. Naturally, when we say survival, we are talking — in an ultimate survival — about immortality. Now, please take a good look at that. You think we're way out of gear on religion or something of this sort — we've been talking about immortality here for years. Now, the immortality would be at the — way up top. It would be a person surviving over an infinite time, knowing who and what he was.

But the actuality is, is you'll have a preclear who's sitting there with a huge ridge in front of his face, you know. And you say, "All right. Shut your eyes. Now, what do you see?"

Now we drop way down scale and we get the condition which evidently exists on this planet at this time, which is, the individual gets born, he says, "I'm a body"; he says, "Now I'm a dead body, now I'm somebody else, now I'm a dead body, now I'm somebody else, now I'm . . ." — he gets confused after a while. And in one of the healing sciences — heh! ... By the way, I've had to invent that. You know, Korzybski — quite a man, Korzybski; wonderful guy, the late Alfred Korzybski — he had a little symbol: He put quotes. You know, when a word didn't quite mean what it was supposed to mean and you meant to exaggerate its meaning or something of the sort, why, you'd put little "quote, unquote." I think he was the sole author of that. I mean, it's gotten into popular ken now. You hear somebody in ordinary conversation say, "Well, I'm pretty (quote) 'hep' (unquote)," so on. Well now, that's a little symbol there. Well, I've had another one which is — which means, "Heh!" And I've been using that as a — similarly to the use of "quote, unquote," you know — "heh!" You say it like that; you say, "psychology — heh!" you know. That means, "I am not seriously uttering this word."

He'll say, "Nothing."

So anyway, here we have this science of — heh! — psychiatry, talking about multivalent personalities. Would you please explain to me how an individual could keep from getting mixed up about who he is if every few years he insists on kicking the bucket and being somebody else? And what a perfect control that individual would have to have of his position on the time track to always know who he was at the time.

You say, "What do you see?"

So we get all sorts of weird things. We get an individual who is going along fine, and a fellow just told me something here — he said the head of the mental health division went — has taken up house robbing up in New York City. Well, of course! Mental health — heh! — division. Now, this fellow's been going along being the judge, being the judge, being the judge, being the judge, being the judge, being the judge, being the judge and one day, he did just eighteen thousand too many overt acts, you see, and he found himself the victim. Well now, that is a valence shift from win to lose. But where does this fellow get the complete package of being a burglar? Out of the fellows he's been talking to?

And he'll say, "Nothing. Nothing except this blackness."

Now there is the primary error that has been made. We say we go into Father's valence. We say we go into Mother's valence. And these valences are all very well, but how do they become so expertly, completely packaged so that a person knows far more about how to be Father and how to be Mother and how to be a house burglar or a Mental Health — heh! — Division Chief than he would ever know in standing and talking to one? Here you stand, you've talked to your father — you just know that it's impossible probably to understand your father, or maybe you understand him too well. But you talk to him a long time — how do you pick up every single quirk this individual has? Or are you picking up every single quirk he has, or are you simply skidding on the track into a whole packaged identity you have which matched Father's identity? Which is it? Possibly could be any of it. That's an interesting thought, isn't it? That you have the ability to reassume any identity which you have already had. And that you can assume any identity which you have had again, if it is restimulated by the presence of a similar identity.

How'd he get it? He didn't get it by starting communication, he got it by stopping it.

Did you ever know somebody, every time he talked to a tramp, he became a tramp; every time he talked to a cop he became a cop; every time he talked to anything he became that. But all of a sudden one day he's talking to a housewife and he just can't understand that. Well, he just never happens to have been one. But he has been a tramp or a judge or a cop or something. So it's a very easy thing. So he has two sources: He has this valence proposition — you know, just a stimulation–restimulation where he just shifts valence, you might say, right out of the engram bank. The safest thing to be when you're in the dentist's chair is the dentist and not yourself, and he can sort of shift valence into the dentist. He can pick up the dentist's bag of tricks one way or the other, but quite something else is also operative. The fellow may have a whole past life as a dentist.

Funny part of it is, is you could originate any number of communications and if they just sort of dwindled away and so on and there was nothing much left to talk about or talk to, why, there's no liability — you mean your interest is simply off of the subject now and so on — there's no liability to this at all.

Now, I'm not asking you to accept transmigration of the human soul. I'm merely saying you better had — since man didn't start to go to pieces until he forgot about it.

But you start communicating and then stop communication because you have a good reason to stop communication, and you've got a ridge. The best definition I know of for a barrier is something which stops communication. That's a definition of a barrier. A barrier is that which stops communication. Very often an individual is so anxious about communications himself that he gets into this alarming state. He starts to talk to somebody and he feels like he's being throttled or he feels a sudden mass hitting across the mouth. The body is a barrier and it will stop communication. As long as you use it to communicate with, however, it can't stop communication because something is in control of it that isn't stopping communication.

All right. Here we have an individual, then, playing this cute little game: the glorious irresponsibility of being a baby. "Da-da, gaga — I don't know anything." But if you look real quick at a baby and if you don't pull your punches around the baby with what you're talking about, you'll get response — you'll get response. You can say the darnedest things to babies, which of course they can't understand, because — oh, this is the biggest joke in the world. Back in the old days of Dianetics, why, the medicos used to come around and say, "It's impossible for anybody to remember birth because there's no myelin sheathing on a baby's nerves." I never found out what this stuff is, but as near as I can figure out, their picture of a baby is a coil of telephone cable. But anyway, the baby can't remember. Who's asking him to remember? Nobody asked this body to remember anything, but there's somebody there and there's something there which is doing remembering and it doesn't happen to have any myelin sheathing, or need any.

But we find many people in the interesting and obsessive state of having to stop communication. It wouldn't matter who was communicating or about what, they would have to stop communication. And this is simply the dramatization of a barrier. For instance, the dissemination of Scientology finds, in many places and points in the society, people who simply gibber. And they say they are angry about this or angry about that; or they say, "That's a cult, that's a religion, it's no good, and you shouldn't have anything to do with it." And they go on like this — and that's all very curious, because these people don't know anything about Scientology, you see? This is a fascinating thing. They're talking out of an enormous fund of no data. And they see these communications going out, they see people talking to people interestedly on a subject, they see written material around and they see people getting together and talking together and being friendly and so forth — and this must stop! And it wouldn't matter if it were Scientology or somebody had simply dreamed up a new way to knit — you'd always find some of these barrier people jumping up and finding something terribly wrong with this new way to knit. They simply have to stop communication.

Now it's quite remarkable — other thing — you talk to children, around them and so forth, and they apparently are paying no attention. But what's paying no attention? Their body's paying no attention. Well, their body is incapable of paying attention unless something's there saying, "Look" or "Listen." And the body's going through random motions. That doesn't mean that this person is not listening. This doesn't mean that this person has no capabilities of listening. But this person does have the capability of forgetting. And as life goes on with him, he says, "It's far, far better to be this little boy or this little girl than that old man or that old woman I once was." And so he says, "Now I've forgotten all that and that's gone."

Now, why do they have to stop communication? They have to stop communication because communication is in progress. Please learn that, if you learn nothing else. They stop communication because a communication is in progress. That is why they stop communication. These people have an obsessive barrier-ness and the human body, although we don't know anything about the human body and care less, the human body is apparently obsessed in some cases on this subject. It has to stop communication. It's just as though it had a great many automatic barriers that suddenly leap up in the air and get in front of a fellow. This fellow says, "Well, let's see, I think I will tell her how much I love her," and all of a sudden he can't talk. You know, he'd say, "Thh!" Now, where the dickens did that come from, you see? Now, how did that come to be? It came to be very simply, indeed. The body just suddenly said gnnk! He thinks, "Now I am going to communicate," and the body goes gnnk! and the body will shut off the communication to the degree that the person wants to — has to — communicate. It's very fascinating, you know? I mean, the fellow says — he's trying to say, "The house is on fire." You see immediately what happens.

