ADORE - The Proof: August 2011

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

BEING CREATED AND BEING DESTROYED

I don't usually post other's work here, but this one echos things I
been saying for a long time.

Unfortuantely, Electra is a worse writer than I am, and this posting is
very technical and will be readable only by the true Auditor Geek.

Electra does not distinguish between eternality, forever outside of
time, and immortality, forever inside of one time stream. So be careful to
determine what she is talking about from context. Mostly she is talking
about immortality and the resulting hell's forever in time it leads to.

Homer

((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))

BEING CREATED AND BEING DESTROYED

EXM - 64
12 June 1992

The primary ARC Break with being Destroyed is having been Created
in the first place. You can only be destroyed if you were created.

Being destroyed is a SOLUTION to being created.

Thetans detest being created. That puts them on an effect point
forever more, and leads to no responsibility for no responsibility.

'I had nothing to do with being created, and I had nothing to do
with having nothing to do with being created.'

One's Mortal Body is a solution to an Immortal Body that one
couldn't stand and couldn't get rid of.

Being created forever is Hell forever.

There is no Heaven great enough that could be given you that would
make up for having been created no matter the circumstances or the
kindness with which it was done.

Since even a kind God then is the enemy, how much more so is one
who made you and placed you on Earth against your will?

In any case your parents had free will on the subject of sex, so
even if God made the universe, your parents made you.

((You exist BECAUSE someone else wanted you to. How is that any
better than you NOT existing BECAUSE someone else wants you not to
exist?))

This is a piss off of magnitude.

Of course it's all wrong, you CHOSE all the way up and down the
line. You even chose to not know you chose. But to deal with this
takes some measure of ability to confront the preposterous.

Time itself is a solution to the first moment of time where you
found yourself created. Worse, you were created in a universe full of
people and things trying to destroy you.

((Right down the future a little ways :) ))

The ARC Break is with having been created, but rather than try to
deal with what created you, you decided to take off and try to deal with
what was trying to destroy you.

The ARC Break you have with things that are trying to destroy you
is very secondary to, and takes all its energy from, the primary ARC
Break you have with the thing that you consider created you.

Something made you BE, in a universe of things trying to make you
NOT BE.

By putting your attention on those things trying to make you NOT
BE, you are failing to deal with the thing that made you BE in the first
place and which you really hate. This creates time, a moving away,
frame by frame, from the original first frame of consternation at having
been created without your say so.

Beings seek to be Immortal by destroying what is trying to destroy
them, because if you were created you can be destroyed. The way to
really re-attain Immortality is to destroy that which is trying to
CREATE you, make you BE. But that would have to be an AS-ISness of that
thing which created you, now wouldn't it.

YOU CREATED IT 'CREATING YOU!'

So you see the incident of 'being created' has an earlier
beginning, you CHOSE to be 'created by something else', there was an
aesthetic to it, a beauty to the fraud, a Willingness to be Unwilling, a
gorgeousness to the delusion of illusion.

You can't help but be, but its nice to be able to sleep every now
and then and be able to recognize your responsibility for what ever
dream you are in, so you can leave it or enter it or even change it at
will.

((BEing doesn't mean you have to BE CONSCIOUS!))

As long as you realize that you were not created, then you will not
mind all these beings and things trying to destroy you. That's the only
game there could be, to kill an Immortal Being. Of course they lose in
the end, because you can and will out survive all of them. You made or
hired them anyhow.

But if you think you were MADE, then you will resent like crazy all
these things trying to destroy you, for one because you think they can,
and for two because before that resentment is the earlier resentment
towards what CREATED you.

Don't think for a moment that the resentment is because this thing
that made you put you in a bad place. Being CREATED is a fundamental
violation of Personal Sovereignty. Being raped has nothing to do with
having something taken from you, or having someone invade your space
against your will. Being raped is being MADE.

That's enough to piss anyone off.

What bigger effect can you be? Here are all these huge other
determinisms getting together and deciding to create you out of nothing,
or out of parts that could care less.

A moment before you isn't. A moment after, you is.

You are natively a CAUSE. The purpose of a CAUSE is to create
EFFECTS.

It is NOT to create other CAUSES.

Perhaps to create the apparency of other causes, but no cause can
create a true other cause.

What is cause, is cause. If you are any cause at all, that is
proof that you were not created.

You are not just a conglomeration or complexity of other causes,
either. That's the delusion of the PhD know-it-alls.

You are CAUSE. That means you revel in the creation of EFFECTS.
Especially effects on yourself.

One of the effects you have indulged in is this illusion that you
were created by another cause, God, your parents, the physical universe
etc. It's all a lot of bunk. But there is an aesthetic to it.

Preposterous, right?

Good, NOW you are making case gain, and perhaps you can see why no
one else is.

Many mortal women detest being women, by the way. Many of them
would have preferred to be a male if they had only one life to live.
They will SAY they are glad they aren't a male, but it's usually because
men are used as war fodder or are burdened with outrageous
responsibilities like a pack animal.

If it weren't for that, many mortal women would have preferred to
be a man, given only one life. Since they weren't born a male, their
only claim to fame in their OWN eyes is their ability to CREATE a male
through their son. ASK THEM, see what they say.

Sometimes they use this ability to CREATE males to the hilt as it
is as close to being male as they think they will ever come.

Sometimes after they CREATE a male, born of their own jealousy to
BE a male, they will try to discredit it out of that same jealousy. If
you can't be it, make it, and then put it down as unworthy of being.

The solution to all this of course is a clear vision of Immortality
and personal knowing responsibility for having been a female in the
first place with the attendant knowledge that they can be a male again
if they should so choose.

But who would want to?

It's hating not having what you would hate having if you had it.

Your average mortal male doesn't want to be a male body either!

Once the dwindling spiral takes hold, being a female is only a safe
solution to having been a male just prior, and being a male is a safe
solution to having been a female just prior. Around and round we go,
never knowing where we've been, where we are, or where we're going.

But you know these women who scream about how bad men are? Just
check them out AS MEN a few lifetimes back. Same for men that scream
about how bad women are. What, they have only lived one life? Well we
do wonder why.

The male in this life has experienced 3 general classes of woman
hood by the time he dies, Mothers, Wives, and Daughters.

((One can also include Grandmothers and Grand Daughters, and Great
Grand Mothers and Great Grand Daughters, etc. Each person's this-life-
time track includes a lot of charge on ancestors and heirs, even if he
or she never 'met' them. Grandparents for example are part responsible
for his parent's nuttiness after all, so the child 'meets' his
grandparents in his meeting with his parents.))

These relationships in this life to Mothers, Wives and Daughters,
are the DEDEX to the DEDS in his past lives when he WAS a Daughter, Wife
and Mother.

Notice that in this life he experiences it as having a Mother,
Wife, and Daughter, whereas in the past life he experiences it as being
a Daughter, Wife and Mother.

The reversal of order causes an interesting cross over in trying to
run the DED - DEDEX sequence.

((Electra talks alot about the Ded/Dedex and Motivator/Overt
sequence, and she uses it below. Sometimes it's not so clear why these
are labeled the way they are, so I am going to try to explain it here
again in a few words.

A DED is an overt with NO PRIOR PROVOCATION. Mother is jealous of
son as he is growing up and so 'puts him down'.

A DEDEX is when someone does that to you as a son in this life.
Your mother is jealous of you as a son as you are growing up, and so
puts you down. It infuriates you. That's a DEDEX.

To the degree that the DEDEX sticks to the son in this life, one
would want to look for common DEDS AS A MOTHER in a prior life.

The son who is being put down, now feels provoked and kills his
mother with a glare or a baseball bat to the head. A sad day to be
sure. That's a MOTIVATOR for the mother and a PROVOKED OVERT for the
son.

In the mother's next life AS A SON, when she is put down by her
mother, she, as the son, will DRAMATIZE the earlier death incident of
being killed by her own son in the prior life, and will strike out as
the son in this life attempting to kill her present mother.

Thus mother does something to son, that's a DED for the mother.

Son does something back to the mother, that's a MOTIVATOR, for the
mother.

Next life as the son, mother gets it back from her new mother,
that's a DEDEX for the son.

Then she does to her new mother what her son did to her in the
prior life. That's the DRAMATIZED MOTIVATOR or 'MOTIVATED' OVERT for
the son.

Thus you get a time sequence that looks like this:

Past Life ---> Future Life
Mother's Mother's ---> Son's Son's
DED ---> MOTIVATOR ---> DEDEX ---> OVERT

Mother causes Son to suffer. (Mother's DED)
Mother suffers Son. (Mother's MOTIVATOR)
Mother becomes Son in next Life.
Son suffers Mother. (Son's DEDEX)
Son causes Mother to suffer. (Son's DRAMATIZED OVERT)

Or,

Mother ----> Son (Mother's DED, Son's DEDEX)
Mother <---- Son (Mother's MOTIVATOR, Son's DRAMATIZED OVERT)
Mother becomes Son in next Life
Son <---- Mother (Son's DEDEX, Mother's DED)
Son ----> Mother (Son's DRAMATIZED OVERT, Mother's MOTIVATOR)

DEDEX's only STICK to a being (as anger) if they have prior common
DEDS.

