I'm going to talk to you about rest points and confusions, which is the same as talking to you about start, stop and change. Oh you didn't know that? There's no essential difference, except MEST. We have start, stop and change as the postulates which describe any motion, action or state of rest. And when we say change we could get a continuous change or a series of changes. Or we could get a start of particles, the beginning of a series of changes, which would still be a start. Or we could get a cessation of change, which would be a stop. So we have start, change and stop as superimposed over any mechanical motion which can occur.

Now the degree of change, the speed of change, the randomity of change, all of these things are simply significances of change, and should be recognized as such. The suddenness of start, the suddenness of stop, these are simply significances. There is no such thing as a degree of start of a degree of stop, however you can stop more things or you can start more things. You can start things swiftly, you can stop things swiftly, but that is not a degree of stop.

If we considered stop in an absolute sense, it is supposed that we would get vanishment. A complete stop would get vanishment. This is a common supposition, that's a postulate which rides along with almost anybody. And, that if we could get off to a fast enough start, that we would get started, and that if a change was sufficiently rapid, that it would endure. We get all these postulates mixed up in the basic postulates of start, change and stop. They are the important postulates connected with this subject.

Now wherever we see somebody engaging in a very hectic motion we should understand that he is trying for perpetuity. That when he is engaging in an effort to stop suddenly, he is engaging in a vanishment. And we should suppose, this is very loose and rough, but we should suppose when we see somebody trying to start, that he considers himself either to have been stopped, or he considers himself to be creating. These considerations are partners, and all of them subordinate to these things.

Now there's some additional considerations, which are of considerable importance to the auditor. The postulate which sits back of change, which communicates most readily to people and makes a process work, as much as change can be worked you see, because change can't be worked very much as a process; it's a very limited sort of process, so you can get just so far with change; and that is "ought to be". And most preclears are on an obsessive "ought to be". Ought to be is actually the postulate back of the critical level. Has a limited use, but it can change the characteristics of a preclear, if used as a limited process. You see, it's a very powerful process, but very limited. But so is change limited when run as part of start, change and stop. Good old SCS, you run that very long you'll find out that change is quite limited, but it alters the case. You run it a little while and it alters the case. It's one of the things you must know how to stop, change.

Alright. Now start, when you ask somebody to create he conceives himself to be starting. So creates something is the basic postulate behind start. The postulate back of stop most useful to the auditor on a postulate process level, not on a mechanical level. Just plain stop is the most useful on a mechanical level, just as just plain change is most useful, and just plain start. But I'm talking now about a mental concept lying back of these things. And stop is a just as it is. Just the way it is sort of thing. Now that process, or processes involving just the way it is, matches up with this concept that if one stops something enough; there ain't no degrees of stop which don't exist; you'll get a vanishment.

Physics has gone all out on this fallacy. It is a fallacy. But what are we dealing with but considerations which carried on long enough became a fallacy? Considerations are simply considerations, and you can consider anything anything. But what we're interested in is what the majority of people consider. Alright, and all people seem to have these postulates. The physicist believes that all pieces of mass are in motion. He is so obsessed with the idea of change that he cannot consider anything without also considering change. And that is because of the basic, more fundamental postulate that things that were totally stopped were vanished. And his anxiety about survival is such that he mustn't totally stop anything. So he has described matter as composed of tiny, invisible, never measurable, never seen, never weighable particles, and this is his concept of matter. These things are in constant motion, they're going wriggle-wriggle around the waggle-waggles, and he has numerous, very complex terms by which he describes all this and so forth.

A piece of mass is simply a piece of mass, and that is about all there is to that. You don't have to look for a further significance in mass. You melt some pieces of mass down you do get other, other chemicals. You do get other elements. You combine elements and you get a piece of mass back again. And all that proves is, is, my postulates are complex. They're just complex things, postulates are. Mass is mass. And if you consider just mass to be mass, and not full of wiggle-wiggles and motions, you'll win. But if you consider it to be in constant motion, even though it appears to be stopped, you are entered into a complete race course of change from there on out. Modern physics is the science of perpetual change with total endurance. Physics is based, elementary physics is based on postulate of conservation of energy. Quite amazing. But they believe implicitly that if energy appears, why it's there for keeps. But it never appeared; they propose an imponderable, which is one of the more gorgeous imponderables. A philosopher, Des Cartes, something like this, just, oh he'd have a marvelous time with this if he were totally aware of what they're doing with this sort of thing. Conservation of energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes. That's elementary physics.

