-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
MAYA AND ILLUSION
Mickel <mickel1234@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> The Hindu system tells us about Maya.
> A surprising amount of people seem to think that Maya tells us
> that the physical is an illusion.
It does and it is. The physical is a dream, and exists only as the
dream in consciousness amongst it's co dreamers.
There is no metal or wood or plastic in a sleep dream, everything
is made of the same stuff, conscious picture stuff.
Same for waking state.
The illusion is that there exists something OUT THERE, that there
is an out there in which to put steel, wood and plastic, and that there
is cause between them.
Stuff exists, but dimensionality does not, except as holographic
illusion. There is only one stuff, conscious stuff.
> Whereas what it actually tells us is that awareness of "only"
> physical and mental life is the illusion.
Yes, this too is an illusion, the absence of ever present divinity
leads to the illusion that there is no divinity.
> It is not that the physical is all illusion.
Disagree.
> The illusion is the idea that the physical is all there is.
Agree.
> The second understanding tells us that the more we are aware of
> the physical and the less that we are aware of the spiritual the
> more deluded we are.
Yes, delusion is believing illusions to be actual.
> We could say that the above has already happened, we have
> become so acutely introverted into the physical existence that we
> no longer have much actual awareness of our spiritual nature.
Yes, the dreamer is not aware that he is dreaming.
When was the last time you had a self aware dream, a sleep dream
where you KNEW you were dreaming, and rather than being the effect of
it, you started to take control of it because you know it was only a
dream.
Same for the waking state.
It's only a dream, but a rougher tougher one than sleep dreams.
For one the waking state is a CO dream amongst many different
people all dreaming the same thing.
For two it's hard to just wake up from the waking dream and leave
it all behind without dying.
Rest clipped as correct.
Homer
Sun Dec 9 22:42:48 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 30 03:06:01 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore564.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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSwSlqURT1lqxE3HERAqt4AKCd2I2iwnUYa+nJxtD7g/fjpN/F4gCdHjiG
y0fM4lDzT7JeWWhmOcR3dig=
=ANKa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 30, 2013
Sunday, December 29, 2013
ADORE433
LIMBO IN HELL
Michael (mickel1234@blueyonder.co.uk) wrote:
>I have my own personal hell Homer, it's called Being stuck in Limbo with no
>way out.
>Mike
Yeah me too.
Adore has the following to say about hells.
Hells are mainly a matter of conjuring and wishing off.
The being conjures them up in order to wish them off on others. If
they don't accept them, or he regrets it, he ends up in the middle of
his own conjurings.
Regret can also lead him into wishing off hells onto himself.
In any case it is the effort to CAUSE a hell that leads to being an
EFFECT of a hell. The cause may come either before or after the effect.
Hells consists mostly of forevers and nevers.
FOREVER suffering, not just for a while.
NEVER being happy, not just for a while.
The opposite of a forever/never is a while.
So when running hells, one wants to find the intent to cause a
hell FOREVER.
Because the forever violates the being's own sovereign desire to
only create in cycles of a while, the more he tries to create his
forever in another the greater his own loss of sovereignty is.
Ever feel like you were hurting yourself as you tried to hurt
another. Spot the error, the forevers and nevers, in the moment, to
release it.
Having to stay in heaven forever just to make sure the other guy
stays in hell forever leads to an ARC break with heaven.
Thus winning at causing another to suffer forever, causes one to
suffer (loss of sovereignty) forever.
When one fails at creating a forever in another, he ends up hating
not having what he would hate having if he had it, namely a forever in
another.
Most dissatisfaction is this way.
Intent to destroy another's sovereignty forever leads by
definition to destruction of one's own sovereignty for exactly and
only as long as he continues to try.
It's only an apparancy in the end, but they hurt in the (mean)
while.
His greatest regret was the day he decided he had to destroy evil
forever, he postulated duality on that day, something not him, that he
didn't create, wouldn't have, shouldn't have, couldn't have, but there
it is.
That there was duality was ruin enough but his decision that the
only thing he could do about it was destroy it forever put the final
touches on it. He destroyed himself in the moment of breaking the
chalice with the detested evil. He took a loss on salvation of the
evil life form. He failed FOREVER as a messiah and as an auditor.
Destroying something forever, means forever never being able to
salvage the being and your friendship.
Attempted murder counts the same as murder.
Since hells are non optimum survival, they consist mostly of to
much of something or to little of something, mostly randomity, as
survival is optimum randomity.
So to run a hell, spot a hell, spot the intent to create that hell
in others or self, spot other's intents along the same lines, spot the
FOREVERS and NEVERS, the drama, seriousness, importance, PERMANENCE and
pain, change your mind about the forever/nevers, and run it out.
Spot how each being-an-EFFECT-hell is powered by an intent to
CAUSE hell.
Trying desperately to cause another to be an effect, puts
one at effect by prepostulation.
'You are affecting me, so I am going to affect you back!"
Trying to affect him back COMMITS to the postulate that
you can be affected by him, and thus locks it in place as long
as you continue to try to affect him back.
Spot how the attempt to create a forever/never destroys one's own
sovereignty in the act by definition.
A sovereign being has no interest in destroying the sovereignty of
another. The sovereign being is PUTTING the other sovereign being
there, no matter what the other is doing, so why would the first being
want destroy the second being forever if he is putting it there in the
first place under his own free will?
If you are running into trouble in life, just ask "How am I being
unsovereign?"
A being will start to spin just trying to conceive of a forever or
never in time. He CAN'T, because a being creates in the mere conception
of things, and time can only exist in finite whiles, no matter how long.
Thus a being burns him self out trying to cast a hell forever, a
forever in time, on to another before the other being ever receives the
gift.
Thus trying to cast another into anything forever, puts you into a
hell forever until you give it up.
The upside, is that no hell can outlast a true confession.
"The way to happiness is a true confession.
However not one ever yet gleaned." - Electra
Change of hell comes about from change of consideration of
forever/never into a while.
If you wish hell on another forever you will be in a hell forever,
until you give it up.
"Since you can not die, you do not deserve to die or suffer
forever, no matter what you do, have done, or will do, and
your body does not deserve to be hurt or damaged for anything YOU
have done.
When Earth learns these two lessons, there will be peace
on Earth and good will towards men.
Until then, there will be suffering forever." - Adore
If you wish a hell on another only for a while, your own hell will
vanish. "For a while" maintains class, that all should live forever
(out of time) and be my friend.
Its ok to do anything to anyone for a while, not ok to do anything
to anyone forever (in time).
Hells only persist in the absence of class.
E/P is recovery of operating sovereignty.
Tue Feb 6 22:55:41 EST 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Michael (mickel1234@blueyonder.co.uk) wrote:
>I have my own personal hell Homer, it's called Being stuck in Limbo with no
>way out.
>Mike
Yeah me too.
Adore has the following to say about hells.
Hells are mainly a matter of conjuring and wishing off.
The being conjures them up in order to wish them off on others. If
they don't accept them, or he regrets it, he ends up in the middle of
his own conjurings.
Regret can also lead him into wishing off hells onto himself.
In any case it is the effort to CAUSE a hell that leads to being an
EFFECT of a hell. The cause may come either before or after the effect.
Hells consists mostly of forevers and nevers.
FOREVER suffering, not just for a while.
NEVER being happy, not just for a while.
The opposite of a forever/never is a while.
So when running hells, one wants to find the intent to cause a
hell FOREVER.
Because the forever violates the being's own sovereign desire to
only create in cycles of a while, the more he tries to create his
forever in another the greater his own loss of sovereignty is.
Ever feel like you were hurting yourself as you tried to hurt
another. Spot the error, the forevers and nevers, in the moment, to
release it.
Having to stay in heaven forever just to make sure the other guy
stays in hell forever leads to an ARC break with heaven.
Thus winning at causing another to suffer forever, causes one to
suffer (loss of sovereignty) forever.
When one fails at creating a forever in another, he ends up hating
not having what he would hate having if he had it, namely a forever in
another.
Most dissatisfaction is this way.
Intent to destroy another's sovereignty forever leads by
definition to destruction of one's own sovereignty for exactly and
only as long as he continues to try.
It's only an apparancy in the end, but they hurt in the (mean)
while.
His greatest regret was the day he decided he had to destroy evil
forever, he postulated duality on that day, something not him, that he
didn't create, wouldn't have, shouldn't have, couldn't have, but there
it is.
That there was duality was ruin enough but his decision that the
only thing he could do about it was destroy it forever put the final
touches on it. He destroyed himself in the moment of breaking the
chalice with the detested evil. He took a loss on salvation of the
evil life form. He failed FOREVER as a messiah and as an auditor.
Destroying something forever, means forever never being able to
salvage the being and your friendship.
Attempted murder counts the same as murder.
Since hells are non optimum survival, they consist mostly of to
much of something or to little of something, mostly randomity, as
survival is optimum randomity.
So to run a hell, spot a hell, spot the intent to create that hell
in others or self, spot other's intents along the same lines, spot the
FOREVERS and NEVERS, the drama, seriousness, importance, PERMANENCE and
pain, change your mind about the forever/nevers, and run it out.
Spot how each being-an-EFFECT-hell is powered by an intent to
CAUSE hell.
Trying desperately to cause another to be an effect, puts
one at effect by prepostulation.
'You are affecting me, so I am going to affect you back!"
Trying to affect him back COMMITS to the postulate that
you can be affected by him, and thus locks it in place as long
as you continue to try to affect him back.
Spot how the attempt to create a forever/never destroys one's own
sovereignty in the act by definition.
A sovereign being has no interest in destroying the sovereignty of
another. The sovereign being is PUTTING the other sovereign being
there, no matter what the other is doing, so why would the first being
want destroy the second being forever if he is putting it there in the
first place under his own free will?
If you are running into trouble in life, just ask "How am I being
unsovereign?"
A being will start to spin just trying to conceive of a forever or
never in time. He CAN'T, because a being creates in the mere conception
of things, and time can only exist in finite whiles, no matter how long.
Thus a being burns him self out trying to cast a hell forever, a
forever in time, on to another before the other being ever receives the
gift.
Thus trying to cast another into anything forever, puts you into a
hell forever until you give it up.
The upside, is that no hell can outlast a true confession.
"The way to happiness is a true confession.
However not one ever yet gleaned." - Electra
Change of hell comes about from change of consideration of
forever/never into a while.
If you wish hell on another forever you will be in a hell forever,
until you give it up.
"Since you can not die, you do not deserve to die or suffer
forever, no matter what you do, have done, or will do, and
your body does not deserve to be hurt or damaged for anything YOU
have done.
When Earth learns these two lessons, there will be peace
on Earth and good will towards men.
Until then, there will be suffering forever." - Adore
If you wish a hell on another only for a while, your own hell will
vanish. "For a while" maintains class, that all should live forever
(out of time) and be my friend.
Its ok to do anything to anyone for a while, not ok to do anything
to anyone forever (in time).
Hells only persist in the absence of class.
E/P is recovery of operating sovereignty.
Tue Feb 6 22:55:41 EST 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, December 28, 2013
ADORE478 (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 03:06:01 -0500 (EST)
From: homer@lightlink.com
To: homer@lightlink.com
Subject: ADORE478
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BODY THETANS AGAIN
roboposter@lightlink.com wrote:
>I explore many ideas, fun isn't it, but then I go out and dig the garden
>(chop wood) and talk to lots of people everyday, If I have BTs or entities
>of some sort, the little fuckers don't get a look in because I am so busy
>with living life.
Either that or you are being one while chopping. :)
What's his name? What's his job title? How many is he?
1.) BT's aren't little. Excessive amounts of little BT's is a
focus problem. If your BT's can't pick you up and throw you across the
room, you just ain't paying attention.
2.) Wanna see a BT right now?
Close one eye and look at the world. You see that image you are
seeing? That's a BT glowing in the void. The visual world is like a
glow in the dark tatto on the BT's substrate.
Now close the other eye and look out through the other. That image
is a second BT glowing in the void.
Part of the reason people can't exteriorize is they try to take
their 'vision of the world' with them, and they end up ripping those two
BT's out of the body's head which will kill it.
The exterior world does not look like the two vision BT's are
showing it to you.
Homer
>Have fun.
>Mike
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Mar 31 00:35:01 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 28 03:06:01 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore478.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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSvoZpURT1lqxE3HERAgL2AKDQhvtmV2OVhp/NkB1IftYonKPviACgl+Ak
UQS17nJmZPicF+BjEB3wCcQ=
=4TVF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 03:06:01 -0500 (EST)
From: homer@lightlink.com
To: homer@lightlink.com
Subject: ADORE478
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BODY THETANS AGAIN
roboposter@lightlink.com wrote:
>I explore many ideas, fun isn't it, but then I go out and dig the garden
>(chop wood) and talk to lots of people everyday, If I have BTs or entities
>of some sort, the little fuckers don't get a look in because I am so busy
>with living life.
Either that or you are being one while chopping. :)
What's his name? What's his job title? How many is he?
1.) BT's aren't little. Excessive amounts of little BT's is a
focus problem. If your BT's can't pick you up and throw you across the
room, you just ain't paying attention.
2.) Wanna see a BT right now?
Close one eye and look at the world. You see that image you are
seeing? That's a BT glowing in the void. The visual world is like a
glow in the dark tatto on the BT's substrate.
Now close the other eye and look out through the other. That image
is a second BT glowing in the void.
Part of the reason people can't exteriorize is they try to take
their 'vision of the world' with them, and they end up ripping those two
BT's out of the body's head which will kill it.
The exterior world does not look like the two vision BT's are
showing it to you.
Homer
>Have fun.
>Mike
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Mar 31 00:35:01 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 28 03:06:01 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore478.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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSvoZpURT1lqxE3HERAgL2AKDQhvtmV2OVhp/NkB1IftYonKPviACgl+Ak
UQS17nJmZPicF+BjEB3wCcQ=
=4TVF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, December 27, 2013
ADORE302
DWINDLING SPIRAL
Muldoon (brian9511@dslextreme.com) wrote:
>Add to the above the belief in Hubbard's A) "dwindling spiral,"
The dwindling spiral is self evident, 'eventually all become
marbles on the thetan plane' - Adore
The spiral is caused by the hypocrisy whirlpool, namely overts
against enemies, then regret followed by becoming the enemy and further
overts against your original group, back and forth, around and around,
lifetime after lifetime.
Jew -> Christian -> Nazi -> Sweet Old Lady -> Jew etc.
"The Hypocrisy Whirlpool is powered by Love and High Regret between
High Friends.
