-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURES
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val1.txt
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val2.txt
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val3.txt
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val4.txt
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val5.txt
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul 30 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore655.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQFjJaURT1lqxE3HERAnU8AJ9T6Qy4Im3ZnNunThKgCGbO6xZHxACgmCek
PhdcoYmR2FkboYn94ZqKiy4=
=D22C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, July 30, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
SINS OF THE CHILDEN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SINS OF THE CHILDREN
>> If you create something and you KNOW it has the potential to go
>>out and do wrong, then if it does go out and do wrong, YOU are
>>responsible and should be held accountable.
>
>Hehehe. So if I have a kid that grows up to be a murderer I am responsible?
Gee, now that's a thought isn't it. I guess thinking and
responsibility are new to Christians.
Husband: 'Well honey, I think its time we had some kids, don't
you?"
Wife: "Sure, dear, but, you know, what happens if one of them turns
out to be a murder or something, or an Anti Christ? "
Husband: "Well, now that's none of our business you know, and
besides once he is 18, he is accountable for his own actions, and if he
does do wrong, God's got someplace proper to put him, Hell Forever, at
the end of his life."
Wife: "Oh well, that's a relief dear, stick it here...'
Maybe if parents were held responsible for the actions of their
children things might change around here. People wouldn't go having
children without thinking about it twice.
And the stupid hand wringing parents couldn't get away with, 'But
we did our best!'
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clear Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jul 29 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sotc.bak
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQFODbURT1lqxE3HERAmUrAJ414k8Qj3dac/AfUC4esVRYSURYBwCgs8ts
BagDcEH555NQvynfNyi7RL4=
=uiJ/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SINS OF THE CHILDREN
>> If you create something and you KNOW it has the potential to go
>>out and do wrong, then if it does go out and do wrong, YOU are
>>responsible and should be held accountable.
>
>Hehehe. So if I have a kid that grows up to be a murderer I am responsible?
Gee, now that's a thought isn't it. I guess thinking and
responsibility are new to Christians.
Husband: 'Well honey, I think its time we had some kids, don't
you?"
Wife: "Sure, dear, but, you know, what happens if one of them turns
out to be a murder or something, or an Anti Christ? "
Husband: "Well, now that's none of our business you know, and
besides once he is 18, he is accountable for his own actions, and if he
does do wrong, God's got someplace proper to put him, Hell Forever, at
the end of his life."
Wife: "Oh well, that's a relief dear, stick it here...'
Maybe if parents were held responsible for the actions of their
children things might change around here. People wouldn't go having
children without thinking about it twice.
And the stupid hand wringing parents couldn't get away with, 'But
we did our best!'
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clear Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jul 29 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sotc.bak
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQFODbURT1lqxE3HERAmUrAJ414k8Qj3dac/AfUC4esVRYSURYBwCgs8ts
BagDcEH555NQvynfNyi7RL4=
=uiJ/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, July 27, 2012
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE IV
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE IV
THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
OK, today is Tuesday, March 31st 2009, a beautiful day in the
afternoon at Cornell.
These quick summaries haven't been so quick, have they?
And we have been summarizing summaries until the cows come home.
The cow's symbol is Daisy by the way.
But hopefully we have a good understanding of what has been said
here and can repeat it back easily or at least catch someone else when
they mess around with it and pull a fast one on us.
"The pianist's interpretation of Chopin was sad and melancholy."
Bzzzt.
The pianist's RENDITIION of Chopin was....
The audiences INTERPRETATION of the pianist's rendition...
So this time we are going to go directly to the meat of the matter
as fast as we can.
THE FOUR LINES OF THE PROOF
So far we have covered the second and third lines of the proof
which are:
2.) DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT.
3.) LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT IMPLIES NOT LEARNING WITH
CERTAINTY.
The 1.) line of the proof is very easy and we don't have to spend
much time on it, because it is a logical tautology.
It says simply either you are learning with certainty or you
aren't.
More formally that goes:
1.) LEARNING IMPLIES LEARNING WITH CERTAINTY OR LEARNING WITH NOT
CERTAINTY.
'Not certainty' of course simply means uncertainty like what any
multidimensional machine has to suffer due to its nature of separation
of parts and separation from what it is learning about.
Now we got to talk about logic here a bit.
LOGIC
Logic is a description of the meaning of the words IS AND IS NOT.
IS, ARE, EXISTS, and BE, are all the same thing, just different
tenses and conjugations of the same idea, TO BE and TO NOT BE.
An important quality of the word IS, is that it follows the
following formula absolutely, without fail or exception.
IS is IS IS means IS
IS is not IS NOT IS does not mean IS NOT
IS NOT is IS NOT IS NOT means IS NOT
IS NOT is not IS. IS NOT does not mean IS
On the left is the formal statement of the pattern, on the right an
easier translation. The left one however is the magipotent one.
You can't change the wording of magic incantations just to make
them more grammatically correct or easier for teacher to understand and
still expect them to work, now can you.
So propagate the left one, not the right one, to your secret clubs.
Hey if the square root of 2 could have a secret club, perfect
certainty can have one too!
The reason that logic is perfectly certain is because it is a
description of the word IS, and IS is a description of the nature of
your own consciousness.
You do have a consciousness, don't you?
You sure?
You would bet your eternity in hell on it?
You would bet everyone else's eternity in hell on it?
OK, then join the perfect certainty club.
You ARE, you SEE that you are, and you KNOW that you see that you
are.
And that is a PERFECT CERTAINTY because it can't possibly be wrong,
right?
You doubt that you exist?
Do you doubt that you doubt?
How can you not exist, and yet still doubt whether you exist or
not?
Because consciousness is self luminous, and self aware, it can see
it exists by direct perception, it can see by direct perception that its
DOUBT exists, and it can see what the meaning of TO EXIST means by that
same direct perception.
There is no other standard of what TO EXIST means.
Self aware, self luminous consciousness is there to show you!
Consciousness has the highest possible ontological status of all
things because of consciousness's perfect certainty of it's own
existence!
That's a joke, as there are no degrees of ontological status,
either you are or you aren't.
But consciousness is the only thing that can be SURE it exists!
Everything else is a theory, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't,
THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW, AND THAT IS KNOWN!
So I hope the point has been made clear, you exist.
Since your conscious unit can see that it IS, and isn't ISN'T, you
thus have perfect certainty of your own existence and what it means to
exist.
Since you have perfect certainty of your own ISness and what it
means TO IS, you thus have perfect certainty of logic which is merely a
formal statement of what IS means.
In logic text books this is usually stated as the big 3:
If you IS, then you IS.
Either you IS or you IS NOT.
You can't be both IS and IS NOT at the same time.
Ayn Rand wrote a whole book called Atlas Shrugged, about people who
couldn't grok the nature of logic or consciousness (nor production and
ownership for that matter).
The book's 3 major sections were entitled:
1.) A implies A.
2.) Either A or not A.
3.) Never A and not A.
Ever hear someone say "Logic *IS* illogical?"
Well that little word *IS* in there damns them into Godel jail,
because they are USING logic to deny logic and that is, well now what do
we call it, hold on a moment, I will think of it, oh yeah,
*MIND BROKE*.
GODEL JAIL
Godel jail is where people go who think in contradictions.
"All truth is relative."
"All generalities are false."
"There are no absolutes."
"There is no truth."
"I can prove logic wrong."
"I am certain I can't be certain of anything!"
"I can't be certain of anything, and I doubt that to!"
"I doubt that I exist, and I doubt that I doubt.
At least I am being consistent.
I think."
"I am uncertain whether I am uncertain."
"I am undecided whether I am undecided."
"Well I am certain I exist, as far as it goes.
But I could always be wrong.
You can ALWAYS be wrong!
Even that could always be wrong."
"Maybe I just think I see two different colors around me with
perfect certainty."
"Maybe I am a wrong robot programmed to think that I am certain
when in fact I am not and can't be. You can program a robot to think
and say anything, you know."
"If someone else thinks I don't exist, then maybe I don't!"
"Maybe I am someone else's hallucination."
Right and if we could find that other guy and give him some Prozac,
you would disappear and his life would be much better, wouldn't it.
MIND BROKE MIND BROKE MIND BROKE MIND BROKE MIND BROKE
You don't have lots of friends like this?
Sigh, I must be a magnet for idiots.
THE WRONG ROBOT PROBLEM.
The wrong robot problem is a serious problem for some people.
particularly those who run away from perfect certainties, because the
certainty of pain is too much for them.
A wrong robot can be programmed to think and say anything, so when
you as a conscious unit say, "I can see that I see and therefore I
exist", they will challenge you with, but maybe you are just a wrong
robot that has been programmed to say that you see that you see and
therefore you exist, when in fact you can't see that you see, and in
truth haven't a clue whether you exist or not (which is the fate of all
machines.)
Seeing that you see is not a mechanical process, even if the
results of seeing are being reported by the brain and a mouth, or a line
printer. Not much difference.
From the outside looking in at such a person, you don't really know
if he is a wrong robot programmed to claim he is a conscious being, or a
conscious being programmed to claim he might be a wrong robot for that
matter.
But from the inside looking at itself, those that can see that they
see can be very certain that is what is going on. A robot doesn't see
anything, it merely REPORTS that it does. So if you see that you see,
then you are not a robot, wrong or right.
And if you are a conscious being that is claiming to be a wrong
robot, you should go see a psych or something and get your fears of
daddy, girls or God cleared up.
PARTY LINES
A party line is that fixed idea, pet theory, or philosophical
vanity that when confronted with evidence or reason that it is wrong,
overrules that evidence or reason.
The core party line is the perfect certainty that:
Perfect certainty is impossible, unimportant, useless, undesirable
or dangerous.
THE PEANUT GALLERY
"At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it was unimportant.
Then they said it was dangerous.
Then they said they knew it all along."
WHAT IT MEANS TO EXIST
Now I gotta say something about existence here.
I ran into a professor once of theoretical physics who said he had
no idea what existence meant.
I was pressing him on the subject of perfect certainty, and he was
giving me the same old same old "Oh well no, you can't be certain of
anything!"
Of that he was quite certain.
"It's not polite to be certain of things, you could always be
wrong!"
So I said "You are certain you exist aren't you?"
And he responded "Oh well I have no real clue what I am, or even
what it means to exist."
I was going to say "You're sure of that are you?" but I held my
tongue.
Apparently academentia is a holding pen for idiots.
So look, let's end this once and for all.
Existence is a quality of being that belongs in the object quality
sets of objects which exist, and doesn't belong in the quality sets of
objects that don't exist.
There is something very simple here.
Take any two colors out there in your conscious space, such as a
patch of red and another patch of green. Say you are looking at two
books and their bindings sitting next to each other, and the left one is
red and the right one is green.
Now we don't care about the alleged physical universe books, we
only care about your conscious experience of the red and the green which
you can see directly.
Maybe you are dreaming, imagining, or hallucinating and the
physical books aren't really there, we don't care, all we care is that
you see the books, see the two different colors and can tell with
perfect certainty that they are TWO DIFFERENT COLORS.
So on the left is an object WHICH IS RED.
On the right is an object WHICH IS GREEN.
Now notice, something can't BE RED, without BEING first!
Redness is in fact a limitation on being.
An object can be, then it can be red or green.
So if you are saying an object IS RED, you are saying that the
object IS.
Thus we can assert the following:
IS RED implies IS.
IS GREEN implies IS.
IS ANYTHING implies IS, except IS NOT.
(That's a Godel Jail joke.
Sorry, Godel Jail inmates have no sense of humor when it comes to
IS and IS NOT.)
Now let's diagram this simply so we can deal once and for all with
these high falutin' PhD's who don't know whether they exist or not.
We have two objects, one of which is red and one of which is green,
and we will call them A and B. Thus we have two different quality sets,
one for A and one for B.
The quality set for A contains two qualities, exists and red.
The quality set for B contains two qualities, exists and green.
Thus between the two quality sets there is one quality which is the
same for both objects, namely exists, and two other qualities which are
different for each, namely red and green.
So now go take another good look at the red and green objects in
present time. Go on, go do it, right now.
If you don't have two different colored objects in your
environment, open your eyes. Or use the black ink and white paper you
are presently reading. You wouldn't be able to read it unless there
were two different colors there, right? You are sure?
Notice the two qualities that are different between the two colors.
Notice the red and green and how they are different from each
other.
Now, notice the one quality that is the same between the two
objects.
Notice the existence in the first object and notice the existence
in the second object and then notice how these two instantiations of
existence are identical between the two objects.
Instantiation means an 'instance of' rendered in actuality.
Green existence is exactly the same as red existence.
Existence is existence no matter what adorns and thus limits it.
Each of the two objects exist exactly as much and in the same way
as the other.
In the redness and the greenness you will see something that is
different between those two qualities, namely their color.
But in that same redness and greenness you will see something that
is exactly the same between the two of them, namely EXISTS.
Well you know what red and green means because of direct experience
of them in your consciousness, right? I mean no one could ever possibly
EXPLAIN to you what red and green are unless you actually saw them
yourself in your own consciousness.
AND YOU COULD NEVER LEARN WHAT RED AND GREEN LOOK LIKE BY LEARNING
BY BEING THE EFFECT OF THEM.
If red and green were referents and you were looking at a later
symbol that was imprinted with causal data about the prior referents,
the symbol might indicate that there were two different colors in the
referent, but would it show you WHAT THE TWO COLORS ACTUALLY LOOKED
LIKE?
No.
Well now you know what EXISTS means for the same reason, because of
your direct experience of existence in your consciousness. No one could
ever explain to you what TO BE means any more than what TO BE RED means,
but there it is for you to see directly and thus to know exactly and
only what it means.
LIMITATION ON BEING
Now notice a while back I said that TO BE RED was a limitation on
TO BE. That means that TO BE means you could be anything, but once you
are RED, well that means you aren't GREEN!
A whole mess of other things you aren't either.
TO BE SQUARE means you aren't ROUND.
You see? So we all know what to be red and green, and round and
square mean, but we have trouble with what TO BE means, because it means
existence unlimited by anything specific.
Yet everything specific carries the quality of existence into it's
instantiation of limitation.
PARALLATION - PARALLEL RELATION
Now there used to be a game we would play that is useful when
trying to learn a new language with someone who speaks a different
tongue.
You put an apple on the table and you say 'Apple!'.
Now of course they know what an apple is because they eat them all
the time, but they have no clue what your word 'Apple' means.
It could mean apple, or it could mean fruit, or it could mean food,
or it could mean object, or it could mean exists.
So you put an orange on the table and you say 'Orange', and then
point to both and say 'Fruit'.
By putting the orange on the table, you have demonstrated that
apple does not mean fruit.
Apples are fruits, but an apple is a more limited kind of fruit.
If apple meant fruit, then you could point at both the apple and
the orange and call them both apples.
Then you put some chicken on the table and you say 'Meat' and then
point to all three and say 'Food'.
You see after a while the process of parallation will deliver an
understanding to the other person of what your words do and do not mean.
What you are doing is placing many different quality sets on the
table, grouping them into classes, and then calling off the class label
for the qualities that are both common and unique to all those quality
sets.
PERTINENT QUALITIES
The set of qualities which are common and unique to a set of
objects is called the PERTINENT QUALITIES of the class or concept that
encompass all the objects in the group.
Consider a table with apples, oranges and meat on it.
It is not true that all the objects on the table are apples, or
fruit, but they are all food.
The more different objects you place on the table, the broader and
more general your common concept becomes.
Apple is very specific, fruit less so, food even less so, and
object even less so.
In the limit, if you were to place EVERY OBJECT IN EXISTENCE on the
table, what would be the only remaining common quality to all of them?
You got it Goober, existence.
