http://www.lightlink.com/theproof PO 880 Ithaca, NY 14851-0880
(607) 277-0959 Voice
(607) 277-8913 Fax
(607) 277-5026 Modems
homer@lightlink.com E-mail
jes@lightlink.com E-mail
07/19/07 5:57pm
Dear Esteemed Sir,
This is a quick summary of how I have taught the proof to various
people in the past.
Most are open to it, some are not.
The proof is taught in 3 phases.
Phase 1, Objectification of Consciousness and Conscious
Experience.
Very quickly, we define an object as anything that has qualities,
and anything that has qualities is an object.
We define a something as any object that has some qualities, and
a nothing as any object that has no qualities.
Notice there can be only one nothing, if there were two different
nothings, their quality sets would have to be different and thus could
not be both empty.
The quality set of an object is called its state.
We further assert the following theorem:
If A and B are objects, and A changes state but B does not, then
A was and is not B, i.e. A and B were and are two *DIFFERENT*
objects.
People are very used to using their conscious experiences as
symbols for the alleged external physical universe, much as a soldier
in a tank uses an image on his TV set to see the external world.
The soldier has an outward facing video camera mounted on his
tank, and just so the human being has outward facing eyes mounted on
his head.
Photons that bounce off objects in the alleged physical universe
hit the tank's video camera and are ultimately translated into images
on a TV set inside the tank for the soldier to see.
Just so, those same photons hit the eyes and the retina, and
ultimately are translated into conscious experience images for the
being to see.
The soldier is using the images on the TV as a symbol to keep
track of the referent object in the alleged external universe. He
hopes that the TV image will dependably track the state of the
external referent properly, he certainly doesn't want to see a tree on
the TV set when there is no tree in the external world, nor does he
want to NOT see a tree on the TV set when indeed there is one.
Notice that the tree in the external physical universe is an
object, and so is the image of that same tree on the TV set, BUT THEY
ARE TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS.
The first is the referent, the second is the symbol.
The symbol state is (hopefully) causally related to the referent
state so the solider can tell things about the referent by looking at
the symbol.
Although the referent and symbol tend to look like each other,
that is they share some geometric congruencies or similarities with
each other, they are in fact two completely different objects.
Insanity ensues when the two are inseparably confused with each
other.
We can use our theorem above to prove the two objects are two
DIFFERENT objects. The solider can turn off the TV set so the image
on the TV set disappears, but surely the referent tree is still there.
B changed, but A did not, thus B is not A.
Not only are the referent and symbol two different objects in
space but also in time, because the symbol state is tracking an
EARLIER referent state by the speed of light across the distance that
separates them.
At no time is the soldier, who is looking at the symbol in the
tank, in communication with the exetrnal world as it IS NOW. Only as
it might have been a while ago. And then only if the causal pathway
between the tree and the video camera on the outside of the tank, and
then again between the video camera and the TV set inside his tank is
working properly, that is as theorized.
Now of course the soldier understands all this very well, but
your average human being may not.
For example if you point to the image of the tree on the TV set
and ask the soldier what it is and what it is made of, he will answer,
"That is a tree made of wood."
But in fact what you pointed at was not a tree at all, but a
rendition of a tree on a TV screen made of glass and phosphors.
This is called collapsing symbol and referent, the symbol BECOMES
the referent for all practical purposes.
Try planting glass and phospors in the ground and see if it
grows.
Now as I said the soldier understands this, he WANTS the image of
the tree on the TV set to look so perfect it's like he is seeing
through a glass window because he is more interested in what the
outside referent tree is doing than what the inside symbol tree on the
TV is doing.
He doesn't care about the symbol, he only cares about the
referent, and as long as the symbol is being a proper causal slave to
the referent, he would prefer just as well that the symbol not exist
at all.
He would prefer to be in direct contact with the referent, but he
settles for being in indirect contact with it via the symbol as long
as the symbol state tracks the referent state properly.
There are advantages to doing this. By using the symbol he can
'see' the referent remotely. But it is also a compromise as data is
lost between referent and symbol, and the longer the causal pathway is
between them, the more degraded a representation of the referent the
symbol becomes. Thus accuracy of knowledge is lost.
He wants the tracking between symbol and referent to be so
perfect he can forget he is looking at a symbol and concentrate on the
what the alleged referent is doing.
