6204C03 SHSpec-131  The Overt-Motivator Sequence

     The solution to what you do with 3DXX items is the resolution of what
makes the overt-motivator sequence.  There are processes that undo the
overt-motivator sequence.  For a long time, LRH has wanted to undo it instead
of running it, knowing that it is a junior sequence.  How could you live if
you had to get a motivator for every overt?  It is evidently a very junior
idea, invented to prevent people from attacking.

     If the only thing that ever affected anybody was himself, ultimately, one
would have a perfect alibi: one would never do anything to anyone, anyplace.
LRH knew the overt-motivator sequence was limited, but he couldn't find the
entrance point.  He must have tried 1500 to 2000 combinations, trying to blow
the thing as itself.  If you are the only one that affects you, numerous
things apply.  For one thing, you wouldn't be able to keep the same time track
as others.  So there is something wrong with the overt-motivator sequence.
But, at the same time, everybody has fallen for it and can be processed.  The
overt-motivator sequence runs nicely when handled as a mechanism to prevent
people from attacking.  One process you could use is, "What shouldn't _______
attack?  What shouldn't you attack?" (or synonyms for "attack").  It could
also be varied with "could/couldn't" and "have/haven't".  If you got someone
who was sitting in a bunch of overts and motivators to list what they
shouldn't attack, [you might get somewhere].  That was the lead-in on the
research level.  Not wanting to be attacked, one tells others that they shouldn't attack you and what they shouldn't attack.  They do the same to you, so eventually it looks like you have an overt-motivator sequence.  The most sensible thing in the world is that there are things which you, in a human body, shouldn't attack. The physical universe teaches the lesson that if you attack these things, you get hurt.  This is a basic learningness, and it underlies all the overt-motivator phenomena.  When you attack MEST, you lose havingness.  Then, having learned not to kick paving blocks, you have learned that what you do to others will happen to you.  This is actually not true at all; it is merely a philosophical extrapolation.  It goes back to Newton's Second Law: inertia,
which is a physical universe law.

     A withhold is basically nothing more than your unwillingness to attack or
to be attacked.  You could take any withhold a person has and run off, "Who
shouldn't attack you about that?" or "What shouldn't you attack in that way?"
and the withhold will evaporate.

     LRH never learned not to attack.  People have tried to teach him, but
they have failed.  He was once looking to see what, on the track he felt worst
about doing.  It looked for awhile as though doing anything to anybody's mind
was the most destructive thing you could do.  There was some sense and
workability to this, but it proved not to be true.  It was the attacking of
energy involved that seemed bad.  It is not even bad to attack energy; it's
just that people have tried to convince each other that it is, so you become
allergic to energy.

     The definition of "being good" is the same as the definition of "being
overwhelmed".  Every fighting man LRH ever had under him was always in bad
with other people at a time when they needed fighting men.  The shore patrol
only liked the people who weren't worth a damn.  Of 100 men, six or seven
would be totally able, competent, active fireballs.  It bugged LRH that these
were the guys who were always in trouble.  There would be dozens of nice guys
who got commendations and bonuses but who were ineffective in action.

     The world has built up a series of superstitions about people.  The
animal psychologists' textbooks are full of them: the mirage of
"ought-to-be".  The message is, "Beware of anybody who is active!" The civil
defense manuals of the U.S. government, in the section on psychology, has
provisions to nab and put away anyone who gets active and tries to do
something about the situation.  The civil defense system is based on the idea
that there is a thing called "government" that is composed of "people".  They
are going to take over the country in case of attack.  At the moment of
attack, no one is supposed to do anything but be taken over by the
government.

     As early as 1941, LRH noticed that war is the antithesis of
organization.  In combat, it breaks down to the being, the man on the job, not
the well-organized machinery, which actually is just men anyway.  If you are
going to organize, organize for chaos and count on the individual, not some
great third dynamic shadow.  Individuals are quite destructable in areas of
disaster, so plans fall apart.  For this reason, in space opera societies,
there were indestructable dolls.

     Incidently, in planning something, pin your schedule to event not to the
clock.

     All the systems are geared to "good people".  There is supposed to be
some great reservoir of good people to draw on, but where is it?  These
people are supposed to appear and make everything go right.  Then, in case of
attack, they are supposed to stop anyone who isn't wearing their magic badge
from directing or organizing people.  The people who handled civil defense in
various war areas in chaos conditions, aren't even in the civil defense
organization.  All you have got, ultimately, is a being.  Not punch-tape card
systems, not magical creatures.  The individual is the building block.  They
are either competent or not.

     When an individual ceases to be able to run his own life, you can always
have some group idiocy like Communism, which takes responsibility for conduct
out of the hands of the individual and give it to some Godhelpus monster.  One
way they think they will create the reservoir of good people who will then
tell everyone what to do is to use selective breeding, etc.

     The basis of the individual is his ability to observe, to make decisions,
and to act.  He has to be able to inspect and know what he is looking at and
where he is looking.  He must be able to make a sensible summary of it and be
able to act in accordance with what he has inspected.  This is true of a
student, a soldier, or anybody.  If any of the above abilities are missing,
you will get a bad result.  In making anything, from a perfect government to a
more livable world, the basic building block you are working with is always
and only the individual.  Then the question arises:  Is he competent or
incompetent?  Can he do his job?

     If someone cannot observe and make decisions about what he has observed,
he is in a bad way.  You will never have a workable Utopia unless you have
individuals who can observe, decide, and act.  If you go in the direction of a
system that isn't designed to make individuals, it is a system which will
fail.  It will end in slavery and denial to the individual of the right to
observe, decide, and act.  The only system that is justified is one which
pushes people in the direction of observation, decision, and acting.