So if you do this process in your head with the universe around
you, take a look at EVERYTHING you see, and ask yourself repeatedly what
the common quality is to all these things, eventually you will
differentiate out 'existence', and then you will know exactly what
existence means and you will be seeing it directly in everything you
have looked at.
Be sure to spot yourself amongst all those things also, so you will
see that you also exist.
Then you can throw your PhD out, because you are no longer
certified stupid.
By the way the word PARALLATION means Parallel Relation, and really
should be Parallel Qualities, meaning common qualities.
For example, all apples are related to the class of apples, and all
oranges are related to the class of oranges, so we have two separate
relations going on 'in parallel' or at the same time. It is the two
separate relatingnesses going on at the same time that demarc the fact
that there are two separate groups being defined, and allows us to
descriminate between them and understand their labels (language) as
intended.
Another way of looking at this is, every object on the table is
RELATED to each other by COMMON (parallel, similar) qualities, and
parallation is the mental process of gleaning those common qualities to
determine the meaning of a word.
Parallation is a terrible word and should be struck from the
language, but until someone comes up with a better word for this
process, we are stuck with it.
COMMON AND UNIQUE
The process of parallation is used to determine or define the
pertinent quality set of a class of objects that are related by common
and unique qualities in their quality sets.
Common means every object in the class has the pertinent quality
set.
Unique means that every object that has the pertinent quality set,
is in the class.
You can run this both ways.
You can start with a group of objects, and try to guess the
pertinent qualities that fit them.
This method is used to learn a new language when the pertinenet
quality sets of words are already known to the other person, but not to
you. So he shows you groups of objects and words until you get what
the word means. Any baby learns this way.
Or you can DEFINE a pertinent quality set out of whole cloth, and
then try to figure out which objects belong to the set.
PHILOSOPHY 101
Back in '69 freshman year, I got a C+ in philosophy 101 for laying
parallation out in detail for teacher.
His comment was "There is some thinking going on in this paper."
Of course it didn't help my grade that I had skipped half the class
and made jokes at his expense when I did show up.
Hey I was majoring in pot back then, and I wasn't about to let
school get in the way of my education.
Yet sometimes I wonder what the guy who got an A wrote for his term
paper.
THE TOP LEVEL CONCEPT
Yeah I know this is boring, we will get back to God and damnation
shortly.
As a last comment here, it is probably NOT true that 'existence' is
the highest level concept, because there are objects which do not exist.
Formally we say there are actual existences, and hypothetical
existences.
Unicorns are objects with well delineated quality sets, but they
don't exist in the world of actual existence, but do exist in the world
of hypothetical existence.
This creates great room for confusion, because we don't like to say
that unicorns exist, but we do like to use the word IS to describe them,
'They is horses with one horn.'
So when we say that something exists, do we mean actually or
hypothetically?
Formally there is no problem, we just have to be aware that the
popular usage of TO EXIST means actual existence and not hypothetical
existence, even though the formal meaning includes both.
But trying to get this across to Goober and Dufus can be hard.
And what about objects that don't exist at all, in either sense?
One would expect the broadest and highest level class to have but
one quality in its pertinent quality set. If it had more than one,
there would be fewer objects in it as each quality is a further
limitation on its nature.
There are more square things, than there are square and red things.
Thus square is a broader class (has more objects in it) than the
class of red squares.
In other words we are looking for the class that contains all
things that can be classified.
In seeking the class that contains all objects everywhere, we need
it to be free of limiting qualities of any kind.
We said that the quality 'IS' is existence free of any limitation,
but we also pointed out there are at least two kinds of existence,
actual and hypothetical, so we have contradicted ourselves.
If we are willing to accept that existence includes both actual and
hypothetical existences, then we have our top level concept in
existence.
But we are going to take a different route here and say that both
actual existences and hypothetical existences are different objects with
different quality sets.
Thus both actual existences and hypothetical existences are
subsumed under the class called OBJECTS.
The one quality common and unique to all objects is having a
quality set whether empty or not!
Thus both somethings and nothings are objects.
I will leave it up to the astute reader to smell out the Godel jail
in the above and demarc it carefully so no one falls into it.
So we can conclude that the broadest concept of all is OBJECT, and
everything that is or could be, can rightly be called an object.
In other words there is nothing that is not an object.
Which means classes and qualities are objects too!
And yes Goobie, if you are not careful you will be visiting the
Bertrand Russell ward of the Godel Jail insane asylum very soon.
BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE FIRST GODEL JAIL
Russell was one of the world's greatest philosophers and he spent
an entire summer in Godel Jail looking at a blank piece of paper trying
to figure out if the class of all classes that were not members of
themselves, was a member of itself. Or not.
That's like asking what is the truth value of:
"This statement is false."
Russell had gotten himself into a world class Godel Jail, and it
took him a long to time fix the damage.
The answer is, if you assume the statement is true then it is
false, and if you assume it false, then it's true. Thus the statement
is a contradiction and thus undecidable.
Formally we say the statement is degenerate, that is, not a Well
Formed Formula or WFF (pronounced WOOF).
Russell spent the next summer looking at another blank piece of
paper trying to figure out if the class of all classes that WERE members
of themselves, was a member of itself.
This was like asking what is the truth value of:
"This statement is true."
The answer is, if you assume the statement is true, then it is
true, if you assume it is false, then it is false. Thus this statement
is also undecidable, and although not a contradiction, is still
degenerate as hell.
In a fit of revenge he left the last one up to Godel as a home work
assignment while Russell went off and played with the girls on the
beach:
"This statement is undecidable."
The answer is, if you assume it is true, then it is false because
that wouldn't be an undecidability. And if you assume it is false, then
it is also false, because that also wouldn't be an undecidability.
So it is tempting to claim "This statement is undecidable" is in
fact false because it becomes false whether you assume it true or false.
So now that you have decided that 'this statement is undecidable'
is in fact false, it has become a decidability, which of course makes it
more false.
But if you assume the statement is UNDECIDABLE, then the statement
is true as it claims, which is a contradiction, as being true is not an
undecidability.
An so into the Russell spin bin mental ward you go.
Fortunately the existence of degenerate or undecidable statements
in logic does not influence in any way the validity of the decidable
statements of logic.
In other words the undecidability of any particular logical
statement will never have any possible influence on the outcome of a
decidable statement.
IS is IS remains true, as does IS isn't ISN'T.
Thus undecidables live in their own black hole unable to influence
any part of the real world around them.
In the end undecidables are unWFF's, not Well Formed Formulas, and
an unWFF can't influence a WFF, and only WFF's apply to the real world.
Those that argue that all of logic is undecidable because some
small degenerate areas are undecidable are mind broke.
By the way the undecidability of degenerate statements must not be
confused with the undecidabilities that Godel was eventually to become
famous for, which had nothing to do with the self denying degeneration
of the above examples.
But again the same rule applies, the existence of undecidabilities
in any logic or arithmetic, whether degenerate or not, does not
influence the validity of decidabilities in those same areas.
So logic holds whether people want it to or not.
WHY IS KNOWING YOU EXIST SO IMPORTANT
Well the mere fact that you CAN be certain of your own existence is
beyond astounding and undermines just about every thought that anyone
has ever had on the subject of how things work, and what is true and
what isn't.
The second fact, that everyone is using their consciousness, which
can be perfectly certain of its own existence, to symbolize an alleged
physical universe, which no one can ever be certain about anything,
further aggravates that astonishment.
People apparently care more about what their consciousness
represents to them about the alleged physical universe, than about the
nature of the representer, their conscious unit itself.
THE NATURE OF THE REPRESENTER IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE NATURE OF
THE REPRESENTED.
Thus pushers of the party line, those who are certain they can't be
certain of anything, let alone their own existence, are a walking insult
to the glory of God in carnation.
That they, too, ARE that same multi I-AM God in carnation just adds
to the mystery.
Frankly I think that PhD's that don't know if they exist or not
should be execrated on the spot.
After being tested for existence of course. Wouldn't want to
execrate some poor guy who doesn't exist, now would we?
To execrate means to call down the damnation of the Devil upon.
You know, if someone doesn't know if they exist, they certainly
don't know if YOU exist either.
And if they don't know you exist, then they don't know if you feel
pain, and they also don't know if they care or give a damn if you feel
pain.
Next time you run into someone who hurts, ask them if they are SURE
they hurt. If they say yes, point out that a machine can't do that.
Then ask them if they are sure they exist.
If they say no, point out to them the cognitive dissonance of being
certain they hurt, but not being sure they exist.
The pain exists but they don't?
A machine can't even know that it exists, let alone that it hurts.
And since all pain is SELF LUMINOUS KNOWING PAIN, a machine can't
hurt at all.
These people who don't know if they exist or not, who are not
capable of operating the perfect certainty facility (faculty) of their
own consciousness, are very dangerous people to have around, building
atom bombs and pretty red buttons to go with them.
Kind of like the Staples Red Button that says 'That was easy!'
There are people who don't care if they leave the Earth growing
green or glowing green.
They generally are certain of things they can't possibly be certain
of, their personal bigotry for one, and not certain of things they can
be certain of, namely their own conscious selves.
If ever there was a scourge on the face of the Earth, on society
and the well being of mankind, these are them.
I know they are our brothers like everyone else, but it is time to
call an idiot and idiot and refuse to allow society to institutionalize
such idiocy in our halls of worship and lower learning.
Let alone the halls of government and power.
The Proof is an effort to end idiotism in our life.
SCIENCE AND RELIGION REVISITED
You know, a while back in a moment of distemper I said,
"In it's race to Armageddon, religion is trying to destroy the
world, and in it's race to build weapons of mass destruction, science is
trying to provide religion the means of doing so."
Considering those good people in science and religion, this is
untrue and highly unfair.
But considering those bad people in science and religion, it's a
fair take, and if you add in the bad people in government and big
business where war is big money, you have a world scene that is a few
control rods short of a stable nuclear pile.
About the only people with clean hands are the artists.
OK, let's take a break.
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 Apr 14 15:01:32 EDT 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 27 12:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val4.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
THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
OK, today is Tuesday, March 31st 2009, a beautiful day in the
afternoon at Cornell.
These quick summaries haven't been so quick, have they?
And we have been summarizing summaries until the cows come home.
The cow's symbol is Daisy by the way.
But hopefully we have a good understanding of what has been said
here and can repeat it back easily or at least catch someone else when
they mess around with it and pull a fast one on us.
"The pianist's interpretation of Chopin was sad and melancholy."
Bzzzt.
The pianist's RENDITIION of Chopin was....
The audiences INTERPRETATION of the pianist's rendition...
So this time we are going to go directly to the meat of the matter
as fast as we can.
THE FOUR LINES OF THE PROOF
So far we have covered the second and third lines of the proof
which are:
2.) DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT.
3.) LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT IMPLIES NOT LEARNING WITH
CERTAINTY.
The 1.) line of the proof is very easy and we don't have to spend
much time on it, because it is a logical tautology.
It says simply either you are learning with certainty or you
aren't.
More formally that goes:
1.) LEARNING IMPLIES LEARNING WITH CERTAINTY OR LEARNING WITH NOT
CERTAINTY.
'Not certainty' of course simply means uncertainty like what any
multidimensional machine has to suffer due to its nature of separation
of parts and separation from what it is learning about.
Now we got to talk about logic here a bit.
LOGIC
Logic is a description of the meaning of the words IS AND IS NOT.
IS, ARE, EXISTS, and BE, are all the same thing, just different
tenses and conjugations of the same idea, TO BE and TO NOT BE.
An important quality of the word IS, is that it follows the
following formula absolutely, without fail or exception.
IS is IS IS means IS
IS is not IS NOT IS does not mean IS NOT
IS NOT is IS NOT IS NOT means IS NOT
IS NOT is not IS. IS NOT does not mean IS
On the left is the formal statement of the pattern, on the right an
easier translation. The left one however is the magipotent one.
You can't change the wording of magic incantations just to make
them more grammatically correct or easier for teacher to understand and
still expect them to work, now can you.
So propagate the left one, not the right one, to your secret clubs.
Hey if the square root of 2 could have a secret club, perfect
certainty can have one too!
The reason that logic is perfectly certain is because it is a
description of the word IS, and IS is a description of the nature of
your own consciousness.
You do have a consciousness, don't you?
You sure?
You would bet your eternity in hell on it?
You would bet everyone else's eternity in hell on it?
OK, then join the perfect certainty club.
You ARE, you SEE that you are, and you KNOW that you see that you
are.
And that is a PERFECT CERTAINTY because it can't possibly be wrong,
right?
You doubt that you exist?
Do you doubt that you doubt?
How can you not exist, and yet still doubt whether you exist or
not?
Because consciousness is self luminous, and self aware, it can see
it exists by direct perception, it can see by direct perception that its
DOUBT exists, and it can see what the meaning of TO EXIST means by that
same direct perception.
There is no other standard of what TO EXIST means.
Self aware, self luminous consciousness is there to show you!
Consciousness has the highest possible ontological status of all
things because of consciousness's perfect certainty of it's own
existence!
That's a joke, as there are no degrees of ontological status,
either you are or you aren't.
But consciousness is the only thing that can be SURE it exists!
Everything else is a theory, maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't,
THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW, AND THAT IS KNOWN!
So I hope the point has been made clear, you exist.
Since your conscious unit can see that it IS, and isn't ISN'T, you
thus have perfect certainty of your own existence and what it means to
exist.
Since you have perfect certainty of your own ISness and what it
means TO IS, you thus have perfect certainty of logic which is merely a
formal statement of what IS means.
In logic text books this is usually stated as the big 3:
If you IS, then you IS.
Either you IS or you IS NOT.
You can't be both IS and IS NOT at the same time.
Ayn Rand wrote a whole book called Atlas Shrugged, about people who
couldn't grok the nature of logic or consciousness (nor production and
ownership for that matter).
The book's 3 major sections were entitled:
1.) A implies A.
2.) Either A or not A.
3.) Never A and not A.
Ever hear someone say "Logic *IS* illogical?"
Well that little word *IS* in there damns them into Godel jail,
because they are USING logic to deny logic and that is, well now what do
we call it, hold on a moment, I will think of it, oh yeah,
*MIND BROKE*.
GODEL JAIL
Godel jail is where people go who think in contradictions.
"All truth is relative."
"All generalities are false."
"There are no absolutes."
"There is no truth."
"I can prove logic wrong."
"I am certain I can't be certain of anything!"
"I can't be certain of anything, and I doubt that to!"
"I doubt that I exist, and I doubt that I doubt.
At least I am being consistent.
I think."
"I am uncertain whether I am uncertain."
"I am undecided whether I am undecided."
"Well I am certain I exist, as far as it goes.
But I could always be wrong.
You can ALWAYS be wrong!
Even that could always be wrong."
"Maybe I just think I see two different colors around me with
perfect certainty."
"Maybe I am a wrong robot programmed to think that I am certain
when in fact I am not and can't be. You can program a robot to think
and say anything, you know."
"If someone else thinks I don't exist, then maybe I don't!"
"Maybe I am someone else's hallucination."
Right and if we could find that other guy and give him some Prozac,
you would disappear and his life would be much better, wouldn't it.
MIND BROKE MIND BROKE MIND BROKE MIND BROKE MIND BROKE
You don't have lots of friends like this?
Sigh, I must be a magnet for idiots.
THE WRONG ROBOT PROBLEM.
The wrong robot problem is a serious problem for some people.
particularly those who run away from perfect certainties, because the
certainty of pain is too much for them.
A wrong robot can be programmed to think and say anything, so when
you as a conscious unit say, "I can see that I see and therefore I
exist", they will challenge you with, but maybe you are just a wrong
robot that has been programmed to say that you see that you see and
therefore you exist, when in fact you can't see that you see, and in
truth haven't a clue whether you exist or not (which is the fate of all
machines.)
