VERIFICATION

VERIFICATION

Homer:
> I disagree. That they (spiritual abilities) have not been
> verified to your or our satisfaction does not mean that they can not be
>verified.

Max:
> How can they be verified / refuted ? Or, what is the definition of
> "verification" ?

Verification has to do with attaining a perfect certainty on the
matter in question. Actually any probability higher than 50/50 will do.
Once someone starts to feel that he probably is a spirit, rather than
probably is not a spirit, his whole outlook starts to inexorably change.

Spiritual issues can only be verified by a person to himself as it
involves inner vision. Not blind belief, but direct experience of the
divine. It's like opening your eyes in the morning, first you crack
them just a bit and the light is just too strong to keep them open, so
you get just a glimpse of the world around you.

Same thing with the inner eye, most people have had it shut tight
for most of their lives, except for momentary openings that they didn't
understand and which scared the hell out of them.

Once they get what's going on, the inner eye begins to crack open
more often, but the light/dark, beauty/ugly, good/evil that shines forth
is so strong they can't keep it open, and they may even recoil in horror
and shame. Horror at the ugly, and shame at the beauty.

One can never prove to another that one even exists, let alone that
one is a spiritual being, but you can be quite certain to yourself that
you exist. Just so you can be quite certain that the inner eye has
opened and something came through. It then becomes a matter of
adjudicating just what came through and why.

Those that have never had their inner eye open like to dismiss
other's reports of their own openings as 'imagination' or
'hallucination' or 'delusion', but then they never had their own open,
so they have no basis upon which to judge.

Basically the world of spirit is the world of consciousness, the
conscious unit (CU). The divine is not something you see outside of you
or measure with a scope. The divine is the inner core of your existence
and the source of your dreamtime. The divine is the SOURCE of the
virtual machine called the external universe, it can not be found IN the
virtual machine, nor with virtual machine tools.

Source dreams what source is not. Source is not made of matter,
energy, space and time, but projects those into the hologram of
dreamtime.

The body is a bio machine. Many people think that the Conscious
Unit arises from the mechanics of the machine, the brain, electrons etc.

If that is true, then there is no way the CU can exist independent
of the bio machine as the CU is *MERELY* a manifestation of the
functioning of the bio machine, and once the bio machine falls apart at
death, so too does the CU.

However if the CU is 'its own thing', either interfaced to a bio
machine, or virtually projecting a bio machine in a virtual space/time
hologram (dreamtime), then the CU is already an independent entity from
the bio machine. In this case the dissolution of the bio machine does
not entail the dissolution of the CU, but more results in an awakening
of the CU from a state of sleep or lower dreamtime to a state of more
awakeness or higher dreamtime.

Once the CU understands the possibility that the physical universe
proceeds from the CU, rather than the other way around, the CU becomes
open minded enough to stop shutting out divine visions of its inner
nature. The more these happen, the more unlikely becomes the bio
machine theory of existence, and eventually the CU starts to see how the
mechanics of the dreamtime hologram work.

The inner eye however is guarded by the being's greatest fear.

Not his greatest mortal external physical fear, but his greatest
fear as an eternal divine being.

The question was once posed "If God is omnipotent, can he create a
rock so big he can't lift it?"

The original intent of the question is to show that 'omnipotence'
is inherently self contradictory, but the practical answer to the
question is 'yes'.

The God unit or CU first creates the rock, then creates himself as
something smaller than the rock. Thus he can be overwhelmed by the
rock.

Just so the God unit at the beginning of its involvement in this
cycle of space/time games created for itself a Nemesis One which has
hounded the CU since that time mostly forgotten in its long ago, except
for hints and evil chills that go through the CU once in a while.

The Nemesis One that was created was humongous in size, power,
evilness and unconfrontability. The CU is now very small after many
trillions of years passing down through a number of different universes
before it came to live in this one in oblivion of its past.

As the inner eye opens a crack, the CU gets wind of its Nemesis One
again and the eye closes down with a slam. Thus the CU can not open the
eye at will any more, but needs life and circumstances to open it for
him.

Once the CU understands this idea (not believe, just understand)
and comes to accept and embrace that it may be the master of its own
divine fears, life will open the inner eye more and more, and each time
the CU gets a short opportunity to confront and gain mastery over a
small part of its Nemesis One again, and thus become bigger itself, as a
CU.

The energy the CU originally put into shutting out its Nemesis One
and forgetting about it, thus making the CU smaller, gets returned to
the CU making it more awake and bigger.

It is presumed that one day the CU will again be able to encompass
its Nemesis One in its entirety and thus regain awareness of and access
to its total Sovereignty over itself again.

Homer

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

INDIRECT PERCEPTION II

INDIRECT PERCEPTION II

Indirect perception means learning about A by looking at something
else.

Sounds kind of silly doesn't it? But the whole physical universe
works this way.

Direct perception then would mean learning about A by looking at A
directly.

In fact scientists consider 'indirect perception' to be redundant,
and 'direct perception' to be an oxymoron (contradictory thus
impossible).

Learning means gathering data about, so we are trying to learn
about object A, by looking at something else.

Looking itself is an anthropomorphization of what consciousness
does while looking at its own conscious color forms, red, green etc, but
accepting that misuse of the word looking in the physical universe, it
means directing our attention at and gathering data about, so looking is
just another form of learning.

Anthropomorphization means assigning qualities or conditions to the
physical universe that rightly apply only to consciousness.

"My robot cares about me. Here have a red photon."

Anti Anthropomorphization. means assigning qualities or conditions to
consciousness that rightly only apply to the physical universe.

"She is so far away from me. When my body dies, I die with it,
consciousness is nothing but chemistry bubbling away at 98,6 degrees."

So indirect perception means learning about A by learning about
something else.

And direct perception means learning directly about A through
direct contact with A.

The reason that direct perception is considered to be contradictory
is that it is not possible to have 'direct' contact with a object that
is not yourself.

Even if you bump into a table, there is nothing really touching
you, it's all a matter of alleged forces from the table interacting with
alleged forces in your body. In the end the body may know something is
pushing against it, but it has no clue what. The what *ALWAYS* remains
a theory.

In information theory a symbol is an object, like a 1 or a 0 in a
data stream, that represents data about another object, such as an
intended communication between two people.

Symbols refer to referents, and referents are referred to by
symbols.

Referents are symbolized by symbols, and symbols symbolize
referents.

Find what fits the above pattern and you will know what a referent
and a symbol are.

Symbols and referents are two different objects, the symbol being
used to convey data about the referent in lieu of having access to the
referent directly.

Thus we try to learn about the referent by looking at the symbol.

Not only do all symbols contain data about referents, ANY object
that contains data about a referent can be called a symbol for that
referent.

Any object that is causally affected by an earlier other object,
has data imprinted on it about the nature of the earlier causing object,
and thus the later effected object is called a symbol for the earlier
causing referent.

Thus with any two objects that bear a cause and effect relationship
to each other, the causing object is the referent, and the effected
object is the symbol, and the symbol would be expected to contain data
imprinted on it about the referent, by the interaction with the
referent.

In the absence of cause between the two objects there will be an
absence of a data imprint on the symbol, and in the presence of a data
imprint on the symbol, there had to be cause impinging on it from the
referent.

Further in the absence of a data imprint on the symbol (the symbol
didn't change state), there could not have been a causal impact on the
symbol by the referent.

So cause implies data imprint, and data imprint implies cause.

And no cause implies no data imprint, and no data imprint implies
no cause.

So indirect perception takes advantage of this cause-effect
relationship between two different objects, which creates data
imprinting by the earlier object on the later object, so we can gather
data about the earlier object by gathering data about the later object
instead.

Take for example a group of scientists looking at a computer
monitor showing the collision between Levi-Shoemaker 9 with Jupiter.
The images were coming from a camera pointed at Jupiter, either the
Hubble telescope, or near by satellites going around Jupiter.

Clearly the scientists in their lab do not have direct contact with
Jupiter, and thus are using indirect perception to learn about the
event.

But does anything have direct contact with the original event one
might ask? Perhaps the video camera in the satellite going around
Jupiter might be considered to have direct contact, or at least more
direct contact.

Unfortunately, although there may be such a thing as less and less
indirect contact, there is no such thing as more and more direct
contact, either you have direct contact or you don't.

DIRECT CONTACT IS NOT A GRADIENT SCALE OF INDIRECT CONTACT.

With indirect contact you are always learning about A by looking at
something ELSE.

That something else may be one event removed from A, or trillions
of events removed from A. There is a gradient scale going from little
indirection to lots of indirection.

In fact one can state a theorem about this 'casual distance'
between two different events, namely that the greater the causal
distance, that is the more intervening events there are, the 'greater'
the indirect contact is, the more degraded the data imprint becomes
until it approaches becoming useless and no usable;e data imprint at all.

But direct contact means learning about A by looking AT A, so there
can't be any degrees of looking at A, you are either looking at A or
your aren't. There are LOTS of ways to look at something OTHER than A,
thus indirect contact is a gradient scale depending on how causally
distant those other things are from A, but there is only ONE way to look
at A directly, and thus direct contact permits no gradient scale.

Direct contact and indirect contact ARE TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT BALL
GAMES WITH TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT RESULTS.

Indirect contact produces models and theories, direct contact
produces perfect certainties.

No matter how close B is to A, as long as one is looking at B and
not A, one is not in direct contact with A AT ALL.

One can't even claim that very close indirect contact is virtually
indistinguishable from direct contact, or God forbid, as good as direct
contact.

No model or theory even approaches perfect certainty, for one can
never be certain of a theory! Although evidence (symbol) can disprove a
theory, evidence can only support a theory, meaning leave it un
disproved.

