CERTAINTY
Say one day you give the order that no one should turn off the
lights in the room.
A while later you come back and the lights are off and you
want to know who did it.
No one owns up but Susan says Joe was the last one in the room
so he must have done it. So now we are certain that Joe did it.
Joe denies he did it though.
Then Joe goes and dusts the light switch for finger prints
and finds that Tom's prints are on it and so it certain that Tom
did it.
But Tom denies he did it.
Then Tom goes to the video camera in the room that recorded the area
and the tape shows that Bill did it and wiped his prints clean and put
Toms prints there from an earlier lift, so now we are certain Bill did it.
But Bill denies it too.
Then Bill goes to the next room where John was sitting during
all this, and he says he saw Mary go to the VCR closet and replace
the tape that was running there with another one, so the video tape
may be a phoney through computer graphics etc and the real one is gone.
Question: Are we certain who did it yet?
If we find the *REAL* video tape will we be certain who did it?
No, because maybe God or some alien beings wrote false data on the
tape while it was recording to implicate an innocent party.
"Oh but's thats *RIDICULOUS*, the data on the real video tape
is good enough for me!"
What does "good enough for me" mean?
It means "Good enough for me to place my bets and be comfortable
with the consequences right or wrong."
Does it mean you are certain?
No.
Why?
BECAUSE CERTAINTY IS IMPOSSIBLE in this situation.
There can ALWAYS be an unknown third part messing with the
data thus falsifying it.
The Proof calls this the Third Party law and formalizes it with
the statement,
Learning with Certainty about Cause by Looking at Effects of that
Cause is impossible.
One can argue "Yeah but this third party is the exceptional
claim, why should we consider it?"
Well for practical purposes you probably shouldn't worry about it too
much, but for philosophical purposes, claiming certainty for an
uncertainty is a high crime worthy of a few years in hell when your time
comes, so we need to use more stringent standards.
"Good enough for me" != Certainty
Certainly.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, December 13, 2012
OPENING THETAN
OPENING THETAN
Here is what Adore says about total responsibility.
RESPONSIBILITY means you either created it or approved of it.
If you cease creating it, or approving of it, it will cease to
exist.
The apparency that one can not stop creating something is born of
not really wanting to stop it yet, no matter how much one thinks one
does.
Adore is a baby phase religion, its concept of 'the beginning of
things' may not be the actual beginning. This is its concept of the
beginning as far back as it can imagine.
When a thetan first wakes up from static, the Big Snooze, it is
alone.
If it wishes to not be alone it can either shatter and play with
itself for a while, or it can put out a resonant call to other thetans
who are also awake putting out a similar resonant call.
Once it joins with those other thetans, it can create games from
there, or it can join and pretend to be one and shatter and go on from
there. In this latter case, every shatter fragment has a piece of all
beings in it.
When the waking thetan first puts out his resonant call to other
waking thetans, if there are no other thetans putting out a resonant
call at that time, the first thetan can either continue on alone for a
while and try again later, or it can go back to sleep, OR it can go back
to sleep with a sign on its door saying that any resonant call that
comes in from another thetan should wake it immediately.
A resonant call issued by one thetan to gather other thetans of
like mind into a group is not sufficient to wake a sleeping thetan
UNLESS they have left a 'door sign' that they should be so woken by a
resonant call.
When waking thetans put out resonant calls to each other they join
together into a co conscious group of UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Each thetan approves of and agrees that all other thetans should be
there, and each thetan is ABLE to be there in the group only because all
thetans are willing (causing) him to be there.
Each chooses to choose, each chooses that others should choose,
and each chooses that all should choose more.
Otherwise no one could choose anything in the group.
Thus total responsibility for condition is maintained across all
thetans at all times.
A thetan in his opening state, either alone or after grouping with
others of like mind is in a state of operating approval.
Approval is the relationship he holds with the world, himself and
all others, and it is his basic flow, OKness, "I am and I *LIKE* it!"
If at any time thetan B creates something as part of the group that
thetan A does not approve of, thetan A will withdraw his approval of the
creation and it will vanish immediately through discreation, for ALL
beings in the group including thetan B.
This happens because the group is fundamentally a group of
unanimous consent. If any one being disagrees with a creation, that's
the end of that creation *BY AGREEMENT*.
If any one being disagrees with the existence of another being in
that group, that other being is immediately unlinked from the group. If
others disagree, then the first disagreer is unlinked. Unanimousness is
always conserved.
Thus total responsibility is maintained in that any creation was
either created OR approved of by the thetan, or else it wouldn't exist
for anyone in that group.
Now it is possible for Thetan A to say "Hey wouldn't it be grand if
I could create and approve of something that you didn't approve of and
you couldn't get rid of it anyhow!"
Perhaps thetan B and all other thetan's go "Hey that's a cool idea,
we *APPROVE!*"
Again total responsibility for condition is maintained because all
thetans either created the idea or approved of it.
Now just because a thetan approves of something, doesn't mean he is
stuck with it. As long as he is in contact with his approval of the
creation or his postulates about that creation, no matter what it is, he
can always withdraw his approval, no matter how long time later, and
that creation or postulate about the creation will vanish.
The only way a thetan can become stuck with a creation is to lose
contact with his approval of it, whether or not he created it. Remember
even if he created it, he still had to approve of it in order to keep it
around. This is knowing willing cause.
This mechanism of losing contact with one's own approval for
something was itself created and approved of by all thetan's in the
group! So this mechanism too can be withdrawn at any time IF the thetan
can recontact his approval of it.
Contacting approval of disapproval can be a bear though.
So the thetans in the group have now created and approved of a way
to have persisting disapprovals, apparencies of no responsibility,
conflict, and inability to as-is.
This leads to not-is which leads to unexpected collisions of
creation, surprises, errors, mistakes, and accidents, the possibility
for ALL of which were created and approved of by the thetans each step of
the way as they descended into this game.
Given this, any persisting unwanted condition the thetan finds
himself in, will contain denials of approval and responsibility involved
in it, in order to keep it going.
Responsibility means full knowing willing cause with full awareness
of the consequences because the consequences or their possibility were
themselves created as an adjunct to the original creation.
The being may say "I don't know what will happen," but he has
said "SOMETHING *WILL* happen". Thus he gets a surprise acting as
a consequence to some other earlier creation.
Thus a thetan can not know what will happen, and yet remain fully
responsible for the fact of its happening.
The apparent loss of knowing willing cause was itself created, considered
and approved of by one and all as part of the mastery of tapestry
(creation of the game).
Thus across all beings and all things total responsibility is at
all times maintained.
Spotting the moments of total responsibility, creation and
approval, is all that is necessary to vanish any creation.
If one wants wants it to continue, one can simply go back to
irresponsibility, disapproval and denial in order to keep it around.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Here is what Adore says about total responsibility.
RESPONSIBILITY means you either created it or approved of it.
If you cease creating it, or approving of it, it will cease to
exist.
The apparency that one can not stop creating something is born of
not really wanting to stop it yet, no matter how much one thinks one
does.
Adore is a baby phase religion, its concept of 'the beginning of
things' may not be the actual beginning. This is its concept of the
beginning as far back as it can imagine.
When a thetan first wakes up from static, the Big Snooze, it is
alone.
If it wishes to not be alone it can either shatter and play with
itself for a while, or it can put out a resonant call to other thetans
who are also awake putting out a similar resonant call.
Once it joins with those other thetans, it can create games from
there, or it can join and pretend to be one and shatter and go on from
there. In this latter case, every shatter fragment has a piece of all
beings in it.
When the waking thetan first puts out his resonant call to other
waking thetans, if there are no other thetans putting out a resonant
call at that time, the first thetan can either continue on alone for a
while and try again later, or it can go back to sleep, OR it can go back
to sleep with a sign on its door saying that any resonant call that
comes in from another thetan should wake it immediately.
A resonant call issued by one thetan to gather other thetans of
like mind into a group is not sufficient to wake a sleeping thetan
UNLESS they have left a 'door sign' that they should be so woken by a
resonant call.
When waking thetans put out resonant calls to each other they join
together into a co conscious group of UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Each thetan approves of and agrees that all other thetans should be
there, and each thetan is ABLE to be there in the group only because all
thetans are willing (causing) him to be there.
Each chooses to choose, each chooses that others should choose,
and each chooses that all should choose more.
Otherwise no one could choose anything in the group.
Thus total responsibility for condition is maintained across all
thetans at all times.
A thetan in his opening state, either alone or after grouping with
others of like mind is in a state of operating approval.
Approval is the relationship he holds with the world, himself and
all others, and it is his basic flow, OKness, "I am and I *LIKE* it!"
If at any time thetan B creates something as part of the group that
thetan A does not approve of, thetan A will withdraw his approval of the
creation and it will vanish immediately through discreation, for ALL
beings in the group including thetan B.
This happens because the group is fundamentally a group of
unanimous consent. If any one being disagrees with a creation, that's
the end of that creation *BY AGREEMENT*.
If any one being disagrees with the existence of another being in
that group, that other being is immediately unlinked from the group. If
others disagree, then the first disagreer is unlinked. Unanimousness is
always conserved.
Thus total responsibility is maintained in that any creation was
either created OR approved of by the thetan, or else it wouldn't exist
for anyone in that group.
Now it is possible for Thetan A to say "Hey wouldn't it be grand if
I could create and approve of something that you didn't approve of and
you couldn't get rid of it anyhow!"
Perhaps thetan B and all other thetan's go "Hey that's a cool idea,
we *APPROVE!*"
Again total responsibility for condition is maintained because all
thetans either created the idea or approved of it.
Now just because a thetan approves of something, doesn't mean he is
stuck with it. As long as he is in contact with his approval of the
creation or his postulates about that creation, no matter what it is, he
can always withdraw his approval, no matter how long time later, and
that creation or postulate about the creation will vanish.