Seeing that you see is not a mechanical process, even if the
results of seeing are being reported by the brain and a mouth, or a line
printer. Not much difference.
From the outside looking in at such a person, you don't really know
if he is a wrong robot programmed to claim he is a conscious being, or a
conscious being programmed to claim he might be a wrong robot for that
matter.
But from the inside looking at itself, those that can see that they
see can be very certain that is what is going on. A robot doesn't see
anything, it merely REPORTS that it does. So if you see that you see,
then you are not a robot, wrong or right.
And if you are a conscious being that is claiming to be a wrong
robot, you should go see a psych or something and get your fears of
daddy, girls or God cleared up.
PARTY LINES
A party line is that fixed idea, pet theory, or philosophical
vanity that when confronted with evidence or reason that it is wrong,
overrules that evidence or reason.
The core party line is the perfect certainty that:
Perfect certainty is impossible, unimportant, useless, undesirable
or dangerous.
THE PEANUT GALLERY
"At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it was unimportant.
Then they said it was dangerous.
Then they said they knew it all along."
WHAT IT MEANS TO EXIST
Now I gotta say something about existence here.
I ran into a professor once of theoretical physics who said he had
no idea what existence meant.
I was pressing him on the subject of perfect certainty, and he was
giving me the same old same old "Oh well no, you can't be certain of
anything!"
Of that he was quite certain.
"It's not polite to be certain of things, you could always be
wrong!"
So I said "You are certain you exist aren't you?"
And he responded "Oh well I have no real clue what I am, or even
what it means to exist."
I was going to say "You're sure of that are you?" but I held my
tongue.
Apparently academentia is a holding pen for idiots.
So look, let's end this once and for all.
Existence is a quality of being that belongs in the object quality
sets of objects which exist, and doesn't belong in the quality sets of
objects that don't exist.
There is something very simple here.
Take any two colors out there in your conscious space, such as a
patch of red and another patch of green. Say you are looking at two
books and their bindings sitting next to each other, and the left one is
red and the right one is green.
Now we don't care about the alleged physical universe books, we
only care about your conscious experience of the red and the green which
you can see directly.
Maybe you are dreaming, imagining, or hallucinating and the
physical books aren't really there, we don't care, all we care is that
you see the books, see the two different colors and can tell with
perfect certainty that they are TWO DIFFERENT COLORS.
So on the left is an object WHICH IS RED.
On the right is an object WHICH IS GREEN.
Now notice, something can't BE RED, without BEING first!
Redness is in fact a limitation on being.
An object can be, then it can be red or green.
So if you are saying an object IS RED, you are saying that the
object IS.
Thus we can assert the following:
IS RED implies IS.
IS GREEN implies IS.
IS ANYTHING implies IS, except IS NOT.
(That's a Godel Jail joke.
Sorry, Godel Jail inmates have no sense of humor when it comes to
IS and IS NOT.)
Now let's diagram this simply so we can deal once and for all with
these high falutin' PhD's who don't know whether they exist or not.
We have two objects, one of which is red and one of which is green,
and we will call them A and B. Thus we have two different quality sets,
one for A and one for B.
The quality set for A contains two qualities, exists and red.
The quality set for B contains two qualities, exists and green.
Thus between the two quality sets there is one quality which is the
same for both objects, namely exists, and two other qualities which are
different for each, namely red and green.
So now go take another good look at the red and green objects in
present time. Go on, go do it, right now.
If you don't have two different colored objects in your
environment, open your eyes. Or use the black ink and white paper you
are presently reading. You wouldn't be able to read it unless there
were two different colors there, right? You are sure?
Notice the two qualities that are different between the two colors.
Notice the red and green and how they are different from each
other.
Now, notice the one quality that is the same between the two
objects.
Notice the existence in the first object and notice the existence
in the second object and then notice how these two instantiations of
existence are identical between the two objects.
Instantiation means an 'instance of' rendered in actuality.
Green existence is exactly the same as red existence.
Existence is existence no matter what adorns and thus limits it.
Each of the two objects exist exactly as much and in the same way
as the other.
In the redness and the greenness you will see something that is
different between those two qualities, namely their color.
But in that same redness and greenness you will see something that
is exactly the same between the two of them, namely EXISTS.
Well you know what red and green means because of direct experience
of them in your consciousness, right? I mean no one could ever possibly
EXPLAIN to you what red and green are unless you actually saw them
yourself in your own consciousness.
AND YOU COULD NEVER LEARN WHAT RED AND GREEN LOOK LIKE BY LEARNING
BY BEING THE EFFECT OF THEM.
If red and green were referents and you were looking at a later
symbol that was imprinted with causal data about the prior referents,
the symbol might indicate that there were two different colors in the
referent, but would it show you WHAT THE TWO COLORS ACTUALLY LOOKED
LIKE?
No.
Well now you know what EXISTS means for the same reason, because of
your direct experience of existence in your consciousness. No one could
ever explain to you what TO BE means any more than what TO BE RED means,
but there it is for you to see directly and thus to know exactly and
only what it means.
LIMITATION ON BEING
Now notice a while back I said that TO BE RED was a limitation on
TO BE. That means that TO BE means you could be anything, but once you
are RED, well that means you aren't GREEN!
A whole mess of other things you aren't either.
TO BE SQUARE means you aren't ROUND.
You see? So we all know what to be red and green, and round and
square mean, but we have trouble with what TO BE means, because it means
existence unlimited by anything specific.
Yet everything specific carries the quality of existence into it's
instantiation of limitation.
PARALLATION - PARALLEL RELATION
Now there used to be a game we would play that is useful when
trying to learn a new language with someone who speaks a different
tongue.
You put an apple on the table and you say 'Apple!'.
Now of course they know what an apple is because they eat them all
the time, but they have no clue what your word 'Apple' means.
It could mean apple, or it could mean fruit, or it could mean food,
or it could mean object, or it could mean exists.
So you put an orange on the table and you say 'Orange', and then
point to both and say 'Fruit'.
By putting the orange on the table, you have demonstrated that
apple does not mean fruit.
Apples are fruits, but an apple is a more limited kind of fruit.
If apple meant fruit, then you could point at both the apple and
the orange and call them both apples.
Then you put some chicken on the table and you say 'Meat' and then
point to all three and say 'Food'.
You see after a while the process of parallation will deliver an
understanding to the other person of what your words do and do not mean.
What you are doing is placing many different quality sets on the
table, grouping them into classes, and then calling off the class label
for the qualities that are both common and unique to all those quality
sets.
PERTINENT QUALITIES
The set of qualities which are common and unique to a set of
objects is called the PERTINENT QUALITIES of the class or concept that
encompass all the objects in the group.
Consider a table with apples, oranges and meat on it.
It is not true that all the objects on the table are apples, or
fruit, but they are all food.
The more different objects you place on the table, the broader and
more general your common concept becomes.
Apple is very specific, fruit less so, food even less so, and
object even less so.
In the limit, if you were to place EVERY OBJECT IN EXISTENCE on the
table, what would be the only remaining common quality to all of them?
You got it Goober, existence.
So if you do this process in your head with the universe around
you, take a look at EVERYTHING you see, and ask yourself repeatedly what
the common quality is to all these things, eventually you will
differentiate out 'existence', and then you will know exactly what
existence means and you will be seeing it directly in everything you
have looked at.
Be sure to spot yourself amongst all those things also, so you will
see that you also exist.
Then you can throw your PhD out, because you are no longer
certified stupid.
By the way the word PARALLATION means Parallel Relation, and really
should be Parallel Qualities, meaning common qualities.
For example, all apples are related to the class of apples, and all
oranges are related to the class of oranges, so we have two separate
relations going on 'in parallel' or at the same time. It is the two
separate relatingnesses going on at the same time that demarc the fact
that there are two separate groups being defined, and allows us to
descriminate between them and understand their labels (language) as
intended.
Another way of looking at this is, every object on the table is
RELATED to each other by COMMON (parallel, similar) qualities, and
parallation is the mental process of gleaning those common qualities to
determine the meaning of a word.
Parallation is a terrible word and should be struck from the
language, but until someone comes up with a better word for this
process, we are stuck with it.
COMMON AND UNIQUE
The process of parallation is used to determine or define the
pertinent quality set of a class of objects that are related by common
and unique qualities in their quality sets.
Common means every object in the class has the pertinent quality
set.
Unique means that every object that has the pertinent quality set,
is in the class.
You can run this both ways.
You can start with a group of objects, and try to guess the
pertinent qualities that fit them.
This method is used to learn a new language when the pertinenet
quality sets of words are already known to the other person, but not to
you. So he shows you groups of objects and words until you get what
the word means. Any baby learns this way.
Or you can DEFINE a pertinent quality set out of whole cloth, and
then try to figure out which objects belong to the set.
PHILOSOPHY 101
Back in '69 freshman year, I got a C+ in philosophy 101 for laying
parallation out in detail for teacher.
His comment was "There is some thinking going on in this paper."
Of course it didn't help my grade that I had skipped half the class
and made jokes at his expense when I did show up.
Hey I was majoring in pot back then, and I wasn't about to let
school get in the way of my education.
Yet sometimes I wonder what the guy who got an A wrote for his term
paper.
THE TOP LEVEL CONCEPT
Yeah I know this is boring, we will get back to God and damnation
shortly.
As a last comment here, it is probably NOT true that 'existence' is
the highest level concept, because there are objects which do not exist.
Formally we say there are actual existences, and hypothetical
existences.
Unicorns are objects with well delineated quality sets, but they
don't exist in the world of actual existence, but do exist in the world
of hypothetical existence.
This creates great room for confusion, because we don't like to say
that unicorns exist, but we do like to use the word IS to describe them,
'They is horses with one horn.'
So when we say that something exists, do we mean actually or
hypothetically?
Formally there is no problem, we just have to be aware that the
popular usage of TO EXIST means actual existence and not hypothetical
existence, even though the formal meaning includes both.
But trying to get this across to Goober and Dufus can be hard.
And what about objects that don't exist at all, in either sense?
One would expect the broadest and highest level class to have but
one quality in its pertinent quality set. If it had more than one,
there would be fewer objects in it as each quality is a further
limitation on its nature.
There are more square things, than there are square and red things.
Thus square is a broader class (has more objects in it) than the
class of red squares.
In other words we are looking for the class that contains all
things that can be classified.
In seeking the class that contains all objects everywhere, we need
it to be free of limiting qualities of any kind.
We said that the quality 'IS' is existence free of any limitation,
but we also pointed out there are at least two kinds of existence,
actual and hypothetical, so we have contradicted ourselves.
If we are willing to accept that existence includes both actual and
hypothetical existences, then we have our top level concept in
existence.
But we are going to take a different route here and say that both
actual existences and hypothetical existences are different objects with
different quality sets.
Thus both actual existences and hypothetical existences are
subsumed under the class called OBJECTS.
The one quality common and unique to all objects is having a
quality set whether empty or not!
Thus both somethings and nothings are objects.
I will leave it up to the astute reader to smell out the Godel jail
in the above and demarc it carefully so no one falls into it.
So we can conclude that the broadest concept of all is OBJECT, and
everything that is or could be, can rightly be called an object.
In other words there is nothing that is not an object.
Which means classes and qualities are objects too!
And yes Goobie, if you are not careful you will be visiting the
Bertrand Russell ward of the Godel Jail insane asylum very soon.
BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE FIRST GODEL JAIL
Russell was one of the world's greatest philosophers and he spent
an entire summer in Godel Jail looking at a blank piece of paper trying
to figure out if the class of all classes that were not members of
themselves, was a member of itself. Or not.
That's like asking what is the truth value of:
"This statement is false."
Russell had gotten himself into a world class Godel Jail, and it
took him a long to time fix the damage.
The answer is, if you assume the statement is true then it is
false, and if you assume it false, then it's true. Thus the statement
is a contradiction and thus undecidable.
Formally we say the statement is degenerate, that is, not a Well
Formed Formula or WFF (pronounced WOOF).
Russell spent the next summer looking at another blank piece of
paper trying to figure out if the class of all classes that WERE members
of themselves, was a member of itself.
This was like asking what is the truth value of:
"This statement is true."
The answer is, if you assume the statement is true, then it is
true, if you assume it is false, then it is false. Thus this statement
is also undecidable, and although not a contradiction, is still
degenerate as hell.
In a fit of revenge he left the last one up to Godel as a home work
assignment while Russell went off and played with the girls on the
beach:
"This statement is undecidable."
The answer is, if you assume it is true, then it is false because
that wouldn't be an undecidability. And if you assume it is false, then
it is also false, because that also wouldn't be an undecidability.
So it is tempting to claim "This statement is undecidable" is in
fact false because it becomes false whether you assume it true or false.
So now that you have decided that 'this statement is undecidable'
is in fact false, it has become a decidability, which of course makes it
more false.
But if you assume the statement is UNDECIDABLE, then the statement
is true as it claims, which is a contradiction, as being true is not an
undecidability.
An so into the Russell spin bin mental ward you go.
Fortunately the existence of degenerate or undecidable statements
in logic does not influence in any way the validity of the decidable
statements of logic.
In other words the undecidability of any particular logical
statement will never have any possible influence on the outcome of a
decidable statement.
IS is IS remains true, as does IS isn't ISN'T.
Thus undecidables live in their own black hole unable to influence
any part of the real world around them.
In the end undecidables are unWFF's, not Well Formed Formulas, and
an unWFF can't influence a WFF, and only WFF's apply to the real world.
Those that argue that all of logic is undecidable because some
small degenerate areas are undecidable are mind broke.
By the way the undecidability of degenerate statements must not be
confused with the undecidabilities that Godel was eventually to become
famous for, which had nothing to do with the self denying degeneration
of the above examples.
But again the same rule applies, the existence of undecidabilities
in any logic or arithmetic, whether degenerate or not, does not
influence the validity of decidabilities in those same areas.
So logic holds whether people want it to or not.
WHY IS KNOWING YOU EXIST SO IMPORTANT
Well the mere fact that you CAN be certain of your own existence is
beyond astounding and undermines just about every thought that anyone
has ever had on the subject of how things work, and what is true and
what isn't.
The second fact, that everyone is using their consciousness, which
can be perfectly certain of its own existence, to symbolize an alleged
physical universe, which no one can ever be certain about anything,
further aggravates that astonishment.
People apparently care more about what their consciousness
represents to them about the alleged physical universe, than about the
nature of the representer, their conscious unit itself.
THE NATURE OF THE REPRESENTER IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE NATURE OF
THE REPRESENTED.
Thus pushers of the party line, those who are certain they can't be
certain of anything, let alone their own existence, are a walking insult
to the glory of God in carnation.
That they, too, ARE that same multi I-AM God in carnation just adds
to the mystery.
Frankly I think that PhD's that don't know if they exist or not
should be execrated on the spot.
After being tested for existence of course. Wouldn't want to
execrate some poor guy who doesn't exist, now would we?
To execrate means to call down the damnation of the Devil upon.
You know, if someone doesn't know if they exist, they certainly
don't know if YOU exist either.
And if they don't know you exist, then they don't know if you feel
pain, and they also don't know if they care or give a damn if you feel
pain.
Next time you run into someone who hurts, ask them if they are SURE
they hurt. If they say yes, point out that a machine can't do that.
Then ask them if they are sure they exist.
If they say no, point out to them the cognitive dissonance of being
certain they hurt, but not being sure they exist.
The pain exists but they don't?
A machine can't even know that it exists, let alone that it hurts.
And since all pain is SELF LUMINOUS KNOWING PAIN, a machine can't
hurt at all.