Well now energy, if it was never created, wow. If it was never destroyed... Well you've got a finite amount of energy, haven't you? That's very handy. You have a finite, and that fixes you. And that's that. So therefore, we have the idea of fuel. We have the idea of you can burn up just so much and then you're through. People in this relatively barbaric age, and this is a rather barbaric age if you come right down to think of it. It's very long on mechanical things and very short on livingness.

The amount of actual livingness in this age is best described by some of the philosophies which have been adopted. The philosophy of man is matter, and he's totally matter, and that's all that matters is the matter, and the matter's in constant motion all the time, and it endures forever, and man dies simply because his neurons rot, and a lot of other rot. But the philosophy of the age does not admit of certain observable fundamentals. And that is, one, if he postulates that energy was never created, and that energy will never be destroyed, is postulating an infinite universe, which is an awfully spiritualistic sphere, an awfully strange sort of a field for physics to be entering. But they have to enter it if the say the words "conservation of energy", and try to make it stick.

Now that says that no energy was ever created. The universe was never made. It just is. The fallacy of this is, that if they really considered it as it is, and considered its isness totally, it would not be here for them. So at once the philosophy of the conservation of energy is not substantiated. It disproves with great speed. In other words, never created, never destroyed, therefore it is. But a total concept of isness, as a perfect duplicate, causes a vanishment. So we must conceive this not to be their philosophy at all.

And that isn't their philosophy at all. They've never thought of it. They've merely said it was never created and will never be destroyed. And then have parked it there. Sort of like a child breaks a couple of wheels off a wagon and leaves the wagon lying on the front lawn and forgets about it. That's about as thorough as the physical philosopher has been in explaining this universe, which of course gives us an awfully good take-off point from total ignorance.

Now therefore when I speak to you about physics you shouldn't be alarmed. You shouldn't be upset. It shouldn't cause you any grave concern. There are a great many devices which tend to protect energy and motions. Many devices. And here we have a whole category of postulates, which are fascinating to review.. They all amount into phenomena of one kind or another. Energy is sacred. It was made by a god. You mustn't touch it. It's really a trap. It is totally poisonous. You mustn't have anything to do with it. It is injurious to you. You cannot ever duplicate it. It is totally illusory, it really isn't here at all. All kinds of philosophies and postulates and considerations, all of which amount to just one thing: Is the preservation of the universe.

People want this mass to continue, and so they have all sorts of postulates to make it continue. Therefore they dare not consider it as it is, because it wouldn't continue at all, so they move it over into a lie. And they dress it up, and they move it over into more lies, and so forth. And even when they say "conservation of energy", and touch that closely upon the subject, they sheer off of it at once, and abandon it, because they do not inform you in physics class, and I've never had a physics instructor ever, and I've had quite a few physics instructors, then some of the better ones, by the way; stand up and say, "God created this universe." I've never had him say that so I don't think he believes it. And on discussion around the tea table, and so forth, it's borne out. He doesn't believe it. I've never heard him say, "This universe has been here forever. It never had any beginning and it will never have any end." I've never heard him say this in so many words, but I've heard him say "conservation of energy", which at once, by his definition, makes this other postulate totally understood. Neither have I ever stood up in a physics class and challenged him on the subject, and said, one of these professors, and said, "Well now look here. If energy cannot be created, and if energy cannot be destroyed, then how in the name of common sense can you avoid saying at the same time that it's been here forever and will be here forever, that it was never created, that it will never be destroyed, and therefore is an infinity." And he wouldn't have abided with this. He have hedged, or something of the sort, or found me late for class if I had ever done anything like this.

Now, if you understand that something can be just as it is, and is what it is, and if you say it is, it is and don't add anything more to it, why you have actually the best concept of this universe. That is the basic concept of the universe. It is. That's it. It just is. It wasn't altered, it isn't enduring, it isn't composed of anything special, and so on. All of these are additive considerations, mix ups of one kind or another, special considerations, ramifications, modifications and so forth, and enough lies to cause "is" to endure so that nobody can do anything about it.

Now if you knew basically that it all simply is; you notice I'm not saying was. This stuff is not "was", this stuff is "is". If you said basically "it is", and then you totally understood that it is, you would be in the interesting position of not having any perpetuity for it, unless you added the perpetuity. But if you said, "It is and will endure", you have said everything you need to say to get an endurance of matter. Just lay aside all ideas of creating it, building it, taking a hammer and saw to mock it up with. Just lay aside that completely and get a simplicity here. It is. Now, you can push it around, you can do this, you can do that, and just the fact that it's movement doesn't do anything to it particularly. But you push it around, you do this, you do that with it, do other things with it, tell lies about it, say it belongs to John Jones, and all of this sort of thing, say it was mocked up by a god by the name of Krishnamurti or Krishna or somebody, and you've got it. Then you've got endurance that nobody can tamper with, 'cause they can't easily follow the series of postulates that they have agreed to. But the basic postulate was "is". And if you have the basic postulate you've got the works. It's fantastic. Fantastic in its simplicity.

