ADORE124 (fwd)

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


HALLUCINATION

Part of the problem with KP is he very easily condemns other's
ideas as HALLUCINATION but does not go into detail on how to know what
is hallucination and what isn't.

Hallucination is generally taken to mean percieving something
that is not real. The perception is real, but the implied external
referent isn't.

For example someone reviving a death in the Revolution will be
back there, he will be right back there man, Redcoats all over the
place, and he can SEE them.

If he is reviving then he will also react to them. If he is
merely returning, then he will be able to recount 'what is happening'.
If he is merely remembering, then he will be looking at a picture of
what happened.

So during a reviv or even a return we can say the pc is
hallucinating. In the reviv he believes momentarily his
hallucinations, but in returning he knows he is hallucinating.

So now that's in session, but sometimes you will get a guy on the
street who is so restimulated he will start seeing redcoats walking up
and down the boulevard and that is another kind of hallucination.

Or rather than hallucinate a sensory event like visuals or sonic,
he may just hallucinate ideas. He sees a guy walk in the door and the
guy is clearly an agent of Mars etc.

So you have hallucination of sensory events and hallucination of
significance or both.

But if we go back to the definition of hallucination as
perceiving something that is not real, we really have to first define
what is real and what is not.

One reknown psych said that basically since the perception is
real, then whatever is in the perception is irrelevant, the guy is
seeing what he is seeing. The real issue is how many are seeing it.

If EVERYONE is seeing the same thing, then who is to say it is
real or just a hallucination?

So his claim was that assignment of terms like hallucination or
psychotic to people was just one groups way of trying to out evolve
another group competing with it for survival.

Now your average meatball will claim that this is absurd, the
universe is one way and not another, and we evolve up to a point where
we can sense the physical universe, and our survival depends on
whether we perceive it correctly or not, and if we don't, then we die
and that includes if we hallucinate things being there that aren't or
visa versa.

Certainly this is a reasonable point of view from the meatballs
perspective but it depends on the concept that there exists a universe
independent of our perceptions of it, a universe that is in fact
RESPONSIBLE mechanically for our perceptions of it, and if we don't
perceive it right, well then our perceptual machine is broke.

However what if the meatball theory is wrong? What if there is
no actual external physical universe at all, what if its all a
holographic projection in the mind of God and its micro facets, us?

Then the universe no longer is relayed to us by our PERCEPTIONS
of what is there, but is in fact CREATED by our PROJECTIONS of what is
there.

Again you have the problem of minorities projecting one thing and
majorities projecting others and so eventually winning out etc.

But still the meaning of the term hallucination becomes much less
clear.

For example according to Adore which eschews the meatball theory
in favor of the dreamball theory, just because we SEE space and time,
doesn't mean there IS space and time. It does mean there is a
holographic projection mechanism, but the projector itself does not
have space or time.

"Source sources what source is not." - Adore.

In this view what we have are a number of dreamers projecting a
picture in their own minds of an external space/time universe, and
sharing it within themselves so they can all resonate to the same
illusion of space/time.

What the meatballs assign to a huge external commonality that our
perceptions should refer to and must match to be 'right', dreamballs
assign to a co shared resonation of personal perceptions.

Meatballs use perception to LEARN about the universe.

This is Knowing by Looking, we look first then we know.

Dreamballs use perception to CREATE the universe.

This is looking by knowing, we know first then we see what we
knowed. Meatballs of course call this hallcination and consider it
the highest high crime of all, namely to believe that what you think
is true becomes true just because you think its true.

But then they are meatballs, eh?

Adore says the meatballs used to be dreamballs but have by choice
fallen down into a state of DELUSION ABOUT ILLUSION. They see space
so they believe there IS space.

The Perception of space/time is an ILLUSION, and those that
believe it isn't are DELUDED ABOUT THE ILLUSION.

So who is hallucinating, the meatball or the dreamball?

Both are, but the dreamball knows it and the meatball thinks he's
in contact with actuality. The dreamball knows both are only in
contact with their perceptions. Since the dreamball makes no
interpolation from his perceptions to implied external actualities, he
can't be hallucinating as EVERYTHING he perceives exists only as the
perception of it.

So take a look at dreams. In my dreams there are people's,
places and times, and also in this world there are people's, places
and times.

Since I have probably 2 to 3 lucid dreams a night and have for
years, I have spent many many many hours in my dreams doing
experiments to see how real they are, how in sync they are with their
own pretenses, and most of all whether the beings I meet in them are
"real" or not.

For example I can say when I turn around there will be a piano
there, and sure enough I turn around and there it is.

But its keys won't be right so I say, I'm gonna turn around again
and this time the piano will be right! And there it is, just perfect.

So I sit down at the piano and start some haunted melody out of
Chopin's 3rd piano concerto from who knows what life, and I find the
keys above middle C are just silent. I can see the hammers moving,
but no sound. The lower keys work perfectly.

So I say "All right guys, stop fooling around, make the keys work
properly", and suddenly they do and away we go into music that haunts
the night and reminds me I don't know everything there is to know.

OK, so is that a hallucination?

Is the piano real?

The music sure is, I can HEAR IT.

My efforts to hit the keys in the dream are also real.

So what isn't real?

Just so with people.

I run into all kinds of people in dreams. Little one picture
BT's, more complex human type people, and some really mean powerful
demons etc.

The BT's if they bug me I say "You are a BT!" and usually that's
enough to get them to stop. If not, "Who are you/I? What are you/I?"
and a few of those will puddle them into a little color puddle on the
ground or make them vaporize.

The more complex people too respond to this kind of thing but I
find them more interesting. I go up to them, grab them by the ribs
and squeeze to see if I get a living body reaction out of them, and I
talk to them, feel their tits, give them a kiss, ask them their name,
what the date is, what city this is, what planet this is, whether they
know they are dreaming or not etc.

Finally I tell them I have only a few more minutes in their world
because I will be waking up soon and I can't stop it. The love and
feeling in these dream worlds is WAY beyond this waking world, and
often both they and I are sad to see me go. I wake up saying good bye
to them knowing I won't be with them for a while again.

I lose new friends every night when I wake up.

So is any of that real?

Well my feelings are real.

My perception of their bodies are real.

But is there another being in that other body perceiving me back?

I don't know, because I can't see another perceiver looking back.
You look into their eyes, and THEY LOOK ALIVE, just like any human
does who doesn't have tombstones in their eyes, in fact the dream
beings look MORE alive.

And they act alive. And the cry out in pain when hurt etc.

And they are bright, and they can audit up a storm, and play
music, and smile and laugh and crack jokes, and impart wisdom I have
no clue where it comes from.

I have more love and desire for some of my dream beings than I
have ever had for anyone in the waking world in this life.

Is that hallucination?

Am I just living in a dream world?

No one there but my own imagination?

I stick a knife into one of then and they cry in pain. Just a
pretense, just a program to make the sounds sound right?

The evidence that I have that my dream beings have living
sentient conscious units in them is just as great as any evidence I
might have about waking life beings.

So how can I say that one is hallucination and another is real?

KP can't answer this, so that kind of discounts his position.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Apr 29 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore124.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)

iD8DBQFTX09aURT1lqxE3HERArjNAJ4+h/5pTOMykuVHKPc7oWP1iZ9CHQCgltbH
X2F9srZlGneDAppJKHBW+EQ=
=GHpd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ACT22 (fwd)

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







OT POWER AND COMING IN

ACT - 22
7 October 1993

Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

OT means Operating Thetan or a Being in Royal Operating Condition.

I had a little accident today. I was replacing a window motor in
our Ford '79 LTD station wagon that had gone bad. It's an obnoxious
affair, you have to take the window off its runners, and then the
motor assembly etc. I had done it before and in fact I had done THIS
window before, trying to clean and fix the old motor, but it failed
again anyhow.