But he knows he is doing this, it is part of his training.
He retains enough lucidity to realize that if the inside symbol
tree on his TV set starts to act up, turn pink or polka dot, he should
fix the TV set, and not go out side and figure out what's wrong with
the outside referent tree!
Your human being is doing the same thing with his conscious
experiences. His consciousness is connected to his retina and his
eyes, but when he looks at a tree he thinks he is seeing a *TREE*, not
a conscious picture of a tree.
Your average human being believes that his eyes are a glass
window to the external world.
So again we invoke the above theorem, and have him close his
eyes. The conscious picture of the tree disappears but surely the
external tree remains.
Thus his conscious experience of the tree can not possibly be a
tree made of wood, but a conscious image of a tree made of conscious
experience.
Many humans are walking around in a semi somnambulistic state of
believing that what they see in their consciousness is the alleged
physical universe and not a conscious rendition of it, even though it
is obvious they should know better.
But again they are MUCH more interested in the alleged external
tree than than they are in the conscious image of it. This is
probably because if they run into the external tree they will get
hurt, but who has ever been hurt by a conscious image?
IT IS THE TREE THAT IS IMPORTANT, THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE TREE
WOULD PREFERABLY NOT EXIST! People want to see the tree directly,
they don't want to see the tree via looking at a symbol, the symbol
could always be wrong. So they forget they are looking via a symbol
and pretend they can see the tree itself.
They try to verify that the symbol is an accurate rendition of
the external referent by squinting harder at the symbol! They hope
they are squinting harder at the referent, but in the end they can
only see the symbol.
So their first reaction to being shown this material proving that
at no time are they seeing a tree made of wood is "So what? "What's
the difference? Who cares? (How dare you!)"
The soldier would never be so dull, he knows very well what the
difference is because his very life depends on being able to pretend
that symbol and referent are one, when things are working properly,
but to immediately be able to tell the difference when they aren't.
He can smoothly collapse and uncollapse referent and symbol at
will, and then fix which ever one needs fixing.
For example say someone plugs a video tape into his TV set and
the soldier starts to see aliens landing. Well if he really thought
that the TV set were a pure glass window to the outside world, he
wouldn't think to check the TV set now would he? He would believe the
aliens were landing.
But continuing lucidity allows the soldier to check the TV set
first for proper functionality before believing the aliens really are
landing.
But in the end the real answer to "So What?" is science doesn't
care about the answer: if two objects are two *DIFFERENT* objects,
then pure science is interested in that fact for it's own sake.
The average dullard might think it stupid to consider that his
consciousness of a tree is not a tree made of wood, but in fact this
position of non lucidity removes the possibility that he might start
studying his consciousness AS consciousness for its own sake.
How much do people really know about consciousness? I talk to
Physics PhD's at Cornell about it, and they giggle embarassingly. "Oh
that's for the psychology department to study."
Their implication is 'We KNOW they (the psychologists) don't know
anything, so it's ok to relegate consciousness to them so they can not
know anything about it too!"
Consciousness is an embarassing word to many. People feel about
having a consciousness much like they feel about having a penis or a
vagina, it's something they would prefer to cover with a fig leaf.
And talking about a science of consciousness is like talking
about a science of UFO's, or the healing power of crystals and
pyramids.
I mean who cares about consciousness, most think it is only an
observer, a reporter of what is, it can't DO anything on its own,
everything that goes on in the mind is really happening because of
underlying physical processes that any machine can do better.
Everyone knows nothing can be known about consciousness and so
therefore anyone pretending to talk about it is a crack pot.
The sad result is that the only people then talking about
consciousness ARE crackpots, which means they been smoking way too
much crack and way too much pot.
I get the same reaction from the chemists, biologists, and the
neurologists. Trying to talk about consciousness makes them giggle
and squirm with embarassment.
Do we see a problem with this?
Everyone of them believes that consciousness is DEPENDENT OR EVEN
MADE OF THE UNDERLYING PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF THE BRAIN, yet not one of
them wants to talk about how one might build something that was
conscious out of parts that are not.
The fact that the whole is conscious is *IRRELEVANT* to them.
Many would prefer to defend pyramid power than admit to the
actuality of their own consciousness.
And what exactly do we mean by conscious?