Time is. Well how is time? Time is that postulate which says continuity. Now if you have two objects continuing similarly, you then have continuity of two objects. You have two isnesses which are continuing. But your idea of continuing is simply the idea of continuing. You have now added "will be", and now if we tell another lie and say it was, we have also avoided "is".

Hardly anybody ever did anything but fight the past "was". And that's a funny thing because every consecutive moment "is", and there is no "was".

One of the more fabulous things somebody learns in processing. He tries every way he can to mock up a "was" because he thinks it's the thing to do. But every instant is an "is". It's not even a "will be". You have to keep postulating into it some sort of "will be", and you get "is-will be, is-will be, is-will be". And that is the proper name of this universe. So if you've said "it is", and "it will be", then we must make another postulate to say "we are at will be, and therefore is is a was". And we've pronounced at once an alteration. Alter-isness. Alteration.

We've altered "is" into "will be", and now we arrive at "will be" and say then the "is" "was". You can see this very plainly. But it is the most elementary complexity necessary to an entanglement of somebody in a box. Now, you have to do those crazy things in order to get a complete entrapment.

Now I won't tell you that we have every answer to the processing of these various things, because whenever you say something new is in Creative Processing, you've created something new. And somebody'll be running your automatic postulates of "was", cause you to go back on the track to the moment you created it, and you still find it is there. And you'll play yourself into this same trap, just over and over and over again. And if you don't understand it as a trap, then it becomes a trap indeed. There's no reason why it should be a trap at all. The miraculous thing is, how did you ever get into anything that isn't? You have to say "is in". "I is in." Not grammatical, but true. "I is in is."

Thetan, thetan is a very remarkable being. But he is at his most remarkable when trying to confront the actual fact, the obvious, the isness. He immediately flies off into irresponsibility. That too is one of his protective mechanisms. If he makes anything he says, "I didn't make it." He invents all sorts of other things that could have made it. The physicist has a god known as spontaneous frogation, or combustion, or something, and they sort of worship. They say, "Life spontaneously combusted out of a sea of ammonia." In other words, their ritual begins with a magic sea of ammonia which came from nowhere, and which even they said existed before the fact. And we have these gorgeous entanglements. And the best way to look at them is, it's just a gorgeous entanglement. No, you don't have to take it apart. You just say it's a gorgeous entanglement.

Now if you look at a wall, and you say "it is", there's a lower order postulate for a good test on a preclear is, "Get the idea of the effort necessary to create that wall." You turn this thing on faster. That's just experimental process, by the way. Get the idea of the effort necessary to create anything turns on irresponsibility at a mad rate. A fellow has to be in pretty good shape to confront the idea of isness totally. We look at the wall, and we say, "The wall is." And if we do that, and if we did it successfully, and were able to embrace it as a concept, one of these other mechanisms of how we continue its isness will turn on as an automatic matter of course. We get all sorts of things. Irresponsibility. "It is, but I didn't build it. I didn't do it." "It is, but I cannot guarantee actually that it was, but is seems like it was too." We say, "It is", and they say, "Well John Jones the builder built that, and he doesn't look like god to me. I've seen god, he was painted by Michelangelo. And doesn't look a bit like Jones the builder." And we say, "Well it's been moved in position so much that,..." What position? The position itself is an is, and the space in which it is, itself is.

This would tell you that a very fine process at any time, this is a joke, would be simply to, "Look at the wall, get the idea of putting the wall there with the idea that it is." You see? There's this "is".

Of course, the universe making machinery that you subscribe to for I don't know how many pounds of blood or engrams a week, or something; they probably have some arrangement with the between lives area for how much this universe costs you. It's undoubtedly taxed. Probably your facsimiles for each given life, something silly like this. This has a tendency to sort of crack you up to some degree, because it reduces your havingness. You already don't have the isness, that's another special consideration. It belongs to somebody else, therefore you don't have it, so therefore your unmocking it turns you into a misownership of it. And you start wandering in these very interesting labyrinths of postulate and consideration, all of which are dedicated to the continuance of this universe.