When we are investigating phenomena of various kinds, we leave unaccounted for 99 and 44/100ths percent of the mental phenomena known to the human race, if we discount the factor of continuous life-to-life existence and a human spirit. In other words, the finest way in the world to find out nothing about the mind would be to just discount all this parade of lives and to discount at the same time the existence of a spirit, and say we're all machines. And in that way, you would happily dispose of practically every possible explanation. And then you could really be in mystery. You could really get lost, then. So that's where they've been getting lost. They disposed of these two factors and we've had mystery ever since. All right.

One time a few years ago in a war that everybody fortunately has forgotten, a submarine appeared on my port bow — it just appeared. We'd been hanging over it for some time and it ran up its periscope. The first sign they used to make, they used to throw up a patch of oil and then run the periscope up through the oil so as not to leave any salt scum or anything like that on their periscope lens, you know. So a blob of oil appeared and the fellow who was running the engine room telegraphs on the bridge was the only fellow looking in that direction. And he saw this blob of oil appear and he thought that was strange and interesting. We were going very slowly, we were almost dead in the water, and then right up through this big blob of brown oil on a blue sea comes a periscope — swswswswhhh — and looks around in every direction but at our ship! If it had turned another ninety degrees it would have read the biggest doggone 422 that you'd ever seen, fully magnified for the skipper. But anyway, the man on the engine room telegraphs is the only person who observed this incident in its various steps. And he stood there . . . (pause) (audience laughter) The bridge was absolutely crammed with men because we were at general quarters. But nobody was looking right down there; they were looking out there, you know. And the fellow on the engine room telegraphs would say, "Thh." I finally noticed this strange performance and I was all set at this moment, you see, the second I saw this — flank speed and drop a depth charge right ... Even if it blew our own stern off — that was fine, you see — and I said, "Khh!" That was the awfulest mess of noncommunication! It finally came off all right. We dropped a depth charge and so on, but we were laughing about this for days. Nobody could talk!

Everybody knows it's very, very dangerous to fool around with your mind.

Well, what was happening there? We were merely getting the body's — it feels a tension or an urgency and then it shuts off communication. And a person is, after all, using the body's voice, so the body is perfectly capable of doing this. Well now, we get this condition just a little more deteriorated and we get this kind of a thing: a total and continuous mask or screen of some sort and we say to this fellow, "Be three feet back of your head so we can do Route 1 and get you in good shape," and this fellow says, "What are you talking about? I — I, uh — I'm not going anyplace." Well, what's happened? The body's got a barrier here and a barrier here and it's simply shutting off communication.

Everybody knows this. We all agree with this. And I agree with this, too. And I believe this, too. It is very, very dangerous to fool around with a nonexistent something. It is only safe to fool around with those things which do exist — namely, a thetan. That is fairly safe. But if you fool around with nonexistences such as the think . This is a nonexistence: the thinkingness of his myelin sheathing.

Now, the cure for it oddly enough is communication, not not-communication. It is a condition of not-communication but if we continue to validate not-communication, we just get more not-communication. Well, the remedy for it is communication. It's an oddity — although it is not the best solution, it's just a test solution — that when these screens appear around the individual, it is an oddity that just Hellos and Okays to the screen will tear them up and do various things to them. Now, the oddity is that this will not banish the condition — it simply tears up the screen. The reason it won't banish the condition is because the screen is being manufactured by an automaticity which can manufacture more screens. And it can almost, and usually does, manufacture them as fast as the auditor is trying to tear them up. The thing to treat in this respect, if we're trying to exteriorize somebody, is the automaticity which provides the screen. Hellos and Okays to that produces some very interesting results because you're disabusing something of the idea that communication is bad.

You know, the electronic-brain boys are great boys. I like them — they're practical. One of them wrote a book the other day — I know this fellow — he wrote a book on the subject of communication. And I read the first pages, and — how can anybody write this uncommunicably about communication? What was communication to this electronic-brain boy? What was communication? It was the impedance in an electric circuit — the amount of resistance in the circuit was communication — all done with calculus incorrectly used where another mathematics would have served much better. It was the most horribly botched job I ever saw in my life! How could he stand to do this?

Now, there are two crimes in this universe and all crime stems from these two things: to be there and to communicate. Those are the two crimes of this universe — thereness and communicatingness. If you have any doubts whatsoever about the criminality of communicating, you should realize that the law is powerless to act in the absence of a statement by the criminal. It can only punish if an utterance is made.

Now, there's a psychiatrist that did write a pretty good book on communication. It's down in the library. It's not a bad book at all on communication. It's kind of tangled up, he can't solve anything with it, but its about communication. And it's a pretty good book for a psychiatrist. That's a pretty stinking compliment, isn't it? I have to be honest. I would be very happy to grant the man a lot of beingness, and he says it's a great book on communication. It would be a great book on communication if it put everybody into better communication. That'd be a good book — it's not. All right.

The Constitution of the United States has the Fifth Amendment and it tries to remedy this. Now, this man doesn't have to testify. But if you will look over law or if you will talk it over with a lawyer who knows his business, he will tell you that there's only one way to really incriminate anyone: He has to confess. He has to make a statement that he has done it. And as long as you do not make a statement of any kind — that is to say, you haven't prior to an interrogation written your best pal all about it in your own handwriting, you know — if you haven't put out pamphlets saying, "Now, boys, we're going to overthrow the US government by force," such as the Commies carelessly used to do . . . (That's a very fine thing for the country that they did it, but nevertheless they had a lot of literature which more or less confessed this and this literature is about all they're hung on.)

The electronic-brain boy completely omits this interesting factor — he completely omits it. And that is that his beautiful machine with its coffee-grinder handles and its big slots and its mechanical banks and its feeders and its thousands and thousands and thousands of tubes and transistors and resistors has to have somebody there to tell it what its goals are! And its goals had to be built into it by somebody. And somebody has to receive the answer. There is no single part in an electronic brain which, after the little card or tape falls out, says, "Ah!" So when we take out this little element that says "Ah!" what have we got? We've got some wheels that go round and round without any meaning at all. And we get the most senior characteristic of life — the ability to put meaning into and take meaning from other life units, life forms, spaces, energies, objects and time. And that is the best thing in living that it does. Of course, there is something else that it does up above that, and that's it makes postulates. Makes a postulate and makes them stick or unstick.

Now here we have this condition of punishment only when communication exists. But this can invert too, and somebody who is alive and who is demanding communication can become very furious about not-communication, you see. But punishment is, you might say on a broad line, centered on the subject of communication. If you start communicating and then stop communicating, you can be punished. Or if you communicate and say, "Well, I did that and that's it," and confess and sign it all up and so forth, you could also be punished. This universe is very, very heavy on punishment of communication. And this is an oddity, isn't it, since it's a barrier universe.

But this is not a third dynamic operation, this making of postulates — not necessarily at all. Here we have the business of living, the game called life. And this game called life has as its highest manifestation, a manifestation higher than logic. It's an interesting thing, but we have gone above logic today with Scientology and so we have exceeded its definition as a science. You'll see what happens when we run Meaningness Processing — what happens to your logic. That's wonderful. Putting meaning into and taking meaning out of things, objects, spaces, people, situations, times, energies, masses — the most senior thing it does.

