Re: ACT68

The following was very unclear and hard to follow, corrections and
clarifications follow.

...

The supposed opp term which the pc gives you that he thinks he is
fighting, is often his own terminal at the end of the GPM.

He will tell you he is at the beginning of his GPM where his
terminal is 'A Star Class Being' who is opposed to his opp terminal 'A
Nutty Thetan'.

In other words, his GPM starts with 'A Star Class Being' and ends
with 'A Nutty Thetan'. He is claiming to be at the beginning of the GPM
fighting the end of it, when in truth he is being 'A Nutty Thetan' at the
end of the GPM fighting what he used to be at the top of the GPM, 'A Star
Class Being'. You become what you fear if you lose to it.

But stranger things can happen.

Truth is he is at the end of a GPM where 'A Nutty Thetan' is his
BEGINNING terminal and 'A Star Class Being' is his most detested ending
terminal. He is at the bottom, out of valence into the good guys, he was
saner when he was A Nutty Thetan!

In other words, his GPM starts with 'A Nutty Thetan' and ends with
'A Star Class Being'. He is in truth at the end of his GPM fighting the
beginning of it. Having failed utterly as a Nutty Thetan, he has
descended down into being 'A Star Class Being'. You become what you fear
if you lose to it. Most people who 'act like they are a God', are out of
valence for this reason.

Homer

_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE511

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

DUTY - From Adore

For every Duty there is a Right.
For every Right there is a Duty.

Rights are Fair Chosen Exchange for Fair Chosen Duties.
You CHOOSE and are Responsible for both.

You have a Right to have Duties,
and
You have a Duty to have Rights.
No one ever told it to you that way before.

Justice
is a
Fair Chosen Operating Balance
of
Duties and Rights.

The Fundamental Duty is Honor, and
The Fundamental Right is Dignity.

Honor is the ability to make, keep and trade fair chosen promises.
Basic Promise is to Adore Operation.
Promise is ALWAYS to Adore Operation.

Dignity is being the Sole Operator of your Self.

Reputation is for those who Excel in this field.
In Excelsis Deo.

From ADORE, A Divine Operating Religion of Excellence

Homer

Thu Jun 14 02:25:47 EDT 2007

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 31 03:06:02 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore511.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMzRVaURT1lqxE3HERAu9pAJ91xYZ02qvDu4LMa8PYhyGmjWiGAwCgkkFw
e/Bm7X4fpT7ZpZZ9bL8wgqY=
=dcoi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ACT68

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

((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))

PROBLEMS, CONDITIONS AND SOLUTIONS.

ACT - 68
22 July 1994

Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.


On Sun, 24 Jul 1994, Lenny or Jevan Gray wrote:

> Are you implying that taking walks "makes it worse", (eliminating
>the reference to dog or ducks)? > > I'm asking this flat, no
jokes, no implications. > > If the answer is yes, then what line
_are_ you following as your >current "best" attack. I thought you said
you _were_ getting some >gains.

Well admittedly I was in a bad moment when I wrote that, Nick's
mention of following the bliss hit me in the face, as for me there is
no bliss to follow. People just have no idea what a Black V is, until
they descend down to that level.

Later I did go into session, and I nailed it once again, as I
usually do.

All of my sessions these days produce marked progress, but the
what and why of it all is still unknown, and I am in deep despair
about finding anyone who actually knows what the fuck they are doing
or who can even grasp the condition without down playing it like,
"Take a walk, watch some TV, it will go away." Who are they fooling?

More importantly, who or what are they auditing to give such
advice?

Certainly not anyone I want to know or audit.

When someone is desperate and can't breath and is considering
suicide or kamikaze 80 percent of the time just to amuse himself, just
to give himself reason to live, even if not utterly seriously, you
DON'T TELL THEM TO GO TAKE A FUCKING WALK AND FEED THE DUCKS unless
you have absolutely no idea what to do, in which case you ought to
keep your mouth shut.

You ask, what did I run then?

Well today it was,

"What would ruin any possible activity you could indulge in?"
"What could make any possible activity unworthwhile?"

I nailed it on "No Family". Tears, Sorrow turned on, ran off,
very deep, very central and VERY early, right through the throat
center.

You NEVER tell someone who is suicidal to go take a walk, he is
just as likely to go out and jump off a bridge or walk into the lake
and never come back, especially here at Cornell :).

The present physical condition of the pc is related to a prior
problem. It is not necessarily a SOLUTION to the prior problem as
Electra says, as it may be an incidental consequence to the efforts
that were the actual solution. Usually the pc has not-ised those
prior solution efforts, the efforts were themselves applications of
not-isness to the prior problem, so he won't be very aware of them.
But they will effect the body and produce INCIDENTALLY various deathly
manifestations in the body, especially as they are let go of. It is
these later manifestations that the pc has his attention on.

If you try to run these conditions as solutions to the prior
problem, it won't run, as they weren't created as solutions. They get
USED as solutions to other problems later, but they are themselves
incidental consequences of the true solutions that are presently too
submerged to be known.

So rather than run

"What problem is this condition a solution to?"

I would run,

"What problem resulted in this condition?"
"What problem gave rise to this condition?"
"What problem preceded this condition?"
"What problem is connected to this condition?"

This avoids the evaluation that the condition is a SOLUTION to the
problem which it may not be.

I would also run the creative form of this question,

"What problem COULD result in this condition?"
"What problem COULD give rise to this condition?"
"What problem COULD precede this condition?"
"What problem COULD be connected to this condition?"

so that when the pc momentarily runs out of actual answers to the
question, he can at least continue to give fabricated and fanciful
answers. This trick allows the auditing and two way comm to continue,
and also allows the pc the possible opportunity to 'out-create' the
original problem by maybe inventing something worse.

The package that is being audited consists of a central
condition, which is related to a prior problem, which problem consists
of a conflict between two terminals, the terminal that the pc is
being, and the terminal that he is opposing.

Sometimes the pc is aware of the problem but not the terminals,
sometimes he is aware of the terminals, but not the exact problem.

As the pc is listing for what problem might be connected to the
condition, he may tend to give you TERMINALS rather than problems. He
will say "Something to do with food". That's a terminal, not a
problem. It is however the terminal he has the problem with. You
ultimately want the terminal, but you also would like a clear
statement of the problem.

Sometimes the pc will give you the problem but not the terminal.
He says "Well I can't relate." You ask him "Who or what can't you
relate to" to get the terminal, and he says "I don't know."

"What arena of life did you walk into that when you walked out of
it you had this condition?"

That's just another way of asking it.

So the full C/S would be something like this,

1. "What general class of Problem might result in this condition?"

Once you get a statement of the general class of problem, such as
"Disagreements about Aesthetics", continue with:

2. "What general class of terminals are involved in this problem?"

Pc says 'Nutty Thetans'.

3. "Is this THE PRIMARY problem resulting in your condition, or
merely a compounding problem?"

If compounding, go back to 1, and run 1, 2 and 3 repetitively until
pc says "This is it, or it seems central or its the key problem or
whatever."

If pc says, this is IT, find the correct wording for the terminals
in the problem, such as 'Nutty Thetans' and then run whatever problem
process on that terminal you have.

From Electra,

"What could you do to a Nutty Thetan?"
"What might a Nutty Thetan do to you?"
"What could you do AS a Nutty Thetan?"
"What might be done to you AS a Nutty Thetan?"

Again you want what was actually done, is being done, or will be
done, but you ask for creative solutions too to tide the pc over the
moments when he can't remember anything actual for a while.

Also run withheld from/as and opposed in/as.

What could you withhold from a 'Nutty Thetan?'
What could you oppose in a 'Nutty Thetan?'
etc.

How you run these is up to you, I imagine some would like to have
done and withheld run alternately.

Eventually you find a packet where the pc gives you the same
answer for all four questions. It may or may not be THE packet. If
it is you are in luck. That's the overt. If not, just continue
auditing until flat, then go back to beginning of finding more
problems and terminals.

A valid criticism of this process is that it finds the apparent
oppterm to the pc, 'Nutty Thetans', but it fails to find the terminal.