No matter how pure the fool's gold, it will never be real gold.

Scientists like to talk about 'solid proof' for their theories,
they are the great usurpers. All they have proof of is their conscious
experience of the matter at the time.

Does the fact that one sees a pretty girl mean there IS a pretty
girl?

Conscious experiences come in 4 flavors.

1.) Imagination,
2.) Dreaming
3.) Hallucination
4.) Connected to sensory input.

It just isn't possible to tell with perfect certainty which is
which, because all one can see is one's experience at the time. In the
end everyone is alone with their experience, and anything else they
might put on it is alter-is, added significance, trust, desire,
expectations, convenience and hope.

The existence of peers is not peer reviewed, and until you prove
the existence of your first peer, they can't be used to corroborate your
theories.

Of course with publication deadlines we can just ASSUME that peers
exist and no one will notice.

Now yes, one may be able to prove that other's exist, BUT NOT BY
LOOKING AT ONE'S OUTWARD EXPERIENCE OF THEM, for that is learning about
them, the referent, by looking at the symbol, your conscious experience
of them.

Looking outwardly, using your conscious experiences to tell you
about what is in the physical universe is ALWAYS INDIRECT PERCEPTION.

So yes, the video camera is closer to Jupiter in the causal pathway
between the event and the scientists observing it, but the video camera
in no way has direct contact with the event at all.

The video camera is receiving photons bounced off the incoming
asteroids and Jupiter's surface, at no time is the video camera in
direct contact with the rock or the planet.

In fact the exact rock that bounced the photons DOESN'T EVEN EXIST
ANY MORE by the time the photons reach the video camera, as that rock is
multiple nano seconds in the past, it's GONE by the time the photons hit
the camera on the satellite.

There may be another rock there at the moment the photons hit the
camera, but its a new rock a few nano seconds in time later, even if it
looks like the old rock.

Worse the existence of that new rock is a complete theory without
evidence until photons bounce off of IT and hit the camera even later in
time, which event merely supports the theory the rock was there when the
alleged photons allegedly bounced off of it.

A rock now is a theory without evidence until the photons
which bounce off of it hit our eye at which point the rock then
becomes a theory with evidence.

To a machine that can only learn by indirect perception, a distant
now is always a theory without evidence, until the evidence checks in
HERE some time later, at which point what WAS now, which BECAME then,
becomes a theory with evidence.

There is no certainty because there is no direct NOW contact with
the rock.

Thus the video camera has no direct contact with any part of the
event as it is happening NOW, it only has alleged contact via the
alleged photons that come to it multiple nanoseconds later.

Looking at photons bouncing off a rock is not looking at the rock.
In fact this matches exactly the definition of indirect perception,
namely learning about the rock by looking at something else, photons.

The only way one could have direct contact with the rock is if it
were 'self luminous', meaning referent and symbol are one and the same
event, not separated from each other by either space or time.

Consciousness is self luminous, thus capable of certainty of
itself, The physical universe, and everything in it, is not.

But look, even when the photons hit the video camera, does the
video camera see the photons directly? No, the photons cause changes in
state in the camera's circuitry, and THOSE STATE'S are the learning the
camera has of the photons. AT no time does the camera SEE THE PHOTONS.
By the time the changes in state have happened in the camera, the
photons are long gone.

Thus we can only have direct contact with ourselves.

Everything else is a theory.

So the photons are a symbol for the events taking place on Jupiter,
as the nature of the photons has *ALLEGEDLY* been imprinted by earlier
distant events on Jupiter.

Then those symbols are converted into radio waves which are sent to
Earth which themselves become another symbol. Finally a picture is
drawn on a TV set surround by scientists which becomes yet another
symbol.

But relative to the video camera out at Jupiter, the photons
themselves become the referent, and the changes in state in the
receiving screen in the camera becomes the symbol FOR THE PHOTONS.

If every referent gives rise to a symbol, which then becomes a
referent itself and gives rise to another symbol, at what point does
anything get 'seen'?

What we have is a series of referents followed by symbols. Does
the symbol SEE the referent, or does the symbol merely BE in a state
indicating the theoretical existence of the referent?

Is being in a state indicating the possible existence of something
else, the same thing as SEEING that something else directly?

A chain of referents followed by symbols later in space and time is
merely a sequence of dominos falling.

Does domino 10 'see', in any sense of the word, domino 9 that hit
it a moment ago?

Is mere being an effect, 'seeing'.

Even if we concede that domino 10 knows that it was hit, does it
know it was hit by domino 9?

Being an effect and changing state is all anything in the physical
universe can do. And once it has changed state, it has no clue that it
HAS changed state, no perfect certainty whatsoever.

Further any object's ideas about WHAT caused it to change state are
a model and theory at best, delusion at worse.

If B follows A, one can never tell if A caused B, or if C caused
both A and B in such a way to make it look like A caused B.

That's the third party law.

ONE CAN NEVER FIND CAUSE OR PROOF OF CAUSE BY LOOKING AT THE START
AND ENDING EFFECTS OF CAUSE.

We can consider that every time a referent causes a symbol to change
state, that an act of perception or observation has taken place, but
clearly no symbol has direct perception of its referent anywhere in the
chain, only of itself.

By the time the symbol arises, the referent that powered it is gone
into the past in spacetime, so the symbol is always alone with itself in
it's theoretical knowledge of the referent.

Thus the symbol can never SEE the referent NOW directly, it can
only see its own state allegedly caused by the referent.

Consciousness however can see itself in the NOW, it is self
luminous. Conscious experiences, as referent, are self symbolizing.

Further if you are seeing the red in the NOW, there is no space or
TIME between the arising of the red and the seeing of the red, as the
arising of the red IS the seeing of the red.

Thus there is no space or time between the referent and the symbol
because the symbol IS the referent.

Self luminous means seeable but not because of emanation of
something else, like photons.

Self luminous is self seeable, end of sequence.

That's a big deal folks.

Self luminousness is bigger than the fact that the Earth isn't
flat.

It is bigger than the fact that the Earth isn't the center of the
universe.

It is bigger than the fact that the Earth is not the only planet to
have life on it.

It is bigger than the fact that this universe is not the only
universe there is.

It is bigger than the fact that consciousness didn't arise from
matter, energy, space or time, but that these things arose from
consciousness.

Self symbolizingness is so big, that to date, no one knows about
it.

Self luminousness and self awareness of self luminousness is so
beyond beyond what we understand as physical mechanics, that we don't
even have the words to describe how we don't have the words to describe
it.

That's because self luminousness is not a space time phenomenon, it
is a spaceless, timeless, instantaneous, eternal phenomenon.

Pity the poor guy who doesn't believe in such things, but is one.

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 Jan 27 18:08:47 EST 2009

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

AS MANY AS YOU CAN STAND

AS MANY AS YOU CAN STAND

You get as many lifetimes as you can stand.

Public religion is all bogus, infested with the Devil's Tune
(lies).

In particular the lie of separation between God and Soul, and the
lies of forevers inside of time.

You ARE God incarnation, not a soul made by God.

All life is God incarnation, every atom, every quark and every
composite from there on up to bodies, beings in bodies (you and me),
planets, stars, galaxies and universes, of which there are many.

The physical universe of space and time is a dream in the mind of
each incarnated GodSoul (conscious unit), synchronized with each other
via the substrate of eternity, not via space time. Thus the
synchronization is instantaneous across all GodSouls in a particular
dream, while virtual cause inside the dream is limited to the speed of
light.

Eternity is the static, the dream of spacetime is the (virtual)
kinetic.

God, the AllThatIS, is a multi I-AM being, it is MADE of souls.

An infinite number of infinite minds, each GodSoul is a full and
complete instantiation of the infinite.

We call it a GodSoul, because God and Soul are the two different
operating functions of the being. Unincarnated it is God the creator
and the author, while incarnated under its own fair chosen choice, it is
the creature and character.

The GodSoul can operate both states at will to some extent,
depending on its state of decay.

The way to become the creator is to BE the creator becoming the
creature. The Way IN is the way out.

Practicing coming in, puts you out.

Like Argus who had 100 eyes, each GodSoul is an eye of the
AllThatIs, immutable, eternal outside of time, uncreatable,
undestroyable and independent.

No GodSoul is immortal inside of time, as all time whiles are
finite.

Thus ALL stories end one day.

Only to be reborn again during another foray from eternal peace, by
those who wish to play in dreamtime.

Each GodSoul is NOT a finite cup of water taken from the infinite
ocean to later be returned.

Each GodSoul is a doorway, a conscious lens, to the same infinite
ocean of infinite oceans. Each door way is a conscious unit, an eye of
God. One doorway is called Joe, the next Susan etc.

Each doorway looks one way out onto their own beach of space and
time and looks the other way back into the same multi-eyed infinite
ocean which they all are.

As such, each GodSoul separately and together command the entire
infinite.

Each GodSoul is fully and totally responsibile for his own
condition and the condition of everyone else, for it was a unanimous
decision by a group of GodSouls to form this universe and
incarnate into it.

Each GodSoul are bound to their stay here only by their own invite,
of themselves and each other.

Each GodSoul incarnates by choice for fun, spirit of play. The
game of life however can go to hell when played improperly, with deceit.
It's all part of the rules of the game however. It was not necessarily
improper to play the game improperly, but the consequences followed.

All consequences can be undone via a true confession of total
responsibility.

The way to happiness is a true confession.

Heavens and Hells are all finite in time, as time can only exist in
finite whiles, although very long.

Eternal Peace is eternal home, but the soul likes being lost.

