-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
YOU 4
There are places we want to go, things we want to become, states we
want to recover.
But force and fit will not get you there.
You can't create a wall of solid concrete and then expect to be
able to bang your way through it with your head.
Most of life consists of dramatization.
Dramatization means bringing unnecessary drama to.
Drama consists of seriousness, importance, permanence and pain.
For those that are lost, they spend their lives dramatizing looking
for, searching for, trying to find what to do that would be best for
themselves and the rest of the world.
For those that have "found" their true calling, they swing their
battle axes trying to vanquish the vanquishers.
It's a substitute, but it gets them up in the morning.
Life becomes one long temper tantrum, for most a quiet fit of rage.
With smiles.
"How you doing this fine morning?"
"Good thank you, how are you doing?"
"Good, thanks."
We seek something deeper, and sometimes it opens up but the vertigo
sends us reeling back to the comfort of anonymity and banality.
We seek the higher pleasures and beauties, where the fabric of
reality and consciousness itself is made of gorgousness, but the deja vu
stuns us with unrecognizability, wonder and loss, how long as this been
going on and we didn't know?
And then somehow we who live in the world of impermanence, Sabe,
feel we are not ready for our debut on the concourses of life in the
realm of permanence, Dura.
Are our clothes clean enough to be in the light of our own godhood?
What no more tears? No more worry?
No matter what happens to others?
Is it OK that they do to themselves, what they are?
Is it OK for the Creator to create it self as precious, unique and
fragile, only to find it self on the side of a road dead?
Did the Creator put the road there too?
Operating Solo Realm.
Can you imagine it?
But then there is the choice.
The fair chosen choice.
To come here, to Sabe (SA-bay), where *ALL* is eventually lost.
Suffering is a gift from a GodSoul, with a golden temper, to
himself.
And GodSouls live to exchange those gifts with each other in
expressions of love, humor, and high appreciation for ludicrous demise.
It has been said that the only reason most people come here is
because they love someone who was already here.
"Tragedy and Travesty, Romance and Sin,
Miracles and Majesty, that's where I've been.
Miracles in Majesty, Romance and Song,
Tragedy and Travesty, that's where I've gone." -Adore
Are we really willing to be ourselves again?
Homer
Tue Jun 24 13:22:23 EDT 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Oct 29 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore594.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)
iD8DBQFUUJHZURT1lqxE3HERAtzcAJ9Nm8sOZKrUi6+XKspCI5O9YwbIqACcDTq+
1uAoPqLREewwttSyMbweC9I=
=zGn2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
SESSIO18 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WORRY AND FAITH
Palle P (palle1001@hotmail.com) wrote:
>The problem is to restore the unseparateness, as the separateness seems
>to be held there by charge of an intensity that is almost impossible to
>face, as one has to remain at least partially conscious while facing it
>or it won't erase.
One has to ask WHY is there charge between separateness and
unseparateness.
One is tempted to say well we lost the unseparateness so of
course there is charge, but maybe there was charge on HAVING
unseparateness, a detested static or immortality etc, a detested
something GOOD not a detested something bad, and that might change the
way we approach this charge.
For example I was thinking the other night while going to sleep,
what would happen if every night I just dozed off into the static,
totally at peace no problems forever for free etc. Would I be able to
stand this? :)
Do we WANT to be without worry?
>Sure. The problem is to stay alive when not flinching. There are some
>parts of the core case that makes one think more than twice before
>entering it.
Yep. Fools rush in where Angels dare not go, and God's run
crying for their Mama.
>But if one just stays uptone and very unserious about this
>stuff, it erases surprisingly easy. If one can bypass the protective
>barriers and stand it. But the "ego" sure hates such high speed erasure.
Yep, it's tiring work not flinching!
>Interesting how much everybody seems to agree. We are making progress.
>Total Freedom, joy and bliss here we come.
I got a short glimpse of the light a few hours ago, its quite
everything its chalked up to be and more. Well worth it.
>Well, it may take 30 years more of daily solo? Big job. But who knows,
>maybe it will at some point go very fast.
Worry seems to be the basic pivotal point between a magical
universe and a dead universe.
I can hear the skeptic rolling his eyes and saying "Oh right, I
have tried not worrying and it didn't work!"
No doubt.
But this guy couldn't get a broom to carry water if his life
depended on it, let alone make his life go right. So you gotta take
another look at the magic of no magic, and the pivot point of worry.
Worry and faith are counterposed. Not faith in God or some
extraneous source of help. One doesn't have 'Worry in', so one
shouldn't have 'faith in' either.
One has worry about, and faith about, mostly one's self and self
confidence. Ultimately confidence in one's self comes from confiding to
one's self that one did this to one's self, and if one can make it bad,
one can make it good or a cool operating mixture of both.
One also needs to let go of micro managing one's own life,
just because something *SPECIFIC* didn't go right inspite of
one's faith, the overall flow is either towards the light or not
depending on one's operation of worry and faith. And the over all
results should be obvious.
Worry and faith make a big dicom.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Oct 28 14:28:48 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sessio18.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)
iD8DBQFUT+BgURT1lqxE3HERAgCmAJ9J/OxwHZDpiI/YKf55KN59palNeQCeNKJt
J9MBMDlUCij7jABdt1qNb3A=
=6iNG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WORRY AND FAITH
Palle P (palle1001@hotmail.com) wrote:
>The problem is to restore the unseparateness, as the separateness seems
>to be held there by charge of an intensity that is almost impossible to
>face, as one has to remain at least partially conscious while facing it
>or it won't erase.
One has to ask WHY is there charge between separateness and
unseparateness.
One is tempted to say well we lost the unseparateness so of
course there is charge, but maybe there was charge on HAVING
unseparateness, a detested static or immortality etc, a detested
something GOOD not a detested something bad, and that might change the
way we approach this charge.
For example I was thinking the other night while going to sleep,
what would happen if every night I just dozed off into the static,
totally at peace no problems forever for free etc. Would I be able to
stand this? :)
Do we WANT to be without worry?
>Sure. The problem is to stay alive when not flinching. There are some
>parts of the core case that makes one think more than twice before
>entering it.
Yep. Fools rush in where Angels dare not go, and God's run
crying for their Mama.
>But if one just stays uptone and very unserious about this
>stuff, it erases surprisingly easy. If one can bypass the protective
>barriers and stand it. But the "ego" sure hates such high speed erasure.
Yep, it's tiring work not flinching!
>Interesting how much everybody seems to agree. We are making progress.
>Total Freedom, joy and bliss here we come.
I got a short glimpse of the light a few hours ago, its quite
everything its chalked up to be and more. Well worth it.
>Well, it may take 30 years more of daily solo? Big job. But who knows,
>maybe it will at some point go very fast.
Worry seems to be the basic pivotal point between a magical
universe and a dead universe.
I can hear the skeptic rolling his eyes and saying "Oh right, I
have tried not worrying and it didn't work!"
No doubt.
But this guy couldn't get a broom to carry water if his life
depended on it, let alone make his life go right. So you gotta take
another look at the magic of no magic, and the pivot point of worry.
Worry and faith are counterposed. Not faith in God or some
extraneous source of help. One doesn't have 'Worry in', so one
shouldn't have 'faith in' either.
One has worry about, and faith about, mostly one's self and self
confidence. Ultimately confidence in one's self comes from confiding to
one's self that one did this to one's self, and if one can make it bad,
one can make it good or a cool operating mixture of both.
One also needs to let go of micro managing one's own life,
just because something *SPECIFIC* didn't go right inspite of
one's faith, the overall flow is either towards the light or not
depending on one's operation of worry and faith. And the over all
results should be obvious.
Worry and faith make a big dicom.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Oct 28 14:28:48 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sessio18.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)
iD8DBQFUT+BgURT1lqxE3HERAgCmAJ9J/OxwHZDpiI/YKf55KN59palNeQCeNKJt
J9MBMDlUCij7jABdt1qNb3A=
=6iNG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, October 27, 2014
ADORE339
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
AD HOMINEM AND THE CLEAR-L CHARTER
I have wanted to place an item in the clear-l/a.c.t charter on the
subject of ad hominem for a long time, but have hesitated due to the
difficulty of getting a clear definition of it.
Many people for example confuse ad hominem with descriptive name
calling. As much as some may not like being called names such as
dilletante, name calling has nothing at all to do with ad hominem.
Ad Hominem is the specific effort to belittle the truth of an
assertion by pointing out generally negative *IRRELEVANT* qualities of
the being making the assertion.
For example I say "I have discovered that water freezes at 32
degress Farenheit" and Phil says, "No way, Homer is a drug addict and
child molester, looks at kiddie porn all day long on the net."
You see its just not relevant.
Saying that Carol is wrong BECAUSE she is a dilletante in the
subject is ad hominem for sure, but saying Carol is a dilletante because
she is unstudied and thus might be wrong in the subject is not.
Now let's take Phil for instance. Almost the totality of his
postings on this group depend on ad hominem in one way or another, when
he can't get agreement about how wrong the tech is on a technical basis,
he starts bringing up supposed character flaws in the originator of the
tech, as if they had anything to do with the truth of the matter.
Worse he lies and fabricates about what the originator said, for
example by repeatedly bringing up the little fat boy with a bugle being
blown out of a volcano. Hubbard never said such a thing and Phil knows
it, but he has already lost the argument using forthright reason, so he
reverts to ad hominem and then outright lying by trying to make Hubbard
look so ridiculous and pathetic that no one would believe a word he
said.
*NO ONE* is as bad as Phil tries to make Hubbard out to be.
Now sometimes things like excessive drug, alcohol or medicine use
can be relevant to the results of a man's work, so when we are told
Hubbard was doing drugs of one sort or another while doing OT III on
himself, it becomes relevant. NOT AS A WAY TO TOTALLY DISCOUNT THE
INCIDENT THOUGH. But like all incidents run under drugs, they need to
be re run straight to make sure all charge is gone, and various parts of
the story or date/locate might change.
If you take a look at the Pilot's work on Incident's I and II, and
El Kin's work on the I, II and III, you will see a very different
approach to the matter than Phil's which is brazenly disgraceful.
Phil talks much about personal integrity and decency, but delivers
little himself.
Now you see that statement is not ad hominem, it is my opinion
about Phil.
When I managed the ADORE-L list, we had one rule, called the 50/50
rule. 50 percent flame must be matched by 50 percent content.
Flame was anything that was not content which included name
calling, ad hominem and even praise.
For example if I say someone is a great thinker, or I say someone
is a stupid idiot, what's the difference. Neither says anything of
importance. Both are hype, pure flame, one is positive flame and one is
negative flame.
When Carol says,
"All that comes from God is good,
Man came from God,
Man is not all good."
and I call Carol an illogical nitwit, you see that is not ad
hominem, that is descriptive name calling.
When she says 'syllogisms never did much for me', and I say no
wonder you engage in 'female logic' all the time, again its descriptive
name calling.
We have a right to call the insane insane, and to call a meatball a
meatball. Meatball's don't like being called meatballs because they
know its right.
What we don't have a right to do, is claim that Roland's
exteriorization was false because he plays with his pud twice a day.
Its just not relevant to the facts under question.
Roland by the way keeps screaming for proof because he missed proof
in the exteriorization he had. He already has his proof but can't quite
contact it due to the bad auditing and his own lousy awareness of
things.
As to what we can do about ad hominem exactly, is we can ban it,
and those guilty of it will simply be retro modded out of existence on
clear-l and our news server. That's the way we got rid of KP, we retro
modded his postings out of existence on lightlink's news server and he
stopped posting here.
The banned poster will continue to be able to post, but their
postings will not last on our news server and will not be archived by
the archiving bots, and anyone using our news server to read a.c.t won't
find the postings there if there has been enough time between the
posting and the retro mod action, about once an hour.
I too consider ad hominem to be vile, it has no earthly purpose or
use except to disgrace oneself to everyone else. But I will not get
into a polite forum where there is no name calling and no freedom to
call a nitwit a nitwit.
By the way another very subtle form of ad hominem is to claim that
someone asserts something merely because they were taught it by Hubbard.
People do have their own ideas, sometimes before or after they hear it
from others.
Trying to make an idea wrong by claiming they got it from another
is a very poisonous form of ad hominem and often is a wrong indication
to boot.
Comments and suggestions welcome.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Oct 27 12:14:36 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore339.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)
iD8DBQFUTm9sURT1lqxE3HERAlRKAKC0yLYtDuRAjZm2tUsrL0QSwxCQSwCgjWs1
lEJ+UOqnXPVgyQKMJ6b8wcg=
=abyZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
AD HOMINEM AND THE CLEAR-L CHARTER
I have wanted to place an item in the clear-l/a.c.t charter on the
subject of ad hominem for a long time, but have hesitated due to the
difficulty of getting a clear definition of it.
Many people for example confuse ad hominem with descriptive name
calling. As much as some may not like being called names such as
dilletante, name calling has nothing at all to do with ad hominem.
Ad Hominem is the specific effort to belittle the truth of an
assertion by pointing out generally negative *IRRELEVANT* qualities of
the being making the assertion.
For example I say "I have discovered that water freezes at 32
degress Farenheit" and Phil says, "No way, Homer is a drug addict and
child molester, looks at kiddie porn all day long on the net."
You see its just not relevant.
Saying that Carol is wrong BECAUSE she is a dilletante in the
subject is ad hominem for sure, but saying Carol is a dilletante because
she is unstudied and thus might be wrong in the subject is not.
Now let's take Phil for instance. Almost the totality of his
postings on this group depend on ad hominem in one way or another, when
he can't get agreement about how wrong the tech is on a technical basis,
he starts bringing up supposed character flaws in the originator of the
tech, as if they had anything to do with the truth of the matter.
Worse he lies and fabricates about what the originator said, for
example by repeatedly bringing up the little fat boy with a bugle being
blown out of a volcano. Hubbard never said such a thing and Phil knows
it, but he has already lost the argument using forthright reason, so he
reverts to ad hominem and then outright lying by trying to make Hubbard
look so ridiculous and pathetic that no one would believe a word he
said.
*NO ONE* is as bad as Phil tries to make Hubbard out to be.
Now sometimes things like excessive drug, alcohol or medicine use
can be relevant to the results of a man's work, so when we are told
Hubbard was doing drugs of one sort or another while doing OT III on
himself, it becomes relevant. NOT AS A WAY TO TOTALLY DISCOUNT THE
INCIDENT THOUGH. But like all incidents run under drugs, they need to
be re run straight to make sure all charge is gone, and various parts of
the story or date/locate might change.
If you take a look at the Pilot's work on Incident's I and II, and
El Kin's work on the I, II and III, you will see a very different
approach to the matter than Phil's which is brazenly disgraceful.
Phil talks much about personal integrity and decency, but delivers
little himself.
Now you see that statement is not ad hominem, it is my opinion
about Phil.
When I managed the ADORE-L list, we had one rule, called the 50/50
rule. 50 percent flame must be matched by 50 percent content.
Flame was anything that was not content which included name
calling, ad hominem and even praise.
For example if I say someone is a great thinker, or I say someone
is a stupid idiot, what's the difference. Neither says anything of
importance. Both are hype, pure flame, one is positive flame and one is
negative flame.
When Carol says,
"All that comes from God is good,
Man came from God,
Man is not all good."
and I call Carol an illogical nitwit, you see that is not ad
hominem, that is descriptive name calling.
When she says 'syllogisms never did much for me', and I say no
wonder you engage in 'female logic' all the time, again its descriptive
name calling.
We have a right to call the insane insane, and to call a meatball a
meatball. Meatball's don't like being called meatballs because they
know its right.
What we don't have a right to do, is claim that Roland's
exteriorization was false because he plays with his pud twice a day.
Its just not relevant to the facts under question.
Roland by the way keeps screaming for proof because he missed proof
in the exteriorization he had. He already has his proof but can't quite
contact it due to the bad auditing and his own lousy awareness of
things.
As to what we can do about ad hominem exactly, is we can ban it,
and those guilty of it will simply be retro modded out of existence on
clear-l and our news server. That's the way we got rid of KP, we retro
modded his postings out of existence on lightlink's news server and he
stopped posting here.
The banned poster will continue to be able to post, but their
postings will not last on our news server and will not be archived by
the archiving bots, and anyone using our news server to read a.c.t won't
find the postings there if there has been enough time between the
posting and the retro mod action, about once an hour.
