-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GAMES IX
The preclear wants to be an effect.
The preclear wants to be the effect of an auditor who will help him
be better able to be an effect in life with more enjoyment.
The auditor wants the preclear to be cause, to create his own
effects, and to keep himself adjusted properly in each game he plays.
Games are an operating balance between being cause and being an
effect of team mates and opponents.
WINNING AND LOSING
If the preclear wins a game he LOSES THE *GAME*. He then has to
find another game to play, or start the present one over again.
Winning too often can be a real drag on a being looking for a
challenge, who can't find enough challenging games to play.
He may arbitrarily handicap himself to even the odds against
himself, but then when a more worthy game comes along he fails to
remember how to unhandicap himself, and the opportunity passes him by,
or he gets crushed out of the gate or first toss.
If the preclear loses a game, he also LOSES THE *GAME*, he is out
the game! He then has to find another game to play or start the present
one over again.
Losing too often can be a real drag for a being looking to lighten
his load of challenge.
The highest thrill comes when the preclear really doesn't know if
he is going to win or lose any particular game.
That's a perfectly balanced game.
A balanced game is equally worth ending the game by winning or
losing.
They also last the longest and have the most glory in them.
Serious comebacks are also cool, but the being can't look forward
to them as easily as a well balanced game.
He will in general resent the comeback even as they are carrying
him off the field as a hero on their shoulders. He will feel either he
cheated, or the other side messed up, that some how it may have started
off a fair fight, but didn't end up one, so he won instead of lost.
If the game is a serious game, meaning the play is for keeps, the
being will decay in the game to the degree that he commits serious
overts against other players, cheating, getting others to play for him
and give him the rewards, disabling or killing others so they can't play
at all.
Winning by disabling the opponent so he is a no show, or can't
play, is a common form of criminality engaged in by players who consider
they must win but who fear they may lose.
Seriousness is MUST WIN, MUST NOT LOSE.
Seriousness can also be MUST LOSE, MUST NOT WIN.
Ever throw a game?
Ever get sick to get sympathy?
Once serious overts are committed in a game, the being now must
withhold himself from his own team mates who wouldn't have stooped so
low and wouldn't want to play with him if they knew he had. So the
group mind goes down the tubes, and players become 'alone' on the
playing field talking outwardly to each other, rather than inwardly via
direct communication.
THE LAST DITCH
Eventually the player will sink down to playing the game of games.
That means if he loses the game, he will never get to play another
game again.
Games have to be fundamentally or arbitrarily scarce for a being to
engage in such a game.
THE LAST LAST DITCH
Below that the being will play his last game knowing he HAS to lose
at some point, because every player eventually falls, so the winner is
the last one standing on the playing field, until he falls too.
For immortals that would be the end of that universe of games.
For mortals that would be this life.
UNIVERSES OF GAMES
Universes of games can be created with games in series, one after
each other, and games in parallel, running at the same time next to each
other.
The universe starts with many many top level games all in parallel,
pretty much of the same size, huge. The new being can choose from any
one of them and start to play it. They are all top level games.
Below this layer of games, will be another set of games, also
parallel to each other of a slightly lesser size. When a being falls
out of his first game he jumps into another game at this lower level and
starts to play it.
This continues down for many layers of games until there are no
more games left to play in that universe.
Say that the layers of games in series from the top down are called
A, B, C, D ... Z.
That means there are 26 different game levels one can be playing in
that universe.
Then say each level has 1000 games that are all different but
similar in their size, scope, span and field.
Thus when a being first enters the universe he can choose which of
1000 games he will first play from A1, A2, A3 ... A1000.
When he finally gives up on that game as hopeless and 'dies' out of
the A level, he can then choose to play any of say 2000 games in the B
level, named, B1, B2, B3 ... B2000.
He continues to play, die, play, die, going through C, D, E playing
one one game at each level, until he reaches Z and dies out of that one
too. At that time there are no more games in the universe for him to
play lower than the level of decay he has attained.
Errors and mistakes he picks up during one level of play are
carried over as tendencies into the next lower level of play where they
don't help him, but he is sure they will. He learns how to be conniving
and opaque in game A3, and when they eventually fail him at that level,
he is just sure he will be a grand master in his next game B47.
So by the time he has decayed down and through level Z, his case
will be a mass of seriousness, overts, out-ethics, and not even a worm
would play with him any more.
He ends up feeling 'alone' even though he is buried in BT's, and
facsimiles of all the beings he has done in through out the ages.
When 'aloneness' starts to become alarming, it is time for him to
see the auditor.
When he is really alone, because there is no auditor, then his lack
of confession wins.
THE DOWN HILL PLAYING FIELD
This is the way it is with games.
The playing field for any game is always down hill.
It is always easier to make plays downstream than to make plays
upstream.
The downhillness of a game doesn't mean the playing field per se is
slanted, but the game itself is slanted towards pain, failure and
oblivion, via corruptions, temptations and seductions to win by cheating
or outright destroying the other players or the game itself.
Sometimes the destruction is accidental, and he is warned and he
becomes careful.
You can't play all out careful.
All out and careful are oxymorons.
Sometimes the destruction is intentional, then he has had it, he
has become more interested in winning than in playing.
Sometimes someone else does something destructive to him, which he
then does back to another, with pretty much the same result, destruction
of the game and his and others willingness to play.
At the start and top of any game, the being is in good shape, clean
slate, and in love with the game, which is a joy to play, is properly
balanced for LONG, verging on never ending, volleys, and everyone gets
to show off their passion, talents and honed skill.
However as play continues, and seriousness settles in, play becomes
subtly overt, then wildly and brazenly overt, then covert and finally
the game itself is being destroyed in order to win it.
"You make one step over this line with the ball, and we will
blow up your side of the court!"
THE GRASS IS ALWAYS GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE.
So at the top of the game the grass is green indeed, but finally at
the bottom of the game there is nothing but mud, dirt and disgusting
things.
But there is also a fence, and the preclear in his desperation to
keep playing anything, any game is better than no game, hops over the
fence, and he finds him self in a brand new game, with green fresh
grass, the sun shining, and the play wonderful again.
It is however a smaller game at the next level down.
B level games are smaller than A level games.
The new B level game HAS to be smaller than HE is, for him to feel
good and confident about it.
But as he enters B, he is smaller than the A game he just died out
of, as the reason he lost the prior A game, is HE got smaller than his
starting size from all his overts, withholds, and brazen justifications
and restraints.
So now he is smaller than A, and B is smaller than him when he
first starts to play B which is where he gets his bravado from.
"Oh hell, I can win this one easily!"
But the being enters the B level game tainted from the lessons
learned on how to survive that led him downward from the first game.
Some of those lessons he is sold on, some of them he is both
justifying as right *AND* restraining as wrong, and some of them are
just plain compulsive and he has no idea how to operate the straight and
narrow any more.
So again he plays the new game and finally ends up in the mud, dirt
and disgusting stuff at the bottom of it. But again there is a fence
which if hops over it, he is again in a wonderland of a new game that he
can enjoy but which is smaller yet.
Each time he PROMISES TO HIMSELF that he won't do the things that
make him any smaller than he is already, but the game is trickier than
he is, and down the tubes he goes, eventually spewing overts like a bomb
going off.
And so it goes for the rest of the game levels until he hits rock
bottom at the end of game Z. Again there is a fence, but this time,
when he hops over it, he ends up in a whole new universe of games, WAY
smaller than the first one, and again he takes his garbage of lessons
wrongly learned with him.
So the beginning of each game is not as good as the beginning of
the prior game, but it is way better than the end of the prior game,
which is why he keeps seeking the sun by going down hill, and hopping
over the fence, hoping for a new start.
The grass is always greener on the other side.
After a while he fails to recognize he is getting smaller with each
fence he hops, and he will WASTE games he is in, by ruining them
intentionally, to more quickly get to the next fence and get back to
good game play.
It's an effort to hit the restart button on the game he is in, but
that's not what really happens, now is it.
HOW TO AUDIT
So how do you audit this?
Well he is only failing in playing these games because of the
accumulating out-ethics he engages in, which is engendered by the
seriousness with which he is playing, must win, must not lose AT ANY
COST.
Games go to hell when PLAY becomes undesirable, or is "desirable"
only if you win.
These games are deadly serious, life and death for EVERYONE, the
whole nine yards.
You lose, and the whole world falls into a black hole forever.
Or worse lives through atomic armageddon for 42 centuries.
Once things are for keeps, once the desire to win is greater than
the desire to play, once he forgets who or what is cause around here and
why is it such an asshole, namely that he entered the game intentionally and may even
have designed it in part, all hope for clean play is gone.
No man will strive for a level of nobility higher than the nobility
of the universe he conceives created him.
If the very basis of the game is unfair, or if everyone else is
cheating, you can be damn sure he will cheat too.
But the unnoble man is never a happy man.
When you are trying to save your family and loved ones, it is very
tempting to cheat, sell your friends down the river, sell out entirely,
or whatever moral crisis the being finds himself in.
Who will stand up to an army of tyranny, when you know they will
come after your family once you are gone?
You may be willing to sacrifice yourself in an act of kamikazee,
but are you willing to sacrifice them too in the deal?
Sometimes moral conflicts are not resolvable, anything you do will
have collateral damage.
If you let Hitler go, he will continue killing everyone you know.
If you try to kill him, even if you kill yourself, they will seek
down all your family and torture them to death.
You won't be around to enjoy it, but they will.
Even if THEY are willing to be collateral damage, are you willing
to make it so?
These kinds of things freeze a being into inaction.
Kids fill their nightmare heads with these things, if I had to
choose between daddy or mommy, which would it be?
To do or not to do?
They are IMPOSSIBLE CHOICES to do the 'right thing', because ALL
choices lead to insufferable permanent loss.
Now ethics ceases being how to chose between right and wrong, and
becomes how to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Even if he makes the best or only decision, he will damn himself as
guilty forever for doing the wrong thing.
He is guilty for BEING IN THE GAME in which he can only do bad,
don't you see?
He would have to be, for no one in their right (finite) mind would
choose to create or be in such a game where such choices are presented
to you.
He misses the infinite mind, and its propensity to engage in
Majesty, Master of Jest.
And without question, he misses the responsibility others have for
their own condition.
He KNOWS his little daughter is innocent and doesn't deserve what's
going to happen to her if he chooses the less of two evils.
So he chooses the greater of two evils, and let's his daughter
live, who only gets it in the end anyhow.
ARE YOU WILLING TO STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT IF THE SAFETY OF YOUR
FAMILY IS AT STAKE?
"Give me liberty or give me death, but please oh please leave my
poor dear innocent family alone, please?"
ACTION
Games are games of action, inaction destroys the game.
Eventually the being will solve the indecision on whether to
do or not to do, with the decision to BOTH DO *AND* NOT DO at
the same time.
If you take any of it to heart, then down you go, bitter and
unresolved to the end.
Taking things to heart is seriousness.
The opposite of seriousness is lightheartedness.
One enters the seriousness of game play on the carrier wave of
lightheartedness with which the whole thing was conceived and thus put
into action, including the necessary not know that blankets all serious
games.
A being can cut off his connection to awareness of his own choices
and responsibility in the matter in which he finds himself.
He can enter a state where he is no longer aware that he entered
it.
That unawareness violates his eternal sovereign desire to be
sovereign, TO HAVE CHOSEN AND KNOW IT, and he is running on a burn from there on out.
Doubt is self casting, doubting one chose clouds over the certainty
one did. The disharmony of the uncertainty then leads to certainty one
did not choose.
Part of the not know and disbelief is that the sovereign desire to
be sovereign INCLUDES the majestic desire to suffer the APPARENCY of not
being sovereign for a while.
Why a being would do this to himself is the impulse towards
seriousness and high anti cool, then resolved by reawareness of
lightheartedness and humor, halcyon, eventually resulting in
re-unmanifestation and utter unimpingable peace.
Humor is a blow of of seriousness.
The eternally sovereign being apparently has an addiction :)
The search for laughter is through the valley of the shadow of
death.
"Responsibility is a big thing, certainly bigger than our parents
taught us.
Responsibility for RESPONSE ABILITY, ability to respond.
Do not doubt you chose it, and then look to see for evidence.
You chose.
What proof did you leave behind you now?
There is only one proof. http://www.lighlink.com/theproof
Learn it, love it, teach it, master it.
All can.
However for some people, by their own choice, it will be a long
time between now and then.
You can't move your house around town, if you have locked yourself
inside it.
In Excelsis Deo." - Adore
Entering the seriousness of play, the being bars himself from
awareness of his own and everyone else's choice to enter and the divine
(Imp Soul) beauty and aesthetic with which he and his buddies designed
these games.
Once he is in the game of seriousness, his attitude is who ever
created this game was an asshole, but here I am, I am bigger than any
evil that lives, I will conquer it all and assign blame later.
Of course he never gets there.
No sportmanship, no nobility, no code of honor survive his
desperate play for long, and pretty soon he is out-preempting the enemy
faster than he can conceive how bad they are.
HE LEARNS FROM THE ENEMY HOW TO DO THE ENEMY IN.
THE ENEMY DEPENDS ON THIS, FOR THEY KNOW HIS OWN GOODNESS WILL SINK
HIM.
The enemy has no such problem.
The being thinks the way to survive is 'to be worse than them'.
The being has learned the lesson that this game shouldn't exist,
that he should never have been placed in it, that HE would never have
created such a thing, and he has learned the lesson that there must be
no honor, dignity, mercy or quarter given to the other side.
He finally becomes a master of treason and deceit.
A monster striving for mastery of abomination.
His goal is to give even the enemy pause with surprise, make them
go 'Whoa, now *THAT'S* evil!"
But the enemy is not affected by this, the enemy can not be out
eviled, because the enemy knows what he is doing, and was paid to
oppose.
The being eventually comes to feel there is a certain sympatico
between his ruined self image, once filled with the confidence of
rightness, once so noble and sure, and the disgusting stuff he finds at
the bottom of the game, and so it suits him just fine to live there.
He tried EVERYTHING, and yet all his loved ones came to death and
demise anyhow.
Or turned on him.
Or left him alone.
He considers it would have been better had he not tried at all.
How would YOU have played the game?
You who would criticize.
So he comes to you for auditing, and he hands you his last coin he
got from a girl he once loved, but whom he turned in to save his own
skin, and whom he had to behead for her crimes. And she, not knowing he
was the headsman, had a gold sovereign in her hand for him to make sure
the cut was swift, and there it is now in your hands.
Lord pray you don't recognize the coin.
So what do you do?
To be continued.
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
Sat Jun 23 23:25:43 EDT 2012
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Aug 31 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore908.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQQGJaURT1lqxE3HERAm8hAJ9QPotD8oQkU2/GTaTx8rzJaKCcJACfQlFj
K1KVj8o0ZplzrgW3xMXgEjM=
=/h94
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, August 31, 2012
Thursday, August 30, 2012
FIX AND REPAIR
FIX AND REPAIR
Clearing is a fix and repair job.
To the degree you are trying to fix and repair your own self and
your games across 8 dynamics, you will need to help fix and repair
others. And they will do the same. But then everyone gets back to
playing the game (libido across all 8 dynamics).
Fix and repair should about 10 percent of your total time.
Maybe an hour a day with yourself, or with another at $20 to
$150/hour.
Start sessions with:
What would be an ideal scene with your life, and what is the
furthest departure from that ideal scene in present time.
Write down all items.
Define To Be Responsible for, as
1.) Choosing to cause, this means taking responsibility for
2.) Adding one's cause into an already existing scene that one did
not cause, in order to make it better. This means taking responsibility
over.
Spot times taking responsibility for or over things that came a
cropper, resulted in ruin, disaster, dismay, unintended betrayal and
regret.
Regretted responsibility is a whopper, as it denies responsibility
for taking responsibility!
Spot times one tried to duck the consequences of taking
responsibility by shunting or shifting responsibility to another as
cause.
Since everyone is responsible for everything done by anyone to
anybody, its not the saying that another did it that is wrong, it is
saying that he did it AND you DIDN'T DO IT.
Spot the times others didn't buy your attempted shift and the
responsibility came back to you as fault and guilt. The fault and guilt
are not about what you first DID, that other's might be on your case
about, but about your effort to shift cause to another and claim you
didn't do it.
Spot the times you then used a service facsimile to make yourself
sick, injured or disabled, to ameliorate the animosity of others towards
you and/or to exonerate yourself for having shifted blame.