The supposed opp term which the pc gives you that he thinks he is
fighting, is often his own terminal at the end of the GPM.

He will tell you he is at the beginning of his GPM where his
terminal is 'A Star Class Being' who is opposed to his opp terminal 'A
Nutty Thetan'.

Truth is he is at the end of his GPM where 'A Nutty Thetan' is
his terminal and 'A Star Class Being' is his most detested opp
terminal. In other words he is out of valence into the good guys, he
was saner when he was A Nutty Thetan!

To find the actual terminal one could run, per R2-12,

"Who or what would oppose a Nutty Thetan?'
"Who or what would a Nutty Thetan oppose?'

The idea is to run the one that turns on the least mass. You run
the first one, and it turns on mass, that means the second one is
right. he comes up with 'A Star Class Being' and you know that his
OPP TERM is A Star Class Being, and his terminal is a Nutty Thetan.

Personally I have never found this to work except rarely.

The pc is much more likely to be able to describe his enemies
than himself in the matter. Especially if he is out of valence having
been overwhelmed by the nutso good guys (Star Class Beings.) He can't
confront what he lost TO (Star Class Beings). But he sure can
confront what he lost AS, because that is what he is fighting now
(Nutty Thetans.)

So you run, "What have you done to/as a Nutty Thetan" and you get
both sides, and its usually the right side anyhow, as most people are
out of valence and almost always list you their own true sane valences
as their worst enemy, and you don't want to run the out of valence side
anyhow, so Electra's approach might work where R2-12 might fail.

Just remember that the pc will try to sell you on the idea that
the terminal given is the enemy, when really it was him, his own true
valence a while back before he got overwhelmed. So you get a lot of
righteous indignation about all these 'Nutty Thetans'. Once the pc
comes up tone a bit and snaps back into valence you will find some
real seething froth at 'Star Class Beings' all of whom no doubt should
be crucified immediately without trial.

This is the gist of what I ran.

"What would ruin everything?"

"No Mommy"

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Oct 30 03:06:02 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act68.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMy8PaURT1lqxE3HERAqtGAKCGOq4pA8wibvEvGQC3sY3cDJJhOgCcCj0X
ZBYU1SvEmGM99G7gB840998=
=RfvA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

PROOF42

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

THE PROOF, ORIGINAL THESIS

The only way to learn about an object across a distance is to be the
effect of that object.

((One then computes back from those effects to what the nature of the
object must be like. One never sees the object (cause) directly. If the
object has no effect on one, then no learning is possible.))

Effects do not prove cause.

Thus learning by looking at effects does not provide certainty.

Certainty is only provided through learning by looking at cause
directly.

This is not possible across a space/time distance because effect and
cause are two separate events. Effect can not see cause except through
itself as effect.

The only way for effect to know about cause with certainty, is for
effect and cause to have no space/time between them, that is effect and
cause must be one and the same event. Then effect can see cause directly,
because effect IS cause.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

Fri Oct 28 17:58:21 EDT 2005

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 29 03:06:03 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof42.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMynJbURT1lqxE3HERAuK6AJ97qHv8Z8GnazNv6v32G2HXYv7L8wCg1J2C
DBVVuEd5d92PhxpaT7x3NAo=
=hC/7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

DEATH AND HELL

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

DEATH AND HELL

ADORE177.memo is brilliantly written, but too much head talk, and
not enough reality on the brutal facts of WHAT was chosen, fair or not,
namely apparencies of hell forever and death forever.

Oceanic depth of sorrow is the greatest evidence we have that
although things may not be as bad as we fear, they certainly are not
as good as we hope for.

The barrier between this life and the after life, is recognition.

Recognition of the choice to not recognize the choice to not
recognize, ad infinitum.

How else does one create no recognition from recognition?

Awareness Characteristic Chart
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/acc.memo

Thus the being comes up to hope and help and stays there, as the
wall of non recognition is infinite.

You know, where am I, what time is it, what am I doing here, what
should I be doing here, who am I, what am I, how many am I, and where am
I going?

Many are still lost down at "Am I?"

Run,

Get the idea,

There is NO recognition.
There is SOME recognition.

Homer ('I got no recognition') Smith

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

ADORE177.memo

ACW (wisdom@cyberstation.net) wrote:
> Pretty sweeping fixed motivation to lay on everyone!

We are all here for the same reason.

> What if it was an involuntary came INTO, or whatever?

Well it would have had to be involuntary, in the sense that the
being didn't FIRST have the thought to come in, because in having the
thought he would be in.

The native state being obtains in the very conception of having.

However the being does have an internal knowingness, a built in set
of abilities. It knows how to drive without really knowing anything
ABOUT how to drive.

It couldn't tell you how to drive, but it sure can drive.

Thus it knows how to come in, and it knows how to get out.

And during its coming in phase, it has the option at every step of
the way to NOT engage in the mechanisms which guarantee continuance.

There is an aesthetic that goes with the shattering, so the being
has a 'lets see where this goes' kind of attitude, approval and sanction
are on, no matter how much it is screaming bloody murder.

Even while the being is pretending outrage and engaging in the
mechanisms of continuance, it knows it is doing this.

Just enough knowing to maintain its responsibility in the matter,
but not enough to stop the process of coming in.

The being has an innate sense of confidence in itself and the
AllThatIs. It knows it can't get into THAT much trouble, because it
knows what its fundamental abilities are and the limits of what they can
do.

"Confidence is confiding to yourself that you did this thing to
yourself." - Adore

The being can make itself ignorant of the mechanisms of
continuance, but even that decision has a moment of choice wherein the
being knows it is entering an area of no return for a while, and
appreciates the aesthetics, in particular the aesthetics of HUMOR.

The being sees the aesthetics of getting lost for a while, in an
AllThatIs that HAS no space or time to get lost in.

There is a premonition of the joke, a promise of the humor and
relief at the end.

This aesthetic of getting lost is the carrier wave of
manifestation, as everything rides on it underneath the surface protest.

Even the surface protest is fair chosen via the same appreciation
and carrier wave as the being knows the protest is necessary to
guarantee continuance.

"High Thrill is always the effort to get lost.

High Romance is always the effort to get home.

High Halcyon is bemused relief on the verge..." - Adore

The being is not fundamentally victim, even to itself.

Contacting these aesthetics and moments of willing unwillingness,
go a long ways to freeing the being to be willing to have it happen
again, at which point it won't until he should so choose again to
shatter and pretend to be done for once again.

VGI's = laughter, humor, appreciation and willingness to view more.

There is no difference among people in these matters.

You wouldn't WANT it any other way.

Those that claim to be different have misconstrued the JOKE.

But that too, althrough wrong, is fair chosen and must be granted
beingness by those who get the joke.

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Oct 28 13:13:38 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore811.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMya9CURT1lqxE3HERAlYQAKC14ShpRspoLg5SVTF58RdI7B5+QQCgtSYO
axYzjmgCYeWGr1U44+kRF7k=
=GHDJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE177

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

ACW (wisdom@cyberstation.net) wrote:
>Pretty sweeping fixed motivation to lay on everyone!

We are all here for the same reason.

>What if it was an involuntary came INTO, or whatever?

Well it would have had to be involuntary, in the sense that the
being didn't FIRST have the thought to come in, because in having the
thought he would be in.

The native state being obtains in the very conception of having.

However the being does have an internal knowingness, a built in
set of abilities. It knows how to drive without really knowing
anything ABOUT how to drive.

It couldn't tell you how to drive, but it sure can drive.

Thus it knows how to come in, and it knows how to get out.

And during its coming in phase, it has the option at every step
of the way to NOT engage in the mechanisms which guarantee
continuance.

There is an aesthetic that goes with the shattering, so the being
has a 'lets see where this goes' kind of attitude, approval and
sanction are on, no matter how much it is screaming bloody murder.

Even while the being is pretending outrage and engaging in the
mechanisms of continuance, it knows it is doing this.

Just enough knowing to maintain its responsibility in the matter,
but not enough to stop the process of coming in.