I too consider ad hominem to be vile, it has no earthly purpose or
use except to disgrace oneself to everyone else. But I will not get
into a polite forum where there is no name calling and no freedom to
call a nitwit a nitwit.
By the way another very subtle form of ad hominem is to claim that
someone asserts something merely because they were taught it by Hubbard.
People do have their own ideas, sometimes before or after they hear it
from others.
Trying to make an idea wrong by claiming they got it from another
is a very poisonous form of ad hominem and often is a wrong indication
to boot.
Comments and suggestions welcome.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Oct 27 12:14:36 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore339.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)
iD8DBQFUTm9sURT1lqxE3HERAlRKAKC0yLYtDuRAjZm2tUsrL0QSwxCQSwCgjWs1
lEJ+UOqnXPVgyQKMJ6b8wcg=
=abyZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, October 26, 2014
ADORE60
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Peace will not come until
Sorrow has had its say.
Peace will not stay until
ALL of sorrow has had its day.
Adore
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 26 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore60.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)
iD8DBQFUTJ1aURT1lqxE3HERAlOrAJ4hz9Z/ZzG++zVc4+9kOOuoNE9x7wCfQ/gz
4Gn21Q+g1G3YfftBeUQ+O/k=
=MLbr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Peace will not come until
Sorrow has had its say.
Peace will not stay until
ALL of sorrow has had its day.
Adore
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 26 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore60.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)
iD8DBQFUTJ1aURT1lqxE3HERAlOrAJ4hz9Z/ZzG++zVc4+9kOOuoNE9x7wCfQ/gz
4Gn21Q+g1G3YfftBeUQ+O/k=
=MLbr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, October 25, 2014
ADORE367
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
MADE AND UNMADE
If a being can be made/created, then he can be unmade/uncreated.
By definition being made means being made by something other than
one's self, without one's permission, or will or intent or volition.
Thus this other determinism forever remains able to unmake one,
should it desire.
This is not sovereignty.
You can't BECOME eternal, you can only BE eternal and always have
been. Same for sovereignty.
Electra said that the being goes into such shock from its first
awareness that "it was made", that it creates time itself in order to
get away from that moment forever more.
The being would prefer impending death forever than being created
forever.
Once time is created, the being then fights being uncreated forever
more, because it does want to exist, just not be created. But the
CHARGE on death, i.e. being uncreated, comes from the charge on being
created.
Thus one must run out the First Hello with one's self in order to
run out the Last Good bye with one's self.
At which point timelessness is again regained and the being
realizes he did it to himself as a practical joke of magnitude.
The two concepts of being created and being uncreated then vanish
into laughter and peace.
"Hark the Herald Angels sing, Glory be to the new born *KING*.
YOU."
"As for God, who hired Him, and what are we paying Him for?"
From Adore.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Oct 25 16:53:04 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore367.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)
iD8DBQFUTA2wURT1lqxE3HERApwfAJ9nRGhJxXcGTikA8bjllgVIY28ehQCgjLqL
GQBz3+Mcf87B3rof/29oLoI=
=aq5f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
MADE AND UNMADE
If a being can be made/created, then he can be unmade/uncreated.
By definition being made means being made by something other than
one's self, without one's permission, or will or intent or volition.
Thus this other determinism forever remains able to unmake one,
should it desire.
This is not sovereignty.
You can't BECOME eternal, you can only BE eternal and always have
been. Same for sovereignty.
Electra said that the being goes into such shock from its first
awareness that "it was made", that it creates time itself in order to
get away from that moment forever more.
The being would prefer impending death forever than being created
forever.
Once time is created, the being then fights being uncreated forever
more, because it does want to exist, just not be created. But the
CHARGE on death, i.e. being uncreated, comes from the charge on being
created.
Thus one must run out the First Hello with one's self in order to
run out the Last Good bye with one's self.
At which point timelessness is again regained and the being
realizes he did it to himself as a practical joke of magnitude.
The two concepts of being created and being uncreated then vanish
into laughter and peace.
"Hark the Herald Angels sing, Glory be to the new born *KING*.
YOU."
"As for God, who hired Him, and what are we paying Him for?"
From Adore.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Oct 25 16:53:04 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore367.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)
iD8DBQFUTA2wURT1lqxE3HERApwfAJ9nRGhJxXcGTikA8bjllgVIY28ehQCgjLqL
GQBz3+Mcf87B3rof/29oLoI=
=aq5f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, October 24, 2014
ADORE958
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Run,
Get the idea of BEING GOD.
Get the idea of BECOMING HUMAN.
E/P: Able again.
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
Tue Oct 14 14:01:05 EDT 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 24 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore958.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)
iD8DBQFUSfpaURT1lqxE3HERAraJAJ9QHH1m4wXz4xsxig8BluzI3LsBowCeP1nV
pAiQxIHcQiSkYmi4+bEoc74=
=3kts
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Run,
Get the idea of BEING GOD.
Get the idea of BECOMING HUMAN.
E/P: Able again.
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
Tue Oct 14 14:01:05 EDT 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 24 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore958.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)
iD8DBQFUSfpaURT1lqxE3HERAraJAJ9QHH1m4wXz4xsxig8BluzI3LsBowCeP1nV
pAiQxIHcQiSkYmi4+bEoc74=
=3kts
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
ADO15
AGENCY
ADO - 15
20 June 2004
Copyright (C) 2004 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The purpose of auditing is to increase AGENCY.
Agency is outward flowing causation.
Self is the 'Agent One'.
Self awareness is awareness of the Agent One.
There are truths which are fundamental, they can not be changed,
negated or be any other way, they can only be postulated as an
agreement, or counter postulated as a disagreement if the being wants
to create a lie in order to cause persistence in time.
We call these FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS.
Self awakens from native state postulating in full accord with
these fundamental truths.
Self however can then postulate (manifest) into the void other
truths that then become true only because the self has postulated them.
We call these CREATED TRUTHS.
After the self has created a truth, it can then counter postulate
against that same truth thus creating a lie, and thus creating
persistence into time of the truth/lie pair. The apparancy is that the
lie is true, but underlying the lie, the power comes from the original
created truth.
Thus those that compulsively hate other forever more, HAD to love
one another FOREVER MORE at some earlier time.
And those that compulsively love one another forever more, HAD to
hate each other forever more at some earlier time.
Both love and hate can be freely chosen but have little to no
persistence in themselves, you have to create them continuously. Since
that creation is knowing willing creation, the slightest distraction and
they stop.
Once you have something forever more, in time, a temporal
foreverness, that owns and controls the being, you know the lie is
persisting on the power of the prior truth.
They hate each other BECAUSE they don't love each other any more,
you see the difference? There's a betrayal in there and a refusal to
put something there.
The guy who simply hates out of the blue is just as likely to go
off and eat a hamburger than keep up the hate.
LOOKING BY KNOWING
Created truths are created via looking by knowing.
The being knows something, and in the knowing of it, it gets
created and thus he can see it. This is the outward flowing agency of
the KNOWER creating a LOOKED AT.
In return the knower can now see the looked at and thus verify that
what was created matches what he knew into creation in the first place.
This is the backward flowing agency of the looked at giving the knower
the certainty that what was created is what was intended. This backward
flowing agency from looked at to knower is what allows the knower to
CHECK OUT and verify his creation.
So you have:
Knower creates created truth. LOOKING BY KNOWING
Knower sees created truth. KNOWING BY LOOKING.
The process of CHECKING OUT is the process of knowing by looking.
KNOWING BY LOOKING
Now a being can run into something created by another knower.
In this case the being does not know up front what it is he is
about to look at. By looking at the the thing created by the other
knower, the first being can LEARN what the other being created. This
process of learning is also KNOWING BY LOOKING.
It is pretty clear that for most human beings, they spend much of
their time knowing by looking, learning about what already exists,
rather than creating something new to be true in the already existing
matrix of projected creations.
When a being has a dream, a vision of what he would like to have
exist, he is looking by knowing. He knows what he wants, and he can
then see it clearly in his "mind's eye". (You can make mockups
right?)
But then his dream runs into existing creations by others and
forms a ridge. In this universe that we all share, things no longer
become 'true' just and only because we conceived it. That's the way
we conceived this place!
So the being now needs to take steps to realize his dream, to
make his dream true, to fit into the existing matrix of other existing
creations.
We call this work. Or play, depending on your tone.
In either case the being is operating with CONDITIONS that
constrain his creation.
See SOURCE, EXISTENCE, CONDITIONS on the awareness characteristic
scale.
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive?/electra/acc.memo
To the degree that the being realizes his dream, his outward
flowing agency that created his vision from his knowing gets manifested
in the shared universe for all to look at and learn about.
To the degree that he fails to realize his dream, his agency has
been overwhelmed by the existing agencies of other's already creating
into the matrix he is sharing.
Beings can create a matrix, an arena of creations, that is so large
and overwhelming that the implied agency IN THE MATRIX ALONE will
overwhelm anyone trying to create something new in it, and at that point
the matrix becomes a tomb for failed agency.
Thus all auditing is directed at increasing agency of the being so
he can create within the matrix again, change the matrix itself, or
create a whole new matrix altogether if this one has become too
cluttered.
Its all a matter of willingness and "putting it there."
Specifically we want to optimize the operating balance between
Looking by Knowing and Knowing by Looking.
Dig it and don't leave it.
*AN OPERATING BALANCE OF LOOKING BY KNOWING AND KNOWING BY
LOOKING.*
The more the being can engage in looking by knowing, the more
effective his agency is and the less overwhelmed he is. The more the
being must know by looking, the less effective his agency is and the
more overwhelmed a being is by other people's or thing's agency.
Taking into account the whole universe at large, at present he is
operating at about 1 quadrillionth of a percent of outward flowing
creation compared to what's trying to create him.
Operating say at 10 percent would be very OK indeed.
A totally 100 percent overwhelmed being is simply a being who can
ONLY know by looking.
He can't even NOT know by NOT looking any more!
Everywhere he looks he see his tomb, and that's ALL he is doing all
day long. Any any time he tries to forget his tomb by not looking at
it, his tomb pokes him so he can't forget.
That's Hell.
SOLO AUDITING
Many preclears want to solo audit, they don't want to work with
another as an auditor.
Problems of money, space/time, availability, maybe even pride or
embarrassment, shame and regret come into the equation.
Help can be expensive, embarrassing, impossible etc, so some opt for
self help in order to avoid the problems of being helped by another.
That's ok, but solo auditing is a strictly putting it there
operation.
Dual auditing fails just and only because the being is trying
to get another to erase something for him, so that he never
has to put it there. He just wants it GONE, don't you see.
But if he cant want it THERE and put it there, then he will never
be able to make it gone either.
When solo auditing, these facts become very stark.
Solo auditing is a top down proposition.
It's silly to put up an engram in front of your face and then run
it out. You are putting it up, why not just ceasing doing that!
Well it's not that easy you say. True, but the answer is still not
to try to run yourself on Dianetics or CCH's.
Dual auditing runs from the bottom up, you start with group
processing, life repair prepchecks, ARC straightwire, CCH's, Grades etc.
Dual auditing depends mostly on the two way comm between the
preclear and the auditor to work. Its not the magic of the exact
process being run, that helps, but its the two way comm that really
produces the as-isness. The process is merely a crutch to stir up
the next thing that needs to be as-ised.
It's sad to stir it up, and never as-is it because the
preclear can't COMMUNICATE about it to the auditor. The withhold
is never blown, you gotta be able to have a total disclosure
relationship with at least ONE person in the entire universe in order
to remain sane.
Better to have a fully functioning group mind with 8 or more.
That's why running grades or cch's on yourself really isn't very
useful, there is no two way comm going on.
Does that mean you can't help yourself?
No, it means you can't help yourself by assuming you are at the
bottom of the bridge and auditing from the bottom up.
You CAN help yourself by auditing from the top down though, where
you can CREATE your problems and the people to communicate to about them
by putting them there.
You assume you are sovereign, and start to remock up being not so
sovereign again. Since the way in is the way out, once you weasel your
way in again, wham you are out.
You have to BE out to come in, so practicing coming in, puts you
out.
Dig it and don't leave that one either.
By WAY IN, we mean the way down the bridge from sovereign being to
worm on a stump about to be eaten by a crow.
When auditing others from the bottom up, the way out is the way
through of course, they have to go THROUGH all that stuff they created
on the way down.
But when auditing solo from the top down, the way out is the way
in. Once you get the way in, as long as you keep putting it there, you
ARE out because you have to BE out in order to BECOME in.
And once you come in, the slightest distraction and its all blown
away, like being woken up from a dream, and you are left with nothing,
prime static. It's just so hard to keep anything around.
Of course you have to create the distraction :)
PARTY LINES
"A party line is a fixed idea, theory, or other pet philosophical
vanity that when confronted by evidence or reason that it is wrong, over
rules that evidence or reason.
People may be stuck in one or more party lines.
The core party line is the perfect certainty that perfect certainty
is impossible, undesirable, dangerous or unimportant.
We call this 'mind broke'." - The Proof, Plate 1.
There is a very important rule operating here.
If a person is absolutely 'certain' of A, but A is wrong, and you
show him with absolute certainty that B is true instead, he won't get
it. That's because you haven't gotten him to see where A was wrong. So
even though B is looming, he can't wrap his wits around B because he
'knows' that A is true.
For example a person believes the moon is made of green cheese.
You go to the moon and you bring back rocks.
He can't wrap his wits around the rocks because of the prior
certainty that the moon is made of green cheese. By showing him the
rocks you have not make him wrong, you have not made him give up his
certainty it is made of green cheese, you have put him into an
incredibility. The incredibility is that you brought home rocks!
The definition of an incredibility is two opposing certainties:
CERTAINTY THAT SOMETHING IS TRUE
CERTAINTY THAT SOMETHING IS IMPOSSIBLE
By showing this guy the rocks, he is now certain the moon is made
of green cheese, but that its also made of rocks!
That doesn't compute, you see?
When a mind is confronted with an incredibility it freezes, it
can't move from that point forward. It stops thinking altogether on the
subject or solves the incredibility by discounting the second certainty
in order to return to the first certainty.
Remember the power is always in the first postulate!
Or he gives up utterly and says perfect certainty of anything is
impossible! Of that he is now perfectly certain, you see.
So if you are really going to get this guy to be able to deal with
rocks, you HAVE to get him to confront where he got his idea it was made
of green cheese in the first place.
He will find, that since his certainty about green cheese was
wrong, it could never have been a real certainty in the first place, and
once he spots his original out integrity of considering a non certainty
to be a certainty, he will say "Oh what a fool I was to be so sure, ok I
admit I never really knew that for sure in the first place, and yes its
quite ok by me that the moon is made of rocks and not green cheese!"
Party lines are like this.
They are a false 'certainty' that lies in the way of any other true
certainty that might contradict them.
We put quotes around the word 'certainty' because its not a true
certainty in the first place. It CAN'T be, because a true certainty can
not be made wrong!
As long as the false 'certainty' is in place, there is no making
progress with true certainties that contradict it.
One particular party line is a being's absolute conviction that he
is RIGHT about being a limited being.
"Oh no I could never be a god, I could never be in control, I could
NEVER have had any responsibility for this place, I could never be
certain I exist, I could never be certain of ANYTHING, how dare you
think such thoughts!"
He will get the qualms just considering the possibility of having
self respect in some area.
Mockup up having a perfect mate. Where the hell is she you ask?
How would you feel if you knew?
You see he is hiding behind the question from the answer!
Its easy to confront having the question and being the lonely
victim forever more, its hard to confront having the answer and being
sovereign again.
You can not argue with a being's party lines, he will argue for
them like a pit bull until YOU give up in exhaustion.
PARTY LINES ARE CREATED IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE GAME.
Party lines were made long ago with GREAT POWER, much more power
than you have today to bring to bear against them.
Their intent and purpose is to create persistence FOREVER of the
present game, so you are going up against a being's desire to be here
when you try to undermine them.
Remember the second postulate persists but gets its power from the
first postulate.
The first postulate is "I am Sovereign, what I conceive comes true
in the conception of it."
The second postulate is "Whoops, shouldn't have conceived of a worm
on a stump."
The first postulate is to be here in the game, "I want in."
The second postulate is "I want out."
So the guy may on the surface look like he wants to get out, can't
stand life, hates getting up in the morning etc., THAT'S HOW HE KEEPS
HIMSELF IN, but if you really and truly try to get him out, he will
balk and turn on you, as he really wants to be in.