Why should it punish any variety or state of communication? Because communication is the only way out. To continue an entrapment it is necessary, then, to punish communication or some phase of it — to enforce or inhibit communication. In order to continue a barrier, to continue a trap in existence, you would have to debar communication. So therefore, a universe which operates all too often as a trap resolves, and escapement from that universe occurs, when communication is expertly and knowingly handled. And when it is not well handled, it's punished. Now, therefore we get a fixation in this universe.

Actually, one of the total battles of life is the battle of who's going to put meaning into it. It's the only reason these judges sit on benches. They've got to be the one who puts meaning into it.

Now, thereness is simply a part of communication. It is the creation of a station or a terminal from which one communicates. And that is thereness. So thereness and communicatingness are punishable things by those who desire to entrap. And they are good things to those who have some tolerance for and some desire for freedom.

The only way you can learn anything from life is be willing to have somebody else give some meaning, too. Now this ascends — transcends the granting of beingness. So we're really getting there. This is a process which leads further and does more, by far, than the granting of beingness, and exceeds logic — so we must be getting somewhere in Scientology.

So, we get the make and break of personality, of beings, above and below a theoretical line. And above this line a person would find nothing terribly wrong with thereness and he would certainly find nothing wrong with communicating or being communicated to. And above this line he can survive as himself in full knowingness. And below this line we would have an obsession to punish or a feeling that there should be punishment for thereness and communication.

Now, that is the high tide of current research and investigation — the discovery of those principles and facts and their uses in processing. It's all a nicely done job right now.

And that line and from there on down is succumb. And you see this marked on those pieces of paper which you're holding in your hand — survive and succumb. What is above that line? A tolerance for thereness and communication. What is below that line? — an intolerance for thereness and communication. So you could say that to change the state of any being, whether to increase his intelligence or improve his personality, it would be necessary to improve his consideration, to improve his tolerance of the presence and existence of other things and himself, and to improve his tolerance of communication — so that we would have an improvement of consideration as the common denominator of the ascent to higher levels of ability.

But what's this have to do with the Tone Scale? Has a great deal to do with the Tone Scale. We always knew that there was some level on the Tone Scale which would exceed logic; because logic is an agreed-upon pattern of thought which follows — bing, bing, bing — by gradient scale from one subject to another subject and brings about an association amongst meaningnesses. And that's logic.

It's quite important for an auditor, somebody studying Scientology, to recognize those fundamentals because there are no more fundamental fundamentals in terms of practice or technique than these things. There are more fundamental data, such as the exact definition and characteristics of the human spirit, the thetan. There is a more fundamental material in the Axioms which trace the exact considerations which an individual has agreed upon and by which he is living to his detriment.

Therefore, we would believe that as we ran up the Tone Scale and got up toward 40.0 on the Tone Scale, we would get out of this associative trick. And we have done so. Meaningness breaks down this associative trick and makes a person capable of associating or not associating at his will, knowingness and command.

Now, we see this as a background of agreements. But as a background of practice, as a background of application, thereness and communication are the keys. And the keys which open all doors are simply thereness and communication.

And so Book One had some rightness about it — had some rightness about it. The Tone Scale did have a point where differentiation was much, much higher and more workable than association. So we have gone much higher than we have gone before. There is a point, then, on the Tone Scale of independent existence which isn't simply the postulate — that's way up: You simply make a postulate and something occurs; you make another postulate and it un-occurs. That's an unimaginably high level; it's almost ungraspable by the routine preclear. But this Meaningness Processing is not, and it lies below that level. So we're building a bridge on this up to that high level of make a postulate, unmake it and so forth, and part of that postulate scheme as it winds up there, falls down into meaningness. Now we've got this lower level.

So we have, then, on this pyramid — we have the survival band, and we could say a person is surviving when he could tolerate thereness and communication. We could say to some degree or another he is succumbing when he can no longer tolerate thereness and communication. Now, I won't bother to go into the exact thereness and communication characteristics of control since I don't think it is necessary to. When you start to control something, you have to locate it. And to continue control of it, you have to stop to some degree its communications and yet continue your own, making an imbalance of communication — to the unhappy state — the unhappy state of a jealous man who wishes to continue to communicate with his wife and desires no other man anywhere in the world to communicate with her.

Now let's go down a little lower on the Tone Scale and let's describe this thing a little bit better. We've got this terrifically imaginative, high-flown level of serenity where the individual, exteriorized in no universe, simply says, "Let there be light" and bang! there's light. "I want it dark" — bang! there's darkness, as something else than he had before, see. He's all set now, see, he can go on and make a universe. But that's awfully high. That is such a high principle that man has assigned that attribute only to God.

Looks to me like that's one channel of communication open and one billion channels closed. And eventually he will neither know, recognize, sense or experience any pleasure from his wife. She will disappear as far as he's concerned. You know people get into a state finally where people will simply occlude — they have tried to cut communication to them so many times that they'll see other people on the street and they can recognize their features very clearly, but the person that they've tried to cut communications about consistently starts to get blurry. That's seldom noticed; but you do notice it on a hearing basis. Somebody whose communications have been cut consistently — that is to say, who has had communications cut by somebody else — the somebody else will eventually not hear or pay attention to that person. You know, Mr. A has cut communications to his wife so consistently and so continually that at last he's out of communication with her, and she says, "Dear, do you want coffee or tea for dinner? Dear, do you want coffee or tea for dinner?"

All right. Let's come down scale and get amongst us — heh! — amongst us Theta Exteriors. And what have we got? First level down from the top is meaningness. You got an object, what's it mean? It's what it says it means; it's what you say it means; you're what it says you mean — any way you want to play it. And then we go down and we get an agreed-upon set of meaningnesses, and we get logic. And there is our first level of thinking as we know thinking.

"Nuh?"

Now, thinking is an agreed-upon association of ideas — an agreed-upon associating of ideas leading along certain gradient scales to the production of certain answers and conclusions. In other words, it's a slow way to make a postulate. And it's a good way to justify having made one.

Now, how does that condition come about? It comes about through Mr. A's desire to cut her communication lines, one way or the other. Either cut them with the family or ex-boyfriends or his business associates, somebody. There is cut communication going on there all the time and eventually, because the individual's trying to keep one line open and all others closed, he eventually goes deaf himself on the subject. We can notice this quite easily. It's less apparent to us that it also happens in the field of sight.

But we come down below that and we come down below logic and we get into another interesting process. And that process is covered quite adequately in Dianetics 1955! — that process is simply communication. Whether it's "Hellos and Okays" or "That's the way it is" or anything of the sort, communication lies below logic. Actually has no dependency on logic, but nevertheless lies above any level of energy, space, mass. So look at all the levels we have now above universes.

But it also does happen in the field of sight. His wife buys a new dress. She looks gorgeous. Everybody tells her so. Two months later her husband says to her, "Where'd you get the dress?" Now, there is control — individual trying to keep one line open and another line shut or trying to change lines.

Communication is above universes — because it destroys them, so therefore it must be senior to them. It makes them or breaks them, so it must be senior to universes.

And one of the more obsessive things that can happen in communication is the effort to continue to change communication. Somebody says, "Beans" to you, and you say, "Doughnuts" — that's what he said.

If you just have a fellow — say he's got a bad leg. Now we know that if we move masses around and try to combine with operations and steel tubes and other medical remedies this bad leg, we know we're going to get a persistence of the condition. We conceive this to be fairly inevitable. But if we have this fellow sit there and have his leg say hello to him and he says hello to his leg — just this kind of a drill; nothing fancier than that — he will experience changes in the legs which does not carry with it any great responsibility of change, you see. The leg will change. Something will happen to the masses of that leg. That's a cinch. So we're above the level of the behavior of masses, spaces and energies if we have thought alone handling them.