If the Jews keep it up they gonna become Christians.
If the Christians keep it up they gonna become Nazi's.
If the Nazi's keep it up, they gonna become Sweet Old Ladies.
And if they are sweet enough for long enough, they gonna become
Jews again.
Eventually ALL become marbles on the thetan plane.
How do you know a Jew that was once a Nazi?
Show them these words, they will scream crosses of flames.
You can always tell a sweet old lady who was a past life Nazi.
They petty-fog, petty-whimper, petty-tone and petty-posh you death.
Their intention is suffocation of interest.
The result is suffocating panic about suffocating panic.
Serves you right." - Adore
Every ded justified by a dedex adds to the dwindling spiral.
Every motivator used to justify a later or earlier overt act adds
to the dwindling spiral.
Eventually people become 'no dwindling spiral cases'.
"Medusa is the Devil's Harem.
The Christians like to tell you about all the fire and brimstone in
hell. The fail to tell you about all the Medusa's that run around
chasing everyone until they are rendered stone.
Fire and Brimstone.
Fitting grave for a Nazi, eh?
Flaming marble with a flaming cross.
Forever for free." - Adore
and B)
>Xenu and "Incident 1" and "Incident 2",
Neither Xenu, incident 1 or incident 2 are real to me, however
clustering of beings is very real to me as are the existence of carnate
and discarnate beings.
The more real I consider them, the more real they become.
If you say to someone 'You are not real!' they will tend to not
talk to you :)
Surely Hubbard's descriptions of time place form and event of OT
III and other cosmic history can be held in question.
etc., then toss in C) the Fair
>Game and SP "tech," D) inflated ego and petty anger, E) and use of
>derisive terms such as "wogs," and, well - one can get an idea of the
>infection that Hubbard has loosed upon the Earth.
Your derisiveness is without match.
Hitler should have been fair gamed early on and except for the
cowardice of many who failed to kamikazee his sorry ass into next
tuesday, much of the whole holocaust might never have happened.
Inflated ego's are a problem, but the attackers are the meatballs
not the dreamballs. I have had more meatballs tell me I belong in a
straight jacket. After a while I return in kind, "kick into abyss and
cover with tar and spaghetti sauce."
>Then compare the above with the best in Scientology and Dianetics from
>the 1950s and the early 1960s.
Early Scientology was all about entities.
Homer
Fri Dec 30 15:28:17 EST 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Muldoon (brian9511@dslextreme.com) wrote:
>Add to the above the belief in Hubbard's A) "dwindling spiral,"
The dwindling spiral is self evident, 'eventually all become
marbles on the thetan plane' - Adore
The spiral is caused by the hypocrisy whirlpool, namely overts
against enemies, then regret followed by becoming the enemy and further
overts against your original group, back and forth, around and around,
lifetime after lifetime.
Jew -> Christian -> Nazi -> Sweet Old Lady -> Jew etc.
"The Hypocrisy Whirlpool is powered by Love and High Regret between
High Friends.
If the Jews keep it up they gonna become Christians.
If the Christians keep it up they gonna become Nazi's.
If the Nazi's keep it up, they gonna become Sweet Old Ladies.
And if they are sweet enough for long enough, they gonna become
Jews again.
Eventually ALL become marbles on the thetan plane.
How do you know a Jew that was once a Nazi?
Show them these words, they will scream crosses of flames.
You can always tell a sweet old lady who was a past life Nazi.
They petty-fog, petty-whimper, petty-tone and petty-posh you death.
Their intention is suffocation of interest.
The result is suffocating panic about suffocating panic.
Serves you right." - Adore
Every ded justified by a dedex adds to the dwindling spiral.
Every motivator used to justify a later or earlier overt act adds
to the dwindling spiral.
Eventually people become 'no dwindling spiral cases'.
"Medusa is the Devil's Harem.
The Christians like to tell you about all the fire and brimstone in
hell. The fail to tell you about all the Medusa's that run around
chasing everyone until they are rendered stone.
Fire and Brimstone.
Fitting grave for a Nazi, eh?
Flaming marble with a flaming cross.
Forever for free." - Adore
and B)
>Xenu and "Incident 1" and "Incident 2",
Neither Xenu, incident 1 or incident 2 are real to me, however
clustering of beings is very real to me as are the existence of carnate
and discarnate beings.
The more real I consider them, the more real they become.
If you say to someone 'You are not real!' they will tend to not
talk to you :)
Surely Hubbard's descriptions of time place form and event of OT
III and other cosmic history can be held in question.
etc., then toss in C) the Fair
>Game and SP "tech," D) inflated ego and petty anger, E) and use of
>derisive terms such as "wogs," and, well - one can get an idea of the
>infection that Hubbard has loosed upon the Earth.
Your derisiveness is without match.
Hitler should have been fair gamed early on and except for the
cowardice of many who failed to kamikazee his sorry ass into next
tuesday, much of the whole holocaust might never have happened.
Inflated ego's are a problem, but the attackers are the meatballs
not the dreamballs. I have had more meatballs tell me I belong in a
straight jacket. After a while I return in kind, "kick into abyss and
cover with tar and spaghetti sauce."
>Then compare the above with the best in Scientology and Dianetics from
>the 1950s and the early 1960s.
Early Scientology was all about entities.
Homer
Fri Dec 30 15:28:17 EST 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, December 26, 2013
ADORE425 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WANT AND DON'T WANT
ANDs run, ORs do not.
Run,
What do you want? What do you not want?
You won't get anywhere.
You want ONE item that answers BOTH questions at the same time.
If the item is a dicom or one side of a dicom, then both sides of
the dicom must answer both questions at the same time.
This I want good and I don't want bad is for the birds.
"What do you want and not want at the same time?"
This will produce results beyond your wildest dreams.
You will release things and never know what they were. You will
be able to sell the excess power blowing off from your case to the
local municipality.
Yes the guy is nuts, no doubt about it, the problem is he is nuts
all the way up and down the tone scale.
Every tone or item he is stuck in is an AND with its opposite,
negative or opposing item.
These want and not want items produce hysteria which is half way
down the tone scale caused by balanced forces producing lots of energy
going nowhere.
Say the guy says I want to be patient and I don't want to be
patient. Run the hysteria and force off the want/notwant ridge, then
find its opposite and run the same thing on that.
Not a person alive who isn't stuck in patience/hurry, although
not necessary in those words. Find your own items, your life depends
on it.
The above process will run like wildfire on indecipherable black
BT masses, the BT is indecipherable because he wants and doesn't want
the same thing at the same time.
So after the usual who are you, what are you, how many are you
fails to work, try asking what do you want AND not want?
Don't forget to ask the BT who am I, what am I, how many am I,
what do I WANT AND DON'T WANT etc. Plaguing the BT about himself
sometimes doesn't work. Asking the BT about yourself and then
themselves back and forth blows them into fairy dust.
Its a sight that has to be seen to be believed.
Remember getting answers is not important, asking the question
is. You may never get the answer, fairy dust doesn't talk, but the
question run alternately and repetitively in the proper rhythm, will
blow the ridge, BT, or problem to kingdom come.
Beings don't care about answers, they care about questions, the
QUESTION they are stuck in IS the answer they are looking for.
"How can I be patient and hurry at the same time please?"
You don't care WHAT they want to be patient or are in a hurry
about, you want to make very sure that when they are dramatizing
patience/hurry they damn well know they are doing it, then they will
live self releasing rather than self sinking lives.
Running ANDs will produce certainty that the tech works, if
nothing else has, because case consists of ANDS.
Basically there never was anything else, AND's form the central
problem core of the case.
The guy wants and he doesn't want the same thing at the same
time, what's he going to do? Nothing but sink into timelessness where
every negative thing he thinks comes true upon the mere conception of
it.
That's hell.
He wanted that too and didn't want it.
So it continues.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Jan 30 00:22:07 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 26 03:06:01 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore425.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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSu+NpURT1lqxE3HERAlUVAKCRnIvhz1D4cZ7lcKeUCey2hNecXwCeIkZA
p7X/sBufrHrRCzbsQDbewI4=
=stk4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WANT AND DON'T WANT
ANDs run, ORs do not.
Run,
What do you want? What do you not want?
You won't get anywhere.
You want ONE item that answers BOTH questions at the same time.
If the item is a dicom or one side of a dicom, then both sides of
the dicom must answer both questions at the same time.
This I want good and I don't want bad is for the birds.
"What do you want and not want at the same time?"
This will produce results beyond your wildest dreams.
You will release things and never know what they were. You will
be able to sell the excess power blowing off from your case to the
local municipality.
Yes the guy is nuts, no doubt about it, the problem is he is nuts
all the way up and down the tone scale.
Every tone or item he is stuck in is an AND with its opposite,
negative or opposing item.
These want and not want items produce hysteria which is half way
down the tone scale caused by balanced forces producing lots of energy
going nowhere.
Say the guy says I want to be patient and I don't want to be
patient. Run the hysteria and force off the want/notwant ridge, then
find its opposite and run the same thing on that.
Not a person alive who isn't stuck in patience/hurry, although
not necessary in those words. Find your own items, your life depends
on it.
The above process will run like wildfire on indecipherable black
BT masses, the BT is indecipherable because he wants and doesn't want
the same thing at the same time.
So after the usual who are you, what are you, how many are you
fails to work, try asking what do you want AND not want?
Don't forget to ask the BT who am I, what am I, how many am I,
what do I WANT AND DON'T WANT etc. Plaguing the BT about himself
sometimes doesn't work. Asking the BT about yourself and then
themselves back and forth blows them into fairy dust.
Its a sight that has to be seen to be believed.
Remember getting answers is not important, asking the question
is. You may never get the answer, fairy dust doesn't talk, but the
question run alternately and repetitively in the proper rhythm, will
blow the ridge, BT, or problem to kingdom come.
Beings don't care about answers, they care about questions, the
QUESTION they are stuck in IS the answer they are looking for.
"How can I be patient and hurry at the same time please?"
You don't care WHAT they want to be patient or are in a hurry
about, you want to make very sure that when they are dramatizing
patience/hurry they damn well know they are doing it, then they will
live self releasing rather than self sinking lives.
Running ANDs will produce certainty that the tech works, if
nothing else has, because case consists of ANDS.
Basically there never was anything else, AND's form the central
problem core of the case.
The guy wants and he doesn't want the same thing at the same
time, what's he going to do? Nothing but sink into timelessness where
every negative thing he thinks comes true upon the mere conception of
it.
That's hell.
He wanted that too and didn't want it.
So it continues.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Jan 30 00:22:07 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 26 03:06:01 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore425.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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSu+NpURT1lqxE3HERAlUVAKCRnIvhz1D4cZ7lcKeUCey2hNecXwCeIkZA
p7X/sBufrHrRCzbsQDbewI4=
=stk4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ACT55 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
POWER AND WILLINGNESS
ACT - 55
13 March 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
People have the causal relationship between power and willingness
reversed.
They think that if only they just had enough power, they would be
willing to face what ever it is that is bothering them.
If they could just muster enough armies and force, they would be
willing to confront what opposed them.
But this is not true. They would at best be willing to DESTROY
what opposed them. They never would become willing to HAVE BE what
opposed them.
People think that willingness comes from power. The truth is power
comes from willingness. Once you are willing to have something BE, you
will find that you have all the power at your command you could ever
want to handle and deal with what opposes you.
Notice I said to handle and to deal with, not to destroy.
The purpose of power and force is never to destroy, but to dance
with, to charm and to win over to your side.
The reason this is so is because to the degree that you oppose
something you ASSIGN IT POWER. You have power, then you give it away to
what opposes you, so of course you no longer have any power to destroy
it with. The more you want to destroy it forever the more power you
have assigned to it in your consideration that it is dangerous and must
never be allowed to exist.
You use half your power to create your adversary and PUT IT THERE,
and the other half of your power to make it dangerous to you. With what
power then are you going to destroy it with?
The process of charming your enemy is the process of taking back
the power you assigned to it in making it dangerous to you. That way
you will have half your power invested in putting it there, and half
your power invested in being able to Co Operate with it to everyone's
benefit.
This only works because Life is a Dream Machine.
Apparently it is a Joke too.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 25 03:06:01 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act55.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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSupHpURT1lqxE3HERAgq6AKC93uESraMZghSFUNYfXI96kK8VBwCgvHpj
Ag5AwOftfoPhSlPqsPjQw5g=
=6ymr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
POWER AND WILLINGNESS
ACT - 55
13 March 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
People have the causal relationship between power and willingness
reversed.
They think that if only they just had enough power, they would be
willing to face what ever it is that is bothering them.
If they could just muster enough armies and force, they would be
willing to confront what opposed them.
But this is not true. They would at best be willing to DESTROY
what opposed them. They never would become willing to HAVE BE what
opposed them.
People think that willingness comes from power. The truth is power
comes from willingness. Once you are willing to have something BE, you
will find that you have all the power at your command you could ever
want to handle and deal with what opposes you.
Notice I said to handle and to deal with, not to destroy.
The purpose of power and force is never to destroy, but to dance
with, to charm and to win over to your side.
The reason this is so is because to the degree that you oppose
something you ASSIGN IT POWER. You have power, then you give it away to
what opposes you, so of course you no longer have any power to destroy
it with. The more you want to destroy it forever the more power you
have assigned to it in your consideration that it is dangerous and must
never be allowed to exist.
You use half your power to create your adversary and PUT IT THERE,
and the other half of your power to make it dangerous to you. With what
power then are you going to destroy it with?
The process of charming your enemy is the process of taking back
the power you assigned to it in making it dangerous to you. That way
you will have half your power invested in putting it there, and half
your power invested in being able to Co Operate with it to everyone's
benefit.
This only works because Life is a Dream Machine.
Apparently it is a Joke too.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 25 03:06:01 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act55.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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSupHpURT1lqxE3HERAgq6AKC93uESraMZghSFUNYfXI96kK8VBwCgvHpj
Ag5AwOftfoPhSlPqsPjQw5g=
=6ymr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
ADORE508
06/06/07 Wednesday 01:05am EST
06/23/09 Tuesday 01:37am EST
PURPOSE, ORIGINATION and MOCKUPS
When you first ask the pc 'Whasamatter?', he will tell you all
about his 'hard to confront' items.
He will talk and talk and talk and get sicker and sicker, because
not one of these items is anything but a smoke screen for what he really
can't confront and what is really wrong with him.
Every one of these things that the pc complains about gets its
energy and stems from a staggering, utter unwillingness to know
something else.