But, the truth of the matter is, is you want it. So running the postulate that it is will of course, unmock it. And you don't want to do this. You don't feel that you could put it back there for everybody. You don't want it to disappear, particularly. And so you say, "Well, that's a bad process." In other words, you won't react well to it, even though it is true.

What's amusing is, the only reason you get stuck on various parts of the universe is, there isn't enough of it. Here's this vast universe. Well you have to make the postulate that there isn't enough of it. Here are these vast numbers of planets and stars and space, and you could make yourself even smaller so that there'd be a vast numbers of stars and planets and space inside a desk drawer. And you say, "Well, there isn't enough of it." Well, maybe there isn't enough of it, but for what purpose, pray tell? There isn't enough of it for what purpose?

And we look this over, and we try to run a person into less of it, which is postulating its original isness, and he rather easily rebels. He already knows there isn't enough of it. And we run a process which he already instinctively knows will vanish it. And that doesn't agree with him at all. And that works that way on the person who vows to you, that if left to his own devices he would destroy every bit of it. He would get out of it. He would leave it. He would knock it to pieces. He wouldn't have anything more to do with this universe at all. And it's quite astonishing that when you open the gate for him and say, "OK, this is the way out", he balks. And that is because the way out would be to have enough of it. That is the way out of it.

You would have to cure a persons' ability to have it before his isness ideas could come into view. And this is the havingness, then, is the direct route toward isness. Because not having it is the direct route toward its continuance or sacredness. It belongs to somebody else, and therefore we can't have it, so therefore it can endure since we are not going to criticize its isness even vaguely. You follow this? So therefore havingness, run on a preclear, brings him up toward being able to confront the idea of isness. And when he comes up toward that he understands much better what the universe is composed of. It's entrapment by scarcity, you could call it.

Alright. Now what has this got to do with confusions and other things? Well that is a method of making somebody not have something, it's a method of knocking yourself out so that you won't be upset about the universe. So you could have; oh, there's tens of thousand of reasons and ways and means and things for using a confusion. But, the basic one is, to create an introversion.

An introversion is the next big heading toward universe preservation. And under it comes problems, impact, only oneness, and practically every mechanism that people come up with. You remember the old down curve. Somebody, you give him a skid on the tone scale, you know? And he's riding along at, to somebody else, an unsavory 4.0, and so they slip him some news and they drop him to a 1.5, you know? Or a 1.0 or something like that. And that's an introversion mechanism. No more and no less than that. But the introversion takes place so that a person will leave alone the universe, and not conceive its isness.

And the confusion and dislike for confusion is just one of these many mechanisms. Confusion is part and parcel to "don't know" postulates, which is another safeguarding postulate. Confusion is a very fine mechanism by which to obscure somebody, or put his attention units on things that can't hold his attention units, and so leave him groping. But the main thing that it does is pull his attention off the universe around him, and the moment that it does that it reduces his havingness.

So, introvertive mechanisms. And if you want to study this out very far you will see the motivation behind the behavior of most aberrated people. They are attempting to introvert others. They are attempting to preserve the universe. They are trying to drive people away from an isness. Oh, I don't know, there must be four, five, six hundred various tricks easily cataloged which beings employ on other beings to deny them havingness by introversion. And it's under introversion that all of these things come.

Problem. If somebody gives you a problem. Well, he starts you thinking. Well the moment that you start looking at a problem which is not there, the place that is there is not had by you. Generation of worry, generation of, oh I don't know, laying in valences, putting a pain into somebody's head by postulate or mock up, putting a bullet into somebody's stomach, promising somebody's going to be tortured or tried or any one of these mechanisms, is all under this introversion mechanism.

And you could just say, "That is an introversion mechanism." An introversion from what? To make a person introvert, or look inward, away from the havingness around him. And make him have less of the universe. And if he has less of the universe then he further departs from being able to postulate its isness. And so the universe continues.

A person who is always presenting you with problems, who is always trying to introvert you, is anxious about universal survival or personal survival. They identify one with the other. They're anxious about survival, and they present you with problems. Now you can make somebody anxious about survival, and he will then present you with various introversion mechanisms. Oh these take many forms. A person actually is not above being badly hurt so that he can come in and lie down and get you to put your attention only upon the injury. This is quite revelatory when you understand it sweepingly. It gives to smile, very often, at these highly complex efforts to bring about an introversion. They want you to look inward.

Oh this even arises in some of the more baric witch doctor rites, such as the psychological brainwash as developed in Russia. Self criticism, they make a person do self criticism. Of course it runs down his havingness, it runs him away from isness, and he eventually can no longer conceive the condition of affairs in his vicinity, and he is liable to believe that he did anything. It's quite amazing.