And he says, "No, beans."

Now, any religious leader in any time would have given away his finest mountain, his very best cassock (or hassock or whatever they wear), if he could have demonstrated that thought was senior to masses and wealth and swords and matter. Now, he knew this instinctively. He'd see these armies clashing with armies and these populaces struggling, these palaces building, and he could become philosophic about it. And he knew there was something that was superior to all this. But all he did was say, "It is superior. The spirit, the concerns of the spirit, are superior." And when he'd gone completely into apathy, he then began to say, "The mind has something to do with it." He no longer dared quite say, "It is a spiritual manifestation." He said, "It's some kind of a mechanical gimmick that works this out" — and we got the first psychologist. He said, "The mind is a pretty mighty thing." See, that's way down scale.

"Oh, I've got you now — I've got you now — coffee cups."

Let's look at this other, though. Supposing this person wishing to demonstrate this, had at his command just one function that a spirit could perform — just one — and by its performance could demonstrate that all masses, spaces and objects were apparently, at least, junior to thought; because thought could be seen to erase them, eradicate them, change them, alter their persistence and characteristics. And we, today, have that in Scientology. And we have it in communication.

What's happening here is we're getting a refusal to duplicate — a resistance towards a duplication — and we're getting an obsessive change. Now, control itself consists of start, stop and change. Start, stop and change of thereness — presence, location or even form — thereness; or start, stop and change of communication. And when you think of control, just think of start, stop and change by energy and you have the more — well, the Scientological definition of control, whatever else it might mean, because it works that way.

Let me tell you something that happened. Fellow came in — he wanted to make a big bargain with the HASI. He wanted to make a big bargain. He wanted — I don't know — eight or nine thousand hours of processing or something, and pay us at the end of the time if he could see any visible results. Well, I'd looked at this sort of thing before and I told one of the boys to go ahead — give him twenty-five hours and kiss him goodbye, because he obviously is going to swindle us one way or the other.

Right out of this, we get a process. We could say to somebody, "Now, what would you like to have changed?"

The fellow was incapable in processing, by the way, of thinking an independent thought. He couldn't think a thought. You would say, "Think a thought" and that'd be the end of him. He was rough — rough shape. But he had two eyes which were both blue with cataracts, and one of which — the left — had no vision in it at all. So we just set him up on the research line — poor auditor. I said to the auditor, "Dick, I want you to give 'Hellos and Okays' to that eye for twenty-five hours. And only the left eye, Dick, not the right."

And the individual says, "Oh, my!" and maybe turns on some terrific automaticity and just sits there and says that and that and that and that and that, you know.

This was no intention whatsoever to alter the person's spiritual outlook or beingness. The sole and entire intention was simply to demonstrate, one way or the other — not to the fellow, but to the Research Department — that communication was senior to any healing or masses or spaces or considerations of any kind. This fellow couldn't even put up a tough enough consideration to bar this from happening.

And after this is sort of run down — you've said okay to each one of these — you then say, "Well, what would you like to have remain unchanged?" "My case."

It was his service facsimile. He didn't want to lose that any more than he wanted to lose his wife and farm and town. He needed those cataracts and that blind eye. He knew that. He was convincing somebody of something. And an auditor sits there calmly and dispassionately without anything else for twenty-five hours and has hellos and okays going between himself and that eye, and at the end of twenty-five hours the man could see with that eye and it had no cataract. But the right eye still had its cataract complete. Black magic — or a higher level of religious performance than man has been accustomed to.

And we could simply ask these two questions over and over: "What would you like to have changed? What would you like to have remain unchanged?" And we would get a remarkable alteration — some old-time Dianeticist had better perk up his ears right here — in the person's position on the time track. This is the fastest method I know of to change the position of a person on a time track: "What do you want changed? What do you want unchanged? What do you want changed? What do you want unchanged?"

Now, of course, if Dick had been hotter than he is, undoubtedly Dick would simply have had to have said, "Aleikum salaam, presto cataract gone-o," and the guy would have gotten immediate change and consideration on the Cadillac and the preclear would have drove off in a hayrick, stone stark staring mad. This you could have been fairly certain of — this would have been such a shock. Well, Dick didn't do that. He merely took the cataract out of the man's eye.

Why? Because time is change.

By the way, the preclear had not been changed. We had changed him physically but he had not been changed spiritually to any degree whatsoever. He came in at the end of the week and he says, "Well, I want more processing. My wife, who was violently opposed to Scientology last week, having watched this, insists that I get more processing now. And I want more processing. And I want processing until I can see some visible result." His wife, his auditor, everybody at the Guidance Center, the Registrar and so forth, all witness to the fact that this has really changed, you know, and he said, "I have no visible result. I can see my hand now in front of my face with this eye and I have no visible results if processing is doing me any good whatsoever." No. He was talking exactly the same way as he was talking the first day he walked in — really mixed-up, incapable of receiving a proof or observing a fact or noting any change of any kind. So nothing had changed about the person, we had simply changed an eye.

The change of position of particles in space is time and when we agree upon a uniform rate of change, we have physical universe time. And when we process directly at change and unchange, we process directly at time. It's just as easy as that.

What's startling about this? It's startling in that it isn't being done every day. That's what makes things startling. And it's our goal and mission to make it much less startling in the very near future.

So, looking at that piece of paper you have in your hands, you see there the — right there at that point we have, I think, on that piece of paper, Start, Stop and Change, don't we? Stop is the bottom, Start is the top, Change is the middle. You see where that is there, hm? Well now, those three things together mean control. And we could write superimposed over those three lines — Start, Change and Stop — we could write in lighter letters "Control," because that is the mechanism of control. It's a very important button. The reason I'm talking about that button in relationship to this chart is because the only reason people do not exteriorize is because they are upset on the subject of control. And that is the basic primary reason they don't exteriorize.

Now, our business is not medicine. That's a fairly low level of operation that has to do with patch-up, rehabilitation. And here we have, however, something far more important: We can demonstrate today that thought, and an action of thought, is senior to matter. That little experiment is just one of many.

But let us say that they cannot face straight up to the idea of control, then we have to go south from this very important button and go on down and find out what we've got earlier than that. And we have "responsibility as blame," which is marked on your chart there simply as Responsibility. And that is a lower button. A person believes that to be responsible for anything would be to be blamed for something. If he's responsible for a communication, giving one or receiving one, or responsible for a thereness of any kind, he believes he's in for it. So therefore he wants no responsibility. Yet in an obsessive and unknowing fashion he is actually controlling this thing, and yet he's not even responsible for it; it's a fantastic condition. And yet the spirit gets into that kind of a condition with the greatest of ease! You see what happens?

We can upset a preclear considerably by making the walls disappear for him, just by using communication. If you were to set a preclear down and have him simply have the walls say hello and he says okay, and then he says hello and the wall says okay, and you keep this up back and forth, various things will happen to his case, this is certain. But after a while something — he's going to get into a level where something's going to start happening to that wall. If he's in horrible shape, maybe it'd take seventy-five or a hundred hours of such an exercise to finally bring him up to a point where something started to happen to the wall. But something's going to happen to the wall.

Now that whole chart is a scale of knowingness versus unknowingness. If anybody really knew what he was doing anyplace on that chart, he would be free and clear at that level. Now, he may be doing a great many of the upper-scale things on an obsessive, compulsive or hidden basis — in other words, he's going on doing these things but he doesn't know he's doing them. So this chart also has this connotation: One has to know where he is on it. It's not what one is doing on it, it's what one knows about on it. He knows he's doing this. And when he knows that he, to a marked degree, recovers his ability to do it and so it no longer troubles him. So he could be controlling something and be down at the level of responsibility. See, he was obsessively, unknowingly controlling something. Well, his knowingness is one step below what he's doing.