The only way a thetan can become stuck with a creation is to lose
contact with his approval of it, whether or not he created it. Remember
even if he created it, he still had to approve of it in order to keep it
around. This is knowing willing cause.
This mechanism of losing contact with one's own approval for
something was itself created and approved of by all thetan's in the
group! So this mechanism too can be withdrawn at any time IF the thetan
can recontact his approval of it.
Contacting approval of disapproval can be a bear though.
So the thetans in the group have now created and approved of a way
to have persisting disapprovals, apparencies of no responsibility,
conflict, and inability to as-is.
This leads to not-is which leads to unexpected collisions of
creation, surprises, errors, mistakes, and accidents, the possibility
for ALL of which were created and approved of by the thetans each step of
the way as they descended into this game.
Given this, any persisting unwanted condition the thetan finds
himself in, will contain denials of approval and responsibility involved
in it, in order to keep it going.
Responsibility means full knowing willing cause with full awareness
of the consequences because the consequences or their possibility were
themselves created as an adjunct to the original creation.
The being may say "I don't know what will happen," but he has
said "SOMETHING *WILL* happen". Thus he gets a surprise acting as
a consequence to some other earlier creation.
Thus a thetan can not know what will happen, and yet remain fully
responsible for the fact of its happening.
The apparent loss of knowing willing cause was itself created, considered
and approved of by one and all as part of the mastery of tapestry
(creation of the game).
Thus across all beings and all things total responsibility is at
all times maintained.
Spotting the moments of total responsibility, creation and
approval, is all that is necessary to vanish any creation.
If one wants wants it to continue, one can simply go back to
irresponsibility, disapproval and denial in order to keep it around.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
One of the worst things in Scientology is the inability or
unwillingness to run a question without insisting upon getting an
answer.
There may be answers, and maybe they are sometimes important to
find, but mostly what is messing the pc up is mis handled questions.
The answers are just not that important, except incorrect ones!
Thus it is the question that needs to be found, not the answer!
By refusing to run questions unless the pc gives answers, many
questions are not run flat AS QUESTIONS, and thus charge is missed and
bypassed, and the pc is given a loss because he said 'I don't know' to
the question.
For example auditor wants to run 'Who or what would oppose a
damnation manager?'
PC has no clue about answers, but is interested in the question
and the item involved.
So instead run "Get the idea of opposing a damnation manager."
You see, no need for an answer to a question.
Since dramatized question asking is at the root source of all
aberration, forcing a pc to ask and answer questions is a highly
dangerous undertaking unless it is done absolutely right.
Anyone claiming to be able to do this across the boards on any pc
is lying. My opinion.
What you want him to do is to knowingly ask the question he is
already asking unknowingly with every breath he takes. Once he spots
the question and the dramatization that goes with it, he can chill out
about it.
He is killing himself with the QUESTION! Not with not knowing
the answer.
He gets better by chilling out about the question, not by knowing
the answer!
Dramatization means bringing drama to, drama is importance,
seriousness, permanence (forever/never) and pain. This usually
manifests as real heavy effort down in the numb range of awareness.
He is killing himself slowly wanting to know so bad, but he no
longer knows exactly what it is he wants to know, and that he also
doesn't want to know it at the same time.
Thus he is bidirectional heavy effort dramatizing, for and
against, which forms a ridge which he then calls his face.
Worse his dramatization is on automatic, it is compulsive and
convulsive. Sort of like the dry heaves when it happens. There is no
stopping it, and there is no spotting it until after it happens.
As he first approaches it, its so fast and so hard it just knocks
him unconscious as he does it. That's why he never spots it and
wonders why he has a headache later.
Then once he is genned in on the thing, he will start spotting it
after it happens, and he says 'I saw that!' and he be's with it for a
while. He says "I created that!" even though he saw it only after it
happened, that's taking responsibility, but it works.
Then the next time it happens, he's right there as it happens,
and he says 'Uh Homer you think you could stop doing that quite so
hard pretty please (you asshole!), eh?'
Then he will be there before it happens and he can chill it out
during its convulsion, kind of do it slowly and intentionally, and
draw it out, but not with the total force or blind kamikazee
determination like he was originally doing it with.
Determination is dramatization and cements in failure, as it
prepostulates probable failure, and commits to that pre postulate with
heavy efforts.
Then he will be there before it happens, and it won't happen,
something else will happen instead, and he will be relieved of that
piece of nonsense forever.
If you ask questions inside your face, you become a face.
People's faces are generally as ugly as they feel about the
questions they are asking inside their face and don't know it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Feb 4 02:07:04 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 12 03:06:03 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore428.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)
iD8DBQFQyDrrURT1lqxE3HERAjZkAKCqikgUHHMDijNDZt5JMKE3lh+X0QCgqwmH
c1K4wJiAw0gDcPDhLueVjdM=
=XLqV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
One of the worst things in Scientology is the inability or
unwillingness to run a question without insisting upon getting an
answer.
There may be answers, and maybe they are sometimes important to
find, but mostly what is messing the pc up is mis handled questions.
The answers are just not that important, except incorrect ones!
Thus it is the question that needs to be found, not the answer!
By refusing to run questions unless the pc gives answers, many
questions are not run flat AS QUESTIONS, and thus charge is missed and
bypassed, and the pc is given a loss because he said 'I don't know' to
the question.
For example auditor wants to run 'Who or what would oppose a
damnation manager?'
PC has no clue about answers, but is interested in the question
and the item involved.
So instead run "Get the idea of opposing a damnation manager."
You see, no need for an answer to a question.
Since dramatized question asking is at the root source of all
aberration, forcing a pc to ask and answer questions is a highly
dangerous undertaking unless it is done absolutely right.
Anyone claiming to be able to do this across the boards on any pc
is lying. My opinion.
What you want him to do is to knowingly ask the question he is
already asking unknowingly with every breath he takes. Once he spots
the question and the dramatization that goes with it, he can chill out
about it.
He is killing himself with the QUESTION! Not with not knowing
the answer.
He gets better by chilling out about the question, not by knowing
the answer!
Dramatization means bringing drama to, drama is importance,
seriousness, permanence (forever/never) and pain. This usually
manifests as real heavy effort down in the numb range of awareness.
He is killing himself slowly wanting to know so bad, but he no
longer knows exactly what it is he wants to know, and that he also
doesn't want to know it at the same time.
Thus he is bidirectional heavy effort dramatizing, for and
against, which forms a ridge which he then calls his face.
Worse his dramatization is on automatic, it is compulsive and
convulsive. Sort of like the dry heaves when it happens. There is no
stopping it, and there is no spotting it until after it happens.
As he first approaches it, its so fast and so hard it just knocks
him unconscious as he does it. That's why he never spots it and
wonders why he has a headache later.
Then once he is genned in on the thing, he will start spotting it
after it happens, and he says 'I saw that!' and he be's with it for a
while. He says "I created that!" even though he saw it only after it
happened, that's taking responsibility, but it works.
Then the next time it happens, he's right there as it happens,
and he says 'Uh Homer you think you could stop doing that quite so
hard pretty please (you asshole!), eh?'
Then he will be there before it happens and he can chill it out
during its convulsion, kind of do it slowly and intentionally, and
draw it out, but not with the total force or blind kamikazee
determination like he was originally doing it with.
Determination is dramatization and cements in failure, as it
prepostulates probable failure, and commits to that pre postulate with
heavy efforts.
Then he will be there before it happens, and it won't happen,
something else will happen instead, and he will be relieved of that
piece of nonsense forever.
If you ask questions inside your face, you become a face.
People's faces are generally as ugly as they feel about the
questions they are asking inside their face and don't know it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Feb 4 02:07:04 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 12 03:06:03 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore428.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)
iD8DBQFQyDrrURT1lqxE3HERAjZkAKCqikgUHHMDijNDZt5JMKE3lh+X0QCgqwmH
c1K4wJiAw0gDcPDhLueVjdM=
=XLqV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ACT5 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
MULTIPLE VIEWPOINT INCIDENT CLEARING
ACT - 5
Copyright (C) 1993 Rowland Barkley
From Clearing Today, Issue 1, October 1991
(Edited from an article in the Heretic)
Multiple Viewpoint Incident Clearing is a method of running
incidents with greater responsibility than PC Dianetics, so all
viewpoints are run and ownership is irrelevant. Secondly, it is running
copies of incidents and beings, done as an intentional act at a high
level of consciousness, which is the basic ((on the chain)) to charge
run at a lower level.
Aren't OT's Dianetic Clear?
Nice certificate, but let's take a quick look at what they were
cleared of. Firstly, incidents are normally scanned not experienced, so
the ability to perceive incidents is run out, with no restored ability
to experience. Secondly, the "standard" commands evaluate that you are
the body and that you are at effect. While that method is brilliant for
doing what PC Dianetics is for, i.e. handling body somatics, clearing by
that method is nonsense, as the being has not been addressed.
Aren't PC's overrun on Dianetics in danger?
Yes, but not too many people have looked into what happens that
could be a danger. The assumption has been that the PC was infested by
huge numbers of alien spirits ((BT's or Body Thetans)) and that it was
misownership of their charge that was happening if a Dianetic Clear
tired to run dianetics. ((The theory is that by asking the Dianetic
Clear for another or earlier incident when indeed there are none of his
own, he will jump into the pictures and incidents of myriad BT's which
can do great harm to his body. Standard NOTS stuff. (NOTS = New Era
Dianetics for OT's and is actually running Dianetics on BT's.) Ron was
fanatical on the subject of not running dianetics on Dianetic Clears
because he himself almost died a number of time from NOTS phenomenon
like this. I believe part of his problem may have been that he was not
as aware of BT's and their effects as we all are now. Really just
asking about BT's, if such phenomenon should occur, will usually be
enough to settle it down. Besides it's what you are doing to them and
not what they are doing to you that counts. But it took Ron a number of
years and a lot of pain to figure this one out.))