*IS CAPABLE OF PERFECT CERTAINTY VIA DIRECT PERCEPTION.*
Frankly my diagnosis is that many people suffer from the belief
that consciousness is ONLY useful as a symbol, and has no qualitative
nature or causal consequences of it's own, and thus has no use in
explaining how anything works in this universe.
Consciousness is only useful as a window to observe what is going
on in the brain, but has no direct causal impingement on what happens
next.
Even the fact that consciousness has observed something going on
the brain is not then allowed to affect what happens next in the brain
at all.
Consciousness has become the appendix of the universe, and most
are terrified of bringing it up lest they have a case of appendicitis
and need to have it removed.
This is odd, no?, that a machine, the brain, which is utterly
incapable of direct perception or pefect certainty of any kind, is
none the less using consciousness as a symbol for an uncertain
phyiscal universe, when the conscious symbol itself IS capable of
direct perception and perfect certainty of itself.
This is like using solid gold to represent one's wealth in brass.
How did direct perception, an untold marvel possibly bordering on
the divine, become the mundane slave of indirect perception and the
goals of mere physical survival in a cold dead, and uncaring physical
universe?
The only use the universe could find for perfect certainty was as
a symbol for a perfect uncertainty?
The grand unified theory of everything is all about forces and
masses, not one word about consciousness.
All of existence is merely force and mass in motion, right?
Pain is merely a symbol for processes going on in the brain in
force and mass, and has no causal agency of it's own, right?
No causality travels THROUGH consciousness, because consciousness
is at worst a nothing, or at best merely a process that is already
going on in the brain anyhow, best explained by force and mass alone.
So since consciousness has no causal influence or significance of
any kind of its own, why bother to study it, it's not what is
important. The real pushers of life are mass and the 4 forces of
nature.
If a panorama of falling dominoes were conscious, would they
still just fall the same as if they were not conscious?
Would they fall because of will and pain, or would they fall
because of force and mass alone?
Is the relationship of pain to will, the same as the relationship
of force to mass?
Will can clearly generate force to move mass, but what moves
will?
Is pain and will JUST force and mass?
*WHO NEEDS CONSCIOUSNESS TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING?*
Love and pain are not causal.
It's all just force and mass in motion, moving in a perfect
clockwork of mathematical inevitability tempered by some quantum
randomity.
Force and mass does it all.
"I would found an institution where anyone can find study in any
subject." - Ezra Cornell
Oh, except for consciousness.
We don't talk about consciousness here.
I went to school for this?
Personally I find this to be a major schizophrenic rift in the
world of academentia, and what it results in is no one knows anything
about the nature of consciousness, because they are using it full time
as a symbol to learn about alleged referents, to learn that
consciousness is nothing of import and the alleged physical universe,
WHICH WE HAVE NO CLUE WHETHER IT EVEN EXISTS OR NOT, is everything
of import.
Consciousness which is capable of perfect certainty of itself is
nothing of import, but the physical universe whose existence we are
forever condemned to be uncertain about, it all of import.
STUDYING THE ALLEGED PHYSICAL UNIVERSE HAS BECOME MORE IMPORTANT
THAN STUDYING THE LIVING BREATHING TV SET BY WHICH WE SEE THE PHYSICAL
UNIVERSE.
So this is silly, if one can euphemize total insanity as such.
It is time to start studying consciousness AS consciousness, and
forget the world that it represents to us as out there and pretends to
be its underlying cause.
The conscious symbol is an object in its own right, and thus we
need to make the symbol into its own referent, so we can start
learning how the SYMBOL works, not just use the symbol to study the
original referent of cold, dead and uncaring matter, energy space and
time of which we can have no certainty exists anyhow.
Not only can't you build a machine that can prove cause exists,
you certainly can never build a machine that gives a damn.
We need to start studying the TV set inside the tank as its own
object, rather than just use it to study things out side the tank.
As it will turn out the symbol, the conscious image, always was
more important than the alleged referent in the alleged physical
universe.
The nature of consciousness, what it is, where it comes from,
what it can do, WILL ALWAYS BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING GOING ON
INSIDE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS TELLING US ABOUT THE ALLEGED NON CONSCIOUS
PHYSICAL UNIVERSE.
Now it is true that the symbols seen both by the soldier in the
tank, and the conscious being, are very similar to the referents they
represent, however they are in fact two different objects and thus
MUST have two different quality sets.