"No, no, you mustn't play with THAT!"
Because if you do he might get out.
He just wants in to be a bit friendlier, lose some games, win more
games, get laid by something pretty and desirable once a life time etc.
So you can audit him to better be able to be in.
But you can't audit him to better be able to be out, he won't let
you.
He wants to know how much further IN he can go and still move.
He doesn't want to leave his friends behind, he wants to better be
able to play WITH THEM while in!
He doesn't want to be an OT, he wants to be a well and happy human
being. Last time he was OT, look what he mocked himself up as!
A worm on a stump about to be eaten by a crow.
Well and happy human beings can't cause any trouble.
Well and happy human being is kind of a half way house out of this
universe. It's on the way out for sure, but the guy is going to stay
there for a LONG time and enjoy being in for a while.
Joke is he never really enjoyed his long slow descent coming in, so
he is sure as hell going to enjoy being in on his long slow ascent
getting out.
Odd isn't it, prison is no fun coming into it, but great fun being
in it while you are getting out!
Since soloing is the way out, and party lines are the way in, they
are diametrically opposed to each other, and so anyone who is still
holding onto their party lines can't solo.
Thus a being with a party line can not solo because soloing is the
action of getting out. The joke is that one gets out by practicing
coming IN, but the party liner won't get that. He's just *TERRIFIED* of
being out. He's just sure it is *FOREVER*. He is so terrified of being
stuck out, that he has put his ALL into getting stuck in.
He has Eternal Forevers (out of time) confused with Temporal
Forevers (in time) and he knows temporal forevers are hell. Thus he
tries to create a game that will never end because a temporal forever of
games is a better hell than a temporal forever of no games ever again.
HIS PRESENT EXISTENCE IS A SOLUTION TO A PRIOR TIME HE REALLY
THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE NO GAMES EVER AGAIN.
The last goodbye.
Before that he designed the whole confusion with grand and
ExCaliper design. (Ex Caliper = without measure, worth beyond measure.)
But in the meantime, that choice to create a game that will never
end, is not real to him, but the prior vision of no games forever more
is very real to him, and so by auditing him you are digging him out of a
hell he can stand (temporal games forever) and throwing him into the
prior apparent hell no one could stand (temporal no games forever).
A being has to undergo a major epiphany for their party lines to
break. They recognize that the party line no longer serves them, they
become willing to experience and BE *ANYTHING* that can be, including a
God who is wrong about everything, and at that point they can solo from
the top down. They are willing to get out, because they know they can
come in again, AT WILL AND WITH EASE.
FOREVERS
Forevers are an important part of aberration, one could say the
ONLY part.
There are two kinds of forevers, Eternal Forevers which can and do
exist between whiles, and Temporal Forevers which can not exist, because
all things created in space/time are created in a whole called a
'while'.
Whiles are finite lengths of time no matter how long, but always
finite in length, in which games are created.
This is very important, because it means that a being CAN NOT GET
STUCK IN TIME FOREVER AS ALL WHILES MUST END ONE DAY.
The being can however try to make those whiles as long as possible,
certainly longer than the last one which always ended too early.
All whiles end too early no matter how long they are, which then
gives impetus for the next creation.
Thus one can expect much of the aberration on a being to consist
entirely and totally of mechanisms to extend the present while as long
as possible.
Certain things can be concluded from the above.
All games must end one day.
Nothing last's forever in time.
Thus there are no Hell's forever nor Heaven's forever in time.
There have been an infinite number of past whiles created in the
Eternal Void, and there will be an infinite number of future whiles
created in that same void.
Once a while ends, its gone, like it never happened.
When a while ends, the beings involved go back to the Big Snooze,
where they sleep in a timeless 'eternal foreverness'.
When they wake up into dreamtime again, they wake up as for the
first time, although they are aware it is not the first time but the
infinityth time.
If you doubt that all creation takes place in whiles, or that this
is even desirable, try running the following process for a while.
"Consider infinite time into the future."
You will notice how it drives you down tone because you don't WANT
infinite time into the future. That's hell forever. Even if it were
pleasure forever for free into the future, its still hell forever. You
would merely be crucified on a cross of gorgeous deliciousness, begging
to die (sleep) after a while.
Why? Because it violates your sovereign desire. Remember those
fundamental truths we talked about at the beginning? Well this is one
of them.
You don't want to live forever in time.
YOU DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN ONE INFINITELY LONG WHILE.
YOU WANT TO LIVE IN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FINITELY LONG
WHILES SEPARATED BY ETERNAL SLEEP WITH SOVEREIGN CHOICE DETERMINING WHEN
AND IF YOU LEAVE ETERNAL SLEEP TO JOIN DREAMTIME AGAIN IN A NEW WHILE.
Since it is absolutely impossible for desire and the AllThatIs to
be out of accord at a fundamental level, what you want is what you get,
and you get it BECAUSE you want it.
There is no followingness. At the top its simply HAVE = WANT =
HAVE = WANT.
THE MECHANISM
There is a mechanism by which a being gets a while to last as long
as possible.
He creates and comes into the while wanting to come in, but then
once in, he arranges to want to get out. His resistance to coming in is
an alter-is of his desire to come in, and thus creates a persistence of
him being in.
THE BEING STICKS HIMSELF IN BY WANTING TO GET OUT.
He doesn't just want to get out in order to sleep and perhaps come
in again you see, that would be very workable, too workable, dream times
wouldn't last very long if he had that view.
No, he wants to get out FOREVER, and regrets ever having come in.
Just below the surface "Rah!" he CAN'T STAND THIS PLACE.
Being unwilling now to put it there that he is in, he can't put it
there that he is out.
You can't change what you can't put there in the first place.
He creates persistence of the while by creating resistance to being
in the while by considering that the while is FOREVER.
You see if its only for a while, well he can wait it out, a being
can wait anything out as long as its only for a while!
But if its forever, then there is nothing he can do. That turns on
panic and descent at a fast rate.
Being in a time stream forever is a violation of Sovereign desire,
it is THE ONLY break in Sovereign Desire, and this drives him into such
an INFINITE frenzy of resistance he can then be sure he will continue in
the while forever and ever amen.
Well until he changes his mind about the forever part.
You see at first he is in Native State, no whiles, no persistence,
at least nothing hangs out long enough to be a problem. Lots of things
go by that entice him, but he just watches them pass like the clouds in
a summer eve's sky.
He's HAPPY TO BE HAPPY.
But then he considers that He's not totally satisfied with being
happy to be happy all the time.
Now he is UNHAPPY TO BE HAPPY.
So he considers the idea that it might be fun to enter a while and
get lost in it.
It's just a change of consideration, believe me a being can sit in
bemused relief on the verge of time forever and not have a problem with
being happy he is happy.
Remember out of time forever is OK, in time forever ain't.
So at some point he engages in majesty, the impulse towards classy
jokes of self treason, and he wants to join the fray of fools.
Majestic practical jokes of self treason are what time is all
about.
Every persistence is a humor encased in persisting sorrow.
He knows this when he jumps in, so everything is cool.
So he creates a while or joins a while already created.
But to stay there, to make both he and his presence in the while
persist for him, he has to be very unhappy he is in the while in order
to create enough resistance to cause a persistence.
The only resistance strong enough to cause a while to persist
beyond the first sneeze is a FOREVER.
So he creates the idea that he is going to be in this while
FOREVER, and that makes him very unhappy indeed and makes the while
persist like a rock.
Forever actually, until he gives up the idea!
Which makes him really happy because he got what he wanted, to join
and stay in a while for a while, by pretending it is forever.
So now he is HAPPY TO BE UNHAPPY.
He's got purpose, he's got get up and go, he's got friends to make
and enemies to fight, he loves to hate, and hates to love, he's got
importances, seriousness, permanence and pain up the wazoo, and an
infinite future of glorious dramatization ahead of him.
What better time could there be?
He is also totally unauditable and unable to solo because he put
too much effort putting his party lines in place to have some damn fool
auditor blowing them all to pieces again.
Being an auditor is the LAST beingness on the chain, not the first.
Not even an early one :)
Now here is where Leonard Cohen comes in.
Believing in temporal forevers creates infinite charge and sticks
the being more and more into the very forevers he believes in. In
particular, may God save his soul, should he ever get mad at himself or
another and WISH A FOREVER OFF on that person, he himself will
immediately descend into the very forever he wished off on the other.
EVEN IF HE WISHES A POSITIVE PLEASURABLE FOREVER OFF ON ANOTHER,
he has violated both his own and the other's sovereign desire to live in
a FINITE while and to engage in any game or beingness they might wish
to, including hanging on a cross and being crow food *FOR A WHILE*.
You see? Pleasure forever isn't a while, for it disallows
the possibility of pain.
Just what is the beauty to pain anyhow you ask?
Well its your warp core to being here, so you tell me.
Now you can see that this being believes he is in the game forever,
and worse he's real FRAGILE, can be ruined etc., and things are real
serious, you can get killed forever, so maybe you won't be in ANY GAME
any more forever, or you can get crippled and just have to suffer
forever and people have to take care of you forever etc.
Forever, forever, forever, forever. You see?
Things become very PRECIOUS (FOREVER) TO HIM, and he begins to
bring DRAMA FOREVER to every aspect of his life.
Pride and Guilt, Glory and Shame, he's swinging the Sword of
Excalibur all around him.
Woe to those who don't befriend him or who get in his way.
DRAMA is PERMANENCE, IMPORTANCE, SERIOUSNESS AND PAIN.
Permanent loss, forever and ever, you see?
So when people do bad things to him, make his already existing
forevers worse, he does forever things back to them. They kill his kid,
he executes them. If he can't execute them, he WISHES THEM INTO HELL
FOREVER.
Forever, forever, forever, forever. You see?
So all these forevers that he is considering, "I am wounded
forever, my kid is wounded forever, I want you to be wounded forever"
sink him more and more into what?
PERSISTENCE FOREVER!
Persistence of what?
DRAMA. Permanence, importance, seriousness and pain.
And that's hell.
And it is a hell FOREVER for him until and just exactly as long as
he continues to dramatize FOREVERS in his dream time.
Once he says "Well, heh, its not forever, this dream ends when the
circle of friends are all holding hands again!" things start to lift for
him and he starts to get free.
But he would have to be willing to be friends again with everyone
in the WHILE. *EVERYONE*. It was all just role playing right?
Woah, that's a big one, right?
List now everyone in your life for whom it wasn't 'just role
playing'.
He would also have to be awfully willing to let others continue to
dramatize their righteous forevers to keep their games going, and for
him to enjoy the spectacle no matter how much they hurt each other or
themselves. As a spectator of the drama he would 'get the joke' and
appreciate the humor to the carnage.
He would also have to be willing to say his last goodbyes to that
while and everyone in it, and go back to the eternal big snooze while
others were still playing the games of doom forever.
He could always come back in later, or join or create a new while,
depending on his sovereign desire at the time.
That's what you want, right?
To be able to create heaven's and hell's at will.
For a while.
Oh, there is someone you don't want to just get out scott free?
Well that holds you here, don't you see?
*YOU* can't confront what you are wishing off on him!
Who now do you think that sinks?
You think you can create an unconfrontable experience and hand it
off to someone else before it burns YOU to toast?
That's what happens to you when you die by the way, all these hells
you been mocking up for others are all just waiting there for you.
You gotta be here, to keep him here.
Omni well done, and Omni Amen.
You can stop doing it, and run it out.
Then you won't have to go through the hells to get to the Heavens.
That's what soloing is about.
Heaven's and Hell's, Forevers and Whiles.
So as Leonard Cohen said:
"Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the waters, and he spent a
long time watching from his lonely wooden tower.
And when he knew for certain that only drowning men could see him,
he said all men shall be sailors then, until the sea shall free them."
In other words you can't audit beings out, until they are ready to
be out.
Until then audit them to be better in.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Sep 11 19:56:30 EDT 2005
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADO - 15
20 June 2004
Copyright (C) 2004 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The purpose of auditing is to increase AGENCY.
Agency is outward flowing causation.
Self is the 'Agent One'.
Self awareness is awareness of the Agent One.
There are truths which are fundamental, they can not be changed,
negated or be any other way, they can only be postulated as an
agreement, or counter postulated as a disagreement if the being wants
to create a lie in order to cause persistence in time.
We call these FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS.
Self awakens from native state postulating in full accord with
these fundamental truths.
Self however can then postulate (manifest) into the void other
truths that then become true only because the self has postulated them.
We call these CREATED TRUTHS.
After the self has created a truth, it can then counter postulate
against that same truth thus creating a lie, and thus creating
persistence into time of the truth/lie pair. The apparancy is that the
lie is true, but underlying the lie, the power comes from the original
created truth.
Thus those that compulsively hate other forever more, HAD to love
one another FOREVER MORE at some earlier time.
And those that compulsively love one another forever more, HAD to
hate each other forever more at some earlier time.
Both love and hate can be freely chosen but have little to no
persistence in themselves, you have to create them continuously. Since
that creation is knowing willing creation, the slightest distraction and
they stop.
Once you have something forever more, in time, a temporal
foreverness, that owns and controls the being, you know the lie is
persisting on the power of the prior truth.
They hate each other BECAUSE they don't love each other any more,
you see the difference? There's a betrayal in there and a refusal to
put something there.
The guy who simply hates out of the blue is just as likely to go
off and eat a hamburger than keep up the hate.
LOOKING BY KNOWING
Created truths are created via looking by knowing.
The being knows something, and in the knowing of it, it gets
created and thus he can see it. This is the outward flowing agency of
the KNOWER creating a LOOKED AT.
In return the knower can now see the looked at and thus verify that
what was created matches what he knew into creation in the first place.
This is the backward flowing agency of the looked at giving the knower
the certainty that what was created is what was intended. This backward
flowing agency from looked at to knower is what allows the knower to
CHECK OUT and verify his creation.
So you have:
Knower creates created truth. LOOKING BY KNOWING
Knower sees created truth. KNOWING BY LOOKING.
The process of CHECKING OUT is the process of knowing by looking.
KNOWING BY LOOKING
Now a being can run into something created by another knower.
In this case the being does not know up front what it is he is
about to look at. By looking at the the thing created by the other
knower, the first being can LEARN what the other being created. This
process of learning is also KNOWING BY LOOKING.
It is pretty clear that for most human beings, they spend much of
their time knowing by looking, learning about what already exists,
rather than creating something new to be true in the already existing
matrix of projected creations.
When a being has a dream, a vision of what he would like to have
exist, he is looking by knowing. He knows what he wants, and he can
then see it clearly in his "mind's eye". (You can make mockups
right?)
But then his dream runs into existing creations by others and
forms a ridge. In this universe that we all share, things no longer
become 'true' just and only because we conceived it. That's the way
we conceived this place!
So the being now needs to take steps to realize his dream, to
make his dream true, to fit into the existing matrix of other existing
creations.
We call this work. Or play, depending on your tone.
In either case the being is operating with CONDITIONS that
constrain his creation.
See SOURCE, EXISTENCE, CONDITIONS on the awareness characteristic
scale.
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive?/electra/acc.memo
To the degree that the being realizes his dream, his outward
flowing agency that created his vision from his knowing gets manifested
in the shared universe for all to look at and learn about.
To the degree that he fails to realize his dream, his agency has
been overwhelmed by the existing agencies of other's already creating
into the matrix he is sharing.
Beings can create a matrix, an arena of creations, that is so large
and overwhelming that the implied agency IN THE MATRIX ALONE will
overwhelm anyone trying to create something new in it, and at that point
the matrix becomes a tomb for failed agency.
Thus all auditing is directed at increasing agency of the being so
he can create within the matrix again, change the matrix itself, or
create a whole new matrix altogether if this one has become too
cluttered.
Its all a matter of willingness and "putting it there."
Specifically we want to optimize the operating balance between
Looking by Knowing and Knowing by Looking.
Dig it and don't leave it.
*AN OPERATING BALANCE OF LOOKING BY KNOWING AND KNOWING BY
LOOKING.*
The more the being can engage in looking by knowing, the more
effective his agency is and the less overwhelmed he is. The more the
being must know by looking, the less effective his agency is and the
more overwhelmed a being is by other people's or thing's agency.
Taking into account the whole universe at large, at present he is
operating at about 1 quadrillionth of a percent of outward flowing
creation compared to what's trying to create him.