The GodSoul has a weird sense of fun and finds 'safety' in hell and
high water via eternal omni awesome peace.

High Halcyon (hal-CY-on) is bemused relief on the verge of time.

"The halcyon winds of summer heal the cruel wounds of winter."

There is peace in the thought that one day all men shall attain the
awakened state. But unimpingable eternal omni awesome peace is no fun,
no humor, no love, no sorrow, no laughter, no surprise.

So the GodSoul engages in fair chosen cycles of

Unmanifest -> Manifest -> Unmanifest -> Manifest.

Ring a bell?

Homer

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

Thu Jan 26 13:14:30 EST 2012

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

THE 8 DYNAMICS OF ACTION

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

THE 8 DYNAMICS OF ACTION

If God is the ocean, then life is His beachhead.

You have to start thinking bigger.

Maybe 10 to 1000 times bigger.

Life consists of 8 dynamics or thrusts towards game playing.

Games consist of freedoms (abilities), barriers (conditions), and
purposes.

The meta purpose of games is ACTION, spirit of play and high
adventure.

The body (which you are not, its a horse and you are the cowboy),
likes to fill in its dynamics with activity from the bottom up.

The spirit, the cowboy on the horse, needs to fill them in from the
top down.

The dynamics are as follows from the top down.

8.) The Infinite
7.) Spirits
6.) MEST (Matter, energy, space and time)
5.) Life
5a) Plants
5b) Animals
4.) Mankind
3.) Groups
2.) Family
1.) Self (without body)

Each dynamic encompasses all the dynamics below it, and is in turn
encompassed by all the dynamics above it.

Each dynamic is a SUBSET FUNCTION of the dynamic above it, not a
separated part.

The dynamics do not live alone, each gets its vision statement from
those above it and its mission statement from those below it.

Family consists of the body blood line, heritage and legacy, into
the past, and into the future, in other words all ancestors, parents,
siblings, mates, children, and grand children into the future.

Groups first consist of communities of families, then your career
activities, then other groups such as, school, city, town, state,
country and Mankind.

Mankind is the over arching group of beings in the same species.

Life means biological life forms and is not to be confused with
living consciousness which is not dependent on physical life forms to
exist and feel alive.

The biological life dynamic has two broad sub groups, plants and
animals.

(Plants are pushed into existence by the sun and store energy by
splitting CO2 into carbon and oxygen. The oxygen goes into the
atmosphere as breathable air, and the carbon becomes the body of the
plant.

Animals reverse the process when they eat the plant, combining the
carbon from the plant with the oxygen in the air, producing CO2 to start
the cycle over again.

Animals are a slow fire to plants.

It is a well noted joke that in the physical universe, things are
not considered 'alive' until they reach a certain level of complexity.
Thus a carbon or oxygen molecule is not living, but a self replicating
DNA molecule might be. Certainly by the time it has a cell wall, and
evacuation system, science considers it alive.

This gives rise to the idea that livingness, the quality of being
alive, is a process in dead things, namely the parts that make them up.

Thus if you put enough dead lifeless things together in the right
arrangement, you will create life.

Defining 'life' as a process in something that is fundamentally and
otherwise dead, makes life very tenuous, for once the exact arrangement
of parts that constitutes life is busted apart, that entity dies.

And so it is with all biological life, but not with true life,
which is spirit (consciousness) incarnation.

The temporal livingness you feel in your body usurps its existence
from the eternal livingness you bring to the body via your
consciousness, and the consciousnesses of other beings that make up the
body down to the last quark.

The deadness of physical universe objects is an illusion,

As is their usefulness beyond virtual action in dreamtimes.

Each object and part or an object is a dreaming conscious unit in
carnation.

Consciousness is NOT a process in the brain, consciousness is NOT
merely chemistry bubbling away at 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Thus be careful when you feel like you are dying, lest you confuse
the death of the body with the death of your own consciousness. Living
consciousness can experience the death of the body right up through the
point of moving on to the other side.

The trick is staying conscious of YOUR eternal aliveness while the
body dies.

You will end up on the other side in either case, but probably in
better shape if you don't fall for the illusion that your consciousness
is going down with the body.

In particular do not desire to die with the body, as you WILL be in
worse shape on the other side finding out you are still alive, but
didn't want to be.

The suicide has a rough journey on the other side.

The intent to kill the body is one thing, there are places and
times for that, the intent to kill THEMSELVES as an eternal
consciousness is quite another.)

MEST is everything made of Matter, Energy, Space and Time.

Spirit refers to all GodSouls (spirit, conscious units) in an
active state of carnation, and game play.

Incarnation is the state of pretending to BE one of your dream
creations, donning a piece of MEST so completely that the spirit no
longer thinks it is spirit, but is in fact MEST.

It is one thing to HAVE a body even if you are momentarily stuck in
side its head, it is quite another to think you ARE a body.

The Infinite is what people belittle by calling it God.

The Infinite = God = AllThatIs

The Infinite is a spaceless timeless eternal static, that none the
less can give rise to co shared conscious dreams of the virtual kinetic,
in its own substrate.

The world you see around you, IS YOU, glowing in the dark of i
you own void.

Manifestation is you being temporally on.

Unmanifestation is you being eternally off.

You can't see anything but you, via this glow in the dark skin you
are wearing. You can't change your skin, but you can change what is
rendered on it.

Your skin has no size or dimension at all, but can render glow in
the dark renditions of space and time as large as you want, although
always finite.

When the being goes infinite, the rendering process is left
behind and the renditions turn off.

God is not a being different from you,

God is the AllThatIs which is MADE of beings, but also contains the
eternal substrate by which all beings are causally connected. and can
thus communicate with each via eternal non temporal causal pathways.

Thus we call the being a GodSoul, as God and Soul are the two
operating functions of disincarnation and creative incarnation, of sleep
and dream time, of static and kinetic, of peace and action.

This gives the GodSoul primality, as the purpose of existence
is for the GodSoul to manifest as it will.

"Source sources only when and as Will casts."

The purpose of a Godsoul being, is to dream a beachhead. A
beachhead is an area of dream space and time with kinetics, action and
virtual causation between objects going on in it.

Actuality is what is true.

Reality is what we think is true.

The eternal static is the actual.

The virtual kinetic is the real, a holographic virtual reality.

Three dimensional space and time is a holographic rendition
in the zero dimensional body of the GodSoul.

Don't confuse zero dimensional with zero size or being small.

A zero dimensional thing HAS NO SIZE.

Turns out the zero dimensional AllThatIS is better described
as The Infinite, rather than as The Zero, because the AllThatIs
is very much a something and not a nothing.

The AllThatIs however is not a 3 dimensional something, but a zero
dimensional something called a scalar.

A single scalar is not small, it has no size at all, and therefore
can hold the AllThatIs.

Beings can choose to share their beachhead, by connecting it to the
beachheads of other beings, not outwardly, but inwardly via a direct
spirit to spirit link, thus forming the fabric and apparency of a larger
dream space time universe that they are all operating in.

Each being then offers avatars of itself in all other beach heads,
so each being can keep track outwardly of where every other being is,
who they are, and what they are doing.

Thus each being's beachhead is filled with the avatars of all
the other beings who have linked into the shared playing field.

There is never just one playing field though, the unity of the
playing field is an illusion born of the proper melding of everyone's
private playing field, carried out by the eternal substrate.

Each being lives forever in his own private hologram that
no one else can see because it is his own consciousness, and only
he can see his own consciousness.

But once he grants a causal link to another dreamer, and agrees to
share an object between them, both players can control both objects in
each other's dream as if there is only one object between them.

Thus it may be your beach ball on your beachhead, but when a linked
partner kicks HIS version of that ball on his beachhead, your version
moves in sync with it, giving the illusion that there is one ball, and
thus a game can be played between more than one players each living in
their own private hologram.

Presently the human body is an avatar for beings incarnated as
such.

But that apple tree over there is an avatar for the beings being
and creating the apple tree.

Every physical object and functional collection of objects is the
avatar for the beings who are being that object and pushing it into
manifestation and causing its operation.

Actual causation travels instantaneously between beings via the
eternal static of which they are all a part, but the illusion of outward
causation travels from beachhead to beachhead, THROUGH dream space and
time at the speed of light.

Now as I said, bodies like to fill in their dynamics from the
bottom up. Bodies exist on the 6th, 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and first
dynamics.

Bodies are made of MEST, they are living animals, they form species
such as mankind, they form communities, they bond and mate for creation
of future bodies, and they have their own life.

They pretty much start off as babies on the first dynamic, then
grow up to realize they are a member of a family where they first learn
by mimicry, then by harmony, then by counterpoint, then by new beat.

As they grow bigger than the family, they go out into larger
groups, and finally try to contribute to mankind as a whole to the
degree that they can conceive the world outside their community.

However the rider, you and me, is an instantiation of the infinite,
and is self aware as a spirit.

Self awareness is a spaceless timeless process.

A spirit can see itself as it is now, which produces a self
luminous perfect certainty of its present state.

A MEST machine can only see itself as it was, if you want to call
that seeing, as it produces only a theory about how it was.

As spirits, we create the MEST universe, choose up purposes,
abilities and conditions in that universe, and then jump into it to play
the various games afforded to us, either with bodies or not.

Incarnation in a BODY is kind of a bottom of the barrel game late
in the decay of games in this sector of the universe.

BEING a body is not very fun any more.

HAVING a body was a lot more fun, in particular having many bodies
as in a body farmer.

But there were also times before bodies, when things were not as
serious, for they were not as fragile and apparently permanent.