Spot the times you finally felt sympathy for your tormentors as you
saw they weren't in such hot shape either.
Spot the moments of shock.
Spot pride levels before and after.
Spot desire and world view before the shock.
Spot desire and world view after the shock.
A being's life consists of desire driving it through time towards
basic goals.
The being has set up postulate packages to surprise him that cause
himself to fail.
This produces shock.
The shock is covered (hidden) before it happens with desire and
forward motion, and is covered after it happens with degraded views
(postulates) of existence and blocked motion, indecisions or ANDS, going
AND not going at the same time forever.
This creates the 'shock sandwich'.
Desire - Shock - View
Actually both desire and view exist before and after
the shock but in different conditions. So its more like:
Desire/View - Shock - Blocked Desire/Degraded View
Notice and reevaluate the pollution of postulates made during the
shock designed to 'handle' the desire and the shock in a way that didn't
handle it.
All case is dealing with life by not dealing.
All case is persisted by the effort to make an as-isness via a
not-isness.
As-isness causes true vanishment.
Not-isness causes an apparent vanishment which isn't.
A being can be knocked down to shock, but no lower, because at
shock he is back at timeless eternity again.
He can make three choices:
One is to go lower into catatonia and oblivion, that is handle the
desire and the shock by denying it, making nothing of it, shifting to
something else, some other goal, in other words Q&Aing with it. He
becomes a "what desire, what shock, what view?" case.
His view becomes smaller, more limited, more solid. His universe
does not get smaller, but he gets smaller in his universe, until
eventually it is running him rather than the other way around.
His universe may LOOK smaller to him, but its full of dark matter
covering all the things he no longer wishes to know went down.
Or two, he can climb back out of shock up through hysteria,
disaster and ruin to demand for improvement, help and hope.
Hope is playing the game again, hoping to win but willing to lose.
A being will generally not seek or play a game that he has no hope
of winning, unless his only goal is see how long he can remaining
standing.
That would probably be a last last-ditch game when all others were
gone or hopeless.
Three, he can go higher to author mode where he can end the game or
rewrite it.
Thus auditing addresses each moment of desire-shock-view, they are
like nails in his time track, and removes them one by one. As each one
is addressed, go earlier similar until basic on the chain. Also go
future similar, as sorrow is for the future, not the past.
Sorrow = loss of futures.
You are looking for moments of deep injury, deep loss, deep
emotion, where pride, self confidence, self trust, self faith, self
love, self interest, self loyalty were broken and were not healed and
recovered in the retelling.
No longer in love with responsibility.
He will on longer associate responsibility with able control,
and the KRC triangle will go to hell.
Responsibility without able control is the exact opposite of what
a Sovereign being is.
Once he gets the idea that he can be responsible but not have
control of what he has created or others are creating, then taking
responsibility for anything becomes anathema to him, and down the tubes
he goes.
You will need to have the preclear REWRITE each incident to
delineate what he should have done after the shock (not to avoid it), to
have healed it on the spot.
You will need to run all 5 flows, times he was shocked, times he
shocked others, times others shocked him, times others shocked others,
times he shocked himself, times others shocked themselves.
Shocks don't have to be caused by BEINGS, they can be caused by the
mere existence of things as they are. But since all things created,
were created by a being, then it does eventually come back to who done
it, which was him as part of the omni sovereign multi being US.
First awareness of death will show up, and first invalidations of
depth of affinity and feeling with show up.
Basic feelings are exhilaration, courage, joy, love, monotony,
antagonism, anger, fear, despair, terror, numb, sorrow and apathy.
Antagonism is batting back at attacks.
Anger/Hate is holding attacks still and trying to destroy them.
Fear is trying to survive by running away.
Despair is the computation that you can't run fast enough.
Terror is waiting, which quickly becomes numb.
Sorrow is cry of love lost.
Apathy is given up.
DEPTH is the key word here. We aren't running dry river beds, we
are running bottomless oceanic flows.
The preclear will run when he first turned against life, but
decided to suffer it anyhow.
Shocks are moments of debonding with people, places and things,
particularly desires and goals.
You want first moments of debonding with anything and everything
including self on all dynamics.
People fall into these chains easily, and will run almost without
help, once they 'get it', they can handle future restims on their own
without an auditor.
Doesn't matter if all chains are flattened in session, preclears
will flatten unflat chains during next restim once they see where the
game of catatonia and oblivion get them.
Sorrow is love, no sorrow means no love.
Dry eyed sorrow never heals, because suppressing expression of
sorrow is suppressing expression of love.
If the preclear isn't SCREAMING, he isn't running.
One who can not cry no longer dares to love.
Once enough sorrow starts to come off a case, pains will turn on,
they can be alarming, they run out just like anything else.
Eventually laughter will turn on big time and alternate between
sorrow and laughter.
Excess of joy weeps, excess of sorrow laughs.
Long term E/P is unfathomable composure and peace.
But it comes with presence which is the ability to confront and
take responsibility for ANYTHING done by anybody to anybody, without
ducking into shunting responsibility or the service facsimile tar pit
with its attendant sympathies and ruins of ability.
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
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011, Bob1357 wrote:
> So,
>
> Good (Consciousness) and evil (ego) (God and Devil) with a "thinking"
> buffer.
> The trinity is now seen.
> Non dualism says stop thinking ..............close the buffer.
> Ummm... No..... .that's to easy ..............it will turn you into a
> bumbling fool.
> Most others (religions)......... well .......... bullshit.
> Homer? ..... ya there? .... Talked with a few times on the phone in
> despair.
> You gave me some great advice.
> Now I have only a few choice friends, zero employees and making more
> money than I ever have before.
> Good for me.
> I'm not here to pull everyone out of ignorance right.
> I'm here for me.
> It's not my job to fix others right?
> Then why does it feel so fucked up?
> Yes........ I used the word feel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
Mon Jun 27 20:06:29 EDT 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Clearing is a fix and repair job.
To the degree you are trying to fix and repair your own self and
your games across 8 dynamics, you will need to help fix and repair
others. And they will do the same. But then everyone gets back to
playing the game (libido across all 8 dynamics).
Fix and repair should about 10 percent of your total time.
Maybe an hour a day with yourself, or with another at $20 to
$150/hour.
Start sessions with:
What would be an ideal scene with your life, and what is the
furthest departure from that ideal scene in present time.
Write down all items.
Define To Be Responsible for, as
1.) Choosing to cause, this means taking responsibility for
2.) Adding one's cause into an already existing scene that one did
not cause, in order to make it better. This means taking responsibility
over.
Spot times taking responsibility for or over things that came a
cropper, resulted in ruin, disaster, dismay, unintended betrayal and
regret.
Regretted responsibility is a whopper, as it denies responsibility
for taking responsibility!
Spot times one tried to duck the consequences of taking
responsibility by shunting or shifting responsibility to another as
cause.
Since everyone is responsible for everything done by anyone to
anybody, its not the saying that another did it that is wrong, it is
saying that he did it AND you DIDN'T DO IT.
Spot the times others didn't buy your attempted shift and the
responsibility came back to you as fault and guilt. The fault and guilt
are not about what you first DID, that other's might be on your case
about, but about your effort to shift cause to another and claim you
didn't do it.
Spot the times you then used a service facsimile to make yourself
sick, injured or disabled, to ameliorate the animosity of others towards
you and/or to exonerate yourself for having shifted blame.
Spot the times you finally felt sympathy for your tormentors as you
saw they weren't in such hot shape either.
Spot the moments of shock.
Spot pride levels before and after.
Spot desire and world view before the shock.
Spot desire and world view after the shock.
A being's life consists of desire driving it through time towards
basic goals.
The being has set up postulate packages to surprise him that cause
himself to fail.
This produces shock.
The shock is covered (hidden) before it happens with desire and
forward motion, and is covered after it happens with degraded views
(postulates) of existence and blocked motion, indecisions or ANDS, going
AND not going at the same time forever.
This creates the 'shock sandwich'.
Desire - Shock - View
Actually both desire and view exist before and after
the shock but in different conditions. So its more like:
Desire/View - Shock - Blocked Desire/Degraded View
Notice and reevaluate the pollution of postulates made during the
shock designed to 'handle' the desire and the shock in a way that didn't
handle it.
All case is dealing with life by not dealing.
All case is persisted by the effort to make an as-isness via a
not-isness.
As-isness causes true vanishment.
Not-isness causes an apparent vanishment which isn't.
A being can be knocked down to shock, but no lower, because at
shock he is back at timeless eternity again.
He can make three choices:
One is to go lower into catatonia and oblivion, that is handle the
desire and the shock by denying it, making nothing of it, shifting to
something else, some other goal, in other words Q&Aing with it. He
becomes a "what desire, what shock, what view?" case.
His view becomes smaller, more limited, more solid. His universe
does not get smaller, but he gets smaller in his universe, until
eventually it is running him rather than the other way around.
His universe may LOOK smaller to him, but its full of dark matter
covering all the things he no longer wishes to know went down.
Or two, he can climb back out of shock up through hysteria,
disaster and ruin to demand for improvement, help and hope.
Hope is playing the game again, hoping to win but willing to lose.
A being will generally not seek or play a game that he has no hope
of winning, unless his only goal is see how long he can remaining
standing.
That would probably be a last last-ditch game when all others were
gone or hopeless.
Three, he can go higher to author mode where he can end the game or
rewrite it.
Thus auditing addresses each moment of desire-shock-view, they are
like nails in his time track, and removes them one by one. As each one
is addressed, go earlier similar until basic on the chain. Also go
future similar, as sorrow is for the future, not the past.
Sorrow = loss of futures.
You are looking for moments of deep injury, deep loss, deep
emotion, where pride, self confidence, self trust, self faith, self
love, self interest, self loyalty were broken and were not healed and
recovered in the retelling.
No longer in love with responsibility.
He will on longer associate responsibility with able control,
and the KRC triangle will go to hell.
Responsibility without able control is the exact opposite of what
a Sovereign being is.
Once he gets the idea that he can be responsible but not have
control of what he has created or others are creating, then taking
responsibility for anything becomes anathema to him, and down the tubes
he goes.
You will need to have the preclear REWRITE each incident to
delineate what he should have done after the shock (not to avoid it), to
have healed it on the spot.
You will need to run all 5 flows, times he was shocked, times he
shocked others, times others shocked him, times others shocked others,
times he shocked himself, times others shocked themselves.
Shocks don't have to be caused by BEINGS, they can be caused by the
mere existence of things as they are. But since all things created,
were created by a being, then it does eventually come back to who done
it, which was him as part of the omni sovereign multi being US.
First awareness of death will show up, and first invalidations of
depth of affinity and feeling with show up.
Basic feelings are exhilaration, courage, joy, love, monotony,
antagonism, anger, fear, despair, terror, numb, sorrow and apathy.
Antagonism is batting back at attacks.
Anger/Hate is holding attacks still and trying to destroy them.
Fear is trying to survive by running away.
Despair is the computation that you can't run fast enough.
Terror is waiting, which quickly becomes numb.
Sorrow is cry of love lost.
Apathy is given up.
DEPTH is the key word here. We aren't running dry river beds, we
are running bottomless oceanic flows.
The preclear will run when he first turned against life, but
decided to suffer it anyhow.
Shocks are moments of debonding with people, places and things,
particularly desires and goals.
You want first moments of debonding with anything and everything
including self on all dynamics.
People fall into these chains easily, and will run almost without
help, once they 'get it', they can handle future restims on their own
without an auditor.
Doesn't matter if all chains are flattened in session, preclears
will flatten unflat chains during next restim once they see where the
game of catatonia and oblivion get them.
Sorrow is love, no sorrow means no love.
Dry eyed sorrow never heals, because suppressing expression of
sorrow is suppressing expression of love.
If the preclear isn't SCREAMING, he isn't running.
One who can not cry no longer dares to love.
Once enough sorrow starts to come off a case, pains will turn on,
they can be alarming, they run out just like anything else.
Eventually laughter will turn on big time and alternate between
sorrow and laughter.
Excess of joy weeps, excess of sorrow laughs.
Long term E/P is unfathomable composure and peace.
But it comes with presence which is the ability to confront and
take responsibility for ANYTHING done by anybody to anybody, without
ducking into shunting responsibility or the service facsimile tar pit
with its attendant sympathies and ruins of ability.
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
On Sun, 26 Jun 2011, Bob1357 wrote:
> So,
>
> Good (Consciousness) and evil (ego) (God and Devil) with a "thinking"
> buffer.
> The trinity is now seen.
> Non dualism says stop thinking ..............close the buffer.
> Ummm... No..... .that's to easy ..............it will turn you into a
> bumbling fool.
> Most others (religions)......... well .......... bullshit.
> Homer? ..... ya there? .... Talked with a few times on the phone in
> despair.
> You gave me some great advice.
> Now I have only a few choice friends, zero employees and making more
> money than I ever have before.
> Good for me.
> I'm not here to pull everyone out of ignorance right.
> I'm here for me.
> It's not my job to fix others right?
> Then why does it feel so fucked up?
> Yes........ I used the word feel.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
Mon Jun 27 20:06:29 EDT 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
ADORE513.memo
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
((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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Sunday, August 26, 2012
HUMAN VS OT
HUMAN VS OT
Electra:
>> So one last thing. As I have stated many times, IF I HAD power I
>would never let anyone know I had power unless they had it too. Thus
>>from ME you could never get any demonstration of power.
Huggie (huggie@pop.ihug.co.nz) wrote:
> If she saw a rogue plane heading for the Scn. center in Clearwater
>or the Pentagon in Wash. she would just stand by and not demo her powers ?
> "Use it or lose it!"
Nice computation.
*USING* powers is different than *DEMOING* powers. Any OT could
stop the crash without anyone knowing an OT did it.
Never make a move on the chess board just to prove you can.
Anyhow, as Electra said many times, OT's are not human, OT's are
Gods.
To the degree that they use their powers to protect human concerns
like the safety of their bodies etc, they attach themselves to bodies
and actually lose their OT powers.
An OT is someone who can put the scene there. One can move a
mountain *IF* one can put it there. But if one has put it there, why
move it?
An OT might look at the plane and the pentagon and adjust the
event, but probably wouldn't take sides in human concerns. An OT would
be more concerned with the aesthetics of the crash than with being
'good' or avoiding the crash.
You know, high appreciation for the aesthetics of the ludicrous
demise of "innocent victims".
Fundamental sense of art in any God.
The OT is interested in PLAYING the game, win or lose, not in
winning the game at all costs. An OT will act to preserve the playing
field, but not any of the players on either side of the game.
OT's operate to extend the game, keep the volley going, not to help
one side win the game, good or evil.
If OT's do take sides, they tend to side with the underdog, whoever
is losing most, be they the good guys or bad guys.
OT's act to make the story more telling, not to end it because the
good guys are screaming for mama.
The more a being cares about playing the game, the more OT they
are. They more they care about winning or losing, the less OT they are.
Humans want OT powers to become super human, to help them protect
their human interests, to harm their enemies etc., that sticks them to
becoming sub human.
Humans want OT powers for them selves but not for others, they want
OT powers to help them WIN the game, not to PLAY the game.
OT's want OT powers to be better able to create playing fields and
become human.
This is why OT's don't respond to demands for proof from mental
midgets.
Basically it is not OK for a God to take sides *AS A GOD* in a game
he created. It is ok for a God to take sides in a game as a creature
though.
But creators as creatures don't have OT powers by definition.
The minute a Creator God takes sides with one of his creatures
against other's of his own creatures, you will find the God AS a
creature a few generations later.
All creatures are Creators playing Creature. They have to
keep the rules separate or it really messes up the game for everyone.
Virtue for the Creature is not virtue for the Creator.
Olaf Stapleton - Star Maker
The idea that we are made in God's image is not really true.
The Author is not the same as the Character.
Virtue for the Character is not Virtue for the Author.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Electra:
>> So one last thing. As I have stated many times, IF I HAD power I
>would never let anyone know I had power unless they had it too. Thus
>>from ME you could never get any demonstration of power.
Huggie (huggie@pop.ihug.co.nz) wrote:
> If she saw a rogue plane heading for the Scn. center in Clearwater
>or the Pentagon in Wash. she would just stand by and not demo her powers ?
> "Use it or lose it!"
Nice computation.
*USING* powers is different than *DEMOING* powers. Any OT could
stop the crash without anyone knowing an OT did it.