In fact the items he talks about HELP him continue to not know his
true items, because he is successfully running an artful dodge on his
true items, namely not knowing the true items BY knowing or trying to
know about the false items.
When he finally comes up to realizing this, he will stop all the
struggle, and self auditing and trying to know, and get back to being
quite happy not knowing and making damn sure it stays that way (for a
while).
"You can not know anything by not knowing.
You can know anything by not knowing.
But only if you pride not knowing.
And pride knowing and not knowing only proud knowledge." - Adore
If he can't confront it, he won't know about it.
Thus all this 'trying to know' is bogus. He knows damn well that
if he just settles down into not knowing about it, he WILL start to know
about it spontaneously, probably before he is 'ready' for it.
He complains about not knowing, but really has too little not
knowing. He had to create false knowing and false trying to know in
order to keep the not knowing safely in place, because not knowing is
inherently self erasing when done knowingly!
There are two rules in auditing, the first is more generally true
than the second.
The first rule is, only the pc knows what is wrong with him.
Worded differently, only the pc has a clue what is wrong with him.
That means the auditor should not evaluate for the pc or tell him
what his item is, period.
The second rule is, if the pc knows about it, it isn't what is
wrong with him.
Worded differently, the pc hasn't a clue what is wrong with him.
That means you continue running the superficial garbage just long
enough for the pc to realize its all garbage and no longer, certainly
don't spend hours and hours running the pc's havingness into the ground
with it.
Asking a pc 'Whasamatter?' is a sure fire way for the pc to hand
you endless problems that are actually SOLUTIONS to him, and thus his
havingness falls like a lead balloon as you take the force out of his
solutions.
People will hate you for as-ising their solutions for them, unless
you are prepared to handle the underlying problem QUICK!
One real problem here is Q&A, the auditor says "Whasamatter?" the
pc says, "Oh my mother insulted me again", the auditor says "Ah, your
mother, of course, tell me about your mother."
GOD DAMN FLUNK!
Thus if you are going to start a session with 'Ok so Whasamatter?"
you had better FINISH the session 300 commands later with the same
question!
Then your pc might get a hint that what's going on is he is not
knowing something so ferocious that he has filled his entire life with
garbage just to forget about it.
But the other real problem is simply, if the pc knows about it, its
a waste of time auditing it!
In fact it is a gross auditing error because it runs the pc's
havingness down.
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC
Now here is the truth about evaluation.
The auditor DOES know exactly what is wrong with the pc *IN
GENERAL*, at the ONE level.
But only the pc knows what is wrong with him *IN SPECIFIC*, at the
MANY level, but if he is chattering all about it up front, it ain't it.
Thus the auditor MUST evaluate for the pc by choosing the general
process to run, but must never evaluate for the pc as to the E/P or
specific item that needs to be found.
The general item has its roots in the ONE, it is the same for
everyone, the specific item has its roots in the MANY, it is different
for each individual.
Thus the auditor starts at the ONE, where we are all one being, and
works down from there into the MANY, the specific for each different
being.
From this we can state a little rule which says, the auditor knows
the general and not the specific, and the pc knows the specific but not
the general.
That is why the pc needs an auditor at first to help him with the
general. But in the mean time, the pc doesn't consciously know the
specific either, because he has long ago entombed it in the mausoleum of
his life.
At the moment the auditor has chosen the general process he has
already evaluated the ONE for the pc, and thus once he starts running
that process, any answer which is a specific, must be the pc's, not the
auditor's, because the auditor has no clue.
The pc will EXPECT this evaluation to take place by the auditor
from the ONE, or else the pc won't go into session at all.
If the auditor is not in contact enough with the ONE to be able to
create the presence of the general evaluation, the pc will sense this
and bolt.
In session is defined by LRH as interested in own case and willing
to talk to the auditor.
It can further be defined as the auditor is asking the questions
and the pc is answering.
The second the pc turns it around and starts asking questions and
the auditor is answering them, guess who is the pc?
Some pc's are very skilled at this, they just want some help,
spelled advice. Such pc's turn the session around from the word go.
Some auditors are very skilled at billing the pc for this time, as
there is no need to audit the pc which is a hell of alot harder than
giving useless advice and opinions to the pc.
IN SESSION means auditor asks the questions and pc answers.
OUT OF SESSION means pc asks the questions and auditor answers.
IN SESSION means auditor says "Whatsit?" and pc says "Itsa".
OUT OF SESSION means pc says "Whatsit?" and auditor says "Itsa".
That pretty much defines evaulation for you, and its a high risk,
high crime.
It will put the pc INSTANTLY out of session, but they will continue
to ask and pay for advice forever afterwards.
To absolutely no avail.
By the way for ISNESS cases without a lot of not know on their
case, whatsit and itsa may work well, but for seriously far gone not
isness cases like we are talking about here, its a waste of time.
Why are you asking him 'Whatsit?'. The pc hasn't a clue what it
is. Why are you asking him to look, he CAN'T look, it just gives him a
loss.
The pc has been not looking BY looking (at something else) for
eons, the more you ask him to look the more he will not look.
You are going to win doing this?
Most case failures can be attributed to this one cause, running
ISNESS level processes on a NOTISNESS case.
Auditor says "Whatsit", pc says "I dont know".
Usual answer is to get the pc into something lighter. His bank
weighs 40 tons and we are going to run something lighter?
Something lighter = no auditing = treason.
Much better to simply run the command to create the not isness in
the first place.
Prepchecks approach doing this indirectly:
"Has anything been not-ised?"
"Has anything been made nothing of?"
So what's wrong with these?
Well in the first place they are QUESTIONS, questions are evil.
Tring to know locks in not know.
Secondly they direct the pc's attention to his memory to see if he
has a MEMORY of not-ising something. Efforts to not-is are not recorded
in memory in a way they can be accessed easily.
The pc is busy not knowing, you expect him to have a clear memory
of not knowing?
And lastly questions just don't carry the punch of a direct
command:
Spot NO not-ising.
Spot SOME not-ising.
The pc is going to turn it into a question anyhow:
"Gee, I wonder what I have been not-ising?"
so you might as well make it as hard as possible for the pc to do
this by keeping the flow of commands going smoothly enough that the pc
doesn't have a moment's chance to formulate a question out of it.
ASKING 'WHAT AM I NOT-ISING?' IS NOT RUNNING THE AUDITING COMMAND
"NOT-IS SOMETHING!"
You understand this? If not read it again until you do.
You can't not-is something and ask "what am I not-ising?" at
the same time!
Once you get a pc smoothly into running commands mode, you will see
the damage done by asking a single question that throws him over into
question asking mode again.
You might as well scramble his entire bank.
Not know is like taffy, questions put it through the taffy wringer.
Stay away from asking questions looking for answers, audit only
with commands. Question/Answer pairs will arise on their own.
Remember asking the pc WHAT he is not-ising is asking him to look
through the not-isness to find what is underneath. This is frankly
impossible as long as the not-is is there.
It is treating a not-isness case as an isness case who CAN see what
is there.
You don't want the pc to look at what is under the not-isness, you
want him to look AT the not-ising process itself in present time.
In other words you want him to stop not-ising not-ising, so you get
him to practice not-ising knowingly, until he nails the not-ising he has
been doing unknowingly. Then question and answer will appear.
What is underneath will show on its own once the not-ising is
as-ised.
"Spot the effort to not know something."
"Get the idea of not knowing something."
"Not know something".
"Not know an effort to not know."
"Spot an effort to not know a purpose".
"Spot an effort to not originate."
That's what he is doing anyhow, and getting him to do it
consciously will cause it to become self vanishing and startle the hell
out of the pc when something actually turns on.
The auditor may have a heart attack and jump out the window, but
the pc will get better and be left crying and laughing his eyes out,
because he has found his personal fountain head of love again.
The pc may have informational questions before session which the
auditor should address,
The PC may ask, "Will this hurt"?
Answer kindly and quickly "I do hope so."
Be sure to explain the difference between dull chronic pains
(grind) and loud acute pains (blowoff).
If the pc doesn't scream "OW!" at the top of his lungs once in a
while, well what are you auditing, the Pablum Rundown?
And there will probably be basic indoctrination as to what and why
the pc should be there and get auditing, such as what is provided below.
BUT NOT DURING SESSION.
Not after you have said "TITS!" (This Is The Session.)
Once a session has started, that's it with the pc's questions, he
can originate, even originate a question, but never let the pc put you
into answer mode.
"That's a good question you got there, perhaps you might give me a
few answers..."
Then get back to the process, "
"That was interesting, thank you for telling me that ...so spot
no notisness."
And even before session don't make a big deal out of answering the
pc's questions, he knows damn well why he is there, he just wants to
know if you know also.
*EVERYTHING* beyond that is a pc's pretense designed to forget
about things more.
The pc is a MASTER at not knowing BY asking questions.
He is running one of the deepest most fundamental service fac
computations in existence, the way to not know an answer is to ask
questions. It is the effort to not know A by trying to know B.
The guy with all the questions, is trying the hardest to not know,
and all his questions will be about everything but.
You got a white colar on? He KNOWS what he is there for.
But man is he wondering if you do.
He has a whole track of white colars that pretended to know, but
didn't know. Worse they wanted the pc to help *THEM* continue to not
know!
"Today we are going to audit the Pablum Rundown, so we can all
continue to not know. The registrar is this way..."
REMEMBER THE PC KNOWS, even the woggie on the street knows.
Natter merely means you have missed it, you have helped him in his
pretense that nothing is wrong, and boy DOES THAT HURT. He has to
practically kill himself to not know what he is not knowing.
Your preclear just doesn't have it to close his pandora's box
once you have nicked it open a bit.
What the pc wants to know is, if you know how much he is not knowing
and with how much force.
If he gets the feeling you have been there and lived to tell the
tale, all will be well. If he feels you are a twit with no confront at
all for force and not know, or worse he thinks you are trying to subsume
him into YOUR OWN need to not know, then HE WILL EAT YOU.
YUM FOOD, fresh foolish auditor meat, bringing me stupid questions.
So here is a basic general truth that works for all pc's, that a
process can be built around and run on anyone.
This starts the session by properly evaluating for the pc from the
ONE, thus putting the pc happily in session because he knows his auditor
knows too.
With a properly formulated ONE question, the pc and auditor are
one, because the question will indicate deeply to the pc giving him the
feeling the auditor knows the pc from the inside out, IN GENERAL.
That's called 'pc interest'.
In sessionness = relief.
OK, here then is some general brainwash or indoctrination, the
auditor does NOT have to teach this to the pc, but the auditor had
better damn well know it himself.
PURPOSES, ORIGINATIONS AND MOCKUPS
Prime purposes give rise to originations of communication.
Originations of communication are presented as mockups.
Mockups are full surround sound 3D holographic mental images.
When a preclear mocks up something, he IS IT, mocking up is an
act of BEING not LOOKING. After he mocks something up, he can separate
from it, and look at it.
Words are a via to mockups, the pc sees it as a mockup, tries to
get it across to others as a mockup, and will lower himself to using
words for those who can't BE or see his mockups directly.
If I BE a pink elephant, and you can BE a pink elephant too, then
we are in direct telepathic resonation with each other, as everything I
choose to BE, you become too. That's 'seeing' each other's mockups.
People think "Oh I am not powerful enough to get someone else to
see my mockups."
No, any being can shut out anyone else's mockups he wants to. If
he can't see your mockups, no matter how faintly, that's his problem not
yours. Taking it on as your problem is a wrong indication about the
severity of his condition, and will get you auditing you rather than
him.
Yet a pc can be in the odd position of not being able to see his
own mockups!
Nice. But its the same causal principle, a being can block out
anyone's mockups including his own. So if you can't get through to him,
its his fault, and if you can't get through to you, its your fault.
Not being able to see one's own mockups arises from the basic
causal equation we laid out above:
PURPOSE -> WORTHWHILE ORIGINATION OF COMMUNICATION -> MOCKUPS.
Turn it around and we get
NO MOCKUPS -> NO WORTHWHILE ORIGINATION OF COMMUNICATION -> NO
PURPOSE
So there we have the basic not know on the case and the basic
dicoms that need to be run.
NO PURPOSE - SOME PURPOSE
NO ORIGINATION - SOME ORIGINATION
NO MOCKUPS - SOME MOCKUPS
Loneliness by the way is simply having no reason to originate to
another, or to receive an origination from another.
Deeper, one can be alone amongst millions chattering away with you
forever, as long as no one is chattering about *PURPOSE*.
The minute purpose comes up, interest comes up, and interest means
no longer lonely, even if you are the only being who ever lived.
People who have lost their purpose, think they need others to have
purpose. That might be true at a practical level of doing something
about that purpose, but having purpose is something a being has alone
anyhow and gives him reason to be. Others are merely icing on the cake.
It is tempting to blame others for not being interested in your
originations, and that may well be, but believe me, if you could
originate a communication of worth, a REAL origination, they would
become just fascinated by you, and follow you around like a puppy dog
that just found a new friend.
Imagine you sitting in a huge beautiful plaza with thousands of
people crossing it every day, without one thing to say to anyone of them
for the rest of your life.
No reason to get up and move in any direction means no
communication terminals of worth in any direction.
Which means no purpose of worth in any direction.
Imagine sitting in a chair alone for a few hours and never once
having a single interesting thought occur to you. This can cause untold
panic in a being, who then feels he must DO something to get interested.
No, no interest means no purpose. Once purpose is recovered, you
CAN'T sit in a chair alone for an hour and not have so many interesting
thoughts you don't know what to do with them all.
Invisibility of original purpose, no mockups, dead silence on
everything of importance to both sides, and a substitute purpose that
strangles the being to death with every step he takes pursuing it, is
hell.
Remember as you run this process, purpose, origination and mockups,
one of the first mockups that will turn on with be infinite BLACKNESS
forever for free.
He has never seen this kind of blackness before and it will give
him the qualms.
Worse he can hallucinate anything he wants into that blackness, if
he thinks a growing spot of wriggling blackness is a bunch of spiders,
IT WILL TURN INTO THE WORST SPIDERS HE HAS EVER SEEN.
There is a mechanism behind this, its called doubt is self casting.
This is what happens.
The energetic black spot turns on and the pc goes "WHAT *IS* THAT?"
He's worried it might BE something, so he thinks "MAYBE ITS
SPIDERS!" Suddenly the black spot obliges him and starts to turn into
millions of writhing spiders, so the pc goes "OH MY GOD IT IS SPIDERS!"
and away we go.
