Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Thu Jul 4 12:06:02 EDT 2019

             ((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
                         JUSTIFICATION SANDWICH
                                EXM - 46
                              3 March 1992
         Copyright (C) 1992 A Voice of the Free Zone (Electra)
       Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
     There is another smaller sandwich inside the No Sympathy Sandwich
called the Justification Sandwich.  It goes as follows.
     A person commits an overt act (No Sympathy) and regrets it.  This
leads to pulling in some overwhelm or chronic condition with which he
justifies or explains away the seriousness of his earlier overt act.
But now he has this strange chronic disability that he can't easily
explain, so he needs to justify THAT.  This allows him to continue to
commit more overt acts along the same lines.
                       The Justification Sandwich
     There is a BEFORE justification and and AFTER justification.  The
CONDITION is sandwiched between the two.
     For example, let's say one day you are driving down the road in
Vietnam during the war and you see a little Vietnamese boy in the middle
of the road.  Rather than slow down you decide it would be fun to scare
the hell out of the child so you hit the gas and go after him.  The
child however gets confused and doesn't know which way to run and ends
up running right into your front tires, getting crushed beyond repair.
You get out of the jeep and try to comfort him.  But his back is broken
and he screams for half an hour and dies looking at you with terror in
his eyes.
     You never MEANT to kill the child, you just wanted to have some
(cruel) fun.  Now you feel sorry.  The last look of those sad eyes is
YOUR memory forever.  What's that cute Nurse you been dating back at the
camp going to think?  You going to take his crushed body to her?  You
wish to hell you had some justification to explain why you did not see
the child in the road or were unable to avoid hitting him.  Having bad
eye sight fits the bill.  Suddenly your eyes are not feeling so hot and
your vision is a little blurry.  You go to the doctor and he gives you a
prescription for eye glasses.  Your Nurse friend gives you sympathy, she
'understands what you have been through.'
     So there is the OVERT (killing the child), the false JUSTIFICATION
(couldn't see well) and the CHRONIC OVERWHELM CONDITION (bad eyes).  But
then one day you cross paths with one of your old buddies who remarks
about your new eye glasses and how you used to have the eyes of an
eagle.  Suddenly you feel horrible inside because he is missing your
withhold that you killed a child in fun.
     So you explain to him how your father had bad eyes, and how it's
genetic in origin and runs in your family.  This is the AFTER
JUSTIFICATION of the condition, a condition which you are using to make
yourself feel less responsible for having killed the child.  Claiming
that bad eyes is genetic makes it OK to have bad eyes and wear glasses.
It allows you to survive with this condition and keeps others off your
case about the anomaly.
     However once you have claimed that wearing eye glasses is right and
not your fault, the door is now open for you to start a business
manufacturing and selling eye glasses to others and making your living
from it.  Thus you become involved in continuous present time overt acts
born of your earlier before and after justifications.
     OVERT                - Killed Child.
     BEFORE JUSTIFICATION - Couldn't see well - total lie fabrication
     CHRONIC CONDITION    - Bad eyes and wearing glasses.
     AFTER JUSTIFICATION  - Bad eyes are genetic not engramic.
     OVERT                - Making a living selling eye glasses
                            rather than pulling people's withholds.
     That is the Justification Sandwich which you are trying to run off
a case.
     Now any person will have possibly many of these things, but there
will be a central one, a first one, a biggest and worst one on his case.
You know, the one that is HIM.  It makes him who he is in his eyes, the
screw ball who...
     It is his ruin in life, and may even be his ruin in all of
     THAT is the one you want to find.
     One way to handle this is as follows.  First you get the person to
state and recognize what the central condition is on their case.  A
condition is any disability or illness or chronic unwanted condition.
The word unwanted must be understood thoroughly, because your pc may be
very glad he has glasses on the surface but just under the surface his
eye problem is a very unwanted condition and just earlier is a VERY
unwanted regret.
     The condition you are looking for is NOT the original overt act he
committed, it is NOT the justification he used.  It is the condition
that he pulled in engramically to provide the justification for the
overt act.  The condition will exist on all 4 planes of existence,
physical, emotional, mental and spiritual.
     Physical conditions will be illnesses or aches and pains or
disabilities or compulsions or inhibitions in the functioning of his
physical body and his relationship to the external physical universe.
     Emotional conditions will be unwanted feelings, or inabilities to
feel things.
     Mental disabilities will be things like not being able to think or
remember, hallucinations, no mockups, etc.
     Spiritual disabilities will manifest themselves as a total
inability to take responsibility for or exercise responsibility over
some sphere of being, doing or having in the lower 3 planes.
     The condition may be some thing he has in relation to other people,
such as BEING UNWANTED or it may be something he has alone such as BEING
FORGETFUL.  These are just examples.
     The condition may be very poetic like the following:
     "Well, I'm sort of a bottom of the barrel, marked down, last one on
sale with no buyers, kind of girl."
     That's a condition, don't you see?
     The condition that you are looking for will have all 4 planes
represented in it's disability.
     One way to find this is to audit on an E-meter the following
question until you find a blow down item with relief, humor and VGI's,
     'What is the central condition on your case?' 'What is NOT the
central condition on your case?'
     For example, let's say he finally says 'there is something too ugly
to look at!' So that's a chronic condition, every time he makes a
mockup, IF he manages to get one to appear, it immediately turns into
some ultimate horror show of hideousness and he wonders where all the
ugliness comes from.  He is worried he might DIE if he manages to look
at it too long.
     He is also just sure that no one in their right mind could ever
MAKE such a thing, so his responsibility on the subject is quite low.
     So it effects him physically because 'he might die' if he looks at
it too long.  It effects him emotionally because it's hideous.  It
effects him mentally because he can't understand it, it's just totally
alien to him.  And it effects him spiritually because he feels he could
not, would not, should not have created it.
     So once you have his central condition, or a condition he is
interested in running you then can run alternately in any order,
     1.) 'How have you justified having this condition?'
     2.) 'What have you used this condition to justify?'
     1.) 'What justifies this condition?'
     2.) 'What does this condition justify?'
     You see, the first question asks for the AFTER justification, and
the second question asks for the BEFORE justification.
     This should go a long ways to breaking up his Justification
Sandwich.  Eventually you should find some regret and the earlier overt
he has been 'solving' by being deaf, dumb, blind, fat and stupid.
     If during this or after a win, your pc wishes to go deeper and find
a new more central condition to his case, by all means run it as above.
     Conditions can be things like, being mortal, can't remember, don't
dare look, can't work, I'm too ugly/beautiful, drug addiction, I'm too
poor/rich, etc.
     If you are having trouble getting your pc to state a condition that
he considers central to his self respect, get him to run the following.
Have him consider that some great being is coming to earth to look
everyone over, and they are able to see everything there is about
anyone, and they are looking at your pc, very intelligently,
dispassionately, objectively as an observer.  Get your pc to list what
this person would think about him, or see or observe if he could see
all.  If your pc's name is Susan, you might use as your auditing
     'What is it about Susan?'
     Run it as long as it makes the TA go up and down, don't stop at the
first win, or chuckle.  What you will get is a long list of valences,
beingnesses in a condition.  Eventually you will get nearer to your pc's
central condition.

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jul  4 12:06:01 EDT 2019 
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.comSend mail to archive at lightlink.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.

More information about the Clear-L mailing list