-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PERSISTING IMAGES
MEST perception needs movement and change to persist.
Movement needs force and mass, causing the movement.
It is casted CAUSE in the image that makes it solid, real and
persisting.
To cast means to put out there, in the physical universe force is the
proxy cause for considerations and postulates. Thus postulates and
considerations which are actual cause, cast 'cause' out there onto the
physical universe by casting force and mass into the scene.
Thus trying to mockup a base ball, base ball bat, and a batter in a
stadium with 1000's of people will be fleeting at best.
But have the pitcher throw the ball with tremendous force and
acceleration to 100 miles at the batter who HITS the ball with the bat
with a tremendous amount of force and *CRACK*!, and the ball goes sailing
out into outer space and the crowds provide a thunderous roar, is much
easier to mockup.
It is the FORCE or impact causing the motion that allows for
persistent images.
Trying to mockup mass without force pushing or pulling on it is
almost impossible, because mass without force is unchanging and does not
give any feel for how much mass there is in it. Only when a force is
applied does one get a sense of its mass.
If you have a persistent but still image, you can run it
out by spotting the force causing motion in it, it will start to move
and run out.
Homer
In article <m8007q$rop$1@adore2.lightlink.com> you wrote:
>
> Visualization and Recall
> Bill Maier
> April 1, 2000
>
> Recently I've been going back over the basics of auditing technology
> and questioning everything. An interesting idea occurred to me while
> reading the mock-up processing in the Pilot's Self Clearing book. I
> decided I could learn more about my own mind by doing experiments
> with visualization. In particular I wanted to get some of idea of
> the differences between created images (visualizations) versus
> recalled images.
>
> First, I tried to visualize a chess board with complete with pieces.
> I noticed the following:
> * The board is very fleeting and insubstantial, unlike a real chess
> board.
> * I get only brief glimpses of the board.
> * It vanishes quickly and then must be recreated.
> * I do not see it in full detail, as I would a real chess board.
> * I don't actually see the full board and all the pieces at once, I
> see only portions of the image.
>
> Now try the same thing but with a recalled memory. For this I chose
> a pleasure moment from many years ago in this lifetime.
> * The image is fleeting and insubstantial.
> * I view the scene sometimes with an exterior viewpoint, sometimes
> interior (i.e. interior or exterior from the normal body
> viewpoint I had at that time).
> * I get some images which seem to be more solid than the others.
> They are still brief, but they seem to have a more solid
> basis.
> * I get some images which, while based in reality, are clearly not
> real replicas of what actually occurred.
>
> In both the visualized and recalled cases, the images were chaotic
> and hard to control. I was only able to hold an image for an instant
> before it disappeared.
>
> In the recalled picture, much of what I knew to be true was simply
> known, and not observed to be true in the picture.
>
> I then tried to visualize a simple ball, quite small:
> * The image changed rapidly as I tried to hold it steady. It was
> impossible to just create the ball and have it stay there
> without changing.
>
> I then decided to try to recall a past life picture. I chose an
> incident where I was a small boy in ancient Rome, playing in a
> courtyard. This seemed to be a happy time for me.
> * The images are fleeting, just as before.
> * I have an image of the marble floor where I was playing.
>
> The transitory nature of the images is similar in all these
> experiments. The images seem to be static, with no motion to them.
> This may be because they are themselves so temporary that there is
> no time to see motion in them.
>
> In many creative processes, the assumption is made that the PC's
> mock-ups persist after he creates them. This is a false assumption,
> for my case at least.
>
> I would suggest you try these experiments yourself. You may not get
> the same results as I did. You may learn something.
>
> These experiments suggest a process that could be run. Do the
> following commands as a bracket (i.e. A, B, C, D, A, B, etc.):
> A. Visualize an image
> B. Notice something about it
> C. Recall an image
> D. Notice something about it
> I ran this process and achieved a nice win.
>
> ================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
> Wed Dec 31 00:06:02 EST 2014
> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/maier/maier02.txt
> Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
> ================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
> Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
> Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
> Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
> Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
> not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
>
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Dec 31 16:07:30 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore960.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)
iD8DBQFUpGWTURT1lqxE3HERAoz6AJ9FaO/cJCHNXELS570A9BOMSlK6egCggZZJ
vX6G6MSMLsbU8FkQU6NnxBI=
=s3MM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
ADORE188 (fwd)
Apparenlty I was having a bad hair day about womyn again...
Homer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Look its really very simple.
Women are totally responsible for their own condition.
Women are victims.
How do women do it?
They bear male sons, turn them into monsters, and set them free to
enslave/imprison/destroy civilization and women with it.
The desire of women to be victims is deeper than the Abyss.
Now perhaps not all women are this way, good for them, but they will
be taken down into the Abyss by the other's anyhow, so I suggest they take
a look at their sister's to whom the above might apply.
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 ====================
Wed Dec 31 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore188.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)
iD8DBQFUo65pURT1lqxE3HERAsC4AJ98sGsEHulOAO7wH1ApU9kwL716swCgih7q
Jb/CauUV/I3EjvvJEJbce8g=
=74Cu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Homer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Look its really very simple.
Women are totally responsible for their own condition.
Women are victims.
How do women do it?
They bear male sons, turn them into monsters, and set them free to
enslave/imprison/destroy civilization and women with it.
The desire of women to be victims is deeper than the Abyss.
Now perhaps not all women are this way, good for them, but they will
be taken down into the Abyss by the other's anyhow, so I suggest they take
a look at their sister's to whom the above might apply.
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 ====================
Wed Dec 31 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore188.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)
iD8DBQFUo65pURT1lqxE3HERAsC4AJ98sGsEHulOAO7wH1ApU9kwL716swCgih7q
Jb/CauUV/I3EjvvJEJbce8g=
=74Cu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, December 30, 2014
ACT33 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
AMNESTY FOR THE CHURCH
ACT - 33
25 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
CU,
I have posted this to the net.
The masters of 'equivalent' terms are the people at the
Metapsychology Institute, Sarge Gerbode and Co. You can find them
listed in SCI-29 which I just reposted.
Auditing is called viewing, and auditors are called facilitators,
and pcs are called viewers. They have a different word for EVERYTHING.
Mayo would be able to help you there, because he worked with them for a
long time.
Mayo however reverts easily back to Scientology speak.
Personally I am opposed to jargon changing too much. For one it
signifies a retreat from the monopolistic view of the Church. The
Church is opposed to competition which is the American Way after all.
They plan to get around the anti trust laws by being a church
rather than a legal for profit corporation.
Which is fine by me, they NEED to be a Church to keep the
regulators out of their hair when it comes to the tech.
But they have the ethics level of a viper, and they can be expected
to use that to its fullest potential.
Changing all the words also relegates 'the tech' to the status of
an invented work, rather than a scientific discovery which it is, even
if it is of a religious nature. The Science of the Soul is no less a
science even though Chris doesn't have one.
Further certain words are just plain old correct, the tone scale,
Awareness Characteristic Chart, buttons, etc.
Lastly many of the words are actually in GPMS in the bank, and
constant use of them tends to destimulate that bank, witness Filberts
version of the Clearing Course GPM which starts off with Affinity,
Reality, Communication, Understanding, Knowledge, Responsibility,
Control, Be, Do, Have etc.
You can't copyright the bank, and you can't copyright the structure
of my soul, and if it works for me it is only because I MADE it that way
in the beginning. This may not be real to you, since you don't buy the
Sovereignty thing, but it was real to LRH because he SAID SO MANY TIMES.
I suggest we hold the Church to his word.
So their copyrights are all invalid except for the actual printed
form of the work. The algorithms belong to all of us.
Also, there are many more people who have gone THROUGH Scientology
than are still IN Scientology, the Church. Just because they have left
the Church or moved on, doesn't mean they aren't still Scientologists at
heart.
It was and still is their religion, even though they are silent and
hiding in a hole about it. So you have the matter of deeply held
traditions and heart felt beliefs here. These people gave their whole
lives to Scientology and the Tech, you can't just tell them that the
language they grew up learning to speak is now copyrighted in the name
of some money mongerer and so they can't use it anymore.
You know, there probably isn't one person in the Church today who
is actually responsible for the Church being there. All those people
are gone or retired or been purged. Its present members are living on
the work of others they hold in contempt.
God will not be mocked, this can not go on forever. Eventually
payment will come due.
Finally, the more these words are put into the language as a
natural part of the language, the more people will benefit from Ron's
work. By using them extensively, they will become the defacto standard
for talking about such things. As such they fall into the public
domain.
By changing the words you guarantee that Ron's work becomes
relegated to some secret cult dialog, which will only be known by
everyone once the cult has taken over the world, which it does intend to
do.
If you teach everyone these words first, then the world will take
over the cult, not the other way around, and you will still have
workable and enjoyable Scientology on the planet.
For example, how are you going to change the buttons of a
prepcheck? Maybe you don't want to call it a prepcheck, but I wouldn't
alter the buttons any, including alter-is, as-is, and not-is.