So there I was, with a new motor in the door and tightening the
final screws on the glass itself holding it to its moorings when BANG!
the window shattered into a zillion pieces, a lot of it falling on my
bare legs and giving me about 6 or 7 small little cuts and scratches.
I sat there a while as-ising the experience wondering what I had done
to bring this about, and the blood was flowing all over the place, and
I thought I could wipe it all over my leg and go limping down the
street crying 'Oh woe is me, woe is me!'

As I sat cross legged on the ground under the door, with a
million shards of glass scattered all over my legs and the ground, I
started to reflect on earlier experiences with glass. There was the
time I had dropped a glass in the bathroom and it shattered on the
sink and cut my little finger very badly, hospital, anesthetics,
stitches and all. That was my thumb sucking hand, so I had a hard
time with that one.

Then there was the time I had a glass blasting cap go off in my
face filling both eyes with small glass shards. The eye doctor spent
a couple of hours taking glass splinters out of the cornea of my eyes
with a needle.

What was I doing building a blasting cap in 10th grade you might
ask? Well preparing for Vietnam of course. You should have seen what
we were going to put the blasting cap INTO! Anyhow I got to walk
around for a week with a black eye batch over one eye, looking like a
pirate and saying 'ARRRRRGGGGG' to anyone who dared look my way.

Of course I wasn't wearing eye goggles back then and neither was
I wearing eye protection now with the car either, and as I sat there I
marveled at how close a call this might have been, and what would have
happened if all that glass from the car door HAD gone in my eyes.

As it was, it just shattered and fell like a frozen water fall
suddenly unfrozen onto my cross legs and the ground around me.

The cuts on my legs were extremely superficial, I had the whole
thing as-ised and done with in about 15 minutes, and me and Jane
started cleaning up the mess, glass and blood every where.

Then in the after math I started thinking, trying to glean some
useful cognition out of this.

I do believe in God, namely the God of Close Calls. The purpose
and nature of this God is to warn us with pain, but not a lot of pain
when we begin to stray off the path of the straight and narrow.

In looking back on this incident, this was clearly a close call,
there was no serious injury, no serious pain, no serious down time, no
serious anything. But boy was it real and boy was it a warning.

So once again my God comes through for me.

So I began thinking, ok Homer, how did this happen to you?

Well I was thinking about my mother, and a.c.t. and all the
enturbulation over my recent postings, as I was tightening in the last
bolt. I was not being hard on the bolt, but actually rather gentle as
I screwed it in, but perhaps in my thinking about all these things I
twisted it just a tad harder than I should have. Maybe the glass was
already weaker than it should have been, maybe I just screwed the bolt
in too hard.

So I said to myself, 'Serves you right for thinking about
screwing people's eyes out while you are working on glass!' Almost
certainly I had dramatized AT THE BOLT ON THE GLASS about something
totally irrelevant to the glass, and I got what I got.

So I said thank you to my God of Close Calls, and remanded myself
back to work and the business at hand.

I had learned long ago when my God of Close Calls was not so kind
to me, that the single most dangerous thing you can do in terms of
creating accidents for yourself, is to get destructively angry at the
physical universe. Such dramatization almost always results in an
accident soon afterwards if not immediately so.

Getting angry at people is one thing, but getting angry at dead
cold matter that doesn't even know you exist and could care less?
It's not only stupid its dangerous as hell.

If you want to end up in a hospital for the rest of your life,
keep it up.

I had also learned about the dangers of making negative
postulates about OTHER PEOPLE'S INCOMPETENCY. I was taking the car
out one day, which is always an exercise in dangerous postulates for
me, and I was getting into sort of an ARC break cognition to the
effect that no matter how careful or competent I was about driving,
there were always other people on the road and you just couldn't
control what they might do. I saw OTHER PEOPLE as the weak link in my
safety/security net of personal postulates.

So I went on about my business that day marveling at the terrible
danger of life, with all these other nut cases on the loose, kind of
wondering what I was to do about this all.

30 minutes later I was slowing down for traffic ahead of me
coming to a stop at a red light, on a very busy 'miracle mile' kind of
road, and someone sails right into my rear end as if I wasn't there.
No harm to anyone, except my ego and my car. Now THAT taught me a
lesson.

And the lesson was NOT that 'yes indeed other people are the weak
link in my security net of postulates'. The weak link was MY OWN DAMN
POSTULATES ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE!

Now I can just hear the boo-hoo cases going 'Prove it, Prove it,
it was just a coincidence!'

Right.

The LAST thing I am going to do is piss off my God of Close Calls
by thumbing my nose at him and telling him to 'Prove it!'

I can just see it now, 'Prove to me it wasn't a coincidence God!'
'Ok, Homey baby, how would you like it?'

So coming to present time, there I am sitting in a pool of glass,
and I started thinking about the long term, being here in this
universe for the rest of its time span. I have often mused that if
something has a finite possibility of happening, then given an
infinite amount of time, it definitely will.

There are many accidents and things that can be avoided merely by
being smart, on the ball, and saying your prayers to the God of Close
Calls every morning before you embark on your volcano climbing
missions. But frankly, I don't really see any real way to avoid all
serious pain and trouble FOREVER. Wars happen, bombs drop, continents
shift, suns go supernova, Church Mafia shows up at your door.

The postulate here is that SOMEDAY, SOMEWHERE you are going to
get hurt bad if you insist upon living in this universe forever. The
God of Close calls can not protect you forever, unless of course he
can.

I realized that if the only things that happened to me for the
rest of time were things like this most recent accident, then I would
be most happy to live here for a long time, as this wasn't bad at all,
and clearly had some important learning to be gleaned from it.

You see the definition of a close call is that the learning
gleaned was not canceled out by the severity of the lesson used to
teach the lesson.

If you learn not to run down stairs by falling and breaking your
back so that you can never walk or run down stairs again, then the
lesson did not serve any useful purpose. It taught you never to do
that again, by making sure you can't. That's not a close call.

If you teach someone not to speed by taking his license away from
him FOREVER, that's not a close call, and neither is it a useful
lesson.

If you teach someone not to rob people by executing him, that's
not a close call, and neither is it a useful lesson.

If you send someone to hell forever for doing wrong, that's not a
close call, and neither is it a useful lesson.

Except perhaps as an example to others.

Anyhow the God of Close Calls is trying to teach us things when
we are being particularly stupid and dense, in such a way that we can
actually pick up the pieces and BE WILLING to continue on in the game
and even make the same mistake again.

But if you continue to be stupid and dense and self-right inspite
of all the gentle warnings from this God, well then he allows you to
suffer the partial or full consequences of your actions and to hell
with you.

The idea here is that if you don't learn with gentle warnings, he
will allow you to ruin yourself.

So this is all very poetic and everything, but is it useful?

Here is the real question. Given that serious injuries can and
do happen for no apparent reason, and that given long enough time they
WILL occur, is there any reason to BE in this game given that one day
you will certainly rue being here?

Just how protected can you be in this universe of thermonuclear
ion storms warming the daisies?

Now if this universe is just a conglomeration of cold and
uncaring matter, then surely there is no safety in the long run.
Everyone risks untold horrible consequences every day that he remains.
You could try to spend every minute of every day trying to out guess
what the universe might do to you next, and taking every possible
precaution, but I submit that this would load down your life so much
as to make actually living it no longer available. You wouldn't have
any CPU cycles left to LIVE, if you spent all your time trying to
figure out how to not DIE or get crushed and end up wishing you could
die and not being able to.

It is easy to see that people with this cold and hard view of the
world will soon take to considering that the best way to live safely
here in this universe, even for a short time, is to get other's to
live it for them. This means to get others to do all the work, to
take all the risks, and then give the created affluence to YOU. This
is the modus operandi of the criminal, 'let others live for me against
their will, and to hell with them. If I don't do it to them first,
they will just do it to me anyhow, because we are all in this boat
together and it stinks.'

But then you have the spiritual side to the universe. You have
all sorts of people who believe in a conscious intelligent Creator who
is overseeing what is going on, and although he may not respond with
help when you ask for it, he does have everyone's best interests in
mind. Further most of these people believe that they are here only
for a short while, the span of one life, and that if only they are
very good, and don't anger the Creator, maybe they can get through
this life without any serious injuries or ARC breaks with life, and
then they can breathe easy once they are in heaven for the rest of
time. And of course all those criminal types who made life harder for
everyone than it needed to be will all be frying in hell begging to
die and not being able to just as they deserve.