Operating say at 10 percent would be very OK indeed.
A totally 100 percent overwhelmed being is simply a being who can
ONLY know by looking.
He can't even NOT know by NOT looking any more!
Everywhere he looks he see his tomb, and that's ALL he is doing all
day long. Any any time he tries to forget his tomb by not looking at
it, his tomb pokes him so he can't forget.
That's Hell.
SOLO AUDITING
Many preclears want to solo audit, they don't want to work with
another as an auditor.
Problems of money, space/time, availability, maybe even pride or
embarrassment, shame and regret come into the equation.
Help can be expensive, embarrassing, impossible etc, so some opt for
self help in order to avoid the problems of being helped by another.
That's ok, but solo auditing is a strictly putting it there
operation.
Dual auditing fails just and only because the being is trying
to get another to erase something for him, so that he never
has to put it there. He just wants it GONE, don't you see.
But if he cant want it THERE and put it there, then he will never
be able to make it gone either.
When solo auditing, these facts become very stark.
Solo auditing is a top down proposition.
It's silly to put up an engram in front of your face and then run
it out. You are putting it up, why not just ceasing doing that!
Well it's not that easy you say. True, but the answer is still not
to try to run yourself on Dianetics or CCH's.
Dual auditing runs from the bottom up, you start with group
processing, life repair prepchecks, ARC straightwire, CCH's, Grades etc.
Dual auditing depends mostly on the two way comm between the
preclear and the auditor to work. Its not the magic of the exact
process being run, that helps, but its the two way comm that really
produces the as-isness. The process is merely a crutch to stir up
the next thing that needs to be as-ised.
It's sad to stir it up, and never as-is it because the
preclear can't COMMUNICATE about it to the auditor. The withhold
is never blown, you gotta be able to have a total disclosure
relationship with at least ONE person in the entire universe in order
to remain sane.
Better to have a fully functioning group mind with 8 or more.
That's why running grades or cch's on yourself really isn't very
useful, there is no two way comm going on.
Does that mean you can't help yourself?
No, it means you can't help yourself by assuming you are at the
bottom of the bridge and auditing from the bottom up.
You CAN help yourself by auditing from the top down though, where
you can CREATE your problems and the people to communicate to about them
by putting them there.
You assume you are sovereign, and start to remock up being not so
sovereign again. Since the way in is the way out, once you weasel your
way in again, wham you are out.
You have to BE out to come in, so practicing coming in, puts you
out.
Dig it and don't leave that one either.
By WAY IN, we mean the way down the bridge from sovereign being to
worm on a stump about to be eaten by a crow.
When auditing others from the bottom up, the way out is the way
through of course, they have to go THROUGH all that stuff they created
on the way down.
But when auditing solo from the top down, the way out is the way
in. Once you get the way in, as long as you keep putting it there, you
ARE out because you have to BE out in order to BECOME in.
And once you come in, the slightest distraction and its all blown
away, like being woken up from a dream, and you are left with nothing,
prime static. It's just so hard to keep anything around.
Of course you have to create the distraction :)
PARTY LINES
"A party line is a fixed idea, theory, or other pet philosophical
vanity that when confronted by evidence or reason that it is wrong, over
rules that evidence or reason.
People may be stuck in one or more party lines.
The core party line is the perfect certainty that perfect certainty
is impossible, undesirable, dangerous or unimportant.
We call this 'mind broke'." - The Proof, Plate 1.
There is a very important rule operating here.
If a person is absolutely 'certain' of A, but A is wrong, and you
show him with absolute certainty that B is true instead, he won't get
it. That's because you haven't gotten him to see where A was wrong. So
even though B is looming, he can't wrap his wits around B because he
'knows' that A is true.
For example a person believes the moon is made of green cheese.
You go to the moon and you bring back rocks.
He can't wrap his wits around the rocks because of the prior
certainty that the moon is made of green cheese. By showing him the
rocks you have not make him wrong, you have not made him give up his
certainty it is made of green cheese, you have put him into an
incredibility. The incredibility is that you brought home rocks!
The definition of an incredibility is two opposing certainties:
CERTAINTY THAT SOMETHING IS TRUE
CERTAINTY THAT SOMETHING IS IMPOSSIBLE
By showing this guy the rocks, he is now certain the moon is made
of green cheese, but that its also made of rocks!
That doesn't compute, you see?
When a mind is confronted with an incredibility it freezes, it
can't move from that point forward. It stops thinking altogether on the
subject or solves the incredibility by discounting the second certainty
in order to return to the first certainty.
Remember the power is always in the first postulate!
Or he gives up utterly and says perfect certainty of anything is
impossible! Of that he is now perfectly certain, you see.
So if you are really going to get this guy to be able to deal with
rocks, you HAVE to get him to confront where he got his idea it was made
of green cheese in the first place.
He will find, that since his certainty about green cheese was
wrong, it could never have been a real certainty in the first place, and
once he spots his original out integrity of considering a non certainty
to be a certainty, he will say "Oh what a fool I was to be so sure, ok I
admit I never really knew that for sure in the first place, and yes its
quite ok by me that the moon is made of rocks and not green cheese!"
Party lines are like this.
They are a false 'certainty' that lies in the way of any other true
certainty that might contradict them.
We put quotes around the word 'certainty' because its not a true
certainty in the first place. It CAN'T be, because a true certainty can
not be made wrong!
As long as the false 'certainty' is in place, there is no making
progress with true certainties that contradict it.
One particular party line is a being's absolute conviction that he
is RIGHT about being a limited being.
"Oh no I could never be a god, I could never be in control, I could
NEVER have had any responsibility for this place, I could never be
certain I exist, I could never be certain of ANYTHING, how dare you
think such thoughts!"
He will get the qualms just considering the possibility of having
self respect in some area.
Mockup up having a perfect mate. Where the hell is she you ask?
How would you feel if you knew?
You see he is hiding behind the question from the answer!
Its easy to confront having the question and being the lonely
victim forever more, its hard to confront having the answer and being
sovereign again.
You can not argue with a being's party lines, he will argue for
them like a pit bull until YOU give up in exhaustion.
PARTY LINES ARE CREATED IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE GAME.
Party lines were made long ago with GREAT POWER, much more power
than you have today to bring to bear against them.
Their intent and purpose is to create persistence FOREVER of the
present game, so you are going up against a being's desire to be here
when you try to undermine them.
Remember the second postulate persists but gets its power from the
first postulate.
The first postulate is "I am Sovereign, what I conceive comes true
in the conception of it."
The second postulate is "Whoops, shouldn't have conceived of a worm
on a stump."
The first postulate is to be here in the game, "I want in."
The second postulate is "I want out."
So the guy may on the surface look like he wants to get out, can't
stand life, hates getting up in the morning etc., THAT'S HOW HE KEEPS
HIMSELF IN, but if you really and truly try to get him out, he will
balk and turn on you, as he really wants to be in.
"No, no, you mustn't play with THAT!"
Because if you do he might get out.
He just wants in to be a bit friendlier, lose some games, win more
games, get laid by something pretty and desirable once a life time etc.
So you can audit him to better be able to be in.
But you can't audit him to better be able to be out, he won't let
you.
He wants to know how much further IN he can go and still move.
He doesn't want to leave his friends behind, he wants to better be
able to play WITH THEM while in!
He doesn't want to be an OT, he wants to be a well and happy human
being. Last time he was OT, look what he mocked himself up as!
A worm on a stump about to be eaten by a crow.
Well and happy human beings can't cause any trouble.
Well and happy human being is kind of a half way house out of this
universe. It's on the way out for sure, but the guy is going to stay
there for a LONG time and enjoy being in for a while.
Joke is he never really enjoyed his long slow descent coming in, so
he is sure as hell going to enjoy being in on his long slow ascent
getting out.
Odd isn't it, prison is no fun coming into it, but great fun being
in it while you are getting out!
Since soloing is the way out, and party lines are the way in, they
are diametrically opposed to each other, and so anyone who is still
holding onto their party lines can't solo.
Thus a being with a party line can not solo because soloing is the
action of getting out. The joke is that one gets out by practicing
coming IN, but the party liner won't get that. He's just *TERRIFIED* of
being out. He's just sure it is *FOREVER*. He is so terrified of being
stuck out, that he has put his ALL into getting stuck in.
He has Eternal Forevers (out of time) confused with Temporal
Forevers (in time) and he knows temporal forevers are hell. Thus he
tries to create a game that will never end because a temporal forever of
games is a better hell than a temporal forever of no games ever again.
HIS PRESENT EXISTENCE IS A SOLUTION TO A PRIOR TIME HE REALLY
THOUGHT THERE WOULD BE NO GAMES EVER AGAIN.
The last goodbye.
Before that he designed the whole confusion with grand and
ExCaliper design. (Ex Caliper = without measure, worth beyond measure.)
But in the meantime, that choice to create a game that will never
end, is not real to him, but the prior vision of no games forever more
is very real to him, and so by auditing him you are digging him out of a
hell he can stand (temporal games forever) and throwing him into the
prior apparent hell no one could stand (temporal no games forever).
A being has to undergo a major epiphany for their party lines to
break. They recognize that the party line no longer serves them, they
become willing to experience and BE *ANYTHING* that can be, including a
God who is wrong about everything, and at that point they can solo from
the top down. They are willing to get out, because they know they can
come in again, AT WILL AND WITH EASE.
FOREVERS
Forevers are an important part of aberration, one could say the
ONLY part.
There are two kinds of forevers, Eternal Forevers which can and do
exist between whiles, and Temporal Forevers which can not exist, because
all things created in space/time are created in a whole called a
'while'.
Whiles are finite lengths of time no matter how long, but always
finite in length, in which games are created.
This is very important, because it means that a being CAN NOT GET
STUCK IN TIME FOREVER AS ALL WHILES MUST END ONE DAY.
The being can however try to make those whiles as long as possible,
certainly longer than the last one which always ended too early.
All whiles end too early no matter how long they are, which then
gives impetus for the next creation.
Thus one can expect much of the aberration on a being to consist
entirely and totally of mechanisms to extend the present while as long
as possible.
Certain things can be concluded from the above.
All games must end one day.
Nothing last's forever in time.
Thus there are no Hell's forever nor Heaven's forever in time.
There have been an infinite number of past whiles created in the
Eternal Void, and there will be an infinite number of future whiles
created in that same void.
Once a while ends, its gone, like it never happened.
When a while ends, the beings involved go back to the Big Snooze,
where they sleep in a timeless 'eternal foreverness'.
When they wake up into dreamtime again, they wake up as for the
first time, although they are aware it is not the first time but the
infinityth time.
If you doubt that all creation takes place in whiles, or that this
is even desirable, try running the following process for a while.
"Consider infinite time into the future."
You will notice how it drives you down tone because you don't WANT
infinite time into the future. That's hell forever. Even if it were
pleasure forever for free into the future, its still hell forever. You
would merely be crucified on a cross of gorgeous deliciousness, begging
to die (sleep) after a while.
Why? Because it violates your sovereign desire. Remember those
fundamental truths we talked about at the beginning? Well this is one
of them.
You don't want to live forever in time.
YOU DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN ONE INFINITELY LONG WHILE.
YOU WANT TO LIVE IN AN INFINITE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FINITELY LONG
WHILES SEPARATED BY ETERNAL SLEEP WITH SOVEREIGN CHOICE DETERMINING WHEN
AND IF YOU LEAVE ETERNAL SLEEP TO JOIN DREAMTIME AGAIN IN A NEW WHILE.
Since it is absolutely impossible for desire and the AllThatIs to
be out of accord at a fundamental level, what you want is what you get,
and you get it BECAUSE you want it.
There is no followingness. At the top its simply HAVE = WANT =
HAVE = WANT.
THE MECHANISM
There is a mechanism by which a being gets a while to last as long
as possible.
He creates and comes into the while wanting to come in, but then
once in, he arranges to want to get out. His resistance to coming in is
an alter-is of his desire to come in, and thus creates a persistence of
him being in.
THE BEING STICKS HIMSELF IN BY WANTING TO GET OUT.
He doesn't just want to get out in order to sleep and perhaps come
in again you see, that would be very workable, too workable, dream times
wouldn't last very long if he had that view.
No, he wants to get out FOREVER, and regrets ever having come in.
Just below the surface "Rah!" he CAN'T STAND THIS PLACE.
Being unwilling now to put it there that he is in, he can't put it
there that he is out.
You can't change what you can't put there in the first place.
He creates persistence of the while by creating resistance to being
in the while by considering that the while is FOREVER.
You see if its only for a while, well he can wait it out, a being
can wait anything out as long as its only for a while!
But if its forever, then there is nothing he can do. That turns on
panic and descent at a fast rate.
Being in a time stream forever is a violation of Sovereign desire,
it is THE ONLY break in Sovereign Desire, and this drives him into such
an INFINITE frenzy of resistance he can then be sure he will continue in
the while forever and ever amen.
Well until he changes his mind about the forever part.
You see at first he is in Native State, no whiles, no persistence,
at least nothing hangs out long enough to be a problem. Lots of things
go by that entice him, but he just watches them pass like the clouds in
a summer eve's sky.
He's HAPPY TO BE HAPPY.
But then he considers that He's not totally satisfied with being
happy to be happy all the time.
Now he is UNHAPPY TO BE HAPPY.
So he considers the idea that it might be fun to enter a while and
get lost in it.
It's just a change of consideration, believe me a being can sit in
bemused relief on the verge of time forever and not have a problem with
being happy he is happy.
Remember out of time forever is OK, in time forever ain't.
So at some point he engages in majesty, the impulse towards classy
jokes of self treason, and he wants to join the fray of fools.
Majestic practical jokes of self treason are what time is all
about.
Every persistence is a humor encased in persisting sorrow.
He knows this when he jumps in, so everything is cool.
So he creates a while or joins a while already created.
But to stay there, to make both he and his presence in the while
persist for him, he has to be very unhappy he is in the while in order
to create enough resistance to cause a persistence.
The only resistance strong enough to cause a while to persist
beyond the first sneeze is a FOREVER.
So he creates the idea that he is going to be in this while
FOREVER, and that makes him very unhappy indeed and makes the while
persist like a rock.
Forever actually, until he gives up the idea!
Which makes him really happy because he got what he wanted, to join
and stay in a while for a while, by pretending it is forever.
So now he is HAPPY TO BE UNHAPPY.
He's got purpose, he's got get up and go, he's got friends to make
and enemies to fight, he loves to hate, and hates to love, he's got
importances, seriousness, permanence and pain up the wazoo, and an
infinite future of glorious dramatization ahead of him.
What better time could there be?
He is also totally unauditable and unable to solo because he put
too much effort putting his party lines in place to have some damn fool
auditor blowing them all to pieces again.
Being an auditor is the LAST beingness on the chain, not the first.
Not even an early one :)
Now here is where Leonard Cohen comes in.
Believing in temporal forevers creates infinite charge and sticks
the being more and more into the very forevers he believes in. In
particular, may God save his soul, should he ever get mad at himself or
another and WISH A FOREVER OFF on that person, he himself will
immediately descend into the very forever he wished off on the other.
EVEN IF HE WISHES A POSITIVE PLEASURABLE FOREVER OFF ON ANOTHER,
he has violated both his own and the other's sovereign desire to live in
a FINITE while and to engage in any game or beingness they might wish
to, including hanging on a cross and being crow food *FOR A WHILE*.
You see? Pleasure forever isn't a while, for it disallows
the possibility of pain.
Just what is the beauty to pain anyhow you ask?
Well its your warp core to being here, so you tell me.
Now you can see that this being believes he is in the game forever,
and worse he's real FRAGILE, can be ruined etc., and things are real
serious, you can get killed forever, so maybe you won't be in ANY GAME
any more forever, or you can get crippled and just have to suffer
forever and people have to take care of you forever etc.
Forever, forever, forever, forever. You see?
Things become very PRECIOUS (FOREVER) TO HIM, and he begins to
bring DRAMA FOREVER to every aspect of his life.
Pride and Guilt, Glory and Shame, he's swinging the Sword of
Excalibur all around him.
Woe to those who don't befriend him or who get in his way.
DRAMA is PERMANENCE, IMPORTANCE, SERIOUSNESS AND PAIN.
Permanent loss, forever and ever, you see?