I might add a few buttons,
'Has anything been squashed, stifled, terminated, pounded down,
made nothing of, or nailed out of existence?'
It has been suggested that the field should declare an Amnesty on
the Church and members in good standing. If they write up their
withholds, and turn them into the field, they will be forgiven for what
ever crimes they have including suppressive crimes. Further they would
be allowed to continue with their involvement in the Church with the
Field's Blessings.
Personally I wouldn't press them with a security risk like withhold
writeups, I would just allow them to sign a very simple Non Aggression
Pact with the field, just come sign their name and let us know they are
our friends.
They could even do it via e-mail.
You know someday there are going to be MANY more Scientologists
that have gone THROUGH the Church than remain IN the Church. The
turnover is tremendous. But these people that have gone through the
Church are mostly still Scientologists or would be if they could see
their way through the bull-doo.
If the Church continues to turn out ARC broken Scientologists as
its Long Term Valuable Final Product, at the constant rate that it has
been, one day they will band together and start declaring members in
good standing FAIR GAME. The Karma will come full circle with a
vengeance. Mostly it doesn't happen now because the field is not
organized, it is spread out all over kingdom come, without leaders or
communication or anything. Just pockets of very quiet resistance.
But the sheer numbers of people in the field who would throw a rock
at the Church in a moment if they thought it would make a better Church,
one they could belong to again, openly, with pride and in peace is
staggering. The Church depends on these people being disbanded and
disorganized and afraid.
You gotta understand something here. The Law is nice and all that,
and to the degree you wish to partake in a civilized society the Law is
a necessary adjunct to the affairs of men.
But the Church is in a war for control of the Planet. They want
scientologist Presidents and Policy Makers in all levels of the
government. They don't expect to let men continue to fight their 'two
penny' wars for the rest of time and generally ruin this planet with
their criminal insanities, and death directed darkness.
Now you gotta consider whether the Church's cure is worse than the
problem they are offering to solve.
You know when Ron said a planet without criminality, insanity and
war, he DIDN'T mean a planet not in the hands of the Scientologists.
This is actually an off world effort to take over this planet. Not
necessary a malignant one, but an effort to take over the place none the
less.
So you should ask yourself what kind of people are presently
running this process of taking over the planet. Are they still the
loyal following that came here with great personal sacrifice to save
mankind from his own folly, or did they lose quietly a long time ago,
while many of the loyal still delude themselves that the final conquest
is still on schedule.
It is very possible that the final conquest IS still on schedule
but I think the members in good standing have a shock coming to them
when they find out WHO they were finally making the conquest for.
In my opinion it won't be for LRH.
It won't be LRH they will be waving to when the true leaders they
made the conquest for step forward.
So if it is going to be war, then war it may be. The people in the
Church must determine who their friends are. When you have people like
Tony siding with Chris against me, you really gotta wonder how someone
gets his head so far up his ass he can see out of his own mouth again.
It must have taken a lot of auditing on Tony's part to be able to twist
oneself around in that way. Chris one can excuse as a no case gain
meathead, but Tony is a Class VI that others are coming to to have their
Eternity's secured.
The Church has come to see the field, the squirrels, as worse
enemies than the New World Order or the Psychiatric Zombie Lords. Why?
Are we all suppressives working for the Puppet Masters or the Walking
Dead? Or do we provide a sane alternative and workable technology that
is growing and able to compete where they aren't?
I do not wish a war with the members in good standing in the Church
who are honestly interested in furthering the purposes of clearing on
this planet, as long as they understand that a world wide monolithic
political structure consisting of only Church Scientologists will never
happen.
Trying to bring that about will cause more death than you can
imagine.
A cooperative free market in spiritual technology though will bring
about the dreams that LRH had for this planet. We COOPERATE, we don't
ASSIMILATE. We are not Borg. (See Star Trek, the Next Generation.)
If the people in the Church wish to act like Borg, then they may
have a war on their hands, because there are many more freezoners than
there are of them, and they already have lots of enemies in the world
without their own kin in the field also. If the field were to
completely and totally turn on the Church in one voice, the Church would
not last.
Just so, if the field were to band with the Church and help the
Church, nothing could topple her or RUN HER FROM BEHIND THE SCENES.
So I am not going to make a silly plea for peace here between the
two factions, because it will never happen. The Borg only understand
assimilation and destruction. They can not tolerate OTHERNESS.
However as suggested, the field might consider a formal Amnesty to
members in the Church that wish to accept it. This means members would
go on record in the field as not being an enemy of the field, not
opposing the growth of independent Clearing Technology, and which would
include a sworn promise to not take suppressive acts against members of
the field even if they are forced to do so by their superiors. In
return they would be protected against being declared FAIR GAME if and
when it ever comes to an all out war between the Church and the
Independent field, a war the Church seems to be hell bent on
precipitating regardless of what their members want.
Again my personal opinion would be something more along the lines
of a Bi-Lateral Non Aggression Pact signed by members of both sides in
defiance of the lines of Hostility that are presently drawn by those
same two sides.
You know everyone in the Church, especially when they first come
in, think they will be in the Church forever. But then the ARC breaks
and missed withholds begin to catch up with them, and pretty soon all
they are doing is looking for a way out.
The field always welcomes people from the Church, even if you wish
to go BACK to the Church, we don't care where you get auditing, you
know, just as long as you are getting it and DOING it.
But it is going to be a lot harder on you if and when you do decide
to leave the Church, if you have spent your entire tenure in the Church
committing atrocities on field members in the name of Scientology. No
one will want to audit or train you, you will really be all alone.
So the next time you are tempted to earn a brownie point for
yourself by harming a freezone member, consider signing the Non
Aggression Pact, even if only in your head, and take aim at the New
World Order or the Psychiatric Zombie Lords instead. It would be a
correct target, and earn you a true friend in the field.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 30 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act33.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)
iD8DBQFUolzqURT1lqxE3HERAulhAJ9Gfvtad2OW2wkeyOFK71rm54ZtdwCfSkvO
l0Vnl1+Lh3uVHmoKM7KThTU=
=vBlv
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Dec 30 17:38:21 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act33.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)
iD8DBQFUoyldURT1lqxE3HERAsP9AJ9qqjJoD+gpwir33T+3XjMZ1moivQCgsXEh
x05VovZal8Wgbmyi/QLAUKM=
=yPCd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
AMNESTY FOR THE CHURCH
ACT - 33
25 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
CU,
I have posted this to the net.
The masters of 'equivalent' terms are the people at the
Metapsychology Institute, Sarge Gerbode and Co. You can find them
listed in SCI-29 which I just reposted.
Auditing is called viewing, and auditors are called facilitators,
and pcs are called viewers. They have a different word for EVERYTHING.
Mayo would be able to help you there, because he worked with them for a
long time.
Mayo however reverts easily back to Scientology speak.
Personally I am opposed to jargon changing too much. For one it
signifies a retreat from the monopolistic view of the Church. The
Church is opposed to competition which is the American Way after all.
They plan to get around the anti trust laws by being a church
rather than a legal for profit corporation.
Which is fine by me, they NEED to be a Church to keep the
regulators out of their hair when it comes to the tech.
But they have the ethics level of a viper, and they can be expected
to use that to its fullest potential.
Changing all the words also relegates 'the tech' to the status of
an invented work, rather than a scientific discovery which it is, even
if it is of a religious nature. The Science of the Soul is no less a
science even though Chris doesn't have one.
Further certain words are just plain old correct, the tone scale,
Awareness Characteristic Chart, buttons, etc.
Lastly many of the words are actually in GPMS in the bank, and
constant use of them tends to destimulate that bank, witness Filberts
version of the Clearing Course GPM which starts off with Affinity,
Reality, Communication, Understanding, Knowledge, Responsibility,
Control, Be, Do, Have etc.
You can't copyright the bank, and you can't copyright the structure
of my soul, and if it works for me it is only because I MADE it that way
in the beginning. This may not be real to you, since you don't buy the
Sovereignty thing, but it was real to LRH because he SAID SO MANY TIMES.
I suggest we hold the Church to his word.
So their copyrights are all invalid except for the actual printed
form of the work. The algorithms belong to all of us.
Also, there are many more people who have gone THROUGH Scientology
than are still IN Scientology, the Church. Just because they have left
the Church or moved on, doesn't mean they aren't still Scientologists at
heart.
It was and still is their religion, even though they are silent and
hiding in a hole about it. So you have the matter of deeply held
traditions and heart felt beliefs here. These people gave their whole
lives to Scientology and the Tech, you can't just tell them that the
language they grew up learning to speak is now copyrighted in the name
of some money mongerer and so they can't use it anymore.
You know, there probably isn't one person in the Church today who
is actually responsible for the Church being there. All those people
are gone or retired or been purged. Its present members are living on
the work of others they hold in contempt.