The belief in fragility and permanence of loss is part of the
morbid fixation that keeps beings in this universe.

Beings looking in from the outside can't believe that anyone would
believe such nonsense, they say "I gotta see this for myself!"

So they come in and wham, 20 million years later they are an oyster
at the bottom of the sea.

From the purposes and games that a spirit conceives on the 6th
dynamic, namely survival and enhancement of the entire physical
universe, including galaxies, stars, solar systems, and planets, the
spirit can then derive lesser sub games on the lower dynamics.

Since each dynamic is many times bigger than the one below it, some
of the power invested in the 6th dynamic game pours down and is invested
in the 5th dynamic game of biological life, namely the survival and
enhancement of all species.

Some of that energy pours down and is invested in the 4th dynamic
game of Mankind, the survival and enhancement of the human body species.

From there one creates careers on the 3rd dynamic, a career is what
the adult being is careening around in life doing, making a living.

From there one meets mates, and forms families of one's own, and
creates children and raises them in communities of families, nurseries
and schools, in preparation for their career.

And lastly at the bottom energy pours down into the first dynamic
of Self and what that particular instantiation of the infinite is doing
as regards survival and enhancement of Self on the first dynamic.

Any blockage or failure on a higher dynamic will pretty much block,
pervert or destroy all the lower dynamics that get their energy and
purpose from the higher dynamic.

Thus if a being considers there ARE no higher dynamics than MEST,
namely that the Spirit dynamic does not exist, then they will live the
life of a meatball rolling round and around to its grave as incipient
carrion.

Because dynamics are so big, if a being messes up on a higher
dynamic, more harm and damage to self and others can come than if the
mess was made on a lower dynamic.

The joke is, if a being messes up on a higher dynamic, he will
WITHDRAW down to operating only in lower dynamics, "Who me, a world
leader? You're crazy!"

At the same time he will change the natural purposes he had on
those lower dynamics to something else, a substitute, or perversion of
his original intent that flowed from the top, as his original purposes
on the lower dynamics keep popping him back up into his higher dynamic
seat wherein he considers he failed for good.

From the above we can create a sessioning process with which to
audit (salvage) preclears out of the messes they have built for
themselves.

A preclear is someone who is blocked on one or more dynamics, they
are no longer 'clear to go' on that dynamic, lest they do harm or are
harmed again.

First address in session is the highest dynamic which is blocked
the worst, that your preclear has reality on. He may not have any
reality on his trials and tribulations as a Star Maker, but man does he
rue the day he ever thought he could help Mankind.

Auditing is the action of an auditor directing the attention of the
preclear to the blocked dynamic with two way communication, until the
preclear can take apart the block, erasing the self imposed limiting
considerations, providing full confession for himself and forgiveness
for others, and get on his way again.

Dynamic blocks are held in place by the glue of no confession and
no forgiveness.

Auditing comes from the word TO LISTEN, and an auditor is one who
listens, with the added caveat that he must direct the preclear's
attention to those parts of his dynamics that are interesting to listen
to, namely most in need of repair.

Technically we seek the SIT, the situation, which is the furthest
departure from an ideal scene in the preclear's life, action, goals,
game playing and purposes.

Once that sit is handled through auditing, reevaluation, and
cognition, the next sit is found and handled in turn. When the preclear
is no longer interested in his own case because he is too busy living
life with power and flourish, we can consider him clear enough.

The process of finding sits is done mostly by asking for them, and
the process of handling them is done by returning the preclear to those
moments of shock wherein he postulated failure states, ruins, despairs,
disasters, regret and rue, resulting in 'solutions' blocking his own
dynamic flows.

Shock results from physical injuries, and emotional injuries.

Physical injuries come from too much impingement or too little
impingement. Too much water drowns you, too little air suffocates you.

Bodies need an optimum level of impingement in all things to
thrive.

Emotional injuries result from deaths, departures and reversals of
loved ones, peoples, places or things, or any loss that threatened his
future game playing with his team mates that lowered his self estimation
and emotional tone from courage, exhilaration and enthusiasm down to
anger, fear, cowardice, sorrow and apathy.

The preclear must recover his ability to permeate his areas of
amnesia and shock, whether physical or emotional, and to be able to feel
deeply the resulting apathy, sorrow, fear and anger, before the
emotional energy will turn back into love again.

Anger, fear, sorrow and apathy are reverse polarizations of love.

They are basically "I want and I can't have!"

Courage and cowardice are alike postulates on the subject of 'Who
or what is cause around here, and why is it such an asshole!"

There are many many processes to a full auditing approach, but one
of the most basic and necessary for an opening of the case is the
following dynamic inventory of action.

This process can be run forever, in the back ground, any time a
game goes down, and the being needs to rehab or reboot what he is doing
in life.

At first it is useful for the preclear to be audited by another, as
it is hard to enter areas of extreme shock alone, but eventually the
preclear can solo audit this process to his heart's content when called
for.

Running solo, this process is best run during the morning when the
preclear first awakens, but hasn't yet gotten out of bed. The
transition from sleep to wakefulness leaves the preclear accessible to
his true feelings about life, which later get crushed as the day
progresses with substitutes and perversions of original purposes, and
awareness of loss.

Step One:

Indoctrinate the preclear in all of the above.

Then one by one, starting at the top dynamic command the preclear
to do the following.

By example, we start with dynamic 8, the Infinite.

"Tell me what gets you up in the morning about the infinite."

or

"Tell me how you would like to be a member of and contribute to the
infinite."

"Tell me an enhancement you would love to make to the infinite."

You can use whatever wording you want that seems to work to get the
preclear to talk deeply about how he is involved in the dynamic or how
he wanted to be or could be and all his reasons why he isn't.

NEVER argue with the preclear's answers,

Never answer his (case) questions during session, that means he is
auditing YOU.

Just say "What are you asking me for, you are the god around here,
you tell me."

The auditor knows the general about what's wrong with his preclear,
but not the specific. The preclear may need some help with the general,
but he knows it too but it may be buried in deep forgetfulness, but only
the preclear knows about his own specifics.

When the auditor is giving the commands or asking the questions,
the preclear is in session and interested in his own case and willing to
talk to the auditor.

When the preclear is asking the questions, and the auditor is
answering them, the preclear is out of session trying to put the auditor
into session and run the preclear's case FOR HIM.

Run the above process on each dynamic until no more answers, then
do the same with the next dynamic down, in this case spirit and spirits.

Then MEST, plants, animals, mankind, career, groups, family and
self.

Then do it all over again, starting at the top.

If the preclear jumps around dynamics giving answers that's fine,
they are all connected, and dynamic blocks grow like vines all over his entire
span of existence.

He will be talking about spirits one moment and sex the next, and
career the next, as they are all related to him.

YOU acknowledge his answers, keep running the dynamic you were on,
until it has no more answers, and then go to next lowest.

At some point you will need to learn how to audit smoothly, so you
don't piss off your preclear by being a dolt or talking too much, or
over acking, or interrupting, or changing the subject, or doing the 100
billions things you learn to do with skill and mastery in psych school.

The ideal session is where the auditor starts it, and the preclear
runs for the entire session to a big win, and all the auditor did was
nod wisely and keep quiet.

TO AUDIT MEANS TO LISTEN not to shoot your mouth and be more
important than the preclear.

When auditing a God, be a bug.

Sessions should run for about 45 minutes to 1 hour.

Never end off without a win of some kind, preclear smiling,
laughing, cogniting, and never run past a big win, no matter how fast it
comes.

Charge $130/session for your services or whatever the market can
bear.

Keep barf bags and kleenex easily available to your preclear.

Remember, with this material and in auditing, you are dealing with
the death of a spirit, he gave up FOREVER long ago.

Your preclear has been mostly sitting in his grave since then
waiting for someone to cover him in dirt.

NO one came, so there he is sitting there calling it his 9 to 5
life.

Eternal spirits can not die in eternity, but they can roll around
like marbles in their dreamtime.

Your preclear must get angry to get better.

Suppressed murderous intent drives the case.

When he does come up to anger, restrain him from committing murder.

Assure him that as he gets higher tone, there will be more
interesting things to do to his betrayers and tormentors.

He won't confess his own crimes unless he can forgive others
theirs, and he won't forgive others their crimes unless he confesses his
own.

Thus look for confession/forgiveness pairs as session progresses.
Without them case gain is not being made.

End result is laughter followed by high action in life born of
absolute peace.

Homer

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

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Jan 28 17:31:54 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore890.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help

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

iD8DBQFPJHdaURT1lqxE3HERAtEJAJ40OKpx1MCwK/3k4E2fZfrGQt/d/QCfTlfh
je3yQVp85jDO4t8ozeMrrPc=
=IvIH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

MANIFEST AND UNMANIFEST

MANIFEST AND UNMANIFEST

anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>But why did spiritual beings create the physical universe in the
>first place? What was their motivation?

To Manifest the UnManifest.

To manifest eternal havingness via the *MECHANISM* of temporal
loss.

Manifestation comes and goes like the waves on the sand.

Potential -> Kinetic -> Potential

More specifically it is the desire of absolute peace to engage in
humor which is the transition between Eternal Havingness and Temporal
Loss and back again.

It is the Imp Soul engaging in exquisitely brilliant Astounding
Imperial Stupidity for the sake of its audience, namely itself and
others.

Loss is a kind of havingness: from the world of Dura, where we have
everything eternally, we *DESIGN* the world of Sabe, where we suffer
'loss'.

Trying to 'have' in the world of Sabe is a joke, humor results from
realizing how the loss IS havingness via the mechanism of loss, and one
then enters the world of Dura again passing from sorrow, through humor
to absolute peace again.