These people who don't know if they exist or not, who are not
capable of operating the perfect certainty facility (faculty) of their
own consciousness, are very dangerous people to have around, building
atom bombs and pretty red buttons to go with them.
Kind of like the Staples Red Button that says 'That was easy!'
There are people who don't care if they leave the Earth growing
green or glowing green.
They generally are certain of things they can't possibly be certain
of, their personal bigotry for one, and not certain of things they can
be certain of, namely their own conscious selves.
If ever there was a scourge on the face of the Earth, on society
and the well being of mankind, these are them.
I know they are our brothers like everyone else, but it is time to
call an idiot and idiot and refuse to allow society to institutionalize
such idiocy in our halls of worship and lower learning.
Let alone the halls of government and power.
The Proof is an effort to end idiotism in our life.
SCIENCE AND RELIGION REVISITED
You know, a while back in a moment of distemper I said,
"In it's race to Armageddon, religion is trying to destroy the
world, and in it's race to build weapons of mass destruction, science is
trying to provide religion the means of doing so."
Considering those good people in science and religion, this is
untrue and highly unfair.
But considering those bad people in science and religion, it's a
fair take, and if you add in the bad people in government and big
business where war is big money, you have a world scene that is a few
control rods short of a stable nuclear pile.
About the only people with clean hands are the artists.
OK, let's take a break.
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 Apr 14 15:01:32 EDT 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 27 12:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val4.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
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
HOM41 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ryan_noemail@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Of course, being at effect of your case (self-entrapment) you fail to
>see that although you chose to be at effect some time in the past
>(whenever that is) you still chose (at this moment in time you chose to
>be in) to be at effect, so as to be not effective to the degree of not
>being at cause (not knowing) to have a game, which... ? ... this is the
>part I have trouble with.
Tis a good sign too.
Why manifest?
Adore has a very difficult answer to this question, one that most
will reject out of hand, particularly those pushing one side of the
dicom wing as 'The Truth".
Dicom = DIchotomies of Comparable and Opposite Magnitude.
Love/Hate, Beauty/Ugly, Good/Bad, Sovereignty/Anti-Sovereignty,
etc.
Each side forms the wing of a dicom that the being is flying down
the time stream with, trying to be one, trying to avoid the other.
Ultimately Truth/Lies and Beauty/Ugly are just more wings of a
dicom, so you have to take the following with a grain of salt and
understand that words fail to describe the non dicom state. (Notice
even dicom/non-dicom is a dicom!)
And so are manifest/unmanifest, and Native State/Non Native State
etc.
So with that in mind, here is what Adore has to say about "Why
Manifest?"
All manifestation is manifestaion of *LOSS*, all persistence is
persistence of *LOSS*, namely loss of Native State which Adore defines
as Perfectly Happy, Alone, Forever and Beyond Thank you.
"The law of Saviors is, if you are grateful for having been
saved, you haven't been."
Actually Adore really defines native state as the Big Snooze, but
just prior to eternal sleep is this happy bedtime.
Thus all manifestation is loss of this perfect native state.
However there is a *MECHANISM* to the loss, namely lies, not just
any old lies but particular specific lies woven in a *TAPESTRY OF
ILLOGIC* that *MANIFESTS THE BEAUTY OF WHAT WAS LOST*.
There are probably many such lies unique to each individual and
perhaps a number that are common to everyone. Adore would claim, for
example, that "Learning by Looking" is one such common lie.
Anyhow Adore says, the loss of any Native State beauty can only
be manifested and caused to persist by casting a beautiful lie or
illogic of exact equivalent beauty to the beauty that was lost.
The lie persists, which covers the beauty of native state which
is now lost, but the lie itself is beautiful so the beauty manifests
indirectly.
The being in the state of manifesting loss of beauty via a
beautiful lie or illogic can never see the beauty that was lost nor
the beauty in the lie or illogic, because the beauty is lost, and he
believes the lie or illogic which causes him ugly and suffering. All
he can do is suffer the loss as long as he believes the lie.
But the lie is beautiful! Which is why he took it on.
But the lie beautiful only as long as he knows it is a lie. As
long as he believes the lie is truth, the lie is ugly. So he lives a
life of persisting ugly, seriousness, non humor while believing these
lies.
The being lost in the lies of persistence can not see the lies
nor the mechanism of loss via the lies, (else they would unmock), so
he suffers a state of 'loss'. But those that can see the tapestry of
lies in him and how he has woven it together with illogic, can see the
beauty that was lost instead.
The suffering of others then becomes beautiful to those who
can see.
Its a show he is putting on for other people, who can see, even
those who can't see because one day they will be able to.
One day *ALL MEN* will attain the awakened state.
Everyone is putting on the show together, so in present time the
best they can do is suffer it all together, but one day it will begin
to resolve and they will all see what was shown them by everyone else
in the way of a beautiful performance of loss and lies.
That's why when you go up to a really high person who can see the
weave of lies and illogic, and you start telling them all your
problems, they are likely to get this really *BIG* grin on their face.
They think you are just beautiful, just omni awesome.
That's the beauty of your native state, of your Self Love, they
are seeing, as it shines out of the warp and weave of the beautiful
lies and illogic that compose your suffering. Your story of loss is
so beautiful that your pain is actually pleasure to them, the stunning
almost blinding gorgeousness of your own Native State and Self Love
shines the greatest from your worst pain.
You may feel they are laughing at you, they are but its the
laughter of love at the divine show you are putting on for them at
your expense.
It's the only way to give of yourself to another.
That is the "why manifest".
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 24 03:06:03 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom41.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQDklbURT1lqxE3HERAjHvAJ9+FjbK5gcGxcO72AgHeRWDgBNDKgCgt9vt
54/9tL8x9DPdIC1GzCmxVKs=
=BYUd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Hash: SHA1
ryan_noemail@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>Of course, being at effect of your case (self-entrapment) you fail to
>see that although you chose to be at effect some time in the past
>(whenever that is) you still chose (at this moment in time you chose to
>be in) to be at effect, so as to be not effective to the degree of not
>being at cause (not knowing) to have a game, which... ? ... this is the
>part I have trouble with.
Tis a good sign too.
Why manifest?
Adore has a very difficult answer to this question, one that most
will reject out of hand, particularly those pushing one side of the
dicom wing as 'The Truth".
Dicom = DIchotomies of Comparable and Opposite Magnitude.
Love/Hate, Beauty/Ugly, Good/Bad, Sovereignty/Anti-Sovereignty,
etc.
Each side forms the wing of a dicom that the being is flying down
the time stream with, trying to be one, trying to avoid the other.
Ultimately Truth/Lies and Beauty/Ugly are just more wings of a
dicom, so you have to take the following with a grain of salt and
understand that words fail to describe the non dicom state. (Notice
even dicom/non-dicom is a dicom!)
And so are manifest/unmanifest, and Native State/Non Native State
etc.
So with that in mind, here is what Adore has to say about "Why
Manifest?"
All manifestation is manifestaion of *LOSS*, all persistence is
persistence of *LOSS*, namely loss of Native State which Adore defines
as Perfectly Happy, Alone, Forever and Beyond Thank you.
"The law of Saviors is, if you are grateful for having been
saved, you haven't been."
Actually Adore really defines native state as the Big Snooze, but
just prior to eternal sleep is this happy bedtime.
Thus all manifestation is loss of this perfect native state.
However there is a *MECHANISM* to the loss, namely lies, not just
any old lies but particular specific lies woven in a *TAPESTRY OF
ILLOGIC* that *MANIFESTS THE BEAUTY OF WHAT WAS LOST*.
There are probably many such lies unique to each individual and
perhaps a number that are common to everyone. Adore would claim, for
example, that "Learning by Looking" is one such common lie.
Anyhow Adore says, the loss of any Native State beauty can only
be manifested and caused to persist by casting a beautiful lie or
illogic of exact equivalent beauty to the beauty that was lost.
The lie persists, which covers the beauty of native state which
is now lost, but the lie itself is beautiful so the beauty manifests
indirectly.
The being in the state of manifesting loss of beauty via a
beautiful lie or illogic can never see the beauty that was lost nor
the beauty in the lie or illogic, because the beauty is lost, and he
believes the lie or illogic which causes him ugly and suffering. All
he can do is suffer the loss as long as he believes the lie.
But the lie is beautiful! Which is why he took it on.
But the lie beautiful only as long as he knows it is a lie. As
long as he believes the lie is truth, the lie is ugly. So he lives a
life of persisting ugly, seriousness, non humor while believing these
lies.
The being lost in the lies of persistence can not see the lies
nor the mechanism of loss via the lies, (else they would unmock), so
he suffers a state of 'loss'. But those that can see the tapestry of
lies in him and how he has woven it together with illogic, can see the
beauty that was lost instead.
The suffering of others then becomes beautiful to those who
can see.
Its a show he is putting on for other people, who can see, even
those who can't see because one day they will be able to.
One day *ALL MEN* will attain the awakened state.
Everyone is putting on the show together, so in present time the
best they can do is suffer it all together, but one day it will begin
to resolve and they will all see what was shown them by everyone else
in the way of a beautiful performance of loss and lies.
That's why when you go up to a really high person who can see the
weave of lies and illogic, and you start telling them all your
problems, they are likely to get this really *BIG* grin on their face.
They think you are just beautiful, just omni awesome.
That's the beauty of your native state, of your Self Love, they
are seeing, as it shines out of the warp and weave of the beautiful
lies and illogic that compose your suffering. Your story of loss is
so beautiful that your pain is actually pleasure to them, the stunning
almost blinding gorgeousness of your own Native State and Self Love
shines the greatest from your worst pain.
You may feel they are laughing at you, they are but its the
laughter of love at the divine show you are putting on for them at
your expense.
It's the only way to give of yourself to another.
That is the "why manifest".
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 24 03:06:03 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom41.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQDklbURT1lqxE3HERAjHvAJ9+FjbK5gcGxcO72AgHeRWDgBNDKgCgt9vt
54/9tL8x9DPdIC1GzCmxVKs=
=BYUd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Monday, July 23, 2012
SOURCE AND KNOW ABOUT
SOURCE AND KNOW ABOUT
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Homer:
>> To BE the infinite yes.
>> To KNOW the infinite, no.
>> Homer
CBWillis:
>You're certain you could not know this?
>Makes self-knowledge a lost cause then.
Knowledge is a yoke around the neck that sinks one into the sea of
oblivion with the weight of one's wisdom.
One can BE Source, the minute one KNOWS ABOUT Source one has begun to
indulge in pretty postulates that have little validity other than what one
assigns them.
Source doesn't have to know anything about itself in order to
operate, it knows how to operate natively without having to know ABOUT how
to operate. Just like a baby breathing, it doesn't have to know anything
about breathing in order to be able to breathe.
The process of enlightenment is the process of getting all entangled
up in 'knowing' the nature of Source, eventually one realizes that one is
creating this knowingness, and that which creates knowingness is not
knowable. It is BEable it. You are being it in making postulates about
it.
"The UnNameable dreams the Nameable."
"All of existence consists of Source speculating about itself.
Most of what it thinks is cute but wrong." - Adore
Those who think they are going to 'know something' at the end of
their journey might want to consider how deep one can sink under the
weight of their own knowledge.
Maybe one can know the infinite after all.
Presumably one will see the light before they get there.
Homer
>- CBW
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul 23 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore56.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQDPfaURT1lqxE3HERAkwsAKCwpYxHWT8T2KlUMewIPHFkVGAxvACgkgcJ
duxJ6Rgkv5kHqx1c+bLiz90=
=5UTO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Homer:
>> To BE the infinite yes.
>> To KNOW the infinite, no.
>> Homer
CBWillis:
>You're certain you could not know this?
>Makes self-knowledge a lost cause then.
Knowledge is a yoke around the neck that sinks one into the sea of
oblivion with the weight of one's wisdom.
One can BE Source, the minute one KNOWS ABOUT Source one has begun to
indulge in pretty postulates that have little validity other than what one
assigns them.
Source doesn't have to know anything about itself in order to
operate, it knows how to operate natively without having to know ABOUT how
to operate. Just like a baby breathing, it doesn't have to know anything
about breathing in order to be able to breathe.
The process of enlightenment is the process of getting all entangled
up in 'knowing' the nature of Source, eventually one realizes that one is
creating this knowingness, and that which creates knowingness is not
knowable. It is BEable it. You are being it in making postulates about
it.
"The UnNameable dreams the Nameable."
"All of existence consists of Source speculating about itself.
Most of what it thinks is cute but wrong." - Adore
Those who think they are going to 'know something' at the end of
their journey might want to consider how deep one can sink under the
weight of their own knowledge.
Maybe one can know the infinite after all.
Presumably one will see the light before they get there.
Homer
>- CBW
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul 23 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore56.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQDPfaURT1lqxE3HERAkwsAKCwpYxHWT8T2KlUMewIPHFkVGAxvACgkgcJ
duxJ6Rgkv5kHqx1c+bLiz90=
=5UTO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, July 21, 2012
IMMORTALITY
IMMORTALITY
((This posting uses the term immortality to mean eternality.
Actual immortality means living forever inside of time and
is highly undesirable, always leading to apparent hells forever.
Eternality means living forever above time, and engaging
in time for a while when moved to do so.
This distinction between immortality and eternality had not
been made at the time of this writing.))
Certainty means perfect certainty, it has no other meaning.
Perfect certainties can not be wrong, because if they could be,
there could never be any certainty.
If something turns out to be wrong, then it was never a perfect
certainty in the first place and the being could have known this at the
time merely by comparing their false item with a true perfect certainty.
Perfect certainties are not hard to spot, in fact they are the
easiest thing there is to spot, anything you are conscious of.
The proof says that perfect certainty across a distance is
impossible.
The reason for this is that distance between two objects implies
they are two different objects.
Certainty between two different objects is impossible, because each
has to learn of the other by being an effect of the other, and being an
effect does not prove cause.
The only way an object can learn with certainty about cause is if
it IS cause and is learning about ITSELF. Then it can learn by looking
at cause, rather than by looking at effects.
Thus anything that imposes difference between two objects renders
certainty impossible between them.
Dimension of any kind imposes difference between two objects
separated in that dimension, thus also renders certainty impossible
between them.
A dimension is merely a series of different points of the same
thing.
For example, a space dimension is a line of many points of space,
but each a different point in space. Each point is just like every
other point, EXCEPT they are different points.
Same thing for dimensional time, all are moments of time, but all
are DIFFERENT moments of time.
Thus two objects existing in different points in space or time must
be two DIFFERENT objects, thus certainty between them is rendered
impossible.
People seek perfect certainty of their own immortality, they want
proof.
The joke is that the very existence of perfect certainty is itself
some of the greatest evidence there is.
Because perfect certainty across a distance is impossible, perfect
certainty can only happen for a dimensionless, spaceless, timeless
being,
I AM, I PERCEIVE, I KNOW, I WANT and I DO are all perfect
certainties to any conscious being not playing dead.
In the end, the only thing that can die for real are arrangements
of parts in space and time, not even the parts can die, unless they too
are arrangements of parts.
All consciousness-of *IS* perfect certainty-of.
All perfect certainty-of *IS* consciousness-of.
Consciousness and perfect certainty are synonymous.
Perfect certainty is what makes consciousness, consciousness.
If you believe that consciousness and its various attendant perfect
certainties are merely an arrangement of parts in space time, well then
good bye to you.
On the other hand, if you understand that perfect certainty can not
happen across a distance, then hello to you forever more.
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
Mon Jun 18 00:21:34 EDT 2007
((This posting uses the term immortality to mean eternality.
Actual immortality means living forever inside of time and
is highly undesirable, always leading to apparent hells forever.