So when people do bad things to him, make his already existing
forevers worse, he does forever things back to them. They kill his kid,
he executes them. If he can't execute them, he WISHES THEM INTO HELL
FOREVER.
Forever, forever, forever, forever. You see?
So all these forevers that he is considering, "I am wounded
forever, my kid is wounded forever, I want you to be wounded forever"
sink him more and more into what?
PERSISTENCE FOREVER!
Persistence of what?
DRAMA. Permanence, importance, seriousness and pain.
And that's hell.
And it is a hell FOREVER for him until and just exactly as long as
he continues to dramatize FOREVERS in his dream time.
Once he says "Well, heh, its not forever, this dream ends when the
circle of friends are all holding hands again!" things start to lift for
him and he starts to get free.
But he would have to be willing to be friends again with everyone
in the WHILE. *EVERYONE*. It was all just role playing right?
Woah, that's a big one, right?
List now everyone in your life for whom it wasn't 'just role
playing'.
He would also have to be awfully willing to let others continue to
dramatize their righteous forevers to keep their games going, and for
him to enjoy the spectacle no matter how much they hurt each other or
themselves. As a spectator of the drama he would 'get the joke' and
appreciate the humor to the carnage.
He would also have to be willing to say his last goodbyes to that
while and everyone in it, and go back to the eternal big snooze while
others were still playing the games of doom forever.
He could always come back in later, or join or create a new while,
depending on his sovereign desire at the time.
That's what you want, right?
To be able to create heaven's and hell's at will.
For a while.
Oh, there is someone you don't want to just get out scott free?
Well that holds you here, don't you see?
*YOU* can't confront what you are wishing off on him!
Who now do you think that sinks?
You think you can create an unconfrontable experience and hand it
off to someone else before it burns YOU to toast?
That's what happens to you when you die by the way, all these hells
you been mocking up for others are all just waiting there for you.
You gotta be here, to keep him here.
Omni well done, and Omni Amen.
You can stop doing it, and run it out.
Then you won't have to go through the hells to get to the Heavens.
That's what soloing is about.
Heaven's and Hell's, Forevers and Whiles.
So as Leonard Cohen said:
"Jesus was a sailor when he walked upon the waters, and he spent a
long time watching from his lonely wooden tower.
And when he knew for certain that only drowning men could see him,
he said all men shall be sailors then, until the sea shall free them."
In other words you can't audit beings out, until they are ready to
be out.
Until then audit them to be better in.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Sep 11 19:56:30 EDT 2005
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADO15 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PERSISTENCE AND VANISHMENT
ADO - 15
27 March 2005
Copyright (C) 2005 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
PERSISTENCE AND VANISHMENT
There are two broad goals that can be pursued in any universe.
They are,
The goal to create a persistence.
The goal to create a vanishment.
"What do you wish to make persist?"
"What do you wish to make vanish?"
One then begins to dramatize these goals.
To dramatize means to "BRING DRAMA TO".
Drama means "seriousness, importance, *PERMANENCE* and pain."
"What do you wish to make persist *FOREVER*?"
"What do you wish to make vanish *FOREVER*?"
Forevers violate the space/time WHILES in which things are created
and are the sole source of aberration and charge.
The only things which are forever are people and peace.
Trying to make someone live forever or go to heaven or hell forever
is trying to make someone or something persist forever.
Trying to make someone die forever is trying to make someone vanish
forever.
"Everyone lives forever where there is no time.
No one lives forever where there is time. " - Adore
Eternality is timeless immortality, not temporal immortality, which
is a hell of magnitude, no eternal sleep.
PERSISTERS AND VANISHERS
In the beginning of a universe most beings are bent on making
things persist. It is hard to get things to persist and a lot of
effort, intelligence and beauty are invested in doing so.
They would consider themselves opposed by anyone trying to make
things vanish. Such a vanisher would be an SP (Suppressive Person) to
them, to whom they were PTS (Potential Trouble Source, roller coasters,
loses gain, dives down the tone scale to get better etc.) The vanisher
SP would be trying to unmock them and their persistences.
Later in the universe, people begin to change their minds, they
consider there is too much persistence, they may want to create some new
persistences but there is too much old persistence in the way, or maybe
they want to end it all and go back to Big Snooze (native state) for a
while, so they take up vanishing things.
Perhaps they join the Church of Scientology which was mocked up to
unmock things, and they audit people helping them to vanish old unwanted
persistences, they become Professional Class IV Vanishers.
It is hard to get things to vanish, and a lot of effort,
intelligence and beauty is invested in doing so.
Such people would consider themselves opposed by anyone trying to
make things persist. Such a persister would be an SP to them, and to
whom they were PTS. The SP would be trying to mock them up, get them to
remain stuck in mud etc.
Unmocking is only a problem to those trying to mock up.
Mocking up is only a problem to those trying to unmock.
During the change over period from universe creation to universe
removal or upgrade, a lot of people who were persisters become
vanishers, thus their concept of who or what an SP is changes with them.
This can have serious effects.
If a single person in a group changes from persister to vanisher,
he will suddenly find himself opposed by his whole group, and all his
prior friends become SP's to him.
But look at it from the group's point of view. They are all still
trying to persist, but their member is now trying to help them vanish
things, so the group considers the single member similar to the many
SP's on the track that have tried to unmock them early on.
Last thing you want to do is restimulate someone's Nemesis One and
have him overlay it on you!
He's been hunting his Nemesis One for *EONS* and now he's found it,
you! You want that?
Much of the disaffection between Scientologists and family members
can be explained in this way. The scientologist is trying to vanish,
but the family members are still trying to persist.
Vanishers give persisters the willies.
Persisters attribute the willies not only to the scientologist
trying to 'help' them, but to the whole oraganization behind him.
HELP
Offering to 'help' someone change from persistence to vanishment is
an insult, invalidation and wrong item for them. It will only make them
howling mad at you.
Now part of the problem is that Scientology was DEFINED as the
science of vanishing, of unmocking, to wit: "the science of knowing how
to know answers to questions." - PXL (Phoenix Lectures)
But during the earlier persistence phase, people don't want to
know, they don't want to vanish, they want to mockup unconfrontable
mysteries and unknowables so they can have a game and get sucked down to
the bottom of the tone scale in peace.
THEY WANT TO GET LOST, they are tired of seeing home around every
corner.
It's an interruption, you see, of their sovereign desire.
They are tired of waking up half way down the tone scale (fear)
thinking "Damn lost another one to as-isness!"
Its like a dream ending right in the middle just when it was
getting good no matter how much of a nightmare it was.
That means during the persistence phase we don't need to know how
to unmock things, we need to know how to mock them up and get them to
persist like rock, tar, amber, and crazy glue, until we can't get rid of
them no matter what.
That's what most persisters are trying to do, HAVE forever.
Their favorite havingness is Obsidian Glass.
Then during the vanishment phase we need to know how to undo all
this stuff.
So no problem, Scientology actually encompases both sides of the
dicom, because if you know how to know answers to questions, you
certainly know how to NOT know answers to questions!
So if we define Scientology as the science of knowing how to not
know and know answers to questions, then we have a complete subject.
The point then is when you approach a particular person to 'help
them', you first have to determine which side of the fence they are on.
Are they a persister or a vanisher, or someone on the verge of
shifting over?
If they are a persister you help them persist.
If they are a vanisher you help them vanish.
If they are on the verge, you help them see both sides and make a
SELF DETERMINED decision about which side of the fence they want to be
on, and then you help them accordingly.
Sometimes a persister no longer knows he could be a vanisher, and a
vanisher doesn't know he could be a persister. So giving them a little
education on the matter gives them a better view of their possibilities,
and they can determine for themselves which side they wish to befriend
at the time.
YOU NEVER TRY TO CHANGE WHICH SIDE OF THE DICOM THEY ARE ON,
because if you do, you can only do so by being on the other side of the
fence from them.
You want someone who is a persister to become a vanisher? That
means YOU must already by a vanisher, you see?
That makes you their SP, which then makes them your SP.
PTSness results from trying to make the SP wrong.
PTSness is a kick born of a NEED to change someone else who
is being suppressive to your goals. If you can't put them there
and walk away from them, then THEY are putting YOU into action
using your need to change them, and that is your PTSness to them.
PTSness results from trying to restore affinity for someone
by getting them to AGREE with you.
Affinity for disagreement is the only real freedom from PTSness
there is.
For a persister, making the SP wrong consists of trying to change a
vanisher into a persister like himself, thus restoring agreement across
all parties that things are better persisting.
For a vanisher, making the SP wrong consists of trying to change a
persister into a vanisher like himself, thus restoring agreement across
all parties that things are better vanishing.
Both merely end up howling mad at each other.
To run this, list for who or what makes you howling mad.
Then spot in this conflict the various goals on either side to
persist or vanish, and how they are locking up with each other
*FOREVER*.
You will come to know what charge is.
If you understand that BEINGness is vanishment out of time, and
BECOMINGness is persistence in time, then you can audit the conflicts
between BEING and BECOMING, ie the conflict between the goals to BE and
to BECOME.
"The way to BE the Creator is to BE the Creator (out of time)
BECOMING the Creature (in time). Coming into time puts you out." -
Adore
The following is tech from 2014, so you will have to wait a bit to
get the full measure of it.
Since beingness has a natural affinity for itself, and becomingness
doesn't, when someone can't get others to like him, he is usually trying
to appeal to their becomingness, rather than their beingness.
He finds their becomingness attractive, so he tries to attract
them with his becomingness. No matter how 'becoming' a young girl
might look, becomingness is filth on the face of Spirit.
Once one sees the beauty of being, one becomes abashed that one
ever tried to attract someone with becomingness.
Serious becomingnesses are created in order to break apart that
natural affinity between beingnesses so that serious games can take
place, those that try to make something or nothing of each other
FOREVER.
Your body and its accoutrements are a BECOMINGNESS in time.
Your spirit is a BEINGNESS outside of time.
You may think you are BEING a body, but you aren't, you are
BECOMING a body, over and over, each moment of time, as each second
passes by.
Homer
Sat Sep 27 23:35:43 EDT 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Oct 22 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado15
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)
iD8DBQFUR1dZURT1lqxE3HERAh7YAKC3Jw315tXr3siwtQ4ojyz+UyN0UwCff2v3
6i7McrVKkBjJ97I81C+HO2o=
=b0xS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PERSISTENCE AND VANISHMENT
ADO - 15
27 March 2005
Copyright (C) 2005 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
PERSISTENCE AND VANISHMENT
There are two broad goals that can be pursued in any universe.
They are,
The goal to create a persistence.
The goal to create a vanishment.
"What do you wish to make persist?"
"What do you wish to make vanish?"
One then begins to dramatize these goals.
To dramatize means to "BRING DRAMA TO".
Drama means "seriousness, importance, *PERMANENCE* and pain."
"What do you wish to make persist *FOREVER*?"
"What do you wish to make vanish *FOREVER*?"
Forevers violate the space/time WHILES in which things are created
and are the sole source of aberration and charge.
The only things which are forever are people and peace.
Trying to make someone live forever or go to heaven or hell forever
is trying to make someone or something persist forever.
Trying to make someone die forever is trying to make someone vanish
forever.
"Everyone lives forever where there is no time.
No one lives forever where there is time. " - Adore
Eternality is timeless immortality, not temporal immortality, which
is a hell of magnitude, no eternal sleep.
PERSISTERS AND VANISHERS
In the beginning of a universe most beings are bent on making
things persist. It is hard to get things to persist and a lot of
effort, intelligence and beauty are invested in doing so.
They would consider themselves opposed by anyone trying to make
things vanish. Such a vanisher would be an SP (Suppressive Person) to
them, to whom they were PTS (Potential Trouble Source, roller coasters,
loses gain, dives down the tone scale to get better etc.) The vanisher
SP would be trying to unmock them and their persistences.
Later in the universe, people begin to change their minds, they
consider there is too much persistence, they may want to create some new
persistences but there is too much old persistence in the way, or maybe
they want to end it all and go back to Big Snooze (native state) for a
while, so they take up vanishing things.
Perhaps they join the Church of Scientology which was mocked up to
unmock things, and they audit people helping them to vanish old unwanted
persistences, they become Professional Class IV Vanishers.
It is hard to get things to vanish, and a lot of effort,
intelligence and beauty is invested in doing so.
Such people would consider themselves opposed by anyone trying to
make things persist. Such a persister would be an SP to them, and to
whom they were PTS. The SP would be trying to mock them up, get them to
remain stuck in mud etc.
Unmocking is only a problem to those trying to mock up.
Mocking up is only a problem to those trying to unmock.
During the change over period from universe creation to universe
removal or upgrade, a lot of people who were persisters become
vanishers, thus their concept of who or what an SP is changes with them.
This can have serious effects.
If a single person in a group changes from persister to vanisher,
he will suddenly find himself opposed by his whole group, and all his
prior friends become SP's to him.
But look at it from the group's point of view. They are all still
trying to persist, but their member is now trying to help them vanish
things, so the group considers the single member similar to the many
SP's on the track that have tried to unmock them early on.
Last thing you want to do is restimulate someone's Nemesis One and
have him overlay it on you!
He's been hunting his Nemesis One for *EONS* and now he's found it,
you! You want that?
Much of the disaffection between Scientologists and family members
can be explained in this way. The scientologist is trying to vanish,
but the family members are still trying to persist.
Vanishers give persisters the willies.
Persisters attribute the willies not only to the scientologist
trying to 'help' them, but to the whole oraganization behind him.
HELP
Offering to 'help' someone change from persistence to vanishment is
an insult, invalidation and wrong item for them. It will only make them
howling mad at you.
Now part of the problem is that Scientology was DEFINED as the
science of vanishing, of unmocking, to wit: "the science of knowing how
to know answers to questions." - PXL (Phoenix Lectures)
But during the earlier persistence phase, people don't want to
know, they don't want to vanish, they want to mockup unconfrontable
mysteries and unknowables so they can have a game and get sucked down to
the bottom of the tone scale in peace.
THEY WANT TO GET LOST, they are tired of seeing home around every
corner.
It's an interruption, you see, of their sovereign desire.
They are tired of waking up half way down the tone scale (fear)
thinking "Damn lost another one to as-isness!"
Its like a dream ending right in the middle just when it was
getting good no matter how much of a nightmare it was.
That means during the persistence phase we don't need to know how
to unmock things, we need to know how to mock them up and get them to
persist like rock, tar, amber, and crazy glue, until we can't get rid of
them no matter what.
That's what most persisters are trying to do, HAVE forever.
Their favorite havingness is Obsidian Glass.
Then during the vanishment phase we need to know how to undo all
this stuff.
So no problem, Scientology actually encompases both sides of the
dicom, because if you know how to know answers to questions, you
certainly know how to NOT know answers to questions!
So if we define Scientology as the science of knowing how to not
know and know answers to questions, then we have a complete subject.
The point then is when you approach a particular person to 'help
them', you first have to determine which side of the fence they are on.
Are they a persister or a vanisher, or someone on the verge of
shifting over?
If they are a persister you help them persist.
If they are a vanisher you help them vanish.
If they are on the verge, you help them see both sides and make a
SELF DETERMINED decision about which side of the fence they want to be
on, and then you help them accordingly.
Sometimes a persister no longer knows he could be a vanisher, and a
vanisher doesn't know he could be a persister. So giving them a little
education on the matter gives them a better view of their possibilities,
and they can determine for themselves which side they wish to befriend
at the time.
YOU NEVER TRY TO CHANGE WHICH SIDE OF THE DICOM THEY ARE ON,
because if you do, you can only do so by being on the other side of the
fence from them.
You want someone who is a persister to become a vanisher? That
means YOU must already by a vanisher, you see?
That makes you their SP, which then makes them your SP.
PTSness results from trying to make the SP wrong.
PTSness is a kick born of a NEED to change someone else who
is being suppressive to your goals. If you can't put them there
and walk away from them, then THEY are putting YOU into action
using your need to change them, and that is your PTSness to them.
PTSness results from trying to restore affinity for someone
by getting them to AGREE with you.
Affinity for disagreement is the only real freedom from PTSness
there is.
For a persister, making the SP wrong consists of trying to change a
vanisher into a persister like himself, thus restoring agreement across
all parties that things are better persisting.
For a vanisher, making the SP wrong consists of trying to change a
persister into a vanisher like himself, thus restoring agreement across
all parties that things are better vanishing.
Both merely end up howling mad at each other.