I well recall a DScn in Phoenix. He's very, very good — exterior — and he was doing a very nice job of auditing around and so on. And I showed him how to as-is a molecule. You know, you get exactly — you make an exact duplicate of it at the place with the material and with the consideration with which it was made. And we made an exact duplicate of a molecule and the molecule goes pffsst! All right. I said, "Now let's take a corner of that brick. Now make an exact duplicate of every molecule, atom or electron or proton that you find there. Make an exact duplicate."

He's merely resisting. He knows — he knows very articulately — that he doesn't want to be responsible for things. This he knows. He knows he's doing this. He knows he doesn't want to be to blame. Yet he is — you know, sort of with his left hand in back of his right hand, you know — he's sort of controlling things, somehow or another, but he's not letting himself in on it. But he is letting himself in on the fact that he doesn't like responsibility. Somebody comes along and says to him: "Well now, we're going to put you in charge of this whole service station."

Being exterior, he goes over, you know . . . "Hey!" There was a chip gone out of the top corner of the brick. Now if we'd kept it up .. .

And he says, "Nnnyyrrrow! No, I just want to stand here and put the gas in the cars. The county tax problem and the people coming up and ... No, huh-uh!"

It's a very interesting thing, the old, old story of the line of mice, you know — or cockroaches or whatever it is in the fairy tale — that go into the silo and each one carries out a grain of wheat. I suppose that would be one way to get the job of making this universe vanish — if that was one's job — come about. You know, just sort of chip away, atom by atom, molecule by molecule. I suppose something would happen eventually.

"I don't want that much communication" is what he's saying. But he knows this, see. He knows he doesn't want the responsibility. What he doesn't know is that he is obsessively controlling in several directions. So, he's at a state of unknowingness about control. He won't exteriorize.

But the point is, Muhammad (and that is not Muhammad, by the way, that's another one) didn't come to the mountain or go to the mountain or anything of the sort — the religious leader didn't — but there was another fellow, a monk, who couldn't make the mountain move. And we hope to get good enough one of these days so that he could have used this. You see, you just as-is it where it is, psheww! — which is no mountain — and mock it up where you are. It's actually in the tradition of religion that these things can occur. And in Scientology, we're moving forward with very solid technologies (not mysteries) that demonstrate their occurrence, which is a fantastic thing. All right.

Now, he'd be in pretty good shape, though. He knows exactly where he stands on responsibility. He's going to be a private for the rest of his life. Or obsessively the other way, he's going to run everything for the rest of his life. Both obsessive on responsibility. He knows this, however. He knows he's doing this. He knows — this is quite articulate. But he doesn't know he's controlling things and he won't exteriorize. But that fellow's in good shape.

Now let's take something much more important and much more factual on this Tone Scale. We have come down to a point which is senior to spaces, energies and masses. We have two specific, highly workable processes which are above these levels. One of them is communication, just as such. And the other one is Meaningness Processing. And we all know about postulates — so there's actually three processes above any level where we have anything like a universe.

Let's go a little bit lower and let's get to a level where a great many people reside. They know they can or cannot own and they know about ownership. Their level of knowingness about ownership is very good. They know how you own things. You go down, you put some money down and somebody issues you a deed of title and you drive it off. And that's how you own something. You go down and you buy a license at the license bureau and marry the girl and you own something else — or you persuade him to go down and then you own something else. Meantime saying, of course, that you had nothing to do with it.

But when we come down and get into masses, spaces, energies, time and so forth, we drop lower on, and lower on, the Tone Scale to the degree that we get into more masses, more energies, more spaces and more time. And we get a foreverness at the bottom of the Tone Scale, which is an interesting thing — that is not suddenly appeared. That is a foreverness, that mass which you see. It's a foreverness persisting. The trick is, it has no time in it. It doesn't have time in it, and so of course it persists.

Now, this level is not a lightly unimportant level. The level of ownership as represented on that chart right there contains the clue and the key — and Dianeticists again sharpen up your ears — of engram erasure (snap) like that. It's right there on that Ownership button. Just as the analyst with his large concern about guilt lived in the band of responsibility — guilt, he had guilt feelings and so forth; that belongs in responsibility. Guilt of blame — other such things. But this "ownership" is apparently so innocent that I never suspected until I suddenly fell across it with a crash that it contains as a button and a level, the guide and key to the erasure of any and all engrams, locks, secondaries or bodies. You heard me, bodies — the erasure of. There's many a preclear who was run in Dianetics, who was not there to erase engrams but to erase his body if he could.

You have time to the degree that you postulate it. And if you depend on this stuff to give you the time, you will very shortly have no time at all. Because it has no time and you will have duplicated it. And thus we get the fellow rushing around in circles saying he has no time to do anything, he has no time to play, he has no time to work, he has no time, no time, no time, no time. We'll find out this fellow's very MESTy, he's very solid with regard to existence. He's duplicating the physical universe with no time. If we just have him make some time for a while, he'll come out of this.

Now, what is an engram? It's a mental image picture containing pain and unconsciousness. And it's pretty darn hard to reach down to the large depths and the deep depths of unconsciousness that some of these pictures contain. A person has a painful experience, something takes a picture of it and then he has that picture. And Dianetics was a science devoted to the eradication of such pictures and their control, so as to bring about a better physical and mental condition. We found practically anything and everything you wanted to find in these pictures. There's only one trouble with Dianetics — it took a long time. And there was only one criticism that could have been leveled at it — it was too mechanistic!

We say, "All right, invent some time." Or "Make some time. And make some time. Make some time. Make some more time. Make some more time." He's liable to comm lag on it by the hour before he finally gets down to a point to where he understands your question. But then he starts postulating time, you see. And as soon as he starts postulating time, he then has time, and starts coming up Tone Scale.

All right. Here was this thing called an engram. And in the many years which have proceeded since the release of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, article after article has appeared in the more popular medical publications, such as the Reader's Digest (audience laughter), which talk about birth traumas and so on. Well now, actually this was a Freudian idea — basically a Freudian idea — but Freud never got, to be colloquial, the "put-together" of the brain, mind and picture. See, he never got this. But he did understand that there was something like a memory of the womb and of birth and although he had no method of reaching it, he said that there was some sort of an idea connected with this because he had this as an obvious observation. He'd go into asylums and things like that and he'd see patients curled up in the prenatal position, and he couldn't help but assume that they had some, at least, memory of the womb. And he talked about their desire to return to it and so forth. There was no desire connected with it. It was simply a picture appeared and says, "There you are." And the picture had greater reality than the environment and so we had an insane person suddenly curl up in a prenatal position.

But one of the characteristics of the Tone Scale is that as you go down scale, less and less time is postulated and more and more time is apparent. See? We're getting away from the postulate, and at the exact bottom of the scale, on a level of unimaginable depth, there wouldn't even be a universe there anymore because people wouldn't have the sensibility sufficient to perceive it. And we've noticed that fairly well up scale before we get to that, a thetan stops perceiving the universe. He stops perceiving it because he stops putting it there. And when he no longer puts it there, he can't perceive it. And you get somebody three feet back of his head and he doesn't see any walls and he can't find his body and he doesn't know what it's all about and he's confused or he sees it all as blackness or shooting stars or something. There's nothing in the world wrong with him except he's just stopped putting the universe there. And of course it's not there unless he puts it there. There's no time there unless he puts it there. Time is a created thing. The manifestations of life are created by the thetan, they're not found by him.

