ADORE3 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


JEANETTE ROGERS (HERE-I-YAM@email.msn.com) wrote:

>Hi Homer,
>I'm afraid much of the above is over my head. I couldn't quite relate to
>it.

Sure you can, remember a time you 'will *NEVER* forgive' someone.

That's a forever and thus a dramatization, it brings DRAMA to a
situation rather than peace, vanishment and void.

>But one thing for sure, there definitely is something wrong with "forever."
>It seems to be a bit late on the track to be really basic, more like a 3rd
>postulate or something.

It's an effort to make sure something NEVER happens again, or
ALWAYS happens again, its an effort to create a permanent PERSISTENCE.

Run

"What would it be ok to have be for just a while."
"What would it not be ok to have be for just a while."

>Or, to put it another way, "forever" is possibly all the more devious
>because it harmonizes with (or is a mockery of) a theta truth.

Yes, it is an effort to bring the non temporal eternality of
static into being as a termporal eternity of MEST.

Something forever is hell forever.

Nothing forever is death forever.

Cycling between something and nothing, manifest and unmanifest
forever is "fair chosen peace via hell and high water".

In other words you can (willingly) have something as long as you
can have nothing, and you can have nothing as long as you can have
something, but if you HAVE to have something forever, then you begin
to seek nothing forever, and if you HAVE to have nothing forever you
begin to seek something forever, and see saw between the two
endlessly, life after life.

Hell forever - > Death Forever -> Hell forever -> Death forever

Meatball -> Christian -> Meatball -> Christian.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 26 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore3.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)

iD8DBQFTDaBqURT1lqxE3HERAliTAJ4hXiwjwzhNqNd5zQilB6BelFJtMQCfdQsa
O3fM/eeZYH3LGMsNftkz5yY=
=zH+s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l