You ‘pulled it in’
By Bernie Wimbush
Motivator (definition): 1. An aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics. It is called a motivator because it tends to prompt that one pays it back – it motivates a new overt. 2. Something which the person feels has been done to him, which he is not willing to have happen. 3. An act received by the person
The overt-motivator sequence was always an area of concern for me. I remember when Ethics was first released and my overzealous senior put me in a condition of ‘Doubt’. I was banned from the org until I had completed the formula. It took a few submissions before I satisfied his demands. I had been awarded this condition because I had failed to achieve an impossible target he had set.
I was most upset. Here I was working for nothing trying to forward the cause and I was being punished.
Someone suggested that I must have done something pretty bad in my past to ‘pull that in’.
That’s karma they suggested.
Many times I tried to find this overt that would explain it all — but there seemed to be nothing.
The Christian belief system is riddled with punishment for overts and transgressions, and I see that imported into Scientology.
Karma belongs to Hinduism.
“If you’re naughty, Father Xmas won’t come”, is a fairytale promoted by parents to control over-excited children.
And the tooth fairy not coming is a laugh.
The term ‘pulled it in’ seems to have been used for decades by those who don’t understand what the overt-motivator sequence actually is.
Yes, an overt is “an aggressive or destructive ACT by the individual against one or another of the 8 dynamics (self, family, group, Mankind, animals or plants, MEST, Life or the Infinite)”.
Yes, a motivator is “an aggressive or destructive act received by the person or one of the dynamics”.
But to be clear – LRH does not state anywhere that every bad thing that happens to a person is a “motivator”, or that it has to be proceeded by an overt committed by that individual. If something bad or destructive happens to an individual, it is not always proceeded by an overt by that person.
Someone had to throw the first stone.
Native Indians were slaughtered and poisoned… did they have prior overts against the white man?
Natural disasters occur that wipe out whole villages, towns and cities…. do those only occur because thousands of people had committed overts and ‘pulled it in’?
Of course not. It is an absurdity.
If you look up the lectures and bulletins where LRH talks about the overt-motivator sequence, you will find that the motivator is what the person BELIEVES to have occurred, that then justifies a committing of another overt. And that stands to reason. The very first overt committed had to be committed against some poor innocent soul.“Even though it hasn’t occurred, human beings on a low reactive basis will insist that it has occurred. And that is the overt-motivator sequence”. LRH Lecture The Things of Scientology, 31 Dec 1960.
LRH also states “One doesn’t have to be crazy to be subject to the Overt-Motivator sequence. It is not only used on him continually by others, it is also a basic part of his own “case”.
Pulled it in? Rubbish! That is a pure justification.
It is unfortunately a term used to introvert and control another person — having nothing to do with the actual application of the overt-motivator sequence to assist a person case-wise, or technically. The roots of the overt-motivator sequence go back to Dianetics and the auditing of engrams. It is a fascinating subject and truly does help a being to move up out of engrams or secondaries they are/were stuck in. It is something worth knowing well, as an auditor.
But it should not be used to make another wrong for something they did not do. I have even heard of a Scientologist telling another Scientology couple that they “pulled it in’ when they gave birth to a child with a severe disability. Say what???
And a person receiving an (unjust) SP declare is another that we commonly see these days. No — that was not ‘pulled in’.
That wrong condition was caused by my senior trying to get done what couldn’t be done and was borne out of his frustration. It was an overt none the less and no doubt justified by ‘the greatest good’ (which it was not).
If my senior had sat down with me and we had both worked on the problem, no doubt we could have found a way, rather than have me searching for the withhold of nothingness and being alienated from a irrational senior.