OVERTS only STICK (as guilt) to a being if they have prior
MOTIVATORS of which the overt was a DRAMATIZATION.

To stick means TO NOT HEAL.

Sticking only happens when there is a VALENCE SWAP.

In other words what you did as a son to your mother is not enough
to make what your mother did to you as a son stick. What you did AS a
mother TO A SON, IS enough to make what your mother did to you AS a son
stick.

Sticking happens because of REGRET (the effort to turn time back)
JUSTIFICATION and RESTRAINT. Where there is no regret, justification or
restraint, there will be no sticking.))

AS A MALE IN THIS LIFE RUN,

As a son,

1.) 'Tell me about being a mother.' (DED) (past life)
2.) 'Tell me about having a mother.' (DEDEX) (this life)
3.) 'Tell me about having a son.' (MOTIVATOR) (past life)
4.) 'Tell me about being a son.' (OVERT) (this life)

As a husband,

1.) 'Tell me about being a wife.' (DED) (past life)
2.) 'Tell me about having a wife.' (DEDEX) (this life)
3.) 'Tell me about having a husband.' (MOTIVATOR) (past life)
4.) 'Tell me about being a husband.' (OVERT) (this life)

As a father,

1.) 'Tell me about being a daughter.' (DED) (past life)
2.) 'Tell me about having a daughter.' (DEDEX) (this life)
3.) 'Tell me about having a father.' (MOTIVATOR) (past life)
4.) 'Tell me about being a father.' (OVERT) (this life)

AS A FEMALE IN THIS LIFE RUN,

As a daughter,

1.) 'Tell me about being a father.' (DED) (past life)
2.) 'Tell me about having a father.' (DEDEX) (this life)
3.) 'Tell me about having a daughter.' (MOTIVATOR) (past life)
4.) 'Tell me about being a daughter.' (OVERT) (this life)

As a wife,

1.) 'Tell me about being a husband.' (DED) (past life)
2.) 'Tell me about having a husband.' (DEDEX) (this life)
3.) 'Tell me about having a wife.' (MOTIVATOR) (past life)
4.) 'Tell me about being a wife.' (OVERT) (this life)

As a mother,

1.) 'Tell me about being a son.' (DED) (past life)
2.) 'Tell me about having a son.' (DEDEX) (this life)
3.) 'Tell me about having a mother.' (MOTIVATOR) (past life)
4.) 'Tell me about being a mother.' (OVERT) (this life)

Run them around and around to a major release.

Also,

'Who are you trying to make wrong?'
'How are you trying to make them wrong?'
'What are you trying to make them wrong for?'
'Why are you trying to make them wrong?'

((Notice last two questions are NOT the same. The first asks what
is it about them you are trying to make wrong. The second asks why are
you trying to make that wrong.))

Electra

-----------------------------

SESSION NOTES 6/15/94

((P.S. I just came out of session after having read this for the
nth time, preparing to send it.

I ran the following.

Looking for major STOP/LFBD reads but taking up all reads of
significance, I assessed for,

'Something on being a Mother?'
'Something on not being a Mother?'
'Something on having a Mother?'
'Something on not having a Mother?'

'Something on being a Wife?'
'Something on not being a Wife?'
'Something on having a Wife?'
'Something on not having a Wife?'

'Something on being a Daughter?'
'Something on not being a Daughter?'
'Something on having a Daughter?'
'Something on not having a Daughter?'

'Something on being a Father?'
'Something on not being a Father?'
'Something on having a Father?'
'Something on not having a Father?'

'Something on being a Husband?'
'Something on not being a Husband?'
'Something on having a Husband?'
'Something on not having a Husband?'

'Something on being a Son?'
'Something on not being a Son?'
'Something on having a Son?'
'Something on not having a Son?'

I also had to check Grandmother and Granddaughter a few times to
get the others reading again.

Although quite a few of these were charged, the one that seemed to
run the longest and deepest was for me,

'Something on not being a father?'

Ran it to an extraordinary release. Very central to the persisting
somatics in my throat, nose and face.

Thank you Electra Love, sorry for squirreling your tech!

Homer))

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith This file may be found at
homer@rahul.net ftp.rahul.net/pub/homer/act/EXM64.MEMO
Posted to usenet newsgroup: alt.clearing.technology

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

HOM47 (fwd)

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

Ralph:
>Rubbish. Here people who wish to belong to the established Church have to
>pay tithes.

Fredric L. Rice (FRice@LinkLine.COM) wrote:
>That's a travesty of the idea of helping others.

Help is not charity.

All of life activities is help, people co producing and co
exchanging what they have produced.

Charity is a very small subset of help.

Help is people helping *EACH OTHER*.

There is an implicit exchange involved.

Whether two people help each other through co auditing, or one
audits another professionally and the other pays for it with money or
bartered services, its always a paid for exchange.

Even offerings of charity should not go necessarily to those
first in line asking for a hand out. It should be doled to those who
are most likely to make a return.

In a welfare society where everyone has a right to live
regardless of their ability to live, or exchange for help, it becomes
fashionable to think that people should just hand out their work and
produce to the first beggar in line.

In this road is death, as it disrupts Darwinian selection of the
survival of the fittest. Fittest becomes defined as those most
capable of getting first in line, even over other's dead bodies, and
asking for or taking the biggest handout.

"The Foundation of Life is Fair Chosen Exchange."

In times of true emergency, the rules of exchange can be bent,
but if bent permanently, society goes out the tubes.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Aug 31 03:06:03 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom47.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

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

iD8DBQFOXd1bURT1lqxE3HERAhIeAJoDyEGLYeeyvGYPacUMqI3BjQhbgACfcQXw
EmUSBffKCozerOk6cHiydZY=
=f8Mt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l

Monday, August 29, 2011

MOVING

> From private mail:
> You think LRH's coroner's report is accurate?

He had a medical doctor looking over him for a long time near the
end, so I would presume he was given many such prescriptions.

LHR taught best what he most needed to learn, and also got on the
rag about things like drugs that were not really to the point.

Making drugs wrong, making people guilty for doing them etc,
completely invalidated the ascension experiences that came with them,
and thus ruined efforts to rehab them as they weren't worth rehabbing
anyhow. This destroyed a lot of good people and cases in the church.

The basic truth about drugs is they produce an *ENFORCED* release,
followed by an enforced non release (thud zone), and the being needs to
be able to operate that release/unrelease freely.

Many drugs took people way too high for them to be able to talk
about it to the nut case normals around them.

Basically the whole effort to create a future in order to make
oneself feel better, or to protect one's existing feel good is a major
trap. But people aren't ready for that, they just want to be well and
happy human beings tooling along through space/time into a better and
better future....

Finding things eternally OK as they are is a big no no in this
universe, but that's where (good) drugs take us. When we come down we
don't fully comprehend the experience, "surely it can't be..."

You know, "saw the light and comprehended it not".

Basic OT VIII question was "What determines how you feel?"

If the guy has to MOVE to feel better, he's sunk. Might as well be
a body, have kids, create a future, and whistle past all the graveyards
while they are at it :)

On the other hand if a being felt fine as he was, why would he ever
MOVE? So you see, being that able isn't cool in this society at this
time which is hell bent on making everyone dissatisfied with the
here/now, and getting them to MOVE to create a better future.

If you are so high you can just sit there and feel good no matter
what is going on around you, awareness of awareness as sufficient
communication, then all kinds of people will crucify themselves to
crosses in order to convince you how bad it all is and that you
shouldn't be feeling good and you should MOVE to make things better in
the world etc.

Their effort is to bring you down into co-miseration, hope and
help.

Biggest scam there ever was, trying to get a thetan to MOVE...

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Aug 29 03:06:02 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore250.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

Saturday, August 27, 2011

EXPERIENCES

Originally posted to ADORE-L which no longer exits.

This guy eventually wrote me many years later, he had become a born
again Christian.

This posting is old, it dates back to 1989. One indication is a
lack of distinction between eternality outside of time, and immortality
inside of time.

Also the auditing processes are not in cannonical format.

Today I would run simply:

Spot NO fear of future. Spot SOME fear of future.

With attention to future mortalities, fragile immortalities,
immortalities and eternalities.

Fragile immortalities were a time on the track when a being had an
immortal body but it was fragile and could be killed by force. The game
was how long you could live before you or someone else fucked up and
clobbered the body beyond repair. People lived thousands of years
before losing it. Wars were engaged in, inspite of the risk. In many
cases life became unworthy of living, and suicide became rampant.

Suicide was declared illegal and the punishment was life in prison,
where you COULDN'T kill yourself if you wanted to.

'Life' sentences were particuarly brutal and are echoed today in
our criminal policies that prevent a criminal from killing himself. You
can't punish him further if he is dead. The desire to cause pain to
someone as revenge rather than just dispense with their lives as a
practicality are also echoed today in false religious beliefs about hell
forever. If God doesn't like a sinner, He should just terminate their
existence rather than make the sinner suffer forever, begging to die but
not being able to. The cause of much mental illness is the belief in a
mentally ill God.