Now actually, a Dianetic Auditor in the old days could put any preclear, no matter how sane, through the same positions and attitudes as you'd find in insane asylums. In other words, he could turn on and off insanity practically at will. This was a very interesting thing because a person stopped being afraid of these things happening to him, so he couldn't possibly go insane because of them. The only way a person could go insane is when he is assaulted by some unknown force which suddenly engulfs him to his detriment and terror. And when the force ceases to be unknown and becomes knowable and handleable by the person, well, he says, "So what? So I know about that. So my head feels like it's blowing off. Ha! Engram." This is his attitude. Very close in to truth.

And as soon as we recognize this clearly, we begin to make wonderful progress. But more important, we begin to understand this thing called the Tone Scale. And the Tone Scale could be called "from the level of the postulate to the foreverness of lifelessness, a progress into space, energy, time and matter." The Tone Scale is a deeper and deeper progress into MEST. But the funny part of it is, when you hit the bottom, all MEST ceases. You can go out the bottom of the scale; you can go out the top of it. But these fellows who try to go out the bottom of it and take a body with them are rarely successful. Because the body won't go down that low.

Now, these mental image pictures and the study of these mental image pictures made up the bulk of Dianetics. Of course, there was a lot of philosophy back of Dianetics — a lot of put-together, you might say, connected with it — which was useful and beneficial. There was an organization of knowledge and philosophy back of Dianetics which made Scientology possible.

Now let's take the next characteristic of this scale. The scale is a very wide scale for the thetan — the spirit. It goes from Lord knows what minus point to goodness knows what tremendous height. We could only guess at these things in terms of that and then set them down in MEST, because there's not enough MEST to set them down in. Because he goes down to a level where there isn't any, and he goes up to a point of where he can create it. All right. Then if we're talking about a spirit with this enormous band, we must be talking, really, about two sections of the same Tone Scale: we're talking about the body's position on the scale and the spirit's position on the scale. And we've got this tremendous scale where we have to do with the thetan; we've got this little tiny scale where it has to do with the body. And we demark on this Tone Scale the numbers 0.0 to 4.0 to more or less denote the boundaries of the body.

All right. Where we had these image pictures and wherever we had these image pictures, we had misownership. Incorrect ownership alone could throw into restimulation an engram, a secondary or a lock. You had to misown the picture before it could become solid or effective. And the moment that you correctly owned it, that you assigned its ownership to the correct thing, the thing that had made it — the moment you did this accurately, you had no picture — bang! Think of it. Nine, twenty-five, fifty hours on a birth. That's a Dianetic Auditor. He'd get rid of it — he'd grind it out, chew it up, put the preclear in control of it one way or the other. But that little button that you have there on that slip of paper — Ownership Processing — goes click, click, click, brrrrrt! That was birth running out.

Now, the body is very well boundaried. It goes down in the earth a few miles or up into the air a few miles and it no longer exists. It gets a few degrees too hot or a few degrees too cold and it can no longer exist. It gets a little bit too much or a little bit too little oxygen and it no longer exists. Very fragile thing. Feed it too much or you feed it too little, you give it one one-millionth of an ounce of the latest psychiatric — huh! — cure; one one-millionth of ounce of a drug that we investigated many, many years ago called LSD, which is the new psychiatric cure: It makes everybody a schizophrenic. That's right. And it was just advised that everybody should use this now. No curative value known. But it does — when you give it to nurses in mental hospitals, it does give them a better insight into the patient. (audience laughter) Talk about descent into MEST!

So, we're getting someplace and I do have something to tell you, don't I? Quite an interesting thing. You know, the original thesis was written here in Washington. Don't know if you knew that or not. It was written right here in Washington. I used to live down at 1902 R Street — basement apartment. And worked quite a bit on this material. I didn't do any research as such in Washington. I had already worked on patients and people elsewhere. What I was doing here, when I got back here, was adding up and squaring around a tremendous amount of accumulated data trying to find out where it fitted. And the conclusions about engrams and dramatizations and the actions of these engrams were reached down there at 1902 R Street, Northwest.

Anyway, the boundaries of the body are narrow. The body can command an awful lot of interest because it can be in so much peril. Turn on the gas for a couple of minutes in the house — body doesn't like it. You could be in a room as a spirit — a room totally filled with phosgene gas — and say, "(sniff-sniff) Phosgene gas."

Now, it was very remarkable for the object which was doing the miscommunication to be isolated. That was remarkable for that to happen — the exact thing which was enforcing these pains and ideas on the person to be isolated. That was quite something. All right. A method by which it could be erased was something else, and I knew that the picture was at fault, and what was about it, but how to handle and get rid of that picture? And we did quite a bit of work on that, an enormous percentage of it very successful work.

So we're looking, when we look at the body, at this fragility — great fragility. And Body Death is at 0.0 on this Tone Scale, and about the highest point the body reaches is maybe 5.0 in the extreme. Here's this tiny little scale. This huge Tone Scale and this tiny little scale.

And here at a time when we don't even need the information anymore — clear up here in 1955 — we have that button on that piece of paper which you hold in your hand. And the way you use that button is simply this: "Get the idea . . . Oh, you got a picture? All right." We have several ways of getting rid of pictures, by the way. We know enough now to get rid of them and get them back. The preclear sometimes loves them. Say, "All right. You got a picture? All right. Get the idea that you own it, that your body owns it, that your body's machinery owns it, that your machinery owns it, that your mother owns it, that your father owns it, the doctor owns it, you own it, your body owns it."

The big advance about the Tone Scale — quite in addition to being able to demonstrate its positions on the upper scale — occurred, however, in the subzero Tone Scale, not in the body scale. The big advance has been between -8.0 and 0.0.

And he says, "What picture?" Remarkable! Somewhere along the line you got the right owner!

Now, there are some fill-ins which are still accurate which occur on the minus zero scale of Scientology 8-80. That minus scale is still valid. But these new ones are so startling and so powerful and so much the key to exteriorization that it was necessary to crowd out the others — such as Approval from Bodies and so forth on the old subzero scale — and just put these new ones in. You'll see that on your plotting sheets.

Now, if you'd gotten the wrong owner too long and said, "Now listen, you understand that picture's really yours. You really made that picture." Now, what do you mean by you? You mean a spirit, that's what it means! And this is why all of this has become so pointed and so necessary to understand. When we say you, we mean a spirit, because Ownership Processing on the most casual preclear doesn't work unless you understand that a person is a thetan.

Now, what are these buttons on the minus zero Tone Scale? A spirit obviously can go lower down scale than Body Death. That's very obvious. Body dies, spirit might even stay in it but he'd still be alive, and then will exteriorize. But he's at a lower level than the body. He can see less well than the body. He can do all sorts of things less well than the body. And so he gets onto the minus scale. So Body Death is that high level of 0.0, and a thetan can go on down to -8.0.

We say, "Oh, you — this birth. All right. Now, all right. Now, you've got birth there — doctor keeps dropping those drops in your eyes. All right. You keep seeing this all the time. Well, fine, fine. Now, you know you own that picture. Well, just get the idea now that you own the picture. That's fine. Now, all right. Now, let's get the idea that you own the picture. That you did it; that you own it." The eyedropper and the drops and the doctor and the walls of the delivery room will get solid enough to do 8-C on. It's a misownership, and we get solidity by misownership. Anything that is persisting as space and mass must therefore, perforce be misowned. If you get the right owner, it's gone. And that is the primary lie.

Well now, let's progress upward from -8.0, which is about as far south as you're going to find the thetan. Now he can get further south, but you're not going to find him. And that at -8.0 is Hide.