In other words only SOME of the qualities of the symbol TV image
tree are similar to the referent tree while other qualites are very
different from each other indeed.
For the soldier, the referent tree is made of wood and the symbol
tree is made of glass and phosphors.
For the conscious being the referent tree is also made of wood,
however the conscious image of the tree is, well certainly not made of
wood.
So what is it made of then?
Ah, science takes its first step in studying consciousness as
itself, rather than as what we have been using it to refer to for all
these thousands of years of evolution, the alleged phyiscal universe.
At the point that the being sees that his consciousness is not a
nothing, but a something which is its own thing, which he is USING as
a symbol to track alleged referents in the alleged physical universe,
then he has uncollapsed symbol and referent, possibly for the first
time in his life, and he has OBJECTIVIZED CONSCIOUSNESS, recognizing
it as an object with qualities of its own.
At this point when you point to something and ask him what it is,
he will say with a smile, "That is not a tree made of wood, that is a
tree made of self luminous conscious experience."
Then you have a Phase 1 completion.
Phase 2. Restoration of Personal Integrity.
We *DEFINE* personal integrity as knowing what you know and
knowing what you don't know.
Out integrity, then, would be not knowing what you know, or not
knowing what you don't know.
There are probably 50 ways to interpret the above so the above
two sentences don't make any sense. Try to find the one way that they
do!
There are 5 buckets that all knowledge can be divided into.
1.) Those things you are perfectly certain are true.
2.) Those things you would bet are probably true.
3.) Those things you would toss a coin about, perfect 50/50 no clue.
4.) Those things you would bet are probably false.
5.) Those things you are perfectly certain are false.
Notice the bottom two buckets are redundant, because anything in
them can be put in the top two buckets simply by negating the sense of
the statement.
If you would bet it is false that ostriches can fly, you would
also bet it is true that ostriches can NOT fly.
If you are certain it is false that you do not exist, then you
are certain it is true that you do exist.
Out integrity, then, is having various beliefs in the wrong
buckets, not because you are honestly wrong, but because of well,
goofballism in one's approach to truth.
Thus every belief and every certainty needs to be re certified to
belong in the bucket they are assigned, and if they don't belong in
the bucket they are in, we move them to the bucket they belong in.
Alot of people for example are 'certain' that God exists, when in
truth they are terrified that admitting they have doubts will land
them in hell forever if in fact He does. Thus they are incapable of
being honest with themselves about those doubts lest God punish them
for heresy in the end.
This does not aid the cause of clear thinking.
This also does not bode well for their immortal souls, for if God
does exist, then surely God is a God of Truth, and He will take them
to task for NOT admitting those doubts in great detail, and not
putting the 'God exists' idea in the second or third buckets where it
may belong until such certainty is obtained through DIRECT
OBSERVATION.
People get the brownie point for honesty at the Pearly Gates, not
for enforced beliefs based on arrogance, vanity and conceit, even if
they are right in the end.
*RIGHTNESS* by chance, trust, faith and theory from indirect
perception is not as valuable as rightness by direct perception.
It is a sad statement on humanity that people consider God in
such low esteem that they have to warp their personal integrity in
order to remain in His good standing.
If there is a God, boy are they in for a surprise.
The progress of both religion and science on this planet has been
repeatedly damaged by people with "out integrity", especially those
who like to write The Book first and do the research second.
Out integrity is the opposite of IN integrity. A person's
integrity can be said to be IN when all his knowledge is properly
sorted according to their appropriate bucket without corruption,
temptation and seduction to place some tidbit in a bucket where it
does not belong.
Now there are only two kinds of knowledge, knowledge learned by
direct perception and knowledge learned by indirect perception.
Indirect perception means learning about A by looking at B in the
hopes of finding a causal imprint on B indicating the possible nature
of A.
In this case, B is evidence, A is model and the whole thing is a
theory. Thus we can call knowledge gleaned by indirect perception
theoretical knowledge.
And here I am going to say something pretty strange and perhaps
hard to swallow and certainly many academentias will Harumph! their
way around it.
Theoretical knowledge about causation can never be either true or
false, only workable or unworkable.
That's a major statement, please do not gloss over it.
Models are descriptions of things, a listing of their quality
sets.
Since dimensionality precludes direct perception of an object
other than yourself, one can never verify the 'true' quality set of
any object other than yourself.