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

LOVE AND SORROW

LOVE AND SORROW

"Depth of love is all we know of heaven, and depth of sorrow is all
we need of hell." - Poet

But sorrow IS love, love burdened by considerations.

Love is hello, sorrow is goodbye.

Love is hello forever, sorrow is goodbye forever.

Thus sorrow, the ability to cry freely and deeply for those that
you love BEFORE they are gone, and for those you will never know, is the
gateway to love and to heaven.

Heaven is not happiness, heaven is like the ocean waves in the
wind, coming in with love and going out with sorrow, over and over
again.

Hell is nothing, no ocean, no depth, no sorrow, no love.

If you refuse to cry, you refuse to love.

If you are shamed of your crying, you are ashamed of your love.

PTSness is your worry about those who would interrupt your sorrow
with ridicule or hysteria. Who is to be ashamed now, those that cry or
those that can't?

PTS means YOU become a Potential Trouble Source. The SP,
Suppressive Person, is one who can neither love nor cry. The intent of
the suppressive is to destroy facility in intimacy, intimacy with
yourself and those you have loved and will love again through all of
time into the next.

Things are not alright, things will not be alright, unless you can
love and cry freely, as deep as the river runs.

Fear of sorrow, is fear of love.

Mock up last days.

How will it be on that last day?

Say goodbye now.

Say hello now.

Say goodbye now.

Say hello now.

This process will run forever, never miss an opportunity to let the
sorrow flow into love. Cry now, so you can love later.

Be proud of the depth of your love, of the depth of your loss.

Even the littlest kittie is a full instantiation of the infinite.

Run to completion: the ocean free to roll in and roll out, in all
it's unfathomable depth and glory, in your heart.

Surrender and hope that it carries you away utterly to a better
place where Truth reigns and shallowness of existence is no more.

Don't worry, its only your own infinite heart that carries you
there.

Depth of sorrow and love is all you need of proof.

Disparage those that demand it.

Once free to cry and love again your physical pains will vanish and
your purpose will once again align with the Cosmic All, the Cosmic
Lover.

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 Nov 9 01:25:08 EST 2010

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

WOMEN AND MEN

WOMEN AND MEN

m (hammonia@SPamNOsonnenkinder.org) wrote:

homer wrote:
>> Women criticize what they are jealous of.
>> Men who are brought up by jealous women

>talking about yourself + mother(s) ?

Yes, me as a specific example of a wide generality.

In particular we are talking about *MORTAL* women who do not
believe they have ever been a man, nor ever will be, and who do not
believe they *CHOSE* to be a woman, who also bring up *MORTAL* sons.

A mortal is one who believes they are mortal whether or not they
are.

None of this applies to truly immortal women, female bodies with
awake thetans in them, not just ones pretending to be awake.

>> become proof to the woman that they are right
>> to criticize men and not be jealous of them. "Who would want to
>> be a man?"

>(bit difficult to follow your thought) (i try)

Women criticize men because women are jealous of men.

Women are seeking mastery of defense.

Men are seeking mastery of offense.

Men who are demasculated by jealous mothers, then act 'offensively'
to women and the world at large, mostly out of suppressed matricidal rage,
thus justifying women's criticism of men as sub human, thus continuing the
man's rage and offensiveness.

>Does that mean "jealous woman / mother"
>was successfull in making Son love HER
>more than women-of-appropriate-'position' (peer)

No.

It means that jealous mother makes son hate mother and self, but
son is not free to commit (or chickens out from) matricide, which is
the worthy goal through kamikaze, and substitutes destroying others
randomly. It is basically cowardice on the man's part, and needs to
be audited out, as kamikaze was the correct action, against an
inaccessible psychotic mortal mother.

>Is HE still in love with mother and thus
>NOT-free for women of his like kind ?

All men still love their original vision of the ideal mother they
could have had. The emotional curve is steep though, and quite infinite
into the abyss of loss.

Depends on where the man is on the CDEINR scale relative to a sane
woman.

Curious about
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit
No(ne of)
Refused

A sane woman will try to put the man into first gear and get him to
drive in a straight line in service of the woman and her children.

Men know this instinctively when it happens, they don't take orders
directly from the woman on HOW to do what they need to do, as they out
rank the woman, but they do get their mission statement from the woman
and live in service to the women and her children.

If the man is in inhibited, no or refused on the matter, he won't
respond kindly to such activity. If he is still half sane, he will jump
for joy.

It doesn't take much however to bring a man up from the lower
levels, just grab his gear shift, put it into first gear and INSIST that
he take rank and responsibility over the women/child parts of the 4 fold
dynamic child/woman/man/God.

Also insist that *HE* put *GOD* (in the same grade) into first gear
and drive God in a straight line in service to himself and his women,
just as the women should be doing to him.

It produces sane males very fast, but most mortal women are
completely incapable of it, the sorrow of their jealousy is infinite and
overwhelming.

The child can not live without the woman's help.

The woman can not live without the man's help.

The man can not live without the God's help.

And the God can not live without the help of the child at the next
level up.

Denying the ladder of dependency is insane and produces atomic war.

>I admit. "I'm jealous!" - not much though,
>not often, but it's *quality, which counts for you
>not *quantity, rite ?!

You are not a mortal any longer or perhaps never were.

Thus none of this may apply to you.

>> except when they are just getting their tits.
>> You got a small window of opportunity there of about 3 months
>> in there to get the truth out of them.

>what exactly do you mean ?

Before girls get their tits, they think they are boys, or that boys
and girls are basically the same.

As their tits start to grow, they realize with great force that
they are not boys, will never be boys, and are thus limited to an inner
circle of the child, woman, man, God 4-tuple, and will be forever
dependent on men more than men are dependent on them, and will never be
able to go fully where men go, because the woman can not go where she
dare not take her children.

As one seeking master of defense, it is the woman's job to build
the barrier of safety around the community to protect the children and
STAY THERE WITH THE CHILDREN.

As one seeking master of offense it is the man's job to go beyond
that barrier and seek danger before it seeks him. Woman with child
would never do this.

Now if the young girl just getting her tits knows that she is an
immortal being who chose her girl body for a reason and still has
affinity for that choice, she will welcome her tits and her new
relationship to boys, who put bluntly, basically take rank over her.
Men are pilot, woman is co pilot.

Now yes a women in the 5th grade out ranks a male in the 4th grade,
but we are talking about men and women in the same grade, here.

Lower grade women, say in the 3rd grade who are still pushing the
lie that women and men are equal will marry a 2nd grade man so prove her
point. This will result in disaster all around.

That's like a green co pilot seeking out an even greener co pilot
to be pilot because the co pilot doesn't want to admit she is co pilot.

"Listen now closely women.

Your family is a starship, a ship of stars, star captains, and star
capability. You are co-pilot. Choose your pilots wise then, and your
children will be pilots too." - Adore

But if the young girl is mortal, believes she never had a choice in
becoming a women instead of a man, and will never have the choice in the
future, and HAS NOTHING TO LEARN WHILE BEING A GIRL, ABOUT HOW TO BE A
MAN OR GOD IN HER SAME GRADE IN THE FUTURE, then she will ARC break on
the injustice of getting the short end of the deal.

Then she will trash the Master/Apprehentice relationship that
defines the male/female role in one grade, she will cease giving out
mission statements to men except to order them the to become girls.

Its hard being a man, war and everything, lot easier to be a women
some might say, and so the young girl will then say it is better to be a
woman than a man, men start all the god damn wars anyhow, don't they
etc, boys and their toys you know, but this is all sour grapes, it is
criticism covering jealousy.

NO MATTER WHAT THE GIRL CRITICIZES ABOUT THE MAN, NO MATTER HOW
EGREGIOUS THE MAN'S BEHAVIOR, NO MATTER HOW RIGHTEOUS THE GIRL'S
COMPLAINT, THE COMPLAINT IS BASED ON JEALOUSY AND NOT ON RIGHTEOUSNESS.
The girl would be endlessly happy to be a man and go around raping
killing and sucking blood for fun like she keeps complaining about. At
least she would be a man!

In her eyes, being a girl is like having to be a child that NEVER
gets to fully grow up and be an independent adult with full privs. In
her own eyes, she only gets to be half an adult and that pisses her off
no end.

"Girls grow up before boys do, but boys grow up, girls never do."

Now by the time the tits are filled in, she is hiding them, no one
had better touch them or see them, let alone some disgusting boy, and
thinks men are terrible and well on her way to becoming a dyke.

(A dyke is a lesbian born purely of male hatred. Homosexuality has
other causes, some maybe natural)

>"three months" to see tits grow full size ?
>"three months" to deal with the cancer ?

The auditor has about 3 months of accessibility in the girl while
she is still able to face and complain about being a girl, after that it
switches over to complaining about how bad men are.

The REAL motivator is being a girl. The PROFFERED SELL motivator
is men.

>> Breast cancer resolves under auditing of 'No Sympathy for tits'.
>Yes! - youre right. All cancers have to do with no/love-affaires.

Specifically *NO SYMPATHY* on the tone scale. Don't get it
wrong. The item and dramatization is quite exact.

>> AND MEN, WHO STILL WANT TO GET LAID, WONT ADMIT IT EITHER.
>>because jealous women won't screw a man who tells her to "Screw your
>>demasculation!"

>huh ?

Well jealous women won't screw a man who won't submit to the party
line that men and women are equal, and how bad men are and how badly
women are treated and what poor dear innocent victims women are etc.