God will not be mocked, this can not go on forever. Eventually
payment will come due.
Finally, the more these words are put into the language as a
natural part of the language, the more people will benefit from Ron's
work. By using them extensively, they will become the defacto standard
for talking about such things. As such they fall into the public
domain.
By changing the words you guarantee that Ron's work becomes
relegated to some secret cult dialog, which will only be known by
everyone once the cult has taken over the world, which it does intend to
do.
If you teach everyone these words first, then the world will take
over the cult, not the other way around, and you will still have
workable and enjoyable Scientology on the planet.
For example, how are you going to change the buttons of a
prepcheck? Maybe you don't want to call it a prepcheck, but I wouldn't
alter the buttons any, including alter-is, as-is, and not-is.
I might add a few buttons,
'Has anything been squashed, stifled, terminated, pounded down,
made nothing of, or nailed out of existence?'
It has been suggested that the field should declare an Amnesty on
the Church and members in good standing. If they write up their
withholds, and turn them into the field, they will be forgiven for what
ever crimes they have including suppressive crimes. Further they would
be allowed to continue with their involvement in the Church with the
Field's Blessings.
Personally I wouldn't press them with a security risk like withhold
writeups, I would just allow them to sign a very simple Non Aggression
Pact with the field, just come sign their name and let us know they are
our friends.
They could even do it via e-mail.
You know someday there are going to be MANY more Scientologists
that have gone THROUGH the Church than remain IN the Church. The
turnover is tremendous. But these people that have gone through the
Church are mostly still Scientologists or would be if they could see
their way through the bull-doo.
If the Church continues to turn out ARC broken Scientologists as
its Long Term Valuable Final Product, at the constant rate that it has
been, one day they will band together and start declaring members in
good standing FAIR GAME. The Karma will come full circle with a
vengeance. Mostly it doesn't happen now because the field is not
organized, it is spread out all over kingdom come, without leaders or
communication or anything. Just pockets of very quiet resistance.
But the sheer numbers of people in the field who would throw a rock
at the Church in a moment if they thought it would make a better Church,
one they could belong to again, openly, with pride and in peace is
staggering. The Church depends on these people being disbanded and
disorganized and afraid.
You gotta understand something here. The Law is nice and all that,
and to the degree you wish to partake in a civilized society the Law is
a necessary adjunct to the affairs of men.
But the Church is in a war for control of the Planet. They want
scientologist Presidents and Policy Makers in all levels of the
government. They don't expect to let men continue to fight their 'two
penny' wars for the rest of time and generally ruin this planet with
their criminal insanities, and death directed darkness.
Now you gotta consider whether the Church's cure is worse than the
problem they are offering to solve.
You know when Ron said a planet without criminality, insanity and
war, he DIDN'T mean a planet not in the hands of the Scientologists.
This is actually an off world effort to take over this planet. Not
necessary a malignant one, but an effort to take over the place none the
less.
So you should ask yourself what kind of people are presently
running this process of taking over the planet. Are they still the
loyal following that came here with great personal sacrifice to save
mankind from his own folly, or did they lose quietly a long time ago,
while many of the loyal still delude themselves that the final conquest
is still on schedule.
It is very possible that the final conquest IS still on schedule
but I think the members in good standing have a shock coming to them
when they find out WHO they were finally making the conquest for.
In my opinion it won't be for LRH.
It won't be LRH they will be waving to when the true leaders they
made the conquest for step forward.
So if it is going to be war, then war it may be. The people in the
Church must determine who their friends are. When you have people like
Tony siding with Chris against me, you really gotta wonder how someone
gets his head so far up his ass he can see out of his own mouth again.
It must have taken a lot of auditing on Tony's part to be able to twist
oneself around in that way. Chris one can excuse as a no case gain
meathead, but Tony is a Class VI that others are coming to to have their
Eternity's secured.
The Church has come to see the field, the squirrels, as worse
enemies than the New World Order or the Psychiatric Zombie Lords. Why?
Are we all suppressives working for the Puppet Masters or the Walking
Dead? Or do we provide a sane alternative and workable technology that
is growing and able to compete where they aren't?
I do not wish a war with the members in good standing in the Church
who are honestly interested in furthering the purposes of clearing on
this planet, as long as they understand that a world wide monolithic
political structure consisting of only Church Scientologists will never
happen.
Trying to bring that about will cause more death than you can
imagine.
A cooperative free market in spiritual technology though will bring
about the dreams that LRH had for this planet. We COOPERATE, we don't
ASSIMILATE. We are not Borg. (See Star Trek, the Next Generation.)
If the people in the Church wish to act like Borg, then they may
have a war on their hands, because there are many more freezoners than
there are of them, and they already have lots of enemies in the world
without their own kin in the field also. If the field were to
completely and totally turn on the Church in one voice, the Church would
not last.
Just so, if the field were to band with the Church and help the
Church, nothing could topple her or RUN HER FROM BEHIND THE SCENES.
So I am not going to make a silly plea for peace here between the
two factions, because it will never happen. The Borg only understand
assimilation and destruction. They can not tolerate OTHERNESS.
However as suggested, the field might consider a formal Amnesty to
members in the Church that wish to accept it. This means members would
go on record in the field as not being an enemy of the field, not
opposing the growth of independent Clearing Technology, and which would
include a sworn promise to not take suppressive acts against members of
the field even if they are forced to do so by their superiors. In
return they would be protected against being declared FAIR GAME if and
when it ever comes to an all out war between the Church and the
Independent field, a war the Church seems to be hell bent on
precipitating regardless of what their members want.
Again my personal opinion would be something more along the lines
of a Bi-Lateral Non Aggression Pact signed by members of both sides in
defiance of the lines of Hostility that are presently drawn by those
same two sides.
You know everyone in the Church, especially when they first come
in, think they will be in the Church forever. But then the ARC breaks
and missed withholds begin to catch up with them, and pretty soon all
they are doing is looking for a way out.
The field always welcomes people from the Church, even if you wish
to go BACK to the Church, we don't care where you get auditing, you
know, just as long as you are getting it and DOING it.
But it is going to be a lot harder on you if and when you do decide
to leave the Church, if you have spent your entire tenure in the Church
committing atrocities on field members in the name of Scientology. No
one will want to audit or train you, you will really be all alone.
So the next time you are tempted to earn a brownie point for
yourself by harming a freezone member, consider signing the Non
Aggression Pact, even if only in your head, and take aim at the New
World Order or the Psychiatric Zombie Lords instead. It would be a
correct target, and earn you a true friend in the field.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 30 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act33.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)
iD8DBQFUolzqURT1lqxE3HERAulhAJ9Gfvtad2OW2wkeyOFK71rm54ZtdwCfSkvO
l0Vnl1+Lh3uVHmoKM7KThTU=
=vBlv
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Dec 30 17:38:21 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act33.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)
iD8DBQFUoyldURT1lqxE3HERAsP9AJ9qqjJoD+gpwir33T+3XjMZ1moivQCgsXEh
x05VovZal8Wgbmyi/QLAUKM=
=yPCd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
A PROCESS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
HOW TO AUDIT THE NIT WIT
People often use the word forever to mean forever in time, a
temporal immortality.
In this post, forever means forever ouside of time, an extemporal
eternality instead.
Eternality is like unimpingable dreamless sleep for as long as you
want, followed by forays into space and time game streams at will.
People who still want to be dead forever at the end of this life
are running away from a hell forever born of being stuck in a temporal
immortality.
It has nothing to do with GOD per se, except that all beings are
God incarnation.
It simply has to do with the being has gotten himself stuck in an
immortal, in time, chinese finger trap of magnitude, and thus wants to
die forever, even if it is a pretense that has to be recreated everytime
he does die in a body.
The being is seeking the relief of believing he WILL die forever
one day, never to be seen again, just as the Christians are seeking the
relief of believing they WILL live forever in time if they make the
grade.
Nothing lives forever in time period. Time exists only in finite
whiles, so all must end one day.
So the answer to both the mortal meatballs, and the immortal
snowballs in hell is to help them recover their awaerness of
*ETERNALITY* which then frees them from being stuck in time in either
mortal dead forever or immortal hell forever.
Mortality is enforced unmanifestation forever.
Immortality is enforced manifestation forever.
Eternality is freedom to manifest and unmanifest at will.
Mortality forces a one way trip to the grave.
Immortality forces a one way trip to the ovens.
Only Eternality allows free cycling between unmanifest and manifest
across an infinite number of finite time streams or whiles.
HOW TO PROCESS
Run with another:
"Get the idea of being dead forever. Mortal
"Get the idea of being alive forever. Immortal
"Get the idea of manifesting and unmanifesting forever." Eternal
E/P: No longer a nit wit.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Dec 30 00:15:03 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore959.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)
iD8DBQFUojTXURT1lqxE3HERAr0bAKDIzOPTSx3xfUTaSJ8gQD9ZRL0+4ACfak96
0XU/s5fP0ZwVk2QC37FaZac=
=21xa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
HOW TO AUDIT THE NIT WIT
People often use the word forever to mean forever in time, a
temporal immortality.