Never make a move on the chess board just to prove you can.
Anyhow, as Electra said many times, OT's are not human, OT's are
Gods.
To the degree that they use their powers to protect human concerns
like the safety of their bodies etc, they attach themselves to bodies
and actually lose their OT powers.
An OT is someone who can put the scene there. One can move a
mountain *IF* one can put it there. But if one has put it there, why
move it?
An OT might look at the plane and the pentagon and adjust the
event, but probably wouldn't take sides in human concerns. An OT would
be more concerned with the aesthetics of the crash than with being
'good' or avoiding the crash.
You know, high appreciation for the aesthetics of the ludicrous
demise of "innocent victims".
Fundamental sense of art in any God.
The OT is interested in PLAYING the game, win or lose, not in
winning the game at all costs. An OT will act to preserve the playing
field, but not any of the players on either side of the game.
OT's operate to extend the game, keep the volley going, not to help
one side win the game, good or evil.
If OT's do take sides, they tend to side with the underdog, whoever
is losing most, be they the good guys or bad guys.
OT's act to make the story more telling, not to end it because the
good guys are screaming for mama.
The more a being cares about playing the game, the more OT they
are. They more they care about winning or losing, the less OT they are.
Humans want OT powers to become super human, to help them protect
their human interests, to harm their enemies etc., that sticks them to
becoming sub human.
Humans want OT powers for them selves but not for others, they want
OT powers to help them WIN the game, not to PLAY the game.
OT's want OT powers to be better able to create playing fields and
become human.
This is why OT's don't respond to demands for proof from mental
midgets.
Basically it is not OK for a God to take sides *AS A GOD* in a game
he created. It is ok for a God to take sides in a game as a creature
though.
But creators as creatures don't have OT powers by definition.
The minute a Creator God takes sides with one of his creatures
against other's of his own creatures, you will find the God AS a
creature a few generations later.
All creatures are Creators playing Creature. They have to
keep the rules separate or it really messes up the game for everyone.
Virtue for the Creature is not virtue for the Creator.
Olaf Stapleton - Star Maker
The idea that we are made in God's image is not really true.
The Author is not the same as the Character.
Virtue for the Character is not Virtue for the Author.
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
JUSTIFICATION SANDWICH
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
JUSTIFICATION SANDWICH
EXM - 46
3 March 1992
Copyright (C) 1992 A Voice of the Free Zone (Electra)
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
There is another smaller sandwich inside the No Sympathy Sandwich
called the Justification Sandwich. It goes as follows.
A person commits an overt act (No Sympathy) and regrets it. This
leads to pulling in some overwhelm or chronic condition with which he
justifies or explains away the seriousness of his earlier overt act.
But now he has this strange chronic disability that he can't easily
explain, so he needs to justify THAT. This allows him to continue to
commit more overt acts along the same lines.
The Justification Sandwich
OVERT - JUSTIFICATION - CONDITION - JUSTIFICATION - OVERT
There is a BEFORE justification and and AFTER justification. The
CONDITION is sandwiched between the two.
For example, let's say one day you are driving down the road in
Vietnam during the war and you see a little Vietnamese boy in the middle
of the road. Rather than slow down you decide it would be fun to scare
the hell out of the child so you hit the gas and go after him. The
child however gets confused and doesn't know which way to run and ends
up running right into your front tires, getting crushed beyond repair.
You get out of the jeep and try to comfort him. But his back is broken
and he screams for half an hour and dies looking at you with terror in
his eyes.
You never MEANT to kill the child, you just wanted to have some
(cruel) fun. Now you feel sorry. The last look of those sad eyes is
YOUR memory forever. What's that cute Nurse you been dating back at the
camp going to think? You going to take his crushed body to her? You
wish to hell you had some justification to explain why you did not see
the child in the road or were unable to avoid hitting him. Having bad
eye sight fits the bill. Suddenly your eyes are not feeling so hot and
your vision is a little blurry. You go to the doctor and he gives you a
prescription for eye glasses. Your Nurse friend gives you sympathy, she
'understands what you have been through.'
So there is the OVERT (killing the child), the false JUSTIFICATION
(couldn't see well) and the CHRONIC OVERWHELM CONDITION (bad eyes). But
then one day you cross paths with one of your old buddies who remarks
about your new eye glasses and how you used to have the eyes of an
eagle. Suddenly you feel horrible inside because he is missing your
withhold that you killed a child in fun.
So you explain to him how your father had bad eyes, and how it's
genetic in origin and runs in your family. This is the AFTER
JUSTIFICATION of the condition, a condition which you are using to make
yourself feel less responsible for having killed the child. Claiming
that bad eyes is genetic makes it OK to have bad eyes and wear glasses.
It allows you to survive with this condition and keeps others off your
case about the anomaly.
However once you have claimed that wearing eye glasses is right and
not your fault, the door is now open for you to start a business
manufacturing and selling eye glasses to others and making your living
from it. Thus you become involved in continuous present time overt acts
born of your earlier before and after justifications.
OVERT - Killed Child.
BEFORE JUSTIFICATION - Couldn't see well
CHRONIC CONDITION - Bad eyes and wearing glasses.
AFTER JUSTIFICATION - Bad eyes are genetic not engramic.
OVERT - Making a living selling eye glasses
rather than pulling people's withholds.
That is the Justification Sandwich which you are trying to run off
a case.
Now any person will have possibly many of these things, but there
will be a central one, a first one, a biggest and worst one on his case.
You know, the one that is HIM. It makes him who he is in his eyes, the
screw ball who...
It is his ruin in life, and may even be his ruin in all of
Eternity.
THAT is the one you want to find.
One way to handle this is as follows. First you get the person to
state and recognize what the central condition is on their case. A
condition is any disability or illness or chronic unwanted condition.
The word unwanted must be understood thoroughly, because your pc may be
very glad he has glasses on the surface but just under the surface his
eye problem is a very unwanted condition and just earlier is a VERY
unwanted regret.
The condition you are looking for is NOT the original overt act he
committed, it is NOT the justification he used. It is the condition
that he pulled in engramically to provide the justification for the
overt act. The condition will exist on all 4 planes of existence,
physical, emotional, mental and spiritual.
Physical conditions will be illnesses or aches and pains or
disabilities or compulsions or inhibitions in the functioning of his
physical body and his relationship to the external physical universe.
Emotional conditions will be unwanted feelings, or inabilities to
feel things.
Mental disabilities will be things like not being able to think or
remember, hallucinations, no mockups, etc.
Spiritual disabilities will manifest themselves as a total
inability to take responsibility for or exercise responsibility over
some sphere of being, doing or having in the lower 3 planes.
The condition may be some thing he has in relation to other people,
such as BEING UNWANTED or it may be something he has alone such as BEING
FORGETFUL. These are just examples.
The condition may be very poetic like the following:
"Well, I'm sort of a bottom of the barrel, marked down, last one on
sale with no buyers, kind of girl."
That's a condition, don't you see?
The condition that you are looking for will have all 4 planes
represented in it's disability.
One way to find this is to audit on an E-meter the following
question until you find a blow down item with relief, humor and VGI's,
'What is the central condition on your case?'
'What is NOT the central condition on your case?'
For example, let's say he finally says 'there is something too ugly
to look at!' So that's a chronic condition, every time he makes a
mockup, IF he manages to get one to appear, it immediately turns into
some ultimate horror show of hideousness and he wonders where all the
ugliness comes from. He is worried he might DIE if he manages to look
at it too long.
He is also just sure that no one in their right mind could ever
MAKE such a thing, so his responsibility on the subject is quite low.
So it effects him physically because 'he might die' if he looks at
it too long. It effects him emotionally because it's hideous. It
effects him mentally because he can't understand it, it's just totally
alien to him. And it effects him spiritually because he feels he could
not, would not, should not have created it.
So once you have his central condition, or a condition he is
interested in running you then can run alternately in any order,
1.) 'How have you justified having this condition?'
2.) 'What have you used this condition to justify?'
or
1.) 'What justifies this condition?'
2.) 'What does this condition justify?'
You see, the first question asks for the AFTER justification, and
the second question asks for the BEFORE justification.
This should go a long ways to breaking up his Justification
Sandwich. Eventually you should find some regret and the earlier overt
he has been 'solving' by being deaf, dumb, blind, fat and stupid.
If during this or after a win, your pc wishes to go deeper and find
a new more central condition to his case, by all means run it as above.
Conditions can be things like, being mortal, can't remember, don't
dare look, can't work, I'm too ugly/beautiful, drug addiction, I'm too
poor/rich, etc.
If you are having trouble getting your pc to state a condition that
he considers central to his self respect, get him to run the following.
Have him consider that some great being is coming to earth to look
everyone over, and they are able to see everything there is about
anyone, and they are looking at your pc, very intelligently,
dispassionately, objectively as an observer. Get your pc to list what
this person would think about him, or see or observe if he could see
all. If your pc's name is Susan, you might use as your auditing
question,
'What is it about Susan?'
Run it as long as it makes the TA go up and down, don't stop at the
first win, or chuckle. What you will get is a long list of valences,
beingnesses in a condition. Eventually you will get nearer to your pc's
central condition.
Electra
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Aug 26 00:06:06 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm46.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
JUSTIFICATION SANDWICH
EXM - 46
3 March 1992
Copyright (C) 1992 A Voice of the Free Zone (Electra)
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
There is another smaller sandwich inside the No Sympathy Sandwich
called the Justification Sandwich. It goes as follows.
A person commits an overt act (No Sympathy) and regrets it. This
leads to pulling in some overwhelm or chronic condition with which he
justifies or explains away the seriousness of his earlier overt act.
But now he has this strange chronic disability that he can't easily
explain, so he needs to justify THAT. This allows him to continue to
commit more overt acts along the same lines.
The Justification Sandwich
OVERT - JUSTIFICATION - CONDITION - JUSTIFICATION - OVERT
There is a BEFORE justification and and AFTER justification. The
CONDITION is sandwiched between the two.
For example, let's say one day you are driving down the road in
Vietnam during the war and you see a little Vietnamese boy in the middle
of the road. Rather than slow down you decide it would be fun to scare
the hell out of the child so you hit the gas and go after him. The
child however gets confused and doesn't know which way to run and ends
up running right into your front tires, getting crushed beyond repair.
You get out of the jeep and try to comfort him. But his back is broken
and he screams for half an hour and dies looking at you with terror in
his eyes.
You never MEANT to kill the child, you just wanted to have some
(cruel) fun. Now you feel sorry. The last look of those sad eyes is
YOUR memory forever. What's that cute Nurse you been dating back at the
camp going to think? You going to take his crushed body to her? You
wish to hell you had some justification to explain why you did not see
the child in the road or were unable to avoid hitting him. Having bad
eye sight fits the bill. Suddenly your eyes are not feeling so hot and
your vision is a little blurry. You go to the doctor and he gives you a
prescription for eye glasses. Your Nurse friend gives you sympathy, she
'understands what you have been through.'
So there is the OVERT (killing the child), the false JUSTIFICATION
(couldn't see well) and the CHRONIC OVERWHELM CONDITION (bad eyes). But
then one day you cross paths with one of your old buddies who remarks
about your new eye glasses and how you used to have the eyes of an
eagle. Suddenly you feel horrible inside because he is missing your
withhold that you killed a child in fun.
So you explain to him how your father had bad eyes, and how it's
genetic in origin and runs in your family. This is the AFTER
JUSTIFICATION of the condition, a condition which you are using to make
yourself feel less responsible for having killed the child. Claiming
that bad eyes is genetic makes it OK to have bad eyes and wear glasses.
It allows you to survive with this condition and keeps others off your
case about the anomaly.
However once you have claimed that wearing eye glasses is right and
not your fault, the door is now open for you to start a business
manufacturing and selling eye glasses to others and making your living
from it. Thus you become involved in continuous present time overt acts
born of your earlier before and after justifications.
OVERT - Killed Child.
BEFORE JUSTIFICATION - Couldn't see well
CHRONIC CONDITION - Bad eyes and wearing glasses.
AFTER JUSTIFICATION - Bad eyes are genetic not engramic.
OVERT - Making a living selling eye glasses
rather than pulling people's withholds.
That is the Justification Sandwich which you are trying to run off
a case.
Now any person will have possibly many of these things, but there
will be a central one, a first one, a biggest and worst one on his case.
You know, the one that is HIM. It makes him who he is in his eyes, the
screw ball who...
It is his ruin in life, and may even be his ruin in all of
Eternity.
THAT is the one you want to find.
One way to handle this is as follows. First you get the person to
state and recognize what the central condition is on their case. A
condition is any disability or illness or chronic unwanted condition.
The word unwanted must be understood thoroughly, because your pc may be
very glad he has glasses on the surface but just under the surface his
eye problem is a very unwanted condition and just earlier is a VERY
unwanted regret.
The condition you are looking for is NOT the original overt act he
committed, it is NOT the justification he used. It is the condition
that he pulled in engramically to provide the justification for the
overt act. The condition will exist on all 4 planes of existence,
physical, emotional, mental and spiritual.
Physical conditions will be illnesses or aches and pains or
disabilities or compulsions or inhibitions in the functioning of his
physical body and his relationship to the external physical universe.
Emotional conditions will be unwanted feelings, or inabilities to
feel things.
Mental disabilities will be things like not being able to think or
remember, hallucinations, no mockups, etc.
Spiritual disabilities will manifest themselves as a total
inability to take responsibility for or exercise responsibility over
some sphere of being, doing or having in the lower 3 planes.
The condition may be some thing he has in relation to other people,
such as BEING UNWANTED or it may be something he has alone such as BEING
FORGETFUL. These are just examples.
The condition may be very poetic like the following:
"Well, I'm sort of a bottom of the barrel, marked down, last one on
sale with no buyers, kind of girl."
That's a condition, don't you see?
The condition that you are looking for will have all 4 planes
represented in it's disability.
One way to find this is to audit on an E-meter the following
question until you find a blow down item with relief, humor and VGI's,
'What is the central condition on your case?'
'What is NOT the central condition on your case?'
For example, let's say he finally says 'there is something too ugly
to look at!' So that's a chronic condition, every time he makes a
mockup, IF he manages to get one to appear, it immediately turns into
some ultimate horror show of hideousness and he wonders where all the
ugliness comes from. He is worried he might DIE if he manages to look
at it too long.
He is also just sure that no one in their right mind could ever
MAKE such a thing, so his responsibility on the subject is quite low.
So it effects him physically because 'he might die' if he looks at
it too long. It effects him emotionally because it's hideous. It
effects him mentally because he can't understand it, it's just totally
alien to him. And it effects him spiritually because he feels he could
not, would not, should not have created it.
So once you have his central condition, or a condition he is
interested in running you then can run alternately in any order,
1.) 'How have you justified having this condition?'
2.) 'What have you used this condition to justify?'
or
1.) 'What justifies this condition?'
2.) 'What does this condition justify?'
You see, the first question asks for the AFTER justification, and
the second question asks for the BEFORE justification.
This should go a long ways to breaking up his Justification
Sandwich. Eventually you should find some regret and the earlier overt
he has been 'solving' by being deaf, dumb, blind, fat and stupid.
If during this or after a win, your pc wishes to go deeper and find
a new more central condition to his case, by all means run it as above.
Conditions can be things like, being mortal, can't remember, don't
dare look, can't work, I'm too ugly/beautiful, drug addiction, I'm too
poor/rich, etc.
If you are having trouble getting your pc to state a condition that
he considers central to his self respect, get him to run the following.
Have him consider that some great being is coming to earth to look
everyone over, and they are able to see everything there is about
anyone, and they are looking at your pc, very intelligently,
dispassionately, objectively as an observer. Get your pc to list what
this person would think about him, or see or observe if he could see
all. If your pc's name is Susan, you might use as your auditing
question,
'What is it about Susan?'
Run it as long as it makes the TA go up and down, don't stop at the
first win, or chuckle. What you will get is a long list of valences,
beingnesses in a condition. Eventually you will get nearer to your pc's
central condition.
Electra
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Aug 26 00:06:06 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm46.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS III
SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS III
So far we have determined a number of salient points about symbols
and referents.
Both symbols and referents are actualities, objects, the first used
to refer to the second. Neither is a priori more or less actual than
the other. People can however use symbols to refer to referents so
heavily and exclusively that they lose sight that the symbol is its own
object worthy of study itself.
