FF1

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

FLEMMING FUNCH MEETS THE CHURCH

FF - 1
16 December 1993

Copyright (C) 1993 Flemming Funch
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

This is a brief account of my recent dealings with the CofS.

I have for years been seeing clients for counseling sessions, plus
I have trained people in what I do, and written many articles on the
subject we could loosely call Clearing. Since what I have been doing
was at least in part inspired by my studies and experience with
Scientology, and since I used to be a member, the church has kept a
close eye on me and used considerable effort to try to get some kind of
leverage on me.

I've had many varied dealings with their agents over the last 5
years. A number of their spies have been posing as potential clients,
fishing for getting advanced materials, lots of weird phone callers
trying to pump me for information, private investigators have been
following me around and bothering my neighbors, people have been taking
pictures of me, anonymous "citizens" have been turning me in to whatever
public authorities they thought I had something to hide from, OSA agents
have been coming by to "warn" me of impending law suits against me, and
so forth.

It is not quite as bad as it sounds. I've actually found a certain
enjoyment in these little games. Their agents were usually easy to
recognize, and their botched attempts to trap me in something illegal
were usually very naive. It also helped that I knew in advance that the
only real weapons they had were copyright and trademark laws, and I
avoided violating those all along. But nevertheless they tried.

Therefore I was very pleasantly surprised with the last people they
sent out a few weeks ago. First of all they were lacking the customary
covert hostility. They were genuinely friendly and interested in
talking things over with me. Most of my colleagues would still have
kicked them out, but that is not how I see things. I'll talk with
anyone I have something to talk about with if they are sincere. And
with these people I got along fine.

The people were first a couple of agents for OSA (Office of Special
Affairs), Bob Sullivan and Bill Zalen, presumably public volunteers.
When we seemed to be getting somewhere with the discussion they brought
in more people. Stan Doyle, a "legal officer", i.e. a lawyer on staff
to talk legal stuff, Barry Ross, a Class IX case supervisor from AOLA to
talk technical stuff, and Scott Muscleman, the CO OSA PAC (Commanding
Officer of OSA in Western US) to finalize an agreement.

Their main objective was to obtain an agreement from me that I
wasn't going to use their OT materials and that I wouldn't violate their
registered trademarks. None of which I really had any problem with.
There were some details to discuss and iron out, and they had a much
broader concept of copyright than what I think has any basis in law.
But the actual agreement in itself was straightforward enough and I
eventually signed it.

The really interesting part, however, was having discussions about
what would bother them about what people like myself are doing. Not
just what is legal or not, but what they would have a problem with.

That is an important distinction. Most independent clearing
practitioners have attempted to avoid doing anything illegal that the
CofS could win a law suit against them about. However, the CofS is not
just going for what they can win. They will sue, harass, or attack any
activity that they regard as infringing of their rights, regardless of
whether they are likely to win in the long run. They tend to use the
legal system as a weapon that they can wear opponents out with because
they have more resources (money) to keep going ad infinitum.

This was the first time I realized that it would be quite possible
for a person like me to have a setup that the CofS is not going to have
any problem with and therefore aren't going to even think of attacking.

First it appeared that the CofS guys had a problem with just about
any of my materials that they looked at. Which was a bit surprising to
me, in that I strictly speaking have not been copying their materials or
represented myself with their trademarks. But then a pattern started
forming and I began to realize what kind of stuff they would not have a
problem with.

What bothered them about my written materials was any words,
commands, or positioning that they would recognize as originating in
Scientology. They didn't really care what else was there, or how it was
used. If they recognized something it would upset them and they would
call it a "flagrant violation of their copyrights" or something like
that. And that would go for any use of words like "havingness", "ARC",
"prepcheck", "withhold", "end phenomenon", etc. And any recognizable
process command like "Look at that wall", "From where could you
communicate to your mother?", etc. And any recognizable formatting and
layout, like a course called "level 1" using a checksheet with clay
demos and so forth.

So, in short they have a problem with anybody writing or for that
matter doing anything for money that is recognizable as any part of
Scientology. Regardless of that it isn't actually a copy of any of
their materials, and regardless of whether it uses different words for
all their trademarked terms.

Let me repeat, there is not necessarily any legal foundation for
that. But on the other hand there are some comparables in law. Like,
in the area of computer software one can protect the "look and feel" of
a program, and to some degree stop others from doing something similar.
CofS are trying to protect the look and feel of their product.

Now that could sound like gloomy prospects for independent clearing
practitioners if the CofS could get away with stopping them from doing
anything they are doing that is even remotely similar to Scientology.
Well, depends on how you look at it. Let me give my personal angle on
it.

I am not a Scientologist. I define a Scientologist as a member of
the church of scientology. I used to be one more than 10 years ago, but
don't have any even remote interest in being one now. I enjoyed my time
in the church, but I have long since moved on. I also enjoyed studying
Hubbard's books and tapes and courses and I learned a lot from doing so.
I couldn't possibly take everything literally anymore, but I still find
most of the basic principles very useful.

I am a counselor. I help people understand themselves better by
talking with them. I use certain principles that I have found to work.
They are my principles. I think with them, I don't have to go and look
them up anywhere. I also use certain techniques for addressing various
types of issues. They are the things I do. Some of these are inspired
by my learning in various fields. One of those was Scientology. But I
am also a Master Neuro-Linguistic Programmer, a Certified Clinical
Hypnotherapist, and a Metaphysical Minister, I have taken many different
seminars in healing or personal development, I have read hundreds of
books on these subject, and so forth. Techniques vary, but the basic
principles of personal development are found in many places.

What I am interested in having is principles I can use and write
about. I don't really care what words are used about them. I'd prefer
to use regular English words when they are available. But I'd also
attempt to speak the language of the audience I am addressing. So, when
talking to people who still have a Scientology frame of reference it
might be easiest to use the insider Scientology lingo that they know
well. Talking to regular people there would be no point in that. It
takes a lot of explanation to introduce the scientology words, and
really there are common words covering the same things just as well or
better.

Now, getting back to my friends from the CofS. What they reacted
to was very clearly words and symbols that they recognized. Frozen
meanings. They were really in no position to discuss principles.
Making comparisons between different philosophical ideas was a foreign
concept to them. Either it is pure LRH or it is not, there wasn't
anything to discuss.

I realized that their motivation for doing what they were doing was
not particularly to give me a hard time because I was a bad person. It
was from their angle to protect what they regard as the only workable
approach from being diluted. They want to see either exact, proper
Scientology per the book, or nothing at all. If they see something they
recognize as Scientology words and symbols used in what they regard as
an improper way makes them feel bad, makes them feel that their subject
is being destroyed. Sincerely and honestly, they believe that.

That is a very rigid, inflexible way of looking at it, but I can
see where they are coming from. And I think there are ample ways of
avoiding a confrontation with them.

I can write materials that they don't recognize as any threat.
They will be based on universal principles, use normal words, and refer
to things orthodox scientologists have no clue about. The CofS will be
happy about that. And I will be happy, because nobody recognizes me as
a scientologist which suits me just fine. Being associated with
scientology really is a poor selling point anyway, unless you are
dealing with somebody who is already a scientologist.

So, in a funny way the CofS is actually helping me be less like
them, which is exactly what I want anyway. They're happy, I'm happy,
and we'll get along fine.

Now, that is of course not good news if you want to do straight
scientology outside the CofS. In that case you need another plan. As I
said before it is kind of doubtful if they can rightfully force people
to not use any of their words or processes. But they will try, and keep
trying, which is bad enough. In the absence of any clear legal
precedent that shows that you CAN use their words and processes
commercially it would still cause you a lot a headaches to fight it out.

It seems that their current plan is to approach people on their
list of "squirrels", be nice to them, and try to get them to sign
agreements. Which means that they will do it with many more people.
So, if you are in the category of person who delivers any kind of
clearing technology for money or you sell written materials of that
nature, you better have a plan for how to deal with them.

Flemming

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Nov 30 03:06:02 EST 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ff1.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

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

iD8DBQFM9LBqURT1lqxE3HERAn9BAJ9zlOmuxzxI4BO8F+FPwctc3NdragCgiWwF
5LzjR5xYpOceUcIRPqcOwU4=
=+x+H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

YOU 7

YOU 7

ORIENTATION POINT AND SYMBOL

You are an orientation point.