Hey guys try it out. Next time some incipient dyke is screaming
about how bad men are, tell her "Women criticize what they are jealous
of", and see if she doesn't spread her legs for you. You might be
surprised, for women on the edge of the abyss, pointing out the truth to
them can be the "Open Sesame" of a fine relationship.

It unmisses their chronic long term missed withhold that they hate
men because they hate being a girl.

The rest that don't respond to the above, will become tarantulas
and scurry off into their nest of darkness.

"Any mother can turn her son into a monster.

Men are monsters.

How do women do it?

I mean to have something come out of your cunt and not know whether
it is going to rape, kill or suck blood, must really be something else."
- Adore

The reason that Adore holds women responsible for the outcome of
their sons, is because men take their marching orders, their rank, and
their mission statement from women, namely the mother.

The mother's failure to nurture and raise men to out rank and become
leaders of women, results in men as you know them today.

Women can live under the illusion that they can be equal to men in
scope, span, depth and field, because most men were never allowed to
grow beyond the best of womanhood.

Womanhood can barely conceive of true manhood, just as the child
can barely conceive of true womanhood, the man can barely conceive of
true godhood, and the god can barely conceive of true childhood at the
next level up.

The best that many women can conceive of is rotten motherhood, and
so that is about what their men (sons) become, rotten mothers in male
bodies.

Many generalizations have exceptions.

Are you one of them?

Homer

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

VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE II

VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE II

THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY

Good evening, today is Friday evening Februrary 20th, 2009.

Tonight we are going to continue the Valentine's day lecture on The
Proof.

In the last lecture we went over the second line of the proof,
because it was the first discovered.

The original cognition was simply that if an object has no effect
on you whatsoever, then there is no way to know anything about that
object, not even that it exists, EVEN IF you are having a tremendous
effect on it.

Of course if it is having no effect on you, you wouldn't know you
were having an effect on it, but that only serves to drive the point
home.

Now one can honestly ask why this rule might be so, and we may not
be able to answer why in the way you would like. But some more things
can be said about it that will shed light on where further philosophical
research might want to go.

It has to do with the idea of two different objects. Just to be
silly about this we are going to formally define two different objects
as any two objects that are not one and same object.

But really it has to do with quality sets. Every object in the
universe has its own quality set, its own defining set of qualities that
completely describe it. Even the nothing has a quality set unique to
it, even though it's empty.

These quality sets include not only the qualities the object has
alone, but also all the qualities the object has by virtue of its myriad
relations with other objects, and of course both kinds of qualities may
change over time.

Say we have a ball, that's our object.

The ball is round, this is a quality the object has alone.

The ball is on the table, this is a quality the object has unalone,
because it is in relation to the table.

Notice the quality 'the ball is on the table' is ALSO a quality of
the table, it is just as true of the table that 'the ball is on the
table' as it is true of the ball.

And so it is with all qualities of relation, they belong equally to
both objects that are in relation while they are in relation.

So every object has its quality set and from here it becomes easy
to define two different objects.

Formally, A and B are two different objects if and only if they
have two different quality sets.

Thus a red round ball over here on this table, is a different
object than an 'identical' red round ball over there on that table.

As a convenience we like to claim they are identical, but of course
they aren't, or they would be one and the same object.

On the other hand if both balls were identical in EVERY quality,
and rested in the same spot on the same table at the same time, then one
would have to say there was only one ball there, as long as NOTHING
discriminated between them.

In other words claiming that A and B have identical quality sets
and yet are two different objects is a direct contradiction of the
definition of two different objects.

Notice that this definition implies that as an object moves through
time it becomes another different object.

An object at 12 noon has one quality set which includes it's
location in time of 12 noon. That 'same' object 1 second later has a
quality set which includes its location in time of 12 noon plus 1
second. That's two different quality sets, and thus two different
objects.

Again as a convenience we like to think of a ball sitting on the
table as the same ball from moment to moment, certainly my kitty
Mirabilis (miracle) sitting on the bed is better thought of as the same
cat through out the day rather than a whole string of different cats
that all look the same. We can't quite see the USE of considering them
different cats, so we don't.

But in fact this idea that an object is the same object across time
is an anthropomorphization of our own conscious self which is timeless
and which in fact does not change at all as time passes as it has no
location in time. What the conscious self SEES has location in its
particular space time framework, but the seer is not in nor off space
time, and thus it does not move nor change with time.

Our bodies may grow older, our chemicals buzz around and change,
the contents of our consciousness certainly changes, but all along there
is something that is me that doesn't change. I am still the same
*HOMER* from moment to moment no matter how much my accoutrements of
reality change.

Thus the object called Homer has a quality set in which many
qualities are changing as the 'object moves through time', but there are
at least a few qualities that never change, even with time.

And so it is, the true thing that Homer calls 'I' is a spaceless,
timeless motion source, and everything he sources is changing, but
somehow the source itself is not.

We tend to think that this 'Homer', that remains the same object
from moment to moment, is also moving in time, so we consider other
things that actually do move in time to also be the same object from
moment to moment.

But in fact the 'Homer' object is timeless and doesn't move in
time, and thus it is truely changeless, and we therefore must not make
the mistake of assigning qualities of timeless beingness to entities
that live in space and time and have only temporal becomingness.

Same thing goes for Mirabilis, if she were a physical robot with no
consciousness, well then the rule applies, she is a new cat every
second.

But since Mira is a conscious unit IN a body, just like you and me,
she too has a timeless core, and it is the unseen timelessness of that
core spilling over into space time, that allows us the idea that she is
the same 'cat' from second to second.

She is not the same cat, she is the same BEING which is what is
left over after all the physical catiness is removed.

But who cares, as long as it doesn't get us into trouble, we can
consider the physical cat is constant too, the same cat from moment to
moment, even though it grows old and every atom in it is brand new every
couple of months.

At best the ARRANGEMENT of her parts is constant through time, but
even that constancy would only apply to the most gross observation of
arrangement, as like any living organism, its structure only looks
constant at a very macroscopic level.

You know some would argue that animals are not conscious, are not
a conscious unit, are not conscious beings.

Take one of Mira's little paws and snap it in two like a pencil.

Does she feel pain?

If not then she is just a bag of chemicals simmering away at 98.6F.

If she feels pain, then she has a conscious unit inside her that
experiences things just like you and me, and she IS that conscious unit
just like you and me are our conscious units.

She may not have the highly evolved conscious functions of humor,
thought, philsophy, creativity, music, and ethics that we have, but she
has the same conscious functions of perception, color, hearing, taste,
smell, pleasure, pain and emotion that we have.

You may never have seen a dog cry, but if you have never known a
dog to be sadder than sad, you are pretty dead yourself.

It is the conscious unit that feels pain, not the bag of ball
bearings that make up the body.

It may be true that the state of the ball bearings pre signals
(causally precurses) the pain in the conscious unit, but conscious pain
is not merely a process in or the arrangement of things that do not feel
pain themselves.

You can't make pain out of things that do not feel pain.

Pain is not a process in an arrangement of painless parts.

Since the whole point of The Proof is that conscious units can do
things that physical objects CAN NOT, it is important to maintain a
clear distinction between the conscious and physical aspects of a
composite being.

So in the world of The Proof these lackadaisical attitudes towards
what are, and are not, 'two different objects', can run us into serious
trouble. Therefore social usage of language is out, and we need to
stick to the more accurate formalisms presented here.

Two different objects means two different quality sets.

Two different quality sets means two different objects.

For example it is sometimes easier to notice that one quality set
has changed state, than to notice the differences between that same
quality set and another almost identical one.

Thus we have a theorem that says if the quality set of one object
changes, and the quality set of the other object does not, then they
were and are two different objects.

ANY DIFFERENCE OF CHANGE OR DIFFERENCE IN STATE BETWEEN TWO
OBJECTS, BE IT IN SPACE OR TIME, OR ALONG ANY OTHER DIMENSION OR
QUALITY, MAKES THEM TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS.

You might rightly ask doesn't the phrase 'two objects' imply 'two
different objects,' and the answer is no. One object can have more than
one name.

So we can say that A and B are two objects, but if they have
identical quality sets then A and B are one and the same object, with
two different names. A and B are still two objects, but they are not
two different objects. Subtle but important use of language here.

Thus, BY DEFINITION, two objects can mean two different objects,
but it can also mean one and the same object called by multiple names.

So we can validly say that A and B are two objects which are yet
one and the same object.

Notice if A and B are two objects which are one and the same
object, there isn't a problem of two different quality sets here, one
for A with A's name in it, and another for B with B's name in it,
because the one object has one quality set which includes both names.

If indeed A and B had two different quality sets, then A and B
would in fact be two different objects.

So mama and mommy all point back to mother, who is one and the
same object whether she is named mama, mommy, mother or mummy.

The reason we spend so much time on this issue of two different
objects, is because of the issue of learning by being an effect which we
have detailed in the previous lecture.

That issue is stated in the following rewording of the original
discovery:

IF A AND B ARE TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN LEARN
ABOUT EACH OTHER IS BY BEING AN EFFECT OF EACH OTHER.

Now that is a major statement, but by itself still doesn't get us
to the second line of The Proof.

We need to take a look at space and time and notice something about
them that is true about ALL dimensional extensions.

A dimension is a series of objects (in this case points in space or
time whether or not they have any mass or energy in them) which are
otherwise identical, EXCEPT that they are at different positions in
space and time!

In other words, in an empty space, if you take a good look at any
two randomly chosen points in that space, there will be no difference
between them at all, EXCEPT their position in relation to each other and
to all the other points in that space.

That pretty well defines a 'dimension', which can be applied to
space and time where you have a collection of objects, namely 'points'
or 'moments' in space time, which are identical except in their
differing relations to the rest.