The trouble with such simplistic views on spiritual matters is that
spiritual realities are not MEST ((Matter, Energy, Space and Time)), so
one can't profitably be too dogmatic about how such things must be
expressed. Even though in traditional clearing, the PC lets the system
evaluate most spiritual matters for him, at least by the time he reaches
advanced levels, he should be run on his own reality.
There is a totally other way of expressing what happens at and
beyond the point of Dianetic Clear.
The one factor that most degrades the benefits of Dianetics is that
the PC is told that he should run the incident from a body viewpoint,
and that to do otherwise is to be 'out of valence'. Invalence was
evaluated to mean being in a body. From a survey of many PC's and
Auditors, it was found that it actually is quite unusual for a PC to
record an incident from only a body view-point.
Normally an incident is recorded on a spiritual level. This might,
among other things, include a recording of the body view point. The
being normally records all of the viewpoints simultaneously of each
person participating in the incident. This can mean different
viewpoints not only for each person, but many ((?viewpoints for each
person?)).
One can look at an incident as an individual, see it differently as
a "citizen", see it differently as a body, and have one's own idea of
how another sees it. As all of these are what you would run to clear
somebody, not much of a product will come if running is limited to what
was called "in valence", i.e. running it as if you were a piece of meat
at the time.
When a person becomes complete on that processing method ((Standard
Dianetics)) and is run the same way further, he overruns into the huge
number of flows not addressed, so he receives a special review rundown
to pull himself out of it. ((The Church does it this way)). Worse
still, if the PC and/or the practitioner intend that method for
clearing, the ability to perceive is cleared without the somatics being
handled.
What's wrong with running only one viewpoint?
Let's take an example of wife shoots husband because she found out
that he was about to be tortured and gradually dismembered. HER reality
is to spare her loved one great agony. Husband reincarnates.
Practitioner says, "Locate an incident of another causing you an
explosive head pain". Running this may blow a headache, but he may
still be wary of getting married or some such thing. If this incident
were experienced from such viewpoints as the body at the time, HER body
at the time, both beings as Source Selfs (Static), both as Beings, and
the government collective unconsciousness that ordered the torture, the
PC will have had a positive learning experience, not just a somatic
gone. He will be able to live life again.
This brings us to another explanation of the Entity phenomena.
When you run an incident from one viewpoint only, charge is bypassed on
all the other viewpoints. ((By Passed Charge is charge that has been
restimulated but not blown. This can cause the PC to get sick and die,
or just ARC break him and make him leave.)) When all gain has occurred
that can be gotten from such a restrictive evaluation, you do get a nice
'win' or 'Clear'.
The problem is now that all the other viewpoints have been stacked
up. They are created by the PC out of his own life force, but now are
disowned by running the 'in valence' body viewpoints of incidents. As
they are 'alive' but disowned they then can 'think' independently of the
being.
Running these ((apparent)) 'beings' as if it were 'your' charge now
cause misownership problems, but this does not prove that these beings
ever had a separate existence until they were disowned. They are other
viewpoints, you learn by running them.
Any viewpoint that a PC cannot assume can affect him. Therefore,
it does not much matter whether a given entity is a creation of one's
own or another's, of a demon, or a being in its own right. Once the PC
can experience things from that viewpoint he won't again be the effect
of it.
Multiple Viewpoint Incident Running.
The PC experiences the incident from each accessible or reading
viewpoint, usually a separate pass through for each viewpoint. Usually
it will be apparent from ITSA what viewpoints are the hottest. ((ITSA
is the pc talking about the incident "It's a...")) Then if the original
condition is not totally blown, ask some such question as "Are there any
unrun viewpoints on this?"
It is not very hard to run, provided the practitioner has normal
incident running skills. The main skill is to be able to perceive that
the PC actually is viewing the incident the way the current terminal
((that you are trying to run out)) would view it.
Is it difficult to access these other viewpoints?
No. What matters is only that the PC has experienced on all flows
what would cause the postulate or condition to be handled. It is
irrelevant whose incident it was, and if someone else down the street or
in another universe has a better one, run that ((also or instead))
because the gains will be better. ((In other words the incident you run
to blow a somatic or condition does not have to be the pc's incident!
Theoretically it could be a borrowed incident.))
The body would have had a different experience than the Being, and
often the Source Self put the incident there for interest or learning,
so these viewpoints should be experienced separately or wrong
indications can be given to the current body. ((A wrong indication is
when you give a wrong why, or wrong item to someone, it can make them
very sick.))
A recent case.
PC in middle of an entity rundown with suspected stomach ulcer not
responding to medical treatment. Practitioner called me in, and PC was
perplexed that years before illnesses of that magnitude had been blown
((easily)) by Dianetics - why can't it be blown as easily now? I said
"Locate an incident that could cause (condition)." (I did not say
"Locate an incident of another causing you (condition) which would mean
you were effect and a body at the time.)
The incident was someone being gored by a bull. "Move to the
beginning of the incident from the Being's viewpoint." "Experience (not
SCAN, God forbid) through to the end of the incident from the Being's
viewpoint." "Return to the beginning of the incident from the bull's
viewpoint and experience through to the end."
Viewpoints that were relevant were: Being, body, Source Self, bull,
farmer (who owned bull) and government inspectors as a collective mind.
The PC experienced huge reactions experiencing the goring. Body and
Being viewpoints differed as Being wanted excitement, body wanted
safety. PC experiencing the excitement and ecstasy of the bull ("Got
him!"), joyously stamping around, experiencing power of the bull - with
huge belching ((in PC)) and condition half blown.
The PC experienced the viewpoint of the observing farmer as
annoyance that just because some idiot wandered across his field the
government would make him waste a perfectly good $3000 bull. Getting
that blew the whole condition.
This procedure does not need to be rote. An inexperienced
practitioner might need to run it quite rote until he gets certainty as
to how it works. After that point it will run faster using some
judgement on such matters as whether the PC could run a number of
viewpoints at once.
In general it should be run close to rote on a PC with somatics and
should not run at all rote on an OT. It can be run so smoothly on an OT
he wouldn't even think it's a formal session. It's normally quite
spectacular that way.
Sample session patter.
A. Get an item to be handled. ((Pain in the zorch)).
B. "Locate any incident of anybody's anywhere in any universe that
could cause (item)."
C. If it's not obvious ask "What is the first viewpoint to run?"
D. "Move to the beginning of the incident from (viewpoint)"
E. "Experience through to the end of the incident from (viewpoint)"
F. If it's not obvious ask, "What is the next viewpoint to run"
G. "Return to the beginning of the incident from (new viewpoint)
and experience through to the end of the incident."
H. The Source Self isn't in time, never had a track and was never
aberrated, so of course you can't say to have it move in time. You
would ask him to re-experience the consciousness of or as the Source
Self in relation to the incident. This is a technique that usually
results in great illumination, but does not work unless the practitioner
(at the level of a companion or guide, really) shifts consciousness to
himself as a Source Self just before asking the question.
If it's a physical condition you can end off by having the PC ask
his body what it needs to repair the condition ((after auditing has
blown the cause of the condition)). Sometimes it's a vitamin or
exercise, often it's a couple days rest from Being indications. Often
the reason why clearing improves a physical condition is that the Being
is now satisfied, so he stops laying his figure-figure on the body.
((Or his suppress, inval, not-is, alter-is, denial etc on the body.))
Background of Multiple Viewpoint Incident Running
I had had a type of Multiple Viewpoint Incident Clearing before I
ever found out about "Standard" incident running. It was a traditional
method that involved running all viewpoints of an engram, including
one's own on many levels, and all participants and observers at one
time. This included viewing the "Collective Consciousness" or planetary
fourth dynamic viewpoint.
Dianetics as developed by Hubbard was a major scientific
contribution as you can run it on almost anybody, bit by bit, with
repairs if you goof. The trouble is that most PCs don't run most
aspects of the incident. I have solved this by cutting back the
gradient of the traditional method by running one viewpoint at a time,
and adding some of Hubbard's scientific precision.
Rowland Barkley
For more information on Multiple Viewpoint Incident Clearing
contact Flemming and Birgit Funch at 1 818 774 1462.
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 11 03:06:02 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act5.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)
iD8DBQFQxulrURT1lqxE3HERAhgDAJ46V8Ix8aneacK/Osr4epUdMU0a+gCeOKlW
ZjVErCOyh+qOepjBElJVQpw=
=BssM
-----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
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
MULTIPLE VIEWPOINT INCIDENT CLEARING
ACT - 5
Copyright (C) 1993 Rowland Barkley
From Clearing Today, Issue 1, October 1991
(Edited from an article in the Heretic)
Multiple Viewpoint Incident Clearing is a method of running
incidents with greater responsibility than PC Dianetics, so all
viewpoints are run and ownership is irrelevant. Secondly, it is running
copies of incidents and beings, done as an intentional act at a high
level of consciousness, which is the basic ((on the chain)) to charge
run at a lower level.
Aren't OT's Dianetic Clear?
Nice certificate, but let's take a quick look at what they were
cleared of. Firstly, incidents are normally scanned not experienced, so
the ability to perceive incidents is run out, with no restored ability
to experience. Secondly, the "standard" commands evaluate that you are
the body and that you are at effect. While that method is brilliant for
doing what PC Dianetics is for, i.e. handling body somatics, clearing by
that method is nonsense, as the being has not been addressed.
Aren't PC's overrun on Dianetics in danger?
Yes, but not too many people have looked into what happens that
could be a danger. The assumption has been that the PC was infested by
huge numbers of alien spirits ((BT's or Body Thetans)) and that it was
misownership of their charge that was happening if a Dianetic Clear
tired to run dianetics. ((The theory is that by asking the Dianetic
Clear for another or earlier incident when indeed there are none of his
own, he will jump into the pictures and incidents of myriad BT's which
can do great harm to his body. Standard NOTS stuff. (NOTS = New Era
Dianetics for OT's and is actually running Dianetics on BT's.) Ron was
fanatical on the subject of not running dianetics on Dianetic Clears
because he himself almost died a number of time from NOTS phenomenon
like this. I believe part of his problem may have been that he was not
as aware of BT's and their effects as we all are now. Really just
asking about BT's, if such phenomenon should occur, will usually be
enough to settle it down. Besides it's what you are doing to them and
not what they are doing to you that counts. But it took Ron a number of
years and a lot of pain to figure this one out.))
