HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Sun Jul 26 15:59:05 EDT 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
WHO STARTED IT
>> They deserve to get mother's like that themselves
> There must have been a 'first' bad mother if we follow your reasoning.
> What did the child do if S/he had the First one?
Nothing. The rain falls on everyone. But it also didn't stick to
the child if there were no earlier or later similar overts of the child,
so says Electra.
I got no idea.
Adore says the first overt was comitted by a Regal Asshole, someone
who was paid by everyone to pretend he was a Royal Asshole (asshole fer
real), which then allowed everyone to have their first motivator and
Adore says "You started them starting it."
Aodre says the primary overt is to try to destroy laughter, humor
etc, make the other guy feel "This is not funny!"
Alternately Electra tends to think overts are generated by who ever
thinks of them first, and they roll off the backs of those that are still
guilt free, but once you have even TRIED to overt on someone, whether or
not the target victim was clean or guilty, you are now prone to having
them work on you and stick to you because now you are guilty in the
The first overt of course was trying to convince another they had
committed an overt when they hadn't, but that's not relevant to who
started it, just an added twist to WHAT the guy who started it did, when
he started it.
Thus you have
1.) people who originated a first overt towards others, and then
later got it back from others doing the same or dramatizing what had been
done to them, and
2.) others who had it done to them first, and later dramatized it.
Notice it doesn't stick to anyone to have an overt done to them if
they themselves are clean. Worse case they 'heal', best case it goes
right through them. None the less the originator is now guilty of the
ATTEMPT, and when the same thing is done to him it will stick and not
heal. He sticks it in order to justify having done it and to restrain
doing it again. Justify and Restrain.
Electra says that's the Big Joke, he justifies it by saying it was
right to do, but then he restrains it because he regrets it! Both the
justification and the restraint are powered by the regret.
Those that had it done to them first, don't have it stick to them
until after they dramatize it later on another, either clean or guilty,
then the original event that happened to them before they dramatized it,
sticks to them as justification for having dramatized it, and restraint on
doing it again.
When it was first done to them, it went through them or it healed,
but once they dramatize it on others LATER, then it sticks to them, they
unheal, and they never get rid of the wound of what was done to them,
Those that originated the overt first, when someone does it back to
them, will have the incoming overt stick to them and they will place it
BEFORE the overt they originated in order again to justify their
unprovoked DED, and also to restrain doing it again.
(DED = unprovoked overt act, *NOT* DEserveD by the recipient)
This is all Electra nonsense, I have no idea if its true.
Electra seemed to like to track Hubbard this thought, but she
went to great extents to flesh it out in detail.
Clearly the idea an overt on another between two sovereign
beings is ludicrous on the face of it, each must be postulating
that the other could hurt and did hurt him.
The game of 'you hurt me' has been going on for a long time, but
the firstg overt was to claim someone committed an overt on you when
they hadn't. So its a bit twisty.
Running overts has never gone as far as I thought it would in
> I'm a terrible mother,I don't even have a license to breed (grin)
>>how do you think I got mine? :)
> You borrowed Phil Scott's?
Phil's mother was quite reasonable compared to mine.
Being the Victim Son, *NO ONE* has a worse mother than I.
In fact Electra said one way to access the early unrememberable
areas of child hood is to run "What have I done to a child as a mother."
In this or a past life.
That will eventually bring up what my mother did to me, and why I
am holding onto it.
Your milage may vary.
Frankly I think the first overt was going up to someone and trying
to audit them with what questions, in particular who did what to whom
The insane decision to protest or regret dones is pretty close to
the source of insanity.
No one is 'putting it there' in a while, they are too busy trying
to unput it there forever.
And that changing a while into a forever/never might very well be
the first overt and the original cause of persistence.
Who cares who did what to whom, y'all chose don't you see?
Blaming others is a DED against yourself as it denies your
responsibility for the other being there and agent in your
And maybe we did that out of some weird divine aesthetic to be an
'innocent victim' for a while.
Down here that kind of thinking may not be too workable, but if you
want to get out of here, its the only way out.
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jul 26 15:59:02 EDT 2015
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L