The legal idea was that the proper penalty for causing the death of
someone, who otherwise COULD HAVE lived forever, was not death in
exchange, but being caused to SUFFER alive forever, as that was the
result on the loved one's left behind of the one who was killed. They
get to continue living without the murdered one, and thus they are
suffering forever and thus they demanded that the culprit do so also.

This is all going to come up again in the next 100 years on Earth
as fragile, but otherwise immortal bodies, are genetically produced on a
wide scale. The aging and normal biological death of bodies is a silly
genetic error that they already know how to fix, they just haven't
gotten around to doing it yet.

Biological death was chosen by simple Darwian selection, those that
lived the longest were not the ones who lived and procreated the best.
For one, overpopulation is death to a fragile immortal body, and total
hell to a truely non fragile immortal body. Thus biological immortality
is not biologically desirable.

Man however will certainly change all that within the next 100
years, by unselecting for biologically mortal bodies, as he figures out
the solution to the aging problem, and the mess that will result on
Earth from that will exceed anything written in the books of man.

I would purchase the movie rights now.

Homer

JMC wrote:
>I have been one of the people that has continued to ask for descriptions
>of some religious experiences here. The reason I'm doing this, personally,
>is that I would like to be able to understand where Homer is coming from.
>I don't plan on criticizing anyone over this. How can you find any
>criticism in an account of what a person was experiencing? You can
>criticize the interpretations of the experience, but it's the experience
>itself, not the interpretation, that I'm looking for from Homer.

One reason is that I don't want to set myself up for criticisms of
the interpretation of the experience. Some would say it is the
experience that is important, others would say it is the interpretation
of the experience. I like to keep them separate so that no one can say
I am an idiot for taking interpretation A from experience B. People
already think I am an idiot, why give them fuel to throw on the fire?
It is THEIR immortality they are laughing at. Fuck em. You know what I
mean?

Another reason is that experiences are very ephemeral and often
beyond words. Thus trying to describe an experience ALWAYS gets the
other person to come up with a false conception of what you are talking
about, which they then attack you for drawing interpretations from.
Especially people who have had no 'experiences.' Trying to describe one
to such a person is a no win situation and just makes matters worse. On
the other hand people who HAVE had experiences of something or other CAN
glean some measure of understanding from what you might describe, but
they have already experienced it, so why discuss it? Except of course
to discuss the ramifications which gets into interpretations.

Another reason that I don't like getting into describing
experiences, besides the fact that it is literally telling the enemy
exactly what your armaments are, is that people get into a one upmanship
about who has experienced what, and some get to feeling very depressed
because 'THEY'VE never experienced THAT.'

One of the most basic experiences that people are looking for is
RECOGNITION. Recognition of themselves, their choices, and the people
they have known and loved down the ages. Most people slough off the
moment of recognition as they know there is nothing to really recognize.
Of course they are wrong, there are millions and millions of years and
people and things and places to recognize, and it is a great joy when
you finally meet someone you REMEMBER, even if only in a dream.

It is very much like finding a true friend you did not know you had
forgotten. Then you begin to ask 'How long has this been going on?' It
is enough to make chills crawl up and down your spine.

Of course others walk around recognizing every dog cat and
cockcroach they see, but they are just giving the whole subject a bad
name.

It is true that many insane people think they are Napolean. But
what about all the insane people who think they are bodies and live just
once?

Out there somewhere IS Napolean, maybe not quite sure he should say
anything about it because no one would believe him.

The next experience that most are looking for are clear memories of
past places that are no longer. Other planets, other times, even home
universe. Unfortunately our memories are so chock full of OTHERS
memories that we often take any clear image that comes along and call it
ours. Well it may belong to someone, but not necessarily to YOU. When
you find your own memory in the junk heap of images, you will find some
serenity of self you have not known for trillenia.

Serenity of Being, Eternal Omni Sovereignty, these are absolute
states at the very highest reaches of ability that we can again contact
in this life. People CLAIM to contact these states, but check out their
contact with reality and their ability to deal with it. Gods do not
have any problems. Bums merely claim they have no problems. But they
have no accomplishments either.

A person who has really made it will be surrounded by
accomplishments.

>We already know his conclusions, but what we don't know is why he
>feels that way.

I feel this way because the conclusions WORK.

They start off as a theory, you try them out, you see they work,
and they become conclusions.

The way in is the way out. Have a headache? Make MORE. Don't
have a headache? Make one. If you had been taught these principles
from childhood you would be able to make headaches come and go with
ease. If you become bent on trying to STOP a headache that 'something
else' created, you will get stuck with the headache. If you learn to
START headaches, then you can out start anything else that might be
trying to make a headache for you, and you will not get stuck with them
unless you want to.

Of course if everyone could make headaches come and go and KNEW
that everyone could do this, you could never USE a headache to get out
of school. Or allergies, or colds, or flu or cancer.

Everyone is terrified of cancer, but NO ONE is practicing MAKING a
cancer in their bodies. They are afraid they might get stuck with it.
But if you can MAKE it you can UNMAKE it. So people devote themselves
to NOT MAKING cancers and they die of them routinely.

Earth is a joke. A sick joke perhaps, but a Majestic sick joke
that plays on the God-child's refusal to operate what he fears the most.
If you make a big ugly looking spider and then run away from it, IT WILL
come after you. You SAID so in the running away from it, don't you see?

Of course if you just sit there in apathy and DON'T run away from
it, it will eat you anyhow. You gotta MAKE it. And chose to run away
from it and have it come after you. THEN it will vanish. It is a
matter of whether you OWN it while you are doing it, or you chose to
believe your mockups for real. In which case you will get eaten every
time. YOU SAID SO.

>Certainly, his philosophies are not shared by
>the majority of the people,

Not so. Maybe in AMERICA the majority of the people are meatballs
but America is a decadent piece of pollution on the waters of the Earth.
Its advancement in the high tech area is matched only by the depth of
sleep that its zombie citizens are walking around in.

Hell America is run by a sub class of humans who believe that GOD
died for your sins. If this is not the pit of philosophical putritude,
I do not know what is.

((It is possible that some people need to have God pay their ticket
for them, but others don't. So its not true that only Christians will
be saved, but it might be true that only Christians needed to have God
pay their ticket for them.

"There is peace in the thought that one day *ALL* men will attained
the enlightened state." - Sufi))

Other countries are not much better, because all of EARTH is an
insane asylum for the spiritually retarded that could not or would not
get along with others out in the real universe. We have all had our
memories EXECUTED out of us, (its still there though) and we have been
dumped here in the hope that we would never have to be dealt with again.
Of course the civilizations that dumped us here were not the height of
wonder themselves. But at least they knew about immortality.

>and so it goes without saying that
>he should explain WHY he feels that way if he wants to be understood
>by us mundane folks.

It is not my goal to be understood by mundane folks. It is my goal
to share understanding with others who have it. Those who don't, or who
need PROOF before they will LOOK are invited to get lost. I owe them
nothing.

Those with no evidence or 'experiences' of their own are shallower
than a dry river bed and deserve little consideration, as it is not by
innocent error that they are this way.

They are indeed very fortunate to have someone daring enough to
even open their mouth on this subject right or wrong.

In fact those who are green apprehentices to this subject matter
should keep their mouths shut until they gain some understanding they
can share with others.

At worst they should treat those they question with some respect.
It starts with knowing that there is something to know, that you do not
know it, and that the one you are questioning might know it. It does
not start with trying to denounce or debunk the person in question.
THAT is for the SKEPTICS-L list and such people who behave in this
manner will be treated with total contempt on this list.

Skeptics are in a kind of hell. They DOUBT they CHOSE, and they
DOUBT they CHOSE to DOUBT they CHOSE. Who now owes them a free ride
out? If they LISTEN and LOOK and APPLY they might be able to take
advantage of the fact that they are allowed to communicate with those
who have already done some of the dangerous work and have attained some
measure of ability. Those who have no ability in these matters are not
OWED by those that do.

Since most ability comes from within yourself anyway, screaming and
yelling about others not sharing their secrets with you is only partly
valid. If you have to do it alone, you have to do it alone. To say 'I
will not believe, until you prove it to me, that there is something to
believe' is to continue the joke which is on YOU. YOU PROVE IT TO
YOURSELF.

Then I can heckle you. What a joy that will be. I can't wait.

>But then again, a religious experience has got to be the Ultimate
>Personal Thing, so I can understand why he might be hesitant to
>reveal anything. This is all well and good.

Yes. The personal thing about it is the PAIN. The joke we have
played on ourselves is much like nailing ourselves to a cross in public
view for all to see. Once we did that to ourselves, we may even have
nailed a few of our friends to something too.

Disentangling the blame shame and regret takes a bit of nerve and
is best done in private or with a trained person, one who has attained a
release state themselves. (No I am not there. Yet.) They will not
laugh at you during your worst moments, and they will not be afraid if
you really do get back the ability to exteriorize and generate a few
million electron volts.