And orientation point is non dimensional, eternal and stationary,
because there is no created space or time in which to move or come and
go.

An orientation point creates and manages illusions of space, time
and symbols projected in your own eternal substrate.

Symbols exist in relation to their creating orientation point.

A symbol has mass meaning and mobility, and ultimately refers back
to the orientation point for its existence and reason to be.

A symbol can have many different orientation points of different
seniority, even orientation points that are actually symbols, but which
act as stationary eternal source to a being. A childhood home can be an
orientation point for a being, he always knows just how far away from
home he is and in what direction.

A symbol defines where it is, and why it is, relative to its
various orientation points that it considers senior to itself.

A body is a symbol, it has mass, meaning and mobility.

Although an orientation point is fundamentally eternal and non
dimensional, it can create consciousness of dimension, space and time,
and create and place symbols into that space and time.

This is Q1 of Scientology: Thetan can create space and
locate objects in that space.

(The Q's are pre-logics, meta meta philosophy.)

This space and time is virtual, but can be made real enough to get
involved in.

An orientation point can become a symbol in its own mind.

An orientation point can do this.

It does this by first creating some space and time, then placing a
symbol in it.

At the same time, the orientation point creates another symbol,
claims the second symbol was created by the first symbol, and then
claims itself to be the second symbol.

Thus the orientation point is claiming to the first symbol, "You
are my orientation point, you created me, I exist because of you and
relative to you, and you give me purpose for being and operating."

At that point the orientation point has assigned away its
fundamental eternality and motionlessness to the first symbols and the
space and time that contains it. Thus the orientation point, now
pretending to be a second symbol himself, can move around inside the
space and be a player in a game.

Or a ball, depending on its mood at the time :)

But in any case he keeps a wary eye on his local orientation point,
lest he become 'lost'.

This is called the space time flip flop. The orientation point is
still and eternal as there is no space or time for it to move in. It
then creates some space and time and objects in that space and time,
still maintaining its own existence out side of space and time. The
orientation point can move that space time around and put it anywhere it
wishes to, and it can create other spaces and times and put them
anywhere it wishes to in relation to each other.

Thus the orientation point remains motionless and eternal, and can
move spaces and times at will.

At this point all of space and time are a symbol, as are all the
individual objects in that space and time, having mass meaning and
mobility.

Then the orientation point takes a dive into one of its own created
spaces and times and becomes one of the objects in it, such as an atom
or cell or a rock or human body depending on how evolved the space time
has become.

In becoming a symbol, the orientation point has assigned eternality
and stillness to the space time it now resides in. Space doesn't move,
its still, because 'there is nothing outside of space', the only things
that can move are time and things inside of space and time.

At first the orientation point knows it is doing this, casting
source onto created symbol. But because the orientation point is now
playing at being a symbol itself, the symbol that it has elected to be
its orientation point (space time, or some big object in it such as God)
starts to act on its own determinism.

Somewhere down the line the elected orientation point will do
something that the symbol considers unfair or unjust. But the symbol
will remember that it created the orientation point and thus take
reponsibility for it's errant behavior, "I created you thus I am
responsible for all that you do, could you please get off my toe."

"Thanks."

A little later however, and the symbol starts to think "I created
you, and you treat me this way, shame on you!"

Even later "I created you, now I regret creating you."

Even later "I had nothing to do with creating you, where the hell
did you come from, I am going to spend the rest of eternity trying to
destroy you."

Every layer of descent the being becomes more and more a symbol in
his own mind and less and less an orientation point. Pretty soon
orientation points have such a bad reputation in his universe, he
wouldn't become an orientation point if it were forced on him.

Thus the being descends from God to Rock in a few thousand million
game cycles.

The being has become PTS to his own orientation points, they are
suppressive to him, and thus he becomes a Potential Trouble Source to
himself and those around him.

In general beings will not maintain a level of nobility higher than
that of the universe they consider created them, so pretty soon you find
the being acting more and more suppressive in order to deal preemptively
with the suppression coming at him from others and his own elected but
disowned orientation points.

The being is natively very big, probably size doesn't even apply at
the height of true eternality, but just below that before he decides to
create anything, he is just God awful huge. Maybe a couple thousand
universes across.

Thus the first orientation points that he chooses to create and
cast source upon are also huge. He has to make himself smaller than
they are in order to maintain the illusion that they created him, rather
than he created them.

With every new orientation point that he casts into a symbol
larger than himself, he makes himself smaller and smaller.

Eventually he finds himself really tiny amongst unimaginably large
spaces and times in which he could get absolutely lost forever.

That was his intent. He enjoys playing games more than creating
them, so he will create games so big no one could ever have created
them, so he can play them to the end of time.

But accumulating postulates to the effect that postulates don't
work, that he didn't create the condition he is in etc, eventually lead
him to a point where he can no longer win any games at all.

He may like playing but only if he doesn't know whether he will win
or lose. As soon as he is betting he will win or lose, he begins to
lose interest.

It's that 50/50 mark that fires the soul and keeps him extroverted
into the play at hand, rather than complaining about the game.

So when he finally gets down to thinking he is certainly going to
lose any game he plays, he won't play any more, and then he is out of
luck and out the tubes as a being.

The way to rehabilitate this being then, is to clear coming in, as
the way out is the way in.

He came in by being an orientation point, creating spaces, times
and symbols in them, and then casting his own qualities onto the symbols
to make them the orientation point, the creator. The bigger those
symbols were, the more unmovable and eternal they seemed, the better
this ploy worked.

In this way he became in his own eyes, a symbol with mass, meaning
and mobility mostly spent running in the night trying to hide from his
endless omnipresent unmovable enemies.

Eventually the fun is lacking for fun is not knowing
if you are going to win or lose, thrill.

The way out then, is to get the being to spot his
various orientation points, and their suppressiveness to him,
until he can take back his postulate that they are eternal and
stationary, and he is temporal and mobile.

In particular he needs to take back the postulate that
they created him, rather than he created them.

Every time he spots a created orientation point and takes back its
eternality and stationariness for himself, he contacts and begins to
reoperate the fountainhead of source as himself.

Of course what he will do with the recovered ability is create more
friendly orientation points to cast source upon, so he can go back to
having fun as a symbol again, until it decays all over again.

The purpose of Source is to cast Source upon Not Source.

We don't really want to turn a rock back into God again, but we do
want to help rocks know how to once again make themselves into better
rocks by operating the Godhead inside them, and which they are, and have
fun in the process of doing so.

Thus the process of aberration is

Orientation point -> Symbol.

The process of clearing is

Symbol -> Orientation Point.

Run,

"Spot an orientation point."

"Spot a symbol."

Or if you are into orthodoxy,

"Spot NO orientation point".
"Spot SOME orientation point".

"Spot NO symbol.
"Spot SOME symbol.

E/P, End Phenomenon, facility with fun.

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
Sun Jul 6 23:14:07 EDT 2008
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE765

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

05/31/10 Monday 12:44am EST

NOTS 5 & 7

chuckbeatty77 @aol.com <chuckbeatty77@aol.com> wrote:
> 1) Please explain NOTs, OT 5, in simple layman terminology
>
> 2) Have you ever advanced to official Church of Scientology NOTs OT 5?
>
> 3) Have you advanced to official Church of Scientology SOLO NOTs OT 7?
>
> Can you explain them in neutral layman's terms?
>
> Like explain "body thetans" and clusters, and the ill effects of "body
> thetans" and what makes the difference in why SOLO NOTs is a really
> "long haul" (per the LRH ED Legacy of the Tech briefing of 1982ish).

I am personally a bit lost on what level is what level these days,
being an Old Time Scn who did NOT make it up their bridge in the normal
standard way.

There are a number of issues in the above that need to be kept
separated.

First the world is a virtual machine amongst dreaming god units,
beings.

That means there is no objective universe except its projection in
each of our minds. Anyone who has played a multi player arcade game or
on the internet will understand the concept.

Every object in the virtual external universe is a being mocking
itself up as that object. Since objects have objects within them, those
inner objects also have beings being that object, down to the last
quark.