To run this, list for who or what makes you howling mad.
Then spot in this conflict the various goals on either side to
persist or vanish, and how they are locking up with each other
*FOREVER*.
You will come to know what charge is.
If you understand that BEINGness is vanishment out of time, and
BECOMINGness is persistence in time, then you can audit the conflicts
between BEING and BECOMING, ie the conflict between the goals to BE and
to BECOME.
"The way to BE the Creator is to BE the Creator (out of time)
BECOMING the Creature (in time). Coming into time puts you out." -
Adore
The following is tech from 2014, so you will have to wait a bit to
get the full measure of it.
Since beingness has a natural affinity for itself, and becomingness
doesn't, when someone can't get others to like him, he is usually trying
to appeal to their becomingness, rather than their beingness.
He finds their becomingness attractive, so he tries to attract
them with his becomingness. No matter how 'becoming' a young girl
might look, becomingness is filth on the face of Spirit.
Once one sees the beauty of being, one becomes abashed that one
ever tried to attract someone with becomingness.
Serious becomingnesses are created in order to break apart that
natural affinity between beingnesses so that serious games can take
place, those that try to make something or nothing of each other
FOREVER.
Your body and its accoutrements are a BECOMINGNESS in time.
Your spirit is a BEINGNESS outside of time.
You may think you are BEING a body, but you aren't, you are
BECOMING a body, over and over, each moment of time, as each second
passes by.
Homer
Sat Sep 27 23:35:43 EDT 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Oct 22 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado15
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)
iD8DBQFUR1dZURT1lqxE3HERAh7YAKC3Jw315tXr3siwtQ4ojyz+UyN0UwCff2v3
6i7McrVKkBjJ97I81C+HO2o=
=b0xS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, October 20, 2014
ADORE941 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Thaddeus said:
> Homer: especially in the link = 2nd response i'm probably more w/you
>than u know, but i don't know yer bpc enough to totally dig yer post or
>1st response. What r u running into & what have u tried? i will loose
>respect for u if u havent tried granting beingness to the church and fz.
>my sit is pretty different, yet i would b amiss to not to say admiration
>& granting being has worked goodish for me so far. some response to this
>comment sought. ps: have u considered the possibility that dividing
>a.c.t might not have been best? in 97 i saw 0 signs that a.c.t. would
>b homer's soap box at all. how 'bout a.c.newstuff or a.c.r&d or some
>such. remember: research vs $ = constant headache so give a thetan a
>break; haw?! have u even tried getting in comm w/fz? dex gelfland
>seems an at least fairly good guy to me - my best pick. must say lotsa
>folks seem good within their own context. not all r of scientific
>bent.
>gotta be better solution than yelling. u seem to b the most important in
>fz to me, or @ very least the most underappreciated. fz should declare ur
>bday a holiday. all fz owes a.c.t..
Homer Wilson Smith said:
I got frackzone friends all over the place.
You know I sent in 5 bucks to a National Enquirer Ad a while back
offering me the secret to happiness, wealth and power.
This is what I got back.
"There is no compromise with full responsibility. It lies above
20.0 on the tone scale and is descended from with the full knowledge of
its assumptions. It means responsibility for all acts, all emotions, on
every dynamic and in every sphere as one's own. It includes such
"disrelated" data as the death of an individual one has never met on a
highway on which one has never traveled at the hands of a stranger no
matter how culpable. One does not send to find out for whom the bell
tolls, without full willingness to have tolled it and to have caused the
cause of its tolling." - Advanced Procedure and Axioms
WTF?
Oh well it was only 5 bucks.
So I will make you a deal.
If you take full responsibility for me and my irresponsibilities, I
will take full respsonsibility for Hubbard, his Church, the churchie
zombie zoners that infect it, the controlling overlords of evil that feed
on the zombies, AND I will throw in for FREE taking full responsibility
for the aborning police state, Bradley Manning spending the rest of his
life in jail, the One World Government, the New World Order, AND I will
add in 100,000 black helicopters to boot, armed with 1.6 billion rounds of
hollow point, along with the environment going to hell, oil spills, the
fur trade, the child sex trade, the war on drugs, that asteriod coming in
with our name on it, chemical, biological, atomic and genetic war fare,
our constitution being sold to the lowest bidder, the guy who ran over my
cat, and the guy tolling that damn bell all day long waking me up every
morning.
That a fair deal?
Mean while, read LIFE REPAIR at
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore940.memo
Homer
Thu Mar 14 14:21:41 EDT 2013
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 20 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore941.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)
iD8DBQFURLRaURT1lqxE3HERAuvjAJwKkHoqHOlsEOm+bvYdgRXhplbDXACeIGUO
aUvu/hUHT64U4f4ZoFPtj6Q=
=qyio
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Thaddeus said:
> Homer: especially in the link = 2nd response i'm probably more w/you
>than u know, but i don't know yer bpc enough to totally dig yer post or
>1st response. What r u running into & what have u tried? i will loose
>respect for u if u havent tried granting beingness to the church and fz.
>my sit is pretty different, yet i would b amiss to not to say admiration
>& granting being has worked goodish for me so far. some response to this
>comment sought. ps: have u considered the possibility that dividing
>a.c.t might not have been best? in 97 i saw 0 signs that a.c.t. would
>b homer's soap box at all. how 'bout a.c.newstuff or a.c.r&d or some
>such. remember: research vs $ = constant headache so give a thetan a
>break; haw?! have u even tried getting in comm w/fz? dex gelfland
>seems an at least fairly good guy to me - my best pick. must say lotsa
>folks seem good within their own context. not all r of scientific
>bent.
>gotta be better solution than yelling. u seem to b the most important in
>fz to me, or @ very least the most underappreciated. fz should declare ur
>bday a holiday. all fz owes a.c.t..
Homer Wilson Smith said:
I got frackzone friends all over the place.
You know I sent in 5 bucks to a National Enquirer Ad a while back
offering me the secret to happiness, wealth and power.
This is what I got back.
"There is no compromise with full responsibility. It lies above
20.0 on the tone scale and is descended from with the full knowledge of
its assumptions. It means responsibility for all acts, all emotions, on
every dynamic and in every sphere as one's own. It includes such
"disrelated" data as the death of an individual one has never met on a
highway on which one has never traveled at the hands of a stranger no
matter how culpable. One does not send to find out for whom the bell
tolls, without full willingness to have tolled it and to have caused the
cause of its tolling." - Advanced Procedure and Axioms
WTF?
Oh well it was only 5 bucks.
So I will make you a deal.
If you take full responsibility for me and my irresponsibilities, I
will take full respsonsibility for Hubbard, his Church, the churchie
zombie zoners that infect it, the controlling overlords of evil that feed
on the zombies, AND I will throw in for FREE taking full responsibility
for the aborning police state, Bradley Manning spending the rest of his
life in jail, the One World Government, the New World Order, AND I will
add in 100,000 black helicopters to boot, armed with 1.6 billion rounds of
hollow point, along with the environment going to hell, oil spills, the
fur trade, the child sex trade, the war on drugs, that asteriod coming in
with our name on it, chemical, biological, atomic and genetic war fare,
our constitution being sold to the lowest bidder, the guy who ran over my
cat, and the guy tolling that damn bell all day long waking me up every
morning.
That a fair deal?
Mean while, read LIFE REPAIR at
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore940.memo
Homer
Thu Mar 14 14:21:41 EDT 2013
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 20 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore941.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)
iD8DBQFURLRaURT1lqxE3HERAuvjAJwKkHoqHOlsEOm+bvYdgRXhplbDXACeIGUO
aUvu/hUHT64U4f4ZoFPtj6Q=
=qyio
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, October 19, 2014
ADORE38 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Let me ask y'all a deep question.
If everyone obeyed all laws all the time would the world be a
better place?
If everyone did what was right at all times regardless of what
any laws said, would the world be a better place?
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 Oct 19 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore38.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)
iD8DBQFUQ2LZURT1lqxE3HERAu3JAKCy1DVDSFbIRLHhHSIGwJm+dNyghgCdFxt0
SDDmUUGQ+WTIsmCY/K9vYj0=
=S1eG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Let me ask y'all a deep question.
If everyone obeyed all laws all the time would the world be a
better place?
If everyone did what was right at all times regardless of what
any laws said, would the world be a better place?
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 Oct 19 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore38.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)
iD8DBQFUQ2LZURT1lqxE3HERAu3JAKCy1DVDSFbIRLHhHSIGwJm+dNyghgCdFxt0
SDDmUUGQ+WTIsmCY/K9vYj0=
=S1eG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, October 17, 2014
ADORE428 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
One of the worst things in Scientology is the inability or
unwillingness to run a question without insisting upon getting an
answer.
There may be answers, and maybe they are sometimes important to
find, but mostly what is messing the pc up is mis handled questions.
The answers are just not that important, except incorrect ones!
Thus it is the question that needs to be found, not the answer!
By refusing to run questions unless the pc gives answers, many
questions are not run flat AS QUESTIONS, and thus charge is missed and
bypassed, and the pc is given a loss because he said 'I don't know' to
the question.
For example auditor wants to run 'Who or what would oppose a
damnation manager?'
PC has no clue about answers, but is interested in the question and
the item involved.
So instead run "Get the idea of opposing a damnation manager."
You see, no need for an answer to a question.
Since dramatized question asking is at the root source of all
aberration, forcing a pc to ask and answer questions is a highly
dangerous undertaking unless it is done absolutely right.
Anyone claiming to be able to do this across the boards on any pc
is lying. My opinion.
What you want him to do is to knowingly ask the question he is
already asking unknowingly with every breath he takes. Once he spots
the question and the dramatization that goes with it, he can chill out
about it.
He is killing himself with the QUESTION! Not with not knowing the
answer.
He gets better by chilling out about the question, not by knowing
the answer!
Dramatization means bringing drama to, drama is importance,
seriousness, permanence (forever/never) and pain. This usually
manifests as real heavy effort down in the numb range of awareness.
He is killing himself slowly wanting to know so bad, but he no
longer knows exactly what it is he wants to know, and that he also
doesn't want to know it at the same time.
That's called an AND, wanting to know and not wanting to know
at the same time forever for free.
It's not an oscillation, its an isometeric, like holding the door
closed with one hand while pulling it to open with the other hand.
Or slamming both the accelerator and the brakes to the floor of a
car.
Thus he is bidirectional heavy effort dramatizing, for and against,
which forms a ridge which he then calls his face.
Worse his dramatization is on automatic, it is compulsive and
convulsive. Sort of like the dry heaves when it happens. There is no
stopping it, and there is no spotting it until after it happens.
As he first approaches it, its so fast and so hard it just knocks
him unconscious as he does it. That's why he never spots it and wonders
why he has a headache MUCH later.
Then once he is genned in on the thing, he will start spotting it
after it happens, and he says 'I saw that!' and so he be's with it for a
good while until some of it has released. He says "I created that!"
even though he saw it only after it happened, that's taking
responsibility for something after the fact, but it works.
Then the next time it happens, he's right there as it happens, and
he says "Uh Homer you think you could stop doing that quite so hard
pretty please (you asshole!), eh?"
Then next time he will be there before it happens and he can chill
it out during its convulsion, kind of do it slowly and intentionally,
and draw it out and hold it gently on at the end of its stroke, but not
with the total force or blind kamikazee determination like he was
originally doing it with.
Determination is dramatization and cements in failure, as it
prepostulates possible failure, and commits to that pre postulate with
heavy efforts.
Then next time again he will be there before it happens, and it
won't happen, something else will happen instead, and he will be
relieved of that piece of nonsense forever.
If you ask questions inside your face, you become a face.
People's faces are generally as ugly as they feel about the
questions they are asking inside their face and don't know it.
Every crooked tooth is a dramatized and hated question answer
cycle.
"Adoration is Operation of Questions and Answers with Majesty,
Class and Pride." - Adore
Look up quick, something just flew over your head :)
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Feb 4 02:07:04 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 17 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore428.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFUQL/ZURT1lqxE3HERAiFFAJ93tttfZWXex0adet7Pm1j3BXP6PwCgjToz
8ce3daon1jPYTlPQShEevFw=
=wZsp
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Oct 17 14:25:39 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore428.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)
iD8DBQFUQV8jURT1lqxE3HERAqu4AKCczvejWxdL79vIORetnG103WcHFwCg1V6D
2lZVFC+PfkFSjJt/SEdtt2E=
=l+NT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
One of the worst things in Scientology is the inability or
unwillingness to run a question without insisting upon getting an
answer.
There may be answers, and maybe they are sometimes important to
find, but mostly what is messing the pc up is mis handled questions.
The answers are just not that important, except incorrect ones!
Thus it is the question that needs to be found, not the answer!
By refusing to run questions unless the pc gives answers, many
questions are not run flat AS QUESTIONS, and thus charge is missed and
bypassed, and the pc is given a loss because he said 'I don't know' to
the question.
For example auditor wants to run 'Who or what would oppose a
damnation manager?'
PC has no clue about answers, but is interested in the question and
the item involved.
So instead run "Get the idea of opposing a damnation manager."
You see, no need for an answer to a question.
Since dramatized question asking is at the root source of all
aberration, forcing a pc to ask and answer questions is a highly
dangerous undertaking unless it is done absolutely right.
Anyone claiming to be able to do this across the boards on any pc
is lying. My opinion.
What you want him to do is to knowingly ask the question he is
already asking unknowingly with every breath he takes. Once he spots
the question and the dramatization that goes with it, he can chill out
about it.
He is killing himself with the QUESTION! Not with not knowing the
answer.
He gets better by chilling out about the question, not by knowing
the answer!
Dramatization means bringing drama to, drama is importance,
seriousness, permanence (forever/never) and pain. This usually
manifests as real heavy effort down in the numb range of awareness.
He is killing himself slowly wanting to know so bad, but he no
longer knows exactly what it is he wants to know, and that he also
doesn't want to know it at the same time.
That's called an AND, wanting to know and not wanting to know
at the same time forever for free.
It's not an oscillation, its an isometeric, like holding the door
closed with one hand while pulling it to open with the other hand.
Or slamming both the accelerator and the brakes to the floor of a
car.
Thus he is bidirectional heavy effort dramatizing, for and against,
which forms a ridge which he then calls his face.
Worse his dramatization is on automatic, it is compulsive and
convulsive. Sort of like the dry heaves when it happens. There is no
stopping it, and there is no spotting it until after it happens.
As he first approaches it, its so fast and so hard it just knocks
him unconscious as he does it. That's why he never spots it and wonders
why he has a headache MUCH later.
Then once he is genned in on the thing, he will start spotting it
after it happens, and he says 'I saw that!' and so he be's with it for a
good while until some of it has released. He says "I created that!"
even though he saw it only after it happened, that's taking
responsibility for something after the fact, but it works.
Then the next time it happens, he's right there as it happens, and
he says "Uh Homer you think you could stop doing that quite so hard
pretty please (you asshole!), eh?"
Then next time he will be there before it happens and he can chill
it out during its convulsion, kind of do it slowly and intentionally,
and draw it out and hold it gently on at the end of its stroke, but not
with the total force or blind kamikazee determination like he was
originally doing it with.
Determination is dramatization and cements in failure, as it
prepostulates possible failure, and commits to that pre postulate with
heavy efforts.
Then next time again he will be there before it happens, and it
won't happen, something else will happen instead, and he will be
relieved of that piece of nonsense forever.
If you ask questions inside your face, you become a face.
People's faces are generally as ugly as they feel about the
questions they are asking inside their face and don't know it.
Every crooked tooth is a dramatized and hated question answer
cycle.
"Adoration is Operation of Questions and Answers with Majesty,
Class and Pride." - Adore
Look up quick, something just flew over your head :)
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Feb 4 02:07:04 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 17 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore428.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFUQL/ZURT1lqxE3HERAiFFAJ93tttfZWXex0adet7Pm1j3BXP6PwCgjToz
8ce3daon1jPYTlPQShEevFw=
=wZsp
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Oct 17 14:25:39 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore428.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)
iD8DBQFUQV8jURT1lqxE3HERAqu4AKCczvejWxdL79vIORetnG103WcHFwCg1V6D
2lZVFC+PfkFSjJt/SEdtt2E=
=l+NT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, October 16, 2014
SCALARS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
From Learning, Certainty, Causality and Consciousness
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
SCALARS AND DIMENSIONALITY
APL is A Programming Language conceived by Kenneth Iverson in the
1960's at the IBM Yorktown Heights, NY computer center.