A spirit out of a body and free from his own constraints measures
his energy output in kiloton-lightyears per microsecond. That is really
a unit of momentum, mass times velocity, but since a spirit does not
have to go through the acceleration phase to get something moving, it is
essentially a unit of energy, or 'kick in the face'.

Imagine getting hit with a kiloton lightyear per microsecond of
mass and velocity? You don't fool around with such spirits, and you
don't laugh at them and you don't ask them to fucking PROVE IT.

'He who speaks, knows not' really applies to the hecklers in the
crowd who have no idea WHAT THEY ARE HECKLING. Especially when their
target is one of the few that DO speak and happen to know where from
they speak.

Mostly those who know, just simply choose to not speak lest they
and their friends get heckled out of existence.

>BUT, until he describes WHY he feels the way he does, I for one will find
>it hard to place any more credibility in his statements than any other
>non-obvious statements made by the average lunatic.

The implication here is that you will quickly change your mind as
soon as I cough up the required data. This is false. YOU may think it
will help. I KNOW it won't.

Only one thing will convince that you the way in is the way out.
DO it and HAVE IT WORK. Until then you are out of luck.

By the way I HAVE done it and it DOES WORK. But there is a LOT to
do it TO. Get it? You wont go free in a day. Unless of course you do,
in which case please let me be the first to know. I am tired of all
this long slow work.

>I can say "we all have tiny brown rabbits living inside our heads"
>all I want, but until I submit my reason for feeling that way, my
>ideas are not going to be taken with too much respect.

Your reason for feeling that way is you have SEEN the rabbits, no?
You have also seen that you have chosen to NOT SEE the rabbits, and that
the only way to SEE them again is to practice NOT SEEING them until you
perfectly duplicate what you did to shut them out at which moment you
will see them again.

Of course if others do NOT have rabbits in their heads, this will
not work. How will you ever know the difference? Good point. Well USE
the method and if you end up seeing the rabbits, they were there all
along. If you don't, maybe they weren't.

But what if you don't use the method right, so you don't end up
seeing the rabbits? How will you know if you did the method right and
the rabbits were not there, or if you did NOT do the method right so the
rabbits are still just not SEEN.

Ah well, spirits have been scratching their balls for millions of
years over that one. But look we are talking about your IMMORTALITY.
Not your rabbits. OF COURSE you are Immortal. It is up to you to keep
applying the method until you see the fact for yourself. Of course its
no good cheating and turning to BELIEF or some other such nonsense. You
gotta keep doing it until you SEE for SURE how old you really are.

Eternity is a long time. It takes a tad of confront to look upon
it. Sort of like looking out into endless open space. But in any case
it is the CHOICE you need to see. Not just a bunch of time. You can
look at eternity all you want and not get better. You have to see YOUR
HAND in your involvement with space and time in order to regain your
full self determinism over it. Until then you are lost forever in the
sea of space and time and OTHER DETERMINISM.

>So, Homer, unless you loosen up a little bit and share some of
>your data, I don't understand how you can expect NOT to have a
>constant stream of attacks from the meat-ball skeptics.

You are right I should grow up and expect the attacks.

But if for one moment those people saw how silly they looked they
would clam it up immediately and start applying the data rather than
screaming for proof.

For example a good thing to run on yourself or a friend is,

'Look around here and spot some evidence that you are not
responsible for your condition.'

'Look around here and spot some evidence that you ARE
responsible for your condition.'

Dont try to white wash it by saying, well I am really responsible
for my condition because I did so and so. Did you chose EARTH? Did you
chose AMERICA? Did you put the stars in the sky? Do you make it rain?
How about the color of your skin, the number of cells in your body, the
mechanisms of biology. Truly our responsibility is apprently very very
low if you compare it to all that exists.

In fact one good look at just how unresponsible we really feel
about things is one good look right into the mind of God, YOU.
Because that is what you did to your self. You made something very
big, and you jumped in. And boy did you jump in.

>The fact that all your experiences remain unknown adds to the
>carnival con-artist flavor of your statements. Sure, they may be
>true, but to those of us who don't yet agree with you, you sound
>very much like a magician in a circus. We always see the end
>result, but never get to know how or why you arrived there.

Yeah its hard. Most of my 'experiences' are too ineffable to put
into words in a way that I know you would get it.

But almost all of them came from looking at the possibility that I
had hidden my responsibility from myself for a reason. THAT causes
spiritual visions to occurr no end. So it is not like the visions came
to me for no reason and I made some conclusions. I ALREADY HAD a
THEORY, namely I chose to forget choosing to forget, and in thinking
about that theory and working it out in every detail of my life, the
visions have come fast and furious.

Sometimes more furious than fast. So watch it.

>"Because" is not an answer that sits well. If that's the way
>you want to run things, so be it, but don't complain when you have
>to defend that line of argument against the skeptics!

The skeptics should show some understanding and stop bugging me
about it.

No one is expecting them to accept things on faith or to believe
something just because it is desirable or I said it. In fact one
demands that they NOT do this because THAT is just what they have been
doing for the past years of their lives when they bought the story of
the physical universe being real and not just one hell of a projection.

Skeptics are such hypocrits. I have no respect for them at all.
They demand proof that consciousness is real, but they believe to their
last breath they are made of matter that they have never seen and in
fact can not see. They are dreamers who think their dream is real just
and only because it hit them so hard in the face, and in fact this kind
of skeptic is the worst kind of 'true believer' there is. They believe
in matter energy space and time but consciousness which they can SEE is
unimportant or just a function of the material brain. What idiocy.

From ADORE,

Mortals bow and pray to the God of

TIME, STONE and Dust in the Wind.

>You might ask why I haven't shared any of my own religious experiences...
>The answer is that I haven't had any. I'm searching, and I promise
>everyone that this list will be the first to know about them when they
>occur! :)

You are bound to have them.

Ask yourself,

Are you willing to come back and do 1st grade again in your next
life?

Are you willing to be a girl or a boy in your next life?

Have you EVER died a natural, peceful death?

What were YOU doing during World War II or Korea?

If you are a Jew, have you ever been a Christian?

If you are a Christian, have you ever been a Jew?

Have you ever been a black or a slave?

Did you die in the Civil War?

Whose side were you on?

Does it piss you off that you forget all your skills from life time
to life time?

Is it REASONABLE to expect people to be able to survive well on
this planet if they forget all they know every week? Every month?
Every year? Every 20 years? Every life time? Every Universe?

Who ever said you HAD to live only on this lifetime's learning
anyway?

Do you FEEL anything on the subject of living once and dying?

Are you afraid of anger?

Are you mad at fear?

What FEELING do you expect to have during your 'experiences'?

Have you ever felt MONSTER VIBRATIONS?

Are you willing to meet a Divinity?

Are you willing to meet a Devil?

Does it surprise you that no one on Earth thinks twice about being
mortal?

etc.

You WILL have the experiences you seek if you keep asking
questions, and keep questioning answers.

Homer

Friday, August 26, 2011

GAME ROLES

08/30/10 Monday 3:41pm EST

GAME ROLES

Many universes consist of games.

These universes are space-time game streams.

Games consist of 5 layers of involvement.

1.) Game creators
2.) Game players
3.) Game pieces
4.) Game umpires
5.) Game spectators.

Each of the above can be broken, not functioning right.

Thus we have

1.) Game creators and Broken game creators
2.) Game players and Broken game players
3.) Game pieces and Broken game pieces
4.) Game umpires and Broken game umpires
5.) Game spectators and Broken game spectators.

Games generally are formed of teams and thus are built around an
innate pecking order of command and control.

Broadly speaking game beings can become broken in two different
ways.

One, they can be broken in the play itself, a solider in the field
gets hit by a bomb and ends up permanently in the hospital. He is out
of that game for a while.

Spectators get hurt all the time in car races etc.

Two, they can break themselves, the same soldier in the field gets
sick of his high command whose moral compass seems to be backwards, and
one way or another the soldier renders himself useless so he can't be in
the game any more.

Generally a being has one role in any particular game, but he may
be trying to play more than one role in the same game which may or may
not lead to confusion, consternation or disaster.

A being can be confused as to which role they are playing.

He may think he is a piece when in fact he is a broken player, he
may think he is a player when in fact he is a broken piece.

That said, every person is involved in many different games in
life, in all different roles, he is thus a complicated constellation of
game creator, player, piece, umpire and spectator according to the game
he has his attention on at the moment, which is probably more than one.

For example a commander in chief may be a main game player in a
war, and under him he has his generals to whom are delegated authority
to make their own moves.

As such each delegate becomes a sub player under the main player.

Just so the generals delegate to captains, sergeants, lieutenants,
and privates.

Although the private apparently has no one under him in that
particular game, and thus is the ultimate piece, he will be found to be
creating, playing, umpiring, being a piece and spectating in many bigger
or smaller games of life, along side the one he is playing in the war.

And even as a private, he still has his own free will to determine
what should be done at a local level to forward the purpose of his main
player, and thus he operates as a micro sub player even while being a
piece.

The piece fair chooses the player he wishes to serve, and the
player fair chooses the game creator whose game he wishes to play.

Each role has free will to operate as they kind.