Second, because symbols and referents are both actual objects, both
have qualities of their own that may have nothing to do with each other
except that some of the qualities in the symbol may be used to refer to
some of the qualities of the referent.
For example a referent 'red plastic ball' may be made of plastic,
but it certainly is not red. The symbol in our consciousness is red.
Now we use that red symbol to refer to light waves bouncing off the ball
of certain frequency, but that connection between red consciousness and
light of a given frequency is in fact arbitrary.
Take an X-Ray picture of a star for example, where the various
frequencies of X-rays are delineated by colors of the rainbow so we can
see them. Red now refers to low frequency X-rays, and violet to high
frequency X-rays.
Now some astronomer looking at such a picture might point to a star
in the image and say "Hey I found a red star!'. But there is no way
that star is red. The quality of the symbol has been ascribed to the
referent, and now the referent is being described via the qualities of
the symbol, 'red stars' etc.
The quality of the symbol can have little to do with the quality of
the referent other than arbitrary assignment. When you start describing
the quality of the referent by the quality of the symbol you have
started down the road to confusion.
We do this all the time in normal life. We see a car and we say
'That car is red!'. No way is that car red in any possible sense of the
word, but the picture in our consciousness sure is.
Of course this kind of merging the qualities of the symbol with the
quality of the referent doesn't normally lead to trouble as we all know
that underlying 'red car' is the actual meaning 'this car reflects light
of a certain frequency'. The translation from 'red' to 'frequency' in
our minds becomes automatic, and so we get along with the misnaming.
The quality of redness is not even vaguely similar to the quality
of reflecting light of a certain frequency.
Redness is a quality of being of our conscious picture.
Reflecting light of a certain frequency is a quality of relation
between the car and light waves.
So unless we are careful to understand this process, the trip to
perdition can be swift and sure.
For example that 'red car' we see out there is also seen to be
sitting in a 3 dimensional space. We can SEE the space no? We can SEE
the 3 dimensions, right?
But anything we SEE in our consciousness is at best a SYMBOL for an
alleged referent. So if the car is not red just because we see red,
perhaps space is not dimensional just because it looks dimensional to
our consciousness.
In other words just because we see red, doesn't mean there IS red
OUT THERE, there may be something, but its association with redness in
our consciousness is an arbitrary hook together.
Just so with space. Just because we SEE space in our conscious
picture of the car, doesn't mean there is actual space OUT THERE. What
the true nature of the referent is, might be very different from what
our symbol looks like, or non existent altogether.
We see space in dreams, but surely there is no actual space there,
except as a in our conscious picture.
Now one might possibly claim that, that the world is not a dream,
and thus since we see a symbol of something in our consciousness,
SOMETHING must exist out there as the referent.
My point is that deriving the NATURE of the referent by the NATURE
of the symbol is a philosophical mistake of vast proportions.
Further if we can concede that the symbols might exist in our
consciousness without any actual existing referents at all (such as in
imagination, hallucination or a sleep dream), then our conclusion that
because we see space there must be space is completely wrong.
(A dream is a panoply of symbols implying referents where there are
in fact no actual existing referents, a virtual reality.)
It makes sense to us however that if symbols and referents do share
some qualities, that the qualities they share in common should be used
to refer to each other.
So if the car out there has dimensionality, and our conscious
pictures of the car also have 'dimensionality', it makes sense that the
dimensionality of our conscious pictures be used to refer to the
dimensionality of the car out there.
The point is that the existence of dimensionality in our symbolic
consciousness does not itself provide proof of dimensionality in the
referent.
The word interpretation means the ability to translate from symbol
to referent. One looks at the symbol and from the symbol we interpret
what the referent must be like.
Interpretation of words, pictures, data, all of which are symbols
for actual referents, is an important part of daily life and successful
living.
Now some people will say that our conscious pictures are our
interpretation of the physical universe, we see space in our
consciousness because that is our brain's interpretation of its data
coming from the the actual external universe.
But that is backwards you see, they are claiming the symbol is an
interpretation of the referent!
It is true that the electronic data received through the senses
in the brain is a symbol for the alleged external referent, and
the brain certainly has a right to interpret its symbolic data to mean
that the referent then really does have space.
But the brain then RERENDERS that interpretation as a picture of
space in our consciousness which is yet another symbol for the referent.
From our point of view WE then interpret that the referent has space
because our conscious symbol of it does.
They say we see space in our conscious symbol because there IS
space in the referent!
But in fact we believe there IS space in the referent because we
see space in our conscious symbols of things!
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
So far we have determined a number of salient points about symbols
and referents.
Both symbols and referents are actualities, objects, the first used
to refer to the second. Neither is a priori more or less actual than
the other. People can however use symbols to refer to referents so
heavily and exclusively that they lose sight that the symbol is its own
object worthy of study itself.
Second, because symbols and referents are both actual objects, both
have qualities of their own that may have nothing to do with each other
except that some of the qualities in the symbol may be used to refer to
some of the qualities of the referent.
For example a referent 'red plastic ball' may be made of plastic,
but it certainly is not red. The symbol in our consciousness is red.
Now we use that red symbol to refer to light waves bouncing off the ball
of certain frequency, but that connection between red consciousness and
light of a given frequency is in fact arbitrary.
Take an X-Ray picture of a star for example, where the various
frequencies of X-rays are delineated by colors of the rainbow so we can
see them. Red now refers to low frequency X-rays, and violet to high
frequency X-rays.
Now some astronomer looking at such a picture might point to a star
in the image and say "Hey I found a red star!'. But there is no way
that star is red. The quality of the symbol has been ascribed to the
referent, and now the referent is being described via the qualities of
the symbol, 'red stars' etc.
The quality of the symbol can have little to do with the quality of
the referent other than arbitrary assignment. When you start describing
the quality of the referent by the quality of the symbol you have
started down the road to confusion.
We do this all the time in normal life. We see a car and we say
'That car is red!'. No way is that car red in any possible sense of the
word, but the picture in our consciousness sure is.
Of course this kind of merging the qualities of the symbol with the
quality of the referent doesn't normally lead to trouble as we all know
that underlying 'red car' is the actual meaning 'this car reflects light
of a certain frequency'. The translation from 'red' to 'frequency' in
our minds becomes automatic, and so we get along with the misnaming.
The quality of redness is not even vaguely similar to the quality
of reflecting light of a certain frequency.
Redness is a quality of being of our conscious picture.
Reflecting light of a certain frequency is a quality of relation
between the car and light waves.
So unless we are careful to understand this process, the trip to
perdition can be swift and sure.
For example that 'red car' we see out there is also seen to be
sitting in a 3 dimensional space. We can SEE the space no? We can SEE
the 3 dimensions, right?
But anything we SEE in our consciousness is at best a SYMBOL for an
alleged referent. So if the car is not red just because we see red,
perhaps space is not dimensional just because it looks dimensional to
our consciousness.
In other words just because we see red, doesn't mean there IS red
OUT THERE, there may be something, but its association with redness in
our consciousness is an arbitrary hook together.
Just so with space. Just because we SEE space in our conscious
picture of the car, doesn't mean there is actual space OUT THERE. What
the true nature of the referent is, might be very different from what
our symbol looks like, or non existent altogether.
We see space in dreams, but surely there is no actual space there,
except as a in our conscious picture.
Now one might possibly claim that, that the world is not a dream,
and thus since we see a symbol of something in our consciousness,
SOMETHING must exist out there as the referent.
My point is that deriving the NATURE of the referent by the NATURE
of the symbol is a philosophical mistake of vast proportions.
Further if we can concede that the symbols might exist in our
consciousness without any actual existing referents at all (such as in
imagination, hallucination or a sleep dream), then our conclusion that
because we see space there must be space is completely wrong.
(A dream is a panoply of symbols implying referents where there are
in fact no actual existing referents, a virtual reality.)
It makes sense to us however that if symbols and referents do share
some qualities, that the qualities they share in common should be used
to refer to each other.
So if the car out there has dimensionality, and our conscious
pictures of the car also have 'dimensionality', it makes sense that the
dimensionality of our conscious pictures be used to refer to the
dimensionality of the car out there.
The point is that the existence of dimensionality in our symbolic
consciousness does not itself provide proof of dimensionality in the
referent.
The word interpretation means the ability to translate from symbol
to referent. One looks at the symbol and from the symbol we interpret
what the referent must be like.
Interpretation of words, pictures, data, all of which are symbols
for actual referents, is an important part of daily life and successful
living.
Now some people will say that our conscious pictures are our
interpretation of the physical universe, we see space in our
consciousness because that is our brain's interpretation of its data
coming from the the actual external universe.
But that is backwards you see, they are claiming the symbol is an
interpretation of the referent!
It is true that the electronic data received through the senses
in the brain is a symbol for the alleged external referent, and
the brain certainly has a right to interpret its symbolic data to mean
that the referent then really does have space.
But the brain then RERENDERS that interpretation as a picture of
space in our consciousness which is yet another symbol for the referent.
From our point of view WE then interpret that the referent has space
because our conscious symbol of it does.
They say we see space in our conscious symbol because there IS
space in the referent!
But in fact we believe there IS space in the referent because we
see space in our conscious symbols of things!
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Thursday, August 23, 2012
EFFECTS OF DEMONSTRATING OT POWERS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
EFFECTS OF DEMONSTRATING OT POWERS
SCI - 23
Copyright (C) 1992 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
>>I submit that effects never prove absolutely the existence of cause.
> Of course not. This is what *we've* been trying to say in this
>thread for a while: science is not about anything absolute. It's
>about a model -- a predictor -- for some effect in the world. It's
>not about any absolute existence of cause; it's the best model we can
>make today.
No you go one step further and claim that the experimenter can not
be part of the experiment. Tell that to Albert Hofmann who discovered
LSD. Tell him his second trip was not an 'experiment in the name of
science.'
Look it's real simple. I run a process on a pc and he SAYS he got
out of his body. That vocalization is the external data that I can
observe about the pc. I run the same process on 2 million pcs and they
ALL SAY they can get out of their body.
Seems to me we have a science here, I do an experiment, I get a
result, I can observe the result in others, others can observe the
results too.
Others can do the same experiment, not on themselves Lord forbid,
and they can get the same results, the pc SAYS 'I am OUT!'
Now what model would you like to propose to explain this data?
1.) The pc is lying.
2.) The pc is hallucinating.
3.) The pc is out of his body and is reporting the truth.
Tell me this is not a *Science* (tm) up to this point.
>Well, Homer, we're left with a question. If you want "clearing tech" to
>be a science, you would definitely benefit from creating an objective
>demonstration of an OOBE.
Sure, the question is do I want clear tech to BE a *Science* (tm)
and the answer is no, or well maybe. If I must provide external
evidence for internal states, then perhaps I should stick to providing
that evidence only for those internal states that others, who do not
have those states, would not feel threatened by and be prone to attack
as too dangerous.
Grand exteriorization would not be one of these, I would rather
keep that weapon under cover in my secret laboratory where no one can
know about it except those who can do it or those working towards
getting there.
>Would you want this to happen?
Yes but not at the expense of the stability of civilization.
Half the world would immediately decide you were under the control
of the Devil if you demonstrated any such power, they would NOT think
you were out of your body, they KNOW this is impossible, they KNOW you
ARE a body, they KNOW you have only LIVED ONCE, therefore if you have
such power the Devil must be doing it for you.
WAKE UP!
The first OT to demonstrate serious power would be considered the
Anti-Christ by that evening's news.
>If the answer is yes,
>how about if you objectively demonstrate an OOBE?
Not in a million years.
Those who are being helped TOWARDS this ability have a very strong
desire that such abilities not be demonstrated because they know it will
make it harder for them to get there smoothly.
> What is obvious is that, if you could objective demonstrate an
>OOBE, you could [virtually] instantly bring the credibility of science
>to "clearing tech."
Credibility to who, Phil?
Skeptics? Who cares, BOOORRRRRIIINNNNGGGG.
Christians? No way, it would be Anti Christ city for them.
At what expense?
Who is to judge the effects of such a demonstration?
You?
>This is where you lose the audience, >Homer. *You* are the one who
wants >"clearing tech" to become a science.
Phil, my friend, my long lost buddy of millions of years ago, YOU
ARE NOT MY AUDIENCE, NEVER HAVE BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE.
Nor is anyone like you, including all of your skeptic and
*Scientist* (tm) friends.
>But you obviously can, right? >And you do have motivation for
demonstrating >your powers, right?
Me? Phil, you been reading my stuff? Did I ever say I was a full
OT with grand exteriorization ability? I doubt there is anyone on this
list with this ability.
But I will bet you they wouldn't tell you if they had it.
> Don't you think it would make a huge difference to the world to
>demonstrate this "clearing tech" *as a science* to the rest of us?
Yes, perhaps, but you *Scientists of the Rock* (tm) are pretty
dense, not sure if you are worth the bother.
Certainly demostrating some lower level improvement in case gain
might be useful to those who are able to make case gain.
You know even if someone did demonstrate to you OOBE, and you
believed it, YOU still might be an inaccessible pc.
Getting out of a body is a matter of confronting why you were in
one in the first place.
Do YOU have the personal confront for this Phil?
Or are you hiding behind your doubt so you don't have to see your
own wall of fire?
Anyhow, any serious demonstration of super human powers would
destroy all of civilization with in a year, so no that would not be good
for clear tech.
There are many more people who do not need that level of proof,
they can REMEMBER they once had power, they just want it back.
THOSE are my audience, those who still have a memory, and confront.
>Do you or do you not want to
>demonstrate the science of "clearing tech" to
>the world?
Sorry Phil, you and your kind are not the world. The world is full
of pcs beating a path to auditor's doors.
We don't need you.
Skeptics can have the planet all to themselves when the rest of us
leave.
When everyone goes clear who can, the Earth will become a Holding
Tank for Skeptics.
They can keep each other warm with their doubt.
No one is asking you to believe what you have not experienced for
yourself.
We ARE asking you to believe what you HAVE experienced for yourself
even if you can't prove it to some Joe Smoe in a white lab coat.
Get some auditing, stop hiding behind your *Science* (tm).
You don't need permission from the American Journal of Physics to
get a new reality on what you are, why you are here, and what you can
do.
That reality comes from YOU, if they don't know it, it's only
because they don't want to know it.
You can always get out of your body and go watch them having sex
and groaning 'Clear Tech, right, Prove it!'
They should get some auditing too.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 23 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sci23.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQNdZaURT1lqxE3HERApS+AJ9jxxIhx4OFsTQyZb0DEljsw25blgCdF2on
I35FefClomfTzkDwttcBPrs=
=6xPc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
EFFECTS OF DEMONSTRATING OT POWERS
SCI - 23
Copyright (C) 1992 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
>>I submit that effects never prove absolutely the existence of cause.
> Of course not. This is what *we've* been trying to say in this
>thread for a while: science is not about anything absolute. It's
>about a model -- a predictor -- for some effect in the world. It's
>not about any absolute existence of cause; it's the best model we can
>make today.
No you go one step further and claim that the experimenter can not
be part of the experiment. Tell that to Albert Hofmann who discovered
LSD. Tell him his second trip was not an 'experiment in the name of
science.'
Look it's real simple. I run a process on a pc and he SAYS he got
out of his body. That vocalization is the external data that I can
observe about the pc. I run the same process on 2 million pcs and they
ALL SAY they can get out of their body.
Seems to me we have a science here, I do an experiment, I get a
result, I can observe the result in others, others can observe the
results too.
Others can do the same experiment, not on themselves Lord forbid,
and they can get the same results, the pc SAYS 'I am OUT!'
Now what model would you like to propose to explain this data?
1.) The pc is lying.
2.) The pc is hallucinating.
3.) The pc is out of his body and is reporting the truth.
Tell me this is not a *Science* (tm) up to this point.
>Well, Homer, we're left with a question. If you want "clearing tech" to
>be a science, you would definitely benefit from creating an objective
>demonstration of an OOBE.
Sure, the question is do I want clear tech to BE a *Science* (tm)
and the answer is no, or well maybe. If I must provide external
evidence for internal states, then perhaps I should stick to providing
that evidence only for those internal states that others, who do not
have those states, would not feel threatened by and be prone to attack
as too dangerous.
Grand exteriorization would not be one of these, I would rather
keep that weapon under cover in my secret laboratory where no one can
know about it except those who can do it or those working towards
getting there.