If it were not for their relation to the rest, there wouldn't be
any difference between them at all!

The important part of this is, because two different points in
space have different quality sets by definition, namely in their quality
of relations to each other, they must be two different objects!

Thus if an object (of mass, energy or consciousness) actually
occupies those points of space, they too must be two different objects.

Thus we come to the next assertion which is

IF A AND B ARE SEPARATED BY AN ACTUAL DISTANCE, THEN A AND B ARE
TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS.

By distance we mean any distance along space or time or any other
dimension of any other kind.

By actual we mean true space or time rather than a convenient
holographic rendition or illusion, dream, imagination, or hallucination
of space and time.

Now the above statement that distance between A and B implies they
are two different objects, is also a major assertion and needs as much
study as it can get, but it's rather intuitively obvious so many tend to
gloss it over when doing deep philosophical analysis of these things.

So let's take these 2 assertions and see where they lead us.

A.) IF A AND B ARE SEPARATED BY AN ACTUAL DISTANCE, THEN A AND B
ARE TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS.

B.) IF A AND B ARE TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, THEN THEY MUST LEARN
ABOUT EACH OTHER BY BEING AN EFFECT.

Thus we conclude that

IF A AND B ARE SEPARATED BY AN ACTUAL DISTANCE, THEN THEY MUST
LEARN ABOUT EACH OTHER BY BEING AN EFFECT.

The second line of The Proof rewords this as simply,

2.) DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT.

OK, so that was a quick summary of the first lecture, and shows
some of the philosophical development that went into determining its
truth and importance. I am sure more can and will be said about it by
other's in the future.

As I also said in the previous lecture, The Proof comes to some
astounding conclusions, many of which might seems unacceptable at first.

As in any logical proof, if one doesn't like the conclusion, one
either has to argue with the logic, or find that one of the earlier
assumptions is wrong.

As you will come to see, the bare logical form of The Proof is air
tight, there can be no argument with it.

However it's 4 major assumptions are of course all fair game,
including number 2 above, which is the second assumption, first
discovered, of The Proof.

Once they are all presented and argued for, the average reader will
be tempted to accept number 2.) above, and try to take apart assumptions
1.), 3.) and 4.). Notice we haven't said what 1.), 3.) and 4.) are yet!

A good amount of time will be spent trying to invalidate 3.) in
particular, but in the end most people finally accept 1, 3 and 4, and
come back to 2 and dwell on it for a very long time as the devil in the
works. So we give it to you here first.

Number 2.) may seem reasonable now, but when you see where it
leads, it won't.

When you see this happening in yourself, you can take it as a sign
that you are finally getting The Proof at a deep level.

OK, let's take a break here for coffee and donuts, and we will
continue after the break.

CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY

So let's get on with the next line of the proof which deals with
the nature of certainty and uncertainty.

Certainty is a quality of relation between the knower, which is
your conscious you, and that which is known, which is data about the
quality sets of various objects which are the known about.

The various objects can be direct conscious experiences like
perceptions of space, time, color, taste, smell, hearing, pleasure and
pain, or implied objects such as the objects in the alleged physical
universe.

So you have the knower, the known (the what is known), and the
known about.

Say you have a square book with a red cover.

The knower is self aware, so that is you operating as a conscious
unit.

The known about is the book.

And the known are the two qualities of being called square and red.

You are one object, and the book is the other object, and so you
are learning through a distance about the book by looking at it, namely
receiving photons from it. Thus you and the book are two different
objects, and you are learning about the book by being the effect of it.

It is this process of learning between two different objects that
we are most interested in here for the moment.

You say 'The house is red'. OK, that's a statement of fact, but it
could be wrong for many reasons.

We now have to go back to take a good long look at exactly what
learning by being an effect means, and why it can never produce a
perfect certainty about the object under question.

DIRECT PERCEPTION AND INDIRECT PERCEPTION.

The issue is really not about certainty and uncertainty, so much as
it is about whether you can see anything at all when you are looking at
another object.

If you can't see the object you are learning about, then clearly
there will be a lack of certainty in learning. On the other hand if you
can see the object directly, like you can with your own conscious
experiences, then perfect certainty of what you see is available,
because:

CONSCIOUS SEEING IS PERFECT CERTAINTY IS CONSCIOUS SEEING IS
PERFECT CERTAINTY.

So the real issue here is not certainty or uncertainty, but seeing
and not seeing, or more formally direct and indirect perception.

Direct perception means learning about an object by looking at it
directly. That produces a perfect certainty born of direct contact.

Indirect perception means learning about an object by looking at
SOME OTHER OBJECT. This produces only evidence, model and theory born
of indirect contact.

One might want to argue that a single moment of direct perception
will only leave a memory in its wake so perfect certainty probably
wouldn't apply.

But the kind of direct perception we are talking about is
continuously reverifiable direct perception in present time, which then
leads to a continuing perfect certainty in present time.

Perfect certainties are NEVER about the past, they are ONLY the
PRESENT, namely about direct perceptions continuously going on NOW.

Now the first thing we notice, is that learning by being an effect
fits the definition of indirect perception prefectly.

Learning by being an effect takes advantage of the fact that when
object A causes object B to change state, the change in B or B's new
state, has a data imprint ON B about the nature of A, namely how A is
able to effect B.

That might not seem like a lot to know about anything, but if you
take a look at it, the only things we need to know about other things is
how they affect us, our survival, and how we affect them in fair trade.

If they help us survive, then we want to help them survive back.

If they harm our survival, then we want to know that too.

If they have qualities that don't affect us, then who cares, right?

So this is a major statement then:

All you can learn by being an effect is how things affect you, and
how things affect you is all you NEED to learn about anything in the
physical universe for any purposes you might have.

You also want to know how you affect others, but without them
affecting you back, you can't know that either!

Seems kind of dry, and unpoetic, but cause and effect are the warp
and woof of life, and if it ain't cause and effect, well it might as
well not BE at all, because you aren't going to know about it anyhow.

It might take a while for this to sink in, but eventually you will
see that it is inexorable. If something doesn't affect you, directly or
indirectly in any way whatsoever, from the beginning of time to the end
of time, it might as well not exist for you.

NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU AFFECT SOMETHING, IF IT HAS NO AFFECT ON YOU
AT ALL, THEN IT MIGHT AS WELL NOT EXIST, AS YOU WILL NEVER KNOW ABOUT
IT.

The absence of an objects's effect on you, does NOT prove that the
object does not exist, only that it doesn't matter to you if it exists
or not, as there is no consequence to you or anything that affects you,
of it existing or not existing.

So say there is some object way out in the distance like a star,
and you want to learn about it. That star has to send a photon out
across space and time to reach your telescope and which puts an image on
a piece of paper or viewing screen, which then bounces off the paper and
hits your eyes, your brain, and eventually your consciousness.

This sets up a causal chain or pathway (same thing), from the star
to your consciousness, that hopefully carries data about the star to
you.

Notice you never get to see the star directly, and in fact by the
time the photon gets to your telescope, THAT STAR WHICH EMITTED THE
PHOTON IS GONE.

Remember, the star, as it moves along in time, is a new different
object every moment that passes. So the star that emitted that photon,
X amount of time ago, is gone the next instant of time, even though
there may still be a similar star in its place a moment later.

So you never see the star, do you? You only see a symbol for the
star as the photon hits the film paper at the end of the telescope.

You have no clue if the star was even out there, as God could have
created that photon mid flight to make it look like the star created it.

So all you have of the star is indirect 'evidence' of the star
which is the image formed by the telescope on its film plane.

Indirect evidence is not perfect certainty, it is only theory, thus
learning about A by looking at B can not produce a perfect certainty
about A, not even that A even exists, let alone that A affected B.

But the issue is not certainty but seeing. The point is that you
never see the star itself, only a theoretical representation of the star
later in time.

You only get to see an AMBASSADOR here now of the distant object
that was there then, never the object itself.

How can you be certain of something YOU CAN NOT SEE DIRECTLY?

REFERENTS AND SYMBOLS REVISITED

So remember A and B above, where A causes B to change state.

A is the referent, what we are trying to learn about, and B is the
symbol which we use to determine the nature of A.

RENDERED AND RENDITION

We call the area of B that changed state the RENDITION ZONE, and
the change in state itself the RENDERING. We hope that the rendering in
B will give us some evidence about the RENDERED which is A, but a
rendering in B will NEVER give us a perfect certainty about A, because
you can't get a perfect certainty about an object by looking at
something else. That's like trying to see west by looking east.

Let me say it again, lest you might think I am being lax in my
logic here. If you are going to take me to task about something, THIS
is what you are going to take me to task for.

YOU CAN NEVER GET A PERFECT CERTAINTY ABOUT AN OBJECT BY LOOKING AT
A DIFFERENT OBJECT.

IF A AND B ARE TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, YOU CAN NEVER GET A PERFECT
CERTAINTY ABOUT A VIA B, no by LOOKING AT B OR STUDYING B.

Worse if YOU are 'seeing' B by yourself being the effect of B, you
can never learn about A by being the effect of B.

But even if you ARE B being the effect of A, you can still never
learn with perfect certainty about A even by BEING B, because as B you
are still learning about A by being an effect of A, using changes in
state IN YOURSELF AS B, to determine the nature of A that might have
caused those changes.

INDIRECT PERCEPTION OF ANY KIND PRODUCES ONLY EVIDENCE, MODEL AND
THEORY.

ONLY DIRECT PERCEPTION PRODUCES A PERFECT CERTAINTY.

Indirect perception is learning about A by looking at B.

Direct perception is learning about A by looking at A.