Thus although the piece is 'taking orders' from the player and
serves the player's broader purposes, such apparent subservience is fair
chosen, and the piece is also free to generate orders for himself in the
direction of those same purposes.

We say apparent subservience because the player is actually
subservient to the piece's desire to play for him. Without pieces, the
player can not play.

Thus the piece idolizes the player, and the player worships the
piece.

If a piece bones up on his skills, devotion, vigilance and
attention to be ever ready to act on behalf of his player, the piece's
life can be greatly rewarded by the player.

We call this being on purpose.

The reward is feeling good and having strong reason to get up in
the morning.

If the piece goofs up in his game play, his life can be made to
deteriorate by his game player, and eventually the piece will take to
messing up his own ability to operate in order to get his game player to
leave him alone.

If you can't find reason to get up in the morning or are
chronically sick, near dead or dying, you might want to consider
reopening negotiations with your game player or find a new one.

Game players can be pretty rough on game pieces even when they are
going well.

Devotion keeps the piece aligned with his game player, even if the
game player is more broken than not.

The game creator doesn't give a damn what the piece does, the game
player does.

Thus the ultimate God is not a God of behavior, but the game player
immediately senior to the piece IS, where behavior is translated to
performance in the game. Thus the player will tend to judge the piece
according to the fruit of his tree, and forgive pecadillos accordingly.

The umpires judge game players, not game pieces.

Umpires report to the game creator or owner at the time.

No one judges game creators except themselves and their cohort
peers with whom they may be in some kind of competition for admiration.

Game creators are author's, game players and pieces are characters.

Virtue for the creator is not virtue for the creature.

Virtue for the author is not virtue for the character.

A good story contains both good and bad characters.

The rehabilitation then of any being in any universe is the
rehabilitation of all game roles from broken to fully operational across
all games in all universes the being is involved in as creator, player,
piece, umpire or spectator.

Sometimes in order to rehab the broken piece, the piece has to roll
up his sleeves and rehab his broken player.

And likewise the player may have to rehab his broken game creator.

In the meanwhile the umpire is off having a beer at the pub.

Everyone will get around to him eventually too.

Homer

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

BASIC ABERRATION

Extensively rewritten and added to. 8/24/2011

Probably worth re reading.

Homer

"All aberration is waiting for an answer to a question" - LRH,
Dianetics 55!

The basic aberration is trying to know, trying to find out.

Trying to know.

Trying to learn,

Trying to find.

Searching for.

Seeking.

Looking for.

Reaching for.

This is question asking.

Learning by looking, followed by learning by looking HARDER...

Then being afraid of what you will see and find out, and thus
getting into not learning by not looking.

So the being comes down to trying to learn AND not learn at the
same time.

Trying to know AND not know at the same time.

He is doing this full time, and ends up 'trying to know' by not
looking. You figure that one out.

It would work if he would do it consciously, with aplomb, and not
pollute his not looking with still trying to sneak a peak, but he's
crazy about it by this time, so it just generates more charge.

You see he is afraid of what he will see, so he is trying to see by
not seeing, but he is unsure its so bad, so maybe he looks a little, to
see if he can see anything that might indicate he had better not see at
all lest he burn up from the fear.

Question asking about the space time physical universe is fine, but
question asking about his own sovereign being is not.

He wants to know 'Am I immortal?'

How long will I live? How long will mommy and daddy live?

Will they still be alive after they die? Where will they be?

Do I have to cry? Do I have to love? Do I have to hate?

How do I stop feeling sympathy and no-sympathy for mother at the
same time?

How did I get here? Where am I? Where am I going?

ARC = Affinity, Reality (Agreement) and Communication.

ARC break = sudden sundering of ARC, major upset.

The idea he is not immortal causes an infinite ARC break as now he
has not time enough for love.

That's Death Forever.

He asks, how can this be? What can I DO about it?

Can I cry enough to make it better, to heal the pain of death?

The idea that he IS immortal causes another infinite ARC break, as
now he has not time enough to sleep.

That's Hell Forever.

He misses timeless eternality outside of time, and confuses
eternality, eternal peace, with immortality in time, a temporal hell
forever.

He asks, how can this be? What can I DO about it?

Doubt is self casting. Doubting the worst, will CREATE evidence
for the worst.

Caught between death forever and hell forever, he can only see the
worst. This spirals out of control and clamps him down into not
thinking about anything.

Ever run into someone who says "Oh I never think about death."?

Right.

He searches for his group, those of his own like kind.

Where are they? What do they look like? How can I find them?
What happened to them? Why am I alone amongst billions?

Am I guilty? Do I deserve punishment? Do others?

He wants a purpose in life, what should I do with my time?

There is nothing sadder than a being in search of a basic purpose.

*TERRIFIED* of wasting time.

As if time has some value, some innate preciousness.

Time to an eternal being is FREE, and useless.

What should I invest in? What should I sow and reap?

Who am I? What am I? Where am I? When am I? Why am I?

How many am I?

I and they.

Beings are composite beings, even out of body.

There may be a leader, the prime I-AM, but his functionality rests
on a structure made of trillions of others doing elemental work in his
space.

How many are we?

How long we been doing this?

How old are we?

Always searching for, always trying to find, always looking for,
always trying to learn.

First there is true not know, nothing created, but infinite
potential existing eternally.

Then there is creation without significance. This is an as-isness,
an as-isness will vanish when let go of.

Then there is know about, significances added to what was created
that then create persistence in dreamtime. Added significances are,
what it is, who made it, what it is used for, etc.

Then there is the effort to not know about something already
created, using force, mass, not-isness, not thereness, invisibility,
blackness, and elsewhereness.

That is the effort to vanish, to as-is, by not-ising, covering in
black.

There is a kind of black that looks like nothing there.

It falls just short of being glow in the dark black, otherwise the
jig would be up and the being would have to admit something was there.

Then there is the effort to know again what has been not known by
force and coverup.

That's nuts squared.

Let's sum that up.

Native state Not Know, total unmanifestation
As-Is Know, creation without added significance.
Vanishes when let go. Vanishing truth.
Alter-Is Know about, adding significance results in
persisting truth.
Is-ness Persisting Truth.
More Alter-Is Adding opposite significances, results in
persisting lies.
Not-Isness Covering persisting lies in black giving the
apparency of vanishment.
Truth seeking Wondering what's up, question asking and
answer seeking.

Finally he ends up auditing, 'What question am I dramatizing?"

That's a question, you see.

That's called *INTROVERSION*, the symptoms of being nuts are
driving him more nuts. He thinks the problem is the symptom, as he is
no longer in contact with the problem that caused the symptom.

"If only I didn't have this suffocating feeling and migraine
headache, and lightning bolt up my spine, they are ruining my life."

No they aren't, they are indicators he still has some life left,
after the fact of ruining his own life by mis handling what came before,
that had nothing to do with suffocation or headaches.

Get this and get it well.

The symptoms the preclear is complaining about are SOLUTIONS, or
incidental consequences resulting from solutions, to earlier problems
WAY more intense than the symptoms, no matter how much the symptoms are
'killing' him.

He solved the problem by not-ising it. His symptoms are the
kickback from the not-isness.

The kickback starts when he starts to let go of his not-isness just
a bit. The symptoms are recent, late on the chain.

The original problem is BIG and OLD.

So old he will feel freaked by the size and age alone, once he gets
near it.

He feels that if this thing just rolls the tiniest bit, it might
wipe him out.

Get honest, chill out running not know until the symptom is gone or
managable, THEN find out what the nutcake problem is that preceeded it,
by running more not know.

The symptom takes his attention off the problem. By chilling the
symptoms out through running not know and not-isness, the problem will
surface again as a big glow in the dark black mass :) More not know will
as-is the black not-isness, and the structure of the problem will begin
to re reveal itself.

This will result in the kind of philosophical vertigo we call the
Qualms.

Along with some serious fireworks, divinity dancing in blinding
white light and sparks of gorgeous colors from heaven and all.

Black V indeed.

Forget drugs, medicine and alcohol, they hide both the symptom and
the problem forever.

Until he stops doing them and dries out for a while.

It takes as long as it takes. Underjudging the original problem is
the primary reason it takes longer than it should. Until the problem is
spanned in its enormity, the original problem will seem forever not
there, and the symptoms will never go away.

Since the symptoms are caused by letting go of the not-isness
without running it out, the more he pokes around to find the problem
with out finding it, the worse the sumptoms will become. You don't run
out not-isness by LOOKING, you run it out by NOT-LOOKING.

The symtpoms are Pandora's Box opened just a crack. You open it
fully by reclosing it again fully for a while under conscious control.

Being able to *CONSCIOUSLY* recreate yourself as a 'What Pandora's
Box?" case, is the fastest way to find out.

The box was originally slammed closed with infinite layers of
not-isness of not-isness layered upon the closing of it, with no intent
of ever opening it again.

"Who me? I didn't close nothing!"

Infinite layers of not-isness is hard to keep around if you do it
consciously with the intent to ultimately as-is it all.

You can't just let go of all the not-isness at once, as it slams
back in your face. You have to hold it CLOSED, and let it open SLOWLY,
under control, letting the pressure off a bit at a time.