He has to learn not to do this, it is energetic BLACKNESS period,
if he chills out about it, it will REMAIN just blackness.
Eventually it will turn into beautiful blackness and become his
friend again.
Worry about "WHAT IT IS", Whatsit, will turn it into whatever ugly
blackness he can conceive of, usually his worst fear.
Your pc is absolutely beyond trigger happy on mocking up things so
ugly they make him want to make nothing of everything forever.
So the minute he regains the ability to mockup anything at all,
that is what he will mockup.
When mockups first turn on, he will either get totally banal stuff
he has no clue where it came from and even less interest in it, except
that he can finally see something, and he will marvel at the clarity of
the colors and detail of objects in the picture.
Or it will be mockups of searing beauty.
Or it will be mockups of disaster or agony.
By disaster I mean he is dangling over the abyss, holding onto a
single branch by one hand, and the other end of the branch is not
connected to anything any more. That's where the mockup STARTS.
Talk about fear and the willies.
By agony, I mean take all the pain ever suffered across all people
and all time and all universes, and put it into one face blaming him for
it all. He will be very happy to mockup that face and never go near
mockups again.
You will know this has happened by the distinct sound of gulping.
As an auditor you had better be the Rock of Gilbralter at this
stage.
So say the pc suddenly opens up a picture of disaster, being
covered by spiders all over him.
Pc says "Oh my god you even have a spider crawling on your arm!"
Now you understand this isn't just any old spider, this is the
meanest nastiest BLACK spider there could be, and it has smaller spiders
all over it, and they have more spiders all over them. And they are ALL
just breeding and multiplying all over the place even as the pc watches
in horror.
You say "Oh yes, his name is Goober, he likes jokes, tell him jokes
until he laughs!"
All the spiders start laughing and they become a beautiful black
spot again peaceably.
Beautiful blackness runs smoothly in all directions, ugly blackness
is enturbulation, which is caused by worry about WHAT IT IS.
"Make it laugh, make it smile" will handle just about anything that
turns on.
The auditor must never allow the pc to take these visions
seriously, because they can out serious the pc right into the mental
ward.
ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT 'WHAT IS IT?' MAKES IT WORSE, BECAUSE THE
ONLY ANSWER IS ALWAYS THE SAME THING, SOMETHING SO UGLY IT WILL MAKE HIM
WANT TO MAKE NOTHING OUT OF EVERYTHING FOREVER.
And that is exactly what he is doing.
The blackness becomes what the pc fears most if he allows it to.
The pc's wondering what is in the blackness, allows the blackness
to tell HIM what is in it, and fear and doubt then become self casting.
That is why you can't ask a not isness case "What is it?"
The last time it started to open up on him and he asked "What is
it?" it made him want to make nothing out of everything, and that's what
an invisible or black V case is.
A black V case is someone who can't mockup anything or sees only
darkness. The 5 senses are sight, sound, touch, taste and smell, but
also includes emotion, effort, and motion among many other things that
can be mocked up.
One way to audit a black V case is to ask him
"What are you not mocking up?"
GOD DAMN FLUNK!
That would violate everything we have said in this posting, so run
instead,
"Not mockup something!"
The beauty of the process is he doesn't have to know WHAT he is not
mocking up before he not mocks it up, thus he can't lose by failing the
command, until his mockups turn on in spite of his efforts to turn them
off. But that's a win :)
But don't let him ask 'What am I not mocking up?' because then it
will turn on all kinds of terrible things he can't confront. He is just
certain that if he turns them on, he will never be able to turn them off
again.
So FIRST we get him ABLE to not mockup things, and once he is
stable KNOWINGLY not mocking up things, he can then let go a bit and
allow the stuff to turn on under his control.
And remember part of not mocking up something, is not knowing WHAT
you are not mocking up! Because if you know, even a little bit, what
you are not mocking up, you are in fact mocking it up a bit. In this
case enough to kill you and your body, or send the two of you to the
mental ward.
Pandora's Box has an odd kind of lid, you push once on it to close
it and it locks closed. You push it again, and it flies open, letting
everything out. Your pc is terrified to tears of this mechanism.
So now he CAN'T open the box, can't make any mockups of any kind,
good or bad, beacuse he dares not touch the lid again lest it open, and
he doesn't know what to do about it, and worse he has completely
forgotten how it works. He knows there is something he shouldn't do
lest he open the lid, but he no longer remembers that what he shouldn't
do is try to close it more, as that will open it for good!
The trick then is to get him to SIT on the lid, so the top unlocks,
but does not fly open, then he can let things out on HIS determinism,
slowly, one thing at a time, until it all turns beautiful again.
It takes an infinite feed back loop to turn an infinite knowing
being into a blind basket case.
He hates spiders, so he wonders if there are spiders in the
blackness, and so he starts to see spiders. He THINKS the spiders were
there before he wondered what was there, but in fact his wonder created
the spiders. Now that he believes the spiders are there, he is just
sure they are going to come eat him, so he runs away, but they are his
spiders, so they go with him, and he can't get away fast enough, for the
faster he runs, the faster they follow. And God, he just never knew
spiders had teeth that big...
That is what it takes to put a GodSoul in the looney bin.
A being can confront anything as long as he doesn't turn it against
himself by asking questions about it.
The *QUESTION ASKING*, the worrying about what it might be, is the
problem, and thus the QUESTION IS THE ANSWER.
The guy thinks the problem is the absence of an answer, but the
problem is in fact the presence of the question.
Chill out the question, chill out the need for an answer, and the
problem ceases and things return to a state of sovereign peace.
Wonder kills.
Terror is knowing by looking, "What is it?", being an effect.
Peace is looking by knowing, "It is.", being cause.
Cease the question, and the whole thing smooths out and runs out as
beautifull rather than enturbulated blackness.
Otherwise, the question turns the full power of the being against
himself, and so he can't win.
A being can lose utterly, this is how.
Not know is your friend.
True not know is self erasing because it is the perfect as-ising of
the not know originally added to the item one wanted to not know.
One can only keep not know around by pretending to try to know,
question asking.
Thus knowing not-knowing will always lead you to the truth in the
end.
In the end spiders are probably enemies and not natural opponents
to his goals, so too much attention on them is not needed. See
discussion below on enemies and natural opponents.
After the black will come white and color in a dizzying
kaleidoscopic array of frenzy.
Then scenes, motion and significance, usually of beauty and
disaster.
Most of it not even his. Nice, no need to go to the movies any
more.
Want to get scared silly, just close your eyes and relax.
Talk about pc interest, he will just want to turn it down, TOO MUCH
pc interest!
Not know is your friend at this stage, you can not know ANYTHING
you want for as long as you want.
In the presence of knowing not-knowing, ANYTHING will run out
smoothly.
Go "What's it?" and you are dead.
It is quite alright to let the lid off pandora's box SLOWLY by
sitting on it for a while while things crawl out.
So you start running:
Spot no purpose. Spot some purpose.
Sometimes a pc will say to you "Well I always wanted to be an
auditor, I want to help people!"
Bull. What would he do if everyone were clear?
The pc will hand you all kinds of 'get rid of goals', "A world
without insanity, criminality or war, now there's a star high goal,
yup!"
He can't touch putting something there, all he can conceive of is
getting rid of things.
He would be happy if only he could get rid of ...
Auditing that list is a deadly high crime.
Because guess what, if he can't PUT the bad things there, he can't
get rid of them either.
So you must never waste time on get rid of goals. They are all
precious solutions to deeper problems of putting things there in the
first place.
"Spot a no put there."
"Spot a put there."
"Spot no worthwhile origination."
"Spot some worthwhile origination."
An origination is a PUT THERE.
A worthwhile origination is a WORTHWHILE PUT THERE.
Happiness is engaging in WORTHWHILE PUT THERES.
You see, THAT will tear him up, and quiet him down, because all the
crap he has been putting there, that he has been complaining about are
things that he wants to UN PUT THERE, get rid of, and these aren't the
problem at all.
Now the question comes up, what about running enemies?
"Who or what is your worst enemy?
He will say "Oh I just hate it when my big brother picks on me."
Oh garbage, he loves that to pieces, it just totally keeps him from
thinking about anything real.
How about those asteroids coming into smash earth?
Remember your first monster feelings as a child?
The first time the toilet water came UP rather than went down!
Or how about that mountain out in the pacific that is about to
split and cause an 1800 foot tidal wave across the USA.
Or all the religious nut cases trying to get to heaven by sending
sinners to hell before their time, and who don't give a damn if they
leave the Earth growing green or glowing green?
But in the end enemies are things that shoot at you from the side
while you are driving on the road to Baghdad.
Every once in a while an enemy will occupy the FRONT of the road
and you can get so bogged down fighting the enemy that IT becomes your
basic purpose and total reason for living.
Getting to Baghdad becomes lost in the fray.
He will audit his ENEMIES all day long, because it is easier to
fight enemies and lose than confront why he has a problem with winning
and getting to where he was going in the first place.
Enemies are like spiders, the slightest doubt about your heading,
and suddenly things are shooting at you from all sides.
If you put too much attention on them, and slow down, they will get
ahead of you and STOP you.
Involvement with enemies is a SOLUTION to the problem of ARRIVING.
*GETTING* TO BAGHDAD had become a problem to him, so all the
enemies now in the way are a SOLUTION TO HIM because now he has a reason
he can't get there.
Thank God for all these enemies!
He has become so introverted on the original problem that he has
closed terminals with the enemies, and now all he can talk about is
"ain't it awful", namely all these enemies to the left, right and
center.
Part of it is a matter of size, the goal to get to Baghdad was
HUGE, as was the problem that resulted.
The enemies are just tiny swarms of dev-t, but now they look the
world to him because he had to get small in order to get introverted
enough to worry about them.
Dev-T means unnecessary developed traffic, detour.
He used to be bigger than his enemies, as big as the original goal,
but now he is smaller than his enemies, and the goal is GONE to him.
Fighting the enemy has BECOME the GOAL.
Ask him what happens when he wins?
"Oh that will be a relief, probably go home and get a job pushing
hamburgers."
?
WHAT HAPPENED TO GETTING TO BAGHDAD?
What happened to his original purpose?
You see?
Prime purposes have enemies, but most of these enemies are
sideliners throwing peanuts from the peanut gallery, they don't have the
same ontological status as the goal itself. One doesn't need enemies to
have a goal and to have fun with it.
Beware of people who think that life without enemies is no fun.
They will be bogged down doing NOTHING of import, but watch it when
they win against all their enemies, they will begin to create more
rather than get on with their original purpose.
They may be big enough to vanquish a few enemies along the way, but
they are no longer big enough to encompass their original goal let alone
remember it.
They win against their enemies and they get a kind of sad forlorn
'now what?' feeling.
Your average being is SO afraid of that forlorness that when they
come close to finishing off their last enemy, they won't. They will
mess up and lose, or go mercenary on other people's enemies, or start to
wrong target people who aren't enemies at all.
ANYTHING BUT HAVE NO ENEMIES ANY MORE.
They just can't say goodbye to that 'good fight'.
But the sorrow and loss is based on the feeling of smaller size and
having been vanquished oneself anyhow, because the original goal is
still too big to be re embraced.
This is in part why so many people got depressed after WW II ended,
and is common for vets coming home from war even if they won.
They are stuck in a NO ACTION point, underneath a much bigger
sphere of action of their original goal that was once theirs before they
got sidetracked into fighting enemies.
They just have to spot this, to fix it, with a little help from a
good auditor who can span big goals.
There will be NATURAL oppositions to your goals, mostly consisting
of MEST and it's inexorable move towards entropy.
MEST means Matter, Energy, Space and Time, the physical universe at
large.
Most games have NATURAL oppositions but they are always invited
opponents, not enemies per se.
The guy on the other side of the chess table is a natural opponent,
and shouldn't be confused with the guy on the side about to shoot you if
you come near winning. HE's an ENEMY.
The guy you are PLAYING against is an OPPONENT.
Enemies are dev-t, opponents are the fundamental fabric of the
game.
Enemies are sometimes fun to audit, and may lead back to the
original goal and its problem if the pc is all enmired in making enemies
into his basic purpose.
But get rid of goals are not good for people, there is no love in
them.
People HAVE to put something constructive there as natural
oppositions during normal game play in order to have fun, and without
fun, they eventually die themselves.
To clear the Invisible V case, bring him up to blazing blackness by
spotting no mockups, no worthwhile originations, and no purpose on all
dynamics.
If purposes won't run, try FALSE purposes, first.
NO FALSE PURPOSE
SOME FALSE PURPOSE
NO TRUE PURPOSE
SOME TRUE PURPOSE
Around and around, if you can't get them to read and run, your
meter is off.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Jun 6 01:05:54 EDT 2007
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
06/23/09 Tuesday 01:37am EST
PURPOSE, ORIGINATION and MOCKUPS
When you first ask the pc 'Whasamatter?', he will tell you all
about his 'hard to confront' items.
He will talk and talk and talk and get sicker and sicker, because
not one of these items is anything but a smoke screen for what he really
can't confront and what is really wrong with him.
Every one of these things that the pc complains about gets its
energy and stems from a staggering, utter unwillingness to know
something else.
In fact the items he talks about HELP him continue to not know his
true items, because he is successfully running an artful dodge on his
true items, namely not knowing the true items BY knowing or trying to
know about the false items.
When he finally comes up to realizing this, he will stop all the
struggle, and self auditing and trying to know, and get back to being
quite happy not knowing and making damn sure it stays that way (for a
while).
"You can not know anything by not knowing.
You can know anything by not knowing.
But only if you pride not knowing.
And pride knowing and not knowing only proud knowledge." - Adore
If he can't confront it, he won't know about it.
Thus all this 'trying to know' is bogus. He knows damn well that
if he just settles down into not knowing about it, he WILL start to know
about it spontaneously, probably before he is 'ready' for it.
He complains about not knowing, but really has too little not
knowing. He had to create false knowing and false trying to know in
order to keep the not knowing safely in place, because not knowing is
inherently self erasing when done knowingly!
There are two rules in auditing, the first is more generally true
than the second.
The first rule is, only the pc knows what is wrong with him.
Worded differently, only the pc has a clue what is wrong with him.
That means the auditor should not evaluate for the pc or tell him
what his item is, period.
The second rule is, if the pc knows about it, it isn't what is
wrong with him.
Worded differently, the pc hasn't a clue what is wrong with him.