The being has an innate sense of confidence in itself and the
AllThatIs. It knows it can't get into THAT much trouble, because it
knows what its fundamental abilities are and the limits of what
they can do.

"Confidence is confiding to yourself that you did this thing to
yourself." - Adore

The being can make itself ignorant of the mechanisms of
continuance, but even that decision has a moment of choice wherein the
being knows it is entering an area of no return for a while, and
appreciates the aesthetics, in particular the aesthetics of HUMOR.

The being sees the aesthetics of getting lost for a while,
in an AllThatIs that HAS no space or time to get lost in.

There is a premonition of the joke, a promise of the humor and
relief at the end.

This aesthetic of getting lost is the carrier wave of
manifestation, as everything rides on it underneath the surface
protest.

Even the surface protest is fair chosen via the same appreciation
and carrier wave as the being knows the protest is necessary to
guarantee continuance.

"High Thrill is always the effort to get lost.

High Romance is always the effort to get home.

High Halcyon is bemused relief on the verge..." - Adore

The being is not fundamentally victim, even to itself.

Contacting these aesthetics and moments of willing unwillingness,
go a long ways to freeing the being to be willing to have it happen
again, at which point it won't until he should so choose again to
shatter and pretend to be done for once again.

VGI's = laughter, humor, appreciation and willingness to view
more.

There is no difference among people in these matters.

You wouldn't WANT it any other way.

Those that claim to be different have misconstrued the JOKE.

But that too, althrough wrong, is fair chosen and must be granted
beingness by those who get the joke.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Oct 28 03:06:02 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore177.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMySDaURT1lqxE3HERAiZaAJ0eigWfyVemtIxEC7/k2wtMXubZzwCgw4vo
ETjnQiT0Dxb0gWxxSB9ww6c=
=INDP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE62

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

Xine Ann (xine.@alta.vista.net) wrote:
>On Wed, 09 May 2001 12:09:55 GMT, logic18@onebox.com (Levi Murphy)
>wrote:

>>
>>I am not a psychic warrior. I am a psychic warrior in training, I'm a
>>psychic warrior wanna-be.

>Why?

Well from reading the pilot, the stardrive of this universe is a
ring of some 30 odd GPMS with valences, items etc.

Being able to master operating this ring and its gpms would go a
long ways towards exteriorizing from the ring etc.

I am sure psychic warrior is somewhere in there, one merely needs
to find its opposing raison d'etre and away we go, high energy living.

By the way the stardrive ring is rigged so that goals and
efforts to go clear, become enlightened, be wise, etc are all
part of the ring. No way out trying to get out etc.

The ring is powered by determination.

So the best thing is to dive deeper, really SEAT oneself in the
saddle and feel the controls, and master and relish each part of the
ring until one exteriorizes naturally from the prime effort to come
in.

Covertly living in the ring or whining "Well I will sit in the
saddle but I don't WANT to!", won't do.

Run 'rue'.

Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Oct 27 03:06:03 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore62.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMx89bURT1lqxE3HERAmlgAKCQ8dljfMXr5ytSO3/jg9QCmaPNHACdHaH0
yRcLPeijRTBqEulUQrW6upE=
=WLcW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

Re: exm37.memo

Electra:
> Your basic engram is a moment of someone or something doing
> something violent to you, sufficiently so as to cause pain and some
> measure of momentary or long term unconsciousness.
>
> A secondary is a severe moment of loss such as the death of a
> parent or loss of a friend. These depend for their force on the
> underlying engrams that get restimulated during such incidents.

An engram is a moment of pain and unconsciousness.

A secondary is a moment of loss.

This implies that sorrow is so hard to cry out and confront
because of a physical engram underlying it.

This implies that sorrow over loss has no serious ontological
status of its own without the prior impact.

Either this is complete bullshit, or it is an astounding
statement beyond measure.

Homer
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

Re: ADORE275

A lot of typos in this one...

> CONCEIVE A STATIC
> What's REAL is the 3 dimensional scene in the painting, what's
> ACTUAL is the 3 dimensional canvas with paint on it.

What's actual is the 2 dimensional canvas.

> Is pointing out these illusions being negatory about the
> painting, or invalidating the painting, or degrading the painting, or
> nullifying the painting or denying the painting?

Homer
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE275

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

CONCEIVE A STATIC

What we are doing here in these series of postings on the true
nature of static and space is running the process

"Conceive a Static"

The first and primary characteristic of a static is zero
dimensionality.

It has no dimension in any direction in which to have extension,
i.e. length, breadth, width etc.

People cave in trying to conceive the AllThatIs as a zero
dimensional entity because they confuse zero dimensionality with a 3
dimensional point.

A point is a 3 dimensional entity with zero extension in each of
3 different directions.

Just as a cube of gold may have a volume of 2 x 2 x 2 or 8 cubic
inches, a point has a volume of 0 x 0 x 0 or 0 cubic inches.

THAT'S NO GOLD, now isn't it?

So a point is a physical nothing.

Nothing can fit on a point, because a point is a nothing,

So trying to stick the AllThatIs onto a 0x0x0 point is foolish
and causes the collapse of dreamtime space.

We are trying to run conceive a static, not conceive a point or a
nothing!

The static is not a 3 dimensional entity, not even a point of
0x0x0 volume.

A static is a scalar entity of zero dimensions.

A scalar entity is not a 3 dimensional entity, it doesn't have 3
dimensions, it has zero dimensions. It has NO DIRECTION in which to
have any extension, let alone zero extension!

You have to have at least one dimension to have zero extension in
that direction to end up a physical nothing!

Zero extension in any one of your dimensions makes you a nothing.

Even a 2 x 2 x 0 piece of gold is no gold.

If you have zero dimensions, then you can't have zero extension
in any direction, so you can't be a nothing. You end up being a
something!

So the AllThatIs is a zero dimensional scalar entity called a
static.

Since is has no dimensions of any kind to its true nature,
including space or time dimensions, it is with out space or time or
any other kind of dimensionality.

Since it has no dimension, it can have no direction in which to
extend itself, so there is nowhere for anything to move or go. Thus
there can be no motion or energy.

It can however cast illusions of dimensionality within itself.

This may sound absurd on the face of it, but be greatful. It is
absurd that anything exists at all, let alone this thing of which we
speak.

In fact if you aren't getting the absurdity of the static, you
aren't anywhere near conceiving it.

Casting illusion of dimensionality within itself is what Ron
called 'postulation and consideration'.

A postulate is a posted beingness. The static posts one or more
conscious experiences, or objects.

Remember colorforms as a kid? Black board with colored
vinyl shapes and forms. You press one of the color forms to
the board and it stays up there? That's a posted beingness.

A posted beingness is any object in consciousness exactly as it
is.

The static then makes considerations about those posted
beingnesses, namely how they came to be, how they cause and effect
each other and what they are used for.

Considerations are added significance to a posted beingness and
cause its persistence.

Stripping all considerations from a posted beingness,
particularly illusory ones that aren't actually true, returns the
posted beingness to its original state of as-isness, at which point if
the being let's go of creating it, it will vanish.

We say illusory, because the castings or posted beingnesses look
like they have space and time when viewed from inside them, but they
continue nonetheless to be castings in the zero dimensional static.
So at no time is anything with actual dimension actually made.

Just because something looks like it takes up space, doesn't mean
it does.

So this is all very important material because an OT exterior
with full perception CAN CONCEIVE A STATIC.

He gets his power from being able to do so.

"Power stems from operating Majesty.

Majesty is Master of Jest, mastery of jokes." - Adore

Operating Majesty is the static casting illusions of
dimensionality within its own non dimensional fabric.

Now the joke is static is all around you.

Look AT ANYTHING, and you are looking at the static!

Want to see some static? Look at the monitor in front of your
face. Look at the walls, hear the sounds, feel the floor, or an
emotion.

It may look like its out there, it may look like its timing now,
now, now, etc, it may look like its got color, weight and temperature,
but these are all just conscious experiences, self glowing castings of
dimensionality and its objects in the body of the zero dimensional
static.

THESE ARE ALL JUST STATIC GLOWING IN THE VOID.

If you can see the world, you are seeing what the static looks
like when it glows with self luminous consciousness.