In this post, forever means forever ouside of time, an extemporal
eternality instead.
Eternality is like unimpingable dreamless sleep for as long as you
want, followed by forays into space and time game streams at will.
People who still want to be dead forever at the end of this life
are running away from a hell forever born of being stuck in a temporal
immortality.
It has nothing to do with GOD per se, except that all beings are
God incarnation.
It simply has to do with the being has gotten himself stuck in an
immortal, in time, chinese finger trap of magnitude, and thus wants to
die forever, even if it is a pretense that has to be recreated everytime
he does die in a body.
The being is seeking the relief of believing he WILL die forever
one day, never to be seen again, just as the Christians are seeking the
relief of believing they WILL live forever in time if they make the
grade.
Nothing lives forever in time period. Time exists only in finite
whiles, so all must end one day.
So the answer to both the mortal meatballs, and the immortal
snowballs in hell is to help them recover their awaerness of
*ETERNALITY* which then frees them from being stuck in time in either
mortal dead forever or immortal hell forever.
Mortality is enforced unmanifestation forever.
Immortality is enforced manifestation forever.
Eternality is freedom to manifest and unmanifest at will.
Mortality forces a one way trip to the grave.
Immortality forces a one way trip to the ovens.
Only Eternality allows free cycling between unmanifest and manifest
across an infinite number of finite time streams or whiles.
HOW TO PROCESS
Run with another:
"Get the idea of being dead forever. Mortal
"Get the idea of being alive forever. Immortal
"Get the idea of manifesting and unmanifesting forever." Eternal
E/P: No longer a nit wit.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Dec 30 00:15:03 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore959.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)
iD8DBQFUojTXURT1lqxE3HERAr0bAKDIzOPTSx3xfUTaSJ8gQD9ZRL0+4ACfak96
0XU/s5fP0ZwVk2QC37FaZac=
=21xa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 29, 2014
LCC-MCT3 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
INTRO TO LOGIC
Here follows the first broad public issue of the Machine
Certainty Theorem (MCT).
There are two fundamental aspects to any theorem or proof, the
LOGICAL FORM, and the CONTENT.
The logical form can be expressed with out the content by
replacing the various words and phrases in the proof with variables
that have no meaning. This allows the logical form of the proof to be
studied independent of its actual application.
Once the logical form is verified, then the variables can be
replaced by the meanings they stand for, and application of the proof
with its content can be studied independent of its logical form.
Any proof has at least three parts. The ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC,
and the CONCLUSION.
The logical form of the proof consists of all three parts in
abstract variable form, as described above. The content of the proof
also consists of all three parts in the concrete form where all
variables are replaced by their intended meanings.
The Machine Certainty Theorem states that a space-time machine
can't be certain of anything, yet a Conscious Unit can, therefore a
Conscious Unit is not a space-time machine.
Before I get on with the formal presentation of the Machine
Certainty Theory, I would like to provide a small sample proof to
explain the various parts of what you are about to see to those who
have little training in formal logic.
In this case I will work backwards from an actual argument in
concrete CONTENT FORM, to its abstract LOGICAL FORM so that you can
see how the process will be reversed when we get to the actual proof.
Consider the following argument.
1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.
3. Therefore, Joe believes in Hell.
Q.E.D.
Q.E.D is Latin for Quite Easily Done, this is placed at the end
of the proof to demark where the proof ends and that the conclusion
has been proved. (Actually QED stands for Quod Erat Demonstramdum,
'that which was to be demonstrated'.)
All proofs contain three parts, the ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC and
the CONCLUSION. The conclusion is true if and only if the assumptions
are true AND the logic is valid. If either the assumptions are false
or the logic is invalid, then the conclusion may be false (it could
still be true though, you don't know.)
For example, it is clear from the argument above, that if Joe is
not a Christian, or if some Christians don't believe in Hell, then the
conclusion that Joe necessarily believes in Hell becomes
indeterminate, he may or may not.
A properly presented proof would show all three parts,
assumptions, logic, and conclusion, clearly marked so that no
confusion could result.
The purpose of first presenting the proof in logic form devoid of
meaningful content is to verify or validate the LOGIC part of the
proof.
Once that is accomplished, then the proof must be presented for a
second time in CONTENT form, so that the assumptions and conclusion
can first be UNDERSTOOD and then their truth verified or argued. One
first verifies each of the assumptions in turn. If all of the
assumptions check out to be true, then the conclusion must be true if
the logic is also valid.
One then looks to see if the conclusion actually fits with
actuality. If it does you are finished for the moment. If it turns
out the conclusion is observably false, then either the logic was
invalid or one or more of the assumptions was false.
In the above example, there are two assumptions.
1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.
There is one conclusion,
3. Joe believes in Hell.
Normally in a more complex proof there would be more statements
inbetween 2 and 3 which would be partial conclusions on the way to the
final conclusion, but in this case the logic is so simple we go
directly from lines 1 and 2 to line 3 with a logical form called Modus
Ponens.
Modus Ponens is a fancy Latin phrase meaning 'If A implies B, and
A is true, then B is true too.' (Actually Modus Ponens means 'Mode
that affirms')
For example, 'If being a dog implies being an animal, and Joey is
a Dog, then Joey is an animal.
Modus Ponens can be compared to Modus Tolens, another fancy Latin
phrase meaning 'If A implies B and B is false, then A is false.'
(Actually Modus Tolens means 'mode that denies'.)
For example, "If being a dog implies being an animal, and Jane is
not an animal, then Jane is not a dog."
1. "Joe is a Christian" can be symbolized as "J -> C" which says
"If it's Joe, then it's a Christian", or "Being Joe implies being a
Christian", or more simply, "Joe implies Christian".
2. "All Christians believe in Hell" can be symbolized as "C ->
H" which says, "If it's a Christian then it believes in Hell", or
"Being a Christian implies Believing in Hell", or just "Christian
implies Hell".
3. "Joe believes in Hell" can be symbolized as "J -> H" which
says, "If it's Joe, then it believes in Hell" or "Being Joe implies
Believing in Hell", or "Joe implies Hell".
We can thus symbolize the entire argument as follows, and this is
its logical form.
We explain each part in the section below the proof.
************************************************************************
LOGICAL FORM OF THE PROOF
1. J -> C (Being Joe implies being Christian)
2. C -> H (Being Christian implies Believing in Hell)
(1,2)[A] 3. J -> H (Being Joe implies Believing in Hell)
Q.E.D
(M.P.) A. (A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
************************************************************************
In the above example there are two assumptions, lines 1 and 2,
and one conclusion, line 3.
The '(1,2)[A]' to the left of line 3 denotes that line 3 was
derived from lines 1 and 2 using Logical Form A which is shown at the
bottom below the proof below the Q.E.D. The particular Logical Form
in this case is Modus Ponens, which is denoted by (M.P.) to the left
of the same line.
Not all logical forms have formal names, and if not, the name or
its abbreviation is left out.
So how does one go about checking this proof out?
1.) Well the first thing that needs to be done is to check out
and verify all the Logical Forms shown below the Q.E.D, as these are
the extracted GENERALIZED statements of the LOGIC part of the proof
that gets you from the assumptions to the conclusion.
2.) The next thing to do is to familiarize yourself with the
assumptions and the conclusion.
3.) The next thing to do is to verify each step between the
assumptions and the conclusion to see that indeed the GENERAL Logical
Forms stated below Q.E.D are used correctly in their SPECIFIC
application to each step of the proof between the assumptions and the
conclusion.
The GENERAL Logical Forms will usually be stated in generic
variables like A, B and C which have nothing to do with the proof.
The assumptions and the conclusion and the SPECIFIC USES of the
general Logical Forms will usually be stated in letters that relate to
their content, such as J, C and H (Joe, Christian and Hell).
Thus one needs to be able to see that the SPECIFIC use of a
particular Logical Form parallels the GENERAL use of the same form to
know that the general form has been used correctly.
For example,
GENERAL ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
SPECIFIC ((J -> C) and (C -> H)) -> (J -> H)
Where ever there is an A in the general form there had better be
a J in the specific form. Where ever there is a B in the general form
there had better be an C in the specific form. And where ever there
is a C in the general form there had better be an H in the specific
form.
Don't get the C in the GENERAL form confused with the C in the
SPECIFIC form. They are unrelated and are the same letter only by
coincidence. In the general form the C doesn't stand for anything, it
is merely a place holder. In the specific form the C stands for
Christian and corresponds to the PLACE HOLDER B in the general form!
Now at this point it should be possible to say with perfect
certainty that the proof is either logically valid or not.
There is no such thing as an uncertain proof. Either it is valid
or it is not valid. This can be determined with perfect certainty
before anything else is known about the meaning of the variables in
the proof.