     The reason for the form of the org is to create agreement amongst its
members.  One odd thing about scientology organizations is that, as people get
their cases better together, the organizations get more able to act on their
own and at the same time to be more in concert.  To the degree that
individuals can observe, decide, and act, systems are unnecessary.

     If we have systems that depend utterly on making people "good", without
inspection or decision, but only on some "now-I'm-supposed-to" automaticities,
the systems will fail.  Such a system is only achieved by overwhelming a
person with energy, showing him that he will get into more action than he can
stand if he does not concur with the right actingness.  The message is, "We
can create more actingness and energy than you can, so therefore you better
get into this small actingness." It is the out-create of action that brings
about the fixed actingness that is known as "being good".  You can thereby
snarl people into line.

     A system only works in the direction of consulting people's observation
of things.  But the world operates on the basis of things like Faith and
Discipline.  People fixate on the "good" action when the alternative is
confronting some supposedly unconfrontable action.  When you have a totally
disciplined nation, you have a total failure.  This is the route to decadence;
people observe less and less.  This is how civilizations decay and become
"old" and decadent.  Such a society can be overwhelmed by any hostile energy
mass that shows up, since its people have been trained not to confront energy
masses; it gets licked up by any chaos.

     The way an individual ages and dies is to give up his power of
observation and decision and to act on the basis of not being able to do as
much as he used to be able to do or to stand as much as he used to be able to
stand.  He attributes this to advancing age, not to being able to stand less.
The source of advancing age is being able to stand less.  Aging is caused by a
lessening ability to confront action.  It is not that the individual can't
confront as much action.  He ages because he believes he can't confront as
much action.

     The concern of an individual with action is:

          1. Co-action

          2. Attacking energy

       or 3. Being attacked by energy.

"An individual is first as big as the universe and then he selects out half of
it to fight and so becomes half the size of the universe, and then selects out
half of the remaining universe to fight and so becomes one fourth the size of
the universe and then selects nut half of the remainder to fight and so
becomes one eighth the size of the universe.  And I could go on and enumerate
these steps, but why should I, when here you are?  Your size in relation the
universe is directly determined by only one thing:
... the amount of randomity you can confront," or the amount of
attack you think you are subjected to or care to subject the universe to.
This determines thetan size.  It is how much you feel you can take on or how
much you feel may take you on.

     This is the mathematics of a civilization: Say we have 100,000 people.
At first one says, "I can take on any one or more of you who messes me up."
They all feel like that at first.  Then one day, someone gets hurt and can't
fight, so he and some other weaklings invent justice.  Justice says that when
one person errs, everyone else in the society is banded together against him,
as the government.  So it's one person versus the government, representing
some tens of millions of people.  Civilization is rigged in this way.  The
thetan conceives this to be a too-manyness, so he is overwhelmed and obeys the
law of the realm.  When you get old and creaky, you subscribe to the idea of
justice.  Honest force is better then collective myth.  LRH's method of
justice is not based on this "will of the people"; it is based on his own
preference for peace and order.

     All "goodness" is brought about by force, never by philosophic
persuasion.  Action based on observation and decision is fine.  Action based
on police threat, threats from parents, etc., is something else.  A true
civilization would be based on observation.  The oddity is that Man is
basically good.  He gets a synthetic "bad" valence that he can get into and
then be bad.  Every 3DXX item is either a live that you have lived or your
idea of somebody else (the oppterms).  There isn't actually any "somebody
else" in the bank.

     All that is wrong with Man is his imprisonment in evil, but the evil is
false.  We tell a fellow that he is evil and convince him that he shouldn't
attack because everything else is good.  This can be put as Karma: whatever
you have done will be revisited upon you; you will pay for everything you have
ever done.  This isn't quite the same as the overt-motivator sequence, which
is the rule that you have to lay yourself open to feeling bad about something, to a motivator, by the commission of an overt.  That rule holds, but only because there is an area you have conceived you mustn't attack.

     The reason the wall is stably there for you and can trap you is that
somewhere down deep you consider it sacred.  You have certain sacred
valences.  They mustn't be attacked; you have convinced everybody that they
mustn't be attacked.  People get upset when you attack a temple priestess or a
sacred cow.  Actually, however, all mechanisms of slavery should be attacked.
The toughest valences in 3DXX are also mechanisms to prevent you from being
attacked, as you know you would be if your deed were known.  The idea is to
have a good, non-attackable beingness.  The only catch is that we fall from
the other non-attackable beingnesses around us.

     The basic mechanism of getting people not to attack is to show them that
attacking will hurt them.  That is the whole lesson they teach in war.

     If the MEST universe is still here, it must be that we consider that it
shouldn't be attacked.  Otherwise it would have been as-ised.  And that is
also why it can hurt you when you attack it.  Sometimes it attacks and hurts
you even when you haven't attacked it, e.g. when you are hit by lightning or a
cliff falls on you.

     Having learned the lesson that one will harm oneself if one attacks, we
get the overt-motivator sequence.  If you teach enough people this, you will
have a civilization, but they will all be enslaved.  They will all be trapped,
and none of them will be able to observe clearly or decide clearly or to act
decisively.  Sooner or later they will all go crazy.  That is really all that
is wrong with the human mind.  The only real penalty of attack is that if you
attack something, it will disappear.  There is no liability, actually, in
attacking anything, but there is tremendous liability in not attacking.  Overt
attack, as opposed to uncontrolled attack left on automatic, doesn't do
anything except get rid of havingness.  If it was undesired havingness, what
is the difference?