Then you have the rest of us, who believe we chose to come here,
and will choose to come here again, but who for the life of us can't
figure out why the hell we would ever do something so stupid as that!

"Chose to come here? You've got to be kidding mon! I can't wait
to get OUT!"

So you see what we are running here is the Int-Ext Rundown on the
entire universe. (Int-Ext = Interiorization-Exteriorization) And this
IS what case is about, being IN something that you want to get out of,
but can't, because you have lost contact with wanting to be in and
CHOOSING to come in.

I mean what possible good could there be in this universe to make
up for all the pain that we risk and most certainly will endure if we
decide to really take up residence in this universe for the long term
and try to do something worth while?

WHAT'S IN IT FOR ME?

You see the mortals can't even think about the question, it's a
silly, almost criminal waste of time for them to consider it.

The Heavenly types also can't think about it because they too
know nothing could ever make living in this universe FOREVER
worthwhile. They can barely stand one life here which is why they
believe man is appointed to die but once. They all want out as soon
as possible, which is why many of them try to martyr themselves ahead
of schedule, usually during wars designed to dispatch infidels to
their fate ahead of schedule too.

You know, "God may be good, but He is not getting me out of here
fast enough. Maybe if I get myself killed doing something good for
Him, like trying to kill or kamikaze his enemies, He will let me into
heaven early."

There's a lot of dead bodies hanging on that Cross.

Well it's all a joke of course, because they just keep coming
back in a new body, usually of the race they just tried to wipe out.
Adore calls it the hypocrisy whirlpool. So these efforts to get to
heaven early just don't work.

All they get you is a new body and some new scheme to get to
Heaven early.

I mean how many lifetimes can you come back as a Christian, each
time thinking you will go to Heaven when you die, just to find out you
get another meat body, without becoming an Axe murderer or a Nazi bent
on wiping out his roots and his memory of having been a Jew two life
times ago?

Adore says that the hypocrisy whirlpool comes from 'High Regret
between High Friends on High Opposite Sides.'

It's based on the idea that you become what you regret hurting.

And you know it's not FORCED on anyone, it happens by their own
CHOICE.

There you are on the battle field as a Christian shooting Nazi's
left and right, and one day you kill a sweet innocent enemy child.
You are holding his limp body across your arms, and all of a sudden
war has a very different meaning to you. This child probably had a
mother who loved him, and whose eyes now will never be dry... and oh
its just too sad to contemplate and YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE!...etc

So you look at this kid and you say, 'Oh you poor dear thing, I
wish I could take care of you in my next life', so later you get
killed, and off you go to a NAZI hospital to take on a Nazi child to
give HIM a good life, to make up for your cold cruel deed.

The joke is, in your next life you will be on the battle field
killing CHRISTIANS trying to teach them a lesson about not being so
cruel to poor dear sweet little Nazi children. And you won't be
feeling sorry for those Christians at all, oh no, you KNOW they
deserve what they get, you WERE one. But watch out for the day you
kill a baby Jew by mistake. Oh boy, are you in for it then...

In your next life you will be celebrating Hanukkah.

Just so for everyone else.

If a Jew kills a Christian, he becomes a Christian. If a
Christian kills a Nazi, he becomes a Nazi. If a Nazi kills a Jew, he
becomes a Jew again.

And around and around we go. Pulling withholds on such a being
can be trying. He just doesn't want to know about it.

Adore says "Eventually all become marbles on the thetan plane."

This is the natural result of all those overts, regrets, making
amends and justifications piling up on you until you are solid as a
log and can't remember anything.

Picture cotton soaked in Crazy Glue, and you will get some idea
of what these guy's banks are like.

You are going to put him on an E-meter? You might as well encase
him in cement and leave him off at the bottom of the ocean floor for a
few millennia. Give him time to think about this stupid merry go
round he is on.

Actually, if you REALLY want to audit him, just get him to make
more of it.

The hypocrisy whirlpool is not some kind of absolute law. It's
just something that grows in areas of great mortal conflict, where
people in the course of things regret what they have done to their
sworn enemies. Their solution is to become the enemy in their next
life, in order to protect it, and to fight the group they were once a
part of.

Anyhow what this aberration all comes down to is NOT WANTING TO
BE HERE. Even if you are a true Bi-Directional Immortal and you know
you chose to come here, you are probably still wondering what the hell
you had in mind when you made that decision TO BE HERE.

So people start to get into clearing and the Bridge, and lower
forms of life start bombarding them with questions of the form, 'Prove
to me you have OT powers!'

Like, they have just come out of swimming around this hypocrisy
whirlpool thing for 3 million years, and they need these kind of cat
calls from the hyena and jackal crowd?

Now your first response to the skeptics might be, 'WHAT OT POWERS
did you have in mind?'

But you know, your OT powers are for USE not for DEMOING. So get
the difference there and how it applies.

Every move you make in life is forever, you can't take it back,
so DEMOING something takes up one of your moves, get it?

So when you use power, make sure it serves a purpose, YOUR
purpose. Don't let them GIVE you a purpose so you will demo power to
serve THEIR purpose. That's using your powers to serve another,
that's being a slave. Is that what you want?

It's ok to serve the worthy, those that treat you with respect,
not those that tempt you with cat calls. Listen to a hyena one day,
and try to picture what kind of being that is.

Each of these skeptic meatballs considers himself your reason to
live. In his eyes you exist to convince him he is wrong, and he
exists to give you purpose in that endeavor. Thus they always protest
loudly when you insult one of their kind as they figure that if you
drive the meatballs away with your rudeness and lack of consideration
for the favor they are doing you, you will be ruining your own most
precious game in life, proving them wrong.

They are only able to see the world through the eyes of the game
'What proof do you have for me today?' There ARE no other games going
on for them, or anyone else as far as they are concerned, and all
other games they are engaged in are directly or indirectly subsumed
under the game of justifying their belief in mortality and meatballs.

They don't WANT proof or they would have it on their own. But
don't expect them to EVER admit this. In fact expect them to get
loudly and rudely upset by such an allegation. 'Prove it!' they will
say. You see its a dramatization that applies to EVERYTHING.

They maintain stability for themselves by remaining forever in
doubt about their Operating Sovereignty. It's a phase we all go
through on our way back to the top. They would go to pieces and
become unstable if they received the proof they seek. They ask for it
all the time only because they hope desperately it won't be
forthcoming so they can live again one more day in relief. 'Thank GOD
I am going to die for good one day!'

Mortality is a solution to a detested immortality, so its a
cruelty to give them back their immortality without clearing the
destedness of it first. THEN demonstrate all you want, but they won't
need it by that time.

Their TOTAL lack of proof or evidence, inspite it dripping from
the walls, SERVES A PURPOSE to them. So get that good, you would be
OPPOSING them by GIVING them proof. In their eyes you would be doing
them a DISSERVICE by demonstrating the proof they desire, and they
would then proceed to return the favor in like kind.

Meatballs seek proof only where they are very sure they won't
find it. If you actually were to put on a demonstration and they
thought you might be able to do it, they wouldn't show up.

You might just demonstrate it on them, and they know it.

So to hell with the people who ask you to waste a move in life by
demonstrating OT powers to them.

The IMPORTANT question you should be asking yourself is, 'WHAT OT
POWERS DO I REALLY WANT TO HAVE?"

Most people low on the bridge would say, well it would be nice to
be able to breath fire, and eat bullets, and flame all my enemies from
a distance, and get out of my body, and create a mental forcefield
around me so my poor fragile body could never get hurt.

Don't you see, they want to be a GOD OF FORCE so that they can
protect their little worm on a stump.

This is a joke, no?

Pretty soon though, people begin to mature and they see that,
although all these fantastic abilities might indeed exist, they really
don't want them. I mean who would want his own personal atomic bomb?
Only a nut case, right? So the same goes for being able to microwave
people with your mind. It's really not that desirable an ability.