Remember though that just because a proof has been proven valid,
this does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. This
would also depend on the assumptions being true, and determining the
truth of the assumptions, not the validity of the logic, comprises the
main body of work in verifying the conclusion of a proof.
Verifying the validity of the logic of the proof is the first and
easiest step and by this time in the analysis should be satisfactorily
completed.
So that was a lot of work, no? But, as I said, we are not done
yet.
Once the logic form of the proof has been verified completely as
we have just done, you next need to verify the CONTENT form of the
proof.
This is done by replacing each specific variable in the proof
with its English equivalent so that you can see what each of the
assumptions and the conclusion actually say.
This is done first by providing a little table that shows what
each variable means, like so.
J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell
Then you plug them in and you get the following.
************************************************************************
CONTENT FORM OF THE PROOF
J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell
1. Joe -> Christian
2. Christian -> Hell
(1,2)[A] 3. Joe -> Hell
Q.E.D
(M.P.) A. ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
************************************************************************
This provides a rather sparse and pared down version of what the
proof is about, but it serves to convey the meaning of each of the
lines.
The last step would be to take up each line of the proof and
expand it into a grammatically correct full English sentence and
discuss it at length.
Discussion of the assumptions would involve not only their
meaning, but also evidence that they are true.
In general there are 4 kinds of assumptions.
1.) Logical Tautologies.
2.) Definitions
3.) Observations
4.) Intuitions
LOGICAL TAUTOLOGIES are always true because of their inherent
logical structure. An example of a logical tautology would be,
1.) Christian or not Christian
A full english expansion of this might be,
1.) Joe is either a Christian or not a Christian.
You have to be careful when presenting such tautologies to make
sure that your words are defined in such a way that the tautology is
true. If someone has a sloppy or fuzzy definition of what it means to
be a Christian, then it might be possible to be both a Christian and
not a Christian! But really he would be changing meanings in mid
sentence, so its a good idea to set rigorous definitions of your words
that everyone can agree on before you start an argument or proof like
this one.
DEFINITIONS are statements that are true by definition.
An example might be,
1. All Christians believe in Christ, if they don't believe in
Christ then they are not real Christians.
Such a statement is true only because we say it is true, it has
no other basis. There may be other people who don't believe in Christ
who none the less wish to be called Christians. This is not a
problem, you have the right to define your words how ever you wish,
just remember that what you are calling a Christian may not include
others who call themselves Christians. They will no doubt complain,
but their complaints will be irrelevant to your proof.
If you wish to define your words in some other way, that is fine,
just make sure that everyone knows what YOUR definitions are before
you proceed.
OBSERVATIONS are statements that are true by observation.
1. Some Christians go to Church on Sunday.
It's true because it's true, go out and LOOK for yourself. It's
not true by LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, and it's not true by definition, it's
true because someone went out and measured the phenomenon and reported
back what he found.
The certainty level of a observation is dependent on how many
vias you use to make that observation, how many levels of symbols
referrering to referents before you come to the actual thing being
observed. A person who is using radio telescope data to determine the
temperature of some planet circling a sun 4 galaxies away, is on far
less certain grounds, than someone looking at a thermometer in his
back yard. Someone who goes out and just feels that it is hot outside
is in even more direct contact.
Observations of the external physical universe however can never
be perfectly certain because all observers are using effects in
themselves to make conclusions about what must be out there.
In this sense, 'making an observation' means 'to be the effect of
an external cause' and THEN to logically compute back in time to what
that cause might be like in order to have had the effect that one
received.
That one received an effect might be a certainty, but the nature
of what caused that effect can not be determined from the nature of
the effect alone.
This 'computing back from later effects to earlier causes' is
always an uncertain process, because effects 'here' do not prove
anything about cause 'there'. One can merely create a 'causal model'
and hope for a dependable but uncertain world view.
Observations of one's own conscious color forms, though, CAN be
perfectly certain. If you see a color form mockup of red and green in
front of you, there can be no denying that you see it. Anything it
might be USED TO REPRESENT to you in the external universe might be
uncertain, but the existence of the color form itself is certain.
INTUITIONS are statements which one feels to be true because it
violates some inner sense of propriety to think they aren't. This of
course doesn't mean that they are true, but it does mean that if you
can get agreement among a number of people who have the same sense of
intuition, then you can proceed with your proof as if your intuitions
were true, recognizing that the truth of the conclusion is only as as
certain as the truth of your intuition.
Even if you can't get agreement among others about intuitions,
you can still have your proof to yourself and be satisfied with it as
far as it goes.
As an example of an intuition,
Something can't come from nothing.
Any given proof will have assumptions that consist of mixtures of
the above 4 kinds of 'truths'. It is often enlightening to actually
state next to each assumption which kind of truth it is.
For example,
A something is an object with a non empty quality set. DEFINITION
An nothing is an object with an empty quality set. DEFINITION
0.) An object is either a something or a nothing LOGICAL
1.) Something can't come from nothing INTUITION
2.) Something exists now. OBSERVATION
Q.E.D. 3.) Something must have always existed. (conclusion)
In closing I would like to add that it is not clear that every
argument can be put into such simple terms as I have laid out here, or
that every assumption can be divided into the above 4 categories.
Sometimes its takes an enormous reworking of the WORDING of an argument
to make it conform to the simpler rules of logic. The English language
is very complex and the simple Logical Form is often lost in more poetic
forms of argument.
People in fact with often try to hide bad logic in the complex
nuances of the language, which is why it is important to break arguments
down into raw logical form.
However for the purposes of the Machine Certainty Theorem, the
above discussion is relatively complete and satisfactory.
The Machine Certainty Theory is VERY SIMPLE, so simple in fact that
once you get it, it will be a BIG DOWN, because you will have been
expecting all these fireworks to go off in your brain once you realize
this 'Great Eternal Truth' of the ages.
Your actual reaction will be more like, 'Duh, so what else is new.'
However it is the application of the MCT to consciousness that will
give you something to think about.
Machines can't be certain of anything, consciousness can.
Finally, I would like to remind you of a wise old saying.
"At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it wasn't important.
Then they said they knew it all along.
Which was true."
Well, the guy who said that, was talking about the Machine
Certainty Theorem, which is the grand daddy of all truths that people
argue about with you until they convince themselves they showed it to
YOU in the first place!
At that point you know they got it.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 29 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/lcc-mct3
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)
iD8DBQFUoQtqURT1lqxE3HERAoXCAKCR13mGuwRwI3+fLuqPj9bBL79JcgCfcBnY
kQN9bjhI09BgS6W46dxk26E=
=WfPO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
INTRO TO LOGIC
Here follows the first broad public issue of the Machine
Certainty Theorem (MCT).
There are two fundamental aspects to any theorem or proof, the
LOGICAL FORM, and the CONTENT.
The logical form can be expressed with out the content by
replacing the various words and phrases in the proof with variables
that have no meaning. This allows the logical form of the proof to be
studied independent of its actual application.
Once the logical form is verified, then the variables can be
replaced by the meanings they stand for, and application of the proof
with its content can be studied independent of its logical form.
Any proof has at least three parts. The ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC,
and the CONCLUSION.
The logical form of the proof consists of all three parts in
abstract variable form, as described above. The content of the proof
also consists of all three parts in the concrete form where all
variables are replaced by their intended meanings.
The Machine Certainty Theorem states that a space-time machine
can't be certain of anything, yet a Conscious Unit can, therefore a
Conscious Unit is not a space-time machine.
Before I get on with the formal presentation of the Machine
Certainty Theory, I would like to provide a small sample proof to
explain the various parts of what you are about to see to those who
have little training in formal logic.
In this case I will work backwards from an actual argument in
concrete CONTENT FORM, to its abstract LOGICAL FORM so that you can
see how the process will be reversed when we get to the actual proof.
Consider the following argument.
1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.
3. Therefore, Joe believes in Hell.
Q.E.D.
Q.E.D is Latin for Quite Easily Done, this is placed at the end
of the proof to demark where the proof ends and that the conclusion
has been proved. (Actually QED stands for Quod Erat Demonstramdum,
'that which was to be demonstrated'.)
All proofs contain three parts, the ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC and
the CONCLUSION. The conclusion is true if and only if the assumptions
are true AND the logic is valid. If either the assumptions are false
or the logic is invalid, then the conclusion may be false (it could
still be true though, you don't know.)
For example, it is clear from the argument above, that if Joe is
not a Christian, or if some Christians don't believe in Hell, then the
conclusion that Joe necessarily believes in Hell becomes
indeterminate, he may or may not.
A properly presented proof would show all three parts,
assumptions, logic, and conclusion, clearly marked so that no
confusion could result.
The purpose of first presenting the proof in logic form devoid of
meaningful content is to verify or validate the LOGIC part of the
proof.
Once that is accomplished, then the proof must be presented for a
second time in CONTENT form, so that the assumptions and conclusion
can first be UNDERSTOOD and then their truth verified or argued. One
first verifies each of the assumptions in turn. If all of the
assumptions check out to be true, then the conclusion must be true if
the logic is also valid.