Eternality means living forever above time, and engaging
in time for a while when moved to do so.
This distinction between immortality and eternality had not
been made at the time of this writing.))
Certainty means perfect certainty, it has no other meaning.
Perfect certainties can not be wrong, because if they could be,
there could never be any certainty.
If something turns out to be wrong, then it was never a perfect
certainty in the first place and the being could have known this at the
time merely by comparing their false item with a true perfect certainty.
Perfect certainties are not hard to spot, in fact they are the
easiest thing there is to spot, anything you are conscious of.
The proof says that perfect certainty across a distance is
impossible.
The reason for this is that distance between two objects implies
they are two different objects.
Certainty between two different objects is impossible, because each
has to learn of the other by being an effect of the other, and being an
effect does not prove cause.
The only way an object can learn with certainty about cause is if
it IS cause and is learning about ITSELF. Then it can learn by looking
at cause, rather than by looking at effects.
Thus anything that imposes difference between two objects renders
certainty impossible between them.
Dimension of any kind imposes difference between two objects
separated in that dimension, thus also renders certainty impossible
between them.
A dimension is merely a series of different points of the same
thing.
For example, a space dimension is a line of many points of space,
but each a different point in space. Each point is just like every
other point, EXCEPT they are different points.
Same thing for dimensional time, all are moments of time, but all
are DIFFERENT moments of time.
Thus two objects existing in different points in space or time must
be two DIFFERENT objects, thus certainty between them is rendered
impossible.
People seek perfect certainty of their own immortality, they want
proof.
The joke is that the very existence of perfect certainty is itself
some of the greatest evidence there is.
Because perfect certainty across a distance is impossible, perfect
certainty can only happen for a dimensionless, spaceless, timeless
being,
I AM, I PERCEIVE, I KNOW, I WANT and I DO are all perfect
certainties to any conscious being not playing dead.
In the end, the only thing that can die for real are arrangements
of parts in space and time, not even the parts can die, unless they too
are arrangements of parts.
All consciousness-of *IS* perfect certainty-of.
All perfect certainty-of *IS* consciousness-of.
Consciousness and perfect certainty are synonymous.
Perfect certainty is what makes consciousness, consciousness.
If you believe that consciousness and its various attendant perfect
certainties are merely an arrangement of parts in space time, well then
good bye to you.
On the other hand, if you understand that perfect certainty can not
happen across a distance, then hello to you forever more.
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
Mon Jun 18 00:21:34 EDT 2007
Friday, July 20, 2012
GOOD AND BAD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GOOD AND BAD
Good and bad most directly relate to what is or is not desirable
to beings. Most generally good is pleasure and bad is pain.
One can temper this with considerations about what is best in the
long term as opposed to short term, but basically good and bad come
down to desirable and undesirable and that comes down to pleasure and
pain.
One can also temper this further with considerations about
sensitivity to other's pleasure and pain, so that we try to maximize
the greatest good for the greatest number including ourselves etc.
'Ethics' then, rather than being obedience to an arbitrary set of
rules, would be the use of observation and reason towards the
attainment of maximal good and bad.
Observation is bringing our understanding into concordance with
things as they are.
Reason is sound logic.
Logic is the consistent definition of words.
If one defines 'animal' and 'dog' as "All dogs are animals", then
it MUST be true that if Joey is a dog, he is also an animal.
The definition of words comes from the objectification of
experience, dividing the AllThatIs into objects, assigning them
qualities and grouping them into classes according to qualities that
are common and unique to those objects.
For example 'A Square is any object with 4 equal sides and 90
degrees between each side'.
Commonness says that all squares have that quality, and
uniqueness says that any object that has that quality is a square.
"A Square" forms a class of objects and the above quality is
called the 'pertinent quality' of the class of squares.
To the degree that existence can not be objectified, broken into
objects, qualities and classes, then language, reason and logic will
not apply.
To the degree that existence can be objectified, then language,
reason and logic MUST apply.
Saying that "All dogs are animals" *IS THE SAME THING AS SAYING*
"If Joey is a dog, then Joey is an Animal".
There are many different ways of stating the groupings of
objects.
"All dogs are animals."
"If it is a dog, then it is an animal."
"Being a dog is sufficient to being an animal."
"Being an animal is necessary to being a dog."
The groupings that one makes in the search for pleasure should
demonstrate concordance with things as they are observed.
Once one has made such groupings, logic is merely the requirement
that all descriptions of these groupings be consistent with each other
and with the groupings themselves!
"All dogs are animals."
"It is not necessary to be an animal to be a dog."
That's illogic, inconsistency between descriptions of the
groupings.
One can tell an object most easily by picking any point in the
AllThatIs and pulling on it. Anything that follows in the motion is
probably part of the same object. :)
For example, grab on to one part of God and pull, everything else
that moves is also part of God.
Within the context of good and bad, pleasure and pain, and moral
and unmoral action, we are dealing with actions within the AllThatIs
that have consequences. Those consequences are the good and bad that
make any particular action moral or immoral.
In the absence of a fullness of knowledge or wisdom, one can do
things that have unexpected results. One can also become punitive or
even preemptive and do 'bad' things to others before they do bad
things to us. From the local perspective this is still a being's
efforts to be good and moral, although he may change his mind later
once he gets a wider view of things.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 20 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic18.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQCQNaURT1lqxE3HERAqGfAJ4jccnVb5HDB85a5B+o8+IscXn/nQCdH5VX
IZznVmQhBUML2JqMf5GjvbE=
=GlCZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Hash: SHA1
GOOD AND BAD
Good and bad most directly relate to what is or is not desirable
to beings. Most generally good is pleasure and bad is pain.
One can temper this with considerations about what is best in the
long term as opposed to short term, but basically good and bad come
down to desirable and undesirable and that comes down to pleasure and
pain.
One can also temper this further with considerations about
sensitivity to other's pleasure and pain, so that we try to maximize
the greatest good for the greatest number including ourselves etc.
'Ethics' then, rather than being obedience to an arbitrary set of
rules, would be the use of observation and reason towards the
attainment of maximal good and bad.
Observation is bringing our understanding into concordance with
things as they are.
Reason is sound logic.
Logic is the consistent definition of words.
If one defines 'animal' and 'dog' as "All dogs are animals", then
it MUST be true that if Joey is a dog, he is also an animal.
The definition of words comes from the objectification of
experience, dividing the AllThatIs into objects, assigning them
qualities and grouping them into classes according to qualities that
are common and unique to those objects.
For example 'A Square is any object with 4 equal sides and 90
degrees between each side'.
Commonness says that all squares have that quality, and
uniqueness says that any object that has that quality is a square.
"A Square" forms a class of objects and the above quality is
called the 'pertinent quality' of the class of squares.
To the degree that existence can not be objectified, broken into
objects, qualities and classes, then language, reason and logic will
not apply.
To the degree that existence can be objectified, then language,
reason and logic MUST apply.
Saying that "All dogs are animals" *IS THE SAME THING AS SAYING*
"If Joey is a dog, then Joey is an Animal".
There are many different ways of stating the groupings of
objects.
"All dogs are animals."
"If it is a dog, then it is an animal."
"Being a dog is sufficient to being an animal."
"Being an animal is necessary to being a dog."
The groupings that one makes in the search for pleasure should
demonstrate concordance with things as they are observed.
Once one has made such groupings, logic is merely the requirement
that all descriptions of these groupings be consistent with each other
and with the groupings themselves!
"All dogs are animals."
"It is not necessary to be an animal to be a dog."
That's illogic, inconsistency between descriptions of the
groupings.
One can tell an object most easily by picking any point in the
AllThatIs and pulling on it. Anything that follows in the motion is
probably part of the same object. :)
For example, grab on to one part of God and pull, everything else
that moves is also part of God.
Within the context of good and bad, pleasure and pain, and moral
and unmoral action, we are dealing with actions within the AllThatIs
that have consequences. Those consequences are the good and bad that
make any particular action moral or immoral.
In the absence of a fullness of knowledge or wisdom, one can do
things that have unexpected results. One can also become punitive or
even preemptive and do 'bad' things to others before they do bad
things to us. From the local perspective this is still a being's
efforts to be good and moral, although he may change his mind later
once he gets a wider view of things.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 20 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic18.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQCQNaURT1lqxE3HERAqGfAJ4jccnVb5HDB85a5B+o8+IscXn/nQCdH5VX
IZznVmQhBUML2JqMf5GjvbE=
=GlCZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Thursday, July 19, 2012
GOD THE FATHER
GOD THE FATHER
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>You do not necessarily become what you don't value, and that not-valuing
>does not necessarily have to have charge on it. It is normal to continue
>to move toward manifesting what you do value.
Here's the point.
If someone comes to you and mockups an unconfrontable monstrosity
that you do not value, appreciate, find the beauty and humor in, then
YOU have lost, because you CAN mock it up also, you can OUT mock it up,
but you are saying its bad to mockup, you wouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't
mock it up, and thus you become owned by it.
This is not the normal human perception of things, you are being a
human not an OT in the Adorian and Scientological sense.
All I am saying to you is that you are missing that this group
here, not just me, has a very different idea of what ability and taking
responsibility for things means than the normal human, and which is why
a number of people, Christine, me, Phil and maybe others consider you an
air head.
Again there has to be a better term, this is not a derogatory
criticism, you are in a state that is classically the way it is supposed
to be, the thetan mocks himself us as something and someone that
wouldn't ever, couldn't ever, shouldn't ever mockup all these other
things, and then gets eat by them. That's the game.
Part of your airheadedness is your concept of what is evil (absence
of good) and where it comes from (ignorance and mistakes).
Good and evil are alike both mocked up with majesty and foresight
by the AllThatIs and form a tapestry of beauty and humor that only the
OT can appreciate. The human looks upon it in horror, as he is the
monster food.
>> Come on Carol, there is no other, its all you ultimately, your
>>own creations come after you and eat you if you run away from them.
>To say it's all me ultimately is an ambiguous and confusing statement,
>without an explanation of in what sense you mean that, because the meaning
>is not at all obvious from linguistic context.
You are a viewport to God, the AllThatIs, not a Being, but the
source of all Beings, and all Ability.
In this context there is no Supreme Being, there is only the
Supreme AllThatIs and it is not a being, it is the source and ground of
beings and has co-resident with it, co-eternally, an infinite number of
beings, conscious units, that can call upon the ability of the AllThatIs
and cast manifestations into the external world of perceivable
consciousness.
As a viewport to the AllThatIs you can cast anything the AllThatIs
can cast.
Source sources only when will casts.
You may have cast yourself as a little old lady who would never do
any wrong, but you CAN access the AllThatIs and cast the monster that
comes in the night and cuts her up.
To the degree that you deny that you are a viewport of the
AllThatIs, and deny that you can access and cast ANYTHING that others
have cast, and to the degree that you FAIL to access and recast
something that confronts you that you don't like, just to that degree do
you limit yourself from ever being able to as-is or vanish what has
confronted you.
If B casts something from the AllThatIs and confronts you with it,
and its bad, you can vanish it by casting it yourself from the
AllThatIs, any viewport can cast anything that is castable, and in the
perfect recasting of it, withdraw it back into the void.
If YOU put it there, YOU can unput it there.
If you refuse to re cast what B has cast, then you will not be able
to as-is it, and it will persist FOREVER, until either you or someone
else, or the originator recasts it and withdraws it back into the void.
It doesn't matter who made it, anyone can as-is it and withdraw it
back into the void. This is not a human ability, this is an OT ability,
and OTs are not human. An OT sees the beauty and humor to the monster
and the little old lady, and might just as easily walk away from it
thinking 'Good show!'.
>>>>that leads ultimately to trying to send the other to
>>>>hell forever AS irretrievably different, but ending up in hell
>>>>forever yourself.
>I don't relate to the corrected statement either.
If someone is casting something bad, monstrous say, and you feel
that you can not, should not and would not EVER cast such a thing as
yourself, then you have posited a permanent duality between them and
you, a fundamental DIFFERENCE in nature, which you can not replicate,
are unwilling to have exist, and will thus do anything to avoid.
If it comes after you, you will then do anything to destroy it
FOREVER, or punish it FOREVER.
Thus if one can not reconcile the irreconcilably different other
being, one will be drawn into attempting to cast the other being into
hell forever or into death forever.
Since one can not in fact succeed at this, and since having to do
so is itself an ARC break of magnitude with self and the AllThatIs, one
will end up in hell or death oneself.
Not being able to access and recast anything that can be casted and
has been casted by yourself and others, is an ARC break of magnitude
that the soul does not recover from.
Primary overt intent is to cast something that someone else can't,
won't or shouldn't recast, that's the way to put them down forever but
good.
It is one thing to cast oneself as someone who can't cast just
everything, but retain the knowingness that one has done so, and quite
another to really believe there are castable things that one can not
cast.
Only by recovering full accessibility, ability and willingness to
cast anything that can be casted, can true sovereignty and good humor be
restored, and the soul can recast ITSELF and withdraw back into the void
of total latent ability.
PTSness is simply allowing that another can cast something you
can't recast into non existence, including them.
If someone mocks themselves up as the meanest son of a bitch
in the valley, can you out cast them by mocking yourself up worse?
If not, or are unwilling to, well you know the drill, the other
eats you.
Evil being: "Yum, good being!"
>I just committed a mass murder. I'm not responsible. God made me do it.
>"The Devil made me do it." My case made me do it. Whatever. It won't
>wash.
God made the man and gave him free will knowing full well that
man would mis use it, God is the monster.
>God allows man to have his learning experiences, just like the parent of
>the toddler allows the child to fall down while he's learning to walk.
No parent allows the child to kill or main his sister, others or
himself.
If God were a parent, he would be in jail for child abuse.
>I'm willing to [co-]design for educational/discernment purposes, which
>lead upscale, but not toward futility and chaos, which lead to death or
>worse.
Thus you are not willing to BE as God is, because HE designed
according to exact specs the universe towards futility and chaos.
HE DESIGNED THE WILL OF MAN TO MESS UP.
Listen Carol this conversation is hopeless, I understand your point
of view, but I do not hold it.
My view is: all there is is God, we are part of that whole, and
everything that happens is either planned or directly caused by that God
which appreciates all of it. There are no accidents or mistakes, or
errors, or short comings in the overall view of the universe, it is
perfect.
If you can't make the ax murderer, if you can't design it from the
bottom to the top, then you can not become as God. God designed the ax
murderer and then became it to live it. He also became the little old
lady who gets chopped up. Its all grand and excalibur *DESIGN*.
I know you don't accept the view, you gotta understand that I
have seen it in deep vision, so I can not eschew it now, it is way too
late in the game for that.
But your position of God as Father is ABSURD, no parent allows
one child to beat up on the others, so both can learn the lessons
of free will.
The analogy of God as Father and Soul as children is a childish
one, and one MUST grow out of it to mature into a reasoning GodSoul.
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
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>You do not necessarily become what you don't value, and that not-valuing
>does not necessarily have to have charge on it. It is normal to continue
>to move toward manifesting what you do value.
Here's the point.
If someone comes to you and mockups an unconfrontable monstrosity
that you do not value, appreciate, find the beauty and humor in, then
YOU have lost, because you CAN mock it up also, you can OUT mock it up,
but you are saying its bad to mockup, you wouldn't, couldn't, shouldn't
mock it up, and thus you become owned by it.
This is not the normal human perception of things, you are being a
human not an OT in the Adorian and Scientological sense.
All I am saying to you is that you are missing that this group
here, not just me, has a very different idea of what ability and taking
responsibility for things means than the normal human, and which is why
a number of people, Christine, me, Phil and maybe others consider you an
air head.
