Do "Likes" attract "Likes?"

[Kerry]

Do likes attract likes or do opposites attract each other?

All (yes all) divorced couples withheld a significant thought from each other on or before their first date. Both were programmed by their parents to deceive, parents who themselves were taught to withhold by their parents, teachers, and clergy. Couples bring their addictions to blaming and to withholding significant thoughts from their own family members, into each new relationship. Both magnetically attracted a partner whose beliefs about responsibility, truth, and honesty are pretty much alike. [good but not too good, honest but not too honest--"I won't call you on your stuff if you won't call me on mine."]

Instantaneously, without either knowing it, two likes attract each other; when they meet they unconsciously become what each other is supposedly looking for.  I like the word entanglement because the intention to become one with another, to cause them to "spin" as you do, happens spontaneously, unconsciously, automatically, when both simply observe each other; it's a communication that's faster than light. Einstein called the phenomenon "spooky."

For example: A woman who is addicted to being verbally abused will be magnetically drawn towards an enabling controller, a partner who will control and abuse her. She mirrors the leadership-communication skills of her parents who were taught, by teachers and clergy, to withhold certain thoughts.*  She, the "Me2 victim," using her leadership-communication skills, will control a partner by setting him up to abuse her and then blame him. She does this so that she can eventually see herself so as to acknowledge and complete her addictions so as restore her integrity, to be whole and complete. He, the "bully" needed to attract someone whom he could control so that he, with her support, could see himself and restore his own integrity. While this may seem to support the premise that opposites attract each other it can also be said that two likes, both with matching entangled addictions, attracted each other in support of an experience of enlightenment.

Another example: A woman who functions with integrity, one who is completely open and honest with her parents, zero significant thoughts withheld, can, within seconds, experience a man's integrity, it's an aura thing. It would be unconscionable (an inconsiderate gift to one's parents) for her to bring someone into the clan whose parent's are abusive, dishonest or dysfunctional. 

It appears that only through this abusive dishonest way of relating do we even begin to confront cleaning up our relationships with our parents. For example, virtually all public school teachers are granted diplomas even though each one, if asked, would acknowledge that they are withholding one or more significant thoughts from someone of significance. It is both abusive and unethical to deceive another. Teachers are granted diplomas without having acknowledged all of life's perpetrations. Students have no choice other than to mirror a teacher's integrity. Teachers are not guided to experience withholds as a communication variable.

I posted this so as to generate conversations that support the transition from the "Me2" movement to the "Me2/I . . . movement.

* ". . . were taught, by teachers and clergy . . ." Evidenced by the fact that the majority of teens con each other into deceiving both sets of parents so as to have sex. This poses the question, who teaches us to deceive? Have teens always been sneaky or was there a time when teens were more honest with their parents?

To restore/recreate/maintain an experience of integrity do The [free] Clearing Process.

Last edited 6/22/22