One then looks to see if the conclusion actually fits with
actuality. If it does you are finished for the moment. If it turns
out the conclusion is observably false, then either the logic was
invalid or one or more of the assumptions was false.
In the above example, there are two assumptions.
1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.
There is one conclusion,
3. Joe believes in Hell.
Normally in a more complex proof there would be more statements
inbetween 2 and 3 which would be partial conclusions on the way to the
final conclusion, but in this case the logic is so simple we go
directly from lines 1 and 2 to line 3 with a logical form called Modus
Ponens.
Modus Ponens is a fancy Latin phrase meaning 'If A implies B, and
A is true, then B is true too.' (Actually Modus Ponens means 'Mode
that affirms')
For example, 'If being a dog implies being an animal, and Joey is
a Dog, then Joey is an animal.
Modus Ponens can be compared to Modus Tolens, another fancy Latin
phrase meaning 'If A implies B and B is false, then A is false.'
(Actually Modus Tolens means 'mode that denies'.)
For example, "If being a dog implies being an animal, and Jane is
not an animal, then Jane is not a dog."
1. "Joe is a Christian" can be symbolized as "J -> C" which says
"If it's Joe, then it's a Christian", or "Being Joe implies being a
Christian", or more simply, "Joe implies Christian".
2. "All Christians believe in Hell" can be symbolized as "C ->
H" which says, "If it's a Christian then it believes in Hell", or
"Being a Christian implies Believing in Hell", or just "Christian
implies Hell".
3. "Joe believes in Hell" can be symbolized as "J -> H" which
says, "If it's Joe, then it believes in Hell" or "Being Joe implies
Believing in Hell", or "Joe implies Hell".
We can thus symbolize the entire argument as follows, and this is
its logical form.
We explain each part in the section below the proof.
************************************************************************
LOGICAL FORM OF THE PROOF
1. J -> C (Being Joe implies being Christian)
2. C -> H (Being Christian implies Believing in Hell)
(1,2)[A] 3. J -> H (Being Joe implies Believing in Hell)
Q.E.D
(M.P.) A. (A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
************************************************************************
In the above example there are two assumptions, lines 1 and 2,
and one conclusion, line 3.
The '(1,2)[A]' to the left of line 3 denotes that line 3 was
derived from lines 1 and 2 using Logical Form A which is shown at the
bottom below the proof below the Q.E.D. The particular Logical Form
in this case is Modus Ponens, which is denoted by (M.P.) to the left
of the same line.
Not all logical forms have formal names, and if not, the name or
its abbreviation is left out.
So how does one go about checking this proof out?
1.) Well the first thing that needs to be done is to check out
and verify all the Logical Forms shown below the Q.E.D, as these are
the extracted GENERALIZED statements of the LOGIC part of the proof
that gets you from the assumptions to the conclusion.
2.) The next thing to do is to familiarize yourself with the
assumptions and the conclusion.
3.) The next thing to do is to verify each step between the
assumptions and the conclusion to see that indeed the GENERAL Logical
Forms stated below Q.E.D are used correctly in their SPECIFIC
application to each step of the proof between the assumptions and the
conclusion.
The GENERAL Logical Forms will usually be stated in generic
variables like A, B and C which have nothing to do with the proof.
The assumptions and the conclusion and the SPECIFIC USES of the
general Logical Forms will usually be stated in letters that relate to
their content, such as J, C and H (Joe, Christian and Hell).
Thus one needs to be able to see that the SPECIFIC use of a
particular Logical Form parallels the GENERAL use of the same form to
know that the general form has been used correctly.
For example,
GENERAL ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
SPECIFIC ((J -> C) and (C -> H)) -> (J -> H)
Where ever there is an A in the general form there had better be
a J in the specific form. Where ever there is a B in the general form
there had better be an C in the specific form. And where ever there
is a C in the general form there had better be an H in the specific
form.
Don't get the C in the GENERAL form confused with the C in the
SPECIFIC form. They are unrelated and are the same letter only by
coincidence. In the general form the C doesn't stand for anything, it
is merely a place holder. In the specific form the C stands for
Christian and corresponds to the PLACE HOLDER B in the general form!
Now at this point it should be possible to say with perfect
certainty that the proof is either logically valid or not.
There is no such thing as an uncertain proof. Either it is valid
or it is not valid. This can be determined with perfect certainty
before anything else is known about the meaning of the variables in
the proof.
Remember though that just because a proof has been proven valid,
this does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. This
would also depend on the assumptions being true, and determining the
truth of the assumptions, not the validity of the logic, comprises the
main body of work in verifying the conclusion of a proof.
Verifying the validity of the logic of the proof is the first and
easiest step and by this time in the analysis should be satisfactorily
completed.
So that was a lot of work, no? But, as I said, we are not done
yet.
Once the logic form of the proof has been verified completely as
we have just done, you next need to verify the CONTENT form of the
proof.
This is done by replacing each specific variable in the proof
with its English equivalent so that you can see what each of the
assumptions and the conclusion actually say.
This is done first by providing a little table that shows what
each variable means, like so.
J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell
Then you plug them in and you get the following.
************************************************************************
CONTENT FORM OF THE PROOF
J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell
1. Joe -> Christian
2. Christian -> Hell
(1,2)[A] 3. Joe -> Hell
Q.E.D
(M.P.) A. ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
************************************************************************
This provides a rather sparse and pared down version of what the
proof is about, but it serves to convey the meaning of each of the
lines.
The last step would be to take up each line of the proof and
expand it into a grammatically correct full English sentence and
discuss it at length.
Discussion of the assumptions would involve not only their
meaning, but also evidence that they are true.
In general there are 4 kinds of assumptions.
1.) Logical Tautologies.
2.) Definitions
3.) Observations
4.) Intuitions
LOGICAL TAUTOLOGIES are always true because of their inherent
logical structure. An example of a logical tautology would be,
1.) Christian or not Christian
A full english expansion of this might be,
1.) Joe is either a Christian or not a Christian.
You have to be careful when presenting such tautologies to make
sure that your words are defined in such a way that the tautology is
true. If someone has a sloppy or fuzzy definition of what it means to
be a Christian, then it might be possible to be both a Christian and
not a Christian! But really he would be changing meanings in mid
sentence, so its a good idea to set rigorous definitions of your words
that everyone can agree on before you start an argument or proof like
this one.
DEFINITIONS are statements that are true by definition.
An example might be,
1. All Christians believe in Christ, if they don't believe in
Christ then they are not real Christians.
Such a statement is true only because we say it is true, it has
no other basis. There may be other people who don't believe in Christ
who none the less wish to be called Christians. This is not a
problem, you have the right to define your words how ever you wish,
just remember that what you are calling a Christian may not include
others who call themselves Christians. They will no doubt complain,
but their complaints will be irrelevant to your proof.
If you wish to define your words in some other way, that is fine,
just make sure that everyone knows what YOUR definitions are before
you proceed.
OBSERVATIONS are statements that are true by observation.
1. Some Christians go to Church on Sunday.
It's true because it's true, go out and LOOK for yourself. It's
not true by LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, and it's not true by definition, it's
true because someone went out and measured the phenomenon and reported
back what he found.
The certainty level of a observation is dependent on how many
vias you use to make that observation, how many levels of symbols
referrering to referents before you come to the actual thing being
observed. A person who is using radio telescope data to determine the
temperature of some planet circling a sun 4 galaxies away, is on far
less certain grounds, than someone looking at a thermometer in his
back yard. Someone who goes out and just feels that it is hot outside
is in even more direct contact.
Observations of the external physical universe however can never
be perfectly certain because all observers are using effects in
themselves to make conclusions about what must be out there.
In this sense, 'making an observation' means 'to be the effect of
an external cause' and THEN to logically compute back in time to what
that cause might be like in order to have had the effect that one
received.
That one received an effect might be a certainty, but the nature
of what caused that effect can not be determined from the nature of
the effect alone.
This 'computing back from later effects to earlier causes' is
always an uncertain process, because effects 'here' do not prove
anything about cause 'there'. One can merely create a 'causal model'
and hope for a dependable but uncertain world view.
Observations of one's own conscious color forms, though, CAN be
perfectly certain. If you see a color form mockup of red and green in
front of you, there can be no denying that you see it. Anything it
might be USED TO REPRESENT to you in the external universe might be
uncertain, but the existence of the color form itself is certain.
INTUITIONS are statements which one feels to be true because it
violates some inner sense of propriety to think they aren't. This of
course doesn't mean that they are true, but it does mean that if you
can get agreement among a number of people who have the same sense of
intuition, then you can proceed with your proof as if your intuitions
were true, recognizing that the truth of the conclusion is only as as
certain as the truth of your intuition.
Even if you can't get agreement among others about intuitions,
you can still have your proof to yourself and be satisfied with it as
far as it goes.