Or whatever the final fundamental level of 'particle' is, each
particle is a being incarnation, and each functional layer of complexity
made out of those inner parts has a being controlling it.

We call these beings elementals, their primary name to fame is they
can mockup physical universe things and be them, so the virtual physical
universe can continue.

But there are also beings in the sense we usually understand them,
souls, angels, demons, Gods, all of which are identities that a being
takes on in its role in the existing game stream, independent of beings
who are solely supporting the existence of the phyiscal universe.

We generally differentiate between thetans, GE's, and entities,
most of which are huge conglomerations of elementals who are being very
complex and able identities.

The GE is mostly involved in games of evolving life on the planets,
but there are also GE's that are stars, suns, moons and the planets
themselves.

Every organizational complexity in the phyiscal universe has a
being at the helm of that level.

There is a small subclass of conglomerates called BT's or Body
Thetans, which suffered a very specific incident called OT III, or
Incident 2 purportedly 76 million years ago. The indident itself many
be an implant much older. The incident may never have really happened,
and if it did, it probably did not happen to me and thee.

BT's however are beings much like you and me, thetans, we call them
9 to 5ers, they had lives, bodies, jobs, families, children, etc, but
who were captured, killed, brought to Earth and canned. Many are in a
state of clustering with other BT's, and super clustering, clusters of
clusters.

Thus the focus on BT's is the result of a specific incident in this
sector of the galaxy and is not common across the universe, as the other
being types are.

The thetan that controls the body has its own track but has become
involved in human bodies, GE's, demons, deities, angels and gods of
various sorts and of course BT's.

The body plus thetan is a huge bristling conglomerate of beings of
different types. It is practically a bustling megapolis of different
kinds of beings from different places.

Elementals, by request and design, form the time track of the
thetan and are responsible for mocking up things during times of
'restimulation' including drug experiences.

The thetan has to USE what the elemental gives him in order to get
stuck with it, usually by dramatizing the various persona in the mockup
to his benefit (going out of valence.)

The thetan generally is no longer able to make the mockup directly
himself, but he can still act out what the mockup says to do once the
elemental mocks it up for him.

The thetan doesn't HAVE to dramatize the mockup, he can tell the
elemental, thanks but no thanks and put the elemental back into a no
mockup state.

Thetans also get stuck permanently in such out of valence
conditions (service facsimile computations) and thus remain in chronic
restimulation.

A computation is a postulate concering the advantage of being
disadvantaged.

Existence in a human body is probably a service fac computation,
and any chronic somatic in the body are further such computations.

The social tone of a being may be in the 0 to 4.0 range, but the
real tone of the thetan once he wakes up that he isn't a body is usually
down below hiding at -8.0, being nothing at -20.0, or can't hide at
- -30.0.

http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/tone.memo

There are also beings who are in very bad shape buried deep in the
preclear's time track in areas of the past that are in permanent
restumulation, these are the NOTS beings.

The purpose of clearing is first to remove the permanent restim of
the service fac.

This produces a Grade IV Homo Novis.

There need to make people wrong has vanished :)

Then to erase much of the content in the entity supported time
track so that there is nothing to restiumulate any more. Those entities
then go free again to do their own thing.

This produces a clear, no longer has his own time track. It isn't
fully true, but it is hard to restimulate a clear, as he has very little
to restimulate, except GPM masses mentioned below.

After clear, one needs to run out his immediate involvement in the
surrounding OT III BT/Cluster cases that pack the body in from the
outside and inside it too.

After OT III, one needs to run out the remaining 'dead' NOTS beings
from the remaining parts of the whole track time track that the being
still walks around with including his GPMS masses.

GPMS masses are a kind of grave yard for NOTS beings.

Once they all go free, the being is free to erase his time track
fully, releasing the rest of the supporting elementals keeping it around
for him.

After that, the being is faced with a sea of all of the above in
all the other beings that he is surrounded by in real life, both carnate
and disincarnate.

At some point the main thetan in the body, also needs to separate
from any joiners, melders, or clusters that he himself is part of, or at
least renegotiate them to better fit his needs.

A being alone by himself can't do much of anything, thus joining
with 'partners' was a way to build up abilities through cooperation.

A system of parts operating via cause and effect across
a space time distance can do more than one part alone.

This joining however is in spiritual space not phyiscal space.

Joiners are different than clustering, in that joining is fair
chosen for a purpose. Clustering results from common engrams such as
during times of war or mass death, or from direct collisions with other
beings and 'sticking' due to confusion about who is who.

One thing about clusters, is each being in the cluster thinks he is
ALL the beings in the incident. Thus when running a cluster you may
find for example endless scenes of soliders marching during war, bodies
laying everywhere. The cluster thinks it is all of them, the whole
thing. Clusters also tend to think they are swarms of beings, like
bees, birds, fishes, snakes, and huge crowds of humans.

When highly packed clusters start to show up in session, they can
appear as huge groups, bunches, and cornecopias of grapes or other
fruit. It's just an apparency.

But if you poke open one of the grapes there will be more
cornecopias of grapes pouring out. Thus 10,000 grapes each having
10,000 grapes for 3 levels, produces upwards of a trillion beings all
wanting to go free. As they break open their packingness, they start to
show up as huge crowds of people, with clothes, hats male and female,
everything, standing waiting to be handled. This can be
overoverwhelming to be in the middle of a few thousand or million beings
packing you in tighter and tighter as they fill up the room or space you
are all in.

This can give you extreme claustrophobia, but they respond
to simple thoughts of 'make some room dudes' so I can move about.
And they respond en masse to

What are you?
Who are you?
How many are you?
You are real people!
In the name of the High US, be free now.

You don't need answers, they just need to receive and consider
the thoughts, and soon they all start vanishing by the thousands,
and your space is free to fill up with grapes again :)

Homer
Mon May 31 00:44:23 EDT 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Nov 29 03:06:02 EST 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore765.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

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

iD8DBQFM817qURT1lqxE3HERApcxAJ0eapDEvfaCb41aOp0hGFeRdA11eACfQm5u
yMexVMb45hWiq9Y5I8ZGJYw=
=NxPq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

GOOD AND BAD

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

George,

I bypass much of the problem by saying the following.

God is the AllThatIs.

We are God in carnation.

Thus I call a being a GodSoul.

It operates as both God the Creator, and as Soul the Creature.

Everything created therefore comes from us either as God,
or as Soul.

Dicom's exist, good and bad, love and hate, life and death etc.

The purpose of creation is ART, not order.

Order is just another stupid dicom.

Art is a comingling of order and disorder, harmony and disharmony
followed by resolve.

Not just any harmony will do, not just any disharmony will do, only
those harmonies and disharmonies that fold into a final resolve of
laughter, worthwhileness and peace complete the equation.

That's simple music theory.

Harmonies are enhanced by disharmonies via the resolve at the end.

Thus we seek a good work of art, not a good being.

As Author we seek a good story, not a good character.

If everyone in a story were good, the story would not be interesting.

From the character point of view, the good side of the dicom
seems to more valuable than the bad side of the dicom.

Pleasure is intrinsically good to the character and pain
intrinsically bad.

Thus most bad comes from people who are trying to give themselves
pleasure by preemptively giving others pain. They have become only ones
against an empire of zombies in their own minds.

Its a psychosis of the good character hallucinating evil where it
doesn't exist, rather than some fundamental ontological valid evil that
does exist.

The character however does believes in the evil because he can feel
it, which is why he gets preemptive about it.

But that's from the Soul point of view.

From the God point of view of the same GodSoul, the use of any side
of all dicoms is a valid color in his palette of painting the tapestry of
life, tragedy and travesty, miracle and majesty.

Thus there is no right or wrong, there are only bad stories and
good stories.

No God creates a bad story at will, he does his best to create
a good story. Thus both sides of good and bad will be played
out by the Creature.

There is thus no 'obedience' to God, because the Soul is God in
carnation, and can not help but obey the dictates of his own Authorship
through the labyrinth of good being to bad being to free being again.

If one soul doesn't like the authorship of another soul, the first
can tell the second 'God will punish you', but its all bullshit, and
eventually comes back on the first who ends up in hell for a while for
wishing the second into hell forever.