Direct perception between two different objects is impossible.

Therefore direct perception across a distance is impossible.

The only way to have direct perception of A is to BE A.

Therefore consciousness which sees itself directly, and thus has
perfect certainty of itself, has no distance between perceiver and
perceived.

Indirect perception is learning about cause by being its effect,
and computing back from the nature of the effect to the possible nature
of the cause.

Direct perception is learning about cause by looking at cause.

A machine can't do that.

Consciousness can, its called self luminosity and results in
awareness, self awareness of awareness, self awareness of self awareness
of awareness, ad infinitum, all at the same time.

We call this instantaneous self reverifiability.

Consciousness can be aware of its awareness NOW.

A machine can only be 'aware' of what is WAS aware of a moment
before. A machine can reverify what it perceivED by perceiving again,
and comparing the two different events.

Consciousness can produce a perfect reverifiability of the now in
the now.

Consciousness is a timeless moment of infinite self verifying self
awareness.

Machines can only work in time and can only be aware of what WAS
even in themselves. By the time a machine records the fact of any
event, even in itself, that event is long gone, and remains forever a
theory to the machine, even its own existence. That's because a machine
can not see any part of itself directly. One atom on one side of a
machine has no clue if another atom on the other side of the same
machine, or even right next to it, even exists.

So let's go back to our star and telescope and film plane.

Now in fact you never see the image on the telescope film plane
directly either, because that too has to send MORE photons to your eye,
which then converts it to optic nerve signals, and then brain signals,
and finally to your consciousness WHICH YOU CAN SEE DIRECTLY.

So what you SEE is not the star, but a representation of that star
in your conscious experience.

Your consciousness is your personal rendition zone, and what you
see in your consciousness is a rendering, a symbol of final authority,
from which you try to find evidence about the nature of what you
consider caused it to appear.

You have certainty of the rendition but not of the rendered.

What you SEE, you have perfect certainty of, namely your conscious
experience of the star, which acts as a symbol for the true star, the
original referent which you can not see directly.

But the fact that you have perfect certainty of the SYMBOL in your
consciousness, does not imply you have perfect certainty of the original
referent, not even that it existed at the time that the symbol implies
it did.

The symbol is seen directly and thus is a perfect certainty, but it
is only a theory that the existence of the symbol implies the existence
or nature of the referent.

In the end you are looking at the star by looking at something
else, namely your consciousness experience of the image of the star on
the film plane, and that fits perfectly the definition of indirect
perception and learning by being an effect.

Notice also in the example above, your conscious rendition is three
times removed from the original referent, because first the photon
allegedly comes from the star to the film plane, and then again from the
film plane to your eye/brain, and then finally to your consciousness.
Those are called causal hops.

So although we have perfect certainty of our conscious experience,
we have no certainty whatsoever about anything our consciousness
purports to represent to us.

And it is a grand error to attribute the certainty we have of our
symbol to the referent.

Leaving out the film plane this time, the causal pathway can be
symbolized something like the following.

Star -> Photon -> Telescope -> Eye -> Brain -> Consciousness <- You

Or to simplify the point:

S -> P -> T -> E -> B -> C <- Y

NOW LOOK THIS IS IMPORTANT SO DON'T GO BY IT OR YOU ARE DOOMED TO
BECOME A CHAIR (CHAIRMAN OF A DEPARTMENT) WITH A THESIS HANGING ON THE
WALL, SPENDING YOUR LAST DAYS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT SHOULD READ
ON YOUR TOMBSTONE.

Let's take a look at it again.

S -> P -> T -> E -> B -> C <- Y

Where ever there is an arrow pointing to the right ->, there is
indirect perception.

Wherever there is an arrow pointing to the left <-, there is direct
perception.

The arrow pointing to the right means you are learning about the
left hand object by looking at the right hand object that was the left
hand object's effect.

The arrow pointing to the left means you are learning about the
left hand object by looking directly at the left hand object as cause.

You can't see the star, so you look at the photon.

But you can't see the photon, so you look at the telescope image.

But you can't see the telescope image, so you look at your eye's
retina.

But you can't see your eye's retina, so you look at your brain.

But you can't see your brain, so you look at your consciousness.

But your consciousness you CAN see, so that ends the learning
process at YOU, the *CONSCIOUS* symbol of final authority, in a perfect
certainty.

But what are you certain of?

The star? No.

The photon? No.

The telescope? No.

The film? No.

The photons bouncing off the film? No?

The image on your retina? No.

The crap in your brain? No.

Your conscious experience? Yes.

Even if you could be certain of the star using the evidence in your
consciousness, it would be a CALCULATED certainty, not a directly
perceived certainty.

A calculated certainty is something like a syllogism:

I received an effect.
This effect had to be caused by something.
Therefore there is a cause out there, hopefully a star!

A calculated 'certainty', beside being an oxymoron, is a logical
computation or deduction from the effect back to the cause.

A logical computation says that "I assume that effect implies
cause, I think I received an effect, thus there must be a cause!"

That process of logical computation is NOT the process of directly
seeing the cause source, and the causation between that cause source and
the effect, and being able to verify that the cause source really was
the source of the effect, as you can with your conscious experiences.

Worse a logical computation is only as useful as we have certainty
of its assumptions.

All effects are caused.
I recieved an effect.
Thus there must be a cause.

Quickly, without going too deep into this, if a machine is limited
to learning by being an effect, then that machine can never prove there
IS a cause, because effect does NOT imply cause.

An effect (change in state in an object) may be necessary to the
existence of cause, but an effect is not sufficient to the existence of
a cause.

Thus where there is cause, they must be an effect.

But where there is an effect, there may or may not be cause.

Thus viewing effects is not sufficient to determine the existence
or nature of cause.

THE MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM

That is basically the machine certainty theorem right there, a
machine that learns by being an effect can never prove there is cause,
and thus can never be certain of anything, including it's own existence.

Secondly even the assertion "I am certain I received an effect" is
false, because if a machine is limited to learning by being effect, the
machine can't even tell if it has changed state with perfect certainty.

Mechanical state does not prove prior different mechanical state.

This is getting a bit beyond ourselves here, and we will leave
these arguments for a future lecture but the important point here is
that EVEN IF LOGICAL COMPUTATION COULD GIVE RISE TO A PERFECT CERTAINTY
BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS, IT STILL WOULDN'T BE THE SAME PROCESS AS
DIRECT SEEING SUCH AS TAKES PLACE IN CONSCIOUSNESS.

Logically computing that the star exists because of a photon that
hits your eye is not the same order of thing as seeing the star
DIRECTLY.

Two different objects can NEVER see each other directly, and thus
are limited to logical computation from evidence, theory and model to
whatever 'certainties' (low grade predictabilities) they can pretend to.

But a calculated certainty in the world of evidence and theoretical
models is an oxymoron, so in truth no certainty can be had of the star
at all because you and the star are two different objects.

AND THAT IS A PERFECT CERTAINTY ABOUT PERFECT CERTAINTY.

And no that is not circular, it is in fact quite deep.

Every event between the star and you is a cause effect sequence
spreading out into space. During every event, data about the object on
the left is imprinted on the object on the right.

Data about the object on the left is RENDERED in the RENDITON ZONE
of the object on the right.

As the causal chain expands out into space and time, data is
carried along with it in the form of changes in state that are caused
along the way.

These changes in state are symbolic representations, renditions,
and re renditions of the nature of the original referent.

The final change in state is the conscious picture that forms in
you when you look back down that causal chain at the star.

You are looking at your consciousness, but your consciousness was
the effect of your brain, which was the effect of your optic nerve,
which was the effect of your retina, which was the effect of your eye
lens, which was the effect of photons coming off the telescope display
screen, which was the effect of photons coming from the star which was
the effect of its internal processes that created the photon in the
first place.

Everything that you learn about the original referent, namely the
star, comes from the symbol of final authority, namely your conscious
image of the event many moments of time later than the original
referent.

AT THE TIME YOU HAVE A PERFECT CERTAINTY IN YOUR CONSCIOUSNESS, THE
ORIGINAL REFERENT IS GONE.

Not only were you unable to see the original referent when it
existed, you certainly are not able to see it later when it no longer
exists at all!

SEEING THE ALLEGED EFFECT OF AN OBJECT IS NOT SEEING THE OBJECT!

SEEING THE SYMBOL IS NOT SEEING THE REFERENT.

SEEING THE REPRESENTATION IS NOT SEEING THE REPRESENTED.

SEEING THE RENDITION IS NOT SEEING THE RENDERED.

BEING THE EFFECT IS NOT SEEING THE CAUSE.

Talking to the ambassador is not talking to the King.

Out of convenience (namely arrogance, vanity, conceit and hubris)
we like to think that seeing the effect of an object is the same as
seeing the object, but this is collapsing symbol and referent into one
and the same object, and is the reason it has taken us 50,000 years of
intelligent evolution to figure The Proof out!

THUS IF YOU YOURSELF ARE NOT THE ORIGINAL REFERENT, YOU CAN NEVER
SEE THE ORIGINAL REFERENT DIRECTLY.

THUS THE ORIGINAL REFERENT THAT EXISTED BACK THEN, REMAINS A THEORY
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE OF YOUR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE NOW.

We need to notice that the vast majority of the causal pathway
between the star and you consists of many different indirect perception
events, each one leading to the next, each one 'learning' about the
object before it, by being the effect of that prior object after it.

Only in the end is there one single event of direct perception
which is the relationship between the conscious perceiver and the
conscious perceived.

OK, we will continue this during the next lecture.

Thank you for coming.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jan 18 00:06:04 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val2.txt
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

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