At best one can only offer that one's theoretical model of an
object's quality set has stood the test of time. This does not prove
correctness and in fact does not even increase the probability of
correctness.
Is Einstein more probably right about how gravity works than
Newton? His model tests out better, but in the end so what? Perhaps
gravity is caused by every breath of God moving the universe forward
in such a way that it looks like there is force or curved space or 11
dimensional Spaghetti-O's making the world go round.
Models are models, they can never get at the true nature of
cause.
Thus certainty, which applies to truth and not mere workability,
can never apply to theoretical knoweldge.
Thus claiming certainty of theoretical knowledge gleaned from
indirect observation is a oxymoron, similar to asking what the square
root of a dog is. Square roots do not apply to dogs, and neither does
truth apply to theory, and so neither does certainty.
We loosely talk about proving a theory false with one counter
example, thus leading to the idea that the theory might have been true
in the first place.
The truth is theories can only be proven unworkable. They fail
the test of time to predict outcomes, and that only means the theory
is unworkable.
If a theory hasn't failed the test of time, well there is always
more time...
One can rightly claim that "I am certain I have never seen any
instance of this theory proving unworkable", but to then claim "And I
am certain I never will" would be brazen and shameless out integrity.
This kind of out integrity is a kind of scientific illness.
Oxymorons in one's belief sets are a form of out personal
integrity.
Thus the first thing that needs to be done is to clean out of the
bucket of certain truths any theoretical knowledge gleaned by indirect
observation.
There is nothing wrong with theoretical knowledge, the entirety
of our well being in the phyiscal universe depends on it, but not one
single iota of it belongs in the 'perfectly certain' bucket of
knowledge.
But then people have been walking around their whole lives with
false beliefs and ideas in the wrong buckets. Every time an idea is
put in the wrong bucket, that paves the way for more ideas to be put
in the wrong buckets.
For example we have gone over the 5 great lies.
1.) Earth is flat. Well, that idea put in the probably true
bucket, prevented people for eons from exploring the seas lest they
fall off the edge of the Earth and never return.
2.) Earth is the center of the universe. People ignored FOREVER
the data that the Earth was not the center of the universe, little
things that weren't too important to them at the time compared to
their need to believe that the Earth was the center. So one
misplacement of an idea in the wrong bucket for financial or political
purposes allows other ideas to be ignored or misrelegated and progress
is stopped cold.
Even Copernicus saw the truth but wanted everything to move in
circles around the Sun. Tyco Brahe had the data that said things
didn't move in circles, and Kepler kept wishing he could just throw
out certain points from Tyco's data sets to make things move in
circles. Fixed wrong ideas lead to disaster in the scientific quest.
Kepler finally realized that things moved in ellipses, and that
opened the door for Newton to come in and change everything.
3.) Earth is the only planet with life on it. Well so how do
they know? The Book says so? How much research did they do BEFORE
they wrote up the results in the The Book? The God of Truth is going
to be VERY displeased with some people even if they turn out to be
right in the end.
The greatest sin to a God of Truth is to write The Book first and
do the research later to fit the book.
Blind faith is not pretty in the sight of a God of Truth even if
it turns out right.
4.) This universe is the only universe there is. Oy Lord, how
small is thy God?
5.) Consciousness arose out of the physical universe,
consciousness is mass in motion, chemistry bubbling away at 98.6.
Ah well now we have stepped in it, haven't we? We have been
using consciousness for so long to learn about the alleged physical
universe, we forget that we may not have all the evidence we thought
we did that the alleged physical universe exists at all!
The mystics have been saying forever that the world is a dream,
but "they can barely feed themselves and lice live in their clothing"
(LRH), so who cares about them?
Surely if the world were a dream made of consciousness, there
would be SOME evidence for it right?
But not one iota in sight. So how come?
Well maybe people's minds are just too mucked up from false
certainties (physical universe exists) and oxymorons (my theory is
correct!), and all the remainder of various ideas being in the wrong
buckets, that their mind just isn't free any more to perceive the very
special things necessary to know "Who or what is cause around here?"
So from all this we assert another theorem which says:
If a perfect certainty has been doubted or denied, or an
uncertainty has been asserted to be true, the mind will no longer be
open enough to perceive truth and/or uncertainty as it really is.
That means just one mistake in one's allocation of ideas to
buckets and the whole process of finding truth stops.