Look this is really easy. People try to make it hard, but they
got other intentionedness.

Take a really good painting by one of the masters.

The picture in the painting can look very 3 dimensional, but the
painting is ACTUALLY 2 dimensional. The 3 dimensional image is casted
on a 2 dimensional canvas substrate. Get it?

So the 3 dimensions in the painting are illusions.

What's actual is the 2 dimensional canvas. The purpose of a
good painting is to cast the 3 dimensional illusion on the 2
dimensional substrate.

What's REAL is the 3 dimensional scene in the painting, what's
ACTUAL is the 3 dimensional canvas with paint on it.

We want people to forget what's actual and get into the reality
of the scene. That's the whole intent is to get lost in the illusion,
engage in delusion that it's not an illusion for a while.

Self luminousness isn't hard either.

A really good painting of a sunset will have a gorgeous sun
shining on the valley below casting it rose glow over everything. But
you know very well the valley in the painting isn't lit by the sun in
the painting, right?

The painter tries to create the illusion that the valley in the
painting is lit by the sun in the painting. The better the painting
the better the illusion. But in truth both are lit by the light that
the conscious observer brings to the painting.

Is pointing out these illusions being negatory about the
pointing, or invalidating the painting, or degrading the painting, or
nullifying the painting or denying the painting?

NO, ITS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PAINTING.

Do these truth's detract from the painting?

No of course not.

Are these truth's about the painting better left unsaid and
unknown?

No of course not.

ONE NEEDS TO KNOW THEY ARE ILLUSIONS AND BECOME MASTER OF THESE
ILLUSIONS IF ONE IS EVER GOING TO BE A GOOD PAINTER.

So what's so hard?

Everything around you, everything you can see, feel, touch,
taste, hear, feel and think is MADE OF STATIC CANVAS with the illusion
of dimensionality and its objects painted on it.

The paint is made of self luminious conscious experience.

The Sun does not light the day.

Both the sun and the day are lit by the self luminious Self.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 26 03:06:02 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore275.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMxn3aURT1lqxE3HERAjSTAJ0TgKWRI9OrJAEdbEjgt7JEtqvfXwCePnB9
oOKuIOmiipqCVxhu93XUPbw=
=rQuM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE720

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

PHILOSOPHIC vs SCIENTIFIC

If the statement 'Daisies exist' is a scientific statement that is
subject to proof and verification, then so is the statement 'The
physical universe exists.'

There is no topological different between them.

Daisies are merely a subset of the physical universe.

Thus it doesn't matter if one asserts that daisies exist, or
planets exist, or stars, or galaxies, or spacetime, or the PU itself,
they are all simply existential assertions that are open to verification
by demonstrating the existence of at least one such instance of any of
them.

If there is a daisy, show me one.

If there is a physical universe, show me one.

DEMONSTRATING the existence of a daisy inside the PU, is no
different than DEMONSTRATING the existence of the entire shebang.

Show me one, and it's done.

Notice that if you can show me a daisy, you HAVE shown me a
physical universe by definition of a daisy being a subset of the PU.

Notice also that it is not sufficient to show me a PICTURE or a
conscious experience of one to prove it exists (and isn't a
hallucination), I need to see one directly.

There in lies the rub, because if all I can see are pictures of
things, or conscious renditions of them, and I can never see the thing
itself directly, then I can never have the proof I seek that the thing
in question actually exists. All I have proof of is the existence of
the pictures and conscious renditions!

The existence of the object in question remains a theory, supported
but never proven by the evidence of pictures and conscious renditions.

Existence of symbol does not prove existence of referent.

You can never learn with perfect certainty about A by looking at B.
It's kind of silly to even try.

Now some will claim that science only applies to the existence of
those things IN the physical universe, not to the physical universe as a
whole.

They would claim that the assertion that the physical universe
exists, is a philosophical position and not a scientific one.

That's ok by me, but I don't see the necessity to the complexity.

If the existence of the entire physical universe is not in the
realm of science, then what realm is it in? Science is supposed to give
us truth, the actual truth and nothing but the truth. What good is
getting the truth about an arena of activity, if the very existence of
that arena itself is in scientific question or worse irrelevancy?

By claiming that only those things in the physical universe are
objects of valid scientific study, science removes itself from the
bigger truths of the AllThatIs, that surrender to the exact same methods
science uses in the physical universe.

OBSERVE, THEORIZE, PREDICT, EXPERIMENT, OBSERVE.

To say that this activity in the physical universe is sound
science, but the exact same activity in the conscious universe is not,
is lunacy.

Someone is trying to DEFINE the conscious universe out of
existence, because somehow 'only science gives us the truth' and 'only
the physical universe is a valid arena for scientific study.'

If you fall for that one, you must have wanted it and paid for it,
and so it serves you right.

ACTUAL vs VIRTUAL

If the physical universe is a virtual universe, a dream or co
hallucination in the mind of God and many dreamers, then it is obvious
that experiments within the virtual universe, will never be able to
detect the actual universe that is virtualizing it.

Things inside the virtual universe are virtual actualities, while
the virtual universe as a whole is an actual virtuality.

In this sense one might be able to say that discovering knowledge
about things inside the virtual physical universe is some how different
than discovering things ABOUT the actual virtualizing of the physical
universe in the first place.

Those are two different arenas for sure.

But the METHODS of science remain the same, because LOGIC remains
the same, and IS is IS remains the same, and ALL or SOME remain the
same and thus verifiability and falsifiability remain the same.

Whatever you say about ANYTHING from rock to God is either an
existential statement, 'some thing exists' or a universal statement,
'all things are such and so'.

Thus any existential statement is verifiable via instantiation, presenting
those interested with an actual direct instance of the statement.

"Daisies exist", well here's a daisy.

And just so, any universal statment is falsifiable via counter instantiation,
presenting those interested with a direct countering instance of the statement.

"All daisies are white", well here's a black daisy.

Inside the virtual universe one is limited to virtual tools to
discover virtual rules, and virtual phenomenon and their apparent relations.

Outside the virtual universe, one must use actual tools to discover
actual rules, and actual phenomenon and their actual relations.

Thus there is a science on how to make daisies inside the virtual
universe, and there is a science on how to make virtual universes inside
the actual universe.

The science INSIDE a virtual universe is merely a virtualization of
the science OUTSIDE the virtual universe!

Thus science in the actual universe existed first before it could
be virtualized into the virtual universe.

Thus if science exists in the realm of Mammon, science must also
exist in the realm of God.

Thus the scientific method remains the same whether one is in a
dream or not, whether one studies things in the dream using dream tools,
or studies the dream itself using actual tools.

Homer

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Feb 13 22:55:27 EST 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 25 03:06:03 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore720.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMxSxbURT1lqxE3HERAmn0AJ9Lihcnaj5DcyEpUJcbixBx8T4zjgCfeYYO
J0Mkbu8ghwXNAsV64DY5mBg=
=ey6G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE281

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

Curiosus (curiosus@fastmail.fm) wrote:
>- Do thetans are pure individuals, as Hubbard desperately tried to
>prove it, or do they need other thetans to exist?

Either/or thinking can be dangerous when there is a third answer.

The One and the Many are two parts of a single greater whole.

The many are connected through the One to each other.

The fingers of your hand are individuals, but they are part of
the hand which is one. You see?

If you look at your fingers through a 2D slice, you see separated
circles. If you look through a 3D slide, you see they are connected
to your hand.

Thetans are the same way. Viewed 3 dimensionally, they are
separated, viewed zero dimensionally they are One.

The thetan can be in the many state, or the one state, timeful,
or timeless, spacefull or spaceless, finite, or zero/infinite.

He can even be in both at the same time, this creates a lot of
free energy. Dipping into the void and sprinkling it on MEST makes
MEST grow beautifully. Ever want a green thumb for MEST?

>- If thetans have memory of their past lives, how is this memory
>stored? Does it need some invisible physical substrate, or is it purely
>spiritual in nature?

MEST facsimiles are real, they are not made of physical matter,
but are made of mental 'matter'. If you have ever taken apart a
murderous ridge you will know this.