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: Mon Nov 29 01:33:56 EST 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore825.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

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

iD8DBQFM80lUURT1lqxE3HERAq2TAJ0UXpbqurmAyTEeiSCVS77OGfnU3QCfdFgP
w3eR33t3OH1sCbyb/L0kiyk=
=pid3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

SELF DETERMINISM

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

SELF DETERMINISM

dapperdobbs <@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If we may pause for a moment here at the point you make above ... I
> think the question is: Does man have self-determinism? Did God create
> man with a choice or choices?

Here is my position.

There are two kinds of freedom here that are usually confused by
the weak minded.

1.) Freedom from determination.

2.) Freedom to do what he wants.

FREEDOM FROM DETERMINATION

NOTHING can be free of its own nature.

If it were, then its action would be utterly random, and as there
are more ways to harm than to help, this would be disasterous.

Thus a free will, in the sense of free from being determined by
anything, is not desirable.

FREEDOM TO DO WHAT HE WANTS

Man has a will which is determined by his desires, the equation
that drives that will is

DOING = WANTING + KNOWING.

In other words, given what a man wants, he uses what he knows to
compute what he should do.

A man can change his wants, but only if he wants to, thus at all
times his actions are computed from his desire and his knowledge. His
computations can be wrong, held own sevens, etc, but the machine
continues as best it can.

In this sense a man considers he has 'free' will, when his will is
free to follow what he has computed he should do.

You put him in jail, and he wants to get out. So he computes that
the way to get out is to open the door and leave. But the door is
locked closed, so he can not pursue his desire, thus his will is not
'free'.

This 'freedom' to do what he wishes, has nothing to do with freedom
from determination.

One in fact hopes that a man *IS* determined by good will,
no matter how insane his knowledge or computations might be.

Thus the first kind of freedom from determination is undesirable,
and the second kind is intimately desirable.

A man can get into a state where he is forced to do something he
doesn't want to do. When the forces determining his actions are not in
accord with his desires, knowledge and computations, then he has a
problem with himself.

But even then the only 'freedom' he has lost is the freedom
to do what he wants and computes.

A man can also get into a state where inner reactivity takes over
for him and makes him do things that he has not computed to do. He may
later try to make them right by finding computations AFTER the fact of
the action to make the action right.

A spirit has another level of freedom, in that a spirit, unlike a
MEST machine is not state determined by the physical universe.

A machine is determined by its own nature and by the environment it
is in at the time. State plus environment equals new state.

Men don't like to think they are robots, but like any machine, they
are robots to their nature and to their environmental impingements.
That quantum mechanics allows for some randomness in outcome, doesn't
make the machine 'free', it makes it random.

A spirit however can originate something NEW that is not a function
of anything that has gone before in the MEST universe, nor its present
state in the physical universe.

Such prime postulates, as they are called, are still a function of
the nature of the spirit, but are not a function of the past or the
present environment.

Thus a spirit has a level of being undetermined that a mest machine
or body/brain does not but its still determined by its eternal nature.

Choice is the ability to compute many possible paths to a desired
outcome, and picking the one mostly likely to get there the fastest with
the least expenditure of energy or pain.

Choices can be pushed to the limit when two people are starving to
death, and each has to decide whether to kill himself, or kill and eat
the other.

Friendships, and prior relationship can affect the outcome of such
computations.

The concept of 'free' will is used mostly to punish people, if he
chooses to harm someone and he gets caught, people chose to harm him
back, saying he deserved it.

If the guy is FORCED to do something bad, either by others, or by
something physical or mental inside him, people can be forgiving, but he
may be done away with anyhow as an expediency.

Basically it comes down to being a team, in which case people treat
each other with respect, or being in opposition, in which case all hell
can break lose.

As for obedience, most morals hold man obliged to obey a higher
authority, be it the law of the land or the law of the sky.

If he knows the law, and he knows others will try to punish him for
breaking it, and he breaks it, then by definition he gets what he
deserves and knows it, even if the law is unjust and the purveyors of
justice are all criminals.

The legal adjudication of insanity is knows right and wrong, but by
right and wrong they mean LEGAL AND ILLEGAL, not morally right or
morally wrong.

NO ONE EVER DOES WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE MORALLY WRONG OR NOT
THE BEST SOLUTION TO THEIR DESIRES (SAME THING).

Thus man has a moral mandate to do what is right first, and what is
legal second, unless he has sworn to uphold the law right or wrong and
is allowed in office by others on the basis of that promise. If he
finds that the law is immoral, he can put down his badge, dismiss
himself from his sworn post and its duties, and then break the law
meaningfully.

That was more than you wanted, but there it is.

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Nov 29 01:15:07 EST 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore824.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

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

iD8DBQFM80TtURT1lqxE3HERAjYBAJ4gjhpDBtrWbo4pR5Vibx21KYb/zgCeNXrg
0y69zd21Z4NCen6blA5YoaM=
=7me+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

YOU 5

YOU 5

Manifesting life exists in cycles.

Create, survive, destroy.

That's why in the world of Sabe all eventually is lost, never to
be, or live again exactly as it was.

Everything is precious, unique, and never will pass this way again.

There will always be new creates and new destroys, new first hellos
and new last goodbyes,

But the only thing that doesn't persist forever is persistence,
survival in time.

Persistence in time is Sabe, because persistence exists only for a
while. Time is only for a while. When the while ends, EVERYTHING that
exists in that while ends too. Forever.

Whatever was, will never be quite that way again.

It could be, but it won't.

The GodSoul never visits the same place twice.

Dura is what is eternal and stands forever outside of time.

Eternality is beingness, not becomingness.

Divine Magnificence resting in the folds of Eternal Omni Awesome
Peace.

Sabe gives us momentary windows into the world of Dura where things
are different than they are here.

In those windows are the things we love, eternal loves.

A favorite cat in Sabe, is a window into Dura.

That cat you love and cry for so much. is a symbol for a cat in
Dura, never to know loss or fear or self reproach.

We are all this way in time, living but passing symbols for the
beauty of the immutable.

As the windows of Sabe pass us by, the preciousness and sorrow we
feel is for the apparent loss of Dura.

To have had forever, then to never have again.

Or so we believe. That belief is necessary and desirable to remain
in Sabe.

The cat we cry for is a finite representation of that bigger loss.

The cat in Dura, with a dance in its step and a twinkle and smile
that can never end, CHOOSES to symbolize itself, it's own eternal
beauty, via temporal ephemerality in Sabe.

It can do this over and over again, each time close to its true
nature, but different.

Look at the love.

There are no tears in Dura.

Sometimes when you see someone crying their eyes out, you can't
help but crack up laughing.

Their love is just so great.

Their sorrow, their loss, reminds you of the love that is real, of
the beauty that is yourself, of the eternal peace that is our home.

It reminds us of the greatness and carefree warm humor of *US*.

Somehow the one in sorrow doesn't see it, but their loss helps you
get a momentary glimpse of the perfect.

Their descension experience becomes your ascension experience.

Thus their sorrow becomes their gift from them to you.

They say that dried eyed sorrow never heals.

This is true, suppressed sorrow is suppressed love.

No sorrow is no love.

People are pretending to be in Dura (no sorrow), when in fact they
are sinking below the bottom of Sabe.

They also say that excess of sorrow laughs, and excess of joy
weeps.

This is why.

The sorrow reminds us of love, and love reminds us of the eternal.

Sometimes if we allow ourselves to really feel to the bottom of the
our own sorrow, savored as a divine gift, we find that same laughter,
love and golden beauty ourselves.

The message may not be clear, but it says that the sorrow is
ludicrous, there is too much love for the sorrow to be true.

So much love and beauty and warmth and peace and SAFETY, it becomes
hysterical we should have ever thought otherwise. It escapes us how we
did it, how we ever fell for Sabe.

But without a context in which to understand how eternal love
became immortal sorrow, the being just turns away from the moment of
vision and feeling, suppressing both the sorrow and the laughter, and
sinks further wondering why.

Something is going on here, but NOBODY is talking about it.

Handling it alone is almost impossible.

Some dream to be the first to understand, but most don't have the
balls.

Are you ready to be OK?

Are you ready to be the first to be OK?