Again there has to be a better term, this is not a derogatory
criticism, you are in a state that is classically the way it is supposed
to be, the thetan mocks himself us as something and someone that
wouldn't ever, couldn't ever, shouldn't ever mockup all these other
things, and then gets eat by them. That's the game.
Part of your airheadedness is your concept of what is evil (absence
of good) and where it comes from (ignorance and mistakes).
Good and evil are alike both mocked up with majesty and foresight
by the AllThatIs and form a tapestry of beauty and humor that only the
OT can appreciate. The human looks upon it in horror, as he is the
monster food.
>> Come on Carol, there is no other, its all you ultimately, your
>>own creations come after you and eat you if you run away from them.
>To say it's all me ultimately is an ambiguous and confusing statement,
>without an explanation of in what sense you mean that, because the meaning
>is not at all obvious from linguistic context.
You are a viewport to God, the AllThatIs, not a Being, but the
source of all Beings, and all Ability.
In this context there is no Supreme Being, there is only the
Supreme AllThatIs and it is not a being, it is the source and ground of
beings and has co-resident with it, co-eternally, an infinite number of
beings, conscious units, that can call upon the ability of the AllThatIs
and cast manifestations into the external world of perceivable
consciousness.
As a viewport to the AllThatIs you can cast anything the AllThatIs
can cast.
Source sources only when will casts.
You may have cast yourself as a little old lady who would never do
any wrong, but you CAN access the AllThatIs and cast the monster that
comes in the night and cuts her up.
To the degree that you deny that you are a viewport of the
AllThatIs, and deny that you can access and cast ANYTHING that others
have cast, and to the degree that you FAIL to access and recast
something that confronts you that you don't like, just to that degree do
you limit yourself from ever being able to as-is or vanish what has
confronted you.
If B casts something from the AllThatIs and confronts you with it,
and its bad, you can vanish it by casting it yourself from the
AllThatIs, any viewport can cast anything that is castable, and in the
perfect recasting of it, withdraw it back into the void.
If YOU put it there, YOU can unput it there.
If you refuse to re cast what B has cast, then you will not be able
to as-is it, and it will persist FOREVER, until either you or someone
else, or the originator recasts it and withdraws it back into the void.
It doesn't matter who made it, anyone can as-is it and withdraw it
back into the void. This is not a human ability, this is an OT ability,
and OTs are not human. An OT sees the beauty and humor to the monster
and the little old lady, and might just as easily walk away from it
thinking 'Good show!'.
>>>>that leads ultimately to trying to send the other to
>>>>hell forever AS irretrievably different, but ending up in hell
>>>>forever yourself.
>I don't relate to the corrected statement either.
If someone is casting something bad, monstrous say, and you feel
that you can not, should not and would not EVER cast such a thing as
yourself, then you have posited a permanent duality between them and
you, a fundamental DIFFERENCE in nature, which you can not replicate,
are unwilling to have exist, and will thus do anything to avoid.
If it comes after you, you will then do anything to destroy it
FOREVER, or punish it FOREVER.
Thus if one can not reconcile the irreconcilably different other
being, one will be drawn into attempting to cast the other being into
hell forever or into death forever.
Since one can not in fact succeed at this, and since having to do
so is itself an ARC break of magnitude with self and the AllThatIs, one
will end up in hell or death oneself.
Not being able to access and recast anything that can be casted and
has been casted by yourself and others, is an ARC break of magnitude
that the soul does not recover from.
Primary overt intent is to cast something that someone else can't,
won't or shouldn't recast, that's the way to put them down forever but
good.
It is one thing to cast oneself as someone who can't cast just
everything, but retain the knowingness that one has done so, and quite
another to really believe there are castable things that one can not
cast.
Only by recovering full accessibility, ability and willingness to
cast anything that can be casted, can true sovereignty and good humor be
restored, and the soul can recast ITSELF and withdraw back into the void
of total latent ability.
PTSness is simply allowing that another can cast something you
can't recast into non existence, including them.
If someone mocks themselves up as the meanest son of a bitch
in the valley, can you out cast them by mocking yourself up worse?
If not, or are unwilling to, well you know the drill, the other
eats you.
Evil being: "Yum, good being!"
>I just committed a mass murder. I'm not responsible. God made me do it.
>"The Devil made me do it." My case made me do it. Whatever. It won't
>wash.
God made the man and gave him free will knowing full well that
man would mis use it, God is the monster.
>God allows man to have his learning experiences, just like the parent of
>the toddler allows the child to fall down while he's learning to walk.
No parent allows the child to kill or main his sister, others or
himself.
If God were a parent, he would be in jail for child abuse.
>I'm willing to [co-]design for educational/discernment purposes, which
>lead upscale, but not toward futility and chaos, which lead to death or
>worse.
Thus you are not willing to BE as God is, because HE designed
according to exact specs the universe towards futility and chaos.
HE DESIGNED THE WILL OF MAN TO MESS UP.
Listen Carol this conversation is hopeless, I understand your point
of view, but I do not hold it.
My view is: all there is is God, we are part of that whole, and
everything that happens is either planned or directly caused by that God
which appreciates all of it. There are no accidents or mistakes, or
errors, or short comings in the overall view of the universe, it is
perfect.
If you can't make the ax murderer, if you can't design it from the
bottom to the top, then you can not become as God. God designed the ax
murderer and then became it to live it. He also became the little old
lady who gets chopped up. Its all grand and excalibur *DESIGN*.
I know you don't accept the view, you gotta understand that I
have seen it in deep vision, so I can not eschew it now, it is way too
late in the game for that.
But your position of God as Father is ABSURD, no parent allows
one child to beat up on the others, so both can learn the lessons
of free will.
The analogy of God as Father and Soul as children is a childish
one, and one MUST grow out of it to mature into a reasoning GodSoul.
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
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
"Taking responsibility" has two distinct meanings.
First it means to own up to having caused something that one might
have been denying before.
Dufus has been throwing his trash out the window on the street and
when confronted with this by a neighbor Dufus says "Oh no, not me, that
was Goober who did that."
The hell it was.
People who can't own up to what they did, and must find someone else
to blame things on, are on a downward dwindling spiral that ends in a pit
so deep there is no recovery.
Well maybe some recovery.
The second meaning of to "take responsibility" doesn't mean to own up
to having caused the mess, but offering to go DO something about the mess,
adding one's own cause into a pre existing situation in order to improve
it.
So you ask Goober if he is willing to go clean up the mess that Dufus
made and he says "I am all over it boss!" and soon the street is clean
again and stays that way.
You see Goober took responsibility OVER the state of the street by
adding his cause into a preexisting situation in order to make it better.
Technically speaking Dufus should take responsibility FOR the mess,
and Goober is taking responsibility OVER the mess.
To take responsibility for something means to own up to having caused
it.
"The buck stops here, but then goes to my wife."
To take responsibility over something means to add your own
responsibility into an existing mess that you did not cause in order to
improve it.
So as you run the responsibility process, your pc (preclear) will
realize he is denying responsibility for things he knows damn well he
caused but hopes nobody else noticed, and trying to own up to things he
didn't actually do, and also trying to not take responsibility over areas
in life he could do something about.
He will also be found to be trying to actually take responsibility
over some areas in life that are so large they would swamp Hercules and
Atlas working together.
Ever notice the beaten look on his face? That's him trying to save
the world and going into despair about it.
There is actually a scale of descent in these matters, first the
being denies having caused something he caused. At the top of the tone
scale this is grand artistry in order to have a game. Lower down it is
pure cowardice and fear of consequences. People will blame him for what he
created.
Lower down he will try to take responsibility for areas in his life
that he did not create in order to make up for his prior messes.
But he will try to take responsibility for something too big, fails,
causes accidental harm instead, then starts to refuse responsibility for
the harm and for other things in general and eventually ends up down tone
with a parachute preparing to bungy jump into that pit we talked about
above from which few return.
They like to receive mail though, just drop it over the edge.
So these matters of responsibility and no responsibility are a big
deal to the spiritual journey of a being. And running the responsibility
process in the background for a long time over many months and years will
go a long ways towards keeping him oriented on the straight and narrow.
He is trying to help, but ends up harming, or people claim that he
has, and thus he gives up and starts to harm instead as that is what he
seems to be good at.
Now once your pc has had a few of those walls of pain turn on and run
out, that we talked about in the last posting, and has had enough wins
running responsibility that he sees pretty much how it all works, it is
time to start him on the next process, which is to find out what he wants
so bad.
You run this simply with,
"What do you want?"
"What do you not want?"
Not want means both what does he not care about, and what does he
wish weren't there.
"Get rid of goals" tend to clog a person who has already given up on
a "put it there goal" which is much higher tone and creative.
But both sides have to be run.
He wants to save the world because they wouldn't let him put his
paintings up in the park you see? So first you rehab his true desires,
and then perhaps he will have a different view on saving the world and
crushing himself under the weight of that alone.
Now this is a long slow process, he will take hours to answer each
auditing question, go deep into reverie, wander around in black sticky
masses just endlessly until he comes up with another answer to the
question. It still won't be the final answer, but each one will bring him
closer and closer to the truth of what he really wants and what is really
bringing him down.
You know it has been said by LRH that finding a person's true desires
in life would raise the dead, I just have to add that if you do, they
won't stay around to help you afterwards because they will be off DOING
the calling of their hearts shortly thereafter.
Now it is beyond the conception of most people that anyone could want
something and not know it any more.
But what do you think is underlying all that pain you are in all day
long? Genetics? Old Age.
Man you got no concept of old, and believe me once the body dies, ALL
those walls of pain will follow you to your next life.
They are STRONGER in between lives, and one dives into another body
in the hope of forgetting them all and numbing them out with the
distraction of life.
The problem is if you don't know what you want, then everything you
are doing all day long must be pursuing something else.
EVERY BREATH YOU TAKE IS GOING SOUTH WHEN YOU NEED TO GO NORTH.
And you wonder why you can't breath.
So running these two process in tandem will start to really fix a
being up but good.
Run
"Spot something you are responsible for."
"Spot something you are not responsible for."
until he owns up to what he has done and stops owning up to what he
hasn't done, both good and bad, and he is able again to take
responsibility responsibly so that he can win rather than lose.
Then run simply,
"What do you want?"
until he has something to take responsibility for and over, and his
space straightens out, all the mental and emotional enturbulation smooths
out, its like the ripples in the river just disappear, and he is suddenly
feeling good again and he knows which way the river is running so he can
swim in the right direction, rather than go around and around in endless
eddies of sewage.
This can be really quite startling.
Make sure he pays you for that session before he leaves the room,
because he won't be coming back.
Homer
P.S.
Among other things what the being really wants back is his true Self.
Eventually you will need to run
"Spot NO Self."
"Spot SOME Self."
Denial of Self is much of what is killing him.
You know he is getting close when the lights starting
turning back on for him.
Light is made of clear harmony, gorgeous beauty, majesty, love,
admiration, respect and magnificence. Not to mention, cool, class,
halcyon, thrill and romance, adoration, pride and glory.
If you aren't getting a mile wide smile out of this and lots
of classy tears, you just aren't running it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Mar 22 00:51:13 EDT 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 18 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore657.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQBmBaURT1lqxE3HERAh1WAJ0Y6tnkbvPWZPgVCQf9oKXQ3B4BegCdGZLK
sq7ZUBl8uYuSN+d/HOLo56w=
=gu9e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WHAT DO YOU WANT?
"Taking responsibility" has two distinct meanings.
First it means to own up to having caused something that one might
have been denying before.
Dufus has been throwing his trash out the window on the street and
when confronted with this by a neighbor Dufus says "Oh no, not me, that
was Goober who did that."
The hell it was.
People who can't own up to what they did, and must find someone else
to blame things on, are on a downward dwindling spiral that ends in a pit
so deep there is no recovery.
Well maybe some recovery.
The second meaning of to "take responsibility" doesn't mean to own up
to having caused the mess, but offering to go DO something about the mess,
adding one's own cause into a pre existing situation in order to improve
it.
So you ask Goober if he is willing to go clean up the mess that Dufus
made and he says "I am all over it boss!" and soon the street is clean
again and stays that way.
You see Goober took responsibility OVER the state of the street by
adding his cause into a preexisting situation in order to make it better.
Technically speaking Dufus should take responsibility FOR the mess,
and Goober is taking responsibility OVER the mess.
To take responsibility for something means to own up to having caused
it.
"The buck stops here, but then goes to my wife."
To take responsibility over something means to add your own
responsibility into an existing mess that you did not cause in order to
improve it.
So as you run the responsibility process, your pc (preclear) will
realize he is denying responsibility for things he knows damn well he
caused but hopes nobody else noticed, and trying to own up to things he
didn't actually do, and also trying to not take responsibility over areas
in life he could do something about.
He will also be found to be trying to actually take responsibility
over some areas in life that are so large they would swamp Hercules and
Atlas working together.
Ever notice the beaten look on his face? That's him trying to save
the world and going into despair about it.
There is actually a scale of descent in these matters, first the
being denies having caused something he caused. At the top of the tone
scale this is grand artistry in order to have a game. Lower down it is
pure cowardice and fear of consequences. People will blame him for what he
created.
Lower down he will try to take responsibility for areas in his life
that he did not create in order to make up for his prior messes.
But he will try to take responsibility for something too big, fails,
causes accidental harm instead, then starts to refuse responsibility for
the harm and for other things in general and eventually ends up down tone
with a parachute preparing to bungy jump into that pit we talked about
above from which few return.
They like to receive mail though, just drop it over the edge.
So these matters of responsibility and no responsibility are a big
deal to the spiritual journey of a being. And running the responsibility
process in the background for a long time over many months and years will
go a long ways towards keeping him oriented on the straight and narrow.
He is trying to help, but ends up harming, or people claim that he
has, and thus he gives up and starts to harm instead as that is what he
seems to be good at.
Now once your pc has had a few of those walls of pain turn on and run
out, that we talked about in the last posting, and has had enough wins
running responsibility that he sees pretty much how it all works, it is
time to start him on the next process, which is to find out what he wants
so bad.
You run this simply with,
"What do you want?"
"What do you not want?"
Not want means both what does he not care about, and what does he
wish weren't there.
"Get rid of goals" tend to clog a person who has already given up on
a "put it there goal" which is much higher tone and creative.
But both sides have to be run.
He wants to save the world because they wouldn't let him put his
paintings up in the park you see? So first you rehab his true desires,
and then perhaps he will have a different view on saving the world and
crushing himself under the weight of that alone.
Now this is a long slow process, he will take hours to answer each
auditing question, go deep into reverie, wander around in black sticky
masses just endlessly until he comes up with another answer to the
question. It still won't be the final answer, but each one will bring him
closer and closer to the truth of what he really wants and what is really
bringing him down.
You know it has been said by LRH that finding a person's true desires
in life would raise the dead, I just have to add that if you do, they
won't stay around to help you afterwards because they will be off DOING
the calling of their hearts shortly thereafter.
Now it is beyond the conception of most people that anyone could want
something and not know it any more.
But what do you think is underlying all that pain you are in all day
long? Genetics? Old Age.
Man you got no concept of old, and believe me once the body dies, ALL
those walls of pain will follow you to your next life.
They are STRONGER in between lives, and one dives into another body
in the hope of forgetting them all and numbing them out with the
distraction of life.
The problem is if you don't know what you want, then everything you
are doing all day long must be pursuing something else.
EVERY BREATH YOU TAKE IS GOING SOUTH WHEN YOU NEED TO GO NORTH.
And you wonder why you can't breath.
So running these two process in tandem will start to really fix a
being up but good.
Run
"Spot something you are responsible for."
"Spot something you are not responsible for."
until he owns up to what he has done and stops owning up to what he
hasn't done, both good and bad, and he is able again to take
responsibility responsibly so that he can win rather than lose.