That means you continue running the superficial garbage just long
enough for the pc to realize its all garbage and no longer, certainly
don't spend hours and hours running the pc's havingness into the ground
with it.
Asking a pc 'Whasamatter?' is a sure fire way for the pc to hand
you endless problems that are actually SOLUTIONS to him, and thus his
havingness falls like a lead balloon as you take the force out of his
solutions.
People will hate you for as-ising their solutions for them, unless
you are prepared to handle the underlying problem QUICK!
One real problem here is Q&A, the auditor says "Whasamatter?" the
pc says, "Oh my mother insulted me again", the auditor says "Ah, your
mother, of course, tell me about your mother."
GOD DAMN FLUNK!
Thus if you are going to start a session with 'Ok so Whasamatter?"
you had better FINISH the session 300 commands later with the same
question!
Then your pc might get a hint that what's going on is he is not
knowing something so ferocious that he has filled his entire life with
garbage just to forget about it.
But the other real problem is simply, if the pc knows about it, its
a waste of time auditing it!
In fact it is a gross auditing error because it runs the pc's
havingness down.
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC
Now here is the truth about evaluation.
The auditor DOES know exactly what is wrong with the pc *IN
GENERAL*, at the ONE level.
But only the pc knows what is wrong with him *IN SPECIFIC*, at the
MANY level, but if he is chattering all about it up front, it ain't it.
Thus the auditor MUST evaluate for the pc by choosing the general
process to run, but must never evaluate for the pc as to the E/P or
specific item that needs to be found.
The general item has its roots in the ONE, it is the same for
everyone, the specific item has its roots in the MANY, it is different
for each individual.
Thus the auditor starts at the ONE, where we are all one being, and
works down from there into the MANY, the specific for each different
being.
From this we can state a little rule which says, the auditor knows
the general and not the specific, and the pc knows the specific but not
the general.
That is why the pc needs an auditor at first to help him with the
general. But in the mean time, the pc doesn't consciously know the
specific either, because he has long ago entombed it in the mausoleum of
his life.
At the moment the auditor has chosen the general process he has
already evaluated the ONE for the pc, and thus once he starts running
that process, any answer which is a specific, must be the pc's, not the
auditor's, because the auditor has no clue.
The pc will EXPECT this evaluation to take place by the auditor
from the ONE, or else the pc won't go into session at all.
If the auditor is not in contact enough with the ONE to be able to
create the presence of the general evaluation, the pc will sense this
and bolt.
In session is defined by LRH as interested in own case and willing
to talk to the auditor.
It can further be defined as the auditor is asking the questions
and the pc is answering.
The second the pc turns it around and starts asking questions and
the auditor is answering them, guess who is the pc?
Some pc's are very skilled at this, they just want some help,
spelled advice. Such pc's turn the session around from the word go.
Some auditors are very skilled at billing the pc for this time, as
there is no need to audit the pc which is a hell of alot harder than
giving useless advice and opinions to the pc.
IN SESSION means auditor asks the questions and pc answers.
OUT OF SESSION means pc asks the questions and auditor answers.
IN SESSION means auditor says "Whatsit?" and pc says "Itsa".
OUT OF SESSION means pc says "Whatsit?" and auditor says "Itsa".
That pretty much defines evaulation for you, and its a high risk,
high crime.
It will put the pc INSTANTLY out of session, but they will continue
to ask and pay for advice forever afterwards.
To absolutely no avail.
By the way for ISNESS cases without a lot of not know on their
case, whatsit and itsa may work well, but for seriously far gone not
isness cases like we are talking about here, its a waste of time.
Why are you asking him 'Whatsit?'. The pc hasn't a clue what it
is. Why are you asking him to look, he CAN'T look, it just gives him a
loss.
The pc has been not looking BY looking (at something else) for
eons, the more you ask him to look the more he will not look.
You are going to win doing this?
Most case failures can be attributed to this one cause, running
ISNESS level processes on a NOTISNESS case.
Auditor says "Whatsit", pc says "I dont know".
Usual answer is to get the pc into something lighter. His bank
weighs 40 tons and we are going to run something lighter?
Something lighter = no auditing = treason.
Much better to simply run the command to create the not isness in
the first place.
Prepchecks approach doing this indirectly:
"Has anything been not-ised?"
"Has anything been made nothing of?"
So what's wrong with these?
Well in the first place they are QUESTIONS, questions are evil.
Tring to know locks in not know.
Secondly they direct the pc's attention to his memory to see if he
has a MEMORY of not-ising something. Efforts to not-is are not recorded
in memory in a way they can be accessed easily.
The pc is busy not knowing, you expect him to have a clear memory
of not knowing?
And lastly questions just don't carry the punch of a direct
command:
Spot NO not-ising.
Spot SOME not-ising.
The pc is going to turn it into a question anyhow:
"Gee, I wonder what I have been not-ising?"
so you might as well make it as hard as possible for the pc to do
this by keeping the flow of commands going smoothly enough that the pc
doesn't have a moment's chance to formulate a question out of it.
ASKING 'WHAT AM I NOT-ISING?' IS NOT RUNNING THE AUDITING COMMAND
"NOT-IS SOMETHING!"
You understand this? If not read it again until you do.
You can't not-is something and ask "what am I not-ising?" at
the same time!
Once you get a pc smoothly into running commands mode, you will see
the damage done by asking a single question that throws him over into
question asking mode again.
You might as well scramble his entire bank.
Not know is like taffy, questions put it through the taffy wringer.
Stay away from asking questions looking for answers, audit only
with commands. Question/Answer pairs will arise on their own.
Remember asking the pc WHAT he is not-ising is asking him to look
through the not-isness to find what is underneath. This is frankly
impossible as long as the not-is is there.
It is treating a not-isness case as an isness case who CAN see what
is there.
You don't want the pc to look at what is under the not-isness, you
want him to look AT the not-ising process itself in present time.
In other words you want him to stop not-ising not-ising, so you get
him to practice not-ising knowingly, until he nails the not-ising he has
been doing unknowingly. Then question and answer will appear.
What is underneath will show on its own once the not-ising is
as-ised.
"Spot the effort to not know something."
"Get the idea of not knowing something."
"Not know something".
"Not know an effort to not know."
"Spot an effort to not know a purpose".
"Spot an effort to not originate."
That's what he is doing anyhow, and getting him to do it
consciously will cause it to become self vanishing and startle the hell
out of the pc when something actually turns on.
The auditor may have a heart attack and jump out the window, but
the pc will get better and be left crying and laughing his eyes out,
because he has found his personal fountain head of love again.
The pc may have informational questions before session which the
auditor should address,
The PC may ask, "Will this hurt"?
Answer kindly and quickly "I do hope so."
Be sure to explain the difference between dull chronic pains
(grind) and loud acute pains (blowoff).
If the pc doesn't scream "OW!" at the top of his lungs once in a
while, well what are you auditing, the Pablum Rundown?
And there will probably be basic indoctrination as to what and why
the pc should be there and get auditing, such as what is provided below.
BUT NOT DURING SESSION.
Not after you have said "TITS!" (This Is The Session.)
Once a session has started, that's it with the pc's questions, he
can originate, even originate a question, but never let the pc put you
into answer mode.
"That's a good question you got there, perhaps you might give me a
few answers..."
Then get back to the process, "
"That was interesting, thank you for telling me that ...so spot
no notisness."
And even before session don't make a big deal out of answering the
pc's questions, he knows damn well why he is there, he just wants to
know if you know also.
*EVERYTHING* beyond that is a pc's pretense designed to forget
about things more.
The pc is a MASTER at not knowing BY asking questions.
He is running one of the deepest most fundamental service fac
computations in existence, the way to not know an answer is to ask
questions. It is the effort to not know A by trying to know B.
The guy with all the questions, is trying the hardest to not know,
and all his questions will be about everything but.
You got a white colar on? He KNOWS what he is there for.
But man is he wondering if you do.
He has a whole track of white colars that pretended to know, but
didn't know. Worse they wanted the pc to help *THEM* continue to not
know!
"Today we are going to audit the Pablum Rundown, so we can all
continue to not know. The registrar is this way..."
REMEMBER THE PC KNOWS, even the woggie on the street knows.
Natter merely means you have missed it, you have helped him in his
pretense that nothing is wrong, and boy DOES THAT HURT. He has to
practically kill himself to not know what he is not knowing.
Your preclear just doesn't have it to close his pandora's box
once you have nicked it open a bit.
What the pc wants to know is, if you know how much he is not knowing
and with how much force.
If he gets the feeling you have been there and lived to tell the
tale, all will be well. If he feels you are a twit with no confront at
all for force and not know, or worse he thinks you are trying to subsume
him into YOUR OWN need to not know, then HE WILL EAT YOU.
YUM FOOD, fresh foolish auditor meat, bringing me stupid questions.
So here is a basic general truth that works for all pc's, that a
process can be built around and run on anyone.
This starts the session by properly evaluating for the pc from the
ONE, thus putting the pc happily in session because he knows his auditor
knows too.
With a properly formulated ONE question, the pc and auditor are
one, because the question will indicate deeply to the pc giving him the
feeling the auditor knows the pc from the inside out, IN GENERAL.
That's called 'pc interest'.
In sessionness = relief.
OK, here then is some general brainwash or indoctrination, the
auditor does NOT have to teach this to the pc, but the auditor had
better damn well know it himself.
PURPOSES, ORIGINATIONS AND MOCKUPS
Prime purposes give rise to originations of communication.
Originations of communication are presented as mockups.
Mockups are full surround sound 3D holographic mental images.
When a preclear mocks up something, he IS IT, mocking up is an
act of BEING not LOOKING. After he mocks something up, he can separate
from it, and look at it.
Words are a via to mockups, the pc sees it as a mockup, tries to
get it across to others as a mockup, and will lower himself to using
words for those who can't BE or see his mockups directly.
If I BE a pink elephant, and you can BE a pink elephant too, then
we are in direct telepathic resonation with each other, as everything I
choose to BE, you become too. That's 'seeing' each other's mockups.
People think "Oh I am not powerful enough to get someone else to
see my mockups."
No, any being can shut out anyone else's mockups he wants to. If
he can't see your mockups, no matter how faintly, that's his problem not
yours. Taking it on as your problem is a wrong indication about the
severity of his condition, and will get you auditing you rather than
him.
Yet a pc can be in the odd position of not being able to see his
own mockups!
Nice. But its the same causal principle, a being can block out
anyone's mockups including his own. So if you can't get through to him,
its his fault, and if you can't get through to you, its your fault.
Not being able to see one's own mockups arises from the basic
causal equation we laid out above:
PURPOSE -> WORTHWHILE ORIGINATION OF COMMUNICATION -> MOCKUPS.
Turn it around and we get
NO MOCKUPS -> NO WORTHWHILE ORIGINATION OF COMMUNICATION -> NO
PURPOSE
So there we have the basic not know on the case and the basic
dicoms that need to be run.
NO PURPOSE - SOME PURPOSE
NO ORIGINATION - SOME ORIGINATION
NO MOCKUPS - SOME MOCKUPS
Loneliness by the way is simply having no reason to originate to
another, or to receive an origination from another.
Deeper, one can be alone amongst millions chattering away with you
forever, as long as no one is chattering about *PURPOSE*.
The minute purpose comes up, interest comes up, and interest means
no longer lonely, even if you are the only being who ever lived.
People who have lost their purpose, think they need others to have
purpose. That might be true at a practical level of doing something
about that purpose, but having purpose is something a being has alone
anyhow and gives him reason to be. Others are merely icing on the cake.
It is tempting to blame others for not being interested in your
originations, and that may well be, but believe me, if you could
originate a communication of worth, a REAL origination, they would
become just fascinated by you, and follow you around like a puppy dog
that just found a new friend.
Imagine you sitting in a huge beautiful plaza with thousands of
people crossing it every day, without one thing to say to anyone of them
for the rest of your life.
No reason to get up and move in any direction means no
communication terminals of worth in any direction.
Which means no purpose of worth in any direction.
Imagine sitting in a chair alone for a few hours and never once
having a single interesting thought occur to you. This can cause untold
panic in a being, who then feels he must DO something to get interested.
No, no interest means no purpose. Once purpose is recovered, you
CAN'T sit in a chair alone for an hour and not have so many interesting
thoughts you don't know what to do with them all.
Invisibility of original purpose, no mockups, dead silence on
everything of importance to both sides, and a substitute purpose that
strangles the being to death with every step he takes pursuing it, is
hell.
Remember as you run this process, purpose, origination and mockups,
one of the first mockups that will turn on with be infinite BLACKNESS
forever for free.
He has never seen this kind of blackness before and it will give
him the qualms.
Worse he can hallucinate anything he wants into that blackness, if
he thinks a growing spot of wriggling blackness is a bunch of spiders,
IT WILL TURN INTO THE WORST SPIDERS HE HAS EVER SEEN.
There is a mechanism behind this, its called doubt is self casting.
This is what happens.
The energetic black spot turns on and the pc goes "WHAT *IS* THAT?"
He's worried it might BE something, so he thinks "MAYBE ITS
SPIDERS!" Suddenly the black spot obliges him and starts to turn into
millions of writhing spiders, so the pc goes "OH MY GOD IT IS SPIDERS!"
and away we go.
He has to learn not to do this, it is energetic BLACKNESS period,
if he chills out about it, it will REMAIN just blackness.
Eventually it will turn into beautiful blackness and become his
friend again.
Worry about "WHAT IT IS", Whatsit, will turn it into whatever ugly
blackness he can conceive of, usually his worst fear.
Your pc is absolutely beyond trigger happy on mocking up things so
ugly they make him want to make nothing of everything forever.
So the minute he regains the ability to mockup anything at all,
that is what he will mockup.
When mockups first turn on, he will either get totally banal stuff
he has no clue where it came from and even less interest in it, except
that he can finally see something, and he will marvel at the clarity of
the colors and detail of objects in the picture.
Or it will be mockups of searing beauty.
Or it will be mockups of disaster or agony.
By disaster I mean he is dangling over the abyss, holding onto a
single branch by one hand, and the other end of the branch is not
connected to anything any more. That's where the mockup STARTS.
Talk about fear and the willies.
By agony, I mean take all the pain ever suffered across all people
and all time and all universes, and put it into one face blaming him for
it all. He will be very happy to mockup that face and never go near
mockups again.
You will know this has happened by the distinct sound of gulping.
As an auditor you had better be the Rock of Gilbralter at this
stage.
So say the pc suddenly opens up a picture of disaster, being
covered by spiders all over him.