The "Who me?" case will never make it.

Your preclear feels ashamed of the original problem, he is afraid
to find out how small he is, that such a thing should have overwhelmed
him, and 'ruined his life'.

Oh no, that's not even in the right ball park.

*HE* ruined his life to 'solve' the problem.

Once he so much as gets near the right problem his *PRIDE* will
burst forth like a volcano blowing its lid.

The being is *BIG*, it takes something *BIG* to make him feel
small.

If you are worried about finding out what has been holding you down
lo all these long millenia, lest you never live it down, tear up your
tickets and get to the right ball game.

You will feel better immediately and your pride will start coming
back, as will your respect for others, no matter how detested.

Mortality is dying in one time stream forever.

That is death forever.

Immortality is living in one time stream forever.

That is hell forever, no matter how good it is.

It never stays 'good' for long. The being sees to it that he makes
it so, throwing a fit to get out of that time stream once he tires of it
or something goes wrong. Remember, to an immortal stuck in a single
time stream, wrongs are forever.

Since he denies the operation of coming into the time stream, he
can't get out, as practice coming in, PUTS him out.

The action of, and intent to, come in, is the only way back out.
because it IS out.

Once he is back out, through facility in coming in, he can change
his mind about coming in, and stay out.

Eternality is living forever above time, mostly unimpingable sleep
and peace, interspersed with recurring riffs of laughter from wild ideas
about 'waking up' and engaging in dream time for a while.

Trying to wake up a native state being and engage him in a dream
time game is almost impossible.

Almost.

How much more enormous is immortality than mortality?

How much more enormous is eternality than immortality?

How enormous then is the problem, the mis handling and denial of
which is causing all his symptoms?

Never EVER run a question. Run auditing as commands.

Wanna send someone to the spin bin?

Run,

"What questions are you asking?"

Wanna get someone out of the spin bin?

Run tone 40 (top of tone scale):

'Spot a question".

More formally

"Spot NO question asking."
"Spot SOME question asking."

All flows, all dynamics, all beings.

The 8 dynamics are:

1.) Self
2.) Family
3.) Groups
4.) Mankind
5.) Life
6.) MEST (physical universe, matter, energy, space and time)
7.) Spirit (The High US)
8.) The Infinite Unmanifest

Using 'Spot NO/SOME" audit out all questions, all answers, trying
to know, trying to find, searching for, looking for and trying to learn.

Wonder is question asking, answer seeking.

I wonder who...
I wonder how...
I wonder what...
I wonder where...
I wonder when...
I wonder why...
I wonder if...

Those are the stair steps to spiritual death so far down the tone
scale, they dropped a stone at the beginning of time and it still hasn't
hit bottom.

The good news is no one else has hit the bottom of the tone scale
yet either, all are salvagable and one day, so salvaged, shall they be.

Peace is not wonder.

Wonder is not peace.

Peace knows no wonder.

Wonder knows no peace.

Peace has no questions and peace has no answers.

People seek knowledge to attain power.

They seek power to attain peace, a moment's rest.

To defend their little abode in time, from the rest of time, which
seems bent on eating them.

Peace does not come from knowledge, knowledge is a yoke around the
neck sinking your preclear to the bottom of the sea, to be buried in
sediment for ever more.

The ultimate in knowledge is "I am dead and can't do anything about
it."

Knowledge is CREATED by peace when it laughs itself awake.

Knowledge is dreamtime, spacetime, kinetics, mechanics.

The awareness characteristic scale starts off with:

Source, Existence and *CONDITIONS*

Conditions are limitations on what he has to do, to get what he
wants.

Conditions are what is created, and are the total end and purpose
of knowledge to find out what they are.

Without conditions, desire creates in the mere conception of
things. No time between wanting and having.

Desire constrained by conditions engages in chase through time
towards ultimate goals of attainment.

Time which is created by conditions constraining desire, consists
of

Desire -> Action -> Having (or not).

Your preclear spends his entire sojourn in dreamtime trying to
learn those conditions, so he can get on with suriving.

Knowledge does not create peace.

Peace creates knowledge.

Peace does not come from power either.

Power does not create peace.

Peace creates power.

Peace IS power, in infinite potentia.

Peace can create anything that can be created, in the mere
conception of it.

Including limitations on that creation for a while, which Adore
calls Majesty.

"Desire is Sovereign.

"Sovereign means you want it, you got it."

"Majesty is the sovereign desire that desire not be sovereign for a
while." - Adore

Time is majesty in carnation.

Can power or knowledge do that?

Remember your preclear is inverted, he started off looking by
knowing, conceiving first, seeing second, and now he is knowing by
looking, seeing first, conceiving second.

He started off creating answers first, and then creating not know
and questions second.

Knowing (learning) by looking results in floating downwards.

See first, conceive second is rowing down the river of hell towards
the falls.

Looking by Knowing (creating) results in floating upwards.

Conceive first, see second, well you can create rivers of hell
forever for free and turn yourself into a fool who is seeing first and
conceiving second, to float down them.

Learning by looking about the physical universe is fine, it was set
up for that game, but learning about self is not.

Learning-by-looking about the CREATED is fine, but

Learning-by-looking about the CREATOR is not.

The way to learn about the creator is to NOT KNOW, as not knowing
is what the creator is doing anyhow with its creations.

Whether the creator is not knowing at the top in native state, or
not knowing at the bottom in a pretended enforced native state, the
creator's main action is NOT KNOW.

The trying to find out is a detour.

Duplicate the NOT-ISNESS, and the AS-ISNESS will follow whether
your preclear wants it to or not.

You will never see what's on the other side of the blackness by
looking harder and harder into the blackness. That will simply make you
feel small, weak and ineffectual.

MAKE THE BLACKNESS, make the not-isness, create not-isness of
not-isness so you don't even know you are making not-isness any more,
and more stuff will open up to you than you ever knew was there.

Not-ising not-ising is the basic flow of the Creator in turning
what it has created into the game of LOOK AND FIND OUT.

The preclear's bank consists of questions seeking answers.

That's all there is keeping the mess stirred up.

Every incident, every goal, every engram, every secondary, sorrow
or loss, every lock or moment of restimulation has a question seeking an
answer keeping it alive in present time.

Questions are efforts that *COMMIT* the preclear to the postulate
that he doesn't just know the answer in the mere conception of it, and
couldn't recreate it from scratch if he wanted to.

Thus by engaging in the ACTION to ask the question and seek the
answer he moves himself into the future, off the time point where the
original know -> not know was created, and thus as-isness of the not
know is no longer possible.

Thus answer seeking takes him away from as-isness and finding out
the answer to the question which was created BEFORE the question.

Let's go over this again.

First he creates an answer which is an as-isness, and then a not
know, which is a not-isness of the answer.

At that point there is still no time, if he gets the as-isness of
the not-isness, the not-isness will disappear, and the as-isness will
reappear. If he lets go of the as-isness, the answer will disappear too
as if never created.

However if instead, he creates the effort (action) to ask the
question about the answer, that creates a time distance between him and
the moment of creation of the answer. Action is chase through time.

Thus he can no longer get the as-isness of the not-isness because
he is no longer sitting on the moment of time when it was created. Thus
he is now committed to seeking the answer to the question through time
for the rest of time.

He can change his mind however, its never too late, as all time is
now. He can give up the effort to answer the question, return to the
moment of creation of the not-isness, let go of it, and recover the
as-isness which is the answer he was seeking all along.

For many of these questions, the question IS the answer to "what's
wrong with him", the questioning itself is the problem as it continues
the persistence of not knowing the answer!

For other questions, answers are the problem, particularly wrong
answers.

Wisdom is the ability to know what questions to answer and not
answer, and what answers to question and not question.

The ability to not know, not question, not answer, is lost, and the
being gets stuck in MUST question, MUST answer, MUST HURRY UP AND TRY
HARDER and trying to know forever more. That's hell forever.

Most of the questions he is asking ARE the problem, ARE the answer
to what is wrong with him, so he knows any other answer he might find to
those questions will HAVE to be a wrong indication. So the very effort
to find the answer to such questions scares the hell out of him. He
gets the idea it would be better to not know, because truth is horrible.

He is right about the not know, but he isn't doing it right. He is
trying to solve the not know through effort and looking, rather than
through duplicating the original creative moment of NOT knowing and NOT
looking.

The joke is it isn't the truth he fears to find that is horrible,
it is the persisting wrong answers that are horrible.

And that's all there are, persisting wrong answers.

There is no peace where there are questions and

PEACE DOES NOT RESULT FROM A RIGHT ANSWER!

Peace results from ceasing the convulsive question asking.

Questions the preclear doesn't even know he has any more.

Which is why running "What questions am I asking" just sinks him,
it operates his ENTIRE BANK from the beginning to time well into the
future, and it stirrs the whole track of every question he ever had, and
he just plummets like a stone down the tone scale.

He is NOT-ISING all these questions and answers, so the only way to
get at them is to NOT-IS THEM MORE intentionally.

Run not know, until he doesn't even know what he is running not
know about any more.