The trouble with such simplistic views on spiritual matters is that
spiritual realities are not MEST ((Matter, Energy, Space and Time)), so
one can't profitably be too dogmatic about how such things must be
expressed. Even though in traditional clearing, the PC lets the system
evaluate most spiritual matters for him, at least by the time he reaches
advanced levels, he should be run on his own reality.
There is a totally other way of expressing what happens at and
beyond the point of Dianetic Clear.
The one factor that most degrades the benefits of Dianetics is that
the PC is told that he should run the incident from a body viewpoint,
and that to do otherwise is to be 'out of valence'. Invalence was
evaluated to mean being in a body. From a survey of many PC's and
Auditors, it was found that it actually is quite unusual for a PC to
record an incident from only a body view-point.
Normally an incident is recorded on a spiritual level. This might,
among other things, include a recording of the body view point. The
being normally records all of the viewpoints simultaneously of each
person participating in the incident. This can mean different
viewpoints not only for each person, but many ((?viewpoints for each
person?)).
One can look at an incident as an individual, see it differently as
a "citizen", see it differently as a body, and have one's own idea of
how another sees it. As all of these are what you would run to clear
somebody, not much of a product will come if running is limited to what
was called "in valence", i.e. running it as if you were a piece of meat
at the time.
When a person becomes complete on that processing method ((Standard
Dianetics)) and is run the same way further, he overruns into the huge
number of flows not addressed, so he receives a special review rundown
to pull himself out of it. ((The Church does it this way)). Worse
still, if the PC and/or the practitioner intend that method for
clearing, the ability to perceive is cleared without the somatics being
handled.
What's wrong with running only one viewpoint?
Let's take an example of wife shoots husband because she found out
that he was about to be tortured and gradually dismembered. HER reality
is to spare her loved one great agony. Husband reincarnates.
Practitioner says, "Locate an incident of another causing you an
explosive head pain". Running this may blow a headache, but he may
still be wary of getting married or some such thing. If this incident
were experienced from such viewpoints as the body at the time, HER body
at the time, both beings as Source Selfs (Static), both as Beings, and
the government collective unconsciousness that ordered the torture, the
PC will have had a positive learning experience, not just a somatic
gone. He will be able to live life again.
This brings us to another explanation of the Entity phenomena.
When you run an incident from one viewpoint only, charge is bypassed on
all the other viewpoints. ((By Passed Charge is charge that has been
restimulated but not blown. This can cause the PC to get sick and die,
or just ARC break him and make him leave.)) When all gain has occurred
that can be gotten from such a restrictive evaluation, you do get a nice
'win' or 'Clear'.
The problem is now that all the other viewpoints have been stacked
up. They are created by the PC out of his own life force, but now are
disowned by running the 'in valence' body viewpoints of incidents. As
they are 'alive' but disowned they then can 'think' independently of the
being.
Running these ((apparent)) 'beings' as if it were 'your' charge now
cause misownership problems, but this does not prove that these beings
ever had a separate existence until they were disowned. They are other
viewpoints, you learn by running them.
Any viewpoint that a PC cannot assume can affect him. Therefore,
it does not much matter whether a given entity is a creation of one's
own or another's, of a demon, or a being in its own right. Once the PC
can experience things from that viewpoint he won't again be the effect
of it.
Multiple Viewpoint Incident Running.
The PC experiences the incident from each accessible or reading
viewpoint, usually a separate pass through for each viewpoint. Usually
it will be apparent from ITSA what viewpoints are the hottest. ((ITSA
is the pc talking about the incident "It's a...")) Then if the original
condition is not totally blown, ask some such question as "Are there any
unrun viewpoints on this?"
It is not very hard to run, provided the practitioner has normal
incident running skills. The main skill is to be able to perceive that
the PC actually is viewing the incident the way the current terminal
((that you are trying to run out)) would view it.
Is it difficult to access these other viewpoints?
No. What matters is only that the PC has experienced on all flows
what would cause the postulate or condition to be handled. It is
irrelevant whose incident it was, and if someone else down the street or
in another universe has a better one, run that ((also or instead))
because the gains will be better. ((In other words the incident you run
to blow a somatic or condition does not have to be the pc's incident!
Theoretically it could be a borrowed incident.))
The body would have had a different experience than the Being, and
often the Source Self put the incident there for interest or learning,
so these viewpoints should be experienced separately or wrong
indications can be given to the current body. ((A wrong indication is
when you give a wrong why, or wrong item to someone, it can make them
very sick.))
A recent case.
PC in middle of an entity rundown with suspected stomach ulcer not
responding to medical treatment. Practitioner called me in, and PC was
perplexed that years before illnesses of that magnitude had been blown
((easily)) by Dianetics - why can't it be blown as easily now? I said
"Locate an incident that could cause (condition)." (I did not say
"Locate an incident of another causing you (condition) which would mean
you were effect and a body at the time.)
The incident was someone being gored by a bull. "Move to the
beginning of the incident from the Being's viewpoint." "Experience (not
SCAN, God forbid) through to the end of the incident from the Being's
viewpoint." "Return to the beginning of the incident from the bull's
viewpoint and experience through to the end."
Viewpoints that were relevant were: Being, body, Source Self, bull,
farmer (who owned bull) and government inspectors as a collective mind.
The PC experienced huge reactions experiencing the goring. Body and
Being viewpoints differed as Being wanted excitement, body wanted
safety. PC experiencing the excitement and ecstasy of the bull ("Got
him!"), joyously stamping around, experiencing power of the bull - with
huge belching ((in PC)) and condition half blown.
The PC experienced the viewpoint of the observing farmer as
annoyance that just because some idiot wandered across his field the
government would make him waste a perfectly good $3000 bull. Getting
that blew the whole condition.
This procedure does not need to be rote. An inexperienced
practitioner might need to run it quite rote until he gets certainty as
to how it works. After that point it will run faster using some
judgement on such matters as whether the PC could run a number of
viewpoints at once.
In general it should be run close to rote on a PC with somatics and
should not run at all rote on an OT. It can be run so smoothly on an OT
he wouldn't even think it's a formal session. It's normally quite
spectacular that way.
Sample session patter.
A. Get an item to be handled. ((Pain in the zorch)).
B. "Locate any incident of anybody's anywhere in any universe that
could cause (item)."
C. If it's not obvious ask "What is the first viewpoint to run?"
D. "Move to the beginning of the incident from (viewpoint)"
E. "Experience through to the end of the incident from (viewpoint)"
F. If it's not obvious ask, "What is the next viewpoint to run"
G. "Return to the beginning of the incident from (new viewpoint)
and experience through to the end of the incident."
H. The Source Self isn't in time, never had a track and was never
aberrated, so of course you can't say to have it move in time. You
would ask him to re-experience the consciousness of or as the Source
Self in relation to the incident. This is a technique that usually
results in great illumination, but does not work unless the practitioner
(at the level of a companion or guide, really) shifts consciousness to
himself as a Source Self just before asking the question.
If it's a physical condition you can end off by having the PC ask
his body what it needs to repair the condition ((after auditing has
blown the cause of the condition)). Sometimes it's a vitamin or
exercise, often it's a couple days rest from Being indications. Often
the reason why clearing improves a physical condition is that the Being
is now satisfied, so he stops laying his figure-figure on the body.
((Or his suppress, inval, not-is, alter-is, denial etc on the body.))
Background of Multiple Viewpoint Incident Running
I had had a type of Multiple Viewpoint Incident Clearing before I
ever found out about "Standard" incident running. It was a traditional
method that involved running all viewpoints of an engram, including
one's own on many levels, and all participants and observers at one
time. This included viewing the "Collective Consciousness" or planetary
fourth dynamic viewpoint.
Dianetics as developed by Hubbard was a major scientific
contribution as you can run it on almost anybody, bit by bit, with
repairs if you goof. The trouble is that most PCs don't run most
aspects of the incident. I have solved this by cutting back the
gradient of the traditional method by running one viewpoint at a time,
and adding some of Hubbard's scientific precision.
Rowland Barkley
For more information on Multiple Viewpoint Incident Clearing
contact Flemming and Birgit Funch at 1 818 774 1462.
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 11 03:06:02 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act5.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)
iD8DBQFQxulrURT1lqxE3HERAhgDAJ46V8Ix8aneacK/Osr4epUdMU0a+gCeOKlW
ZjVErCOyh+qOepjBElJVQpw=
=BssM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Monday, December 10, 2012
GOD IS AUTHOR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
God is Author.
As author, God creates good characters and bad characters,
In the surrounding matrix (universe), God also creates good
opporunities and bad opportunities for all his characters.
To say that only good comes from God, is to ignore the rest that
comes from God. Or to claim it doesn't exist, or that it comes from
elsewhere.
I assure you that nothing comes from anywhere else but the
AllThatIs and its fundamental nature, drives and motives.
People like to consider that God is our Father and we are His
Children. This collapses a Divine relationship between God and Soul, down
to a human relationship between Parent and Child, and thus loses sight of
both of them.
Consider the following. If God is our father, and we are his child,
and the universe is our playpen that God our Father made for us to grow up
in, what would you think of this God as a Father?
People say that God allows bad people to do bad things because they
need to have a free will more than they need to be forced to be good.
OK, that's fine.
But why does God allow bad people to do bad to GOOD people?
That's the question that is never asked.
If a human father has two children, one is bad and one is good, does
the human father allow the bad child do bad to the good child in the name
of free will?
Run to full understanding.
"What is the relationship between Parent and Child."
"What is the relationship between God and Soul."