APL was written to allow designers of the new IBM 360 super
computer of the time to express the algorithms implemented in the
hardware that made up the computer.
They essentially wrote the computer in APL, before implementing it
in hardware.
In that sense APL was a hardware programming language, however they
found once the 360 was built, that the language used to design it was
optimum for use on it in many other areas of application.
Like many programming languages APL deals with numbers and
computations.
It has two rather unique qualities, the first is that rather than
use names for various functions like log and sine, it uses single
characters, and thus needs a special keyboard to enter the special
symbols. If you have ever seen an APL keyboard, you will probably
remember wondering what the hell that was.
Second, because it has so many fundamental operators like log and
sine, there is no order of precedence in evaluating expressions.
In most languages 3 x 2 - 1 would be (3 x 2) - 1 or 5.
In APL, everything is evaluated from right to left unless there are
parenthesis, so 3 x 2 - 1 would be 3.
One of the advantages of APL is that it is an interpreter, rather
than a compiled language, so one is presented with an active workspace
on the computer screen that accepted commands, executed them and
remembered them.
A simple session might go as follows.
Indented lines are typed by the user, unindented lines are typed by
the computer.
A
VALUE ERROR
A <- 3
A
3
A <- A + 2
A
5
The above session shows a number of important things.
Before A has been assigned anything, it doesn't exist at all, it is
a NOTHING per the opening definitions, or a VALUE ERROR per APL.
The opening definitions define a nothing as any object with an
empty quality set, no qualities.
After A has been assigned the number 3 with A <- 3, A becomes a
something, its quality set is no longer empty now being the number 3.
Once A has been assigned a number, it retains that number forever
until it is changed again, for example, in the next line by adding 2 to
it.
The last line where A is typed alone on the line indicates a desire
to see its value, and the number 5 is written.
In fact any line that does not contain an assignment arrow <-, no
matter how complex, means that you want the final evaluation of that line
printed out. Without the assignment <- however the final result is not
stored in any thing, and the value is lost as soon as it is printed.
Better to store it in A first then print it out!
The workspace can be saved at this point and reloaded later, to find
A still exists where one last set it.
A can also be erased, returned to a value error.
)ERASE A
A
VALUE ERROR
Numbers come in many forms in APL, they start with the simple
numbers like 3 in the example above. In that case the 3 is a scalar,
with zero dimensions as we shall see below.
But A can also be assigned to a set of numbers like so:
A <- 3 10 5 17
A + 1
4 11 6 18
In the above example 3 10 5 17 form a 4 element array called a
vector. Vectors have one dimension, like points on a line, and can be
as long as you like, that is have as many elements as you like including
just 1 or even 0 elements!
There are a number of operators that work with vectors to help
you handle them.
First the regular operators like plus and minus work as you would
expect.
A <- 2 4 6 8
A + 3
5 7 9 11
A + 1 2 3 4
3 6 9 12
A + 1 2 3 4 5
LENGTH ERROR
The above shows that you can add a scalar to a vector in which case
the scalar is added to each member of the vector, or you can add two
vectors together, in which case each member is added to the same member
in the other vector. But we can not add two vectors of different
lengths, its meaningless.
There are also more sophisticated operators like the one that allows
you to sum up the values of A
A <- 1 2 3 4
+/A
10
The construct +/A means put the + between every member of the
vector and the execute the whole line.
A more interesting example is is x/A which puts a times between
each member and multiplies them all up.
A <- 1 2 3 4
x/A
24
Notice in APL times is x and not *. The * is exponentiation.
THE RHO OPERATOR
Now here is where you really need to start paying attention, for
without this you won't ever be able to talk about the proof and scalars
in any meaningful way.
There is an operator that allows you to determine the shape and
size of any array, be they scalars, vectors, matrices, cubes or hyper
cubes and higher etc.
It is written and called after the greek letter RHO, in this paper
we will use the small letter p to represent the RHO operator, as that is
the closest to what a RHO really looks like. Its called RHO after
RESHAPE which is what it does.
RHO has two uses, depending on whether it is used with one
argument or two.
With one argument, RHO returns the shape of A.
A <- 1 2 3 4 5 6
pA
6
This says that A has one dimension with 6 elements in it. That's
like a one dimensional line 6 inches long.
You know the extension is 6 because you see it right there in the
answer. You know there is only one dimension because only one number
was printed out.
So when you see 6 = pA, you know that A is one dimensional with an
extension of 6 inches, elements, numbers or whatever.
When used with two arguments, B p A, RHO reshapes A after the
value of B.
5 p 1
1 1 1 1 1
6 p 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3
4 p 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4
Now the above notation opens a serious question, which is what is
the value of:
0 p 1 2 3 4
Well we know that the left hand side tells you two things, how
many dimensions and how many elements in that dimension.
So because there is just one number on the left, the answer must
be a one dimensional vector, but it has ZERO elements!
To make it more concrete let's use A again.
A <- 0 p 6
pA
0
A
<- blank line
Since A has no elements in it, when you ask for APL to print it
out, it just prints an empty line. Notice this is not the same thing
as a VALUE ERROR.
Just because A is an empty vector, doesn't mean it is a nothing.
Its a 'something' with one dimension, but no extension.
Now of course in the real world, an object that was one dimension
but zero inches long, would be a material nothing, but we have to be
really careful here, because having one dimension, even if its zero
extension, makes it a something in thge language of the proof, not a
nothing.
It has a quality, namely shape, even if it has no material
existence, thus it can't be considered a true nothing which has no
qualities at all. Shape means dimension with extension. In this case
having zero extension doesn't mean having no shape, thus it isn't a
complete nothing.
One more thing to notice before we move on, it clearly doesn't
matter WHAT is to the right of the RHO if the left is 0, because RHO is
going to take zero elements from the set on the right, and that's zero
elements regardless of what is on the right.
So the following are all the same empty vector:
0 p 1
0 p 2 3
0 p 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 p 0
In fact when someone wants to create an empty vector they often
just use
A <- 0 p 0
Now you might ask why would you want to create an empty vector?
Well it creates a place holder so that you can then concatenate things
on to it as you collect them.
For example:
A <- 0 p 0
A
<- blank line
A <- A, 3
A
3
A <- A, 4
A
3 4
A <- A, 2 4 6
A
3 4 2 4 6
A <- A, 3 p 7 7 9 8 7
A
3 4 2 4 6 7 7 9 Notice the 8 and 7 are dropped because only 3 are
are wanted.
Suppose you tried to concatenate onto B without first setting B
to the empty vector.
B <- B, 3
VALUE ERROR
B isn't defined at all, its a true nothing, so you can't add
something to it.
OK, let's move on. Say you want to create a two dimensional
matrix that is 3 by 4 filled with 1 2 3 4.
A <- 3 4 p 1 2 3 4
A
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
You see, 3 rows, 4 columns.
Say you want to create a cube of 3 by 3 by 2 filled with the numbers
from 0 to 17.
A <- 3 3 2 p 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
A
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
You see APL can't print out a cube, so it prints out 3 faces of 3
by 2 each.
So you can see the power of RHO.
Now let's take a look at the consequences.
First let's review what RHO does.
Used with two arguments it creates an object from data on the
right with shape specified on the left.
A <- SHAPE p DATA
A <- 2 3 4 p 3 That's a 2x3x4 cube filled with 3's.
Used with one argument, RHO returns the shape of the object that
was used to create it.
SHAPE = p DATA
A <- 2 3 4 p 3
pA
2 3 4
So this is our first theorem of importance.
SHAPE = p (SHAPE p DATA)
B = p (B p A)
Now here is the next question.
What is the shape of the answer that RHO returns? In other words
what is the shape of the shape of data?
In the example above pA returned 2 3 4. What is shape of 2 3 4?
Well its 3.
So we have
A <- 3 4 p 1
A
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
pA
3 4
ppA
2
pppA
1
ppppA
1
Clearly A is a 3 x 4 matrix of 1's.
So the shape of A is {3,4}.
We put the {}'s around the shape of an object to signify that it is
the shape we are talking about. APL itself doesn't do this.
And the shape of 3 4 is {2}, its a line with 2 elements right?
And the shape of 2 is {1}, it too is a line with 1 element.
Now here is where you ask, but 2 is a single number, why is it
considered a vector of one element instead of a scalar?
Simply because RHO is *DEFINED* to return a vector, it always
returns a vector, it can't return any thing else but a vector.
But it can return a one element vector or even an EMPTY vector.
Say we define S to be a scalar, V to be a vector, M to be a
matrix and C to be a cube.
S <- 3
V <- 1 p 3
M <- 1 1 p 3
C <- 1 1 1 p 3
We have created four objects above.
The first is a zero dimensional scalar whose value is 3.
The second is a one dimensional vector whose value is 3.
The third is a two dimensional matrix whose value is 3.
the fourth is a three dimensional cube whose value is 3.
S
3
V
3
M
3
C
3
So what is the difference?
pS
pV
1
pM
1 1
pC
1 1 1
The shape returns how many dimensions the object has, and each
element in the shape tells you the number of elements along that
dimension in the object.
Take a 1 x 1 matrix, it is two dimensional, but has only one
element. The shape of that marix is {1,1} which means a 1 by 1
or 1 x 1 matrix.
Take a 1 x 1 x 1 cube, it is three dimensional, but also has only
one element, so its shape is {1,1,1}
So you see that the number of elements that an object has is not
related to how many dimensions that object can have.
A vector, matrix or cube can have as many elements as you wish,
including none!
0 p 0 is a zero element vector with shape {0}
0 0 p 0 is a zero element matrix with shape {0,0}
0 0 0 p 0 is a zero element cube with shape {0,0,0}
So how do you make a zero element scalar?
You can't. A scalar HAS TO HAVE ONE AND ONLY ONE ELEMENT.
A zero element scalar is a VALUE ERROR.
So let's talk about the vector and matrix and cube a bit more.
How many elements total does an object have?
Well if it is a 2 x 3 x 4 object, it has 24 elements, or 24 cubic
inches, or whatever your measure is.
Since 2 3 4 is just the RHO of the object we can write that the
number of elements in an object is
A <- B p 1
N = x/pA = x/B
Remember that x/B means to multiply all the elements of B
together. If B is 2 3 4 then 2 x 3 x 4 is 24 elements total in a 2 by
3 by 4 matrix.
Now let's get tricky.
We know there are zero elements in a 0 element vector.
How many elements are there in a matrix with 0 rows and 4 colums.
That's a 0 x 4 matrix.
M <- 0 4 p 5
pM
0 4
x/pM
0
That's right, zero rows and 4 colums makes zero elements total.
Kind of stupid eh?
So is that a nothing? No, its not a value error, its a nothing
with two dimensions and SHAPE, namely 0 rows and 4 columns, and that
surely is not a nothing.
But it isn't a lot of something either.
Say someone gave you a 2 x 2 x 2 piece of gold. That would be 8
cubic inches of gold wouldn't it. That's a lot of gold.
But now say someone gave you a 0 x 2 x 2 piece of gold. That's 2
inches square on a side, but 0 zero inches thick. How much gold would
that be?
Zero cubic inches of gold. Correct.
Now let's say you are a two dimensional flatland creature, you
have no idea about the 3rd dimension, and cubic inches is meaningless
to you, but square inches means a lot.
Say someone gives you a 2 x 2 piece of gold.
How much gold is that?
Well it's 2 square inches of gold, which is quite a bit, right?
But say he gives you a 0 x 2 piece of gold.
How much gold is that?
It's zero square inches, and that's no flatland gold at all!
So what is the difference between
A 0 x 2 x 2 piece of 3 dimenisonal gold and
A 2 x 2 piece of 2 dimensional gold?
The first is 0 cubic inches of 3 dimensional gold which is no
gold, and the second is 4 square inches of 2 dimensional gold which is
some gold!
So we come to our next theorem which is really important, and you
really have to get it, or you just won't get anything beyond this.
If a physical object has a dimension, it must have non zero
extension in that dimension to order to be a physical something.
Anything with zero extension along any of its dimensions is a physical
nothing.
So the minute you take a 2 x 2 piece of gold which is a
something, and give it a 3rd dimension, you HAVE to give it non zero
extension in that dimension or it will turn into 0 x 2 x 2 or no gold.
So if the external physical universe consists of 11 dimensions,
as the string theory boys claim, every one of them HAS to have non
zero extension in them or else the entire universe would disappear
into nothing.
Yes APL does allow for zero extension objects to be called
somethings, they are also called nothings with shape, but physical
existence doesn't.
In APL a object with zero extension along a dimension is
a nothing with shape.
In the physical universe, such an object is a nothing period.
Ok so what about the scalar?
Well the scalar is a rough case, because it doesn't have the option
of being a nothing with shape, it has to be a something or a value
error. You can only be a nothing with shape if you have shape! And
having shape means having non zero dimensions. Since a scalar has zero
dimensions, it has no shape at all.
Further how do you create a scalar using RHO. Since its SHAPE is
the empty vector, you have to use an empty vector to create it!
A <- (0p0) p 4 That's why A <- 4 is so much easier!
Notice that 0p0 is an empty vector, and remember if there is a 0 on
the left, it doesn't matter what is on the right, 0p6 would have done
just as well, its still 0 elements!
Notice also that the above does not make A empty, it makes
A's SHAPE empty, which makes A a non empty scalar!
A
4
pA
<- empty vector, A's shape is zero dimensions
ppA
0 <- indicates that pA has zero elements
pppA
1 <- is always 1 no matter what
So lets make a table out of this showing everything there is to
know about scalars, vectors, matrixes cubes and hypercubes.
Formally the correct way to create all these different kinds of
arrays is as follows.
S <- (0 p 0) p 5 0 dimension, {} shape
V <- (1 p 5) p 5 1 dimension, {4} shape
M <- (2 p 4 5) p 5 2 dimensions, {3,4} shape
C <- (3 p 3 4 5) p 5 3 dimensions, {3,4,5} shape
H <- (4 p 2 3 4 5) p 5 4 dimensions, {2,3,4,5} shape
S
5
V
5 5 5 5 5
M
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
C
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
H
Hey I will let you figure it out! H is a hypercube.
Here is another formal table laying out the p, pp, and ppp of
each of the above arrays.
S V M C H
p {} {5} {4 5} {3 4 5} {2 3 4 5} shape
pp 0 1 2 3 4 # of dimensions
ppp 1 1 1 1 1 always 1
The shape has one number for each dimension showing the extension
in that dimension. Notice the shape of the scalar is empty {}.
The number of dimensions an object has is called its RANK.
Notice the rank of the scalar is 0 because there are 0 dimensions
in the shape {}.
So what have we learned?
An object can either be a scalar with zero dimensions or a non
scalar with 1 or more dimensions, such as a vector, matrix or cube.
If an object has one or more dimensions, it MUST have non zero
extension in that dimension in order to not be a physical nothing.
If an object is a scalar, it doesn't have dimensions in which to
have extensions, but exists anyhow with only one element. That one
element however can be as long or as complex as you want.
PI is a scalar, but is infinitely long and contains an infinite
amount of data.
One doesn't need dimension to encode data, the use of vectors,
matrixes and cubes are merely a convenience. All of the data in the
biggest multidimensional matrix you could concieve, can all be placed
into a single number (large enough or long enough) in a single scalar.
PHILOSOPHY
The ultimate question then is what is the nature of the
AllThatIs. Is it a multidimensional object, or a zero dimensional
object?
Which is true?
0 = pp Actuality or
0 < pp Actuality ?
It is an important question.
From the proof we have learned that one can not learn with
certainty about anything across a non zero extension in a non zero
dimension. Where there is certainty, there is no extension and zero
dimension between learner and learned about.
So where there is perfect certainty, 0 = pp Actuality.
This zero dimensional actuality however likes to project multi
dimensional virtual realities, thus we have the following two
equations that sum up existence.
0 = pp(Actuality)
0 != pp(Reality)
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Dec 9 01:21:40 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Oct 16 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/scalars
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)
iD8DBQFUP25ZURT1lqxE3HERAv8sAJ9+VhPMZykvEJde1D+XWaPHgn/Q0QCgunMX
iP0DTrlDlRsuui1Gzl/kXh0=
=HGly
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
From Learning, Certainty, Causality and Consciousness
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
SCALARS AND DIMENSIONALITY
APL is A Programming Language conceived by Kenneth Iverson in the
1960's at the IBM Yorktown Heights, NY computer center.