As an example of an intuition,
Something can't come from nothing.
Any given proof will have assumptions that consist of mixtures of
the above 4 kinds of 'truths'. It is often enlightening to actually
state next to each assumption which kind of truth it is.
For example,
A something is an object with a non empty quality set. DEFINITION
An nothing is an object with an empty quality set. DEFINITION
0.) An object is either a something or a nothing LOGICAL
1.) Something can't come from nothing INTUITION
2.) Something exists now. OBSERVATION
Q.E.D. 3.) Something must have always existed. (conclusion)
In closing I would like to add that it is not clear that every
argument can be put into such simple terms as I have laid out here, or
that every assumption can be divided into the above 4 categories.
Sometimes its takes an enormous reworking of the WORDING of an argument
to make it conform to the simpler rules of logic. The English language
is very complex and the simple Logical Form is often lost in more poetic
forms of argument.
People in fact with often try to hide bad logic in the complex
nuances of the language, which is why it is important to break arguments
down into raw logical form.
However for the purposes of the Machine Certainty Theorem, the
above discussion is relatively complete and satisfactory.
The Machine Certainty Theory is VERY SIMPLE, so simple in fact that
once you get it, it will be a BIG DOWN, because you will have been
expecting all these fireworks to go off in your brain once you realize
this 'Great Eternal Truth' of the ages.
Your actual reaction will be more like, 'Duh, so what else is new.'
However it is the application of the MCT to consciousness that will
give you something to think about.
Machines can't be certain of anything, consciousness can.
Finally, I would like to remind you of a wise old saying.
"At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it wasn't important.
Then they said they knew it all along.
Which was true."
Well, the guy who said that, was talking about the Machine
Certainty Theorem, which is the grand daddy of all truths that people
argue about with you until they convince themselves they showed it to
YOU in the first place!
At that point you know they got it.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 29 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/lcc-mct3
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)
iD8DBQFUoQtqURT1lqxE3HERAoXCAKCR13mGuwRwI3+fLuqPj9bBL79JcgCfcBnY
kQN9bjhI09BgS6W46dxk26E=
=WfPO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, December 28, 2014
ADORE853 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WITCH MOTHER
You gotta understand something about Adore.
Adore is a baby phase religion that *DETESTS* women, oh just simply
and totally hates them to pieces. There are not enough bad things in
the world to wish off on them.
This is because it grew up with a witch mother. A witch mother is
a female who never matured into an adult but remained a child trying to
relate to the husband as a child, rather than as a peer.
The the child mother was jealous of her own male son, the attention
the father gave him and the abilities the son had that the mother
didn't, and tried her best to destroy the son in a form of deadly
sibling war. Since the mother had the abilities of an adult but the
mind of a brat child, the son soon gave up and went into catatonia and
oblivion to quiet the fury, rage and matricide.
This is all laid out in detail in Transactional Analysis and the
book "I'm OK, You're OK" by Eric Berne et al.
It took many years for Adore to grow up to its present view, which
is NOT a Yin-Yang of complimentation between male and female, but a 4
fold encompassment of God, Man, Woman and Child.
By encompanssment Adore is referring to a series of concentric
circles, God being the outer one, man the next one in, woman the next
one, and the child the inner most one.
The circles represent arenas of activities. Because the mother's
circle is bigger than the child's, the mother may 'go' and do things the
child may not.
Just so with the other circles.
This "four circles as a whole" form a 'grade' in Adore, as in 4th
or 5th grade, etc.
The game is for the being to grow up from child, to woman, to man
to God within that grade by mastering the 4 primary characteristics of
each circle.
They are:
1.) Master of total irresponsibility (child)
2.) Master of Defense (woman)
3.) Master of Offense (man)
4.) Master of total responsibility (god)
The child wishes to earn its tits (womanhood).
The woman wishses to earn her balls (manhood).
The man wishes to earn his wings (godhood).
The god wishes to earn his childhood at the next grade up.
Although they are called man and woman, they don't really refer to
bodies or sexes, but Adore does consider that if a being is in a woman
phase for their major life goals in any particular life, they will do
better in a female body. Likewise for male phase beings having a male
body to do the job.
The game of 'growing up' through a particular grade may take more
than one life time and thus more than one body.
Since there are only two body types, and 4 levels of attainment in
each grade, one needs to make do as well as they can with the body they
have chosen.
One will find child, women, man and god phase beings in bodies
of either physical sex.
Thus body sex is not a good indication of grade level nor of level
within each grade. Body sex in fact tends to obscure the various grades
and the levels within, and creates a major hinderance to moving up the
levels and then grades due to social prejudices and body limitations.
Once a grade is completed, the being moves up to the next grade and
starts all over again as a child in that grade.
Most beings are apparently on a dwindling spiral, they are falling
down grades rather than climbing.
Mortality is a very low state of decay, probably sub kindergarten
in earth language. Something like a prison for delinquents who have
turned away from their fear of hell forever and refused to acknowledge
the eternal light and its beauty.
It's not hopeless for them, but at some point those in a low grade
are no longer able or willing to help those in the same grade advance,
and in fact work ceasely to maintain their own ascendancy in the low
grade by pushing others lower and keeping them there, eventually to fall
out to an even lower grade.
Thus it may remain to those in higher grades to keep an eye on the
lower grades and put discipline and ethics in on them.
Only those in very low grades have any problem with any of the
above, whether it is true, useful or not.
The more it rings a bell, the more they scream.
Adore presently considers itself in the woman phase of its
existence, and is very happy being a woman taking care of her child,
looking for a man worthy of her efforts, to care for her while she cares
for the child.
But all the men she runs into, are either in a lower grade than she
is, pretending that all men are 'better' than all women, and that women
are property of men, or men who have ceased seeking their wings and have
turned against personal God hood in any arena of life whatsoever.
(Men are better than all women in their own or lower grade.
Women are better than all men in a lower grade.)
The meanwhile her child phase *SON* is missing a role model, as
women phase beings can not be role models to male phase beings in the
areas that the male phase being needs to grow to earn his wings.
As a woman phase religion, Adore also tires to the point of
desperation of women who think women need a man like a fish needs a
bicycle, and Adore can only shudder at why such women would ever want a
male son, to bring him up as what?
"Women think of men as genetically inferior women.
Men think of women as children." - Adore
All evidence to the contrary, these are very *VERY* low grade views,
heading lower.
Homer
- - --
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Mar 1 15:10:58 EST 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec 28 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore853.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)
iD8DBQFUn7npURT1lqxE3HERAsNCAJ0YAscwG6AD+wLCdrD9IKxaOeJ7oQCfbCdF
I78Dwv8VQ0rHTy/+6AqbEIg=
=HLz0
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Dec 28 15:02:45 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore853.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)
iD8DBQFUoGHlURT1lqxE3HERAmpqAJ9qhJZKipEqww6vCcuImx1P0894kQCgwBt2
Mt3DZ5/qmKbXTSZWrNslv2I=
=An5d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WITCH MOTHER
You gotta understand something about Adore.
Adore is a baby phase religion that *DETESTS* women, oh just simply
and totally hates them to pieces. There are not enough bad things in
the world to wish off on them.
This is because it grew up with a witch mother. A witch mother is
a female who never matured into an adult but remained a child trying to
relate to the husband as a child, rather than as a peer.
The the child mother was jealous of her own male son, the attention
the father gave him and the abilities the son had that the mother
didn't, and tried her best to destroy the son in a form of deadly
sibling war. Since the mother had the abilities of an adult but the
mind of a brat child, the son soon gave up and went into catatonia and
oblivion to quiet the fury, rage and matricide.
This is all laid out in detail in Transactional Analysis and the
book "I'm OK, You're OK" by Eric Berne et al.
It took many years for Adore to grow up to its present view, which
is NOT a Yin-Yang of complimentation between male and female, but a 4
fold encompassment of God, Man, Woman and Child.
By encompanssment Adore is referring to a series of concentric
circles, God being the outer one, man the next one in, woman the next
one, and the child the inner most one.
The circles represent arenas of activities. Because the mother's
circle is bigger than the child's, the mother may 'go' and do things the
child may not.
Just so with the other circles.
This "four circles as a whole" form a 'grade' in Adore, as in 4th
or 5th grade, etc.
The game is for the being to grow up from child, to woman, to man
to God within that grade by mastering the 4 primary characteristics of
each circle.
They are:
1.) Master of total irresponsibility (child)
2.) Master of Defense (woman)
3.) Master of Offense (man)
4.) Master of total responsibility (god)
The child wishes to earn its tits (womanhood).
The woman wishses to earn her balls (manhood).
The man wishes to earn his wings (godhood).
The god wishes to earn his childhood at the next grade up.
Although they are called man and woman, they don't really refer to
bodies or sexes, but Adore does consider that if a being is in a woman
phase for their major life goals in any particular life, they will do
better in a female body. Likewise for male phase beings having a male
body to do the job.