So you start to audit people on what abilities WOULD be
desirable, and you come up with some surprising answers that are one
hell of a lot more subtle than the 'prove it!' types ever imagined.

For example, it would be nice to be able to be a normal human
being for the rest of time, in many different bodies, and NOT get
seriously injured no matter what happened. THAT would be a most
amazing OT ability, now wouldn't it?

How would you prove it to others that you had it? You couldn't.
You wouldn't want to flaunt it either, because they would only try to
CAUSE you serious injury to prove to YOU that you DON'T have it. So
one would be very quiet and humble about all this, now wouldn't one.

So now you see the secret to GETTING OT abilities starts with
SENSIBLY delineating exactly what OT abilities you would REALLY like
to have, and which would allow you to be WILLING to be in this
universe for the rest of time (or for a good long fair chosen while).

That DOESN'T include abilities that would allow you to wipe out
this universe tomorrow, or destroy all bad people, or ruin every game
going on because you can't stand the sight of it anymore. These are
abilities you want because you DON'T WANT to be here. You can have
them too, but only after you WANT to be here.

And that's the difference between a sane individual and an insane
individual. The insane individual doesn't want to be here, so he
wants abilities that somehow allow him to not be here, even if its
just wiping here out.

But that's a trap. Those abilities exist, but they come AFTER
you have peace and equanimity and DESIRE about BEING HERE.

So if you seek the right abilities first, the humble ones that
allow you to walk through the valley of death unharmed except by
warnings and close calls that do not embitter you, then you will go OT
very fast, and finally attain all those other legendary abilities that
the meatballs don't believe are possible, and would die in their
tracks if you ever did prove you had them.

They are going about it in the wrong way, they are trying to GET
OUT, you are trying to get IN.

That's called being responsible for your own condition.

Coming in is a basic on the chain of all OT abilities, to create
and enter a space-time-game stream. If you connect back up with THAT
ability, all other abilities will flow to, through, and from you by
default. That's called in Adore, 'being connected to the Fountainhead
of Source'.

The noise makers don't want to come in, they deny ever having
chosen to come in, THEY WANT OUT, AND THEY DON'T WANT THE ABILITY TO
COME IN BECAUSE THEY MIGHT DO IT AGAIN!

You can get out as long you are WILLING to come in, and can admit
that you did come in on your own volition.

But you have to contact the aesthetic to coming in!

The meatballs only want OT powers to GET OUT, and failing that,
to protect themselves from being harmed while they are IN. How much
force would it take to protect your body forever more against all
possible ravages of this thermonuclear universe? That's how much raw
OT power they want, and all to protect a worm on a stump which they
consider to be themselves, their body.

These mortals are the very people who are living their lives by
getting others to live life for them, rip off cases in other words,
and if they ever did get that kind of OT power that they seek, they
would merely use it to the same ends.

So don't give them power, and don't demonstrate to them that you
have power if you do. Make more of them all howling for proof until
you tire of the scene.

The ONLY power you need, is the power to TO COME IN.

And the WILLINGNESS to use it.

All else will follow.

Homer


Session notes,

One way to run this is,

'Is there a withhold on COMING IN?'
'Is there a withhold on GOING IN?'
'Is there a withhold on WENT IN?'

'Who or what have you come in to?'

'Is there something about coming in that you are not talking
about?'

'On the 8th dynamic what have you come in to?'
'On the 7th dynamic what have you come in to?'
'On the 6th dynamic what have you come in to?'
'On the 5th dynamic what have you come in to?'
'On the 4th dynamic what have you come in to?'
'On the 3rd dynamic what have you come in to?'
'On the 2nd dynamic what have you come in to?'
'On the 1st dynamic what have you come in to?'

The 8th dynamic is the being as a Creator of himself as a Creature.

The 1st dynamic is the being as a Creature of himself as a Creator.

'Is there a withhold on coming into BEING?'

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Apr 28 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act22.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)

iD8DBQFTXf3aURT1lqxE3HERAoCJAKCmVg24v8W8ICF3PtLp5JM8XWJNjACfUshd
94hd9Up/3itKy0waJ+PzcoU=
=DjfI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

Re: Dead Forever

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


DEAD FOREVER
www.deadforever.com by William Campbell

(Response to private mail)

Xenu certainly has an earlier similar :) It's small time compared to
the loss of the proof.

Also Xenu didn't necessarily happen to me and thee, but to the clusters
floating everywhere.

Anyhow, Hubbard was version 0.1 alpha spaghetti code.

The last 3 years have provided me with stuff that actually moves
the mountain in me, but it gets more and more outrageous.

It is also getting harder and harder to get up and move around, a
problem both in motivation and pure counter force.

But I am feeling better, in hell though I be, not physically dying
any more, and I can feel emotion now where before I was dead as a door
nail. It's mostly sorrow, but that's better than concrete and rebar.

I am done with the first book of dead forever, perhaps I am beyond
enjoying someone's writing quality, its the story I am interested in,
he weaves the Xenu story into an existing real life scenario, and shows
how it may have developed back in those times.

Right or not, it rings a bell, there are clearly two kinds
of people on Earth, the dead and the dead squared.

The dead want to know, the others decidedly do not.

The dead seek a near life experience, the others can't wait to be
gone for good.

Campbell's claim is that the universe was taken over by the zots
(zombie robots), status quo society, hive minds a long time ago, and only
a few planets and peoples remained free to mis behave, dance, laugh, fuck,
get drunk, give the police state the finger, and enjoy themselves.

At that time they knew they were in an immortal time stream but were
losing the ability to take on new bodies easily, so keeping the one you
had as long as you could, was becoming more and more a priority.

If you could imagine a Taliban in black suits and ties, you might get
a zot pretty close. He calls them Bob's, because they wear Black On
Black.

Hubbard's claim was that it was over population that drove Xenu to
invent the dead forever implant, the story so far says it was merely the
desire to get rid of the over population of recalcitrant un re-educatable
rebells.

SOL (Shit Outta Luck) was chosen as the sun to send them to because it
is so distant from anything, and the implant made very sure everyone
either believed in death forever or hell forever and crazy Gods, and no
one was able to control their rebirth cycle after the implant.

My problem with any of this, beyond the 10 kilotons of force in my face
is the amnesia. Degradation doesn't even cover the surface of the state I
am in. Which is why I know there is an earlier bigger incident than mere
wars for men's minds, an incident in which we made ourselves vulnerable to
such a ludicrosity in the first place.

The implant as I have been able to audit it so far has 4 items in it,

It's a descending staircase, one lives through it and then goes out
the bottom 'forever' in time.

Alive Forever
Heaven Forever
Hell Forever
Dead Forever

The final stages lead a being to forget how to take on another body or
be unable or unwilling to, and so after they die here, they float into a
huge tar pit of sick dead and dying beings, a growing sargasso sea of the
spirit, that surrounds Earth and eventually they form NOTS clusters well
on their way out the tubes to the garbage pail at the end of time :)

Some attach to other people's bodies and time tracks, and park them
selves IN that peron's time track down in the past where they are out of
sight of present time, causing occlusions of the past, hoping and praying
that the host being gives up his interest in the past, and never gets his
time tracked cleared so they can hide and die there forever :)

Clearing a time track involves clearing the bugs out of it, the
clusters parked in its past, and the occlusions which they cause, and once
the past starts showing up again, it can be cleared directly until the
time track is no more.

And if you can even understand the above two sentences without
going cross eyed, you been in scientology way too long...

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com


======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Apr 30 14:30:49 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore951.memo
Send mail to archive.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)

iD8DBQFTYUFZURT1lqxE3HERAr97AKCK7GLbSXzSgpR1C0rfjlTASVbtgwCgyn+9
IXpbQHMzaJW5fisXNAJMl6w=
=Tiy/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE754

CRITTERS

The meatball class GodCritter is an interesting being.

Gods can really make themselves ugly relative to an actual truth,
it can be hard to behold.