>Would you want this to happen?
Yes but not at the expense of the stability of civilization.
Half the world would immediately decide you were under the control
of the Devil if you demonstrated any such power, they would NOT think
you were out of your body, they KNOW this is impossible, they KNOW you
ARE a body, they KNOW you have only LIVED ONCE, therefore if you have
such power the Devil must be doing it for you.
WAKE UP!
The first OT to demonstrate serious power would be considered the
Anti-Christ by that evening's news.
>If the answer is yes,
>how about if you objectively demonstrate an OOBE?
Not in a million years.
Those who are being helped TOWARDS this ability have a very strong
desire that such abilities not be demonstrated because they know it will
make it harder for them to get there smoothly.
> What is obvious is that, if you could objective demonstrate an
>OOBE, you could [virtually] instantly bring the credibility of science
>to "clearing tech."
Credibility to who, Phil?
Skeptics? Who cares, BOOORRRRRIIINNNNGGGG.
Christians? No way, it would be Anti Christ city for them.
At what expense?
Who is to judge the effects of such a demonstration?
You?
>This is where you lose the audience, >Homer. *You* are the one who
wants >"clearing tech" to become a science.
Phil, my friend, my long lost buddy of millions of years ago, YOU
ARE NOT MY AUDIENCE, NEVER HAVE BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE.
Nor is anyone like you, including all of your skeptic and
*Scientist* (tm) friends.
>But you obviously can, right? >And you do have motivation for
demonstrating >your powers, right?
Me? Phil, you been reading my stuff? Did I ever say I was a full
OT with grand exteriorization ability? I doubt there is anyone on this
list with this ability.
But I will bet you they wouldn't tell you if they had it.
> Don't you think it would make a huge difference to the world to
>demonstrate this "clearing tech" *as a science* to the rest of us?
Yes, perhaps, but you *Scientists of the Rock* (tm) are pretty
dense, not sure if you are worth the bother.
Certainly demostrating some lower level improvement in case gain
might be useful to those who are able to make case gain.
You know even if someone did demonstrate to you OOBE, and you
believed it, YOU still might be an inaccessible pc.
Getting out of a body is a matter of confronting why you were in
one in the first place.
Do YOU have the personal confront for this Phil?
Or are you hiding behind your doubt so you don't have to see your
own wall of fire?
Anyhow, any serious demonstration of super human powers would
destroy all of civilization with in a year, so no that would not be good
for clear tech.
There are many more people who do not need that level of proof,
they can REMEMBER they once had power, they just want it back.
THOSE are my audience, those who still have a memory, and confront.
>Do you or do you not want to
>demonstrate the science of "clearing tech" to
>the world?
Sorry Phil, you and your kind are not the world. The world is full
of pcs beating a path to auditor's doors.
We don't need you.
Skeptics can have the planet all to themselves when the rest of us
leave.
When everyone goes clear who can, the Earth will become a Holding
Tank for Skeptics.
They can keep each other warm with their doubt.
No one is asking you to believe what you have not experienced for
yourself.
We ARE asking you to believe what you HAVE experienced for yourself
even if you can't prove it to some Joe Smoe in a white lab coat.
Get some auditing, stop hiding behind your *Science* (tm).
You don't need permission from the American Journal of Physics to
get a new reality on what you are, why you are here, and what you can
do.
That reality comes from YOU, if they don't know it, it's only
because they don't want to know it.
You can always get out of your body and go watch them having sex
and groaning 'Clear Tech, right, Prove it!'
They should get some auditing too.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 23 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sci23.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQNdZaURT1lqxE3HERApS+AJ9jxxIhx4OFsTQyZb0DEljsw25blgCdF2on
I35FefClomfTzkDwttcBPrs=
=6xPc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
RECOVERY AND DISCOVERY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
09/13/10 Monday 2:57pm EST
DISCOVERY AND RECOVERY
I think part of the problem is meatballs live in a world view where
we are born of nothing and evolved, and thus there is no prior knowledge
of anything important forgottgen.
Looking down their memory track they expect to see nothing because
they were nothing a while back.
Thus if someone can move the marble, it becomes a *DISCOVERY*,
rather than a *RECOVERY*. Thus of course one would want to shout eureka
to the world and let everyone know.
This doesn't mean the need for a prime directive wouldn't swiftly
form around the ability, but it does mean there is no PRIOR prime
directive hiding those powers in the first place.
Thus it is counter intuitive to the meatball to audit the power
protocol rundown, because he can't imagine that PRIOR violations of
protocol and maybe even the protocols themselves lead to no power.
He also can't imagine that power itself is being used to limit
power.
As long as people are in discovery mode about spiritual abiliies,
they pretty much don't stand a chance, as their responsibility for not
having powers is nill.
Learning by looking is a trap when it comes to spiritual matters.
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
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Pip wrote:
> Unless one can grasp the idea of the world being a dream, the Prime
> Directive is just another wacky idea in a preposterous world view. But
> if you understand games, you understand mutually agreed upon rules and
> how they are enforced. No matter how far reaching or complex the game
> may be, it's really that simple. No rules, or no enforcement, = no
> game. The only proof is to see it for yourself. I saw it for myself.
> All proof is inside, not outside. Most people won't look - they suffer
> from the fatal disease of "I already know everything". Actually that's
> for protection; looking can be terrifying. It's easier to stay in the
> comfort zone. A lot of talk happens in the comfort zone. It's filled
> with opinions.
>
> Pip
>
> PS: The prime directive rule does have some loopholes apparently.
>
> homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>
>> In article <5e3c880a-e6f1-4c48-bde5-82e741b5c62d@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com> you wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Prime directive stuff is a cop out obviously. Who, when, where and
>>> why, and for how long?
>>>
>>> Again none of the pertinent information is ever supplied. Pearls
>>> before swine, and the besmirching
>>> of sacremental texts or wisdoms whatever could it possibly be.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually this is wrong.
>>
>> The prime directive is very simple, if someone wants some
>> ability, you may provide him with time and effort to help HIM
>> get the ability, and you may provide him with the processes to
>> look over before you run them on him if necessary, but you may not
>> demonstrate that YOU have the ability to him before he has it himself.
>>
>> Hardly a cop out.
>>
>> Homer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
Mon Sep 13 15:00:15 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Aug 21 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore795.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQMzNaURT1lqxE3HERAlMeAJ9o+YZUIpqnjN7qrPAOV3/q2/qZSACfTC/D
oFsJRJFOTPZgOW3OLwX16a4=
=HF2x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
09/13/10 Monday 2:57pm EST
DISCOVERY AND RECOVERY
I think part of the problem is meatballs live in a world view where
we are born of nothing and evolved, and thus there is no prior knowledge
of anything important forgottgen.
Looking down their memory track they expect to see nothing because
they were nothing a while back.
Thus if someone can move the marble, it becomes a *DISCOVERY*,
rather than a *RECOVERY*. Thus of course one would want to shout eureka
to the world and let everyone know.
This doesn't mean the need for a prime directive wouldn't swiftly
form around the ability, but it does mean there is no PRIOR prime
directive hiding those powers in the first place.
Thus it is counter intuitive to the meatball to audit the power
protocol rundown, because he can't imagine that PRIOR violations of
protocol and maybe even the protocols themselves lead to no power.
He also can't imagine that power itself is being used to limit
power.
As long as people are in discovery mode about spiritual abiliies,
they pretty much don't stand a chance, as their responsibility for not
having powers is nill.
Learning by looking is a trap when it comes to spiritual matters.
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
On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Pip wrote:
> Unless one can grasp the idea of the world being a dream, the Prime
> Directive is just another wacky idea in a preposterous world view. But
> if you understand games, you understand mutually agreed upon rules and
> how they are enforced. No matter how far reaching or complex the game
> may be, it's really that simple. No rules, or no enforcement, = no
> game. The only proof is to see it for yourself. I saw it for myself.
> All proof is inside, not outside. Most people won't look - they suffer
> from the fatal disease of "I already know everything". Actually that's
> for protection; looking can be terrifying. It's easier to stay in the
> comfort zone. A lot of talk happens in the comfort zone. It's filled
> with opinions.
>
> Pip
>
> PS: The prime directive rule does have some loopholes apparently.
>
> homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>
>> In article <5e3c880a-e6f1-4c48-bde5-82e741b5c62d@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com> you wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Prime directive stuff is a cop out obviously. Who, when, where and
>>> why, and for how long?
>>>
>>> Again none of the pertinent information is ever supplied. Pearls
>>> before swine, and the besmirching
>>> of sacremental texts or wisdoms whatever could it possibly be.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually this is wrong.
>>
>> The prime directive is very simple, if someone wants some
>> ability, you may provide him with time and effort to help HIM
>> get the ability, and you may provide him with the processes to
>> look over before you run them on him if necessary, but you may not
>> demonstrate that YOU have the ability to him before he has it himself.
>>
>> Hardly a cop out.
>>
>> Homer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
Mon Sep 13 15:00:15 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Aug 21 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore795.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQMzNaURT1lqxE3HERAlMeAJ9o+YZUIpqnjN7qrPAOV3/q2/qZSACfTC/D
oFsJRJFOTPZgOW3OLwX16a4=
=HF2x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, August 20, 2012
LOW REALITY PCS
LOW REALITY PCS
As the higher reality pcs have left this list for quieter climes,
the remaining people on this list seem to be more and more low reality
pcs.
Past lives don't exist, BT's don't exist, OT powers don't exist,
exteriorization doesn't exist, implants don't exist, personal
responsibility for condition doesn't exist, sovereignty doesn't exist, I
worry I might be a brain, prove it, prove it, prove it...
"I am trying to evolve, not resolve!"
Right.
Doubt is fine, but all this know before you go prove it crap is
not.
Nattering about Hubbard because he dared to tell you what was
there to be had, reflects on you, not him.
If he couldn't deliver and YOU can't deliver, well that's two
strikes and you are out.
If someone has no reality on past lives, then they won't audit
why they can't remember them. An in the absence of auditing past life
charge, either their own, or others, there is no case gain, because
real auditing flat out doesn't work if limited to this life only, the
earlier similars are all ignored as are the earlier others.
*DESIRE IS TO HAVE LIVED BEFORE AND TO LIVE AGAIN.*
If you ain't auditing BT's, you might as well give it up, there
are more of them than there are of you, and man are THEY pissed off
and charged up, mostly at what a dufus their auditor is.
Their auditor is a 'What PC?' case.
The guy who is going 'Prove to me I have lived before' is
actually saying "Prove to me I chose to forget.'
Think about it.
Electra wrote whole tomes about people who think their eyes are
bad because 'it runs in the family gene pool'.
Real nut jobs.
Once a Pre OT starts to be able to see again, he can see damn
well why he can't see and becomes quite happy at NOT being able to see
again.
That's how he created it, happy to not see, and that is exactly
how he will uncreat it, happy to not see.
True some people are born blind, but 3 billion eye glass wearers
were not born blind, and anyhow if you were born blind, what are you
doing using a piece of FDA approved meat to see with?
"The hypocrisy on Earth is so thick it is like a wall. You can
hammer nails into it, and hang pictures of smiling faces from them.
FUN stands for Find and UNearthing unearthly hypocrisy." - 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
Sat Aug 18 01:05:46 EDT 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
As the higher reality pcs have left this list for quieter climes,
the remaining people on this list seem to be more and more low reality
pcs.
Past lives don't exist, BT's don't exist, OT powers don't exist,
exteriorization doesn't exist, implants don't exist, personal
responsibility for condition doesn't exist, sovereignty doesn't exist, I
worry I might be a brain, prove it, prove it, prove it...
"I am trying to evolve, not resolve!"
Right.
Doubt is fine, but all this know before you go prove it crap is
not.
Nattering about Hubbard because he dared to tell you what was
there to be had, reflects on you, not him.
If he couldn't deliver and YOU can't deliver, well that's two
strikes and you are out.
If someone has no reality on past lives, then they won't audit
why they can't remember them. An in the absence of auditing past life
charge, either their own, or others, there is no case gain, because
real auditing flat out doesn't work if limited to this life only, the
earlier similars are all ignored as are the earlier others.
*DESIRE IS TO HAVE LIVED BEFORE AND TO LIVE AGAIN.*
If you ain't auditing BT's, you might as well give it up, there
are more of them than there are of you, and man are THEY pissed off
and charged up, mostly at what a dufus their auditor is.
Their auditor is a 'What PC?' case.
The guy who is going 'Prove to me I have lived before' is
actually saying "Prove to me I chose to forget.'
Think about it.
Electra wrote whole tomes about people who think their eyes are
bad because 'it runs in the family gene pool'.
Real nut jobs.
Once a Pre OT starts to be able to see again, he can see damn
well why he can't see and becomes quite happy at NOT being able to see
again.
That's how he created it, happy to not see, and that is exactly
how he will uncreat it, happy to not see.
True some people are born blind, but 3 billion eye glass wearers
were not born blind, and anyhow if you were born blind, what are you
doing using a piece of FDA approved meat to see with?
"The hypocrisy on Earth is so thick it is like a wall. You can
hammer nails into it, and hang pictures of smiling faces from them.
FUN stands for Find and UNearthing unearthly hypocrisy." - 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
Sat Aug 18 01:05:46 EDT 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
W.O.W.
W.O.W.
Spiritual abilities that can be used as weapons of war (W.O.W.) need
to be handled with appropriate security measures.
Unfortunately the desire and need for peer review can sometimes be
opposed to those same security measures.
One can doubt one's own experiences unless one can ground them in
some kind of physical evidence.
Physical evidence is important not because the physical universe is
actual or has any cause in it, but because it is merely another playing
field created by the thetan. If you can see an object on the playing
field of life without your body, you should also be able to see it with
a body, and visa versa.
(This isn't true of course, there are lots of things in the playing
field of life, even physical things, that the body can not see.)
Fortunately one's own body can act both as peer review and as
grounding in the physical evidence.
Say you get out of your body, go wandering in the forest and see a
beer can lying under a bush that has been there for years. You take
note of it's characteristics, what kind of beer, condition of can etc,
and you come back to your body and write it all down.
THEN you take your body to where the beer can lays, pick it up and
bring it home with you and compare notes.
If you got it right, then 'you were out of your body' as far as the
meaning of that experiment is concerned.
Just as in special relativity, in the phyiscal universe game, the
meaning of 'truth' is the experiment you did and its outcome, nothing
more, nothing less.
Then you do this same experiment many times, until you are sure you
can replicate it at will. This doesn't mean you can get out at will, it
means that if and when you can get out, if you see something without
your bodies eyes, you then go back to that place later with your body
and verify data. The experiment must be done on objects and places you
have never gone or been before, under a bridge, deep in the middle of a
bramble, at the bottom of a shallow lake etc.
Hunting for your cat is a good way to visit places NO one visits.
Once you have verified your ability and its dependability such as
it is, you probably would not go telling the world about it, as very
undesirable people will start showing up at your door, including those
that don't believe you.
But they aren't the problem. The problem people are those that do
believe you, who may or may not have such powers themselves, but who
either don't want you also having those powers, or who will insist you
'work for them' if you do.
Such people can be very dangerous, it is not enough for example to
merely pretend to not have the ability. They will torture you or your
loved ones, until you admit you do, or you exercise some defense power
in desperation.
"Hah, you see, you blew up my head, I knew you had the power!"
Even if they think you might not have the powers, they will STILL
torture you just to make sure. Thus they will torture you and everyone
else around you just to find the one that might have the power.
This is right off the whole track, any fool can see it, but
apparently fools squared can't.
So if you don't have a taste for hot branding irons up your ass,
you might want to keep your abilities to yourself. Remember it is YOU
that has the power, but it is you BODY that gets tortured.
Do you want the bad guys torturing your pets to get at you?
On the other hand as you experiment more and more with your
abilities, you will notice two things.
First will be a craving to use your abilities to go watch others
having sex or thrills of some kind, or to cheat at the games of survival
that everyone is playing, like the stock market, or war.
Your body will love your ability to go exterior as it will act as a
vicarious spectator to anything you see. This will quickly get you into
the track of degradation that got you stuck with bodies in the first
place.
The body knows more about sex than about physics and math, the
thetan knows more about math and physics than about sex.
Which are you?
The second thing you notice on your exterior excursions, if they
are real, are other beings who are also exterior watching you.
Now these guys you need to watch out for, their intentions may or
may not be pro you.