Bang he will find a question, that he hasn't thought of in *AGES*,
and as he runs the pain and the efforts out, they flow like rivers of
lava, peace will return in that area and he will see why his body is all
twisted up in knots.

Running out a question does NOT mean answering it finally.

It means running out the convulsive efforts to ask the question
until it is no more. If there ever was an answer, it won't be important
any more, because the question will be gone.

This is miraculous material, peace is miraculous.

It just has no need to know because it can't be impinged upon,
unless it so chooses to suffer that fate.

Nothing sinks a being faster into a quagmire of bad feelings than a
wrong answer to a question, a wrong why, or wrong indication.

*ANY* answer to a question which is its own answer, is thus a wrong
indication, and trying to answer such a question gives the being the
willies, a feeling of impending doom as he approaches the (wrong)
answer.

He never finds the wrong answer, as the feeling of doom goes to
infinity the closer he gets and burns him out. But he will settle for a
lesser wrong answer that he can enjoy suffering forever. He will CHOOSE
it, so he can stop looking for the one that he thinks really has him
worried.

Ever know someone who picks answers to questions that are bothering
them out of the blue? That's what they are doing, ducking the one they
will never find because it would kill them if they did.

Pity the 'Truth Seeker'.

He is a walking dead man.

He thinks he is going to find TRUTH by looking, seeking, searching,
finding and learning.

All he will ever find is the spiritual grave yard looking back at
him at the end of time, worms and all.

Peace and power do not come from something you KNOW or find out, or
learn.

Things you know, learn and find out come from peace and are created
by peace.

'From the Word came all things that came.'

The Christians got that one right.

Joke is the Word is the creative potential of the infinite
unmanifest.

Yeah I know, something was lost in the translation.

Worse, since he is afraid to know the answer to these questions,
because down deep he knows damn well its going to be a wrong answer
anyhow, he gets into trying to know AND not know at the same time.

*THAT* is the definition of insanity.

Trying to run both sides of a dicom at the same time.

The High Anti-Cool of ADORE.

He is reaching with his elbow, trying to get up the courage to see
the truth, knowing it will kill him once he does.

NO ONE HAS THE COURAGE TO SUCCEED.

No being can stand up to a wrong indication.

They never make it to the final wrong indication, THEY CAN'T as the
entire power of themselves is turned against themselves, every last soul
in existence chickens out before they get there by settling for a lesser
wrong answer.

The intent of the SP (Suppressive Person) is to destroy facility in
intimacy.

Intimacy is a sharing of vulnerability.

Vulnerability is not know and feeling the need to know.

But intentional not know is also eternal invulnerability.

"Spot NO humor of question asking."
"Spot SOME humor of question asking."

Homer

Tue Jun 19 14:24:11 EDT 2007

Monday, August 22, 2011

MECHANICAL LEARNING

What is mechanical learning?

A machine is any system of objects interacting via cause and effect
across a space time distance.

Mechanical learning is any learning that takes place when one
object B receives an effect from another object A separated from B by a
space/time distance.

In the absence of B receiving an effect from A there is no learning
possible about A, so we can conclude that the only way that B can learn
about A is if A has some effect on B.

That effect IS the learning that B has of A. From that effect B
will then *INFER* other things about A.

This is called inferential learning.

It is also called:

Learning by being an effect rather than learning by being a cause.

Learning by looking at effects rather than learning by looking at
causes directly.

Learning by looking at symbols rather than learning by looking at
referents.

In the above case B is trying to learn about A by receiving an
effect in itself from A.

A is the original referent, and the change in the state of B is a
symbol once removed from A.

B thinks:

"Well since I am receiving photons of 5000 angstroms from A, A must
be painted red."

All machanical learning is inferential learning, and all
inferential learning is mechanical learning.

Of course B can't know that the photons are coming from A, God
could be arbitrarily injecting them into the space time stream just to
annoy B, or B's equipment could be broken, thinking it is seeing
photon's when it isn't, or thinking it is seeing 5000 Angstrom photon's
when they are in fact 50 Angstrom photons.

Another thing to notice, once the photon's reach B, A could be
completely gone, because it takes TIME for that causal messenger wave
carrying information about A to get to B. In fact, even if A is 'still
there', the original A that emitted the photon at B *IS* gone, to be
replaced by another A slightly later in time by the time B gets that
photon.

So B is never at any time in direct contact with A, the original
referent, but only in contact with effects in itself allegedly emmanated
by A in the past.

Present time B can never know about present time A across a non
zero space time distance.

The best B can do is know about a past time A across a space time
distance, and that knowing is very indirect because B has no direct
contact with A but only contact with itself and the changes in itself
allegedly caused by A.

So at best B can receive an effect and infer it is from A, but
attaining certainty that it came from A or what the true nature of A is,
is fact certainly impossible.

Mechanical or inferential learning can never produce a perfect
certainty, but only a theory, a probability, a good bet about the nature
of A.

100 percent certainty is not just another higher kind of
probability.

100 percent certainty is not merely a quantitative step away from
99 percent probability, it is an *INFINITE* unbridgeable QUALITATIVE
step away from 99 percent probability.

100 percent certainty and 99 percent probability are not even the
same order of thing.

100 percent certainty isn't even on the scale of what mechanical
learning can produce.

100 percent certainty is certainty of TRUTH.

99 percent probability is probability of dependable followingness,
it has nothing to do at all with truth. One's theories can work very
well most of the time and be completely wrong.

The scientific reasons for these things are a bit steep and will
take some thought.

Mechanical learning takes place in B, by B changing state, as an
alleged result of A.

But, B's present state does not imply a change in state, i.e. a
different prior state.

There is nothing in your present state that proves you were in a
different prior state. So after B has changed state, it can't know that
it has changed state!

After B has changed state, all B has is its (allegedly new) present
state, which state does not contain the information that it was in a
different prior state.

There is no possible state in B that absolutely guarantees that B
has changed state, i.e. was in a prior different state.

Thus B can never know it has changed state for sure, and thus can
never prove there is change or time for sure. It B can't prove that it
has changed state it certainly can not prove that it received an effect
from A!

Even if B had a 'picture' of its prior state, and compared it to
its present state and they 'looked' different, any part of B's circuitry
could be misbehaving to make either the memory picture wrong or the
comparison process wrong.

Mechanical 'memory' and human memory are both fallible for the
exact same reason, anything at all can get in there and mess up the
recording and leave behind no trace that it has.

Now this is diffcult but very important.

Suppose we build the following simple machine.

The machine has two bits, either bit can be zero or one at any
time.

Bit 2 will be used as a memory picture of bit 1.

Bit 1 is a bi stable flip flop. Everytime a photon hits it, if it
was 0 it changes to a 1, and if it was 1, it changes to a 0. Once the
flip flop has changed state it locks in its new state until freed by the
machine to change again when the next photon comes in. Photons that
come in during the locked period are ignored.

Every second the machine does the following:

1.) It compares bit 2 and bit 1, if they are same it does nothing
and sleeps until the next second.

2.) If the two bits are different, the machine prints 'DIFFERENT'
on a paper printer, then it copies bit 1 over to bit 2 so they are the
same again. The machine then unlocks bit 1 so it is free to change
again and goes back to sleep for another second.

Bit 1 is open to the environment to receive influences and causal
waves that might hit it. Every time a cause wave hits it, bit 1 changes
from 0 to 1 or from 1 to 0, unless of course it is locked from having
already been hit once, and not yet unlocked.

Bit 2 is heavily protected against the environment, it is used as
the the 'memory' of bit 1. We don't want ANYTHING to change bit 2
except the copy operation from bit 1 every time bit one changes state.

Say both bit 2 and bit 1 are zero and the machine is sitting there
'listening' with bit 1 open to the universe.

A photon comes in and hits bit 1 changing it from zero to 1.

A short while later the machine wakes up and compares bit 1 to bit
2 and sees that they are different. The machines prints 'DIFFERENT' on
the paper, copies bit 1 over to bit 2 so both are now 1, unlocks bit 1
and goes back to sleep.

So every time bit 1 changes, a second or so later this is shown on
the paper by the printed line.

During this experiment you get to build the machine and test it out
originally, but once the experiment is going, you only get to observe
what is printed on the paper, and not what is happening to bit 1.

Now let's ask some questions.

Can we be absolutely perfectly 100 percent certain that every time
the word DIFFERENT was printed on the paper that bit one had actually
changed state?

Can we be absolutely perfectly 100 percent certain that all the
times the word was NOT printed on the paper that bit 1 had not changed
state anyhow?

Would you be willing to bet your ETERNITY IN HELL that the paper
record matched the changes in bit 1 *PERFECTLY*.

Can you think of ANY circuitry (chain of cause and effect) that
would make the correlation between the paper output and bit 1 to be 100
percent certain?

Well more of the same produces more of the same, no matter how many
circuits you add, or how complex you make the machine, it is always
learning by being an effect, by cause and effect sequences that in the
end only follow each other *THEORETICALLY* and not certainly. So no
machine can ever produce absolute certainty.

If B trusts its own circuitry, then B may conclude that it has
changed state and get on with theorizing about A.