People who tell you that you must grind away hour after hour after hour after hour, and never look up and look around, are simply trying to keep your attention off the walls. Now that's a little higher mechanism, that is the mechanism of education or study. And it has other benefits and side panels, and so on, which to a large degree cancel out its liabilities. Nevertheless, part of education is a liability, and a person who is made to study too long without knowing where he is going is liable to become introverted and lose the havingness of the universe around him. And so you get the chronic scholar. And that can be a sort of a disease. The individual's never learned anything that would get him around and give him more havingness, would get him around and would show him more, would interest him in spanning out, communicating, going further. No, he's been put up against subjects which didn't particularly interest him, and has been crowded in against these subjects very, very hard, and has at length become chronically introverted.

Now, such a person quite normally is very anxious to have things around him survive. He is a bit anxious about survival. That's because he's been denied havingness. Or he goes too far and becomes anxious only about demise. That is to say, he wants demise. He goes over to the point of old Skip Stop Schopenhaur, and who thought of death, death, death, death. And just as an afterthought, death. We get scholastic monstrosities, in other words, that the person is long since past any useful application of his subject or material, and is not any longer able to have the environment, and the scarcity goes down to a point where he decides to make it scarce.

When a thetan has decided to make something scarce he has not had enough of it. This tells you the odd thing, that a thetan who considers that knowledge is scarce, and who has himself been ground to a fine powder on the mills of life, at the same time not being able to study, will eventually come to detest any study of anything. In other words, he's been denied books, he's been denied training, he's been denied these various things. And he will then turn against them. It's quite amazing. If you want to know what makes a bad student, a child is having a great deal of trouble studying and so forth. A child does not have enough books, does not have enough school, from the standpoint of a whole track look. There's been an unfortunate experience along the line, and it's made all these things scarce. And now the person cannot have them, and so they cannot see them. And this is done by introversion. But the fact that person A introverts person B, and then person A gets the valence, by failures and so forth of person B himself, it comes about the denial of the other person, or introversion of the other person, is the greatest liability to the individual. And that is it's liability to him. He has denied others knowledge, he has denied others havingness, he has introverted others any way that he could, he's gone around worrying people one way or the other, and then he himself at length becomes worried. He does a closure of his terminals.

Well, confusion is only one of these many introversion mechanisms. We throw in front of an individual a sufficiently unsavory motion. He hasn't had much motion, he considers motion bad, some way or other he's made this postulate. Or by actually addressing the motion we seem to make it harmful. In other words, we convince him that the motion can harm him. We say that this motion is bad and therefore it's liable to harm him. So he goes into protect. Protect self against the motion. And this is simply one of these introversion mechanisms.

Alright. As he begins to protect himself against the motion, he evolves a cure for motion, which of course is just the next stage on start, change and stop. He stops. Now he can run away from the motion, which would be motion generating start, and he'll try to do this. But he will eventually get over into the final cure for motion, which is stop.

Now at the same time he hits stop he hits vanishment. If he could just make everything vanish at that moment, and so on, he'd be all right. He has been made to stop, so therefore if he could just vanish, he's all straight. Well, that's true enough. An individual who is standing on a battlefield with bullets going by on all hands, only, on all sides, thinks only of one thing, disappearing. And he'll sometimes stop with such violence or with such suddenness, you might say. He will stop so positively that he freezes himself into a rigor mortis, or some such thing. He can practically kill himself. He goes into what they used to call shell shock. And such a person hit by a bullet while being terribly braced up against all this flood of bullets will very often go into a prior rigor mortis, which will leave him locked around his rifle in exactly that position. And nothing can straighten him out. He goes into an instantaneous, split second rigor mortis. In other words he goes into a total stop.

That expresses itself in other ways. It expresses itself as catatonia. A person cannot move. Paralysis, we see it as a psycho somatic illness. An individual has had enough confusion around an arm, that he has tried to stop the arm enough to make it vanish. And he didn't make the grade, he didn't stop the arm enough to make it vanish, he couldn't have an arm, he couldn't postulate the isness of an arm, he didn't have any way out, the arm was there so he simply stopped it, or made it rigid. And he didn't make it rigid enough for it to disappear, but he did make it rigid enough so sooner or later he could pick up something like arthritis. And this is a paralyzed condition.