A God side being can out ugly any mere Soul side being he might
create himself as.

These people talk about science as if they know any, they make
assertions of things they can't possibly know, and they generally act
like a rude interruption at a serious affair.

Just stick anyone of these clowns in a scientific symposium, and
let them present their position.

"No one has demonstrated proof of God, therefore God does not
exist!"

Given it enough time we have, I suppose.

These forlorn creatures, with big vocal cords, and born to live
once and then never love again, have two basic problems.

OUT THERE NESS

Their first problem is they believe in OUT THERE. They believe
there IS an out there, and they believe that the source of causation is
out there.

In the out there world, certain rules of discernment apply, we call
this the scientific method with its various verifiabilities and
falsifiabilities.

And yes, the rules of discernment like to see peer review, but for
one the absence of peer review doesn't make something wrong, nor does
its presence make something right.

Some of the greatest scientific work was done by lone individuals
hundreds of years before the rest of the world stopped laughing at them.

Usually however it is a matter of probabilities, and work that is
peer reviewed, in general, follows the opinion of the majority report,
which we instinctively take to be more dependable than the minority
report.

That the very existence of peers is itself unpeer reviewed, is
ignored.

How can you use a peer to review the existence of peers, if you
haven't proven a peer exists yet?

Who will peer review the existence of the first peer?

Ultimately you are alone with your truth.

And with the ultimate truths, you will have no peers to review.

The main problem then is this idea that everything of import comes
from out there, and thus the out there model of discernment applies. If
they would only learn that model well and stop confusing supporting
evidence with proof, they might do better even in their own fields of
scientific inquiry.

Alas, the dictionary defines proof as supporting evidence, and also
defines proof as perfect certainty, so the confusers love to declare
that supporting evidence equals perfect certainty.

Or they will tell you with perfect certainty that perfect certainty
does not exist.

Any fool knows that for *SURE* :)

In any case they are all mind broke.

Remember that most of the nitwits posturing 'science' on a.r.s.
are bigoted degrades, who probably have little or nothing to do with
actual science. And if they do, we are all in very serious trouble.

The problem comes in when they seek for the existence of God.

Because everything of causal import is OUT THERE, so must God be.

They miss the illogic of thinking that God made space and time, and
yet that same God is somehow to be found out there in space and time.
They want God to show some evidence for his existence, and they look out
there, into space/time in vain for evidence.

When you find yourself looking up to the Heavens when you are
talking to God, know you are lost.

You have to remember that the rules for discernment for learning
about anything in the out there world demand that one can never see the
thing directly but can only theorize about its nature based on its
causal effects in YOU.

Call that the Machine Uncertainty Principle if you will.

The poor mortal meatball is trying to learn about the dog by
looking at the dog poop on his shoe.

That is never going to give proof of the dog, and neither will it
ever give proof of God.

In other words you can never learn about God by studying humanity,
the physical universe, or anything you think God created.

At least not with perfect certainty, no matter how much
'supporting' evidence you are drowning in.

At best you can form a bet and act on it.

Anyhow we are all dreaming, and out there simply just does not
exist, any more than it exists in a sleep dream.

Things LOOK like they are out there, but they ain't.

How can they be, they are all you. Out there is what
YOU look like in the mirror of your consciousness, you have never
seen anything but yourself.

Interesting clothing, wearing a town on you.

Well what is it that is dreaming you say? You are, not your brain,
when you wake up enough levels, your brain vanishes with the last dream
you woke up from, leaving only you to be with your experience.

The physical universe is an exquisite theory brought asunder by one
ugly fact, consciousness.

The meatball will say that their consciousness is just a process in
a mechanical medium, the brain, and that their emotional heart is the
tick tock of electronic chemical or metal wheels.

Because the meatball thinks that everything is made of parts, the
more he tries to trace the cause of his own consciousness inside his
brain, the more he runs into parts with space between them, and each
part is more parts with space between them, until he gets to a
fundamental part that doesn't have any parts within parts any more.

In present *THEORY* those would be the quarks and the leptons like
the electron.

Physicists conceive those as point sources of cause, there just
aren't any more particles within particles once you get to that level,
they surmise.

But if you get enough quarks and leptons together you can build
just about anything including a meat brain.

As the being starts to zoom in on the center of his consciousness,
the space he is considering that his consciousness takes up inside his
brain gets smaller and smaller, until there just isn't enough brain
inside that space to account for what he sees going on in his mind and
conscious life.

But by the time your meatball has gotten down to a fundamental part
inside his brain he has bypassed his consciousness entirely, because he
thinks his consciousness is a PROCESS AMONG MANY PARTS of the brain.

In other words he considers that his consciousness itself is not a
fundamental part, but is instead a non zero size, spatial arrangement of
parts interacting with each other via cause and effect. A machine or
sub machine in other words.

He has to expand out from the dead center of his brain big enough
to encompass enough parts within the brain to be able to account for the
functional complexity of his conscious life.

How much of his brain does he have to encompass to account for the
full functioning of his consciousness and everything in it and what can
do?

And is it enough?

Can there BE enough brain to explain YOU?

So this leads us to the second major problem of the poor fellow
meatball, he is under the spell of the complexity of function and
structure theorem.

That theorem says that complexity of function must causally rest on
complexity of structure.

That's a complex way of saying that if something can DO something
complex, it must BE complex, made of lots of parts, interacting with
others parts via cause and effect across a space time distance.

In other words the more a machine can do on the outside, the more
complex the machine must be on the inside.

This is pretty easy to see, take an electron, it has spin, charge,
mass, position, velocity and quantum state. But that's it.

Certainly no consciousness, self awrareness, love, pain, shame
blame, regret, memory, will, intent, volition, purpose or sense of
personal agency.

An electron is very simple, not utterly simple, but basically
simple, it can only do a few things.

So one day if an electron were suddenly to sit up and whistle dixie
in 4 part harmony, scientists and meatballs alike would take serious
notice. That's just too much complexity of function being displayed and
not enough complexity of structure to explain it.

Another example that really bothers the meat and cheese crowd is
the red box that exists for an infinite time, and then one day in the
middle of infinite time, it changes state to green.

If the 'box' is just a patch of red, and it changes state to green,
there HAS to be a reason this happened.

That reason is either going to be an internal reason, something
inside the box suddenly changed state, and we are going to have to trace
THAT down too, or something impinged upon the box from the outside
causing it to change state.

Since the box has been red for an INFINITE amount of time, and the
turns green for the rest of INFINITE time, you can't even claim there
was some clock inside the box, because there is nothing to discriminate
one moment infinitely far way from the past from another moment also
infinitely far away from the past.

So the cause of the change from red to green can't be "well its
time came up for the change," like some timer was counting down and when
it got to zero the red changed to green.

Nor can it be a random process because if there is a finite non
zero probability that a change could take place at any moment of time,
it would have taken place long before an infinite amount of time would
have passed.

But that change in state can't come from nothing, because nothing
is not enough complexity of structure to account for the complexity of
function of changing from red to green.

Something can't come from nothing. Therefore if something exists,
something must have always existed.

Now each person has an idea of how complex or not they think they
are as a conscious being, some people think they are pretty simple as
far as their consciousness and its abilities go, and others think they
are very complex.

We all know the brain is complex, but is it complex enough to
account for the complexity of our conscious beingness AND take care of
the physical body at the same time?

Or maybe he has a conscious experience that he sees very clearly
can't be explained by a machine, by a space time gizmo, at all.

He gets the idea that love and shame can not of force and mass be
made.

Force and mass don't give a damn, he does. Since you can't make
something out of nothing, you can't make something that cares, out of
parts that don't.

This might violate a lot of new age crystal gazer nonsense that the
whole can be bigger than the sum of its parts, but actually when it
comes to machines, the whole can't do anything that at least one of its
parts can't do also in some uncorralled fashion.

Take a simple pocket watch for example, it keeps time because of
the causal pathways inside it from wound up spring, energy source,
through an oscillating escapement mechanism, the balance wheel, ending
at the hands on the dial face indicating how much time has gone by.