Mockup some mental clay and plaster it against your face until
you can't mockup any more :)

But beyond facsimiles and other's similar things, the being can
pervade the underlying data matrix that projects the world and access
the past and possible futures directly.

>- What part of my awareness and intelligence depends on my brain, what
>part is immortal?

Your brain does not exist except as a virtual machine in a
virtual reality/arcade game. YOUR BRAIN IS PART OF YOUR DREAM.

Does your brain exist in sleep dreams? Ever cut your dream head
open and let your dream brains spill out?

They don't exist in the waking state either, except as mocked up
hook together to help the body anime run.

Thinking you need a brain to be, have or do anything is a trap.

It will also break your brain eventually and ruin the body.

Using your body brain to work with, beyond driving your body
nuts, forces you into seeing stereo by merging two 2D pictures, an
utterly absurd way of seeing. Good for bodies, terrible for thetans.

Using the brain for memories, limits your memory to this lifetime.

Using the brain for ability, limits your abilities to that of a
body at whatever age you are.

Its one thing to have a dog as a pet, quite another to be inside
its brain walking it around all day long. What are you doing that
for?

Homer

>--
>Curiosus

>http://www.geocities.com/curiosus_2005/spcos.htm

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 24 03:06:02 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore281.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMw9rbURT1lqxE3HERAt4fAJ9B6A6ajXZ62wvH1C/kzav0Zpoe8QCfZbhI
6smwww74FPCbOWxyAmx0BQY=
=z29/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

COMMENTS ON THE PROOF

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

COMMENTS ON THE PROOF

> Having been in Scn for 30 years (and now out for 2 years), (yeah, I'm an
> idiot)

No. Consider it paying your dues and a trial by fire.

> I now wonder what can be achieved through processing. It appears that
> dispite all you have done you don't find yourself in very good shape or
> maybe I'm just reading reposts that are out of date. It sounds like you have
> had a ton of auditing/solo or am I mistaken? Are you still processing your
> case in PT?

All the auditing I have gotten from others has been 90 percent a
waste of time, EXCEPT that when I start making real case gain, all those
prior communication cycles start to work. Its an interesting phenomenon
but well noted by Hubbard. NO auditing is not a waste of time, as long as
SOME auditing eventually comes around and does something real. Then all
the wasted cycles complete and the prior case gain suddenly appears out of
nowhere.

Yes I am auditing full time, I am at monotony on the tone scale
physically, lots of pain, sleep is terrible, sleep is probably the
most deadly thing in the world next to fumes for me. 40 percent
of my daily auditing is undoing the damage of sleep/dreams, and
getting back to where I was the night before, before I went to sleep.

Spiritually I am at hysteria, shock, catatonia and oblivion, with
mild trips down to criminality, disassociation, disconnection and
failed unexistance :) Especially when confronted by stupid auditors
bringing me stupid auditing.

> I too am an entrepreeur, a computer programmer. I was reading your recent
> post about Lightlink being on the edge and your desire to do something else.

Yeah I am in the middle a huge elsewhereness, tired of losing
money, but also tired of not being able to breath the air outside,
fumes, diesel, wood smoke, lawn mowing, barbequeing, you name it. I
live in a pretty clean corner of reality here, but one block away and I
might as well be working in the tar pits.

The thought of working for a zombie zoner makes we want to kill
myself, so I hang on to my starving entrepreneur valence with all I got.

> I find myself in similar circumstances. What should I do now.... My life at
> the moment is a mess, but I'm slowly coming out of the pit I've dug in
> recent years.
>
>> From reading your essays I feel we are kindred spirits.
>
> I'd like to know more about what all this has done for you personally.

Well I would like to have 'well and happy human being.'

It isn't necessary to know the answers to all the burning questions
of the world in order to feel good just breathing, even if all your
friends are hanging on crosses for as far as you can see and screaming
to die.

It is however necessary to be able to deal with those burning
questions, so you don't kill yourself over the fact you don't have
answers, like what the hell I am doing here?

And now that I am here, what the hell should I be doing.

I been running a LOT of

What NO false purpose is there?
What SOME false purpose is there?
What NO true purpose is there?
What SOME true purpose is there?

It has molted into simply,

What NO purpose is there?
What SOME purpose is there?

The questions in the commands are rhetorical only, as a solo auditor
I know not to actually try to answer the question, but to merely ask
them. Its the running of the NO, the not-is on the purposes, that
releases the tension and pain surrounding them.

Prior to that group I was running

Spot NO promotion.
Spot SOME promotion.

I am basically in non existence with the world, and thus the formula
is to promote, promote, promote.

But promote what?

And not promote what?

This is powerful stuff as it takes the being right up to promotion,
prediction, activity, production, result, correction, ability, and
purposes, clearing and realization, whatever the hell those last 3 are.

But action in other words.

But action for who? We are all still trying to keep the damn body
alive, so we are enslaved to its up keep. Now that's not inherently a
problem, I keep 6 cats alive just fine thank you, and they repay me by
showing me what body life should be :)

But the problem is I need to USE the body to create that
survival, I don't have to USE my cats to create their survival.

So there is a lot of resentment on the part of my body etc.

It can barely breath, or walk straight, and dives for cover
at the slightest whiff of fumes.

And keeping bodies alive is about as low as it goes in the garden
of life, although its OK for a prison job.

That said, the condition I am in presently is WAY better than
the condition I was in say 2 years ago when I was truly desperate,
and things were so solid a chain saw couldn't cut them.

I think it all started to turn around when I started running
THE UNDUPLICATABLE INTENTION of about two summers ago.

Now having discovered running all items with NO and SOME,
its actually cleaning up, as if NO and SOME was the secret
to the universe all along.

It even runs without specific items at all!

Get the idea,

There is NO item.
There is SOME item.

This is all described in detail in the last 50 postings
in my archives.

> Maybe a lot of people bug you about this stuff. I don't know. But I would
> like to talk to you if you are willing. And we are two Smiths after all :)

Any time, better to get me in the afternoon, any time after
2pm. 607 227 5465 is my cell. Call me and I will call you back.

> If not, I'll plug along the path I see before me, which at present is to do
> TROM as a starter.

TROM inspired a good deal of stuff from me, I ran it for a long time,
in the end it didn't touch my Black V condition, where NO/SOME has started
to turn on pictures, both horrific and beautific.

http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/act69.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/act70.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/act71.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/act72.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/act73.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/act74.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/act75.memo

69 is worth reading, as it was where I was when I ran into trom,
and the rest followed in short order.

> Either way, I want to tell you that your writings are
> very much appreciated by this I-AM. "The Proof" pulled everything come
> together for me with clarity. I see what the gurus are pointing to, what
> Hubby was looking for, and all the other seekers on this road. I guess being
> an "engineering" type it just didn't crystalize until someone laid it out as
> you have. The experience of seeing what you are saying there is a real
> mind-opener indeed. You rock!

Well someone or something rocks. Thanks for the comments.

But I got it all from Hubbard and Guru Maharaji, and who knows who
the hell else is pouring stuff into my ever more than slightly cracked
mind.

But yeah, Hubbard said the world was a dream, Maharaji said the
world was a theory, the Buddhists said the world was maya, and so I
thought you know if the world is a dream, there MUST be some way to
prove it. For I knew I was certain of the dream, and symbol does not
prove referent. Thus if the world was not a dream, there would never
ever be a way to know for sure.

Everything followed after that, too much APL and CMS vm\370.

Homer (cp link 191 ...) Smith.

>
> Wishing you health and prosperity,
>

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Oct 23 20:20:22 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore810.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMw3vGURT1lqxE3HERAj8vAJ9QMfPL4h28gEAih44/FdtqejtRFQCdG/Zr
thv+01iJTmSrADZ2g0iplY4=
=fox3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

BEING BODIES

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

BEING BODIES

What has never been clear to me is where BEING A BODY is on the
negative tone scale.

The freezone and Scn tone scales differ at the point of death,
failure, pity, regret, accountable, blame and shame.