And so we take a look at this engram bank. This fellow has birth and eight accidents and the death of his father and his mother and his grandmother and his grandfather and his cousins and his aunts and all of his shipmates. And we take a look at this engram bank with its tonsillectomies and everything else in it, and we used to say, "Well, five hundred hours, I guess." You wouldn't do that today. You'd say, "All right. Now, what's happened to you in your life?"

And just above Hide is Protect. Now, those are two old buttons, but they're quite important. How far south can you go? Hide. And when you come just a little bit north from that, you start to protect. That's as a thetan.

The fellow says, "Well, I don't know. I had some bad times, grandfather died."

Now, when you get just a little bit above Protect, you get Own. Ownership. And there's where Ownership belongs. We're not up to Body Death yet. We get Ownership. And we go just a bit above Ownership and we get Responsibility — the idea of being responsible for. And we go just a little bit above Responsibility and we get Control. And we go just a little bit above Control and we get Body Death on this scale.

And you'd say, "Okay. Now, do you have a picture of that?"

What's important about this? It's just this: that Ownership, Responsibility and the Start, Stop and Change of Control (see, control is start, stop and change) — just this — that Ownership, Responsibility and Control are the three buttons which are most pertinent to exteriorization. And these have been isolated.

"Well yes, as a matter of fact I have a sort of a black hazy thing out here every time I think of my grandfather."

And so if you can get a person up scale to a point where he can work with these buttons, it is a great certainty that you will exteriorize him one way or the other. In other words, a person is held down — a person is held down in a body by Hiding, Protection, Ownership, Responsibility, Control, then a little bit higher than that, Body Death.

"All right. Now, let's discover who owns this thing. Now, you get the idea that you own it" — you see a thetan makes pictures too; they're of a different kind. There might be eight or nine of these engrams, all made by different things. "All right. Get the idea your machines own it, your body owns it. All right, that's fine. Now, get the idea that pictures own it, the reactive bank owns it, that you own it, that your grandfather owns it, your grandmother owns it, your childhood home owns it."

Now, the only method of exteriorization known (as I will talk about later) to man at this time — or a little earlier (he doesn't know about it now — see, he doesn't know about exteriorization, but a little bit earlier he knew about it) and that was death.

Fellow's waiting for the fireworks. You know and I know that on grandfather's death, who was the closest ally the fellow had, there's a tremendous grief charge. Where's the grief? Pfff.' And it never affects the fellow again. Where did it go? Well, it could only affect him to the degree that it was misowned. He would only cry if he had the complete misownership of the picture of Grandfather's death. And if you kept working at him, making him misown this picture — in other words, say this: "Get the idea that you created it. All right. Get the idea you created it. Now, all right. Now get the idea your grandmother created it. Now you created it. And your grandmother created it. And..."

How do you exteriorize? Well, you die, of course. And then you'll get out of the body. Simple. Boy, if that doesn't look like about the weakest line of self-determinism I ever heard ofl You mean you've got to kill this object called a body in order to get out of it? Well, what are you doing in it? How'd you get into that kind of a condition?

"Sniff, sniff, sniff, sniff"

And yet do you know, actually, that there are people walking the streets today that do not know they are in a body? They believe they are a body. Now that's the darnedest thing! And there are a lot of other people walking the streets today who are in a body. Can you imagine anybody getting into a body? Why would you get into a body? It's all very well for you to say, "Well, the body grabbed me and pulled me in." But it seems to be a remarkable place to get yourself parked. You know, you'd have to think a long time to think of that. There are all kinds of places where you could get stuck — much more interesting, I'm sure. And you could also get in — stuck in other people's bodies, as far as that's concerned. But to be parked in the middle of a body or in its head or its left ear or two inches in front of its eyes or something like this, and stuck there, is one of the more remarkable things that could happen to a spirit. It is singular. It is remarkable. It takes a great deal of hard, earnest, honest doing to get stuck in a body.

"Now, get the idea you created it."

Well, the process which an individual uses to get stuck in a body is to get all mixed up with control with energy. You know, let's start energy by pushing and pulling energy; let's get everything stopped or changed by changing its mass. In other words, it's almost a complete desertion of the use of a postulate in handling energy. In other words, that is control: handling start, stop, change with energy.

"(crying) Huh, huh."

When an individual starts doing this — he starts making his legs move by himself mocking up a moving beam of energy — he's the most remarkable-looking puppet you ever saw in your life. He's all strung up with wires and crossbars, all kinds of clanky systems. All he has to do is say, "The body will now walk," and it'll walk. But instead of that, he gets all these systems rigged up so that he can start, stop and change this body. Well now, that's one of the primary reasons he gets stuck in one: He starts changing everything so he persists in every position he occupies. Drrrr! He walks down the street. How many — assuming that positions are one foot apart, how many positions does he pass through in walking one block? Three hundred. If he's moving the body down the street, see, with energy, he's now stuck in three hundred places. Each position is persisting. Fantastic. How can anybody get in this much trouble? Well, maybe they think it's fun. All right.

You see what you'd be doing? You'd be making him assign misownership to it and you would get the grief charge in full. In other words, the picture would become effective! So that Ownership Processing does the fantastic thing of just no effect, no picture. About the easiest slide-out you ever heard of.

Now let's go down one step lower and let him conceive of responsibility. That he is responsible for an action, which he means "to blame for an action," which infers there is something wrong with the action which has occurred. We get an action and he says, "Oh," he says, "I'm responsible for that." There must have been something wrong with this action, you see. He is the person who has been selected out as the cause of all the wrongness of the action, and that's what we really mean by that level of responsibility.

Now, because an individual does not really object to thereness, he has to inject a certain amount of unknowing ownership — misownership — into his life. He has to say, "That's my car." Nah! You notice the car's still there. It's not his car either. He didn't make it.

By the way, did you ever know any people like this: All the wrong actions that occurred in their vicinity, you did; and all the right actions, they did. Well, a person begins to assume that he is responsible across the boards for all of the wrong actions, and that sticks him.

Now, we have two kinds of ownership then. We have the ownership which would evolve through a lie so as to get a persistence of the object so that you could control it. We've got an object and we can control it, see. Well, there's that kind of ownership and we're accustomed to that kind of ownership. Real, actual, truthful ownership is of a different category. You only own what you make. Only the maker of the object is its proprietor and owner. If you made the engram, you own it. But if you know you own it, you haven't got it. So that's why there has to be a lie over there in that wall for that wall to continue to exist.

Then he thinks that he owns it. He owns the body or he owns this or he owns that or he owns somebody else's postulates — they're his — and he gets his ownership mixed up and we practically have finished him right there at that point. He's really stuck. Now he's stuck. And unless he undoes some of this remarkable mental gymnastic and changes his mind about it slightly, he'll go right on being stuck, stupid, a machine. And he will be liable to all of the things to which a machine is liable. He'll be liable to illness, to destruction, to misplaced nuts and bolts and lack of oiling. He will have to seek out the medicos, the electric-shock machines, if anything happens to him. He reminds you of the Tin Woodman from Oz, going around trying to find an oilcan. He behaves like this, and he also behaves without moral value or consideration for his fellows, or good communication with them — which is about all you need to say about his conduct.

Now, we have several outfits in earlier religions which used to go around and say, "Repent, repent, repent, take the blame, take the blame, be responsible, be responsible" — look right on your chart there. What would they drive these fellows down into, huh? They would hound them and beat them and say, "Guilt, guilt, guilt, blame, blame, blame! Ask somebody's forgiveness." And the fellow would sink right down into misownership and all of his engrams would go into restimulation and they had him trapped. That kind of thing, if you wanted to call it religion, would make you sick and has made people sick. Why? Because you've told somebody to take on himself the reason for the creation of all of his difficulties. You've said to him, "Now look, you take the blame and then you'll be free." No, it didn't work that way. You take the blame and it'll all get solid, because he made some things and other things around him made some things. You see this? There were different authorships of incidents.