Pc says "Oh my god you even have a spider crawling on your arm!"
Now you understand this isn't just any old spider, this is the
meanest nastiest BLACK spider there could be, and it has smaller spiders
all over it, and they have more spiders all over them. And they are ALL
just breeding and multiplying all over the place even as the pc watches
in horror.
You say "Oh yes, his name is Goober, he likes jokes, tell him jokes
until he laughs!"
All the spiders start laughing and they become a beautiful black
spot again peaceably.
Beautiful blackness runs smoothly in all directions, ugly blackness
is enturbulation, which is caused by worry about WHAT IT IS.
"Make it laugh, make it smile" will handle just about anything that
turns on.
The auditor must never allow the pc to take these visions
seriously, because they can out serious the pc right into the mental
ward.
ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT 'WHAT IS IT?' MAKES IT WORSE, BECAUSE THE
ONLY ANSWER IS ALWAYS THE SAME THING, SOMETHING SO UGLY IT WILL MAKE HIM
WANT TO MAKE NOTHING OUT OF EVERYTHING FOREVER.
And that is exactly what he is doing.
The blackness becomes what the pc fears most if he allows it to.
The pc's wondering what is in the blackness, allows the blackness
to tell HIM what is in it, and fear and doubt then become self casting.
That is why you can't ask a not isness case "What is it?"
The last time it started to open up on him and he asked "What is
it?" it made him want to make nothing out of everything, and that's what
an invisible or black V case is.
A black V case is someone who can't mockup anything or sees only
darkness. The 5 senses are sight, sound, touch, taste and smell, but
also includes emotion, effort, and motion among many other things that
can be mocked up.
One way to audit a black V case is to ask him
"What are you not mocking up?"
GOD DAMN FLUNK!
That would violate everything we have said in this posting, so run
instead,
"Not mockup something!"
The beauty of the process is he doesn't have to know WHAT he is not
mocking up before he not mocks it up, thus he can't lose by failing the
command, until his mockups turn on in spite of his efforts to turn them
off. But that's a win :)
But don't let him ask 'What am I not mocking up?' because then it
will turn on all kinds of terrible things he can't confront. He is just
certain that if he turns them on, he will never be able to turn them off
again.
So FIRST we get him ABLE to not mockup things, and once he is
stable KNOWINGLY not mocking up things, he can then let go a bit and
allow the stuff to turn on under his control.
And remember part of not mocking up something, is not knowing WHAT
you are not mocking up! Because if you know, even a little bit, what
you are not mocking up, you are in fact mocking it up a bit. In this
case enough to kill you and your body, or send the two of you to the
mental ward.
Pandora's Box has an odd kind of lid, you push once on it to close
it and it locks closed. You push it again, and it flies open, letting
everything out. Your pc is terrified to tears of this mechanism.
So now he CAN'T open the box, can't make any mockups of any kind,
good or bad, beacuse he dares not touch the lid again lest it open, and
he doesn't know what to do about it, and worse he has completely
forgotten how it works. He knows there is something he shouldn't do
lest he open the lid, but he no longer remembers that what he shouldn't
do is try to close it more, as that will open it for good!
The trick then is to get him to SIT on the lid, so the top unlocks,
but does not fly open, then he can let things out on HIS determinism,
slowly, one thing at a time, until it all turns beautiful again.
It takes an infinite feed back loop to turn an infinite knowing
being into a blind basket case.
He hates spiders, so he wonders if there are spiders in the
blackness, and so he starts to see spiders. He THINKS the spiders were
there before he wondered what was there, but in fact his wonder created
the spiders. Now that he believes the spiders are there, he is just
sure they are going to come eat him, so he runs away, but they are his
spiders, so they go with him, and he can't get away fast enough, for the
faster he runs, the faster they follow. And God, he just never knew
spiders had teeth that big...
That is what it takes to put a GodSoul in the looney bin.
A being can confront anything as long as he doesn't turn it against
himself by asking questions about it.
The *QUESTION ASKING*, the worrying about what it might be, is the
problem, and thus the QUESTION IS THE ANSWER.
The guy thinks the problem is the absence of an answer, but the
problem is in fact the presence of the question.
Chill out the question, chill out the need for an answer, and the
problem ceases and things return to a state of sovereign peace.
Wonder kills.
Terror is knowing by looking, "What is it?", being an effect.
Peace is looking by knowing, "It is.", being cause.
Cease the question, and the whole thing smooths out and runs out as
beautifull rather than enturbulated blackness.
Otherwise, the question turns the full power of the being against
himself, and so he can't win.
A being can lose utterly, this is how.
Not know is your friend.
True not know is self erasing because it is the perfect as-ising of
the not know originally added to the item one wanted to not know.
One can only keep not know around by pretending to try to know,
question asking.
Thus knowing not-knowing will always lead you to the truth in the
end.
In the end spiders are probably enemies and not natural opponents
to his goals, so too much attention on them is not needed. See
discussion below on enemies and natural opponents.
After the black will come white and color in a dizzying
kaleidoscopic array of frenzy.
Then scenes, motion and significance, usually of beauty and
disaster.
Most of it not even his. Nice, no need to go to the movies any
more.
Want to get scared silly, just close your eyes and relax.
Talk about pc interest, he will just want to turn it down, TOO MUCH
pc interest!
Not know is your friend at this stage, you can not know ANYTHING
you want for as long as you want.
In the presence of knowing not-knowing, ANYTHING will run out
smoothly.
Go "What's it?" and you are dead.
It is quite alright to let the lid off pandora's box SLOWLY by
sitting on it for a while while things crawl out.
So you start running:
Spot no purpose. Spot some purpose.
Sometimes a pc will say to you "Well I always wanted to be an
auditor, I want to help people!"
Bull. What would he do if everyone were clear?
The pc will hand you all kinds of 'get rid of goals', "A world
without insanity, criminality or war, now there's a star high goal,
yup!"
He can't touch putting something there, all he can conceive of is
getting rid of things.
He would be happy if only he could get rid of ...
Auditing that list is a deadly high crime.
Because guess what, if he can't PUT the bad things there, he can't
get rid of them either.
So you must never waste time on get rid of goals. They are all
precious solutions to deeper problems of putting things there in the
first place.
"Spot a no put there."
"Spot a put there."
"Spot no worthwhile origination."
"Spot some worthwhile origination."
An origination is a PUT THERE.
A worthwhile origination is a WORTHWHILE PUT THERE.
Happiness is engaging in WORTHWHILE PUT THERES.
You see, THAT will tear him up, and quiet him down, because all the
crap he has been putting there, that he has been complaining about are
things that he wants to UN PUT THERE, get rid of, and these aren't the
problem at all.
Now the question comes up, what about running enemies?
"Who or what is your worst enemy?
He will say "Oh I just hate it when my big brother picks on me."
Oh garbage, he loves that to pieces, it just totally keeps him from
thinking about anything real.
How about those asteroids coming into smash earth?
Remember your first monster feelings as a child?
The first time the toilet water came UP rather than went down!
Or how about that mountain out in the pacific that is about to
split and cause an 1800 foot tidal wave across the USA.
Or all the religious nut cases trying to get to heaven by sending
sinners to hell before their time, and who don't give a damn if they
leave the Earth growing green or glowing green?
But in the end enemies are things that shoot at you from the side
while you are driving on the road to Baghdad.
Every once in a while an enemy will occupy the FRONT of the road
and you can get so bogged down fighting the enemy that IT becomes your
basic purpose and total reason for living.
Getting to Baghdad becomes lost in the fray.
He will audit his ENEMIES all day long, because it is easier to
fight enemies and lose than confront why he has a problem with winning
and getting to where he was going in the first place.
Enemies are like spiders, the slightest doubt about your heading,
and suddenly things are shooting at you from all sides.
If you put too much attention on them, and slow down, they will get
ahead of you and STOP you.
Involvement with enemies is a SOLUTION to the problem of ARRIVING.
*GETTING* TO BAGHDAD had become a problem to him, so all the
enemies now in the way are a SOLUTION TO HIM because now he has a reason
he can't get there.
Thank God for all these enemies!
He has become so introverted on the original problem that he has
closed terminals with the enemies, and now all he can talk about is
"ain't it awful", namely all these enemies to the left, right and
center.
Part of it is a matter of size, the goal to get to Baghdad was
HUGE, as was the problem that resulted.
The enemies are just tiny swarms of dev-t, but now they look the
world to him because he had to get small in order to get introverted
enough to worry about them.
Dev-T means unnecessary developed traffic, detour.
He used to be bigger than his enemies, as big as the original goal,
but now he is smaller than his enemies, and the goal is GONE to him.
Fighting the enemy has BECOME the GOAL.
Ask him what happens when he wins?
"Oh that will be a relief, probably go home and get a job pushing
hamburgers."
?
WHAT HAPPENED TO GETTING TO BAGHDAD?
What happened to his original purpose?
You see?
Prime purposes have enemies, but most of these enemies are
sideliners throwing peanuts from the peanut gallery, they don't have the
same ontological status as the goal itself. One doesn't need enemies to
have a goal and to have fun with it.
Beware of people who think that life without enemies is no fun.
They will be bogged down doing NOTHING of import, but watch it when
they win against all their enemies, they will begin to create more
rather than get on with their original purpose.
They may be big enough to vanquish a few enemies along the way, but
they are no longer big enough to encompass their original goal let alone
remember it.
They win against their enemies and they get a kind of sad forlorn
'now what?' feeling.
Your average being is SO afraid of that forlorness that when they
come close to finishing off their last enemy, they won't. They will
mess up and lose, or go mercenary on other people's enemies, or start to
wrong target people who aren't enemies at all.
ANYTHING BUT HAVE NO ENEMIES ANY MORE.
They just can't say goodbye to that 'good fight'.
But the sorrow and loss is based on the feeling of smaller size and
having been vanquished oneself anyhow, because the original goal is
still too big to be re embraced.
This is in part why so many people got depressed after WW II ended,
and is common for vets coming home from war even if they won.
They are stuck in a NO ACTION point, underneath a much bigger
sphere of action of their original goal that was once theirs before they
got sidetracked into fighting enemies.
They just have to spot this, to fix it, with a little help from a
good auditor who can span big goals.
There will be NATURAL oppositions to your goals, mostly consisting
of MEST and it's inexorable move towards entropy.
MEST means Matter, Energy, Space and Time, the physical universe at
large.
Most games have NATURAL oppositions but they are always invited
opponents, not enemies per se.
The guy on the other side of the chess table is a natural opponent,
and shouldn't be confused with the guy on the side about to shoot you if
you come near winning. HE's an ENEMY.
The guy you are PLAYING against is an OPPONENT.
Enemies are dev-t, opponents are the fundamental fabric of the
game.
Enemies are sometimes fun to audit, and may lead back to the
original goal and its problem if the pc is all enmired in making enemies
into his basic purpose.
But get rid of goals are not good for people, there is no love in
them.
People HAVE to put something constructive there as natural
oppositions during normal game play in order to have fun, and without
fun, they eventually die themselves.
To clear the Invisible V case, bring him up to blazing blackness by
spotting no mockups, no worthwhile originations, and no purpose on all
dynamics.
If purposes won't run, try FALSE purposes, first.
NO FALSE PURPOSE
SOME FALSE PURPOSE
NO TRUE PURPOSE
SOME TRUE PURPOSE
Around and around, if you can't get them to read and run, your
meter is off.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Jun 6 01:05:54 EDT 2007
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE532
WHAT DETERMINES HOW YOU FEEL? v2.0
> OT XV (OT XVI?)
> Certainty of the future.
>
> Is this not known now? Do you know the OT IX to OT XII ones?
They are not publically released, and no I don't know them.
But you know OT VIII is basically
What determines how you feel?
If you can get someone to put an 'other determinism' there enough,
he will suddenly find he is determining (causing) the other determinism
to be there.
Knowing by looking flip flops to looking by knowing.
That's the observation/consideration flip flop.
There are two opposing definitions of To Determine.
The first is to learn aboutg what is out there, by being an EFFECT
of what is out there.
The second is to CAUSE what is out there.
To determine by looking (learning) moves into to determine by
causing.
That is the purpose of auditing.
The preclear is going "What's there? What's there?" trying
to determine or find out what is there.
The auditor goes well ok "Put a cat there. Good, did you
put a cat there?" and the preclear goes "Wow there's a cat there!"
The preclear determined (caused) that there will be a cat there,
and then determned (learned) or verified there was a cat there.
So he is now operating both sides of To Determine.
That is way higher than "What's there?" effect, effect, effect.
Run the following with "Get the idea of ...".
"There is NO DETERMINING"
"There is SOME DETERMINING" Run both definitions
Run truth with
"There is NO TRUTH."
"There is SOME TRUTH."
Run Character with:
"There is NO Author"
"There is SOME Author"
"There is NO Character"
"There is SOME Character"
Future is the same way:
"There is NO FUTURE." Run PAST and PRESENT too.
"There is SOME FUTURE."
Spend some time with
"How do you feel about your future?"
"Are you causing that, or are you learning that?"
"There is NO CAUSE" Run on OTHER CAUSE also.
"There is SOME CAUSE"
All the complexity in auditing is a waste of time.
The higher the OT level, the simpler the issue and the simpler the
auditing to run it.
Sometimes you gotta run refused, no, inhibited, enforced, desired,
curious about, known about, and source of. But most often NO and SOME
work just fine. But just in case, don't forget sub-refused. That is
below refused.
"There is NO BRAIN"
"There is SOME BRAIN"
"There is NO PROOF"
"There is SOME PROOF"
The real answer to the prove it cases is to give them a solo
process they can run for a few hours across many days, that will show
that "Scn is good thing and ought to be continued".
Much better than dropping an atom bomb on their soul.
The OT's who HAVE power are nervous about it and how someone who
doesn't have power is going to respond to it.
It's one thing to move the marble on the table, quite another to
move a meatball to reason about it.
Fools rush in where Angels dare not tread and God's go crying for
their mama.
That's why we have the prime directive.
The prime directive is more than a security protocol built around
paranormal powers, particularly those that can be used as a weapon of
war. The prime directive is part and parcel of what allows the power to
exist in the first place, for the protocol enables the power.
No protocol, no power.
Those looking to find the power (as proof of something) before
putting the enabling security protocol in place first, will of course be
forever disappointed.
Homer
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Apr 22 15:00:00 EDT 2008
Sat Jan 19 17:50:22 EST 2013
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
> OT XV (OT XVI?)
> Certainty of the future.