The truth is though if you take the watch apart, some of its parts
also have the quality of timingness. Every part is made of parts which
are made of atoms, which are made of electrons which are vibrating back
and forth KEEPING TIME.

The fundamental forces that drive a spring back and forth when you
pull or push on it and then let go is a way of keeping time.

All a pocket watch has done is corralled or harnessed the already
existing function of timingness of the parts inside it, to make it a
macro level event useful to humans rather than a micro level event
useful to no one.

Thus we get a simple theorem out of this, the sole purpose of a
complexity of parts is to instantiate one or more of the functions of
the parts themselves at a more macro level.

Same thing for the biggest meanest super computer ever built, it
can add because the simplest of electrical forces can add. The job of
the complexity builder then is to translate the abilities of the parts
into the abilities of the whole in a more useful way.

But how are you going to make pain out of force and mass in motion?

There is a difference between mass and will, and between force and
motivation.

Will can be forced, but it can also be motivated, those are
two discernably orthoganal things.

Orthoganal means one can't be made of the other.

Electrons may repel each other in close proximity, but they don't
CARE, they don't HURT.

If none of the particles in a machine can feel pain, then the
machine as a whole can't feel pain.

A machine can be programmed to ACT like it feels pain, to say OW!
every time the O key is hit on the keyboard, but is anything there
actually feeling pain?

So at some point the being has an epiphany out of all this and he
sees that the mechanics of OUTHERENESS are not all there is to his
world, as he has a conscious life too.

He also sees that mechanics and consciousness are dicoms.

Machines are dead, blind, live in the dark and can never be certain
of anything including their own existence, and can only act like it
gives a damn if programmed to do so.

Consciousness is alive and self luminous, perfectly certain of its
own existence, and gives a damn, has no choice about it, knows it, and
likes it that way.

Machines have no idea if cause exists, unless they are told it
does. And they could never discover for themselves if cause existed,
and couldn't even come up with the idea because machines can't SEE
cause.

Weirdly enough machines can't even see themselves being an effect,
they simply ARE an effect.

And that's something the conscious unit sees about the
machine, never something the machine can see about itself.

Running on cause and effect is insufficient to witnessing cause and
effect.

At best a machine can record and note a correlation between events,
but correlation, even perfect correlation is not perfect certainty of
causation except to massively bogus minds.

Consciousness has perfect certainty that personal agency exists.

There couldn't BE perfect certainty of color and self without
causation going on between perceiver and perceived. That causation can
be seen directly, not by looking at effects supposedly correlated to
theoretical causes, but by looking at cause directly.

Machines learn by indirect perception, they learn about
A by looking at B, namely A's affects in themselves.

Relative to B, A is a THEORY and B is some 'supporting evidence.'

Since the machine can't see A, nor the cause between A and B,
the machine can never have certainty that B was actually caused
by A, not that A is really out there.

Consciousness can see causations within itself by direct
perception of the causal agent, not by indirect perception of
alleged effects of the causal agent.

That's a big statement, meatballs will just go on by it.

Failing such an epiphany the meatball will consider that there is
NOTHING in his mere conscious experience that would teach him anything
OF IMPORT about the nature of the ALLTHATIS, because everything of
import comes from OUT THERE which includes his brain, which relative to
the center of his consciousness, is also OUT THERE.

So when you try to approach the subject of God with this guy, you
have a problem. He looks out there for God, sees nothing and says
"Whew! had me worried there for a moment you did" and goes on believing
God doesn't exist.

Now of course he has God conceived of as a conscious being separate
from himself who made him against his will and who is mostly concerned
with good and bad behavior.

"Love me you little piece of shit or I will send you to hell
forever."

What kind of God is this?

Good news is, being a separate being from the soul, such a God
remains forever a theory, and a false one at that.

Two different objects can never be certain of each other.

Bad news is, the soul IS God, and thus we have a problem with the
external rules of discernment.

How can you use EXTERNAL rules of discernment when the observer is
trying to learn about itself!

Looking out there won't find you anything, and once you find
something, IT WILL BE YOU.

But what are you going to do about those that insist on peer
review?

You say "I have seen the truth, we are all God in carnation."

They say "Prove it, he who makes the extraordinary claim has the
burden of proof, put up or shut up!" Like Occam's razor, that's a lot of
nonsense, but its touted religiously, I mean scientifically, by those
who are terrified you might be right.

You say, I can't prove it, you have to see it for yourself.

They say "You are hallucinating and brainwashed."

We will leave it up to the reader as a home work assignment to work
out who bears the burden of proving you are brainwashed or who is
hallucinating.

Now to a meatball, it is absolutely inconceivable to them that
there might be something to know about in you that could possibly be of
import to anyone including you.

In other words if you didn't find it by looking for it out there,
then it is either false, or utterly unimportant.

At first they said it wasn't true.

Then they said it wasn't important.

Then they said they knew it all along.

That's the journey from incipient carrion to God in carnation.

There are those that would go so far as to say that consciousness
is a mere epiphenomenon of the brain, that causation travels through the
brain and not consciousness, and that consciousness can't actually
affect anything because it merely displays what is going on.

Of course the mere fact that we are TALKING about consciousness,
implies that consciousness has seen itself and decided to talk about it
THROUGH THE BRAIN.

That happened without cause and effect?

GOD, GOD IS STUPID.

And if one argues that consciousness did not see itself, but that
the brain machinery saw it and started talking about it, well the brain
machine HAD to learn about the consciousness by being an effect of it,
so of course consciousness HAS CAUSE, including cause over matter,
energy, space and time, namely in the brain.

To know about consciousness is to be the effect of consciousness,
and if you are the effect of it, IT IS CAUSE over you at the moment of
that learning.

But once you spot your I AM, I CARE, I AM AGENT and I GIVE A DAMN,
and I hate meatballs to pieces, you will get over the idea that
consciousness isn't agent instantly.

So clearly we are not just dominos pushing others as we were
pushed.

A conscious domino can ORIGINATE a push without itself being pushed.

A conscious being can act independently of any prior events in
matter, energy, space/time and force, that might or might not have
impinged upon him first.

Thus we have a will that CAN be free of determination by the
physical universe. It is never however free of its own nature.

Thus we had better pray for that nature off consciousness, for
there are many more ways to harm than to help.

So one has to ask, if there is something that created space and
time, where are we going to look for it?

You would think that if you were God in carnation, that there would
be some shred of evidence left behind that you were.

Exercising paranormal powers won't prove anything, and they won't
come until you contact your own fountainhead of source anyhow.

But the thing you would long for most would be something that was
spaceless and timeless and was you all rolled into one.

Eternal, immutable, indestructible and at absolute peace.

Oh yes, and beyond thank you or endless gratitude, which ain't
peace.

Gratefulness is a kind of hysteria born of irresponsibility for
doing well.

Absolute peace is absolute smug.

So how much weller can you do than eternality with the ability to
wake up and get lost in a dream with others any time you want, with a
hundred trillion heavens and hells alternating along the way.

That's what you want, and that's what meatballs want, but they
can't admit it, too lost in the sour grapes of thinking they can't have
it.

It's painful to a meatball to even think of what he really wants,
if he ever gets momentarily really real about.

But once you had that experience of eternality within yourself, and
you are once again in contact with the CHOICE you made to manifest
yourself in space and time, that the ocean flows because of you, and
everyone else who chose to be here, you would KNOW something that can't
be proven to any one else without them also having the same experience.

Basically the only way to prove to another that you are not
brainwashed is to prove to them that they are, namely brainwashed to
believed they were meat, and made of out there!

What's more insane, a human that thinks it is God, or a God that
thinks it is human?

But you know the very self luminousness of your present time
consciousness is evidence enough of a spaceless timeless process
creating and maintaining your space time (dreamtime) existence.

The whole physical universe is a light picture burning off the face
of God.