Thus no matter how much you try to 'Stay Fabian' (incognito, out of
sight) with your powers, the best way is to stay in your body and not
use them at all, or worse, not know you have them and believe with all
your body, heart, mind and soul, er that dead thing in your face, that
you don't have them.
That unfortunately leads to the kind of lives you are living now,
so be prepared for at least some excitement once you start to get out
for real and start to wander around.
The fun and trill will be balanced by danger.
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 May 4 15:58:15 EDT 2010
Spiritual abilities that can be used as weapons of war (W.O.W.) need
to be handled with appropriate security measures.
Unfortunately the desire and need for peer review can sometimes be
opposed to those same security measures.
One can doubt one's own experiences unless one can ground them in
some kind of physical evidence.
Physical evidence is important not because the physical universe is
actual or has any cause in it, but because it is merely another playing
field created by the thetan. If you can see an object on the playing
field of life without your body, you should also be able to see it with
a body, and visa versa.
(This isn't true of course, there are lots of things in the playing
field of life, even physical things, that the body can not see.)
Fortunately one's own body can act both as peer review and as
grounding in the physical evidence.
Say you get out of your body, go wandering in the forest and see a
beer can lying under a bush that has been there for years. You take
note of it's characteristics, what kind of beer, condition of can etc,
and you come back to your body and write it all down.
THEN you take your body to where the beer can lays, pick it up and
bring it home with you and compare notes.
If you got it right, then 'you were out of your body' as far as the
meaning of that experiment is concerned.
Just as in special relativity, in the phyiscal universe game, the
meaning of 'truth' is the experiment you did and its outcome, nothing
more, nothing less.
Then you do this same experiment many times, until you are sure you
can replicate it at will. This doesn't mean you can get out at will, it
means that if and when you can get out, if you see something without
your bodies eyes, you then go back to that place later with your body
and verify data. The experiment must be done on objects and places you
have never gone or been before, under a bridge, deep in the middle of a
bramble, at the bottom of a shallow lake etc.
Hunting for your cat is a good way to visit places NO one visits.
Once you have verified your ability and its dependability such as
it is, you probably would not go telling the world about it, as very
undesirable people will start showing up at your door, including those
that don't believe you.
But they aren't the problem. The problem people are those that do
believe you, who may or may not have such powers themselves, but who
either don't want you also having those powers, or who will insist you
'work for them' if you do.
Such people can be very dangerous, it is not enough for example to
merely pretend to not have the ability. They will torture you or your
loved ones, until you admit you do, or you exercise some defense power
in desperation.
"Hah, you see, you blew up my head, I knew you had the power!"
Even if they think you might not have the powers, they will STILL
torture you just to make sure. Thus they will torture you and everyone
else around you just to find the one that might have the power.
This is right off the whole track, any fool can see it, but
apparently fools squared can't.
So if you don't have a taste for hot branding irons up your ass,
you might want to keep your abilities to yourself. Remember it is YOU
that has the power, but it is you BODY that gets tortured.
Do you want the bad guys torturing your pets to get at you?
On the other hand as you experiment more and more with your
abilities, you will notice two things.
First will be a craving to use your abilities to go watch others
having sex or thrills of some kind, or to cheat at the games of survival
that everyone is playing, like the stock market, or war.
Your body will love your ability to go exterior as it will act as a
vicarious spectator to anything you see. This will quickly get you into
the track of degradation that got you stuck with bodies in the first
place.
The body knows more about sex than about physics and math, the
thetan knows more about math and physics than about sex.
Which are you?
The second thing you notice on your exterior excursions, if they
are real, are other beings who are also exterior watching you.
Now these guys you need to watch out for, their intentions may or
may not be pro you.
Thus no matter how much you try to 'Stay Fabian' (incognito, out of
sight) with your powers, the best way is to stay in your body and not
use them at all, or worse, not know you have them and believe with all
your body, heart, mind and soul, er that dead thing in your face, that
you don't have them.
That unfortunately leads to the kind of lives you are living now,
so be prepared for at least some excitement once you start to get out
for real and start to wander around.
The fun and trill will be balanced by danger.
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 May 4 15:58:15 EDT 2010
Thursday, August 16, 2012
OBJECTIVE PROCESSES
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
OBJECTIVE PROCESSES
Curiosus (curiosus@fastmail.fm) wrote:
>Objective processing is enforcing the agreement with the ordinary
>physical world, when you are talking about breaking that agreement.
I know you won't like this answer, but the end results of
objectives are really a function of whether they are run on you by a
meatball or a dream ball.
"Come into your body and operate it" will actually put a being out
of his body, cuz he has to be out to come in, *IF* it is run by someone
who is out of their body, and who has some understandings about where
and why the pc is in.
Otherwise if it is run by a meatball in mystery, it will put the pc
more in and less out.
Homer
>--
>Curiosus
>http://www.geocities.com/curiosus_2005/index.htm
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Dec 25 23:38:39 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 16 03:06:03 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore423.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQLJvcURT1lqxE3HERAsZDAKCRIw6eQ522Lq6BQ3Ss6y6Orjl7IwCdH7Md
XmELO9oefWV25UE4WM9k7VM=
=gZur
-----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
OBJECTIVE PROCESSES
Curiosus (curiosus@fastmail.fm) wrote:
>Objective processing is enforcing the agreement with the ordinary
>physical world, when you are talking about breaking that agreement.
I know you won't like this answer, but the end results of
objectives are really a function of whether they are run on you by a
meatball or a dream ball.
"Come into your body and operate it" will actually put a being out
of his body, cuz he has to be out to come in, *IF* it is run by someone
who is out of their body, and who has some understandings about where
and why the pc is in.
Otherwise if it is run by a meatball in mystery, it will put the pc
more in and less out.
Homer
>--
>Curiosus
>http://www.geocities.com/curiosus_2005/index.htm
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Dec 25 23:38:39 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 16 03:06:03 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore423.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQLJvcURT1lqxE3HERAsZDAKCRIw6eQ522Lq6BQ3Ss6y6Orjl7IwCdH7Md
XmELO9oefWV25UE4WM9k7VM=
=gZur
-----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
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
THE TRUE NATURE OF MISSED WITHHOLDS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE TRUE NATURE OF MISSED WITHHOLDS
ADO - 6
25 May 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The following is a theoretical underpinning for the discussion on
missed withholds that follows. If you don't buy this particular world
view, that's fine, it is only presented to help you understand the
material on missed withholds.
A being is basically an Operating Intention Unit. His basic action
is to cause things to exist, which amounts to creating knowledge, and
then to not know that he has done so, and then to indulge in the game of
learning what he created.
The being does this in tandem with other beings who are doing the
same, thus any being can create something to know, and other beings,
along with him, can play the game of learning what was created.
Thus the cycle of creation goes:
Create -> Survive -> Destroy
Knowledge -> Question -> Answer
The being creates things to know and then by not knowing that he
has done so turns this knowledge into unknowns or questions. The game
of course is to answer the question. Once he answers a question, that
particular game of answering that particular question is ended.
Actually he doesn't even know what questions there are any more,
so the game is to find (precreated) questions to answer, and then to
find answers to questions.
More technically the cycle looks like this,
Knowing - Looking - Not Knowing - Looking - Knowing again (Learning)
Creating Answers - Creating Questions - Answering Questions
KNOWING:
The being in Creator mode starts off with nothing and then
creatively causes something to come into existence by knowing it. In
this sense, knowing is a creative action because the created thing comes
to be true because the person KNOWS it is true. It is knowing something
into existence, literally.
We are not talking about creating fundmental truths that are true
no matter what, we are talking about creating CREATED truths that are
only true because something created them into existence.
LOOKING:
Once he has known something into existence he can then look at
it, knowing full well he just created it. Looking allows the being to
CHECK-OUT what he just created to make sure it got created exactly as
he originally knowed it into existence.
NOT KNOWING:
The Creator then indulges in NOT knowing about the created
knowledge or object and he hides it from himself or puts it in a far off
galaxy where he can run across it in a million years on some voyage of
discovery.
This is the transition from Creator to Creature.
LOOKING AGAIN:
Later, the person in Creature mode, runs into something he or
others have created in Creator mode, and he finds he doesn't know what
the thing is. Thus he takes to LOOKING at it carefully, inspecting it,
playing with it, experimenting with it, until he again knows what it is.
KNOWING AGAIN:
Thus the being in Creature mode begins to accumulate knowledge on a
vast scale concerning the universe that he is in.
This knowledge is originally created with Looking by Knowing, and
is eventually rediscovered with Knowing by Looking.
Looking by Knowing means the Creator is able to LOOK at something
BECAUSE he has just created it by KNOWING it.
Knowing by Looking means the Creature is able to LEARN about
something BECAUSE he is presently LOOKING at it.
Looking by Knowing and Knowing by Looking define the two basic
operating modes of Creator and Creature.
Creator = Looking by Knowing, or Knowing -> Looking.
Creature = Knowing by Looking, or Looking -> Knowing.
In SUMMARY:
In summary then, the being in Creator mode creates things to look
at by knowing them into existence. This is called Looking by Knowing.
The being in Creature mode rediscovers things to know by looking at
them until he learns about them. This is called Knowing by Looking or
Learning by Looking.
If one graphs this as,
Knowing -> Looking -> Not knowing -> Looking -> Knowing
it can then be said that the shift from Creator mode to Creature
mode is a shift from operating the first 3 items to operating the last 3
items. The middle item, not knowing, it shared by both sides, and is
the shift over point from Creator mode to Creature mode.
This then is the cycle of a game. The cycle of a game involves the
creation of knowledge to learn in Creator mode, followed by the process
of learning it in Creature mode.
From the above discussion it is apparent that a being is inherently
a knower, something that can know, either by creating knowledge and
things to know, or by learning about things already so created. Thus it
can be surmised that anything that fouls up a being's ability to know or
to learn, or to cause others to know or to learn, will be of great upset
to him.
One of the things that beings like to do is to share what they know
with others or to hide what they know from others.
This is all part of the warp and woof of games.
You communicate to your customers that you have a product, you hide
from your competitors how you made it.
Beings use the presence or absence of communication cycles in order
to indulge in sharing or hiding things they know from others.
For example, if a being learns something of value in the struggle
for survival, he will go to some effort to communicate this to his
friends. When they finally get the message they will send back to him
an acknowledgment so that the originating being can know for sure they
got the communication and so end cycle on the effort to communicate with
them, and so proceed to take up something new.
In the same way, if a being knows something that he does NOT want
others to know, he will go to some effort to NOT communicate it to other
people, and he will look for the absence of an acknowledgement from the
other person to verify to himself that in fact they do not know it.
Thus we have these two fundamental cycles of action in this game
universe.
The first cycle of action is the effort to communicate something to
another being, followed by the clear presence of a return
acknowledgement.
The second cycle of action is the effort to NOT communicate
something to another being, followed by the clear absence of a return
acknowledgement.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF THE RETURN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CAN NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED AS IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
VERIFICATION OF THE COMMUNICATION OR NON COMMUNICATION CYCLE THE BEING
IS INDULGING IN.
Without the clear presence or absence of a return acknowledgement
the being can not end cycle on his intention to communicate or not
communicate. He thus gets stuck in that cycle forever.
1. TRYING TO COMMUNICATE
If a being is trying to communicate something to another, and no
acknowledgement is forthcoming, the originating being will be left in
doubt about whether the other being got the communication or not.
He won't know if they know.
THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO SEND THE COMMUNICATION.
It's constantly LOOKING for the presence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.
He may even take to fabricating acknowledgments where there aren't
any just to end cycle on the deal.
He can't stand not knowing.
Once he gets a clear indication of the presence of a return
acknowledgement he is free to DO other things.
2. TRYING TO NOT COMMUNICATE
If a being is trying to NOT communicate something to another, yet
he is getting constant indications that indeed the other party is
getting the communication anyhow, the withholding being will be left in
a doubt about whether the other party is NOT getting the communication
or not.
He won't know if they know.
THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO STOP THE COMMUNICATION.
It's constantly LOOKING for the absence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.
He may even take to NOT-ISing possible acknowledgments where there
may be some, just to end cycle on the deal.
He can't stand not knowing.
Once he gets a clear indication of the absence of any return
acknowledgment, meaning that he has successfully prevented others from
knowing what ever he was hiding, he is free to DO other things.
If the being is ultimately unable to determine whether his
intention has been carried out, whether it be to communicate or to not
communicate, he will suffer a DECISION CYCLE FAILURE. He won't be able
to go on to DO other things, yet he won't know what to do about his
present problem.
He gets stuck instead in a question, 'Do they know? Do they not
know?' Since he can not answer that question, he can not DECIDE what to
do next and so he starts to build up charge.
He is like a man sitting at the fork of a road asking 'Should I go
right? Should I go left?' He's been there for a LONG time.
Eventually he makes a decision about his indecision which is
usually to bury it, where it will fester, continuing to create charge
for the rest of time.
This is like the same man who DECIDES to build his home at the fork
of the road and says 'there is no fork in the road, and there is nowhere
to go, and I have arrived where I wanted to go anyway'.
Thus when the being is unable to reach a CONCLUSION about whether
other's know or not, he is also unable to DECIDE what to do next.
A CONCLUSION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what is true.
A DECISION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what to do.
The failure of the conclusion cycle leads to a failure of the
decision cycle.
Now a being in good condition will have a balance of the Creator
and Creature modes within him. He will be creating some new things to
know, and he will be discovering other things already created by himself
and others to learn about.
If such a being gets stuck in a conclusion cycle of the form 'Do
they know? Do they not know?' he will put all of his attention into his
Creature mode trying to determine the answer to the question 'Do they
know or not?'
He is trying to know by learning and loses all interest in knowing
by creating.
He is not willing or able to just CAUSE others to know or not,
which would end his quandary; so he devotes more and more time to
Creature mode where he attempts to learn by looking whether the other
party knows or not.
What he is LOOKING for is the presence or absence of a return
acknowledgment.
The long term end result of this is the being becomes incapable of
Creator modes at all, and is totally swimming in failed Creature modes.
They are failed Creature modes in that he is trying to learn by
looking whether they know or not, but can't, so he is never able to make
a decision as to what to DO next, so he never gets on with this life or
the game.
This is what Hubbard referred to as 'being stuck in a decision in
the past.' He is still there trying to draw a conclusion and make a
decision.
'Do they know or don't they know?'
Since at a high enough state two beings can see each other's
pictures anyway, not knowing whether someone else knows something is
rather silly. Thus strenuous involvement in such efforts to know if
they know, leads to a dwindling spiral of less and less direct
perception of others and what they do and do not know, and eventually to
total aloneness.
This is 'spiritual death' at the bottom of the tone scale.
Such conclusion cycle failures invalidate the being's basic
causativeness over life by invalidating his CREATIVE causative
knowingness, his ability to bring about certain knowledge in others by
creating it so, and also invalidates his ability to learn by looking,
specifically by looking directly into the minds of others.
That's why missed withholds make you DUMB.
A being who is hiding something and yet is wondering if others
know, can always end cycle on his quandary by just outright informing
the other party of what he did. You see that is ending the endless
knowing by looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing
cycle, you just CAUSE them to know, and poof no more doubt. Of course
you might get executed.
But you wouldn't be in doubt any more and you could get on with
your life. Being parked at a fork in the road is a waste of time to an
Immortal Being.
Likewise if a being is trying to get something across to someone
and yet is wondering if they have gotten it or not, he can always end
cycle on his quandary by outright NOT informing the other party of what
he wanted them to know. You see that is ending the endless knowing by
looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing cycle, you
just CAUSE them to NOT know, and poof no more doubt. Of course you
might get executed.
The point is that the correct answer to any endless failure of the
knowing by looking cycle is to exercise a causative looking by knowing
cycle and take your lumps with the consequences.
The consequences are never as bad as staying in a learning by
looking quandary for the rest of time.
THAT'S HELL. It's better to be executed.
Executions end, Hell's don't.
Mortal's by the way can always be counted upon to make the wrong
choice. That's why you always find them parked so far into their
reactive minds (their 'Bank').
Their Bank is the home they built for themselves at the fork in the
road, snarling guard dogs and all.
So there are two kinds of missed withholds when looked at in this
light.
There are those things you wanted others to know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a POSITIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.
There are those things you wanted others to NOT know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a NEGATIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.
It is this last one that most people consider the missed withhold.