Then run simply,
"What do you want?"
until he has something to take responsibility for and over, and his
space straightens out, all the mental and emotional enturbulation smooths
out, its like the ripples in the river just disappear, and he is suddenly
feeling good again and he knows which way the river is running so he can
swim in the right direction, rather than go around and around in endless
eddies of sewage.
This can be really quite startling.
Make sure he pays you for that session before he leaves the room,
because he won't be coming back.
Homer
P.S.
Among other things what the being really wants back is his true Self.
Eventually you will need to run
"Spot NO Self."
"Spot SOME Self."
Denial of Self is much of what is killing him.
You know he is getting close when the lights starting
turning back on for him.
Light is made of clear harmony, gorgeous beauty, majesty, love,
admiration, respect and magnificence. Not to mention, cool, class,
halcyon, thrill and romance, adoration, pride and glory.
If you aren't getting a mile wide smile out of this and lots
of classy tears, you just aren't running it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Mar 22 00:51:13 EDT 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 18 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore657.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQBmBaURT1lqxE3HERAh1WAJ0Y6tnkbvPWZPgVCQf9oKXQ3B4BegCdGZLK
sq7ZUBl8uYuSN+d/HOLo56w=
=gu9e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, July 16, 2012
GOD MAN WOMAN CHILD
GOD MAN WOMAN CHILD
Oriental wisdom gives us yin and yang, male and female etc.
They are drawn as two complementing figures that make a whole.
Adore takes exception to this for two basic reasons.
First the figures are drawn as if they are equal in size.
Secondly Adore claims there are 4 aspects rather than 2.
The 4 aspects form concentric rings of support much as the
dynamics are presented in Hymn of Asia.
Child is in the middle, surrounded by woman, surrounded by man,
surrounded by God.
But then the God is surrounded again by the child at the next
level out. So the concentricity goes outward almost forever, as one
expands into bigger and bigger game spheres.
There are women in male phases, and men in female phases, and
both in child and god phases of their particular endeavors.
There are also men in higher and lower groups of 4, so although
both are male phase, one is seriously advanced over the other, being
multiple groups of 4 ahead of the other.
Notice that a woman in a higher group of 4 is more advanced than
ANYONE in a lower group of 4, God, Man, Woman or Child.
Adore does make a statement about dependency between each of the
phases within a group which is highly unacceptable to those that like
to think God = man = woman = child.
The child is more dependent on the female than the female is
dependent on the child. The female takes her purpose from the child
(the child's needs).
The female (with child) is more dependent on the male than the
male is on the female. The male takes his purpose from the female.
The male (with female with child) is more dependent on the God
than the God is on the male. The God takes his purpose from the male.
The God is more dependent on the child at the next level up, than
the child is dependent on the God at the previous level down. The
higher child takes his purpose from the lower God.
But the real point of controversy is Adore's statement that the 4
phases are about relative ability within each group.
The woman is more able than the child.
The man is more able than the woman.
The God is more able than the man.
The child at the next level up is more able than the God at the
previous level down.
If you think of child, woman, man and God as phases of mastery in
any particular area rather than physical bodies, it really does make a
lot of sense.
From this point of view, there are as many women who are more
able than men, as there are men who are more able than women.
But there are also children more able than men, women or Gods.
The being enters a brand new area in a state of total
irresponsibility, he has no clue what is going on, and had no prior
cause in it. In order to master his childhood, he has to master that
scene of total irresponsibility. Children learn by mimickry.
The being then needs to learn how to defend, not only themselves
but other child phase beings in their care. This is the woman phase
which when mastered becomes master of defense. Women learn through
harmony, harmonizing.
The being then needs to learn how to offend, how to seek danger
before it find him. This is the male phase which when mastered
becomes master of offense. Men learn through counterpoint.
The being then needs to learn how to create the game sphere he is
in. This is the God phase which when mastered becomes master of total
responsibility. From this the God can then create, find or enter the
next sphere of total irresponsibility at the next level up. The God
seeks a new beat.
"Mimickry, harmony, counterpoint and newbeat are musical terms
relating to the CO JAM of life." - Adore
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Feb 21 00:04:10 EST 2007
Oriental wisdom gives us yin and yang, male and female etc.
They are drawn as two complementing figures that make a whole.
Adore takes exception to this for two basic reasons.
First the figures are drawn as if they are equal in size.
Secondly Adore claims there are 4 aspects rather than 2.
The 4 aspects form concentric rings of support much as the
dynamics are presented in Hymn of Asia.
Child is in the middle, surrounded by woman, surrounded by man,
surrounded by God.
But then the God is surrounded again by the child at the next
level out. So the concentricity goes outward almost forever, as one
expands into bigger and bigger game spheres.
There are women in male phases, and men in female phases, and
both in child and god phases of their particular endeavors.
There are also men in higher and lower groups of 4, so although
both are male phase, one is seriously advanced over the other, being
multiple groups of 4 ahead of the other.
Notice that a woman in a higher group of 4 is more advanced than
ANYONE in a lower group of 4, God, Man, Woman or Child.
Adore does make a statement about dependency between each of the
phases within a group which is highly unacceptable to those that like
to think God = man = woman = child.
The child is more dependent on the female than the female is
dependent on the child. The female takes her purpose from the child
(the child's needs).
The female (with child) is more dependent on the male than the
male is on the female. The male takes his purpose from the female.
The male (with female with child) is more dependent on the God
than the God is on the male. The God takes his purpose from the male.
The God is more dependent on the child at the next level up, than
the child is dependent on the God at the previous level down. The
higher child takes his purpose from the lower God.
But the real point of controversy is Adore's statement that the 4
phases are about relative ability within each group.
The woman is more able than the child.
The man is more able than the woman.
The God is more able than the man.
The child at the next level up is more able than the God at the
previous level down.
If you think of child, woman, man and God as phases of mastery in
any particular area rather than physical bodies, it really does make a
lot of sense.
From this point of view, there are as many women who are more
able than men, as there are men who are more able than women.
But there are also children more able than men, women or Gods.
The being enters a brand new area in a state of total
irresponsibility, he has no clue what is going on, and had no prior
cause in it. In order to master his childhood, he has to master that
scene of total irresponsibility. Children learn by mimickry.
The being then needs to learn how to defend, not only themselves
but other child phase beings in their care. This is the woman phase
which when mastered becomes master of defense. Women learn through
harmony, harmonizing.
The being then needs to learn how to offend, how to seek danger
before it find him. This is the male phase which when mastered
becomes master of offense. Men learn through counterpoint.
The being then needs to learn how to create the game sphere he is
in. This is the God phase which when mastered becomes master of total
responsibility. From this the God can then create, find or enter the
next sphere of total irresponsibility at the next level up. The God
seeks a new beat.
"Mimickry, harmony, counterpoint and newbeat are musical terms
relating to the CO JAM of life." - Adore
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Feb 21 00:04:10 EST 2007
THE MORTALITY - IMMORTALITY RUNDOWN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE MORTALITY - IMMORTALITY RUNDOWN
For Curiosus.
Define dramatization as bringing drama to.
Define drama as seriousness, importance, permanence and pain.
Define permanence as temporal (not eternal) forevers or nevers
*IN TIME*.
Indoctrinate:
Thetans use question asking to hide answers from themselves.
The act of committing effort to a question implies the prior
postulate that one does not know the answer.
This is fine for learning by looking in the physical universe,
but is not fine for questions about one's self or basic nature which
one knows fundamentally.
Question asking about the physical universe is extroversion.
Question asking about self or basic nature is introversion.
Introverted question asking is the sole cause of persistence of
case. The being is afraid of knowing some answer, so refuses to look
and becomes a truth seeker. He says "I will seek the answer to this
question all the rest of my days."
Introverted questions consist of 'who am I, how am I, what am I,
where am I, when am I, why am I, which am I" and the idiot mother of
them all, "AM I?", amongst others.
The more SERIOUS he is about answering his introverted questions,
the more solid he becomes buried under the heavy masses and solid wake
that heavy efforts engender.
Seriousness means must succeed at all costs forever, must never
fail etc. Forevers and nevers color game playing efforts into serious
efforts. "This ain't just a game you know!"
Serious heavy efforts can never succeed, so when ever you see a
pc engaging in such with introverted question asking, you know
immediately he is skate boarding out the tubes and down the drain to
hell.
The pc actually doesn't need to know the correct answer to his
many introverted questions to get better, he just needs to spot the
dramatization of questions and the damage he is doing to himself by
fearing answers he already has, all of which are wrong.
There is no fear at truth on the tone scale.
There is no truth at fear on the tone scale.
The pc can know the correct answer to any question he can imagine.
But generally the correct answer to a generic "what is sinking
me?" will be the process of question asking itself.
Thus the question he is dramatizing asking, IS the answer he is
seeking for.
You can run 'What question are you dramatizing", but the pc is
more likely to dramatize that one also, and thus sink himself further.
Most self auditing doesn't work because the being is dramatizing
auditing! Out of valence no less.
It's REAL IMPORTANT TO GO CLEAR!
Phooey, a clear could care less.
Thus this can be touchy business getting better.
Once the pc understands the above material he will then get
reality on it soon enough, and his heavy dramatizings will hit him in
the face with clarity rather than confusion, and he will spot each one
as it happens and ceasing dramatizing that particular question so
hard.
Then the next question will start to operate and turn him into a
pretzel, and he will spot it too in a while, and it too will become
calm again for the first time in ages.
Questions are like clouds on a summer's eve breeze, you watch
them go by, you don't go running after them with all your might.
Eventually the pc comes into a state of mind where 'yes these
questions are not yet answered but they will be one day, and boy do I
feel good not knowing one hell of a lot.' Then the correct answers
will come if any are still left to come.
By the way a pc below Grade III will always grab the answer that
makes him feel the worst and run with it as the true answer. It just
couldn't make him feel THAT bad if it didn't have some truth in it you
see!
A pc above Grade III will always reject the feel bad answer, and
go for the eternal good humor answer.
The pc below Grade III will fear knowing because he knows that
the answer will make him feel worse, confirm his worst fears.
This puts him on a must know NOW *AND* must not know EVER.
The pc above Grade III will not fear knowing, but will look
forward to the answer with willingness and high appreciation for
ludicrous demise.
Affinity for knowing and not knowing leads to knowing, leads to
unmanifestation (not knowing), which leads to utter peace.
The MEATBALL DREAMBALL RUNDOWN.
A primary sub question of 'what am I?' is "Am I Mortal or
am I Eternal?"
The being has come down through many cycles of wanting to live
forever, and wanting to die forever. Each hell forever he ducks out
of into a death forever mortal life, is followed by another hell
forever once he gets sick of pretending to himself he can die when he
can't.
Now beings can get VERY far gone on this cycle, many are still
walking around and were your school teachers as a child. But many are
just buried stone deep in the pc's face as entities clustered together
sinking slowly in the muck.
Clustering is the sole source of stuckness in life, whether
in a condition or in a body. Clustering results from seriousness,
nothing else.
In Dianetics they teach us to find the AESP's and run the
greatest reading one of them. Well the primary AESP that needs to be
run is the seriousness chain. That will unstick anything from
anything. Once the pc is no longer a part of a cluster stuck to other
clusters. He will naturally exteriorize.
The being has gotten into this trouble over Immortality and
Mortality, by confusing ETERNALITY with INFINITE TEMPORALITY.
Each one is a solution to the one before it.
Immortality -> Hell forever -> Mortality -> Death Forever ->
Immortality etc. Each one at a lower position on the tone scale, and
smaller sphere of action. Eventually they become Christians or some
such, a very small immortality.
No one wants to live in time forever, time is only meant to be
for a while.
After one is done with his while, then he returns to native state
which is a timeless ETERNALITY, and then eventually returns back to
another while in time.
One second in native state is like being there forever.
The being tries to get back to native state but fails (by choice),
and thus gets stuck in time. He then tries to continue time forever which
is a substitute for true eternality, and a hated one at that. This is the
the threshold that crosses over from game playing for a while, into
seriousness forever.
In time one can not help but be fragile, precious and
irreplaceable, along with everything else in the time stream. The
only thing that lasts forever is people and peace, in native state.
The HIGH US.
Thus the guy who is trying to go to sleep forever in time (death
forever) or trying to live forever in time (hell forever) is on a wild
rollercoaster between the two wings of the dicom. Each time he zooms
at maximum speed right by the middle which is peace in eternality.
So you have the basic DICOM
Immortal in time - Eternality - Mortal in time
Hell forever - Peace - Death forever.
Back and forth, back and forth.
No wonder the guy is stressed.
He doesn't WANT to be Immortal any more because it became
a god damn hell forever that he couldn't escape back to unimpingable
sleep at native state. No humor there.
He doesn't WANT to be mortal any more, because he can't cry
enough tears over not enough time for love. No humor there either.
He keeps flying right by the joke in the middle every time he
switches state from Immortal in time to Mortal in time.
He would be much better off if he were swinging from OUT of Time
to IN Time, more often.
OUT of TIME
^
|
|
Immortal in Time ------------ Mortal in Time
Hell forever Death forever
So you find him dramatizing away putting every ounce of his energy
into 'Am I immortal or am I mortal?' Does God exist? Have I lived before?
Can I exteriorize? Am I a brain? What evidence is there? Can someone
prove it to me? (no). Do other's exist? Does the physical universe
exist? If so how can I be immortal? Is space an illusion? Is the PU a
dream in my consciousness? If so how come I was so stupid to go unlucid
in the dream of life? (Lucid means dreaming and knows he is dreaming.)
This question asking is killing him, and everyone around him for a
few city blocks at least. So you gotta get this stuff quieted out so the
guy can have a look at the divine and find the peace that passeth all
question asking.
PROCESS
The E/P of this process is NOT knows he is an immortal being.
The E/P is ceasing the nonsense that is stopping him from knowing and
destroying him in the wake.
Run repetitively back and forth.
"Get the idea you are eternal. (outside of time)
Good.
Tell me about it.
Good.
Get the idea you are immortal. (inside of time)
Good.
Tell me about it.
Good.
Get the idea you are mortal. (inside of time, time outlasts him)
Good.
Tell me about it.
Good."
Lots of cognitions will fall out of this process and the guy will
see what a nut case he has been about it, and finally be able to chill
out to where he is fit to know the answer again. He will also see the
role that dramatization, forevers and nevers, and question asking play
in the persistence of his case.
He will also see what everyone else is doing with their time and
not feel obliged to join in with them.
E/P is able and willing to know the answer to any question and
willing to and facile with moving between the three operating states of
existence, eternality, immortality and mortality.
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
Mon Jun 19 00:27:40 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jul 15 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore341.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQAmvaURT1lqxE3HERAsa2AKDI0mykvN245RahUJ+hZPL9Y5ndKwCfZ7Ls
AH0MSn7JZG776SZgapGel3c=
=Jr5x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Hash: SHA1
THE MORTALITY - IMMORTALITY RUNDOWN
For Curiosus.
Define dramatization as bringing drama to.
Define drama as seriousness, importance, permanence and pain.
Define permanence as temporal (not eternal) forevers or nevers
*IN TIME*.
Indoctrinate:
Thetans use question asking to hide answers from themselves.
The act of committing effort to a question implies the prior
postulate that one does not know the answer.
This is fine for learning by looking in the physical universe,
but is not fine for questions about one's self or basic nature which
one knows fundamentally.
Question asking about the physical universe is extroversion.
Question asking about self or basic nature is introversion.
Introverted question asking is the sole cause of persistence of
case. The being is afraid of knowing some answer, so refuses to look
and becomes a truth seeker. He says "I will seek the answer to this
question all the rest of my days."
