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?