But its only trust, there is no absolute way for B to know for
certain that it really has changed state because state does not prove
prior change in state.

Since B can't know if it changed state, how can it know it received
an effect from A? No certainty of receiving an effect means no
certainty that A exists at all, let alone that it emmanted the effect in
the first place.

So we put a guy in a tank with the TV set connected to the outside
video camera. Can the guy be absolutely certain that what he sees on
the TV set is actually out there feeding photons to the video camaer?
No of course not, any part of the circuitry could be bad, firing when it
isn't supposed to, or not firing when it is.

Can the guy put MORE video cameras on the outside and the inside so
that the circuity can look at itself and compare itself against known
circuit diagrams of how its all supposed to look, in order to verify
with absolute certainty that nothing has been changed, altered or is non
functional?

This is called the self verifying machine problem.

It's a deep problem in mechanics and although putting in redundant
self monitoring circuitry will decrease the probability of a malfunction
from going unnoticed, it can be proven mathematically that perfect
certainty of circuit integrity is impossible, no matter how many video
cameras you have checking other video cameras.

Pefect mechanical self awareness is impossible.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a practical issue of dependable
followingness, are we willing to bet on it if we have to, it has nothing
to do with perfect certainty.

Notice this all arises because everything is trying to learn about
other things by looking at itself. You can never learn with certainty
about A by looking at B even if you ARE B.

Let's say this again.

Mechanical learning means learning about A by being B and looking
at B.

B can never prove A because of the third party law.

The third party law states that if B follows A, then either A may
have caused B to follow, or some third party C caused both A and B to
happen in such a way that they look like they caused each other to
happen.

A movie projector is a third party to a movie picture of a ball
bouncing off a wall. In the case of a movie, there is no cause between
the ball and wall, even though it looks like there is.

Thus mechanical learning can never produce an absolute certainty.

The video cameras that are looking at the other video cameras are
actually looking at effects in THEMSELVES to determine the states of the
other video cameras they are worried about. Thus they are looking at a
different object (themselves) in order to learn about the other cameras.

Consciousness on the other hand can produce a perfect certainty,

The following experiment depends on how conscious you are. Those
that aren't very conscious won't be able to do the experiment properly.

Mockup two different colored squares and put them 3 feet in front
of you.

Verify that you did so and THAT THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT COLORS.

Do you see the perfect certainty?

Find two different colored objects and put them in front of you and
close your eyes.

Now open your eyes and ask 'Are two different colors still there?'

See the two different colors.

Verify over and over again that the answer is "Yes I see two
different colors FOR SURE, no way I can be wrong, this is not a theory,
this is not an inference, I am in direct contact with the original
referent (my conscious picture) right there in front of my nose."

You are learning about them by being in direct contact with THEM,
not by looking at some change in state in yourself the looker and
inferring back that the looked-at must THEREFORE be different.

This ability to learn by looking directly at the cause can only
take place if there is no space or time between the looker and the
looked-at.

Space and time separating two objects makes them TWO DIFFERENT
OBJECTS, and then we are back to being one of them and trying to learn
about the other by looking at changes in ourselves. That's mechanical
learning.

Space/time -> TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS -> MECHANICAL LEARNING

But when we see the two different colored mockups, we are looking
AT THEM, directly, something a machanical system can not do.

Certainty of our own mockups thus implies an absence of space/time
between the looker and the looked-at, no matter how much the mockups
look like they are OUT THERE, they aren't.

Within consciousness at least, space/time is an illusion.

If they were out there, you wouldn't be able to see them at all.

You would only be able to infer they might be there from some
effect you saw in yourself, and by the time the effect got to you, the
cause of the effect out there might have gone away completely so all you
could ever glean was an inference about the past.

Since you can actually SEE the mockups out there, and you KNOW THEY
ARE RIGHT THERE RIGHT NOW, that means not only is there no space between
the looker and the looked at, but also no time, the seeing is
instantaneous, consciousness is always seeing itself in absolute present
time.

No machine can do that.

No machine can use any part of its circuity to inspect any other
part of its circuitry and observe its state as it is in present time.
The inspecting circuitry can only see a past rendering, rendition of,
the inspected circuitry, never the thing itself, and never as it is now.

Thus in an absence of space/time between looker and looked-at, we
must conclude that consciousness is a zero dimensional scalar operating
actuality, and that the process of perfect certainty is one where cause
and effect are the same event, i.e the learner and the learned about,
are all one and the same event.

Mechanical learning always implies two events, the learned about
out there emitting a causal messenger wave towards the learner, and then
*LATER* somewhere *DISTANT* the learner receiving the messenger wave,
changing state, trusting that it has changed state, and then infering by
deduction that because it has changed state here and all effects are
caused, that there must have been a cause out there.

That's not the process of seeing a mockup and learning the mockup
has two different colors.

Intensive and honest study of how a machine with video cameras for
eyes learns that an external object has two different colors, and how a
conscious unit learns that two of its mockups has two different colors,
will go a long ways to clarifying the point that learning in
consciousness is *QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT* than mechanical learning, and
can produce a perfect certainty where mechanical learning can not.

Ramifications on the zero dimensional scalar nature of
consciousness can then be drawn, with further study directed at how one
might interface a zero dimensional consciousness with a 4 dimensional
brain. (3 space and 1 time).

This material is weirder than Special Relativity, don't expect to
get it in a day.

Homer

Sun Jan 1 20:41:01 EST 2006

Friday, August 19, 2011

IS GOD GOOD?

You see if you define an OT as someone who is cause on all 8
dynamics, you may miss the issue of *INTENT*.

So the OT can move mountains, so what?

The real question is what is his intent?

Hubbard says that Beauty and Ugly, Goodness and Badness are alike
relative considerations and have no basis in absolute fact.

So can we expect an OT to use his powers for good?

Ability to CAUSE on all 8 dynamics would be the ability,
willingness and tendency to cause good AND bad on all 8 dynamics.

Carol likes to think of OT's as stuck in CREATE, but what about
Shiva the Destroyer?

Carol thinks that God is Good, and all bad comes about from the
unfortunate but inescapable limitations of man.

Now maybe God in his completeness is all Good, but as part of that
completeness God created an incompleteness so that man might strive to
become complete. In the creation of that incompleteness, God created
the potential for bad and in fact knew that bad would happen.

Was that good?

If God is good, and God creates what is not God, is that good?

In Scientology the OT is God, along with everyone one in carnation.

An OT is a universe creator. Actually groups of OT's create the
universe they are soon to inhabit as creatures.

They create the fabric for the whole thing beginning, middle and
end.

They create the capacities for all dicoms in that universe, good
and bad, light and dark, beauty and ugly, love and hate, they spread
them out as diadems on the Sword of Excalibur, then they hand out the
sword to all the soon to be inhabitants including himself to weild as
they see fit.

It may be a mistake for an inhabitant to create bad, but it is not
a mistake of the Universe Creators to create the potential for bad.

But the Universe Creators do more than just create the potential
for bad, as the universe itself (in this case) is the ultimate opponent,
the race for anti-entropy against the race for entropy.

The playing field itself eventually eats all the players.

Is that "good"?

If any *HUMAN* had created this universe of destruction that
eventually eats everything in its path, he would be hanged by the rest of
us.

But if a God does this, he is bowed and prayed to, with
admonishments that "God works in mysterious ways".

No mystery to it at all, the maws of death are very clear and very
simple.

The *MYSTERY* is His intent.

What God WOULD/COULD/SHOULD create such a thing as a dicom and then
build a whole universe around it?

What would create good and bad if he could only create good?

Do you think he created bad because he HAD to create bad in order
to create good?

Or perhaps creating good and bad is perfect, just what God is
supposed to do.

The purpose?

Manifestation and then UnManifestation, Manifestation and then
UnManifestation. In and out, in and out, the breathing of the
AllThatIs.

Is all this good? No its good and bad. It's *PERFECT*.

Is goodness for the creator the same thing as goodness for
the creature? Is it good for the creator to create good and bad
creatures?

Do we really want creatures striving to become like God?

If a human creates a virus that has a known probability of creating
help or harm in the environment, and those who are harmed complain to
the human creator, will he get off on 'Well I just created them, THEY
are the one's who chose to be evil, not me, I didn't chose for them,
they didn't HAVE to be evil.'

WHO NOW IS RESPONSIBLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF A
CREATION?

The creation or the creator?

Perfect Balance in all things results in the nothing of Native
State.

Perfect balance is equal measure of both sides of all dicoms.

People trying to become Native State by becoming *GOOD CREATURES*,
are monster food.

What is ethical? Ethical is being reasonable, rational.

Trying to be good in order to become a God that created both good
and bad is not reasonable. It's nuts.

Run,

Spot trying to be good and bad at the same time.

Spot:

NO trying to be good and bad at the same time.
SOME trying to be good and bad at the same time.

E/P On the way to well.

Homer

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith I would rather die poor Lightlink Internet
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF than suffer the patronage Ithaca, NY
homer@lightlink.com of bigots and pinheads. www.lightlink.com