ADORE700 (fwd)

Homer Wilson Smith HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Mon Sep 21 14:58:01 EDT 2015


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


       EARLY CLEARS

In alt.clearing.technology Richard Ford <doorman.ford at googlemail.com> wrote:
>LRH describes the wonderful world of the clear in great depth AND THEN
>ADMITS THAT THE FIRST CLEAR IS YET TO BE CREATED.

      Having just read Dianetics again from cover to cover very
carefully, and for the 4th time or so, I would like to see the page and
line where he admits the first clear is yet to be created.

      However later, as things progressed, his definitions of clear
changed upwardly many times, each time invalidating the levels of clear
defined earlier.

      I personally have known quite a number of people who claimed to be
clear by one of many different definitions, but none of whom really had
control over their time track.

      Even now, looking at the E/P's for higher states, more than one
says 'ability to confront the whole track', including those beyond OT
VIII.  Uh, excuse me, just when exactly do I get the ability to confront
the whole track.  Well its a gradient scale unfortunately, you get up to
where you can confront a whole section of this spiral, and suddenly find
a MUCH BIGGER spiral that just knocks you flatter than a bug.

      I do believe in 1945 - 1951 that Hubbard was working on
dianetically 'easy' cases, those that could be cleared by HIS
application of book one dianetics, and both he (later) and I admit that
following book one by itself will work wonders on many people, but in no
way will it proceed to clear every one for many reasons, the least of
which is not the failure to run flow 2, overts.

      People can only run so much whats been done to them, before they
barf.

      If a guy has too many overts, he will start to collect motivators
(dones to him).

      If the guy has too many motivators, he will start to commit overts.

      The reactive effort is to keep the damage received and damage
delivered in life in balance.

      Thus if someone comes in with the normal baggage of overts and
motivators and you erase all the motivators, but never touch the overts,
he will start to pull in MORE motivators and hard.

      On the other hand if you run out only overts, as Hubbard himself
started doing in the 60's, then guy is left with too many motivators
unrun, and he will start to commit overts like crazy, faster than you
can run them out.

      Since ridges always have two sides, and ridges are all that's
wrong with the bloke, you need to run both sides of the ridge,
overt AND motivator in order to blow it.

      Getting the time order is critical in each incident.

      Because a lot of preclears tended to hide behind their
motivators, and audit them endlessly, which of course pulled
in more motivators, Hubbard ordered that only overts could
be audited, as to even let a preclear claim something had
been done to him was itself an overt.

      This is in fact true, but in real auditing, with real people,
who have no reality on the enormity of their own responsibility for
things, this is unworkable.

      The preclear is HIDING in his motivators from his overts and
from committing any more, so you ask him 'what have you done'
and he will say 'I don't know, you tell me.'

      You can persist, but any preclear can out persist any auditor
bar none.

      Homer

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Jan 23 21:41:50 EST 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Sep 20 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB:  http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP:  ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore700.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)

iD8DBQFV/tlqURT1lqxE3HERAloHAKCCXpeCsC5IkQLCMhaWWTDyDx7iJgCgr9KJ
cKmXRmxbAKqVJOZFRngZTxg=
=kHWq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l


More information about the Clear-L mailing list