"What is the relationship between Author and Character."
"What is the relationship between Creator and Creature."
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
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 10 03:06:03 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore159.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)
iD8DBQFQxZfrURT1lqxE3HERAnebAJ9ZRqsC6GlY/ELRDXF4A75Ibv0d/wCgr9s6
m94QG0SKvdu7uJB7yNZDPq8=
=QGzL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
God is Author.
As author, God creates good characters and bad characters,
In the surrounding matrix (universe), God also creates good
opporunities and bad opportunities for all his characters.
To say that only good comes from God, is to ignore the rest that
comes from God. Or to claim it doesn't exist, or that it comes from
elsewhere.
I assure you that nothing comes from anywhere else but the
AllThatIs and its fundamental nature, drives and motives.
People like to consider that God is our Father and we are His
Children. This collapses a Divine relationship between God and Soul, down
to a human relationship between Parent and Child, and thus loses sight of
both of them.
Consider the following. If God is our father, and we are his child,
and the universe is our playpen that God our Father made for us to grow up
in, what would you think of this God as a Father?
People say that God allows bad people to do bad things because they
need to have a free will more than they need to be forced to be good.
OK, that's fine.
But why does God allow bad people to do bad to GOOD people?
That's the question that is never asked.
If a human father has two children, one is bad and one is good, does
the human father allow the bad child do bad to the good child in the name
of free will?
Run to full understanding.
"What is the relationship between Parent and Child."
"What is the relationship between God and Soul."
"What is the relationship between Author and Character."
"What is the relationship between Creator and Creature."
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
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 10 03:06:03 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore159.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)
iD8DBQFQxZfrURT1lqxE3HERAnebAJ9ZRqsC6GlY/ELRDXF4A75Ibv0d/wCgr9s6
m94QG0SKvdu7uJB7yNZDPq8=
=QGzL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
MEATBALLS AND DREAMBALLS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
MEATBALLS AND DREAMBALLS
Meatballs are dreamballs who CHOSE to become meatballs born of a
detested, immortal (one time line forever), self imposed, hell forever of
one kind or another. They were quite insane when they did this and they
worry about going insane and losing control again should they wake up to
their choice again.
Thus any effort to wake up a meatball will result in continuous
self defense, denial, obscuration, misinterpretation, straw men
arguments, so they can continue with their delusion of oblivion and
continue to seek permanent spiritual death at -400.00 at the bottom of
the tone scale.
Meatballs will build civilizations for you, give their lives to you, and
cooperate in and support your life long goals, but only if you continue to be a
meatball yourself, worshiping the Cults of Medicine and Death forever (live
once and that's it Bud).
They know who their friends are and treat them well.
But Woe Ye to those who should turn to the Eternal Light, and
declare their fearlessness in the face of Time.
How do you know a meatball from a dreamball?
You tell them "Hey you are dreaming, remember?"
The dreamball will go, "Oh yeah, right, wow, cool, holy shit..."
The meatball will go "yak yak natter natter science proves sub
natter yak yak yak".
He is right about the science 'proves' in a very unethical sense of
the word to prove, to provide evidence for, but science is the study of
the dream, not the actuality projecting the dream, YOU and your
consciousness.
The physical universe is a mass hallucination in the mind of God in
carnation.
Oh no, now I can't die even if I wanted to!
The meatball doesn't want to be woken, his confidence in his
ability to deal with his immortal self is destroyed.
The dreamball, or just pre dreamball, is in bad shape, but is
willing to stand up and try again.
The dreamball doesn't need The Proof, The Proof can be harmful, it
can hurt people as it caves their sense of space in. It's just too much
responsibility too early.
The Proof was designed to crack open the meatball, but once opened
we find nothing alive inside.
The spirit is playing dead as a doornail, guarded by endless amount
of spiritual machinery to make waking up wrong.
It's that machinery you are talking to when you try to wake someone
up and all they give you is contempt.
THEY HAVE CONTEMPT ON THEIR IMMORTAL *AND* ETERNAL FUTURE.
The contempt is a cover for abject fear, horror, sorrow and
hopelessness.
The dreamball also has contempt on his immortal future, but he can
remember a bit of his eternal future, and is willing to stand up and try
again. He is mostly going to sleep because he is drowning in meatballs,
who aren't trying and who try to destroy anyone who is.
Thus spotting who is or is not a meatball and declaring it so,
openly and for all to hear, and in those words, starts the dreamball back
up the scale to sovereignty.
Run,
"Who or what are you trying to cause the eternal spiritual death
of."
Or run it with NO and SOME.
Spot NO eternal spiritual death.
Spot SOME eternal spiritual death.
Run it on all flows, all beings, past, present and future, in
particular the BT grave yard in his head, face and throat.
The basic 5 flows, are others causing to you, you causing to
others, others causing to others, and self causing to self, and others
causing to their self.
They are all important, but the suffering your preclear is sitting
in is mainly collateral damage kick back from him doing it to others,
including in his own space much of which is inside his body.
However its only an overlay, the body has nothing to do with it,
this is a whole track dramatization that took place long before bodies
even existed, and he is still doing it now as if now were then.
Unfortunately the beings he is trying to make spiritually dead, and
to continue to keep spiritually dead, are now, so its now you need to
audit not then!
Once he spots and runs out the drama of trying to make others
eternally spiritually dead FOREVER, they will start to wake up and blow
off, and other's efforts to do the same to him will tend to cease, as
they won't have much effect.
THAT game, of making nothing of others forever, becomes up.
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
Thu Jun 2 12:47:23 EDT 2011
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Thu Jun 2 13:04:01 EDT 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec 9 03:06:02 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore869.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)
iD8DBQFQxEZqURT1lqxE3HERAlZ1AJwKXbsMRT+k9dyringhpvtNuSIOAwCgzMag
g1u+fszOczNpO5HG9nnwoAg=
=4A6j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
MEATBALLS AND DREAMBALLS
Meatballs are dreamballs who CHOSE to become meatballs born of a
detested, immortal (one time line forever), self imposed, hell forever of
one kind or another. They were quite insane when they did this and they
worry about going insane and losing control again should they wake up to
their choice again.
Thus any effort to wake up a meatball will result in continuous
self defense, denial, obscuration, misinterpretation, straw men
arguments, so they can continue with their delusion of oblivion and
continue to seek permanent spiritual death at -400.00 at the bottom of
the tone scale.
Meatballs will build civilizations for you, give their lives to you, and
cooperate in and support your life long goals, but only if you continue to be a
meatball yourself, worshiping the Cults of Medicine and Death forever (live
once and that's it Bud).
They know who their friends are and treat them well.
But Woe Ye to those who should turn to the Eternal Light, and
declare their fearlessness in the face of Time.
How do you know a meatball from a dreamball?
You tell them "Hey you are dreaming, remember?"
The dreamball will go, "Oh yeah, right, wow, cool, holy shit..."
The meatball will go "yak yak natter natter science proves sub
natter yak yak yak".
He is right about the science 'proves' in a very unethical sense of
the word to prove, to provide evidence for, but science is the study of
the dream, not the actuality projecting the dream, YOU and your
consciousness.
The physical universe is a mass hallucination in the mind of God in
carnation.
Oh no, now I can't die even if I wanted to!
The meatball doesn't want to be woken, his confidence in his
ability to deal with his immortal self is destroyed.
The dreamball, or just pre dreamball, is in bad shape, but is
willing to stand up and try again.
The dreamball doesn't need The Proof, The Proof can be harmful, it
can hurt people as it caves their sense of space in. It's just too much
responsibility too early.
The Proof was designed to crack open the meatball, but once opened
we find nothing alive inside.
The spirit is playing dead as a doornail, guarded by endless amount
of spiritual machinery to make waking up wrong.
It's that machinery you are talking to when you try to wake someone
up and all they give you is contempt.
THEY HAVE CONTEMPT ON THEIR IMMORTAL *AND* ETERNAL FUTURE.
The contempt is a cover for abject fear, horror, sorrow and
hopelessness.
The dreamball also has contempt on his immortal future, but he can
remember a bit of his eternal future, and is willing to stand up and try
again. He is mostly going to sleep because he is drowning in meatballs,
who aren't trying and who try to destroy anyone who is.
Thus spotting who is or is not a meatball and declaring it so,
openly and for all to hear, and in those words, starts the dreamball back
up the scale to sovereignty.
Run,
"Who or what are you trying to cause the eternal spiritual death
of."
Or run it with NO and SOME.
Spot NO eternal spiritual death.
Spot SOME eternal spiritual death.
Run it on all flows, all beings, past, present and future, in
particular the BT grave yard in his head, face and throat.
The basic 5 flows, are others causing to you, you causing to
others, others causing to others, and self causing to self, and others
causing to their self.
They are all important, but the suffering your preclear is sitting
in is mainly collateral damage kick back from him doing it to others,
including in his own space much of which is inside his body.
However its only an overlay, the body has nothing to do with it,
this is a whole track dramatization that took place long before bodies
even existed, and he is still doing it now as if now were then.
Unfortunately the beings he is trying to make spiritually dead, and
to continue to keep spiritually dead, are now, so its now you need to
audit not then!
Once he spots and runs out the drama of trying to make others
eternally spiritually dead FOREVER, they will start to wake up and blow
off, and other's efforts to do the same to him will tend to cease, as
they won't have much effect.
THAT game, of making nothing of others forever, becomes up.
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
Thu Jun 2 12:47:23 EDT 2011
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Thu Jun 2 13:04:01 EDT 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec 9 03:06:02 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore869.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)
iD8DBQFQxEZqURT1lqxE3HERAlZ1AJwKXbsMRT+k9dyringhpvtNuSIOAwCgzMag
g1u+fszOczNpO5HG9nnwoAg=
=4A6j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 3, 2012
HOMER THE WHACK JOB
HOMER THE WHACK JOB
In alt.clearing.technology John Dorsay <restimulator@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am interested in what Homer has to say. Do I expect to agree with
> him? No. But I want to understand what it is about these topics
> that holds his interest so strongly. And Homer has been willing to
> discuss them with me.