You do something bad, someone almost finds out, you are left unsure
if they did or not.
One day you are smoking in your bedroom, and you know you are not
supposed to be smoking. You hear your mother coming up the stairs and
you quickly throw the cigarette out the window. She comes in the room,
and looks around, sniffing the air, and says 'boy does it smell in here,
your sneakers need washing?'
So here is something that you wanted to NOT communicate to your
mother, namely that you were smoking a cigarette. Surely she couldn't
have possibly missed the smell or misidentified it. Yet she would have
had your hide if she thought you were smoking. So what's going on?
Does she know, or doesn't she know?
Positive missed withholds are important too.
You try to communicate something to someone, and you just never can
figure out if they got it or not.
One day you go up to your boy friend, and you tell him that you
love him and want to marry him. He says, 'Oh sure dear, that's fine.'
Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside you or is he missing the enormity of your
statement?
Wonder, wonder, wonder...
Positive missed withholds can also happen when people are trying to
confess negative withholds.
You go up to a minister on the street one night wringing your hands
and looking really distraught and you say, 'I killed my wife last night,
what should I do?' and he says, 'Thank you for telling me that, why
don't you get some sleep?'
Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside YOU or did he miss significance of the
communication?
Wonder, wonder, wonder...
So withholds can get missed even when people are desperately trying
to confess them. You say 'I feel like killing myself' and someone says
'Yeah, I know EXACTLY what you mean, life can do that to you. Don't
worry about it, I read in Psychology Today that we all feel that way
sometimes.'
Bang. The withhold was not communicated. This is deadly.
This can be particularly bad in session where bad auditing can
cause the preclear to have a DOUBLE missed withhold.
PC = Pre Clear, one who is not yet clear.
AUDITOR = One who is applying clearing to a pre clear to help
them become more clear.
Pc: 'You know you haven't been very warm to me recently, I guess I
have something to confess, and I have been wondering for a few days
whether or not you already know, so here it is... I have been sleeping
with your girl friend.'
Auditor: 'Ok, now we are going to take up your relationship with
your mother...'
Double Bang. The PC has a clearly missed severe negative
withhold from the Auditor, and he brings himself to tell the Auditor,
and the Auditor acts like he didn't even hear it, so now its a
positive missed withhold too!
'Did he know, didn't he know?' (negative missed withhold)
'DOES he know, DOESN'T he know?' (Positive missed withhold)
'Yipes!'
So in auditing you are looking for those moments of WONDER when the
person was unable to DETERMINE if the other person knows or not.
You see even the word 'determine' has this two tiered meaning.
To determine can mean to CAUSE to come into being.
"The ability to determine one's own future."
To determine can also mean to LEARN about what has already been
caused to come into being.
"The ability to determine the past."
So this whole Creator mode - Creature mode thing is built into the
very fabric of our language.
Determination can mean being determined to CAUSE, or it can mean a
determination, what was gleaned through learning by looking.
The first kind of determination is Creator mode and the second kind
of determination is Creature mode.
Creator determination is Creation arising from from Knowing,
Creature determination is Knowing arising from Creation, learning by
looking at what was already created.
Thus the being gets caught up in his failure to determine (find
out) whether others know or not, and he also fails to causatively
determine them into knowing or not knowing, and so he slowly goes crazy,
as BOTH Creature mode AND Creator mode are on hold in an inconclusion,
followed by an indecision.
So what you are looking for are those times your preclear tried to
communicate something to someone but is still wondering whether they
know or not, and also those times your preclear tried to NOT communicate
something to someone and is still wondering if they know or not.
Watch out for the can't believe its: 'I can't believe they don't
know' or 'I can't believe they found out', as these leave him in an
incredibility which stops his mind cold.
The anatomy of an incredibility is:
Certainty something is true, and
Certainty something is impossible.
Each one of these conclusion failures will be followed by a
decision failure, because being unable to determine whether they know or
not, your preclear was then unable to determine what to DO next in his
life.
He is still sitting there swimming in not know and unable to know,
and UNWILLING TO CAUSE KNOWING OR NOT KNOWING IN OTHERS outright to end
his conclusion failure.
So of course his life goes nowhere, either in parts or en masse.
So here is one way that this could be run.
Positive Missed Withholds:
'Who or what are you wondering might NOT know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might not know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might not know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'
Negative Missed Withholds:
'Who or what are you wondering might know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'
Instead of 'wondering' you can use 'worried' or 'concerned' or what
ever else indicates to your preclear.
'Who are you worried might know something about you?'
'Who are you worried might NOT know something about you?'
'Who are you concerned might know something about you?'
'Who are you concerned might NOT know something about you?'
etc.
Does she know how much you hate her?
Does she know how much you love her?
For a wider run, you can leave off the 'about you?'
'Who are you wondering might know something?'
etc.
There is no rote way to run this, run which ever questions bite and
your PC is interested in. Switch back and forth between positive and
negative missed withholds as needed.
Remember you the auditor and your preclear don't make case gain
together by doing it RIGHT, you make case gain by DOING it.
Run this alternately and repetitively, until the PC has spotted all
of his missed withholds. He will come up with more later, so this can
be run over and over again as needed.
This will turn on a LOT of anxiety. That means its biting.
As long a there is anxiety on the case, chances are there is more
to find.
Don't expect to get it all in one day.
Expect it to get pretty fantastical. Mundane human life ain't the
source of your case.
If you are co-auditing, run it back and forth on each other.
Running this on someone will open up your own case so that when
they run it on you there will be stuff to find, and visa versa. Many
processes are dead ends when audited in only one direction, but continue
to run forever when run back and forth between two people.
Auditing others and being audited are BOTH auditing.
If you miss a positive or negative withhold on your PC, if you put
them into doubt about whether you know or not, they will ARC break on
you, get pissed off in other words. You can run any ARC break at any
time with something like,
ARC = Affinity, Reality, Communication, Understanding.
ARC break = a sudden sundering of such.
'What didn't I know about you that I should have?'
'What should I have known?'
'What weren't you sure I knew?'
'What wasn't known?'
'What don't I have any idea of that you wish I did?'
'What would you like me to know about you?'
Remember an ARC break is ALWAYS caused by the MISSING of a positive
or negative withhold. The ARC break IS their wondering if you know or
not. It is an ARC break with themselves for no longer being able to
just cause you to know or not know, and know that they have.
So asking the PC 'What are you wondering if I know or not?' will
nail it.
Once the ARC break is clean, the PC will forgive you and be able to
go back into session easily. If the PC is still hedging inside, they
still have something they wish you knew but aren't sure you do, or wish
you didn't know but think you might.
When a pc is afraid there is something you might know about him,
it's usually because the pc is afraid there is something you DON'T know
about him.
In other words he doesn't want to let you know about him, until he
is sure you know something else about him!
"What would I have to know about you to let you be willing to let
me know everything about you?"
Thus negative missed withholds become difficult to pull to the
degree that the pc has positive missed withholds too.
IT IS THE PC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL THE AUDITOR IF THEY ARE ARC
BROKEN, AND IT IS A HIGH CRIME FOR THE PC TO CONTINUE TO PRETEND TO RUN
A PROCESS WHEN REALLY THEY ARE WISHING THE AUDITOR KNEW SOMETHING.
It is the Auditor's responsibility to make sure that the PC lives
up to his or her own Preclear Code. And it is the Preclear's
responsibility to make sure that the Auditor lives up to his or her own
Auditor's Code.
The Auditor's Code and the Preclear's Code are contracts that both
parties enter into willingly and with full responsibility. Each is a
bargaining tool for the other. The Auditor offers to follow the
Auditor's Code as set out by the Preclear, and in exchange the Preclear
offers to follow the Preclear's Code as set out by the Auditor.
Remember any PC WANTS to confess all their negative withholds, but
they are unsure you are a safe space, so really they only become
recalcitrant to discuss what they are hiding once they become unsure
that you don't know something that you should.
You can run,
'What would I need to know for you to feel good about my auditing
you?'
'What would I need to be, do, have or know for you to be willing to
communicate to me on this subject?'
or some such variant. You will surely figure out your own
questions once the understanding of all this bites on you.
You know a hefty portion of this material is just to get the
Auditor and PC in session with each other. This doesn't mean that this
stuff isn't deep auditing or won't blow your case to Kingdom come, but
if the Auditor and PC are chary of each other, they will have to go
through these little trials by fire in the beginning no matter what.
Auditing safe or polite material is a waste of time.
No auditing process known to man will stay safe or polite for long,
and if you aren't willing to communicate when the withholds start
showing up and the going gets hot, the process will stop dead in its
tracks. You can continue to pretend to give answers, but you will lose
what case gain you made, as each false answer after the withhold is an
overt act, and becomes another MISSED withhold.
As the PC, you will be looking at your Auditor thinking to
yourself, 'What a dumb turkey, how come he doesn't know I just stopped
myself from taking about something? How could he NOT know!?"
Although the auditor will often do something that makes the
preclear think they auditor might know, truth is, if the preclear thinks
the auditor SHOULD know or have found out, the PRECLEAR will miss the
withhold on himself out of the blue just by starting to wonder on it.
You know sessionability is not just a matter of the PC. Sure if
the PC is unhappy or unwilling to talk to the Auditor, then of course no
auditing will take place. But if the Auditor doesn't like the PC, or if
the Auditor is afraid the PC will bring up the Auditor's recent affair
with the neighbor's dog, then no auditing will take place either.
It is vitally important that the Auditor be as willing to talk to
be PC as the PC is willing to talk to the Auditor.
Auditing is not a one way confession.
Especially during a co audit, where both will be PC and both will
be Auditor.
If the person who is doing the auditing develops a withhold that
they will have to give up to the PC when the tables are turned, then
that withhold will prevent the Auditor from auditing the PC as well as
he could while he is still being the auditor.
His attention will be in the future when he must face his own
session and not on the PC in present time. Thus the acknowledgments
that the Auditor gives will all be lacking, as he won't be completely
there for the PC.
Thus it is just as important that the Auditor be able to talk to
the PC as it is that the PC be able to talk to the Auditor.
No one is really even asking you to give up having affairs with the
neighbor's dog, just so long as you can TALK about it freely to your PC
or Auditor.
If you can't talk about it freely with your PC or Auditor, don't do
it. You gotta have a full disclosure relationship with at least ONE
living human being on Earth to remain sane.
Auditing is a walk towards a group mind, where each being
intimately knows immediately everything about everyone in the group.
This is a form of telepathic co union.
The minute two people don't want to share every detail of
themselves, they are walking towards some other goal AND CASE GAIN WILL
CEASE, for there is no freedom in hiing in telepathic isolation.
Sometimes its just too much to expect auditor and pc to swap back
and forth this way, so you get a three some going, each one auditing the
other, and that way everyone's secrets remain secure.
If two people can run these withhold processes totally flat on each
other to a point where there is NO ANXIETY about communicating about any
subject to each other, they will have attained a new and totally
brilliant state in the history of the human race.
It's worth dreaming of, and striving for, even if there is a whole
mess of human emotion and reaction in between.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Aug 15 03:06:03 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado6.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQK0pbURT1lqxE3HERArOeAJ9q5UVk1hDlogIauZH3TcTz8p/zDgCfeRmH
YG8m/KuHjWeJqmwVf8VjIvo=
=g3Nr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE TRUE NATURE OF MISSED WITHHOLDS
ADO - 6
25 May 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The following is a theoretical underpinning for the discussion on
missed withholds that follows. If you don't buy this particular world
view, that's fine, it is only presented to help you understand the
material on missed withholds.
A being is basically an Operating Intention Unit. His basic action
is to cause things to exist, which amounts to creating knowledge, and
then to not know that he has done so, and then to indulge in the game of
learning what he created.
The being does this in tandem with other beings who are doing the
same, thus any being can create something to know, and other beings,
along with him, can play the game of learning what was created.
Thus the cycle of creation goes:
Create -> Survive -> Destroy
Knowledge -> Question -> Answer
The being creates things to know and then by not knowing that he
has done so turns this knowledge into unknowns or questions. The game
of course is to answer the question. Once he answers a question, that
particular game of answering that particular question is ended.
Actually he doesn't even know what questions there are any more,
so the game is to find (precreated) questions to answer, and then to
find answers to questions.
More technically the cycle looks like this,
Knowing - Looking - Not Knowing - Looking - Knowing again (Learning)
Creating Answers - Creating Questions - Answering Questions
KNOWING:
The being in Creator mode starts off with nothing and then
creatively causes something to come into existence by knowing it. In
this sense, knowing is a creative action because the created thing comes
to be true because the person KNOWS it is true. It is knowing something
into existence, literally.
We are not talking about creating fundmental truths that are true
no matter what, we are talking about creating CREATED truths that are
only true because something created them into existence.
LOOKING:
Once he has known something into existence he can then look at
it, knowing full well he just created it. Looking allows the being to
CHECK-OUT what he just created to make sure it got created exactly as
he originally knowed it into existence.
NOT KNOWING:
The Creator then indulges in NOT knowing about the created
knowledge or object and he hides it from himself or puts it in a far off
galaxy where he can run across it in a million years on some voyage of
discovery.
This is the transition from Creator to Creature.
LOOKING AGAIN:
Later, the person in Creature mode, runs into something he or
others have created in Creator mode, and he finds he doesn't know what
the thing is. Thus he takes to LOOKING at it carefully, inspecting it,
playing with it, experimenting with it, until he again knows what it is.
KNOWING AGAIN:
Thus the being in Creature mode begins to accumulate knowledge on a
vast scale concerning the universe that he is in.
This knowledge is originally created with Looking by Knowing, and
is eventually rediscovered with Knowing by Looking.
Looking by Knowing means the Creator is able to LOOK at something
BECAUSE he has just created it by KNOWING it.
Knowing by Looking means the Creature is able to LEARN about
something BECAUSE he is presently LOOKING at it.
Looking by Knowing and Knowing by Looking define the two basic
operating modes of Creator and Creature.
Creator = Looking by Knowing, or Knowing -> Looking.
Creature = Knowing by Looking, or Looking -> Knowing.
In SUMMARY:
In summary then, the being in Creator mode creates things to look
at by knowing them into existence. This is called Looking by Knowing.
The being in Creature mode rediscovers things to know by looking at
them until he learns about them. This is called Knowing by Looking or
Learning by Looking.
If one graphs this as,
Knowing -> Looking -> Not knowing -> Looking -> Knowing
it can then be said that the shift from Creator mode to Creature
mode is a shift from operating the first 3 items to operating the last 3
items. The middle item, not knowing, it shared by both sides, and is
the shift over point from Creator mode to Creature mode.
This then is the cycle of a game. The cycle of a game involves the
creation of knowledge to learn in Creator mode, followed by the process
of learning it in Creature mode.
From the above discussion it is apparent that a being is inherently
a knower, something that can know, either by creating knowledge and
things to know, or by learning about things already so created. Thus it
can be surmised that anything that fouls up a being's ability to know or
to learn, or to cause others to know or to learn, will be of great upset
to him.
One of the things that beings like to do is to share what they know
with others or to hide what they know from others.
This is all part of the warp and woof of games.
You communicate to your customers that you have a product, you hide
from your competitors how you made it.
Beings use the presence or absence of communication cycles in order
to indulge in sharing or hiding things they know from others.
For example, if a being learns something of value in the struggle
for survival, he will go to some effort to communicate this to his
friends. When they finally get the message they will send back to him
an acknowledgment so that the originating being can know for sure they
got the communication and so end cycle on the effort to communicate with
them, and so proceed to take up something new.
In the same way, if a being knows something that he does NOT want
others to know, he will go to some effort to NOT communicate it to other
people, and he will look for the absence of an acknowledgement from the
other person to verify to himself that in fact they do not know it.
Thus we have these two fundamental cycles of action in this game
universe.
The first cycle of action is the effort to communicate something to
another being, followed by the clear presence of a return
acknowledgement.
The second cycle of action is the effort to NOT communicate
something to another being, followed by the clear absence of a return
acknowledgement.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF THE RETURN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CAN NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED AS IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
VERIFICATION OF THE COMMUNICATION OR NON COMMUNICATION CYCLE THE BEING
IS INDULGING IN.
Without the clear presence or absence of a return acknowledgement
the being can not end cycle on his intention to communicate or not
communicate. He thus gets stuck in that cycle forever.