The Scn tone scale goes:

0.00 Body Death
-0.01 Failure
-0.10 Pity

I understand pity, somebody or pet you loved died a horrible
death, usually your fault.

-0.20 SHAME (Being other bodies)

I take this to mean the being is tring to distance himself
from the now death body, so that other's will not think it was his.

-0.70 Accountable

Failing that, the being is now accountable to other bodies as
to why his is dead.

-1.00 BLAME (Punishing other bodies)

The being tries to shift responsibility to another, by blaming
them for the death, Goober says Dufus did it.

-2.00 REGRET (Responsibility as blame)

Dufus refuses the blame and proves that Goober in fact did do
it himself. Thus Goober now feels regret. In advanced procedure
an axioms Hubbard says this stirs the emotion of guilt, not because
his body is dead by his own hand (usually unintentionally), but
because he tried to shift blame to another, and failed.

Shifting blame then becomes the confessable sin.

-1.50 Controlling bodies
-2.20 Protecting bodies
-3.00 Owning Bodies
-3.50 Approval from bodies.

The being falls into controlling, protecting, owning bodies for
their own good, he becomes a body farmer, possibly controlling more than
one body much as a cowboy controls more than one horse on the ranch,
and measures his success by their approval of his stewardship.

-4.00 Needing bodies
-5.00 Worshipping bodies
-6.00 Sacrifice

Failing that, the being gets addicted to bodies, worships them
as gods and sacrifices self to bodies for their betterment.

-8.00 Hiding

Failing that, with everyone looking for him for body abuse,
he goes into hiding.

The rest is obvious.

-10.00 Being objects
-20.00 Being nothing
-30.00 Can't Hide
-40.00 Total failure

At what point does a being BECOME a body to the point where
it thinks it is a body?

At SHAME (being other bodies)?

Or at BEING OBJECTS?

The body is an object.

Most of the beings I know are down at being nothing, or can't hide.

And what is sacrifice?

Is that sacrifice of bodies? Or is that sacrifice of self
towards the care of a body?

And what is worshipping bodies?

Is that 'worship' as a being worships a God (idolization) or
is that 'worship' as a mother worships a child (taking care of).

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

On Sat, 23 Oct 2010, homer@lightlink.com wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> 09/28/10 Tuesday 11:53am EST
>
> TONE SCALE
>
> Basic equation of the tone scale is
>
> Doing = knowing plus wanting times probability of success.
>
> Or something like that.
>
> Instensity of emotion is intensity of desire.
>
> Frequency or tone of emotion is one's consideration of proability of
> success.
>
> Actual doing comes from the protocols for different layers of
> failure, from strong approach, to covert approach, to strong retreat, to
> crying for help, to pretended death, to being dead.
>
> Negative tone scale is an effort to make up for pity on past body
> deaths, one becomes the body to give it a better life, and the body
> responds with enthusiasm or not a the case may be, which is the 0 to 4.0
> part of the BODY tone scale.
>
> Above death and failure, the thetan also has his 0 to 4, but while
> in a body, his usual tone is way down below zero.
>
> See SUB DEATH:
>
> http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi/homer/adore315.memo
>
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
> homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
>
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Thaddeus Slamp wrote:
>
>> I don't know if the tone scale would be the best place to start any
>> attempt at scientology apologetics, but I think it's where I'd start
>>
>> Status-wize, I am less than nobody, but 1 of my hobbies is to try to
>> think of scientology apologetics, which is difficult, right off the
>> bat, because scientology is largely a system of TRAINED OBSERVATION
>> based methods. Scientology makes "nearly infinitely' (for lack of a
>> better estimate, or term for such) more sence to a person who's been
>> trained in such observation. So I think I will start. I know I am
>> only a sample of 1-only 1 data point, but I will be pretty honest, and
>> a data-point of 1 can have some value.
>>
>> What I want to say is that I honestly believe that Hubbared is the 1st
>> man ever do understand and delineate the nature of human emotion. I
>> am not giving official party line here; I really think so. I do not
>> mean the tone scale in full; I don't know about that. Might or might
>> not be true, far as I'm concerned, but the tone scale, aproximately as
>> layed out in Science of Survival, and the Chjart of Human Evaluation
>> found in the back of that book. I consider much of that data to be
>> hard won fact, that you ignore at your own risk, and the tone-scale as
>> a basic concept the first true exposition of the true nature of human
>> emotion. A few may agree that it's true, but also think it's "duh
>> ralph". Most people already know that. I will defend thus: by
>> crediting Freud more than Hubbard did when he gave his thoughts on
>> that seminal thinker. Without arguing that the stages are
>> psycho-sexual, as Freud argued (I am not going to get into the whole
>> yakity yak mistranslation, yak), Freud was the 1st to discribe the
>> stages of human development, and Hubbard sometimes overstated his case
>> that children do not. His exact quote was something like "Anyone who
>> thinks children go thru exact stages, uniformly, deserves to be
>> psychoanalysed" (In 1 of the 2nd dynamic lecturs). Freud may hnot be
>> the 1st person to notice the stages of child development, but he's the
>> 1st scientist to have deineated them, and he did so somewhat
>> elegantly. If he'd been a better scientist he would have emediately
>> let a better scientist knowck down his theory and give 1 even more
>> elegent, and even better at explaining the facts. Well maybe not
>> uniformly, but certainly commonly, to the point where if a kid does
>> not have any "terrible two's", such is a bit freakish. Not as extreme
>> as those of another child sure, not non-present....I'd have that
>> checked out, if I were you. There might be a major problem (I am not
>> qualified to say there is likely a problem, but that would be my
>> guess). In fact Either Erickson's (Eric Ericson's), or Timothy
>> Leary's (Tmothy Leary's 8 circuit model of the human nervouse system
>> is presented in a number of places, but probably best explained for
>> the more cerbral set, in Quantum Psychology, by Robert Anton Wilson [
>> and yes, Virginia, I do think it likely, that Leary "stole" the idea
>> from Hubbards 8 dynamics...knowing what I know it is impossible to
>> think otherwise] )take on Freuds stages of developement are probably
>> the 1 other piece of the understanding of human emotion that Hubbard
>> neglected (in my opinion of course). I've not found any other takes
>> worth mentioning, that are not mentioned in these sources.
>>
>> There are 3 no longer present items in 2 Hubbard books, that I think
>> may help in my making my case as well as I can:
>> 1) an essay on philosophy science, inductive method and deductive
>> method, found in early printings of DSMH, and
>> 2)The psychological study, andq
>> 3)Quote from a famouse psychotherapist...
>> ...that used to appear, up untill a new printing in the mid to late
>> 80's, or maybe very early 90's got rid of them.
>>
>> I have lost hope of making this argument, as well as I had initially.
>> All I know is that subjectively, to me, there is no other way of
>> thinking about human emotion than the tone scale, opr @ least that
>> does not include such, and it is from accepting the rot of other
>> takes, that our society reaches most of it's greater lunacy.
>>
>> At any rate, Hubbard succeeded by applying philosophy, that is
>> developing a theoory that was somewhat elegant from the git-go. I 1ce
>> read a book on abnormal psychology where some psychiatrist had
>> developed a very elegant spectrum model of the catagories in the DSM.
>> It really was elegant. Quite disssapointed in reading the text (tho
>> by no means surprised) to learn that it was rejected, becaus, tho
>> those who appreciated elegance and symetry, thought it was true, most
>> of those who had to try to use it in clinical settings, could not
>> conceptualise it. What Hubbard was saying about psychologists ability
>> to understand basic concepts might not really be true of psychologists
>> or psychiatrists, but everything I know about psychiatric nurses tells
>> me, that such is certainly true of them).
>>
>> So I think that science has erred by letting materialists creep in by
>> ignoring philosophy, and I think that the modern intellectual world is
>> suffering from data that it could really really use, by failure to
>> understand Hubbards achievement in this concept.
>>
>> There may not be real theta, but there might need to be theta as an
>> archetype, and such an archetype reflective of some real
>> sociobiological fact. I also think Hubbard was right that people
>> below a certain tone level are so turbulant, that dealing with them is
>> hazardouse to the health of any untrained person, and pure drag on
>> society. If Hubbard was arguably not as humane in Science of
>> Survival, as one might hope, we may find we can do better at being
>> humane than he, or we may not, but let's not throw the baby out with
>> the bathwater.
>>
>> Over the years I've not been in the church, my certainty on the
>> tone-scale, has increased, not decreased. The world messed up in not
>> paying more attention to it, in my opinion. Theres some nut on utube
>> who claims he can knock it down, but he's so obviously either lying or
>> on too pink of a cloud for me to even listen to him for more than 3
>> minutes.
>>
>> I thought I'd do so much better, but all I can say is knowing what I
>> know, there is no theory of human emotion that is not inferior to
>> Hubbards, and improved understanding of human emotion will begin when
>> all realise that Hubbard was 1 of the 1st thinkers to say something
>> lucid on the subject.l
>>
>> This has been my opinion. I wish I'd done better, but I ran outa
>> steam or something.
>>
>> --
>> call me: (503) 395-8475
>> Find out @ the following constantly evolving site:
>> http://slarty.pbworks.com/
>> better searches:http://www.zuula.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Clear-L mailing list
>> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
>> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>>
> Tue Sep 28 11:55:45 EDT 2010
>
> ================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
> Sat Oct 23 03:06:01 EDT 2010
> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore803.memo
> Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFMwolaURT1lqxE3HERAgtgAKCsJKe+BLPF83QWxLNmJ05c1MYi+wCgwTjm
> 4Q5lcC6U4T4GS3SQcQfc2Xk=
> =kBUf
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Homerwsmith-l mailing list
> Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
>