Paralytics are in this same category. They've tried to stop enough so that they stopped, totally, which means of course to them, vanishment. Well, it doesn't mean vanishment. They would have to postulate the isness of the fact, the soldier to get off the battlefield and to vanish would have to admit he's on the battlefield. Now that's Scientology. We've found that out. That's true. That works. And the way to get away from it is to be there.

The way out is the way through. You have to be present in order to be accounted for. You have to be present in order to check over the engrams and victors. You have to assume the beingness of the isness before it ceases to trouble you. This is Scientology.

It is not the way life has looked at things. It's pattern method of looking at things is quite otherwise. If you stop still enough you'll vanish. If you could stop rapidly enough you will vanish. If you vanish, everything'll be alright. If you can forget it, it'll be wonderful. All you've got to do is forget all your bad experiences and they will never harm you again. Oh yeah? But that doesn't work. That makes out of your bad experiences an hypnotic suggestion.

Oh, you say people can get over these things. Sure. Sure, people have been getting over them for a long time, mainly because there's nothing really wrong with them that they themselves don't force themselves into.

Anything's liable to happen, but the basic rules and laws of how life gets that way are known to us. And they're known rather interestingly, and if any of them; get this; if any of them had worked the person wouldn't be here now.

Anybody who is surviving on this Earth at this time is probably a past master expert in unworkable solutions. He probably has a collection of unworkable solutions that end all collections of anything. And he puts them into effect, one after the other, with the hope of vanishing, of disappearing, of being mean enough to somebody else so that he will be able to control them. This, you know, "If we punish everybody enough, then they well get in line and we'll have a happy Earth." I read an article the other day, the most astounding article on the subject of the electronic brain. Everybody should have electrodes installed into his brain, and then he would work and not have to worry, and not have to take responsibility for the society. And there'd be a few executives on it; 1984, gone about five times better. The person writing the article was writing off the whole track. There have been such societies. They have been attempted, and they aren't here anymore. It should tell you a great deal if they're not present anymore, and that's because the individual does not work best when most asleep and most overwhelmed. And this is not true, you see.

So, people that are around are past masters at unworkable solutions. And all these unworkable solutions stem from this effort to continue the isness of something by enough vias so that nobody'll ever look at it really, again.

The possession of an object is necessary to its handling and control. The ability to have something is necessary to its nullification. In other words, if you want to take the danger out of something, you'd better be able to have it.

Don't try to stretch away and run away to the other end of Earth because some machine is going whirr-clang. Because there's a guillotine somewhere that is going whirr-clang is no reason that you have to go to south Borneo. It might be if you're trying to play the game of preserve the body, preserve the body, preserve the body, to take the body there. But I assure you, that if you run away from a guillotine, the next time you get beheaded it'll hurt like hell. But if you didn't run away from the guillotine there's a distinct possibility that the guillotine wouldn't clang. If it did it wouldn't hurt. First, if it did clang it wouldn't hurt, or it wouldn't even drop, or it would disappear, or you probably have the ability to simply mock up a body someplace else. In other words, you could vanish if you could be there. But not if you ran away.

Now we're running somebody, and he's got one more item on the track. He's got to face a guillotine. And this will turn up. Why? Because he ran away from it. He tried the unworkable solution.

We fall away from the isness and attempt the preservation of all by introducing enough vias, by granting enough significances, by introverting enough people, by inventing enough gods and voodoos, to safeguard and protect our mock ups. And every time we do we take less responsibility for the mock up, and so we become the effect of the mock up, which is a rather interesting concatenation.

And so it is with this whole subject of rest points and confusions. It is just part and parcel to the remainder of the subject. But it is a special category. It's a specialized activity.

Why does a person stay in a house when he could go outdoors and walk around in the sunshine? He will tell you he has no inclination to leave the house, and if he got worse, that he couldn't leave the house. Why? Because he can't be in the house. He's in the house because he can't be in the house. And that is the repercussion which comes from escape. One, he conceived the house dangerous, he tried to leave the house, he couldn't leave the house, he ran away from the house or enough houses, until he couldn't get out of the house. An individual who ran away from enough guillotines would perforce be guillotined. Even if he had to invent a whole new society which is totally dedicated to nothing more, in its industrial efficiency, than developing proficient guillotines. He'd mock himself up one way or the other. He brings himself back to everything he runs away from.

How would you get a person out of a house who couldn't leave the house? Well, you would get the person to have the house. You know many a person can't get up in the morning simply because his childhood home ran a can't have on him all morning long. The house was being cleaned, it was upset, there were rows in the family, it was all so rackety that he detested the dog gone thing, and he couldn't have the house and the house couldn't be had. And he tried to stay away from the house, and staying away from the house. And years later you'll find this person fixed in a house unable to leave it. Some other house, and so on. Quite amazing. And the answer to it is to be able to tolerate a house you couldn't care less about the motion, the noise or the confusion. It's the house. That is it. The house.