But its a bit hard to see, and you would have to study the proof
long and hard. You would have to come to understand what a self
symbolizing event is and how it leads to self lumination, and I have
kind of given up on getting people to do that so we won't go there.

http://www.lightlink.com/theproof

But that is what you would have to do, observe a spaceless timeless
part of your own consciousness, and you would have all the evidence you
will ever need that 1.) we are all God incarnation, and 2.) you are an
eternal being lost in illusions of temporality, immortality, mortality
and out thereness.

And once you have done that, you can start rebuilding your power
packages again, and start playing around with the various magics of
outthereness, and practice with others of your own level with good
security.

But you see the problem is when you are dealing with others, they
are God too. And they don't want to know they are God, and that is why
they don't. And frankly its not just a friendly little game of let's
pretend we are not God for while and have a good time. No, this time it
was forever, they don't want to know about it FOR GOOD.

That's a serious forever in there.

So some piece of meat comes up to you and says 'Prove it!', you
might as well give it up right there, because he doesn't want to know,
and he doesn't know that he doesn't want to know.

If he did want to know, merely reminding him the world was a dream
would be enough to return some measure of clarity, lucidity, and
enlightenment.

Only the scientist needs the proof.

He is protecting a death directed state like you wouldn't believe,
until YOU finally come up to realizing you don't want to know either.

There are lots of happy high tone people running around all
claiming the glories of God and eternal life, and all the more power to
them, but most of it is 100 percent superficial.

THEY ARE BELOW THE MEATBALLS.

When they get a little deeper into the truth they have discovered,
they begin to realize to their infinite horror that they are a God in
hell, and they gave up long ago ever getting out.

(They have eternality and immortality confused.)

A few life times later you find them alone in a dark alley with
only an empty bottle to their name. You say 'Hey I thought we were all
God in carnation!" They will say, "Yeah I know, go away, that's the
problem."

So much for proving this to people, the science of religion can get
very beaten down by the very nature of a God being in trouble, seeking
death through illusions of mortality, by becoming what he made and
claiming it made him, then dying as it, as death comes to all compound
things, made of constituency, arrangement and process.

NOTHING made of parts interacting via cause and effect across a
space time distance stays together forever.

Thus "death is inherent in all compound things, seeking ye
diligently then for thy salvation." - Lord Buddha

If consciousness is a process in space time, then consciousness is
on death row.

However the truth is consciousness is a non process that is
conscious OF dreams of constituency, arrangement and process in space
time.

Dreams of machines, space time gizmos.

Consciousness is not made of anything it is conscious of, and
consciousness is not an arrangement of parts, as where consciousness
comes from, there is no space time to have parts in.

But that is what you are trying to do, build a bridge between
religion and science. The Gods in trouble hope you never do, but *REAL*
science is the only thing that will finally figure out the correct
religion, how we did it and why.

But don't look to the science found in the halls of academentia and
lower learning.

Two thousand years ago, both science and religion were failed
barbarisms.

Today science has grown up and has become a very successful
barbarism.

That may seem rough, but take a look at what physics has given us.

Atom bombs and cell phones.

Oh OK, physicists aren't all bad.

They gave us the cell phone so when the bombs drop, we can call up
our loved ones and kiss our sorry asses goodbye together.

But if science has evolved into a monstrosity, religion remains an
abomination.

It may be science that gave us the ability to terminate the world,
but it is religion that wants to destroy it.

So between the two headed Goliath of religion and science, goes
you.

You need to understand science cold, so you can understand religion
from the center of your GodSoul to the outer reaches of the AllThatIS.

None of which is OUT THERE.

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
Fri Apr 30 23:07:58 EDT 2010
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE57

KARMA

Electra's position that bad can happen to anyone, but only 'sticks'
(doesn't heal) to the guilty is a dangerous position, particularly
around people who have elected themselves professional victims and tried
to make themselves into a 'protected species'.

Karma is the stickiness of injuries, not the original fact of the
injury.

Should anyone speak the truth on the matter, the professional
victims will take great umbrage, throwing a dedex fit so to speak, and
try to nail the speaker to a cross or torture him until he repents from
his position that suffering only sticks to the guilty.

(A DEDEX is the complaining and blaming that guilty people do to
cover up what THEY did EARLIER, the DED. Dedex means the DED EXposed.
A DED is an unprovoked, sometimes accidental, harm that the guilty did
earlier that they are feeling guilty about and thus the try to find
things done to them LATER to help justify what they did EARLIER. The
DED -> DEDEX sequence is a sashay down the garden path into the garbage
pail and compost heap at the dark end of it.)

Since we have all partaken in this nonsense, trying to drive the
sense of total responsibility out of ourselves and others, all are
susceptible to this kind of torture and we will gladly bow and pray to
the God of Innocent Victims if they would only please take the nails
out. Their effort is to make us admit that we are suffering and yet are
innocent victims. If they can hurt us enough, they figure we will
figure 'we don't deserve this, so they must be right!"

Doesn't change the truth one iota.

Bad can happen to anyone, but those that don't heal from it, or who
try to build a life empire out of it are guilty either before or after
or both.

We all know that clean hands make a happy life, and that the way to
happiness is a true confession. The reason this is so lies the
mechanics of flinch and cringe.

Sovereignty is real and absolute for everyone.

Majesty is the *SOVEREIGN* desire that desire not be sovereign *FOR
A WHILE*.

Don't let the professional victims seeking protected species status
fool you otherwise. Most of the time they KNOW they are lying and they
wonder if you know, the rest of the time they believe it themsevles and
have fallen for their own trap. They *HAVE* to torture you to make
themselves right.

Thus Christ said "Don't throw pearls before swine." unless you are
willing and able to sell the wood and nails for a profit to the guys who
are going to crucify you.

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

_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

MCT2 (fwd)

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







THE GUY IN THE TANK

MCT - 2
13 December 1993

Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

>HS> Have you observed that observation is subjective and prone to
> > flawed interpretation?
>
>Yes. I've seen multiple observers have multiple and sometime
>contradictory interpretations, which suggests a potential for
>inaccuracy. Have you observed that observation is not subjective?

Your implication is that subjective implies flawed.

This is true if subjective observations are being used to learn
about objective referents, but it is not true if the subjective
observation is ABOUT the subjective experience or color form itself.

One can never know with certainty about anything other than what
one is looking at. If one is looking at his subjective color form to
determine what is true in the outside world, then of course his
observations, being done on a via, are uncertain.

Just because I SEE a Chris Schafmeister doesn't mean there IS a
Chris Schafmeister. However the fact that I SEE something does mean
that I SEE something, and that is certain.

Subjective observations are always certain when they are about
themselves, and such subjective observations are the ONLY kind of
observations that CAN be certain, because the observation is being done
on a direct contact basis and not on an implication from a via.

People have discounted the importance of observations about color
form because they are so worried about the physical universe that what
the color form IMPLIES about the external world is more important to
them than what it implies about the internal world.

You can't eat immortality.

This is short sighted though. I will admit we do need to eat, and
so uncertain knowledge gained through our subjective color form ABOUT
the hypothesized outside world is important, but it is also important to
know that our subjective color form ITSELF does not work on space-time
mechanical principles. If it did, we couldn't see it.

Machines are quite blind. They can't SEE, they can only respond.

RED COLOR FORM IS ITS OWN THING, machines can not SEE RED.

They can't see anything.

>I am certain when I have total confidence that my analysis cannot be
>wrong because it is a flawless application of deductive logic arriving
>at certain conclusions from given definitions or premises. That sort of
>certainty, however, is conditional on the accuracy of the premises; i.e.
>IF the premises are true, THEN the conclusion is true. In reality, it
>is a very rare premise that has 0 percent chance of being wrong.

Very rare premise? That says that there ARE premises that can be
certain. You can not say I am wrong about the existence of certainty
only because it is rare. Either it exists or it don't.

Anyhow we agree that the logic of a proof can be certain, but then
we have to ascertain the possible certainty of the premises, which
themselves, to be meaningful to reality, have to be actual observations
about reality.

I agree that finding certainty in observations is hard, but only if
one is using vias to learn. This means of course that, since we use our
conscious color form to learn about the supposed external universe, and
that we can not know about the external universe EXCEPT through our
conscious color forms, that there is no hope of a certain observation
about the external universe.