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Oct 23 15:50:32 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore809.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMwzyIURT1lqxE3HERAvnQAJsE51LIxauqVZuJpLJrc48Dslg2xACdE108
uVo77ACadxks6Tnegc/IQgc=
=CAfw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE803

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

09/28/10 Tuesday 11:53am EST

TONE SCALE

Basic equation of the tone scale is

Doing = knowing plus wanting times probability of success.

Or something like that.

Instensity of emotion is intensity of desire.

Frequency or tone of emotion is one's consideration of proability of
success.

Actual doing comes from the protocols for different layers of
failure, from strong approach, to covert approach, to strong retreat, to
crying for help, to pretended death, to being dead.

Negative tone scale is an effort to make up for pity on past body
deaths, one becomes the body to give it a better life, and the body
responds with enthusiasm or not a the case may be, which is the 0 to 4.0
part of the BODY tone scale.

Above death and failure, the thetan also has his 0 to 4, but while
in a body, his usual tone is way down below zero.

See SUB DEATH:

http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi/homer/adore315.memo

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Thaddeus Slamp wrote:

> I don't know if the tone scale would be the best place to start any
> attempt at scientology apologetics, but I think it's where I'd start
>
> Status-wize, I am less than nobody, but 1 of my hobbies is to try to
> think of scientology apologetics, which is difficult, right off the
> bat, because scientology is largely a system of TRAINED OBSERVATION
> based methods. Scientology makes "nearly infinitely' (for lack of a
> better estimate, or term for such) more sence to a person who's been
> trained in such observation. So I think I will start. I know I am
> only a sample of 1-only 1 data point, but I will be pretty honest, and
> a data-point of 1 can have some value.
>
> What I want to say is that I honestly believe that Hubbared is the 1st
> man ever do understand and delineate the nature of human emotion. I
> am not giving official party line here; I really think so. I do not
> mean the tone scale in full; I don't know about that. Might or might
> not be true, far as I'm concerned, but the tone scale, aproximately as
> layed out in Science of Survival, and the Chjart of Human Evaluation
> found in the back of that book. I consider much of that data to be
> hard won fact, that you ignore at your own risk, and the tone-scale as
> a basic concept the first true exposition of the true nature of human
> emotion. A few may agree that it's true, but also think it's "duh
> ralph". Most people already know that. I will defend thus: by
> crediting Freud more than Hubbard did when he gave his thoughts on
> that seminal thinker. Without arguing that the stages are
> psycho-sexual, as Freud argued (I am not going to get into the whole
> yakity yak mistranslation, yak), Freud was the 1st to discribe the
> stages of human development, and Hubbard sometimes overstated his case
> that children do not. His exact quote was something like "Anyone who
> thinks children go thru exact stages, uniformly, deserves to be
> psychoanalysed" (In 1 of the 2nd dynamic lecturs). Freud may hnot be
> the 1st person to notice the stages of child development, but he's the
> 1st scientist to have deineated them, and he did so somewhat
> elegantly. If he'd been a better scientist he would have emediately
> let a better scientist knowck down his theory and give 1 even more
> elegent, and even better at explaining the facts. Well maybe not
> uniformly, but certainly commonly, to the point where if a kid does
> not have any "terrible two's", such is a bit freakish. Not as extreme
> as those of another child sure, not non-present....I'd have that
> checked out, if I were you. There might be a major problem (I am not
> qualified to say there is likely a problem, but that would be my
> guess). In fact Either Erickson's (Eric Ericson's), or Timothy
> Leary's (Tmothy Leary's 8 circuit model of the human nervouse system
> is presented in a number of places, but probably best explained for
> the more cerbral set, in Quantum Psychology, by Robert Anton Wilson [
> and yes, Virginia, I do think it likely, that Leary "stole" the idea
> from Hubbards 8 dynamics...knowing what I know it is impossible to
> think otherwise] )take on Freuds stages of developement are probably
> the 1 other piece of the understanding of human emotion that Hubbard
> neglected (in my opinion of course). I've not found any other takes
> worth mentioning, that are not mentioned in these sources.
>
> There are 3 no longer present items in 2 Hubbard books, that I think
> may help in my making my case as well as I can:
> 1) an essay on philosophy science, inductive method and deductive
> method, found in early printings of DSMH, and
> 2)The psychological study, andq
> 3)Quote from a famouse psychotherapist...
> ...that used to appear, up untill a new printing in the mid to late
> 80's, or maybe very early 90's got rid of them.
>
> I have lost hope of making this argument, as well as I had initially.
> All I know is that subjectively, to me, there is no other way of
> thinking about human emotion than the tone scale, opr @ least that
> does not include such, and it is from accepting the rot of other
> takes, that our society reaches most of it's greater lunacy.
>
> At any rate, Hubbard succeeded by applying philosophy, that is
> developing a theoory that was somewhat elegant from the git-go. I 1ce
> read a book on abnormal psychology where some psychiatrist had
> developed a very elegant spectrum model of the catagories in the DSM.
> It really was elegant. Quite disssapointed in reading the text (tho
> by no means surprised) to learn that it was rejected, becaus, tho
> those who appreciated elegance and symetry, thought it was true, most
> of those who had to try to use it in clinical settings, could not
> conceptualise it. What Hubbard was saying about psychologists ability
> to understand basic concepts might not really be true of psychologists
> or psychiatrists, but everything I know about psychiatric nurses tells
> me, that such is certainly true of them).
>
> So I think that science has erred by letting materialists creep in by
> ignoring philosophy, and I think that the modern intellectual world is
> suffering from data that it could really really use, by failure to
> understand Hubbards achievement in this concept.
>
> There may not be real theta, but there might need to be theta as an
> archetype, and such an archetype reflective of some real
> sociobiological fact. I also think Hubbard was right that people
> below a certain tone level are so turbulant, that dealing with them is
> hazardouse to the health of any untrained person, and pure drag on
> society. If Hubbard was arguably not as humane in Science of
> Survival, as one might hope, we may find we can do better at being
> humane than he, or we may not, but let's not throw the baby out with
> the bathwater.
>
> Over the years I've not been in the church, my certainty on the
> tone-scale, has increased, not decreased. The world messed up in not
> paying more attention to it, in my opinion. Theres some nut on utube
> who claims he can knock it down, but he's so obviously either lying or
> on too pink of a cloud for me to even listen to him for more than 3
> minutes.
>
> I thought I'd do so much better, but all I can say is knowing what I
> know, there is no theory of human emotion that is not inferior to
> Hubbards, and improved understanding of human emotion will begin when
> all realise that Hubbard was 1 of the 1st thinkers to say something
> lucid on the subject.l
>
> This has been my opinion. I wish I'd done better, but I ran outa
> steam or something.
>
> --
> call me: (503) 395-8475
> Find out @ the following constantly evolving site:
> http://slarty.pbworks.com/
> better searches:http://www.zuula.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
Tue Sep 28 11:55:45 EDT 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Oct 23 03:06:01 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore803.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMwolaURT1lqxE3HERAgtgAKCsJKe+BLPF83QWxLNmJ05c1MYi+wCgwTjm
4Q5lcC6U4T4GS3SQcQfc2Xk=
=kBUf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

PROBLEMS OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE

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

PROBLEMS OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE

> The preclear is then asked to invent a problem of comparable
> magnitude to that person. He is asked to do this many many times.