Life is fair exchange of these gifts of not OKness,
between GodSoul's lost in Sabe.

It's hard to audit people crying their eyes out, the beauty is just
so shocking, the depth of their love so oceanic.

This is why auditing, co-relating, work.

To bring us closer to Dura, while yet operating in Sabe, until
others can operate in Dura too.

One foot in heaven and one foot in hell.

Hanging on to God with one hand, and hanging on to a lost Soul with
the other.

The problem is there is no one in Dura to help, the GodSoul is
the High US.

All of Sabe is Dura in carnation.

The dinner places are set, but there is no one there to eat.

Thus the disconnected GodSoul in Sabe, needs to be come a
reconnected GodSoul in Dura, become a conscious eye/I of the universe,
rather than a conscious eye/I in the universe.

He realizes that he is not made of the universe, the universe is
made of him.

Once that reconnection takes place, then YOU become the bridge from
Dura to Sabe that leads the lost one's home to do and become the same.

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
Wed Jun 25 01:21:34 EDT 2008
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

MORNING GOALS

MORNING GOALS

The morning is a good time to audit, just after you wake until you
actually get up out of bed.

This is because its a time where you can observe the process of
'giving your body the command to get up and go.'

Why do you get up in the morning?

Because you have to?

Because you want to?

Because you enjoy what you are doing? Because you enjoy where you
are, and what's going on the world?

People confuse 'working for' with 'working towards'.

One works for IBM, one works towards a goal.

The question is whose goal is it?

When you work for someone, you work for their goal.

Egoism doesn't mean working for yourself, it means EGO ism, seeing
the world in terms of egos. Egos here, egos there, everyone has an ego
etc.

Altruism is usually defined in terms of other egos, working for
THEIR egos rather than your own. That's still egoism! don't you see?

It's seeing the world as egos and relating to them as egos etc.

Protecting, owning, controlling, being responsible for egos, your
own and others.

A truely egoless state wouldn't see other egos at all, its a
different view. One wouldn't be working for oneself or for others.

One would however be working for 'someone or something' and towards
someone's or something's goals even if they are the goals of some
greater Self.

It's tempting to say I want to work for MY goals, and you will find
it very hard to get people to give up 'their' goals most of which are
substitutes for who or what they really want to be working for and
towards.

Goals and identities are very much related, each identity has a
goal, and each goal has an identity. Asking people to give up their
goals is asking them to give up their identities, and asking them to
give up their identities is asking them to give up their goals.

You know the identity is gone when the goal is gone.

But what is there when all my own goals are gone?

An identityless being who is clean and pure and pristine, clear
harmony shining through the light that is operating out of the goal of the
universe, it is working FOR the universe, and TOWARDS the future, but its
a universe goal, not an individual goal.

Beings at this level are hard to relate to, its like relating to
the sky, but there's a lot of love and light there.

When they come down to individuating, and colorizing their clear
harmony to take on personal shades, they give their personal
contribution to the universal pulse.

If they come too far down, they disconnect from their origins, and
now they are like a little bubble that is no longer connected to
anything, with their own goals that are usually opposed to the existence
at large, which is why they finally disconnect in a final act of
defiance and outrage.

Now you have a first dynamic, joining together with other first
dynamics to form second and third and fourth dynamics, to all make
things 'right' again etc. They are ALL disconnected and fighting the
what is. They work for themselves, for each other, maybe for no one,
anything but what is.

But all of it is one great big PROTEST, trying to make things
better before the What Is kills them anyhow.

When was the last time you worked for the What Is?

Think about it. That's a horrible thought isn't it? Identities
can't stand working for the What Is, they don't have an accurate view of
what it is anyhow, they can't see the humor, THAT they are SURE of, and
fighting the what is, is all they can understand.

The closing in of the night.

Mostly they are into fragility and protection. They are powered by
FEAR and visions of impending doom.

But they fight their own visions of what isn't there. They see
only a part, not the clear harmony and the white light and clean space
that originated it all with a twinkle of an eye and a smile of excaliper
beauty.

(Ex Caliper means beyond measure.)

So they fight forward in life, with the claw of the Devil crushing
the back of their heart, wondering where God is, or worse 'not believing
in God', smoking 10 packs of nausea poison a day to keep the real nausea
at bay, to keep the swirling virtigo of true freedom, power, willingness
and appreciation as far away from themselves as possible.

Oh yes, and they go to Doctors.

Don't forget the Doctors.

And where is the Holy Ghost in all this?

Has the Name been taken in Vain forever?

Has the ineffable Name of God become unworthy?

That's who we work for, not *GOD*, the *NAME*, that's where emotion
to get up in the morning comes from.

Who or what's purpose is it?

It's ok to 'have your own purpose' and nuture your identities.

It's a trap to take on the purposes of others and their identities.

That's not what we are talking about here.

We are talking about riding the endless wave of the Holy Spirit
which powers the universe.

We are talking about reconnection with the fountain head of source.
It's not a disconnected ego goal, its a connected Self goal. It is
however why be alive in this universe.

It's not a I AM goal, its a WE ARE goal of the HIGH US.

And it's not fighting the bad guys, because they are part of
the HIGH US, in fact at this level the good guys and the bad guys
have the same goal!

Think that one through carefully, its a new thought.

And this common goal to everyone is why get up in the morning.

Audit it.

Homer

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com

LOGIC22

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

LOGIC IS KING, THE BASIS OF LOGIC

The basis of logic is

IS means IS.
IS does not mean IS NOT.
Always IS or IS NOT.
Never IS and IS NOT.

An IS statement is any statement that uses the word IS, IS NOT,
or their English variants.

IS statements assign qualities to objects, objects to classes,
and classes to other classes.

Joey IS black.
Joey IS a dog.
All dogs ARE animals.

The basis of logic is not an arbitrary set of rules about IS, but
is a description of *SELF EVIDENT AND OBSERVABLE QUALITIES* of IS and
IS NOT.

"Logic IS King" means that any IS statement or group of IS
statements must be consistent with the basis of logic and the observed
nature of IS and IS NOT if they are to be considered meaningful
descriptions of actuality.

To say that "Logic IS NOT King" is to USE the basis of logic to
assert that Logic IS NOT King, thus "Logic IS NOT King" is self
denying and therefore without meaning or merit.

A self denying statement is a statement that denies its own
truth.

"All generalizations are false." (This is a generalization).

"All truth is relative." (Stated as an absolute truth).

"IS is the same as IS NOT." (Thus IS is not the same as IS NOT.)

Self denying statements are for broken minds, do not build a
philosophy around them.

People who speak in illogical IS statements are more interested in
the poetry of the sounds than the meaning of the words.

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 ====================
Sat Nov 27 03:06:02 EST 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic22.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

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

iD8DBQFM8LvqURT1lqxE3HERAon2AJ0QPnr+T/wKGbdBYJZmMHRhULM5uACdF9tw
Yd9dl9i6bvfCnfA8WaWcrHg=
=4Tul
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

THE BEGINNING OF MAGIC

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

THE BEGINNING OF MAGIC

Basically in a best of all possible AllThatIs's, which this is,
Good is the eternal existence of what (fortunately) already exists, and
bad would be its non existence.

In other words good is accordance between desire and the WhatIs.

And evil is discordance between desire and the WhatIs.

But the purpose of this WhatIs seems to be the creation of
illusions that this perfect accordance does not exist, and illusions
that the being did not create his present state of illusion.

That's responsibility for irresponsibility.

Thus the goodness of the WhatIs includes the ability to believe for
a while that the WhatIs is bad.

Thus the intent to HAVE accordance between desire and the WhatIS,
includes the intent to NOT HAVE it for a while.

In other words good is having what you want, and bad is not having
what you want.

What troubles me about this view, is that good then really does
have ontological precedence over bad, as bad is an illusion created by
good.

Why the hell would good create bad. That seems to be what good
enjoys creating most. Chase and failure after desired goods.

In otherwords Dura, the world of permanence, creates Sabe, the
world of loss.

However it does present an auditing route out, which is to recover
the goodness to the creation of the bad, at which point the being will
regain sovereignty over the creation of bad and will be able to vanish
it at will.

And that then would be the beginning of pure magic and super power.