1. TRYING TO COMMUNICATE
If a being is trying to communicate something to another, and no
acknowledgement is forthcoming, the originating being will be left in
doubt about whether the other being got the communication or not.
He won't know if they know.
THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO SEND THE COMMUNICATION.
It's constantly LOOKING for the presence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.
He may even take to fabricating acknowledgments where there aren't
any just to end cycle on the deal.
He can't stand not knowing.
Once he gets a clear indication of the presence of a return
acknowledgement he is free to DO other things.
2. TRYING TO NOT COMMUNICATE
If a being is trying to NOT communicate something to another, yet
he is getting constant indications that indeed the other party is
getting the communication anyhow, the withholding being will be left in
a doubt about whether the other party is NOT getting the communication
or not.
He won't know if they know.
THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO STOP THE COMMUNICATION.
It's constantly LOOKING for the absence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.
He may even take to NOT-ISing possible acknowledgments where there
may be some, just to end cycle on the deal.
He can't stand not knowing.
Once he gets a clear indication of the absence of any return
acknowledgment, meaning that he has successfully prevented others from
knowing what ever he was hiding, he is free to DO other things.
If the being is ultimately unable to determine whether his
intention has been carried out, whether it be to communicate or to not
communicate, he will suffer a DECISION CYCLE FAILURE. He won't be able
to go on to DO other things, yet he won't know what to do about his
present problem.
He gets stuck instead in a question, 'Do they know? Do they not
know?' Since he can not answer that question, he can not DECIDE what to
do next and so he starts to build up charge.
He is like a man sitting at the fork of a road asking 'Should I go
right? Should I go left?' He's been there for a LONG time.
Eventually he makes a decision about his indecision which is
usually to bury it, where it will fester, continuing to create charge
for the rest of time.
This is like the same man who DECIDES to build his home at the fork
of the road and says 'there is no fork in the road, and there is nowhere
to go, and I have arrived where I wanted to go anyway'.
Thus when the being is unable to reach a CONCLUSION about whether
other's know or not, he is also unable to DECIDE what to do next.
A CONCLUSION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what is true.
A DECISION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what to do.
The failure of the conclusion cycle leads to a failure of the
decision cycle.
Now a being in good condition will have a balance of the Creator
and Creature modes within him. He will be creating some new things to
know, and he will be discovering other things already created by himself
and others to learn about.
If such a being gets stuck in a conclusion cycle of the form 'Do
they know? Do they not know?' he will put all of his attention into his
Creature mode trying to determine the answer to the question 'Do they
know or not?'
He is trying to know by learning and loses all interest in knowing
by creating.
He is not willing or able to just CAUSE others to know or not,
which would end his quandary; so he devotes more and more time to
Creature mode where he attempts to learn by looking whether the other
party knows or not.
What he is LOOKING for is the presence or absence of a return
acknowledgment.
The long term end result of this is the being becomes incapable of
Creator modes at all, and is totally swimming in failed Creature modes.
They are failed Creature modes in that he is trying to learn by
looking whether they know or not, but can't, so he is never able to make
a decision as to what to DO next, so he never gets on with this life or
the game.
This is what Hubbard referred to as 'being stuck in a decision in
the past.' He is still there trying to draw a conclusion and make a
decision.
'Do they know or don't they know?'
Since at a high enough state two beings can see each other's
pictures anyway, not knowing whether someone else knows something is
rather silly. Thus strenuous involvement in such efforts to know if
they know, leads to a dwindling spiral of less and less direct
perception of others and what they do and do not know, and eventually to
total aloneness.
This is 'spiritual death' at the bottom of the tone scale.
Such conclusion cycle failures invalidate the being's basic
causativeness over life by invalidating his CREATIVE causative
knowingness, his ability to bring about certain knowledge in others by
creating it so, and also invalidates his ability to learn by looking,
specifically by looking directly into the minds of others.
That's why missed withholds make you DUMB.
A being who is hiding something and yet is wondering if others
know, can always end cycle on his quandary by just outright informing
the other party of what he did. You see that is ending the endless
knowing by looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing
cycle, you just CAUSE them to know, and poof no more doubt. Of course
you might get executed.
But you wouldn't be in doubt any more and you could get on with
your life. Being parked at a fork in the road is a waste of time to an
Immortal Being.
Likewise if a being is trying to get something across to someone
and yet is wondering if they have gotten it or not, he can always end
cycle on his quandary by outright NOT informing the other party of what
he wanted them to know. You see that is ending the endless knowing by
looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing cycle, you
just CAUSE them to NOT know, and poof no more doubt. Of course you
might get executed.
The point is that the correct answer to any endless failure of the
knowing by looking cycle is to exercise a causative looking by knowing
cycle and take your lumps with the consequences.
The consequences are never as bad as staying in a learning by
looking quandary for the rest of time.
THAT'S HELL. It's better to be executed.
Executions end, Hell's don't.
Mortal's by the way can always be counted upon to make the wrong
choice. That's why you always find them parked so far into their
reactive minds (their 'Bank').
Their Bank is the home they built for themselves at the fork in the
road, snarling guard dogs and all.
So there are two kinds of missed withholds when looked at in this
light.
There are those things you wanted others to know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a POSITIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.
There are those things you wanted others to NOT know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a NEGATIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.
It is this last one that most people consider the missed withhold.
You do something bad, someone almost finds out, you are left unsure
if they did or not.
One day you are smoking in your bedroom, and you know you are not
supposed to be smoking. You hear your mother coming up the stairs and
you quickly throw the cigarette out the window. She comes in the room,
and looks around, sniffing the air, and says 'boy does it smell in here,
your sneakers need washing?'
So here is something that you wanted to NOT communicate to your
mother, namely that you were smoking a cigarette. Surely she couldn't
have possibly missed the smell or misidentified it. Yet she would have
had your hide if she thought you were smoking. So what's going on?
Does she know, or doesn't she know?
Positive missed withholds are important too.
You try to communicate something to someone, and you just never can
figure out if they got it or not.
One day you go up to your boy friend, and you tell him that you
love him and want to marry him. He says, 'Oh sure dear, that's fine.'
Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside you or is he missing the enormity of your
statement?
Wonder, wonder, wonder...
Positive missed withholds can also happen when people are trying to
confess negative withholds.
You go up to a minister on the street one night wringing your hands
and looking really distraught and you say, 'I killed my wife last night,
what should I do?' and he says, 'Thank you for telling me that, why
don't you get some sleep?'
Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside YOU or did he miss significance of the
communication?
Wonder, wonder, wonder...
So withholds can get missed even when people are desperately trying
to confess them. You say 'I feel like killing myself' and someone says
'Yeah, I know EXACTLY what you mean, life can do that to you. Don't
worry about it, I read in Psychology Today that we all feel that way
sometimes.'
Bang. The withhold was not communicated. This is deadly.
This can be particularly bad in session where bad auditing can
cause the preclear to have a DOUBLE missed withhold.
PC = Pre Clear, one who is not yet clear.
AUDITOR = One who is applying clearing to a pre clear to help
them become more clear.
Pc: 'You know you haven't been very warm to me recently, I guess I
have something to confess, and I have been wondering for a few days
whether or not you already know, so here it is... I have been sleeping
with your girl friend.'
Auditor: 'Ok, now we are going to take up your relationship with
your mother...'
Double Bang. The PC has a clearly missed severe negative
withhold from the Auditor, and he brings himself to tell the Auditor,
and the Auditor acts like he didn't even hear it, so now its a
positive missed withhold too!
'Did he know, didn't he know?' (negative missed withhold)
'DOES he know, DOESN'T he know?' (Positive missed withhold)
'Yipes!'
So in auditing you are looking for those moments of WONDER when the
person was unable to DETERMINE if the other person knows or not.
You see even the word 'determine' has this two tiered meaning.
To determine can mean to CAUSE to come into being.
"The ability to determine one's own future."
To determine can also mean to LEARN about what has already been
caused to come into being.
"The ability to determine the past."
So this whole Creator mode - Creature mode thing is built into the
very fabric of our language.
Determination can mean being determined to CAUSE, or it can mean a
determination, what was gleaned through learning by looking.
The first kind of determination is Creator mode and the second kind
of determination is Creature mode.
Creator determination is Creation arising from from Knowing,
Creature determination is Knowing arising from Creation, learning by
looking at what was already created.
Thus the being gets caught up in his failure to determine (find
out) whether others know or not, and he also fails to causatively
determine them into knowing or not knowing, and so he slowly goes crazy,
as BOTH Creature mode AND Creator mode are on hold in an inconclusion,
followed by an indecision.
So what you are looking for are those times your preclear tried to
communicate something to someone but is still wondering whether they
know or not, and also those times your preclear tried to NOT communicate
something to someone and is still wondering if they know or not.
Watch out for the can't believe its: 'I can't believe they don't
know' or 'I can't believe they found out', as these leave him in an
incredibility which stops his mind cold.
The anatomy of an incredibility is:
Certainty something is true, and
Certainty something is impossible.
Each one of these conclusion failures will be followed by a
decision failure, because being unable to determine whether they know or
not, your preclear was then unable to determine what to DO next in his
life.
He is still sitting there swimming in not know and unable to know,
and UNWILLING TO CAUSE KNOWING OR NOT KNOWING IN OTHERS outright to end
his conclusion failure.
So of course his life goes nowhere, either in parts or en masse.
So here is one way that this could be run.
Positive Missed Withholds:
'Who or what are you wondering might NOT know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might not know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might not know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'
Negative Missed Withholds:
'Who or what are you wondering might know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'
Instead of 'wondering' you can use 'worried' or 'concerned' or what
ever else indicates to your preclear.
'Who are you worried might know something about you?'
'Who are you worried might NOT know something about you?'
'Who are you concerned might know something about you?'
'Who are you concerned might NOT know something about you?'
etc.
Does she know how much you hate her?
Does she know how much you love her?
For a wider run, you can leave off the 'about you?'
'Who are you wondering might know something?'
etc.
There is no rote way to run this, run which ever questions bite and
your PC is interested in. Switch back and forth between positive and
negative missed withholds as needed.
Remember you the auditor and your preclear don't make case gain
together by doing it RIGHT, you make case gain by DOING it.
Run this alternately and repetitively, until the PC has spotted all
of his missed withholds. He will come up with more later, so this can
be run over and over again as needed.
This will turn on a LOT of anxiety. That means its biting.
As long a there is anxiety on the case, chances are there is more
to find.
Don't expect to get it all in one day.
Expect it to get pretty fantastical. Mundane human life ain't the
source of your case.
If you are co-auditing, run it back and forth on each other.
Running this on someone will open up your own case so that when
they run it on you there will be stuff to find, and visa versa. Many
processes are dead ends when audited in only one direction, but continue
to run forever when run back and forth between two people.
Auditing others and being audited are BOTH auditing.
If you miss a positive or negative withhold on your PC, if you put
them into doubt about whether you know or not, they will ARC break on
you, get pissed off in other words. You can run any ARC break at any
time with something like,
ARC = Affinity, Reality, Communication, Understanding.
ARC break = a sudden sundering of such.
'What didn't I know about you that I should have?'
'What should I have known?'
'What weren't you sure I knew?'
'What wasn't known?'
'What don't I have any idea of that you wish I did?'
'What would you like me to know about you?'
Remember an ARC break is ALWAYS caused by the MISSING of a positive
or negative withhold. The ARC break IS their wondering if you know or
not. It is an ARC break with themselves for no longer being able to
just cause you to know or not know, and know that they have.
So asking the PC 'What are you wondering if I know or not?' will
nail it.
Once the ARC break is clean, the PC will forgive you and be able to
go back into session easily. If the PC is still hedging inside, they
still have something they wish you knew but aren't sure you do, or wish
you didn't know but think you might.
When a pc is afraid there is something you might know about him,
it's usually because the pc is afraid there is something you DON'T know
about him.
In other words he doesn't want to let you know about him, until he
is sure you know something else about him!
"What would I have to know about you to let you be willing to let
me know everything about you?"
Thus negative missed withholds become difficult to pull to the
degree that the pc has positive missed withholds too.
IT IS THE PC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL THE AUDITOR IF THEY ARE ARC
BROKEN, AND IT IS A HIGH CRIME FOR THE PC TO CONTINUE TO PRETEND TO RUN
A PROCESS WHEN REALLY THEY ARE WISHING THE AUDITOR KNEW SOMETHING.
It is the Auditor's responsibility to make sure that the PC lives
up to his or her own Preclear Code. And it is the Preclear's
responsibility to make sure that the Auditor lives up to his or her own
Auditor's Code.
The Auditor's Code and the Preclear's Code are contracts that both
parties enter into willingly and with full responsibility. Each is a
bargaining tool for the other. The Auditor offers to follow the
Auditor's Code as set out by the Preclear, and in exchange the Preclear
offers to follow the Preclear's Code as set out by the Auditor.
Remember any PC WANTS to confess all their negative withholds, but
they are unsure you are a safe space, so really they only become
recalcitrant to discuss what they are hiding once they become unsure
that you don't know something that you should.
You can run,
'What would I need to know for you to feel good about my auditing
you?'
'What would I need to be, do, have or know for you to be willing to
communicate to me on this subject?'
or some such variant. You will surely figure out your own
questions once the understanding of all this bites on you.
You know a hefty portion of this material is just to get the
Auditor and PC in session with each other. This doesn't mean that this
stuff isn't deep auditing or won't blow your case to Kingdom come, but
if the Auditor and PC are chary of each other, they will have to go
through these little trials by fire in the beginning no matter what.
Auditing safe or polite material is a waste of time.
No auditing process known to man will stay safe or polite for long,
and if you aren't willing to communicate when the withholds start
showing up and the going gets hot, the process will stop dead in its
tracks. You can continue to pretend to give answers, but you will lose
what case gain you made, as each false answer after the withhold is an
overt act, and becomes another MISSED withhold.
As the PC, you will be looking at your Auditor thinking to
yourself, 'What a dumb turkey, how come he doesn't know I just stopped
myself from taking about something? How could he NOT know!?"
Although the auditor will often do something that makes the
preclear think they auditor might know, truth is, if the preclear thinks
the auditor SHOULD know or have found out, the PRECLEAR will miss the
withhold on himself out of the blue just by starting to wonder on it.
You know sessionability is not just a matter of the PC. Sure if
the PC is unhappy or unwilling to talk to the Auditor, then of course no
auditing will take place. But if the Auditor doesn't like the PC, or if
the Auditor is afraid the PC will bring up the Auditor's recent affair
with the neighbor's dog, then no auditing will take place either.
It is vitally important that the Auditor be as willing to talk to
be PC as the PC is willing to talk to the Auditor.
Auditing is not a one way confession.
Especially during a co audit, where both will be PC and both will
be Auditor.
If the person who is doing the auditing develops a withhold that
they will have to give up to the PC when the tables are turned, then
that withhold will prevent the Auditor from auditing the PC as well as
he could while he is still being the auditor.
His attention will be in the future when he must face his own
session and not on the PC in present time. Thus the acknowledgments
that the Auditor gives will all be lacking, as he won't be completely
there for the PC.
Thus it is just as important that the Auditor be able to talk to
the PC as it is that the PC be able to talk to the Auditor.
No one is really even asking you to give up having affairs with the
neighbor's dog, just so long as you can TALK about it freely to your PC
or Auditor.
If you can't talk about it freely with your PC or Auditor, don't do
it. You gotta have a full disclosure relationship with at least ONE
living human being on Earth to remain sane.
Auditing is a walk towards a group mind, where each being
intimately knows immediately everything about everyone in the group.
This is a form of telepathic co union.
The minute two people don't want to share every detail of
themselves, they are walking towards some other goal AND CASE GAIN WILL
CEASE, for there is no freedom in hiing in telepathic isolation.
Sometimes its just too much to expect auditor and pc to swap back
and forth this way, so you get a three some going, each one auditing the
other, and that way everyone's secrets remain secure.
If two people can run these withhold processes totally flat on each
other to a point where there is NO ANXIETY about communicating about any
subject to each other, they will have attained a new and totally
brilliant state in the history of the human race.
It's worth dreaming of, and striving for, even if there is a whole
mess of human emotion and reaction in between.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Aug 15 03:06:03 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado6.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQK0pbURT1lqxE3HERArOeAJ9q5UVk1hDlogIauZH3TcTz8p/zDgCfeRmH
YG8m/KuHjWeJqmwVf8VjIvo=
=g3Nr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)