The person is a terminal not a problem.

The preclear has a problem WITH that terminal.

The preclear may say mother is a problem, but mother is a terminal
with whom they HAVE a problem.

Mother probably also has a problem back with the preclear.

So problems are usually two way ridges.

An example of a problem might be lack of desired co operation.

Thus inventing a problem of comparable magnitude involves first
inventing terminals of comparable magnitude, and then inventing problems
WITH those terminals of comparable magnitude (seriousness, difficulty
etc).

Also inventing problems the other terminal could have with the
preclear as problems are a two way flow.

Concentration on inventing problems without first inventing terminals
to have the problem with, or at least indicating existing terminals one is
inventing the problem about, will not work, as one can not confront a
problem, one can only confront a terminal with whom one has a problem.

It is mocking up the MASS and living energy of the TERMINAL that makes
the process work. One doesn't want to experience the mass and living
energy of the terminal one has a problem with, thus these unconfronted
masses and energies become bigger than the preclear. He sees the pretty
girl, his spine lights up and he has to run.

Mocking up the mass and living energy of the terminal brings the
preclear's confront and ability to create mass and living energy back up
to a par with the terminal he is having problems confronting. You can't be
scared of a pretty girl if YOU can mock her up 10 times bigger and 100
times prettier than she really is.

The preclear is stuck in a 'nothing could be prettier'. Bang, girl
wins.

Looking for earlier similar problems, as in running rudiments at
start of session, won't work either for the same reason unless one
first looks for earlier TERMINALS with which one had earlier similar
problems.

You want to start session but the preclear's parking meter is about to
run out of time and he needs to go put another quarter in it. His problem
is not with the meter, but the POLICE FORCE, you see? Running that
earlier similar can get interesting. Running parking meters earlier
similar will miss the point and the charge on his case.

Without mocking up the terminal the problem will not run out.

Time spent mocking up the present, past, future or invented terminal
in good detail, is more important than time spent mocking up the problem
in detail.

Homer

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

Must do and must not happen again form the basic dicom of
this universe of entrapment.

DIANETICS TODAY

Page 144

"Unfortunately for the world of action, it will be discovered that
one who can confront everything, does not have to handle anything. In
support of this is offered that Scientology process "Problems of
Comparable Magnitude".

In this particular process the individual being processed is asked to
select a terminal with which he has had difficulty. In that the
definition of a terminal is a 'live mass' or something that is capable of
causing, receiving or relaying communication, it will be seen that
terminals are quite ordinary people in the problem category of anyone's
bank.

The person is then asked to invent a problem of comparable
magnitude to that person. He is asked to do this many many times.

It is found midway in the process that he is willing to do something
now about the problems he is having with that person. But at the end
of the process a new and strange thing is found to occur. The individual
no longer feels that he MUST do something about the problem.

Indeed, he can simply confront or regard or view the problem with
complete equanimity. Now an almost mystic quality enters this when it is
discovered that the problem in the physical universe about which he has
been worried often ceases to exist out there. In other words, the
handling of a problem seems to be simply the increase of ability to
confront the problem, and when the problem can be totally confronted it no
longer exists. This is strange and miraculous."

Has anyone ever attained Grade I?

For real?

Lot of phoney certs out there hanging on walls....

Homer

- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Oct 22 13:46:28 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore808.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMwc30URT1lqxE3HERAgQ0AJ4w3lqpvgD0USnKLIr17VaYxzpZuQCfXF+6
m7DfDFuemdFu/cLhp0Tr+KU=
=aYA9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

DIANETICS

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

Must do and must not happen again form the basic dicom of
this universe of entrapment.

DIANETICS TODAY

Page 144

"Unfortunately for the world of action, it will be discovered that
one who can confront everything, does not have to handle anything. In
support of this is offered that Scientology process "Problems of
Comparable Magnitude".

In this particular process the individual being processed is asked to
select a terminal with which he has had difficulty. In that the
definition of a terminal is a 'live mass' or something that is capable of
causing, receiving or relaying communication, it will be seen that
terminals are quite ordinary people in the problem category of anyone's
bank.

The person is then asked to invent a problem of comparable
magnitude to that person. He is asked to do this many many times.

It is found midway in the process that he is willing to do something
now about the problems he is having with that person. But at the end
of the process a new and strange thing is found to occur. The individual
no longer feels that he MUST do something about the problem.

Indeed, he can simply confront or regard or view the problem with
complete equanimity. Now an almost mystic quality enters this when it is
discovered that the problem in the physical universe about which he has
been worried often ceases to exist out there. In other words, the
handling of a problem seems to be simply the increase of ability to
confront the problem, and when the problem can be totally confronted it no
longer exists. This is strange and miraculous."

Has anyone ever attained Grade I?

For real?

Lot of phoney certs out there hanging on walls....

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 22 03:06:02 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/dianetics
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMwTfaURT1lqxE3HERAnfnAJ9YaNOLrloLfaN7HnnRDKMxrxdMKQCfZPpm
1KABrXGHwAW76wMufJoibBc=
=UXnv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

PROOF32

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

Richard Platek \(Lion\) (lion@lightlink.com) wrote:
>And to be honest, I don't think this extraordinary moment of insight is all
>that important in the long run, although it does inform everything from that
>point on.

You are 100 percent wrong.

The difference between a being who knows he is dreaming, and one
who thinks he isn't, is the difference between an immortal whose
future is endlessly beautiful and a dramatizing psychotic using
illogically derived violent solutions to problems that don't exist
(the alleged referents).

>It's like a hand shake. All you feel is your hand. You never really actually
>feel the others hand. All you feel is you.

Yes, and confusing the symbols of your own consciousness with
alleged external referents, then creates a whole world that does not
exist for the person to fear and eventually succumb to and become.

Its one thing to know you are fighting virtual monsters, its
quite another to believe it is all actual.

Eventually the guy loses to and becomes what never existed at
all, MEST, cold hard MEST.

>Oh, I don't how useful seeing this is ....

It allows the being to separate perfect certainties from false
certainties.

Conscious perception is always perfect certainty, the symbol is
experienced, that's a fact. The alleged reference is only surmised.

The non lucid dreamer belittles perfect certainties as useless,
because indeed they don't help him deffend/offend against the alleged
referent. He is 'certain he can't be certain of anything', and in
fact as long as he uses symbols to spec out referents he in fact can
never be certain of the referents.

However once the being realizes there ARE no alleged referents,
he was dreaming all along, he can then start changing his symbols in
consciousness by act of will and expect it to change for everyone,
magic becomes possible again, since we are all co dreaming.

No one is ever going to move the marble on the table as long as
an actual marble made of glass is there.

But a dream marble, co dreamed by countless trillions, well
that's a different story, if you dare.

The 'what difference does it make' case is just that, a 'what
difference does it make' case.

Define a dream as a panoply of symbols with no referents, a
virtual reality pretending to be an actuality.

Run

"What difference does it make if I am dreaming or not?" to E/P.

Homer

>Yours,

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Oct 21 03:06:03 EDT 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof32.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMv+ZbURT1lqxE3HERAv5NAJ9JJeOchMJgSiCcHcyV1Ho19suSTwCgyUB+
/shcdCWhJpMH4/s9p12iJv8=
=/Fqd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l