Super power is, at the top, the ability and willingness to create a
state of non super power.

Homer

In article <4cf0a87c@news2.lightlink.com> you wrote:
> dapperdobbs <GeorgeCFL@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 1:24?pm, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
>>>
>>> ? ? ? GOOD AND BAD
>>>
>>
>> Very interesting, explanatory, and compelling logic, but ....
>>
>> Consider that God created Order, and that Order itself is good. Then
>> consider that disorder was introduced by Man.
>
> Ok, I will bite.
>
> 'God created order.'
>
> Was God not already a form of order before he created order? No
> problem...
>
> 'disorder was introduced by man.'
>
> Did not God create man or was man an indepdent agent that came in
> and interferred with God's plan?
>
>> So you get a big circle of AllThatIs, a big circle of what God
>> created, inside that a circle of what Man created. I don't see how you
>> can define what Man created as the same as what God created,
>
> Clearly you are missing your own point. If the man circle is
> inside the God circle, then everything made by man is made by God. Only
> if man's creations lie outside of the God's creation circle, can there
> be anything that man created that God did not.
>
> Then God and Man are co creators, each independent of each other.
>
> If so you might as well say that there are two kinds of Gods, one
> trying to create order, and the other trying to create dis order.
>
> And perhaps their circles overlap where they co create the same
> thing. Other wise their circles do not overlap.
>
> even
>> though what Man created falls within the circle of AllThatIs. I.e. The
>> principle of self-determinism does not determine whether what Man
>> creates is good or bad.
>>
>> In brief, when a gang with guns are standing there on your doorstep
>> threatening to kill you, rape your wife and kill her later, thus
>> wiping out your entire family with very substantial pain and
>> suffering, are you going to ponder the inherent encompassment of good
>> and bad, or are you going to shoot the gang, or shoot your wife, or
>> beg, offer money, run, or find just the right thing to say? The
>> question is, I think, "What is the right thing to say?"
>>
>> If one wants to get philosophical about it, then one must duplicate
>> what the gang is in order to effectively find the right thing to ssay.
>> Extending that, one must duplicate God's creation, then create the
>> right thing within it to be harmonious. Harmony, dis-harmony; both
>> imply order.
>>
>> If one considers nothing bad, and nothing good, but each equivalent
>> and just a matter of perspective or opinion, then what is the
>> reasoning for not doing anything one "damn well pleases?"
>
> Yes, exactly. But your decision that order is good might still be
> arbitrary.
>
> All you have said is when in Rome do as the Roman's do.
>
> No mention of who is right or who is wrong.
>
> Take the following example.
>
> As the universe expands, near the end, the fight is to maintain
> anti entropy, energy in useful forms, as the tendency to dissipate
> energy into entropy is relentless. If we don't DO something to maintain
> anti entropy, we won't survive on the good graces of the universe alone.
>
> But if the universe turns around and starts to collapse, near the
> end, the fight will be to maintain entropy, again energy in useful
> forms, because as the universe gets too tight, the tendency towards too
> much compression of energy will again be relentless, and we won't
> survive on the good graces of the universe alone.
>
> In other words we like 72 degrees. In an expanding universe the
> fight is to keep warm. In a collapsing universe, the fight is to stay
> cool.
>
> So in the first anti entropy is good, and those that help in that
> direction are good, and those that create entropy where it is not
> desired or which wastes hard earned anti entropy are the bad guys.
>
> But in the collapsing universe its the other way around.
>
> So in this sense survial is good as a top level generic, and
> everything else is consideration dependent upon how we have made
> survival dependent on the state of the universe.
>
> But one can imagine a higher god state where survival in space time
> is in fact no longer good, so one really wants the maintain facility in
> creation, survival and destruction, so a new game can be created.
>
> That then would be the highest good.
>
> Ability to manifest and not manifest at will.
>
> Evil would be the illusion that these do not obtain, and going into
> the valence of such a thing that seeks to make sure they do not obtain.
>
> But one of the things a GodSoul can manifest is the illusion
> that he can not manifest. As a fair chosen manifestation it is good,
> but as an apparency of inability to manifest it is bad.
>
> As long as the God can see his inabilities as fairchosen
> ABILITIES TO BE UNABLE, then he can continue to see the good
> to his suffering.
>
> But he can chose to not see that good, and thus to him
> things look bad. But that too is how he chose it so it
> remains good.
>
> If he wants to recover his awareness of responsibility
> for inability, then helping him do so would be good.
>
> But if he doesn't want to recover (just yet), then such
> help would be bad.
>
> In otherwords if he wants to persist more, then vanishment
> is bad, but if he wants to vanish, then persistence is bad.
>
> Depends on which part of the create, survive, destroy cycle
> he is on.
>
> 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: Sat Nov 27 01:56:38 EST 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore823.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

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

iD8DBQFM8KurURT1lqxE3HERAvThAKCSxc3M4za7WJCFCZPlEn2IhS7m0ACdFc2Y
7NZqUNkOaRjAHat1RdL4SKM=
=UPw0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ABSOLUTE GOOD AND EVIL

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

ABSOLUTE GOOD AND EVIL

Homer:
>> How would you define absolute non relative evil?
>>

> Why would you want a definition for absolute non-relative evil?

?

You made the statement there was both subjective and objective good
and evil.

Hubbard was very much a relativist, good and evil, beauty and ugly,
are alike mere considerations.

What is good for the tiger is bad for the impala.

He thus claims that although man acts 'badly' meaning destructively
to himself and others, these always result from good intentions modified
by ignorance, illogic, reactivity.

Sometimes it is accidental, free will without wisdom or omniscience
can regret itself, but it can also be intentional, he called it pure
cussedness.

But he doesn't go on to say what those good intentions might be.

One can talk platitudes about greatest good for greatest number of
dynamics, as if man is basically a cooperative sympathetic soul, but if
you look at the animal kingdom, territoriality tends to take precedence
over 'goodness' and sharing except in limited family settings, like the
cheetah that brings back food for the cubs and let's them eat first.

Most games between people have at least two sides which are opposed
to each other, often in deadly terms. The French and the English had
declared each other fair game back in the 1700's, and the Christians and
the Muslims have been going at it for a long time.

'Great' conquerers are held in great esteem, like those that made
Rome into what it was, as it spread its influence and power half way
around the world.

All of it is a kind of territoriality, or Borg assimilation if you
will.

Is that good? If so, then so be it.

Is it bad? Is there a better good? OK, then what is it?

Is there such a thing as fundamental mal intent?

Towards one's self? Towards others?

Is all mal intent agreed upon such as in a foot ball game, 'we are
going to cause you to lose!' governed by sportsmanship and awareness of
invite for both sides into the game?

Or is there just simply unappeasable, unpropitiatable,
unnegotiatable mal intent?

What exactly is the nature of the intent of a GodSoul that creates
games of apparent utter demise for itself and others to suffer?

What about the God that creates such games for other souls, and
creates those souls and dumps them in that game without their consent?
If such a God existed, he would be considered inhuman.

What about the God that creates souls for his own purposes, and
tests them for obedience, and then punishes them in hell forever for
failing his gauntlet?

So can we give definitions of good and evil from the creator point
of view, so we can judge the creator himself?

Can we give definitions of good and evil from the creature point of
view so we can judge the creature himself?

Generally the creature is a gregarious fellow and considers anyone
good who will team up with him against the physical universe in terms of
survival and fair exchange.

That's a very self oriented view though, what's good for me is
good, and if you are good for me, then I will consider you good, and if
I am good for you, you will consider me good.

The bad guy tries to get others to do good for him while refusing
to do good in return, thus the fair exchange is out.

That's called a criminal rip off.

Most people won't allow that to happen, but when the bad guy has
more force or trickery of deceit, then the bad guy wins, at least that
round.

Then the need for 'criminal justice' comes in which means basically
doing criminal things to criminals. Violating their will as they
violated ours.

Then the good start to act bad towards the bad guy, doing to the
bad guy what he did to them or something similar, either to teach a
lesson, or quarantine, or to outright punish pain for pain.

For example if a bad guy kidnaps someone and stows him away, the
good guys try to take the bad guy by force and stow him away too, in
prison.