I was and still am a meatball.
I understand the physical theory very well, educated in math,
logic, biology, chemistry, psychology, physics, computer science,
electronics, philosophy and religion, and I grew up with academic
meatballs of many persuasions, including my father who was a world
reknown physiologist and Chairman of the department of physiology at NYU
during the 50-60's.
He was an agnostic, brought up as a Christian, he kept a scientific
eye out for the need for God, and any evidence there might be for His
existence. He wrote a book called 'Man and his Gods' with a forward by
Einstein. My father's view towards Man and his Gods was not kind but
tempered by willing to see evidence if there was any.
He summed up his feelings about God at the end of the book with a
short chapter entitled 'Into whatever abyss...' wherein he wrote "Man as
a fallen angel would be ludicrous." He was a consumate scientist loved
by everyone who knew him.
One night he was sitting by my bed, I was 5 or so, and I asked him
'Daddy where did I come from?' He told me about the willie and the
wendy, and that was that. I went zooming down my memory track to see if
I could remember being born or conscieved or anything before and I
couldn't. That crashed me into being mortal as mortal comes.
When my father and mother died in the 5th grade or so, I fully
believed I lived but once and that was it bud. It made me infinitely
sour on life.
But I have never been able to accept 'mortality' as a given, even
though I would have bet on mortality up until 1972.
Nor have I ever been able to accept standard religions, offering a
God that created me against my will, dumped me in this universe to fend
for myself with Godless parents, in order to test me, or whatever his
sick agenda is.
And although I too wanted some people to enjoy hell forever, I knew
that a God of love would have another solution, and that a God the
Father would actually take care of his kids and not leave them to beat
up on each other, to test the bad by letting them bang up on the good.
I also have known since I was a kid that there was no experiment I
could do to prove I was or was not dreaming, as I could and had
replicated in a dream anything in the waking state, including not being
able to wake up when I wanted to and being absolutely convinced I was
awake when I was dreaming.
I knew that I saw the world through the rendition engine of my
consciousness, eyes are not a glass window to the PU (physical
universe), and thus I knew I could never be certain of the PU.
Then in 1972 I had a significant vision, I understood that I saw my
consciousness was capable of perfect certainty of some things, I AM, I
KNOW, I WANT and I DO, and direct perception of color forms like red and
green and all other conscious experiences, and simultaneously I saw very
clearly that a space time gizmo could not do so.
It became known as the machine certainty theorem (which google) or
The Proof for short.
Never mind the complexities of that, right or wrong, doesn't
matter, I do presently bet the vision is correct.
Bet's are bets, not certainties, and one does have to follow one's
gut.
The vision incicated to me that my consciousness was a zero
dimensional actuality that could be certain of itself and its own color
forms, because it wasn't limited by space or time, but I had an
impentrably hard time trying to figure out how a zero dimensional
graphics display could be interfaced with a 4D space and time graphics
engine, the brain.
My Cornell University professors in psych and engineering told me
that consciousness was merely a 'epiphenomenon', meaning a side result
of the brain, but it had no causal agency of it's own and could not
affect anything. Obviously if this were true, the whole of idea of
consciousness and the word itself would never be expressed by the brain
through the mouth!
In otherwords I as a conscious unit was just an observer of things,
but had no causal efficacy myself. That sent me into a despondancy
about Cornell that I have never gotten over.
Epiphenominalism is meatballism at its finest.
There are 3 versions of 'epiphenomenalism'.
1.) Consciousness is a mere epiphenomena, meaning it can display
what is going on, but can not effect what is going on at all even though
it has the illusion it can, of free will.
This version of epiphenominalism says that cause can flow from the
physical universe to consciousness, but not back again.
Actual 'goings on' are only the brain responding in a standard
mechanical manner to inputs and outputs, consciousness might be able to
see this going on, but could never affect it.
Like dominoes falling, if we could know their exact starting state,
we could compute all future outcomes.
Well plus or minus quantum mechanics :)
This was the group my profs and many people in scientific
academentia adhere to.
A few of the more enlightened like to fancy that the randomness
entered by QM allowed for 'free will', but free will is not random
behavior, it is MOVTIVATED behavior, and randomness in free is not
necessarily desirable for someone out to get what he wants, survial.
For that you need tightly motivated and computed behavior that is right
every time.
Anyhow as I said above, if consciousness were a full epiphenom,
then consciousness would know what was going on in the brain, but the
brain would never know what was going on in consciousness, as cause can
not flow from consciousness to the brain, and certainly therefore the
brain could never express the existence of consciousness for that would
certainly be cause flowing from consciousnes back to the physical
universe.
2.) Consciousness is a partial epiphenomenon, that means it can
cause things in response to brain data coming into it, but only within
itself, it can't cause anything back out into the physical universe. It
consumes energy to light up, but can't then redirect energy back into
the world.
This is of course ludicrous for the same reason, because we are now
TALKING about consciousness through our brains, and it is unlikely that
our BRAINS noticed we were conscious and self aware, and therefore it
must be our consciousness that noticed we were conscious and started
talking about it, which is clearly an outflow of cause from conciousness
through the brain into the actual world.
3.) Consciousness is a full blown phenomenon as itself, interfaced
or not with the brain as the case might be.
My vision indicated that 3 was correct.
The part of my vision that indicated that consciousness was zero
dimensional FOR SURE, indicated either that the 0D consciousness was
either interfaced with the 4D brain, or that the brain didn't exist at
all, the world really was a dream.
Suddenly a lot of things made sense from my own life, but more
importantly, once I understand the possibility that the PU was a dream,
then things like past lives, OT powers, who or what is God, all started
to fall in place inside the newly concieved dream ball theory.
I then ran into two sources of people who basically said the same
thing, one was Mahatma Rajiswar and the other was Ron Hubbard in the
Phoenix Lectures.
At first when I read the Phoenix lectures I was enraged at
'considerations take rank over the mechanics of existence.'
I went to the local group of OT's and said, "look you walk out in
front of a car and you die, no consideration is going to change that."
They said 'The world is a mockup, if you take back the postulate
that it is solid, it won't be solid for you. It may still be solid for
your body, but you will be able to move through your body, and if you
really take back the solidity postulate, your body will be able to walk
through the cars too."
Well that was it, at that point I understood that LRH was coming
from the dream ball model of existence. I was in TOTAL SHOCK, I
couldn't believe that anyone else was taking it seriously, and then the
Mahatma said the same thing, "the world is a theory", and people believe
what they want to believe in order to have a game.
Then I ran into HUNDREDS of books in the library all coming from
the same place. Old and dusty, as I guessed most wisdom was.
So my problem as a meatball was finding evidence for this dreamball
theory.
I KNEW I HAD NO EVIDENCE FOR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, something that
meatballs won't admit.
But I also had no evidence for the dreamball universe.
So I was at 50/50 on the matter, driving me nuts, as you can all
well attest.
Over the years after that I started to have very heavy visions, or
ascension experiences, one after the other, each one staggering in
beauty, vertigo and power. Like earthquakes, they came at any time,
crossing the street, driving the car, going to sleep at night, in dreams
after dreams, waking up, going to school, I lived with my seatbelt on.
Nothing I could show another, never out of my body, but quite
enough to show me that:
1.) God was divine
2.) God WAS the AllThatIs
3.) God was US.
In otherwords we existed prior to any created condition and thus
either created it ourselves in tandem with others, or agreed to it later
if created earlier by others.
Further I saw that me, my conscious unit, was eternal, immutable,
and thus not creatable nor destroyable.
Thus no one made me, I and everyone just simply always ARE.
Again proof? You gotta be there to see it.
I saw levels of divine friendliness to soften the hardest heart,
and divine frostiness to freeze it all over again.
From there I started to figure out how we may have created and come
into our present condition.
Our present condition is highly charged, maybe even infinitely
charged due to the losses incurred by our belief we live only once.
Most meatballs are so charged on the subject of being mortal they
will tell you that mortality is a good thing.
But anyone who has gotten BY DIRECT VISION even vaguely close to
the freedom, beauty and power of his own indestructable eternality, will
tell you otherwise.
Sorry, proof is still only for those who have been there.
What proof of eternality can I show the time bound?
Now this has been a labor of love for 30 years, I got so sick in
1991 I thought I would never live to see the light of day. I was in bed
for 6 months, eating a yogurt every 2 days, writing, writing, writing,
cogniting, having 'primal quakes' as I called them, I couldn't get it
all down fast enough.
I went through crying, vomiting, laughing, crying, vomiting,
laughing, white light blazing out of the center of my body, rose and
golden light in my dreams while angels were talking to me.
Remember the movie Ghost, those little black guys that come to suck
down the bad doers when they died. I had them running all over my veins
inside my body, I knew it was time to leave. I asked Jane for
permission to die, and waited for it to happen. The crying and laughing
saved me however, as the charge disappeared into peace and physical well
being.
But not completely, after it was all over I was still a total mess
on the verge of collapse unable to breath.
That lasted for about 6 months, then I went for auditing with
Filbert which wasn't eactly pleasant, but again I had a visionary
experience that quelled the eternal fear in me about what I had done to
myself.
I saw an eternal beauty that showed me in the end I am truely a
friend of myself, the AllThatIs, and everyone else, and visa versa.
Before that moment it was just a phrase from Adore, but after that
it was real to me.
"Class is an attitude that ALL should live forever and be my
friend."
Now you gotta understand something about me, ever since the vision
that perfect certainty was a function of consciousness, I no longer
dealt in faiths or beliefs.
People ask me if I believe this or that, and I tell them, belief is
for losers and Christians.
I deal only in perfect certainties, of which there are only a
precious few:
I AM, I KNOW, I WANT, I CARE, I DO/CAUSE and I HAVE
As for proof of the dreamball theories, I am not sure that can be
proven any more than the meatball theory.