APL was written to allow designers of the new IBM 360 super
computer of the time to express the algorithms implemented in the
hardware that made up the computer.
They essentially wrote the computer in APL, before implementing it
in hardware.
In that sense APL was a hardware programming language, however they
found once the 360 was built, that the language used to design it was
optimum for use on it in many other areas of application.
Like many programming languages APL deals with numbers and
computations.
It has two rather unique qualities, the first is that rather than
use names for various functions like log and sine, it uses single
characters, and thus needs a special keyboard to enter the special
symbols. If you have ever seen an APL keyboard, you will probably
remember wondering what the hell that was.
Second, because it has so many fundamental operators like log and
sine, there is no order of precedence in evaluating expressions.
In most languages 3 x 2 - 1 would be (3 x 2) - 1 or 5.
In APL, everything is evaluated from right to left unless there are
parenthesis, so 3 x 2 - 1 would be 3.
One of the advantages of APL is that it is an interpreter, rather
than a compiled language, so one is presented with an active workspace
on the computer screen that accepted commands, executed them and
remembered them.
A simple session might go as follows.
Indented lines are typed by the user, unindented lines are typed by
the computer.
A
VALUE ERROR
A <- 3
A
3
A <- A + 2
A
5
The above session shows a number of important things.
Before A has been assigned anything, it doesn't exist at all, it is
a NOTHING per the opening definitions, or a VALUE ERROR per APL.
The opening definitions define a nothing as any object with an
empty quality set, no qualities.
After A has been assigned the number 3 with A <- 3, A becomes a
something, its quality set is no longer empty now being the number 3.
Once A has been assigned a number, it retains that number forever
until it is changed again, for example, in the next line by adding 2 to
it.
The last line where A is typed alone on the line indicates a desire
to see its value, and the number 5 is written.
In fact any line that does not contain an assignment arrow <-, no
matter how complex, means that you want the final evaluation of that line
printed out. Without the assignment <- however the final result is not
stored in any thing, and the value is lost as soon as it is printed.
Better to store it in A first then print it out!
The workspace can be saved at this point and reloaded later, to find
A still exists where one last set it.
A can also be erased, returned to a value error.
)ERASE A
A
VALUE ERROR
Numbers come in many forms in APL, they start with the simple
numbers like 3 in the example above. In that case the 3 is a scalar,
with zero dimensions as we shall see below.
But A can also be assigned to a set of numbers like so:
A <- 3 10 5 17
A + 1
4 11 6 18
In the above example 3 10 5 17 form a 4 element array called a
vector. Vectors have one dimension, like points on a line, and can be
as long as you like, that is have as many elements as you like including
just 1 or even 0 elements!
There are a number of operators that work with vectors to help
you handle them.
First the regular operators like plus and minus work as you would
expect.
A <- 2 4 6 8
A + 3
5 7 9 11
A + 1 2 3 4
3 6 9 12
A + 1 2 3 4 5
LENGTH ERROR
The above shows that you can add a scalar to a vector in which case
the scalar is added to each member of the vector, or you can add two
vectors together, in which case each member is added to the same member
in the other vector. But we can not add two vectors of different
lengths, its meaningless.
There are also more sophisticated operators like the one that allows
you to sum up the values of A
A <- 1 2 3 4
+/A
10
The construct +/A means put the + between every member of the
vector and the execute the whole line.
A more interesting example is is x/A which puts a times between
each member and multiplies them all up.
A <- 1 2 3 4
x/A
24
Notice in APL times is x and not *. The * is exponentiation.
THE RHO OPERATOR
Now here is where you really need to start paying attention, for
without this you won't ever be able to talk about the proof and scalars
in any meaningful way.
There is an operator that allows you to determine the shape and
size of any array, be they scalars, vectors, matrices, cubes or hyper
cubes and higher etc.
It is written and called after the greek letter RHO, in this paper
we will use the small letter p to represent the RHO operator, as that is
the closest to what a RHO really looks like. Its called RHO after
RESHAPE which is what it does.
RHO has two uses, depending on whether it is used with one
argument or two.
With one argument, RHO returns the shape of A.
A <- 1 2 3 4 5 6
pA
6
This says that A has one dimension with 6 elements in it. That's
like a one dimensional line 6 inches long.
You know the extension is 6 because you see it right there in the
answer. You know there is only one dimension because only one number
was printed out.
So when you see 6 = pA, you know that A is one dimensional with an
extension of 6 inches, elements, numbers or whatever.
When used with two arguments, B p A, RHO reshapes A after the
value of B.
5 p 1
1 1 1 1 1
6 p 1 2 3
1 2 3 1 2 3
4 p 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3 4
Now the above notation opens a serious question, which is what is
the value of:
0 p 1 2 3 4
Well we know that the left hand side tells you two things, how
many dimensions and how many elements in that dimension.
So because there is just one number on the left, the answer must
be a one dimensional vector, but it has ZERO elements!
To make it more concrete let's use A again.
A <- 0 p 6
pA
0
A
<- blank line
Since A has no elements in it, when you ask for APL to print it
out, it just prints an empty line. Notice this is not the same thing
as a VALUE ERROR.
Just because A is an empty vector, doesn't mean it is a nothing.
Its a 'something' with one dimension, but no extension.
Now of course in the real world, an object that was one dimension
but zero inches long, would be a material nothing, but we have to be
really careful here, because having one dimension, even if its zero
extension, makes it a something in thge language of the proof, not a
nothing.
It has a quality, namely shape, even if it has no material
existence, thus it can't be considered a true nothing which has no
qualities at all. Shape means dimension with extension. In this case
having zero extension doesn't mean having no shape, thus it isn't a
complete nothing.
One more thing to notice before we move on, it clearly doesn't
matter WHAT is to the right of the RHO if the left is 0, because RHO is
going to take zero elements from the set on the right, and that's zero
elements regardless of what is on the right.
So the following are all the same empty vector:
0 p 1
0 p 2 3
0 p 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 p 0
In fact when someone wants to create an empty vector they often
just use
A <- 0 p 0
Now you might ask why would you want to create an empty vector?
Well it creates a place holder so that you can then concatenate things
on to it as you collect them.
For example:
A <- 0 p 0
A
<- blank line
A <- A, 3
A
3
A <- A, 4
A
3 4
A <- A, 2 4 6
A
3 4 2 4 6
A <- A, 3 p 7 7 9 8 7
A
3 4 2 4 6 7 7 9 Notice the 8 and 7 are dropped because only 3 are
are wanted.
Suppose you tried to concatenate onto B without first setting B
to the empty vector.
B <- B, 3
VALUE ERROR
B isn't defined at all, its a true nothing, so you can't add
something to it.
OK, let's move on. Say you want to create a two dimensional
matrix that is 3 by 4 filled with 1 2 3 4.
A <- 3 4 p 1 2 3 4
A
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
You see, 3 rows, 4 columns.
Say you want to create a cube of 3 by 3 by 2 filled with the numbers
from 0 to 17.
A <- 3 3 2 p 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
A
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
You see APL can't print out a cube, so it prints out 3 faces of 3
by 2 each.
So you can see the power of RHO.
Now let's take a look at the consequences.
First let's review what RHO does.
Used with two arguments it creates an object from data on the
right with shape specified on the left.
A <- SHAPE p DATA
A <- 2 3 4 p 3 That's a 2x3x4 cube filled with 3's.
Used with one argument, RHO returns the shape of the object that
was used to create it.
SHAPE = p DATA
A <- 2 3 4 p 3
pA
2 3 4
So this is our first theorem of importance.
SHAPE = p (SHAPE p DATA)
B = p (B p A)
Now here is the next question.
What is the shape of the answer that RHO returns? In other words
what is the shape of the shape of data?
In the example above pA returned 2 3 4. What is shape of 2 3 4?
Well its 3.
So we have
A <- 3 4 p 1
A
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
pA
3 4
ppA
2
pppA
1
ppppA
1
Clearly A is a 3 x 4 matrix of 1's.
So the shape of A is {3,4}.
We put the {}'s around the shape of an object to signify that it is
the shape we are talking about. APL itself doesn't do this.
And the shape of 3 4 is {2}, its a line with 2 elements right?
And the shape of 2 is {1}, it too is a line with 1 element.
Now here is where you ask, but 2 is a single number, why is it
considered a vector of one element instead of a scalar?
Simply because RHO is *DEFINED* to return a vector, it always
returns a vector, it can't return any thing else but a vector.
But it can return a one element vector or even an EMPTY vector.
Say we define S to be a scalar, V to be a vector, M to be a
matrix and C to be a cube.
S <- 3
V <- 1 p 3
M <- 1 1 p 3
C <- 1 1 1 p 3
We have created four objects above.
The first is a zero dimensional scalar whose value is 3.
The second is a one dimensional vector whose value is 3.
The third is a two dimensional matrix whose value is 3.
the fourth is a three dimensional cube whose value is 3.
S
3
V
3
M
3
C
3
So what is the difference?
pS
pV
1
pM
1 1
pC
1 1 1
The shape returns how many dimensions the object has, and each
element in the shape tells you the number of elements along that
dimension in the object.
Take a 1 x 1 matrix, it is two dimensional, but has only one
element. The shape of that marix is {1,1} which means a 1 by 1
or 1 x 1 matrix.
Take a 1 x 1 x 1 cube, it is three dimensional, but also has only
one element, so its shape is {1,1,1}
So you see that the number of elements that an object has is not
related to how many dimensions that object can have.
A vector, matrix or cube can have as many elements as you wish,
including none!
0 p 0 is a zero element vector with shape {0}
0 0 p 0 is a zero element matrix with shape {0,0}
0 0 0 p 0 is a zero element cube with shape {0,0,0}
So how do you make a zero element scalar?
You can't. A scalar HAS TO HAVE ONE AND ONLY ONE ELEMENT.
A zero element scalar is a VALUE ERROR.
So let's talk about the vector and matrix and cube a bit more.
How many elements total does an object have?
Well if it is a 2 x 3 x 4 object, it has 24 elements, or 24 cubic
inches, or whatever your measure is.
Since 2 3 4 is just the RHO of the object we can write that the
number of elements in an object is
A <- B p 1
N = x/pA = x/B
Remember that x/B means to multiply all the elements of B
together. If B is 2 3 4 then 2 x 3 x 4 is 24 elements total in a 2 by
3 by 4 matrix.
Now let's get tricky.
We know there are zero elements in a 0 element vector.
How many elements are there in a matrix with 0 rows and 4 colums.
That's a 0 x 4 matrix.
M <- 0 4 p 5
pM
0 4
x/pM
0
That's right, zero rows and 4 colums makes zero elements total.
Kind of stupid eh?
So is that a nothing? No, its not a value error, its a nothing
with two dimensions and SHAPE, namely 0 rows and 4 columns, and that
surely is not a nothing.
But it isn't a lot of something either.
Say someone gave you a 2 x 2 x 2 piece of gold. That would be 8
cubic inches of gold wouldn't it. That's a lot of gold.
But now say someone gave you a 0 x 2 x 2 piece of gold. That's 2
inches square on a side, but 0 zero inches thick. How much gold would
that be?
Zero cubic inches of gold. Correct.
Now let's say you are a two dimensional flatland creature, you
have no idea about the 3rd dimension, and cubic inches is meaningless
to you, but square inches means a lot.
Say someone gives you a 2 x 2 piece of gold.
How much gold is that?
Well it's 2 square inches of gold, which is quite a bit, right?
But say he gives you a 0 x 2 piece of gold.
How much gold is that?
It's zero square inches, and that's no flatland gold at all!
So what is the difference between
A 0 x 2 x 2 piece of 3 dimenisonal gold and
A 2 x 2 piece of 2 dimensional gold?
The first is 0 cubic inches of 3 dimensional gold which is no
gold, and the second is 4 square inches of 2 dimensional gold which is
some gold!
So we come to our next theorem which is really important, and you
really have to get it, or you just won't get anything beyond this.
If a physical object has a dimension, it must have non zero
extension in that dimension to order to be a physical something.
Anything with zero extension along any of its dimensions is a physical
nothing.
So the minute you take a 2 x 2 piece of gold which is a
something, and give it a 3rd dimension, you HAVE to give it non zero
extension in that dimension or it will turn into 0 x 2 x 2 or no gold.
So if the external physical universe consists of 11 dimensions,
as the string theory boys claim, every one of them HAS to have non
zero extension in them or else the entire universe would disappear
into nothing.
Yes APL does allow for zero extension objects to be called
somethings, they are also called nothings with shape, but physical
existence doesn't.
In APL a object with zero extension along a dimension is
a nothing with shape.
In the physical universe, such an object is a nothing period.
Ok so what about the scalar?
Well the scalar is a rough case, because it doesn't have the option
of being a nothing with shape, it has to be a something or a value
error. You can only be a nothing with shape if you have shape! And
having shape means having non zero dimensions. Since a scalar has zero
dimensions, it has no shape at all.
Further how do you create a scalar using RHO. Since its SHAPE is
the empty vector, you have to use an empty vector to create it!
A <- (0p0) p 4 That's why A <- 4 is so much easier!
Notice that 0p0 is an empty vector, and remember if there is a 0 on
the left, it doesn't matter what is on the right, 0p6 would have done
just as well, its still 0 elements!
Notice also that the above does not make A empty, it makes
A's SHAPE empty, which makes A a non empty scalar!
A
4
pA
<- empty vector, A's shape is zero dimensions
ppA
0 <- indicates that pA has zero elements
pppA
1 <- is always 1 no matter what
So lets make a table out of this showing everything there is to
know about scalars, vectors, matrixes cubes and hypercubes.
Formally the correct way to create all these different kinds of
arrays is as follows.
S <- (0 p 0) p 5 0 dimension, {} shape
V <- (1 p 5) p 5 1 dimension, {4} shape
M <- (2 p 4 5) p 5 2 dimensions, {3,4} shape
C <- (3 p 3 4 5) p 5 3 dimensions, {3,4,5} shape
H <- (4 p 2 3 4 5) p 5 4 dimensions, {2,3,4,5} shape
S
5
V
5 5 5 5 5
M
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
C
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
H
Hey I will let you figure it out! H is a hypercube.
Here is another formal table laying out the p, pp, and ppp of
each of the above arrays.
S V M C H
p {} {5} {4 5} {3 4 5} {2 3 4 5} shape
pp 0 1 2 3 4 # of dimensions
ppp 1 1 1 1 1 always 1
The shape has one number for each dimension showing the extension
in that dimension. Notice the shape of the scalar is empty {}.
The number of dimensions an object has is called its RANK.
Notice the rank of the scalar is 0 because there are 0 dimensions
in the shape {}.
So what have we learned?
An object can either be a scalar with zero dimensions or a non
scalar with 1 or more dimensions, such as a vector, matrix or cube.
If an object has one or more dimensions, it MUST have non zero
extension in that dimension in order to not be a physical nothing.
If an object is a scalar, it doesn't have dimensions in which to
have extensions, but exists anyhow with only one element. That one
element however can be as long or as complex as you want.
PI is a scalar, but is infinitely long and contains an infinite
amount of data.
One doesn't need dimension to encode data, the use of vectors,
matrixes and cubes are merely a convenience. All of the data in the
biggest multidimensional matrix you could concieve, can all be placed
into a single number (large enough or long enough) in a single scalar.
PHILOSOPHY
The ultimate question then is what is the nature of the
AllThatIs. Is it a multidimensional object, or a zero dimensional
object?
Which is true?
0 = pp Actuality or
0 < pp Actuality ?
It is an important question.
From the proof we have learned that one can not learn with
certainty about anything across a non zero extension in a non zero
dimension. Where there is certainty, there is no extension and zero
dimension between learner and learned about.
So where there is perfect certainty, 0 = pp Actuality.
This zero dimensional actuality however likes to project multi
dimensional virtual realities, thus we have the following two
equations that sum up existence.
0 = pp(Actuality)
0 != pp(Reality)
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Dec 9 01:21:40 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Oct 16 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/scalars
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)
iD8DBQFUP25ZURT1lqxE3HERAv8sAJ9+VhPMZykvEJde1D+XWaPHgn/Q0QCgunMX
iP0DTrlDlRsuui1Gzl/kXh0=
=HGly
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)