>
> Is this not known now? Do you know the OT IX to OT XII ones?
They are not publically released, and no I don't know them.
But you know OT VIII is basically
What determines how you feel?
If you can get someone to put an 'other determinism' there enough,
he will suddenly find he is determining (causing) the other determinism
to be there.
Knowing by looking flip flops to looking by knowing.
That's the observation/consideration flip flop.
There are two opposing definitions of To Determine.
The first is to learn aboutg what is out there, by being an EFFECT
of what is out there.
The second is to CAUSE what is out there.
To determine by looking (learning) moves into to determine by
causing.
That is the purpose of auditing.
The preclear is going "What's there? What's there?" trying
to determine or find out what is there.
The auditor goes well ok "Put a cat there. Good, did you
put a cat there?" and the preclear goes "Wow there's a cat there!"
The preclear determined (caused) that there will be a cat there,
and then determned (learned) or verified there was a cat there.
So he is now operating both sides of To Determine.
That is way higher than "What's there?" effect, effect, effect.
Run the following with "Get the idea of ...".
"There is NO DETERMINING"
"There is SOME DETERMINING" Run both definitions
Run truth with
"There is NO TRUTH."
"There is SOME TRUTH."
Run Character with:
"There is NO Author"
"There is SOME Author"
"There is NO Character"
"There is SOME Character"
Future is the same way:
"There is NO FUTURE." Run PAST and PRESENT too.
"There is SOME FUTURE."
Spend some time with
"How do you feel about your future?"
"Are you causing that, or are you learning that?"
"There is NO CAUSE" Run on OTHER CAUSE also.
"There is SOME CAUSE"
All the complexity in auditing is a waste of time.
The higher the OT level, the simpler the issue and the simpler the
auditing to run it.
Sometimes you gotta run refused, no, inhibited, enforced, desired,
curious about, known about, and source of. But most often NO and SOME
work just fine. But just in case, don't forget sub-refused. That is
below refused.
"There is NO BRAIN"
"There is SOME BRAIN"
"There is NO PROOF"
"There is SOME PROOF"
The real answer to the prove it cases is to give them a solo
process they can run for a few hours across many days, that will show
that "Scn is good thing and ought to be continued".
Much better than dropping an atom bomb on their soul.
The OT's who HAVE power are nervous about it and how someone who
doesn't have power is going to respond to it.
It's one thing to move the marble on the table, quite another to
move a meatball to reason about it.
Fools rush in where Angels dare not tread and God's go crying for
their mama.
That's why we have the prime directive.
The prime directive is more than a security protocol built around
paranormal powers, particularly those that can be used as a weapon of
war. The prime directive is part and parcel of what allows the power to
exist in the first place, for the protocol enables the power.
No protocol, no power.
Those looking to find the power (as proof of something) before
putting the enabling security protocol in place first, will of course be
forever disappointed.
Homer
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Apr 22 15:00:00 EDT 2008
Sat Jan 19 17:50:22 EST 2013
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, December 19, 2013
ADORE633 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CHRISTIANINANITY
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 ====================
Thu Dec 19 03:06:02 EST 2013
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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSsqjqURT1lqxE3HERAkpnAJ91eoLnmH1OtfyWd8daOliMk7Mx4wCePa28
/wLh48HO1zksgnqj7IU6nuM=
=wQ2G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CHRISTIANINANITY
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 ====================
Thu Dec 19 03:06:02 EST 2013
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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSsqjqURT1lqxE3HERAkpnAJ91eoLnmH1OtfyWd8daOliMk7Mx4wCePa28
/wLh48HO1zksgnqj7IU6nuM=
=wQ2G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
ADORE253
ON 'BECOMING LIKE GOD'
Mike Berg has been offering 'Becoming Like God' free on TV ads on
Discover channels.
Basic overt is claimed to be 'Desire to receive for Self Alone'.
Basic universal solvent is sharing.
He seems to value physical immortality which set me off, and he
doesn't spend enough time about spiritual immortality free from a body,
but beyond that the book is pretty deep and gives much to audit.
Adore by the way says the basic overt is 'Temporal Forevers' which
violate the sovereignty of the 'Temporal While'.
One becomes selfish once one thinks there is a limited supply of
things, and that if one gives it to another, one won't have it oneself,
or the other will destroy it and waste it, letting no one have it.
For example, many feel that if one were to give everything one had
to the poor, then everyone would be poor because the poor don't know how
to invest and reap a profit from the sun god Ra and Sun/Earth System.
So sharing can leave the world worse off, as now there is nothing
left to produce anything to GIVE to charity.
Berg says the proper question to ask is not how spiritual am I, but
'Am I like God yet'. The implication is that God is all giving, all
creating, all sharing etc. This kind of ignores the Imp in God, and
runs one into the fact that as a body in the physical universe
sacrificing the 1st dynamic for any other dynamic completely results in
no dynamics.
One also has to ask how can sharing be so good if it merely gives
to those who desire to receive for self alone? :) Sharing with them in
fact enhances their overt act against themselves and others.
But clearly much case is a failure to share tears of love and
sorrow with others, laughter too etc.
The real issue is separation, whatever enhances separation forever
is bad. Whatever enhances togetherness forever is also bad. Freedom to
come and go is good. People miss this on good, the purpose of being
found is to get lost, the purpose of getting lost is to be found.
Anyhow the book is worth reading, and the fact he is giving it away
is significant, although in the end its an effort to get you to buy
their other things, one of which is a full English translation of the
Kabbalah.
Dunno, seems to be the basic overt has not yet been stated, nor has
the basic process to undo it.
Togetherness and aloneness.
Homer
iTal (I-TalSpamSucks@sbcglobal.net) wrote:
>On 13 Dec 2004 21:15:51 -0500, Homer Wilson Smith
><homer@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>
>> www.becominglikegod.com
>>
>> www.kabbalah.com
>>
>> 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
>very interesting. thanks for posting the links.
>i heard kabbalah mentioned recently on TV. i swear, i think it was on
>some cheesball show like Entertainment Tonight were they where saying
>that a few big name celebs had embraced kabbalah - Madonna was one I
>believe.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Mike Berg has been offering 'Becoming Like God' free on TV ads on
Discover channels.
Basic overt is claimed to be 'Desire to receive for Self Alone'.
Basic universal solvent is sharing.
He seems to value physical immortality which set me off, and he
doesn't spend enough time about spiritual immortality free from a body,
but beyond that the book is pretty deep and gives much to audit.
Adore by the way says the basic overt is 'Temporal Forevers' which
violate the sovereignty of the 'Temporal While'.
One becomes selfish once one thinks there is a limited supply of
things, and that if one gives it to another, one won't have it oneself,
or the other will destroy it and waste it, letting no one have it.
For example, many feel that if one were to give everything one had
to the poor, then everyone would be poor because the poor don't know how
to invest and reap a profit from the sun god Ra and Sun/Earth System.
So sharing can leave the world worse off, as now there is nothing
left to produce anything to GIVE to charity.
Berg says the proper question to ask is not how spiritual am I, but
'Am I like God yet'. The implication is that God is all giving, all
creating, all sharing etc. This kind of ignores the Imp in God, and
runs one into the fact that as a body in the physical universe
sacrificing the 1st dynamic for any other dynamic completely results in
no dynamics.
One also has to ask how can sharing be so good if it merely gives
to those who desire to receive for self alone? :) Sharing with them in
fact enhances their overt act against themselves and others.
But clearly much case is a failure to share tears of love and
sorrow with others, laughter too etc.
The real issue is separation, whatever enhances separation forever
is bad. Whatever enhances togetherness forever is also bad. Freedom to
come and go is good. People miss this on good, the purpose of being
found is to get lost, the purpose of getting lost is to be found.
Anyhow the book is worth reading, and the fact he is giving it away
is significant, although in the end its an effort to get you to buy
their other things, one of which is a full English translation of the
Kabbalah.
Dunno, seems to be the basic overt has not yet been stated, nor has
the basic process to undo it.
Togetherness and aloneness.
Homer
iTal (I-TalSpamSucks@sbcglobal.net) wrote:
>On 13 Dec 2004 21:15:51 -0500, Homer Wilson Smith
><homer@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>
>> www.becominglikegod.com
>>
>> www.kabbalah.com
>>
>> 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
>very interesting. thanks for posting the links.
>i heard kabbalah mentioned recently on TV. i swear, i think it was on
>some cheesball show like Entertainment Tonight were they where saying
>that a few big name celebs had embraced kabbalah - Madonna was one I
>believe.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 16, 2013
ADORE361 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
INACTUALITY
Inactuality is the make break point on the pc's case.
Above inactuality the pc knows what is wrong with him.
Below inactuality he doesn't.
Above inactuality, if you ask him what's the matter, he will tell
you.
Below inactuality, he will give you a confused wrong item.
Below oblivion he will tell you 'nothing, life is grand', all the
while poisoning pigeons in the park.
Inactuality is the nail point below which the God Postulate on
the pc's case can no longer be changed.
He can't change it simply and only because he no longer knows
what it is.
He can't have the problem he's got, so he won't admit what it is,
so he's trying to change SOMETHING ELSE, some other problem which he
can have, which is an alter-is and results in more persistence of
both.
A God Postulate is that postulate which the pc thinks is true
because he has observed it to be true, when in fact it is true only
because he considers it is true.
God postulates are created by taking the true sequence which is
consideration -> observation
and turning it around into
observation -> consideration
The observation acts as proof that the consideration is true,
independent of the consideration.
Before the flip, considerations are cause and observations are
effect. Considerations cause things to be, and then you verify they
match your original intent with observation.
After the flip, observations are cause, and considerations are
the effect. Observations cause the consideration that something is is
true because you observed it. A consideration alone could not
possibly cause anything. Which is why the pc considers that changing
his mind about anything will be fruitless.
This is called the Consideration - Observation flip flop.
This is also your pc's major upset with himself, that he ever
engaged in operating the flip flop on himself. The humorous cruelty
of it escapes him.
At any point down to inactuality the pc is able to change his
mind on any primary postulate of limitation he has made.
That is how one handles a God Postulate, the pc changes his mind
and it vanishes.
There will be many of them, not infinite, perhaps a countable
heavy hand full on a case. The charge on each one however will be
'infinite', filled with forevers and nevers and loss of an infinite
number of beautiful eternities etc.
Below inactuality the pc no longer knows that the problem is, so
he can't change his mind about it. He will consider OTHER things are
the problem, and try to change his mind about them, but it won't work,
and he will become more convinced that postulates do not work.
You see postulates work. If you postulate you can't, then you
can't. But that's because you CAN. You see this?
The postulate that postulates don't work, works.
But a postulate can't be un done without undoing the original
true primary postulate on that chain of God postulates.
Thus once he has started his permanent personal nose dive below
inactuality, any new postulate he makes won't be undoable because he
isn't considering that postulates do anything anyhow. All postulates
are observations from there on out.
Who the hell knows WHAT is creating reality for him at that
point, he certainly doesn't want to know.
If you let something else create reality for you, what gets
created?
Inactuality is an effort to make nothing of one of the prime
incidents on the pc's case. If assessed for duration it will read and
indicate as FOREVER. This is because the incident is still going on.
He is suffering permanently from the effects of his own
postulates.
When assessed for when, date, it will read as timeless.
When assesed for where, location, it will read as everywhere.
He has had it with him for a very long time, and carried it with
him to a lot of different places.
Trying to find the beginning of this thing is hard. You are
trying to bring the pc up above inactuality to disaster.
From there it is merely a matter of changing one's mind on the
various God postulates found. Each one will go from a lot of struggle
and 'I am sunk' to calmness and 'Wow look at that'.
Once the prime postulate is found on the chain, the pc can simply
be there and change his mind about it and watch it vanish. His first
time, his own disbelief will put him on the balance point between
persistence and vanishment, but he just calms the struggle, just sits
there with it and watches it persist with the willingness to have it
be just for a while, truth will win and the condition will
start to dissolve.
His future on the subject will reverse before his eyes and go
from negative to positive.
Once a pc gets the hang of this, and comes to UNDERSTAND the
mechanism at work, he will be a terror to any case that crosses his
path.
For most pc's, the actual prime incident on the chain has sunk
way below inactuality, down through oblivion ("What case?"), through
fixidity, uncausing, and unexistence.
Ever run into someone who was just totally stumpy, they just
wouldn't budge no matter what you did or said? That's fixidity on the
tone scale. Its a last ditch effort to hold on to existence no matter
what. Below that is erosion, dispersal and uncausing, criminality,
disconnection and unexistence.
The last effort of a being trying to give is to take. That's
criminality on the tone scale and here you will find intentions too
dark to countenance.
Permission issues abound here, permission to open pandora's box.
He knows its not just him that's in trouble but the AllThatIs
from the top down. He is going to mess up heaven and hell for
EVERYONE and everything if he does it wrong.
The only remaining solution for the pc is to disconnect and
unexist.
Each God Postulate chain will be found to have nails at least at
unexistence, fixidity, oblivion, shock and inactuality. These are the
ridge points. Most of the rest are flows and dispersals.
Start at inactuality - NO inactuality, and when reads dry up, go
downwards until you start to get reads again. NEVER run an item
without also running the NO item.
Never go past an item without having checked for sync,
item, no item, no item, item, item, no item, no item, item.
Continue to the bottom, then come back up once the bottom losens
up. The pc won't have a clue what he is running, its all black until
the inactuality blows off. But he will recognize his blankness and
the blankness of others as a serious indication that something is
there and needs to be handled.
He also won't be making things worse during the day or sleep any
more. Convulsive not-isness, no understanding that something WAS
buried, will becomes things of the past.
His life will now audit him properly rather than sink him deeper.
When you hit the qualms, you are winning.
The qualms is 'this might be better to not look at, not know
about'.
He will put up impossibility, preposterousness, incredibility, no
permission and overwhelming shame as last ditch efforts to stay dead.
Better to have never loved, than to have loved and lost.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Aug 15 15:47:47 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 16 03:06:01 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore361.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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSrrRpURT1lqxE3HERAnYuAKCtN6a/aBWhjdvse+2PQfAvreeWgACgye6b
RTvO3+bb8jm9bbH3en5g4Pc=
=Mdww
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
INACTUALITY
Inactuality is the make break point on the pc's case.
Above inactuality the pc knows what is wrong with him.
Below inactuality he doesn't.
Above inactuality, if you ask him what's the matter, he will tell
you.
Below inactuality, he will give you a confused wrong item.