Now, let's follow this train back very carefully. How did he get stuck in the house? Because he couldn't have the house. The house could make a big effect on him, but he can make no effect on the house. Now, in other words, he can no longer confront the isness of houses. So he has fallen away from having houses by being badly introverted by what? By noise and confusion. That has introverted him, so that he cannot have. It has taken his attention off houses so often.

The solution to the case is to take it right back toward the first step entering into isness, which is have the house. We don't care anything about processing, really, the confusion or the noise or the upset in the house. True enough, that is what originally denied him the havingness of the house, but if we simply get him to have the house or any old house, all over again, what do we discover? We discover that the attitude toward the confusion disappears. The confusion becomes much less important.

Why, what's the trouble here? The trouble here hasn't anything to do with anything but having the house. Somebody ran a can't have the house on him, and the cure for it is to have the house. We don't care how the can't have was run on him. It might have been run in many other ways. Might have been run in dozens and dozens and dozens of ways. But we're not interested.

Now you see why havingness works where other things don't work? Why it makes a steady gain while other things don't? Because it brings a person up toward being able to conceive the isness of things. And as he goes upscale to that, he becomes less and less an effect of his environment. And the first rung up on that that's the easiest communicated that we know, is get him to have things.

Now how about particles? And you say an individual has been denied the use of particles too. Well you can't use this word particles loosely in auditing. A particle is how many. Is a particle a chip of a terminal? Well to an ant a particle like a walnut is a whole huge sphere, you see? It's a tremendous thing. And I'm sure that a staphlocci, if one lives, would consider an ant as big as Earth. And yet staphlocci could be considered a particle. And when we speak of the human race, any individual then in the race seems to be a particle of the race. Now I'm afraid we'd have to treat everything from the standpoint of it is a mass. And if we treat it from the standpoint that it is a mass, regardless of its size, why, we begin to win. And if we treat huge numbers of masses as numbers, we begin to lose.

This is why radiation, by the way, can have such a devastating effect upon a person. One is immediately confronted by so many, many particles, all flying in so many different directions at the same moment, that he is in a bad way. He says, "This then must be dangerous, because I can't have any of this." Well, we move at once into the whole idea of rest points and confusions when he decides to have one particle out of self defense, and consider the rest random. Now he's got one particle. Now if he's only got one particle, he is now the prey of all the other particles. He assumed one particle, the rest are random. Do you follow that? Just one particle.

There's a possibility that if he assumed no particle at all originally he wouldn't be in trouble. But there's an introverted state here, I mean there's a change here. Pardon me, an inverted state, not an introverted; an inverted state whereby he can't even have one particle. Now the way he got in trouble was to have a particle, surrounded by a number of other particles, and the second he oriented himself by particle number one, surrounded by all these other particles, he then became confused. He became as confused as the motion was, as he couldn't keep track of. Quite an amazing thing. He isn't really having the particle, he is trying to withdraw from all the other particles. He does this.

The way it really happens, a person has a thousand particles. He has one particle, he can view the other thousand easily, and now he goes straight through and views, has, can occupy, the remainder of the thousand. He doesn't have a confusion now, he has a thousand different masses. And having a thousand different masses, he's still alright until he loses one, two, three, four, fifty, two hundred, seven hundred, nine hundred and ninety-nine, and that's the last point before he loses all the particles. See, it's an inverted situation now. He has had them. He's running loss of nine hundred and ninety-nine particles by holding onto the last one.

Now all of a sudden he loses the thousandth. Unfortunately, the total road out in the existing situation would be the repossession of one thousand particles. And you find out if he could have the total thousand again. He will still have power of choice over whether or not he continued to have them or not. But as long as he's running away from them, and has dwindled down to a few, or one, or none, because of all of the existence and confusion and mixture, upset, noise, racket of the others, why he's in a state of being backed off. There is a place he's run away from, and back to which he will not come. And sooner or later he will be found in confusions. Anything that happens will confuse him. You drop a piece of paper on the floor and he's confused. You stand up suddenly, you move your arm suddenly, the fellow dodges, he gets woggle-woggle, he goes anaten. It's too much motion.