It's amazing the Earth still turns, eh?
But ever notice how many of the people on Earth are dead, or
trying to make each other dead?
Now again we need to be real careful about this. We are not
saying that being honestly wrong will stop progress.
It is quite OK to hold that the Earth is possibly or even
probably the only planet with life on it, it is not OK at all to hold
that it is CERTAINLY the only planet with life on it, because
theoretical knowledge can't be certain anyhow.
And it is a carnal sin to claim only one planet has life on it
because my Book says so.
So anything in the certainty bins that really belongs in the
maybe bins is a killer.
Likewise anything in the maybe bins that OF NECESSITY belong in
the certainty bins is also a killer.
People walking around thinking that maybe they don't exist, who
doubt that they doubt, and who are certain they can't be certain of
anything belong in Godel Jail.
Godel Jail is where people go when they commit either of the two
sins against truth of doubting a perfect certainty, or asserting an
uncertainty as truth.
The end result is a kind of insanity where they begin to babble
self denying statements like all geralizations are false, and there
are no absolutes.
Wind between the ears.
Thus it is not an impossible goal to clean up any person's
personal integrity as long as they are willing to do so.
Perfect certainties are obvious, and so are uncertainties,
theoretical knowledge.
But one has to let go of the doubts asserted as truth lest one
be punished for honest doubt.
And one has to let go of the perfect certainties asserted as
doubts because the light of perfect certainty was horrifying.
A LOT of people deny the existence of perfect certainty simply
because it gives them the willies, the Cosmic Qualms or a bad case of
philosophical vertigo.
Once the bins are all straightened out and personal integrity is
restored in its entirety, then and only then can the mind be open
enough to have the visionary experiences necessary to see what the
true nature of consciousness and existence might be.
There is more truth of worth inside us than outside us in the
alleged phyiscal universe.
In fact I will assert in all good faith that when one's personal
integrity is completely clean again, one will have no idea whether the
alleged physical universe exists or not.
Thus that particular idea will be in bin 3, 50/50 no clue.
The 50/50 mark of not knowing whether the world is a dream or not
is the hot edged fence that keeps one awake and aware looking for any
slightest hint either way.
For if the world is not a dream, the conscious unit is mortal and
will surely die one day, and no one has had time enough for love, and
never will.
If the world is a dream, the conscious unit is immortal and will
live forever outside of time, and be able to engage in time as it
will, forever for free.
"I doubt I am, therefore I am, for a nothing could not wonder if
it was a nothing or a something." - Descartes.
"I know I am with perfect certainty, therefore I am forever." -
Homer
Attaining the 50/50 state of not knowing whether the world is a
dream or not, the being has attained a Phase 2 completion. He won't
be happy, but he will be a lot saner than those around him who haven't
gotten there yet.
3.) The Proof Proper.
With the being yearning for new data to finally end his torment
on the fence of 50/50, we introduce the ideas of perfect certainty,
distance and learning by being an effect.
Very simply, if two objects are separated by a distance, the only
way they can learn about each other is by learning by being an effect
of each other.
Since effect does not prove cause, learning by being an effect
can not produce learning with certainty of any kind about the source
of those effects.
Since consciousness CAN learn with certainty about its own color
forms and self, there can be no distance between learner and learned
about.
Thus if you can see with perfect certainty two different colors
out there, they can't be out there because if they were out there you
couldn't see them.
If A and B are separated by an actual distance, then the only way
B can learn about A is to be the effect of A and from those changes IN
ITSELF, B can begin to draw theories about the suspected nature of A.
At no time can B see A at all, because B is not A.
Distance between two objects precludes direct perception and thus
precludes the self luminous light of perfect certainty.
You can SEE red and green, thus there can be no distance between
you and what you see. That is the conscious light of perfect
certainty.
Distance between two objects mandates indirect perception and
thus mandates the darkness of theory and model.
That which is directly seen is therefore not separated from one.
NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS.
Thus consciousness has no distance in that part of its nature
which can see itself with perfect certainty, and thus is non
dimensional in that nature.
Once that is perceived, the rest follows in due time, the being
is well on their way to a new and wonderful adventure of consciousness
is something, and the alleged physical universe is, well, who the hell
cares.
Your faithful servant,
Homer Wilson Smith
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Aug 13 22:52:44 EDT 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
No comments:
Post a Comment