Below oblivion he will tell you 'nothing, life is grand', all the
while poisoning pigeons in the park.
Inactuality is the nail point below which the God Postulate on
the pc's case can no longer be changed.
He can't change it simply and only because he no longer knows
what it is.
He can't have the problem he's got, so he won't admit what it is,
so he's trying to change SOMETHING ELSE, some other problem which he
can have, which is an alter-is and results in more persistence of
both.
A God Postulate is that postulate which the pc thinks is true
because he has observed it to be true, when in fact it is true only
because he considers it is true.
God postulates are created by taking the true sequence which is
consideration -> observation
and turning it around into
observation -> consideration
The observation acts as proof that the consideration is true,
independent of the consideration.
Before the flip, considerations are cause and observations are
effect. Considerations cause things to be, and then you verify they
match your original intent with observation.
After the flip, observations are cause, and considerations are
the effect. Observations cause the consideration that something is is
true because you observed it. A consideration alone could not
possibly cause anything. Which is why the pc considers that changing
his mind about anything will be fruitless.
This is called the Consideration - Observation flip flop.
This is also your pc's major upset with himself, that he ever
engaged in operating the flip flop on himself. The humorous cruelty
of it escapes him.
At any point down to inactuality the pc is able to change his
mind on any primary postulate of limitation he has made.
That is how one handles a God Postulate, the pc changes his mind
and it vanishes.
There will be many of them, not infinite, perhaps a countable
heavy hand full on a case. The charge on each one however will be
'infinite', filled with forevers and nevers and loss of an infinite
number of beautiful eternities etc.
Below inactuality the pc no longer knows that the problem is, so
he can't change his mind about it. He will consider OTHER things are
the problem, and try to change his mind about them, but it won't work,
and he will become more convinced that postulates do not work.
You see postulates work. If you postulate you can't, then you
can't. But that's because you CAN. You see this?
The postulate that postulates don't work, works.
But a postulate can't be un done without undoing the original
true primary postulate on that chain of God postulates.
Thus once he has started his permanent personal nose dive below
inactuality, any new postulate he makes won't be undoable because he
isn't considering that postulates do anything anyhow. All postulates
are observations from there on out.
Who the hell knows WHAT is creating reality for him at that
point, he certainly doesn't want to know.
If you let something else create reality for you, what gets
created?
Inactuality is an effort to make nothing of one of the prime
incidents on the pc's case. If assessed for duration it will read and
indicate as FOREVER. This is because the incident is still going on.
He is suffering permanently from the effects of his own
postulates.
When assessed for when, date, it will read as timeless.
When assesed for where, location, it will read as everywhere.
He has had it with him for a very long time, and carried it with
him to a lot of different places.
Trying to find the beginning of this thing is hard. You are
trying to bring the pc up above inactuality to disaster.
From there it is merely a matter of changing one's mind on the
various God postulates found. Each one will go from a lot of struggle
and 'I am sunk' to calmness and 'Wow look at that'.
Once the prime postulate is found on the chain, the pc can simply
be there and change his mind about it and watch it vanish. His first
time, his own disbelief will put him on the balance point between
persistence and vanishment, but he just calms the struggle, just sits
there with it and watches it persist with the willingness to have it
be just for a while, truth will win and the condition will
start to dissolve.
His future on the subject will reverse before his eyes and go
from negative to positive.
Once a pc gets the hang of this, and comes to UNDERSTAND the
mechanism at work, he will be a terror to any case that crosses his
path.
For most pc's, the actual prime incident on the chain has sunk
way below inactuality, down through oblivion ("What case?"), through
fixidity, uncausing, and unexistence.
Ever run into someone who was just totally stumpy, they just
wouldn't budge no matter what you did or said? That's fixidity on the
tone scale. Its a last ditch effort to hold on to existence no matter
what. Below that is erosion, dispersal and uncausing, criminality,
disconnection and unexistence.
The last effort of a being trying to give is to take. That's
criminality on the tone scale and here you will find intentions too
dark to countenance.
Permission issues abound here, permission to open pandora's box.
He knows its not just him that's in trouble but the AllThatIs
from the top down. He is going to mess up heaven and hell for
EVERYONE and everything if he does it wrong.
The only remaining solution for the pc is to disconnect and
unexist.
Each God Postulate chain will be found to have nails at least at
unexistence, fixidity, oblivion, shock and inactuality. These are the
ridge points. Most of the rest are flows and dispersals.
Start at inactuality - NO inactuality, and when reads dry up, go
downwards until you start to get reads again. NEVER run an item
without also running the NO item.
Never go past an item without having checked for sync,
item, no item, no item, item, item, no item, no item, item.
Continue to the bottom, then come back up once the bottom losens
up. The pc won't have a clue what he is running, its all black until
the inactuality blows off. But he will recognize his blankness and
the blankness of others as a serious indication that something is
there and needs to be handled.
He also won't be making things worse during the day or sleep any
more. Convulsive not-isness, no understanding that something WAS
buried, will becomes things of the past.
His life will now audit him properly rather than sink him deeper.
When you hit the qualms, you are winning.
The qualms is 'this might be better to not look at, not know
about'.
He will put up impossibility, preposterousness, incredibility, no
permission and overwhelming shame as last ditch efforts to stay dead.
Better to have never loved, than to have loved and lost.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Aug 15 15:47:47 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 16 03:06:01 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore361.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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSrrRpURT1lqxE3HERAnYuAKCtN6a/aBWhjdvse+2PQfAvreeWgACgye6b
RTvO3+bb8jm9bbH3en5g4Pc=
=Mdww
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
LOGIC26 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CHECK-OUT-ABLE
I guess in part what drives me crazy about people claiming to be
perfectly certain of things that are wrong is they have separated the
state of certainty from the object that the certainty is about.
In other words they are claiming certainty to a truth that they
can not check out.
For example I present you with a black box and I say "There is a
red card inside this box."
If I ask you what is in the box, and you say a red card, and I
ask how do you know, you would say "Well Homer told me and he is
trustable etc."
But that's not a CHECKABLE CERTAINTY, because there is no
*DIRECT* connection between the observer and the card in the box.
Homer could be lying or be mistaken himself.
Even if God came down and TOLD you there is a red card in the
box, you still wouldn't have CHECKABLE CERTAINTY because again there
is no direct perception of the card in the box. Even God could be
lying. Even if God COULDN'T lie and you were certain of that, you
still wouldn't have direct checkable certainty of the card in the box.
Now we open the box and you look at the card. You can SEE it is
red, how can you doubt what you see? You can say it might be a
hallucination, there might not be a card there, you might be dreaming,
but we arn't talking about 'the card', we are talking about what you
SEE.
If you SEE a red card, you can then say "Yes I SEE A RED CARD, of
this I am certain."
Now this certainty is not just a belief, an arbitrary or willfully
chosen state of mind in the being, the certainty is CHECKABLE, the
certainty has a direct CAUSAL relationship to the experience being
observed.
The knowledge gleaned and what the knowledge is about have a direct
causal link between them which itself can be seen!
The observer and the observed are related by CAUSATION, the red
experience is causally responsible for knowing that it is red, the
observer isn't just being TOLD that it is red, he SEES it is red.
Do you see the difference?
So when we talk about perfect certainties, we aren't talking about
a mere state of mind concerning a truth, but a state of causal
connection between the observer and the observed, between the certainty
and what the certainty is about, allowing us to check the certainty for
its truth continuously in real present time.
This is what makes the certainty perfect, can not be wrong etc,
the real time causal connection is there and the being can SEE it is
right.
The certainty is 'check-out-able'.
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
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec 15 03:06:02 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic26.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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSrWLqURT1lqxE3HERAraTAJ9wxV3UgJ1L2o+uugQgr2DTv9uFrACg0ooF
Ux2wVOoVnRTQXUA2QWnUnD8=
=6CvC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CHECK-OUT-ABLE
I guess in part what drives me crazy about people claiming to be
perfectly certain of things that are wrong is they have separated the
state of certainty from the object that the certainty is about.
In other words they are claiming certainty to a truth that they
can not check out.
For example I present you with a black box and I say "There is a
red card inside this box."
If I ask you what is in the box, and you say a red card, and I
ask how do you know, you would say "Well Homer told me and he is
trustable etc."
But that's not a CHECKABLE CERTAINTY, because there is no
*DIRECT* connection between the observer and the card in the box.
Homer could be lying or be mistaken himself.
Even if God came down and TOLD you there is a red card in the
box, you still wouldn't have CHECKABLE CERTAINTY because again there
is no direct perception of the card in the box. Even God could be
lying. Even if God COULDN'T lie and you were certain of that, you
still wouldn't have direct checkable certainty of the card in the box.
Now we open the box and you look at the card. You can SEE it is
red, how can you doubt what you see? You can say it might be a
hallucination, there might not be a card there, you might be dreaming,
but we arn't talking about 'the card', we are talking about what you
SEE.
If you SEE a red card, you can then say "Yes I SEE A RED CARD, of
this I am certain."
Now this certainty is not just a belief, an arbitrary or willfully
chosen state of mind in the being, the certainty is CHECKABLE, the
certainty has a direct CAUSAL relationship to the experience being
observed.
The knowledge gleaned and what the knowledge is about have a direct
causal link between them which itself can be seen!
The observer and the observed are related by CAUSATION, the red
experience is causally responsible for knowing that it is red, the
observer isn't just being TOLD that it is red, he SEES it is red.
Do you see the difference?
So when we talk about perfect certainties, we aren't talking about
a mere state of mind concerning a truth, but a state of causal
connection between the observer and the observed, between the certainty
and what the certainty is about, allowing us to check the certainty for
its truth continuously in real present time.
This is what makes the certainty perfect, can not be wrong etc,
the real time causal connection is there and the being can SEE it is
right.
The certainty is 'check-out-able'.
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
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec 15 03:06:02 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic26.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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSrWLqURT1lqxE3HERAraTAJ9wxV3UgJ1L2o+uugQgr2DTv9uFrACg0ooF
Ux2wVOoVnRTQXUA2QWnUnD8=
=6CvC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
HELPHARM3 (fwd)
Include help by harming, harming by helping etc.
Homer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
HELP AND HARM
The way to help someone from harm is to run out help and harm
together.
Run variations on,
"How have you helped another?"
"How have you harmed another?"
"How has another helped you?"
"How has another harmed you?"
Run until Sovereign and no more involvement in help or harm.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 14 03:06:02 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/helpharm3.script
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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSrBFqURT1lqxE3HERAmDkAKDPChrx72LDe6RO2E6uidDDe2jkZwCgtiVF
/u6rqzhQ+lJoZrB0WDVS1rw=
=LpLX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Homer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
HELP AND HARM
The way to help someone from harm is to run out help and harm
together.
Run variations on,
"How have you helped another?"
"How have you harmed another?"
"How has another helped you?"
"How has another harmed you?"
Run until Sovereign and no more involvement in help or harm.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 14 03:06:02 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/helpharm3.script
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 v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFSrBFqURT1lqxE3HERAmDkAKDPChrx72LDe6RO2E6uidDDe2jkZwCgtiVF
/u6rqzhQ+lJoZrB0WDVS1rw=
=LpLX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, December 12, 2013
NotTooDangerousToLike (fwd)
LRH...
Not Too Dangerous to Like
References
Tape 5406C02 6ACC-33A "Procedure 30 Series: How to Process a Case"
Description
If an individual can't exteriorize, can't change his mind, can't
reconsider, can't get new considerations, can't create-survive-destroy in
any department, we know what to do about it. We merely find an area where
he can't change his considerations and pull the person over from "Certain
because somebody else thinks so" to "Certain because he knows so," and
that's just knowingness.
What would a person fall heir to after he'd been processed for a little
while? He'd fall heir to the bulk of, and maybe more, the basic
considerations of clearing. And he would know these things were true. This
is just a case manifestation.
Let's take affinity-reality-communication. And let's get his certainty on
affinity-reality-communication. What is his consideration on Affinity: "But
you'd better be careful because there are a lot of guys that'll do you in."
That his consideration on Affinity.
His consideration on Reality is: "It is true because I agreed to it, not
because I know it, but it really isn't true at all because we can't any of
us really be sure, because I've never had anybody around me who was sure.
If you agree with people on something that becomes dangerous because
they're not sure." That's his Reality. He's sitting there and you're
expected to do something about it.
We start with this basic triangle. We could start in on a case just like
this, "Let's get something in this room that it's not too dangerous to
like." That would stop him quite awhile until he'd find out that he
probably had a coin in his pocket and that it would be all right and this
is also part of the room. We'd get him there.
Commands
"Let's get something in this room that is not too dangerous to like."
"Thank you."
"Let's get something else in this room that it's not too dangerous to like."
"Thank you."
End Point
Run the process until a realization occurs, or an ability is regained.
Cautions
None
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 12 12:06:02 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/christine/NotTooDangerousToLike
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Not Too Dangerous to Like
References
Tape 5406C02 6ACC-33A "Procedure 30 Series: How to Process a Case"
Description
If an individual can't exteriorize, can't change his mind, can't
reconsider, can't get new considerations, can't create-survive-destroy in
any department, we know what to do about it. We merely find an area where
he can't change his considerations and pull the person over from "Certain
because somebody else thinks so" to "Certain because he knows so," and
that's just knowingness.
What would a person fall heir to after he'd been processed for a little
while? He'd fall heir to the bulk of, and maybe more, the basic
considerations of clearing. And he would know these things were true. This
is just a case manifestation.
Let's take affinity-reality-communication. And let's get his certainty on
affinity-reality-communication. What is his consideration on Affinity: "But
you'd better be careful because there are a lot of guys that'll do you in."
That his consideration on Affinity.
His consideration on Reality is: "It is true because I agreed to it, not
because I know it, but it really isn't true at all because we can't any of
us really be sure, because I've never had anybody around me who was sure.
If you agree with people on something that becomes dangerous because
they're not sure." That's his Reality. He's sitting there and you're
expected to do something about it.
We start with this basic triangle. We could start in on a case just like
this, "Let's get something in this room that it's not too dangerous to
like." That would stop him quite awhile until he'd find out that he
probably had a coin in his pocket and that it would be all right and this
is also part of the room. We'd get him there.
Commands
"Let's get something in this room that is not too dangerous to like."
"Thank you."
"Let's get something else in this room that it's not too dangerous to like."
"Thank you."
End Point
Run the process until a realization occurs, or an ability is regained.
Cautions
None
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 12 12:06:02 EST 2013
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/christine/NotTooDangerousToLike
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)