Now, whenever he's shown too much motion he thinks he's going to lose what particle he has left, he holds on tighter. He's got a thousand solutions and they're all wrong. "When confronted with a confusion, the thing to do is to hold on to whatever you've got as hard as you can." And you have the interiorization of a homo sapiens. That's about all there is to it. If you don't believe this, start talking, while waving your hands, to a traffic cop. He's good and close to stop. And watch him freeze. Make motions around his face. Not threatening motions, just make motions. Just motion. And the fellow will stiffen and freeze, and he's quite likely, quite likely to just go into apathy. Or he'll sink down to a 1.5 fairly rapidly. If he's already below 1.5 you've got it made. If he's not he'll go into 1.5 and arrest you. For what? There is no change about waving your hands at traffic officers. But he'd find something.

People have it set up so in the presence of motion they get fixed on rest points. Now we call these things rest points, these points that they retreated to. Confusion and the rest point. Just another method of introversion, but a terribly, terribly interesting one. And one that you would profit well to look over.

What can we do about something like this when we have a preclear there? Well, we know all about stuck on the track. You read Book One it talks about stuck on the track. Actually there are mechanical sticks on the track as well as verbal. An individual who has a crippled leg is stuck on the track. He's stuck in some kind of an incident or series of incidents, all of which were leg injuries. And each one of these things he withdrew from the punishing motion in his vicinity, and tried to keep all those other particles off. Which fixed him with the leg injury which he is now exhibiting.

All chronic somatics, whether desirable or undesirable, regardless of their aspect in service facsimiles, all chronic somatics are are fixed points on the time track where the individual was trying to avoid a confusion. Call it an engram, call it anything you want to call it, treat it anyway. And somebody who has studied Dianetics would know far, far, far more about this than somebody who had not. And you get the interesting fact of somebody being stuck in a picture on a "was", which can't exist anyhow, still dodging a whole bunch of particles by holding on to a rest point, and that rest point will invariably be, if he has one, his chronic somatic. His illness. And that is his illness. It is a rest point. He is holding onto it.

Now if you knock out the rest point only, and don't rehabilitate his havingness on anything, you will then drive him into a point of where he has to be the confusion looking at the rest point. You drive him one more rung down the stairs. What you've got to do is get him to be able to have some part of the environment. You have to get him to communicate, to advance, to go forward. This has to be done, if you're going to get him to recover, one way or the other, from a rest point.

Chronic somatic--rest point. Almost synonyms. Just because a fellow's on a rest point, however, does not mean that he has a chronic somatic. But if he has a chronic somatic he's on a rest point. And what is that rest point doing? It's dodging confusion.

Now you can always cure an arthritic by taking away all of his rest points and throwing him into a total confusion, and he will go down into apathy, but he'll no longer have arthritis. Now you could go back the other way, and make him take over greater and larger portions of the environment, and so come into possession, one way or the other, come into possession of a very large amount of confusion. He can come into possession of havingness, he can come into possession of anything, simply by running and directing his attention toward having something, or the isness of the situation. That's very important. Present time havingness. Objective, making it a little more solid. These are all techniques which go in this immediate direction, which do this immediate action.

But to understand what a man is doing you will have to understand a confusion and a rest point. Some men are totally in the confusion. This we call a dispersal case. Some are totally on the rest point, and this we call a ridge, or a fixed case. And you'll find out that the tone scale alternates between dispersals and fixed points. And that is the study of what he is in. If he's in a dispersal case he's standing around looking at the fixed rest point. Some member of the family who was too overwhelmingly nutty even for him was always fixed, always motionless, always self contained, always stable. The stable datum of the family, who was so stable and so stupid as to keep somebody else totally outside of a rest point, and thus in a confusion. A person who is always so virtuously right. A person who is always so gentlemanly or is always so ladylike, and always so completely aberrated. These are obsessed rest points, and they can get so bad in a case that the case is always outside looking in. And that's worse than being inside looking out, let me assure you, because you have to get him inside before he can look out, as an auditor.

And you'll very often see a person turn from a dispersal over into a rest point, and turn from a rest point back into a dispersal again. And this is a mechanical accompaniment to somebody who is rising in scale, and thus accounts for the agitation and many other things which you observe in a preclear.

And I give you this subject to study, to look at, something of great interest. Havingness is the cure for it. The concept of solid masses, the concept of environments and isness. And an understanding of it, however, makes you pretty well proofed up against the character of people who would kill you with kindness.

People can get you so introverted about your own condition that you could die in your tracks. Just because you wouldn't have. The cure for it is some form of havingness, some form of mass, some form of recognition of isness. And that's all there is to it.

Thank you.