Not much difference except for who started it and what the intent
is.

The good guys intent is to produce more than he consumes, and to
help others who help him to do the same.

The bad guy's intent is to consume more than he produces by getting
others to help him, through deceit or force, but not help in return.
This is basic criminality in the physical universe.

Criminality is a violation of knowing willing fair exchange.

Slavery is an example of rip off by force, is that evil?

Is any of this different than basic animal territoriality?

Admittedly most animals will fight for their square foot of land,
but then NOT go on to conquer the whole known universe, slaughtering
everything in its path.

But male lions will kill lion children once they vanquish the older
dominant lion, in order to put the females into heat again. Is this
evil?

If a human did that to a woman with child, killed her husband, and
children and then made the woman his own, would that be evil?

If not for the lion, but so for the human, why? Is the human
suppose to know better, while the lion is just a dumb animal? If so,
WHAT is the human supposed to know better?

But then there are animals that will try to kill and slaughter
everything that comes into their sight and which do try to take over the
whole world, virii comes to mind.

So basically, humans tend to consider cooperativeness in survival
and pleasure to be good, and excooperativeness to be bad, particularly
when based on force, deceit and treason.

But if one keeps it overt and out in the open like the French and
the English did on the high seas of 1700, then is either side being
evil?

So what is good and what is evil?

If we agree to fight to the death, then fighting is good?

But if one sides wants peace and the other wants war, which
side is evil?

Is there any definition of good and evil that is independent of
what makes me feel good?

The problem exists with beauty and ugly.

Can we argue that harmony is mathematically absolute, and
disharmony the same?

We admit tastes in harmonies and disharmonies will apply,
but are there absolute harmonies that ALL will judge harmonious,
and absolute disharmonies that ALL will judge disharmonious?

Can we say that prior to decent down the tone scale all enjoy
pleasure and all abhor pain?

If so why would a god make pain for itself or others?

Is it possible to make pain beautiful and pleasure ugly?

Is there such a thing as beautiful sorrow?

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: Sat Nov 27 01:14:51 EST 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore822.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

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

iD8DBQFM8KHdURT1lqxE3HERAm4BAKDJwAU6zrtnfwL3+jAZELSU+tT3IgCfSD1n
lIPvzDB02en57rLBdO2IeHM=
=B6Co
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

PRIME DIRECTIVE RESUME

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

PRIME DIRECTIVE RESUME

> What's a prime directive resume?

You seem somewhat intelligent, but really when you enter a new
group, you should take the time to find out who the players are, and
what their views are, before you start swinging your sword.

Anyhow, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and answer your
question at face value, even though you should be able to figure it out
for yourself.

And in particular if you have ever run the Vital Information Rundown
in the Church, you would be very clear on this subject.

When people were admitted to the secret pythagorean society, they
had to present a new and original proof of pythagoras's theorem. It can
be proved a hundred billion different ways, so the demand was not all
that unreasonable.

For the super power society, they demand a prime directive writeup,
concerning the subjects of demonstration, use and deployment of super
powers. And they need to know you will live by it.

The term is of course stolen from star trek, where it meant not to
interfere with the societies of more primitive people. In other words
don't use your advanced scientific powers to overwhelm them by solving
all their problems for them, or in some cases even let them know you
exist and are watching.

In this case, its more simple, namely the security around research
into super powers because some people will have a very negative reaction
to you having such powers, particularly powers that can be considered
weapons of war.

Who do you trust learning them from, practicing them with,
demonstrating them to etc.

What do you use them for and when?

Many think there should be no such directive, but those that are
working on the powers would not trust such a being into their group. So
it really is a matter of trust.

In the military its called top secret clearance.

In pythag's time if you leaked to the public that the square root of
2 was not rational, they would take you out to the lake and drown you.
Could be legend...

So in your resume, it would be required to present a comprehensive
writeup delineating the kinds of super powers there could be, how they
could be used, and what kind of security should be placed around their
development, practice, demonstration, use and deployment, in order
protect yourself and your loved ones and the broad public masses from
harm, not only from the use of the powers directly, but also from the
reactives that populate the world finding out about it.

Second, but not part of the prime directive, would be a write up
detailing your own personal failures to live up to your own prime
directives and how that resulted in the loss or diminuation of your
existing super powers, in particular how it got you involved in taking
care of bodies.

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 Nov 26 13:30:33 EST 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore821.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

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

iD8DBQFM7/zJURT1lqxE3HERAvCsAJ9VAKQqz5C0aV3VMy7/nQgpL8dG0gCfcnFU
WZ8++T3lNw3OEzC0D8wddeE=
=l/+q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

WHAT'S YOUR GAME HOLMES

WHAT'S YOUR GAME HOLMES?

SCI - 13

Copyright (C) 1992 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

I have received some e-mail concerning the obvious questions of who
am I, what do I do, why am I here and why do I care?

Fair enough.

My name is Homer Wilson Smith, I was born 4/21/51, and I am Cornell
Class of '73 in Electrical Engineering and Psychology.

Yeah well, I figured the brain was a circuit, and consciousness was
one of them.

Local home grown eventually showed me the truth of that :)

What I do is sell fractals through my home business Art Matrix, and
provide internet service through Lightlink Internet.

As to why I am here and why do I care, I am willing to discuss the
matter up to a point.

Remember the Code of Honor, never give or receive communication
unless you yourself desire it.

Scientology is a real religion, with a real founder, and real
followers and a real Vessel of Truth to carry.

Notice I did not say TRUE or FALSE, or RIGHT or WRONG.

Only that it is REAL.

And like a supernova, it is not often we have a chance to see one
aborning in present time, let alone benefit from the possibly friendly
rays of its light, or get singed by its not so friendly rays of
destruction.

As such, it is a wide and sweeping subject that could possibly take
many lives to study, learn and master.

It is prone to all of the vagaries of any subject that moves
millions of people to fervent activity, along with all the bright
moments of glory and the dark moments of injustice and despair that go
along with any human enterprise of this scope.

I have my own purposes in the world that possibly align with the
various therapeutic and betterment fields that are now under way on Earth
in preparation for the Aquarian Age, and Scientology perhaps parallels
those purposes just enough to attract my attention.

That is highly poetic and perhaps a scientist should know better,
but you wanted the truth, so I am telling you the truth.

The point is that Scientology is such a huge subject, and feelings
on it run so deep, that it is impossible to sum it up in one word, good
or bad, should or shouldn't.

In fact if someone were to ask me if they should 'join
Scientology' the last thing I would do is give them an answer. I might
however discuss the matter with them until they could make their own
decision under the steam of their own self-determinism.

We all like things that fall neatly into niches, we all like people
who can say they are for or against something, so that we can say we are
for or against THEM, but life is too big to fall into that trap. People
who push us in the direction of black and white niches, have small minds
and smaller lives.

It's not that my stand on the subject is none of your business, it
is that I am totally at a loss to convey that stand in one sentence or
word without doing myself and you a grave injustice.

I assume that you want the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth, and not some quick and dirty answer to give you comfortable
justification for some quick and dirty friendship or hate.

Your best bet to find out where I stand in regard to Scientology is
to continue to read what I post to this list, if indeed I keep posting.

I always reserve the right to get scared and shutup.

I have no hidden intentions on this list, there is no hidden
agenda, I am up to no covert purposes. I doubt any such purpose would
be worth the danger I am putting myself in.

Only a true purpose, one based in wide open verity, could justify
risking one's life, one's profession, one's business, one's friends,
one's future, and one's lover's future.

My purpose is to open the channels of communication and speak the
truth as I see it.

In Scientology that is called a GPM. A GPM is a basic purpose that
spans many lifetimes and many encounters. GPM stands for Goal Problem
Mass, as goals tend to get opposed by others and even by self, they
develop problems around them which bogs them down in 'mental mass'.

There are a few who would rather have the channels of communication
remain closed, on both sides of the fence.

People who are for the Church sometimes fear that wide open
communication would lead to the loss of financial status or the exposure
of their dirty laundry and the downside of Scientology.

People who are against the Church sometimes fear that wide open
communication would expose their lies about the Church and uncover the
upside of Scientology.

Thus it is hard to make friends in this field of communication.