Now, this Tone Scale then, just to give it a rapid pass, has come from the narrow band which was occupied . . . Well, first and foremost there was that theoretical scale in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. And then there was the small band as expanded in Science of Survival about this Body

There are people right here right now that still, maybe, are grieving to some degree about some incident like a marital separation or the loss of a child or something like this, that find that persistent with them, who are saying to themselves, "If I just could admit that I really did it." Or, you know "I really realized to a large degree that it's my fault. (sigh)" And it doesn't go away. They're trying to accept the responsibility. They're trying to accept the blame for this incident and they didn't do it! Somebody else did.

Death to Enthusiasm and the emotional scale. Now that Tone Scale, covered in Science of Survival, was all that we used in Dianetics.

Full responsibility contains the willingness to let somebody else be responsible, too.

But now today we are using a very wide Tone Scale which goes from minus zero clear on up to Serenity. And with good auditing and a good understanding of the subject, we apparently have the majority of the buttons on it and can use them beneficially. The key buttons that were missing, and their proper position, were Ownership, Responsibility and Control, and they belonged on the minus zero scale.

Now, any malcondition which is persisting is being misowned. It may be that the person did it and is saying somebody else did it and has a picture, then, which is misowned. He's saying, "I didn't run the car into the tree. I didn't run the car into the tree. The actuality is she was talking so much and so hard, she distracted me so much that the car ran into the tree and I didn't do it. I didn't do that." And they've got the accident right there all the time. They ran the car into the tree and they made the picture. Just like that. And they're shoving the blame off on somebody else so it persists. But equally they have other things which they're saying, "I did it. I was a nag, I was a bum, I should have lived better. I did it." And the thing's persisting. And they didn't do it. Their wife went bad or their husband left them from other causes than their own action and behavior. And this person is accepting all of the responsibility for some other person having done something terrible or dreadful and is feeling bad about it when the actuality is they had nothing to do with it!

Along with these came a whole bunch of processes — interesting processes. Consequence Processing: "What would happen if you hid? What would happen if you didn't hide? What would happen if you owned something? What would happen if you controlled something?" Just ask that over and over of a preclear.

Now similarly, the spirit says, "Look at all the trouble I've gotten this body into. Daaah!" And that body's gone down a genetic line and in this Ownership Processing you get a fantastically clear disentanglement of who is what and where and you just see it — the easiest, fastest thing you ever looked at. This thetan is saying, "Well I've made a bum out of this body. That's all there is to it. I made it sick. It must be because I want it to be sick that it is sick and it goes on being sick." The thetan didn't do it. He's saying he did it and it persists. Obviously, he didn't do it. That's all the evidence you need.

Give you an example of this type of processing — another slight type of process — not "what would happen," but "how would you?" Asking the modus operandi: "How would you go about controlling somebody else?" I asked this of a medico who was a good friend of mine. I asked this of him, and we worked for an hour and a half and we just beat this question to pieces. I just asked him this over and over: "How would you go about controlling somebody?" And this fellow told me: drugs, poison, anesthetics, drugs, hypnotism, voodoo, distant control of his mental faculties, drugs, surgery (yeah, surgery was pretty good), poison, anesthetics, voodoo, hypnotism. He never came off of it. The process was too high for the preclear. He never flattened the comm lag on it. I had to undercut it and go down to: "How would you hide something?" And this (snap) — he was right there. Hide — he could get that; people hid things from him all the time.

You audit him on Ownership Processing and you simply ask him this:

Having the Tone Scale, we could predict where the individual would have a reality. And so we again use the reality factor. Always process the preclear at the preclear's level of reality and advance upward from that point. You have to find his level of reality in order to process him. The Tone Scale tells you that you will find his level of reality one point below his level of confusion. Now, isn't that cute?

"All right. Now, get the idea that you created all your difficulties, the body created all your difficulties, that you created all your difficulties."

So if you find what he is doing obsessively and unknowingly, obviously and stuckedly, just drop a point and he can process at that point. In other words, this medico was controlling — he was obsessively, continually control, control, control — with these very things he told me were the methods of control. But there was no cognition, there was no thought connected with it at all. He was just going through an endless drill. These things weren't real to him. He'd put somebody on the operating table and cut his throat and it wasn't real, the blood wasn't real, nothing was real. That wasn't his level of reality. So I said, "Well, this is pretty tough, so I'm not going to drop just one level, I'm going to drop three." Dropped four, and he got it. There was his level of reality.

And he says, "When I say I created all my difficulties, you know I get these great big heavy black masses around here."

The Tone Scale is basically composed of affinity, communication and reality. The factors of reality and communication are today very, very well understood. There is more that could be understood about affinity, but I'm not rushing things.

And you say, "Well, get the idea that your body did it."

Now, the Six Basic Processes and the use of this scale are knocking people out of their heads. In other words, exteriorizing them, giving them greater freedom.

"Yeah, they're lighter."

What exteriorization is . . . By the way, that's one of the best little auditing tricks you ever ran into: You just ask a person for hours, "Well, what is exteriorization?" If he's not completely batty, why, after you've asked him this a lot of times, for hours, and gotten his answers and given him acknowledgment and so forth on the thing, he'll tell you, "I'm back of my head." Interesting.

"All right. Now get the idea your body machinery did it."

If you even go at him accusatively and you say, "What are you doing in that body?"

"Oh, they're much lighter!"

And he says, "I don't know that I'm in a body."

"All right. Now, get the idea that your body did it."

"Yeah, I know, but what are you doing in that body?"

Why aren't we saying you did it anymore? Because he didn't. The most that he did would be to take a picture of the difficulty which had already been done, which would just be a light interest picture. So you'd hit it sooner or later and clear up that light interest picture. But his body was doing things without his consultation and without letting him in on any of it.

And he says, "Well, I don't know that I'm in a body. What do you mean? I'm a body."

Now similarly, we have people around who are saying, "This body has just troubled me and troubled me and troubled me! I hate it! Look how sick it is! Look what it's doing to me!" It's persisting, isn't it? A condition's persisting. Nah!

You say, "Well okay, what are you doing in the body?" And you just talk to him like this — just question, question, question. "What are you doing in that body?" That's much rougher.

You better have the thetan say, "All right. Now, get the idea your body did it. Now, get the idea you did it — that you created all this difficulty." "Oh no, it doesn't seem very acceptable to me."

It's much easier to sit there and ask him, "What is exteriorization? All right, that's good. Fine. Thank you. What is exteriorization? Now, what is exteriorization?"

"Well, get the idea."

And the fellow's back here saying, "Well, exteriorization is some silly thetan that's gotten into a head and thinks he can control it by operating wires or something, and — that's interiorization. And exteriorization is not doing that, like I'm doing now: I'm back here, back of the body, and ..."

"Oh, I can get the idea — I can just say it."

So we've got exteriorization pretty well licked. And we also know where this affinity, reality, communication triangle stacks. We know that we have to process the preclear at his reality. And we know that communication is the solvent for anything. And we know that affinity is a lot of fun.

And very shortly the body is well.

Thank you.

It's a fantastic button, that Ownership button. It contains the answer to the riddles of Dianetics, as well as the answer to the riddles of why this universe is here. I'll talk to you about that later. But now do you think we've brought something to this congress?

Audience: Yes.