Introverted questions consist of 'who am I, how am I, what am I,
where am I, when am I, why am I, which am I" and the idiot mother of
them all, "AM I?", amongst others.
The more SERIOUS he is about answering his introverted questions,
the more solid he becomes buried under the heavy masses and solid wake
that heavy efforts engender.
Seriousness means must succeed at all costs forever, must never
fail etc. Forevers and nevers color game playing efforts into serious
efforts. "This ain't just a game you know!"
Serious heavy efforts can never succeed, so when ever you see a
pc engaging in such with introverted question asking, you know
immediately he is skate boarding out the tubes and down the drain to
hell.
The pc actually doesn't need to know the correct answer to his
many introverted questions to get better, he just needs to spot the
dramatization of questions and the damage he is doing to himself by
fearing answers he already has, all of which are wrong.
There is no fear at truth on the tone scale.
There is no truth at fear on the tone scale.
The pc can know the correct answer to any question he can imagine.
But generally the correct answer to a generic "what is sinking
me?" will be the process of question asking itself.
Thus the question he is dramatizing asking, IS the answer he is
seeking for.
You can run 'What question are you dramatizing", but the pc is
more likely to dramatize that one also, and thus sink himself further.
Most self auditing doesn't work because the being is dramatizing
auditing! Out of valence no less.
It's REAL IMPORTANT TO GO CLEAR!
Phooey, a clear could care less.
Thus this can be touchy business getting better.
Once the pc understands the above material he will then get
reality on it soon enough, and his heavy dramatizings will hit him in
the face with clarity rather than confusion, and he will spot each one
as it happens and ceasing dramatizing that particular question so
hard.
Then the next question will start to operate and turn him into a
pretzel, and he will spot it too in a while, and it too will become
calm again for the first time in ages.
Questions are like clouds on a summer's eve breeze, you watch
them go by, you don't go running after them with all your might.
Eventually the pc comes into a state of mind where 'yes these
questions are not yet answered but they will be one day, and boy do I
feel good not knowing one hell of a lot.' Then the correct answers
will come if any are still left to come.
By the way a pc below Grade III will always grab the answer that
makes him feel the worst and run with it as the true answer. It just
couldn't make him feel THAT bad if it didn't have some truth in it you
see!
A pc above Grade III will always reject the feel bad answer, and
go for the eternal good humor answer.
The pc below Grade III will fear knowing because he knows that
the answer will make him feel worse, confirm his worst fears.
This puts him on a must know NOW *AND* must not know EVER.
The pc above Grade III will not fear knowing, but will look
forward to the answer with willingness and high appreciation for
ludicrous demise.
Affinity for knowing and not knowing leads to knowing, leads to
unmanifestation (not knowing), which leads to utter peace.
The MEATBALL DREAMBALL RUNDOWN.
A primary sub question of 'what am I?' is "Am I Mortal or
am I Eternal?"
The being has come down through many cycles of wanting to live
forever, and wanting to die forever. Each hell forever he ducks out
of into a death forever mortal life, is followed by another hell
forever once he gets sick of pretending to himself he can die when he
can't.
Now beings can get VERY far gone on this cycle, many are still
walking around and were your school teachers as a child. But many are
just buried stone deep in the pc's face as entities clustered together
sinking slowly in the muck.
Clustering is the sole source of stuckness in life, whether
in a condition or in a body. Clustering results from seriousness,
nothing else.
In Dianetics they teach us to find the AESP's and run the
greatest reading one of them. Well the primary AESP that needs to be
run is the seriousness chain. That will unstick anything from
anything. Once the pc is no longer a part of a cluster stuck to other
clusters. He will naturally exteriorize.
The being has gotten into this trouble over Immortality and
Mortality, by confusing ETERNALITY with INFINITE TEMPORALITY.
Each one is a solution to the one before it.
Immortality -> Hell forever -> Mortality -> Death Forever ->
Immortality etc. Each one at a lower position on the tone scale, and
smaller sphere of action. Eventually they become Christians or some
such, a very small immortality.
No one wants to live in time forever, time is only meant to be
for a while.
After one is done with his while, then he returns to native state
which is a timeless ETERNALITY, and then eventually returns back to
another while in time.
One second in native state is like being there forever.
The being tries to get back to native state but fails (by choice),
and thus gets stuck in time. He then tries to continue time forever which
is a substitute for true eternality, and a hated one at that. This is the
the threshold that crosses over from game playing for a while, into
seriousness forever.
In time one can not help but be fragile, precious and
irreplaceable, along with everything else in the time stream. The
only thing that lasts forever is people and peace, in native state.
The HIGH US.
Thus the guy who is trying to go to sleep forever in time (death
forever) or trying to live forever in time (hell forever) is on a wild
rollercoaster between the two wings of the dicom. Each time he zooms
at maximum speed right by the middle which is peace in eternality.
So you have the basic DICOM
Immortal in time - Eternality - Mortal in time
Hell forever - Peace - Death forever.
Back and forth, back and forth.
No wonder the guy is stressed.
He doesn't WANT to be Immortal any more because it became
a god damn hell forever that he couldn't escape back to unimpingable
sleep at native state. No humor there.
He doesn't WANT to be mortal any more, because he can't cry
enough tears over not enough time for love. No humor there either.
He keeps flying right by the joke in the middle every time he
switches state from Immortal in time to Mortal in time.
He would be much better off if he were swinging from OUT of Time
to IN Time, more often.
OUT of TIME
^
|
|
Immortal in Time ------------ Mortal in Time
Hell forever Death forever
So you find him dramatizing away putting every ounce of his energy
into 'Am I immortal or am I mortal?' Does God exist? Have I lived before?
Can I exteriorize? Am I a brain? What evidence is there? Can someone
prove it to me? (no). Do other's exist? Does the physical universe
exist? If so how can I be immortal? Is space an illusion? Is the PU a
dream in my consciousness? If so how come I was so stupid to go unlucid
in the dream of life? (Lucid means dreaming and knows he is dreaming.)
This question asking is killing him, and everyone around him for a
few city blocks at least. So you gotta get this stuff quieted out so the
guy can have a look at the divine and find the peace that passeth all
question asking.
PROCESS
The E/P of this process is NOT knows he is an immortal being.
The E/P is ceasing the nonsense that is stopping him from knowing and
destroying him in the wake.
Run repetitively back and forth.
"Get the idea you are eternal. (outside of time)
Good.
Tell me about it.
Good.
Get the idea you are immortal. (inside of time)
Good.
Tell me about it.
Good.
Get the idea you are mortal. (inside of time, time outlasts him)
Good.
Tell me about it.
Good."
Lots of cognitions will fall out of this process and the guy will
see what a nut case he has been about it, and finally be able to chill
out to where he is fit to know the answer again. He will also see the
role that dramatization, forevers and nevers, and question asking play
in the persistence of his case.
He will also see what everyone else is doing with their time and
not feel obliged to join in with them.
E/P is able and willing to know the answer to any question and
willing to and facile with moving between the three operating states of
existence, eternality, immortality and mortality.
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
Mon Jun 19 00:27:40 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jul 15 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore341.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQAmvaURT1lqxE3HERAsa2AKDI0mykvN245RahUJ+hZPL9Y5ndKwCfZ7Ls
AH0MSn7JZG776SZgapGel3c=
=Jr5x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
THE ABOVE DESIRE AND THE BELOW DESIRE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE ABOVE DESIRE AND THE BELOW DESIRE
Consider the arcade game writer.
After he writes the game, he then plays it.
If he doesn't like the game, he goes back to writing the game, and
then he starts to play it again.
In this way he eventually comes up with a game he likes to play.
The arcade game writer has two desires, the above desire and the
below desire.
The above desire is what he desires OF the game.
The below desire is what he desires IN the game.
While in the game his desire is to shoot the enemy, win the girl,
defeat the evil wizard and run off with the loot. That's the below
desire.
While out of the game, he desires a game that will keep his
interest in the play and put a load on his abilities to the max. That's
the above desire.
If the game is too easy to play, he will make it harder, if it's
too hard he will make it easier.
Eventually he will have fine tuned the game so that when he plays
it he loses all interest in tuning the game, and puts all his attention
into the play.
He forgets he has written the game himself, and that he CAN change
it if he wants to. HE HAS NO NEED TO CHANGE IT, all his attention is on
winning!
Notice the desire to play the game takes precedence over the desire
to win the game.
If he wins too early he loses the play, and that violates his above
desire to play the game.
If he loses too early, he also loses the play, and that too
violates his above desire to play the game.
So the above desire to have and play the game is actually somewhat
in opposition to the below desire to win the game, and it is this
tension between the two desires that powers the thrill of the game.
So life is the same way and you are the arcade game writer and
player.
Sometimes you play games written by others, and sometimes you play
your own, but you always have access to the writer and the player of any
game unless you think you don't.
You wouldn't play a game which didn't give you access to both, and
neither would anyone else.
The game of life is powered by the two desires both operating at
the same time.
The higher desire is to play a game in the first place, that puts
you in the game.
The lower desire is to win game, that makes the game move forward.
Withdraw either desire and the game stops.
Now if you were outside the game of life, and someone offered life
to you to play, would you jump right into the seat of control and start
playing?
Or would you tune it back a bit because it's too rough?
Or perhaps you find it too tame, and you would up the ante a bit
before starting the play.
WHERE DO YOU STAND RIGHT NOW ON THE GAME OF LIFE?
That's two questions, you see.
WHAT IS YOUR DESIRE TO PLAY?
WHAT IS YOUR DESIRE TO WIN?
If you can touch both desires at once, you can operate both the
writer and the player in equal measure. This is pure magic, because the
way out of any game is the way in, thus the way out lies in contacting
YOUR DESIRE TO BE HERE AND PLAY.
But the power of the desire to be here and play gives you the
ability to play better and win more often!
Trying to play merely on the desire to win is a downward spiral,
like wet wood, you can light it, but it will never burn on its own.
People may think that merely wanting to play a game sufficient
power to be in the game. But if they think they didn't CHOOSE to enter
the game, if the game chose them, or the circumstances of life threw
them into the game, their play will be tainted by the fact they are
being forced to play a game even if they adore playing it.
Most people consider that they didn't choose to be born, thus no
matter how good life is to them, life will be tainted by the fact that
they had no choice in the matter.
A player who is playing a game he thinks he didn't write or choose
to play, EVEN IF IT IS A GAME HE WOULD OTHERWISE WANT TO PLAY, doesn't
have enough power to play the game properly let alone win.
For the power to play the game comes from the fair chosen decision
to come in and play it. *THAT* is the power of the Author God.
Without that power behind you, the game will end up playing you
rather than you playing it.
You become a ball on the pinball field with everyone else whacking
you around.
Without the power of choice and desire behind you to play the game,
you will resist and protest that you have to play at all, and winning
will become near impossible, and losing the only way out of the game at
earliest opportunity.
How well can someone play a game if they don't want to play?
You can't win a game while trying to back out of it.
Once you contact the desire to come in and play the game, other's
will be hard pressed to beat you at all. And those who are playing only
to win will be your balls to whack around as you see fit.
Once you contact the two desires that power a game, you can tune
them however you wish, including detune them altogether, leave the game,
turn off the arcade and walk away from the console.
But it's such a good game!
So no chance.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Jul 26 00:48:07 EDT 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jul 14 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore668.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQARpaURT1lqxE3HERAoXPAKCxoXmwfvyv5plkRSB3WhzbTpPqBwCdFv2X
0fqV8sWRl/otS1lEPyQE8XU=
=E+uW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Hash: SHA1
THE ABOVE DESIRE AND THE BELOW DESIRE
Consider the arcade game writer.
After he writes the game, he then plays it.
If he doesn't like the game, he goes back to writing the game, and
then he starts to play it again.
In this way he eventually comes up with a game he likes to play.
The arcade game writer has two desires, the above desire and the
below desire.
The above desire is what he desires OF the game.
The below desire is what he desires IN the game.
While in the game his desire is to shoot the enemy, win the girl,
defeat the evil wizard and run off with the loot. That's the below
desire.
While out of the game, he desires a game that will keep his
interest in the play and put a load on his abilities to the max. That's
the above desire.
If the game is too easy to play, he will make it harder, if it's
too hard he will make it easier.
Eventually he will have fine tuned the game so that when he plays
it he loses all interest in tuning the game, and puts all his attention
into the play.
He forgets he has written the game himself, and that he CAN change
it if he wants to. HE HAS NO NEED TO CHANGE IT, all his attention is on
winning!
Notice the desire to play the game takes precedence over the desire
to win the game.
If he wins too early he loses the play, and that violates his above
desire to play the game.
If he loses too early, he also loses the play, and that too
violates his above desire to play the game.
So the above desire to have and play the game is actually somewhat
in opposition to the below desire to win the game, and it is this
tension between the two desires that powers the thrill of the game.
So life is the same way and you are the arcade game writer and
player.
Sometimes you play games written by others, and sometimes you play
your own, but you always have access to the writer and the player of any
game unless you think you don't.
You wouldn't play a game which didn't give you access to both, and
neither would anyone else.
The game of life is powered by the two desires both operating at
the same time.
The higher desire is to play a game in the first place, that puts
you in the game.
The lower desire is to win game, that makes the game move forward.
Withdraw either desire and the game stops.
Now if you were outside the game of life, and someone offered life
to you to play, would you jump right into the seat of control and start
playing?
Or would you tune it back a bit because it's too rough?
Or perhaps you find it too tame, and you would up the ante a bit
before starting the play.
WHERE DO YOU STAND RIGHT NOW ON THE GAME OF LIFE?
That's two questions, you see.
WHAT IS YOUR DESIRE TO PLAY?
WHAT IS YOUR DESIRE TO WIN?
If you can touch both desires at once, you can operate both the
writer and the player in equal measure. This is pure magic, because the
way out of any game is the way in, thus the way out lies in contacting
YOUR DESIRE TO BE HERE AND PLAY.
But the power of the desire to be here and play gives you the
ability to play better and win more often!
Trying to play merely on the desire to win is a downward spiral,
like wet wood, you can light it, but it will never burn on its own.
People may think that merely wanting to play a game sufficient
power to be in the game. But if they think they didn't CHOOSE to enter
the game, if the game chose them, or the circumstances of life threw
them into the game, their play will be tainted by the fact they are
being forced to play a game even if they adore playing it.
Most people consider that they didn't choose to be born, thus no
matter how good life is to them, life will be tainted by the fact that
they had no choice in the matter.
A player who is playing a game he thinks he didn't write or choose
to play, EVEN IF IT IS A GAME HE WOULD OTHERWISE WANT TO PLAY, doesn't
have enough power to play the game properly let alone win.
For the power to play the game comes from the fair chosen decision
to come in and play it. *THAT* is the power of the Author God.
Without that power behind you, the game will end up playing you
rather than you playing it.
You become a ball on the pinball field with everyone else whacking
you around.
Without the power of choice and desire behind you to play the game,
you will resist and protest that you have to play at all, and winning
will become near impossible, and losing the only way out of the game at
earliest opportunity.
How well can someone play a game if they don't want to play?
You can't win a game while trying to back out of it.
Once you contact the desire to come in and play the game, other's
will be hard pressed to beat you at all. And those who are playing only
to win will be your balls to whack around as you see fit.
Once you contact the two desires that power a game, you can tune
them however you wish, including detune them altogether, leave the game,
turn off the arcade and walk away from the console.
But it's such a good game!
So no chance.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Jul 26 00:48:07 EDT 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jul 14 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore668.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQARpaURT1lqxE3HERAoXPAKCxoXmwfvyv5plkRSB3WhzbTpPqBwCdFv2X
0fqV8sWRl/otS1lEPyQE8XU=
=E+uW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)