When one's goal runs into opposition this creates mass in the mind
and that is where the word Mass comes from in the term Goals Problems
Mass (GPM).

But then that's the purpose of life, to have a game.

To have a goal and to have someone oppose it.

"Who or what are you Opposing?"

"Who or what is Opposing you?"

"Get the idea of NO opposition."

"Get the idea of SOME opposition."

From my goal's points of view only Bad Guys are against
communication.

In some future life I may chose to be a Bad Guy, but for now I am
playing at being a Good Guy.

So that's it, if I have left out some part of your question I have
probably done so on purpose, so let it go. Future postings will
probably reveal more of myself than even I would have guessed.

Communication on one's own determinism is the universal solvent for
all things.

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

YOU 4

YOU 4

There are places we want to go, things we want to become, states we
want to recover.

But force and fit will not get you there.

You can't create a wall of solid concrete and then expect to be
able to bang your way through it with your head.

Most of life consists of dramatization.

Dramatization means bringing unnecessary drama to.

Drama consists of seriousness, importance, permanence and pain.

For those that are lost, they spend their lives dramatizing looking
for, searching for, trying to find what to do that would be best for
themselves and the rest of the world.

For those that have "found" their true calling, they swing their
battle axes trying to vanquish the vanquishers.

It's a substitute, but it gets them up in the morning.

Life becomes one long temper tantrum, for most a quiet fit of rage.

With smiles.

"How you doing this fine morning?"

"Good thank you, how are you doing?"

"Good, thanks."

We seek something deeper, and sometimes it opens up but the vertigo
sends us reeling back to the comfort of anonymity and banality.

We seek the higher pleasures and beauties, where the fabric of
reality itself is made of gorgousness, but the deja vu stuns us with
unrecognizability, wonder and loss, how long as this been going on and
we didn't know?

And then somehow we are not ready for our debut on the concourses
of life in the realm of permanence, Dura.

Are our clothes clean enough to be in the light of our own godhood?

What no more tears? No more worry?

Operating Solo Realm.

Can you imagine it?

But then there is the choice.

The fair chosen choice.

To come here, to Sabe (SA-bay), where *ALL* is eventually lost.

Suffering is a gift from a GodSoul with a golden temper to himself.

And GodSouls live to exchange those gifts with each other in
expressions of love, and high appreciation for ludicrous demise.

It has been said that the only reason most people come here is
because they love someone who was already here.

"Tragedy and Travesty, Romance and Sin,
Miracles and Majesty, that's where I've been.

Miracles in Majesty, Romance and Song,
Tragedy and Travesty, that's where I've gone." -Adore

Are we really willing to be ourselves again?

Homer

Tue Jun 24 13:22:23 EDT 2008

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

YOU 3

YOU 3
You can hurt.
Really bad.
You can cry forever over the loss of single cat, even long before they die, nay from the day they were born,
or the moment you first met them.
Every First Hello implies a Last Goodbye.
The evil we know as Goodbye is matched by the good we know as Hello.
How much pain could you be made to feel, without dying or going
unconscious?
Most people will tell you that they have experienced pain far worse
and deeper than any pleasure they have ever experience.
It makes them wonder.
Wonder makes it worse, because wonder is anti faith.
Faith is a bad word because it connotes believing without evidence.
But one can know one is sovereign without a single shred of
evidence apparent in present time. This is hard on a being, but this is
what faith really means.
Faith means knowing that flinch commits to pre postulation of
disaster, both physical, emotional, mental or spiritual.
Faith means knowing that questioning one's sovereignty kills,
because doubt is self casting.
Faith means knowing that the consideration/observation flip flop,
casts in stone, considerations that become 'proved' through
observations.
Things in the world of mammon are created and become 'true'
because of consideration acting as the causal agent of existence.
Things are created in the mere conception (consideration) of them.
Observation is then used to verify what was created.
Failing to notice that consideration CREATED these things in the
first place, observation then tells us that not only do they indeed
exist, but they exist INDEPENDENT of our consideration of them.
Observation fails to notice that consideration was CAUSE in the
first place.
That's like the GodSoul saying
'Let there be light! And he saw the light was good'
and a moment later thinking, still observing the light
Where the hell did all this light come from?
He is still convinced through observation that the light is
there, but he no longer is aware through observation that his
original consideration created it.
He now has the consideration that he didn't create it, and he
observes further that he can't get rid of it.
And he uses his observations of trying and failing to get rid of
light, to prove to himself that indeed he is stuck with the light.
That is in fact how the GodSoul created the world as God and then
jumped in, and incarnated, as Soul.
Using looking (observation) to prove knowing is a death trap. in
the spiritual world. All looking shows you, is what you created BY
KNOWING it in the first place, but probably puts the spin on it that you
didn't create it and are now stuck with it!
Faith is at least understanding the mechanism and deciding which
way one is going to go, and taking full responsibility for one's fair
chosen fancy free faithlessness.
There are beauties and pleasures beyond one's wildest imagination,
all of them Self, the fully adorned GodSoul.
The highest love is Self love.
The second highest live is love of other's Self love.
One has to come down from the top to even share the idea.
Many of the beauties are halcyon and humor, high cool and romance.
Halcyon is bemused relief on the verge of time.
"They halcyon winds of summer heal the cold cruel wounds of
winter." -Adore
How high does it go?
How low have you gone?
This is the undreamed dream come true.
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/
Tue Jun 24 12:40:04 EDT 2008
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

GOOD AND BAD

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

GOOD AND BAD

(Read the quoted article below first.)

Fascinating.

Since the AllThatIs encompasses the good and bad circles, by
putting God inside the good circle, (All that comes from God is good),
one then makes God subservient to the All That Is.

Then since man encompasses both good and bad, that makes man, part
inside the good and part outside the good circle, meaning that man is
not encompassed fully by God.

Which then makes man bigger than God by definition.

That something which was imprisoned by good should try or presume
to punish that which was bad would be an egregious overreach of its
position and mandate in life.

Does bad try to punish good for being good?

If so, that would be a similar overreach.

Thus we conclude that it is NOT true "that all that comes from God
is good," we admit that God encompasses both good and bad, and thus
rightly encompasses all of man, and thus God might also as well be
considered to BE the AllThatIs.

That way there is nothing outside of either God or the AllThatIs,
because God = the AllThatIS.

But if God encompasses both good and bad, and man encompasses good
and bad, then why would we expect God to punish man for badness and not
himself also?

For the good side to try to punish the bad side, is an effort of
one part of a dicom to control and subsume the other.

A dicom is a DIchotomy of Comparable and Opposite Magnitude.

The effort on the part of good to punish the bad, is good TRYING to
encompass bad, rather than CREATE bad from a higher position of creating
both.

Thus God, which encompasses both good and bad, neither punishes
himself, nor man. God loves man as he is, just as God loves himself
as he is, both good AND bad.

That is the difference between divine love and human love.

Divinity is a wide open door, it will turn no one away, it accepts
all without distinction, but neither will it call after those that turn
away themselves.

Since we all came from Divinity, why would anyone turn away from
divinity, and for how long?

That's a question, don't burn yourself out with it.

Questions about the nature of the GodSoul, are the mechanism by
which we turn away from divinity and keep ourselves here.

Homer

homer@lightlink.com wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> LOGIC
>
> Take a piece of paper. Draw a big circle on it that covers most
> of the paper. Consider that this circle represents and contains the
> AllThatIs. There can be nothing outside of this circle that IS.
>
> Draw a circle inside this circle that contains everything that IS
> GOOD. Everything outside of this circle IS NOT GOOD.
>
> Draw a circle that contains everything that IS created by God.
>
> Draw a circle that contains everything that IS Man or related to
> Man.
>
> Is the Man circle completely inside the God circle?
>
> Is the God circle completely inside the Good circle?
>
> Then ALL of Man *MUST* be inside the Good circle.
>
> End of Story.
>
> 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 ========================
Posted: Thu Nov 25 13:24:33 EST 2010
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore820.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

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

iD8DBQFM7qnhURT1lqxE3HERAnT1AJ42u+C4DkJ/EgkywpDqUwclEOiXVACeIOzC
eBqHZpH4MPTR4b9sYDmeOkY=
=Kyx6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l