But I do bet that if one understands how one came into the
dreamtime, one should be able to figure out how to get out. Dreamtime
seems to be a chinese finger trap of sorts, coming in more puts you out.
Trying to get out, sticks you in.
So I am still working in this research area, I have made lots of
case gain, most of it no thanks to Ron Hubbard or the Church, but the
basics are all there, and Ron was definitely coming from the same place
I am.
But Ron is not scientology, Ron merely channeled it from the Gods,
so scientology stands as a thing in its own right, if you can filter out
the ego alloying crap Ron added into it.
There is a technology for freeing people from the nightmare of the
dream, that technology is built into the very nature, the warp and weave
of the dream itself, the dream tells us how it is going to be. The way
in, is the way out.
Whether you call it scientology, or adore, or clearing, or
dreamballology, it doesn't matter, it is all the same thing.
Chemistry is chemistry no matter where or who to deal with, or what
name they give to it.
Chemistry is not however Alchemy, and in just such a way
scientology is not christianity, or any other inanity what went before.
Scientology teaches that WE are responsible for our manifested
existence, WE created it, not some God we do not know and must have
faith in.
If your religion teaches you personal responsibility for all that
is manifest, then your religion is scientology by another name, wisdom
comes in many forms.
If your religion does not teach you that, but teaches you that God
created you, and you must obey God, or else, or that there is no God
except Timestone and Dust in the Wind, then your religion teaches
inanities designed to keep people in the dream rather than get them out.
God is a blame game that ends in proptiation (prayer).
There is no compromise with these things, either you are totally
responsible for your condition, or you are not.
Total responsibility means you made it, you got it. It means
knowing willing cause with full awareness of the consequences.
Either you are sovereign over yourself or you are not.
Sovereignty means you want it, you got it.
What does your religion teach?
Thus I am an excellent source of just exactly what Scientology
believes and thinks about the world, as long as you remember that
scientology is a completely different subject that the policy wrappers
Ron put around the subject to own it, control it and protect it, and how
the idiots in the Church implement it and the monkeys with e-meters
apply it.
The joke, is almost nobody in the Church really knows what the
underlying philosophy of Scientology is, they just aren't allowed to
talk about it, and they only read what they are told to read for their
post.
After a while, they find themselves getting sick from the overts
they are committing on a full time basis and they leave.
Thus there is little hope of internal correction because nobody is
there to really understand what to correct it TO.
Homer
> Homer may not always be patient and polite, but he is an intelligent
> and decent person who has played a nontrivial role in the Co$ vs the
> internet saga. One can say the same about plenty of others who have
> posted to ars over the years, but not one of them that I know of has
> defended any aspects of scientology to any significant degree for
> any significant period of time. In that respect, as far as I know,
> Homer is unique.
>
> Like I said, I'm interested in what Homer has to say. There are
> lots of threads and lots of posters on ars that I am not interested
> in. I generally just ignore them. If you think this topic is a
> waste of time, might I respectfully suggest that you consider doing
> the same?
>
>
> John
>
Mon Feb 8 00:33:53 EST 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
In alt.clearing.technology John Dorsay <restimulator@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am interested in what Homer has to say. Do I expect to agree with
> him? No. But I want to understand what it is about these topics
> that holds his interest so strongly. And Homer has been willing to
> discuss them with me.
I was and still am a meatball.
I understand the physical theory very well, educated in math,
logic, biology, chemistry, psychology, physics, computer science,
electronics, philosophy and religion, and I grew up with academic
meatballs of many persuasions, including my father who was a world
reknown physiologist and Chairman of the department of physiology at NYU
during the 50-60's.
He was an agnostic, brought up as a Christian, he kept a scientific
eye out for the need for God, and any evidence there might be for His
existence. He wrote a book called 'Man and his Gods' with a forward by
Einstein. My father's view towards Man and his Gods was not kind but
tempered by willing to see evidence if there was any.
He summed up his feelings about God at the end of the book with a
short chapter entitled 'Into whatever abyss...' wherein he wrote "Man as
a fallen angel would be ludicrous." He was a consumate scientist loved
by everyone who knew him.
One night he was sitting by my bed, I was 5 or so, and I asked him
'Daddy where did I come from?' He told me about the willie and the
wendy, and that was that. I went zooming down my memory track to see if
I could remember being born or conscieved or anything before and I
couldn't. That crashed me into being mortal as mortal comes.
When my father and mother died in the 5th grade or so, I fully
believed I lived but once and that was it bud. It made me infinitely
sour on life.
But I have never been able to accept 'mortality' as a given, even
though I would have bet on mortality up until 1972.
Nor have I ever been able to accept standard religions, offering a
God that created me against my will, dumped me in this universe to fend
for myself with Godless parents, in order to test me, or whatever his
sick agenda is.
And although I too wanted some people to enjoy hell forever, I knew
that a God of love would have another solution, and that a God the
Father would actually take care of his kids and not leave them to beat
up on each other, to test the bad by letting them bang up on the good.
I also have known since I was a kid that there was no experiment I
could do to prove I was or was not dreaming, as I could and had
replicated in a dream anything in the waking state, including not being
able to wake up when I wanted to and being absolutely convinced I was
awake when I was dreaming.
I knew that I saw the world through the rendition engine of my
consciousness, eyes are not a glass window to the PU (physical
universe), and thus I knew I could never be certain of the PU.
Then in 1972 I had a significant vision, I understood that I saw my
consciousness was capable of perfect certainty of some things, I AM, I
KNOW, I WANT and I DO, and direct perception of color forms like red and
green and all other conscious experiences, and simultaneously I saw very
clearly that a space time gizmo could not do so.
It became known as the machine certainty theorem (which google) or
The Proof for short.
Never mind the complexities of that, right or wrong, doesn't
matter, I do presently bet the vision is correct.
Bet's are bets, not certainties, and one does have to follow one's
gut.
The vision incicated to me that my consciousness was a zero
dimensional actuality that could be certain of itself and its own color
forms, because it wasn't limited by space or time, but I had an
impentrably hard time trying to figure out how a zero dimensional
graphics display could be interfaced with a 4D space and time graphics
engine, the brain.
My Cornell University professors in psych and engineering told me
that consciousness was merely a 'epiphenomenon', meaning a side result
of the brain, but it had no causal agency of it's own and could not
affect anything. Obviously if this were true, the whole of idea of
consciousness and the word itself would never be expressed by the brain
through the mouth!
In otherwords I as a conscious unit was just an observer of things,
but had no causal efficacy myself. That sent me into a despondancy
about Cornell that I have never gotten over.
Epiphenominalism is meatballism at its finest.
There are 3 versions of 'epiphenomenalism'.
1.) Consciousness is a mere epiphenomena, meaning it can display
what is going on, but can not effect what is going on at all even though
it has the illusion it can, of free will.
This version of epiphenominalism says that cause can flow from the
physical universe to consciousness, but not back again.
Actual 'goings on' are only the brain responding in a standard
mechanical manner to inputs and outputs, consciousness might be able to
see this going on, but could never affect it.
Like dominoes falling, if we could know their exact starting state,
we could compute all future outcomes.
Well plus or minus quantum mechanics :)
This was the group my profs and many people in scientific
academentia adhere to.
A few of the more enlightened like to fancy that the randomness
entered by QM allowed for 'free will', but free will is not random
behavior, it is MOVTIVATED behavior, and randomness in free is not
necessarily desirable for someone out to get what he wants, survial.
For that you need tightly motivated and computed behavior that is right
every time.
Anyhow as I said above, if consciousness were a full epiphenom,
then consciousness would know what was going on in the brain, but the
brain would never know what was going on in consciousness, as cause can
not flow from consciousness to the brain, and certainly therefore the
brain could never express the existence of consciousness for that would
certainly be cause flowing from consciousnes back to the physical
universe.
2.) Consciousness is a partial epiphenomenon, that means it can
cause things in response to brain data coming into it, but only within
itself, it can't cause anything back out into the physical universe. It
consumes energy to light up, but can't then redirect energy back into
the world.
This is of course ludicrous for the same reason, because we are now
TALKING about consciousness through our brains, and it is unlikely that
our BRAINS noticed we were conscious and self aware, and therefore it
must be our consciousness that noticed we were conscious and started
talking about it, which is clearly an outflow of cause from conciousness
through the brain into the actual world.
3.) Consciousness is a full blown phenomenon as itself, interfaced
or not with the brain as the case might be.
My vision indicated that 3 was correct.
The part of my vision that indicated that consciousness was zero
dimensional FOR SURE, indicated either that the 0D consciousness was
either interfaced with the 4D brain, or that the brain didn't exist at
all, the world really was a dream.
Suddenly a lot of things made sense from my own life, but more
importantly, once I understand the possibility that the PU was a dream,
then things like past lives, OT powers, who or what is God, all started
to fall in place inside the newly concieved dream ball theory.
I then ran into two sources of people who basically said the same
thing, one was Mahatma Rajiswar and the other was Ron Hubbard in the
Phoenix Lectures.
At first when I read the Phoenix lectures I was enraged at
'considerations take rank over the mechanics of existence.'
I went to the local group of OT's and said, "look you walk out in
front of a car and you die, no consideration is going to change that."
They said 'The world is a mockup, if you take back the postulate
that it is solid, it won't be solid for you. It may still be solid for
your body, but you will be able to move through your body, and if you
really take back the solidity postulate, your body will be able to walk
through the cars too."
Well that was it, at that point I understood that LRH was coming
from the dream ball model of existence. I was in TOTAL SHOCK, I
couldn't believe that anyone else was taking it seriously, and then the
Mahatma said the same thing, "the world is a theory", and people believe
what they want to believe in order to have a game.
Then I ran into HUNDREDS of books in the library all coming from
the same place. Old and dusty, as I guessed most wisdom was.
So my problem as a meatball was finding evidence for this dreamball
theory.