Therefore all the certainty that can ever be would have to be about
our own personal conscious color forms and our self.

It also follows that proof of the existence of the supposed
external universe is impossible.

The supposed external 'objective' universe, is at best a theory
developed to model what we observe with certainty in our conscious color
forms.

>Many persons have felt and expressed certainty and been
>proven wrong. You appear to be suggesting a definition of certainty
>that would necessitate agreement that these people weren't really
>certain when they said and thought they were.

Yes. If certainty is a gradient scale from 0 to 100 percent, and 0
percent means no chance of being right, and 100 percent means no chance
of being wrong, and 50 percent means total uncertainty, then what I mean
by perfect certainty is 100 percent certainty.

It is clear that if a 100 percent certainty can be wrong, then by
default any 100 percent certainty is self discounting, therefore there
IS no 100 percent certainty.

I claim that there are 100 percent certainties that can not be
proven wrong because they are clearly right, and so therefore any OTHER
certainty that was proven wrong, had to have been less than 100 percent
to start with.

Claiming you are 100 percent certain does not mean that you are.

If what you claim to be certain of later proves to be wrong, THAT
proves you weren't really 100 percent certain of it.

Sloppy 'certainties' open the door to being wrong.

>Who, then, is capable of certainty? How, then, may I distinguish
>between the certainty of one who is certain and the quasi-certainty of
>one who may be wrong?

You can not distinguish anything about another with certainty, only
about yourself. We are all just as blind to the nature of other people,
even their existence, as we are to the physical universe.

All we can see and know for sure is our own color TV set, our own
conscious color forms.

What other people claim, is merely what other people claim, that
must be for you, BY DEFAULT, an UN certainty.

>HS> I am sorry but what you say does not carry much weight with
> > me as you have already denied the surety of your own words.
>
>Would my words carry more weight if I claimed they were unchallengably
>accurate, correct, and precise?

No just logical.

"All generalities are false.

This sentence is untrue.

There are no absolutes.

There certainly is no certainty."

are all logical contradictions in terms. CERTAINLY. They are
meaningless and self denying. If people can live their lives with
circular self denying statements in their repertoire of 'what's true',
then all the more power to them.

You seem to have said that logic is certain, if so, then being
certain you can't be certain of anything is being illogical. Is it
useful to be illogical?

>I don't insist on defining what machines can have as consciousness, but
>I do see a strong similarity between bioconsciousness and computer
>consciousness.

Yes, bioconsciousness is being used as a TV monitor to display data
about the external universe, much as a soldier in a tank would use a
real TV set to monitor what was going on outside the tank, if he had
external TV cameras attached to the top of the tank on the outside aimed
at the external universe.

>I do see a need to discriminate between them, but I am
>not at all convinced that the presence or lack of "certainty" is the
>characteristic by which one may reasonably assign a CU candidate to
>its appropriate category.

I understand this, you have here demonstrated a complete grasp on
the challenge put before me.

Just as a foretaste of things to come, notice that the guy in a
tank looking at a TV monitor in order to 'learn' about what is going on
in the outside world, can not really be certain of the data coming in,
because anything might be interfering with the cause lines coming in
from the outside world to his TV screen inside the tank.

The image on the TV monitor is a SYMBOL for the external referent
that the symbol refers to and implies things about. A REFERENT is the
object in the external universe that is being referred to or referenced
by the symbol.

What he is trying to learn about is the external referent, HOWEVER
what he SEES is the symbol.

This is called learning about a cause by looking at it's effect.

The symbol is the effect. The referent is the cause.

The symbol is HOPEFULLY an accurate REPRESENTATION of the external
referent. As long as the symbol is an actual effect of the external
cause, then perhaps an argument can be made that the state of the symbol
accurately implies, follows and parallels the state of the external
cause. But there is no way to prove the integrity of the cause lines
coming into the symbol from the external referent.

At any point in the cause lines, someone or something, even God,
could be feeding in false data to the data lines. In a worst case
scenario the guy's data lines could be fed a recording of an external
universe that bore no resemblance to any actual universe present or
past.

Even if he turned the external TV cameras on themselves and their
own data lines to the internal TV monitor, if the lines were corrupt,
anything they might report about their own integrity could be wrong, and
therefore could not be trusted.

Therefore such a mechanical system of learning, which is dependent
on vias or internal symbols to symbolize external referents, HAS to be
uncertain by design.

This is what every one is screaming at me about when they tell me
there can never be any certainty. I KNOW THIS!

It is true because looking at effects (the internal TV monitor)
does not prove cause (the implied external objects represented by the
images on the TV monitor).

The establishment of the absolute CERTAIN UNCERTAINTY inherent in
learning via symbols or learning by looking at effects IS the machine
certainty theorem, namely a machine can not be certain of anything.

The only way a machine can learn about anything including itself is
via 'symbols and referents', or effects implying causes, or changes in
states here implying prior changes in states there.

There are two parts then to the MCT.

The first is to prove WITH CERTAINTY that a machine can not be
certain of anything. Considering how many of you are screaming at me
that certainty certainly doesn't exist, is dangerous, is immoral etc, I
would think this part would be easy.

The second part is to prove that a Conscious Unit CAN be certain of
SOME things concerning its own internal TV set and color forms.

This would imply that the INTERNAL nature by which a CU comes to
know of its own existence AND the nature of its own internal TV set, is
NOT a space-time mechanical process, but something else entirely.

If the process by which a conscious unit came to know of its own
existence and the nature of its own internal TV set of color forms, were
a mechanical process, then the CU could only surmise that maybe it
existed, and it could not know for sure.

It is CERTAINTY of self existence that implies that the conscious
unit is NOT learning about it self by looking at effects which merely
imply its own existence, but rather that it has direct contact WITH its
own existence.

A conscious unit learning about itself is NOT the same thing as a
TV monitor hooked up to a TV camera which is able to look at the TV
monitor. THAT may produce pretty infinite regressions, but it will
never produce a certain conclusion ON the TV monitor that the TV monitor
is there or even that the TV camera is there. The line could be
corrupted or fed a false image anywhere along the causal path. Wouldn't
you be able to see the spurious cable coming in providing the false
feed? Not if the data fed in by the false feed didn't show it!

Even if you have TWO TV cameras looking at each other hooked up to
the same TV monitor you still don't get certainty. What ends up on the
TV monitor may or may not be representative of what is really going on
in reality, in the TV cameras, in the data lines, and in the TV monitor.

There is no way you can get the TV monitor to display WITH
CERTAINTY what is being picked up by the TV cameras.

There is NO way you can hook a TV monitor up to a TV camera in such
a way that the TV monitor ALWAYS CERTAINLY displays what the TV camera
is actually pointed at.

Certainty is not possible in a mechanically linked learning system.

It has nothing in particular to do with nuts and bolts, or wires
d and electrons. It has to do with learning about causes VIA effects,
regardless of what they are made of.

There is CERTAINLY no certainty in that game.

Are we clear on this?

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Apr 23 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct2.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)

iD8DBQFTV2ZaURT1lqxE3HERAnTyAJ0dqzvjnBIvGMqlfpUCH1z7Ct9q3ACfROzV
N1G0GCWPFr+oI/zqo5hYpAI=
=u321
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

LOGIC16 (fwd)

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


SELF DENYING SYLLOGISMS

If you state,

"Syllogisms don't apply to anything"

you are intending that this statement be used as:

"Syllogisms don't apply to anything.
Exhibit A is a syllogism
Therefore Exhibit A doesn't apply to anything"

The point is that merely MAKING THE STATEMENT syllogisms don't
apply to anything assumes and intends that they do.

People who build their philsophies around self denying statements
are all wind between the ears.

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 ====================
Tue Apr 22 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic16.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)

iD8DBQFTVhTaURT1lqxE3HERAvbZAKDHKa2RIUFFtvVXKrD8fWsAalQMVgCg0iQI
7BYz+FTWfc0bSBCCMcFEbiI=
=jbch
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l