I KNEW I HAD NO EVIDENCE FOR THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE, something that
meatballs won't admit.
But I also had no evidence for the dreamball universe.
So I was at 50/50 on the matter, driving me nuts, as you can all
well attest.
Over the years after that I started to have very heavy visions, or
ascension experiences, one after the other, each one staggering in
beauty, vertigo and power. Like earthquakes, they came at any time,
crossing the street, driving the car, going to sleep at night, in dreams
after dreams, waking up, going to school, I lived with my seatbelt on.
Nothing I could show another, never out of my body, but quite
enough to show me that:
1.) God was divine
2.) God WAS the AllThatIs
3.) God was US.
In otherwords we existed prior to any created condition and thus
either created it ourselves in tandem with others, or agreed to it later
if created earlier by others.
Further I saw that me, my conscious unit, was eternal, immutable,
and thus not creatable nor destroyable.
Thus no one made me, I and everyone just simply always ARE.
Again proof? You gotta be there to see it.
I saw levels of divine friendliness to soften the hardest heart,
and divine frostiness to freeze it all over again.
From there I started to figure out how we may have created and come
into our present condition.
Our present condition is highly charged, maybe even infinitely
charged due to the losses incurred by our belief we live only once.
Most meatballs are so charged on the subject of being mortal they
will tell you that mortality is a good thing.
But anyone who has gotten BY DIRECT VISION even vaguely close to
the freedom, beauty and power of his own indestructable eternality, will
tell you otherwise.
Sorry, proof is still only for those who have been there.
What proof of eternality can I show the time bound?
Now this has been a labor of love for 30 years, I got so sick in
1991 I thought I would never live to see the light of day. I was in bed
for 6 months, eating a yogurt every 2 days, writing, writing, writing,
cogniting, having 'primal quakes' as I called them, I couldn't get it
all down fast enough.
I went through crying, vomiting, laughing, crying, vomiting,
laughing, white light blazing out of the center of my body, rose and
golden light in my dreams while angels were talking to me.
Remember the movie Ghost, those little black guys that come to suck
down the bad doers when they died. I had them running all over my veins
inside my body, I knew it was time to leave. I asked Jane for
permission to die, and waited for it to happen. The crying and laughing
saved me however, as the charge disappeared into peace and physical well
being.
But not completely, after it was all over I was still a total mess
on the verge of collapse unable to breath.
That lasted for about 6 months, then I went for auditing with
Filbert which wasn't eactly pleasant, but again I had a visionary
experience that quelled the eternal fear in me about what I had done to
myself.
I saw an eternal beauty that showed me in the end I am truely a
friend of myself, the AllThatIs, and everyone else, and visa versa.
Before that moment it was just a phrase from Adore, but after that
it was real to me.
"Class is an attitude that ALL should live forever and be my
friend."
Now you gotta understand something about me, ever since the vision
that perfect certainty was a function of consciousness, I no longer
dealt in faiths or beliefs.
People ask me if I believe this or that, and I tell them, belief is
for losers and Christians.
I deal only in perfect certainties, of which there are only a
precious few:
I AM, I KNOW, I WANT, I CARE, I DO/CAUSE and I HAVE
As for proof of the dreamball theories, I am not sure that can be
proven any more than the meatball theory.
But I do bet that if one understands how one came into the
dreamtime, one should be able to figure out how to get out. Dreamtime
seems to be a chinese finger trap of sorts, coming in more puts you out.
Trying to get out, sticks you in.
So I am still working in this research area, I have made lots of
case gain, most of it no thanks to Ron Hubbard or the Church, but the
basics are all there, and Ron was definitely coming from the same place
I am.
But Ron is not scientology, Ron merely channeled it from the Gods,
so scientology stands as a thing in its own right, if you can filter out
the ego alloying crap Ron added into it.
There is a technology for freeing people from the nightmare of the
dream, that technology is built into the very nature, the warp and weave
of the dream itself, the dream tells us how it is going to be. The way
in, is the way out.
Whether you call it scientology, or adore, or clearing, or
dreamballology, it doesn't matter, it is all the same thing.
Chemistry is chemistry no matter where or who to deal with, or what
name they give to it.
Chemistry is not however Alchemy, and in just such a way
scientology is not christianity, or any other inanity what went before.
Scientology teaches that WE are responsible for our manifested
existence, WE created it, not some God we do not know and must have
faith in.
If your religion teaches you personal responsibility for all that
is manifest, then your religion is scientology by another name, wisdom
comes in many forms.
If your religion does not teach you that, but teaches you that God
created you, and you must obey God, or else, or that there is no God
except Timestone and Dust in the Wind, then your religion teaches
inanities designed to keep people in the dream rather than get them out.
God is a blame game that ends in proptiation (prayer).
There is no compromise with these things, either you are totally
responsible for your condition, or you are not.
Total responsibility means you made it, you got it. It means
knowing willing cause with full awareness of the consequences.
Either you are sovereign over yourself or you are not.
Sovereignty means you want it, you got it.
What does your religion teach?
Thus I am an excellent source of just exactly what Scientology
believes and thinks about the world, as long as you remember that
scientology is a completely different subject that the policy wrappers
Ron put around the subject to own it, control it and protect it, and how
the idiots in the Church implement it and the monkeys with e-meters
apply it.
The joke, is almost nobody in the Church really knows what the
underlying philosophy of Scientology is, they just aren't allowed to
talk about it, and they only read what they are told to read for their
post.
After a while, they find themselves getting sick from the overts
they are committing on a full time basis and they leave.
Thus there is little hope of internal correction because nobody is
there to really understand what to correct it TO.
Homer
> Homer may not always be patient and polite, but he is an intelligent
> and decent person who has played a nontrivial role in the Co$ vs the
> internet saga. One can say the same about plenty of others who have
> posted to ars over the years, but not one of them that I know of has
> defended any aspects of scientology to any significant degree for
> any significant period of time. In that respect, as far as I know,
> Homer is unique.
>
> Like I said, I'm interested in what Homer has to say. There are
> lots of threads and lots of posters on ars that I am not interested
> in. I generally just ignore them. If you think this topic is a
> waste of time, might I respectfully suggest that you consider doing
> the same?
>
>
> John
>
Mon Feb 8 00:33:53 EST 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Saturday, December 1, 2012
CHRISTIAN-INANITY
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CHRISTIAN-INANITY
Christian-inanity is only successful with those seeking eternal
damnation for others, or absolution of full responsibility for their
'sins.'
Prayer does in fact not work, as it prepostulates an other
determinism that will accomplish things for you, but only if you are
good and pray hard enough, i.e. propitiation.
As each being IS the multi I-Am God in carnation, praying to
another, counter postulates one's own ability to pull things off
directly. Doing this long enough results in having no ability of your
own.
When the prayer to another is fullfilled, we say 'Thank you God!',
and when it isn't we wonder about ourselves.
Sicker does not sicker come.
Nothing like depending on yourself to create the willies.
"What, you are going to try to survive this disaster without asking
God for his blessing?"
Cases need to have the tendency to pray to another totally run out
of their case before their true OT abilities start to manifest
positively again.
Until then the basic operating postulate is to be a worthless
schmuck, which postulate seems to works just fine.
Homer
Richard Ford <doorman.ford@googlemail.com> wrote:
> CHRISTIANITY
>
> We often forget that Christianity is many thousands of times more
> successful than Scientology.
>
> We also forget that it makes many of the same promises. Immortality,
> miracles and so on.
>
> Many Christians believe that prayer works like a postulate- changing
> reality directly. This means that a Christian can achive full OT
> powers simply by getting on his knees and praying sincerely.
>
> WHY IS CHRISTIANITY BETTER THAN DIANETICS?
>
> 1. Christianity is a personal religion. Everyone has their own idea of
> God.
>
> 2. With Christianity you go OT on day one!
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Jan 20 17:42:18 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 1 03:06:02 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore633.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)
iD8DBQFQubpqURT1lqxE3HERAjRFAJ9OXxR/dTYt9LSGriVyggDvTUFDpgCgqaj1
YdRZR72vcWYOMv2mIHelz30=
=WNT7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CHRISTIAN-INANITY
Christian-inanity is only successful with those seeking eternal
damnation for others, or absolution of full responsibility for their
'sins.'
Prayer does in fact not work, as it prepostulates an other
determinism that will accomplish things for you, but only if you are
good and pray hard enough, i.e. propitiation.
As each being IS the multi I-Am God in carnation, praying to
another, counter postulates one's own ability to pull things off
directly. Doing this long enough results in having no ability of your
own.
When the prayer to another is fullfilled, we say 'Thank you God!',
and when it isn't we wonder about ourselves.
Sicker does not sicker come.
Nothing like depending on yourself to create the willies.
"What, you are going to try to survive this disaster without asking
God for his blessing?"
Cases need to have the tendency to pray to another totally run out
of their case before their true OT abilities start to manifest
positively again.
Until then the basic operating postulate is to be a worthless
schmuck, which postulate seems to works just fine.
Homer
Richard Ford <doorman.ford@googlemail.com> wrote:
> CHRISTIANITY
>
> We often forget that Christianity is many thousands of times more
> successful than Scientology.
>
> We also forget that it makes many of the same promises. Immortality,
> miracles and so on.
>
> Many Christians believe that prayer works like a postulate- changing
> reality directly. This means that a Christian can achive full OT
> powers simply by getting on his knees and praying sincerely.
>
> WHY IS CHRISTIANITY BETTER THAN DIANETICS?
>
> 1. Christianity is a personal religion. Everyone has their own idea of
> God.
>
> 2. With Christianity you go OT on day one!
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Jan 20 17:42:18 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 1 03:06:02 EST 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore633.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)
iD8DBQFQubpqURT1lqxE3HERAjRFAJ9OXxR/dTYt9LSGriVyggDvTUFDpgCgqaj1
YdRZR72vcWYOMv2mIHelz30=
=WNT7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)