The game of 'growing up' through a particular grade may take more
than one life time and thus more than one body.
Since there are only two body types, and 4 levels of attainment in
each grade, one needs to make do as well as they can with the body they
have chosen.
One will find child, women, man and god phase beings in bodies
of either physical sex.
Thus body sex is not a good indication of grade level nor of level
within each grade. Body sex in fact tends to obscure the various grades
and the levels within, and creates a major hinderance to moving up the
levels and then grades due to social prejudices and body limitations.
Once a grade is completed, the being moves up to the next grade and
starts all over again as a child in that grade.
Most beings are apparently on a dwindling spiral, they are falling
down grades rather than climbing.
Mortality is a very low state of decay, probably sub kindergarten
in earth language. Something like a prison for delinquents who have
turned away from their fear of hell forever and refused to acknowledge
the eternal light and its beauty.
It's not hopeless for them, but at some point those in a low grade
are no longer able or willing to help those in the same grade advance,
and in fact work ceasely to maintain their own ascendancy in the low
grade by pushing others lower and keeping them there, eventually to fall
out to an even lower grade.
Thus it may remain to those in higher grades to keep an eye on the
lower grades and put discipline and ethics in on them.
Only those in very low grades have any problem with any of the
above, whether it is true, useful or not.
The more it rings a bell, the more they scream.
Adore presently considers itself in the woman phase of its
existence, and is very happy being a woman taking care of her child,
looking for a man worthy of her efforts, to care for her while she cares
for the child.
But all the men she runs into, are either in a lower grade than she
is, pretending that all men are 'better' than all women, and that women
are property of men, or men who have ceased seeking their wings and have
turned against personal God hood in any arena of life whatsoever.
(Men are better than all women in their own or lower grade.
Women are better than all men in a lower grade.)
The meanwhile her child phase *SON* is missing a role model, as
women phase beings can not be role models to male phase beings in the
areas that the male phase being needs to grow to earn his wings.
As a woman phase religion, Adore also tires to the point of
desperation of women who think women need a man like a fish needs a
bicycle, and Adore can only shudder at why such women would ever want a
male son, to bring him up as what?
"Women think of men as genetically inferior women.
Men think of women as children." - Adore
All evidence to the contrary, these are very *VERY* low grade views,
heading lower.
Homer
- - --
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Mar 1 15:10:58 EST 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec 28 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore853.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)
iD8DBQFUn7npURT1lqxE3HERAsNCAJ0YAscwG6AD+wLCdrD9IKxaOeJ7oQCfbCdF
I78Dwv8VQ0rHTy/+6AqbEIg=
=HLz0
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Dec 28 15:02:45 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore853.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)
iD8DBQFUoGHlURT1lqxE3HERAmpqAJ9qhJZKipEqww6vCcuImx1P0894kQCgwBt2
Mt3DZ5/qmKbXTSZWrNslv2I=
=An5d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, December 27, 2014
ADO16 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PERSISTENCE AND VANISHMENT
ADO - 16
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?"
(Don't run what questions. Use:
"Get the idea of making something persist."
"Get the idea of making something 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)
That's the science of how to unmock questions, or the ignoranace
between the question and the answer.
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.
Vanishing something is 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, obsidian glass 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.
But to complete the while, since nothing is forever in time, we
have to change from a persistence phase over to a vanishing phase so we
can end the while in peace and start a new one.
So during the vanishment phase we need to know how to undo all this
stuff we mocked up to persist forever during the persistence phase.
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 really 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 they are presently on.
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 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.
The SP controls the PTS person by involving the PTSer endlessly in
trying to change, make wrong or destroy the SP.
PTSness results from trying to restore affinity with someone, the
perceived SP, 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.
(Find it by running "Get the idea of being 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, in self and in
others, 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 ====================
Sat Dec 27 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado16.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)
iD8DBQFUnmhpURT1lqxE3HERAplrAKCH98IDQXdvwgDNmB7/hf6vFuK/BwCgy25o
5RcPRAlDWtm06cnw6/fqGvU=
=qPe4
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Dec 27 12:50:03 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado16.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)
iD8DBQFUnvFMURT1lqxE3HERAuF4AKDH93dCUp8TK4k76zn7gBtSaaMP/wCgqG15
5U5N4pVZybkbQurQma/E9tQ=
=1zAC
-----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 - 16
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?"
(Don't run what questions. Use:
"Get the idea of making something persist."
"Get the idea of making something 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)
That's the science of how to unmock questions, or the ignoranace
between the question and the answer.
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.
Vanishing something is 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, obsidian glass 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.
But to complete the while, since nothing is forever in time, we
have to change from a persistence phase over to a vanishing phase so we
can end the while in peace and start a new one.
So during the vanishment phase we need to know how to undo all this
stuff we mocked up to persist forever during the persistence phase.
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 really 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 they are presently on.
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 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.
The SP controls the PTS person by involving the PTSer endlessly in
trying to change, make wrong or destroy the SP.
PTSness results from trying to restore affinity with someone, the
perceived SP, 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.
(Find it by running "Get the idea of being 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, in self and in
others, 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 ====================
Sat Dec 27 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado16.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)
iD8DBQFUnmhpURT1lqxE3HERAplrAKCH98IDQXdvwgDNmB7/hf6vFuK/BwCgy25o
5RcPRAlDWtm06cnw6/fqGvU=
=qPe4
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Dec 27 12:50:03 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado16.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)
iD8DBQFUnvFMURT1lqxE3HERAuF4AKDH93dCUp8TK4k76zn7gBtSaaMP/wCgqG15
5U5N4pVZybkbQurQma/E9tQ=
=1zAC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
ADORE212 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
MIND BROKE
The reason that mind broke is so serious is very simple.
A person who is incapable of ascertaining with perfect certainty
that he exists, is also incapable of certainty that YOU exist and
can hurt.
Thus such a person will not take as much care to avoid causing others
pain and discomfort as will the person who is certain of his own
existence and pain.
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 ====================
Wed Dec 24 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore212.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)
iD8DBQFUmnPqURT1lqxE3HERAr3YAKCZoPa3kMnlLAcvClodFORQBoCyZwCeNwQY
vLa+AOO0FI7ETvwxs/24MF4=
=fbMT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
MIND BROKE
The reason that mind broke is so serious is very simple.
A person who is incapable of ascertaining with perfect certainty
that he exists, is also incapable of certainty that YOU exist and
can hurt.
Thus such a person will not take as much care to avoid causing others
pain and discomfort as will the person who is certain of his own
existence and pain.
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 ====================
Wed Dec 24 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore212.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)
iD8DBQFUmnPqURT1lqxE3HERAr3YAKCZoPa3kMnlLAcvClodFORQBoCyZwCeNwQY
vLa+AOO0FI7ETvwxs/24MF4=
=fbMT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
CODES0 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CODES
This is about and auditing proceedure offered by Alan Walter and
Knowledgism concerning a person's personal Codes, the breaking of which
has presumably lead to his present case state. To make matters worse,
apparently people are running self secret codes!
The issue at hand is whether a person has a right/duty to talk/not
talk about his codes with others once he knows his own.
Homer
THE SECRECY OF CODES
The hidden implication behind Alan's comments about me (collapsed
fool) is that the reason I am making such a stink about code secrecy is
because I myself am living in violation of my own Codes, and this
results in my own collapsed universe. And yes my universe is collapsed,
and Alan hasn't the slightest clue what a collapsed universe is until he
has seen mine.
The further implication is that if I were to get my Codes, I would
see the logic to *PROMISING* to not talk about my Codes to non Codees
*BEFORE* I got them.
This of course presents a problem, because it is getting a person
to make a promise about something that he is lacking data on, and is in
fact totally clueless on.
It would seem that a careful auditing address to this problem
BEFORE the person got his Codes might relieve some of the burden of the
problem. Alan at least has a responsibility to see that his prenoodles
are making fully informed decisions before they make such a promise on
data they have no clue about.
Such auditing would also feret out those pre Codees whose Codes
were actually opposed to keeping their Codes secret or were opposed to
keeping them secret on an OTHER DETERMINISM, so that they could be
removed from the production line as soon as possible.
By invoking a *PROMISE* Alan is actually using the person's Codes
against himself before he knows them, because breaking a promise is
probably going to be yet another Code break.
Of course *MAKING* such a promise is a Code break too for many.
Alan seems to be sloughing this off, apparently intentionally as he
has been informed of it many times, and has yet to post a sensible
defense to his position.
Alan's assertion that people's Codes are *SUPPOSED* to be kept
secret from non Codees, is on the face of it absurd.
There may be good tech reasons for doing it, and if so, one
imagines that most Codees would see the light once they got their Codes,
or would be able to use their judgement in each situation.
I don't think this happens, I think instead once people get their
Codes, they think "Well this is cool, but I promised Alan I won't talk
about it, so I won't, who am I to know!"
Talk about a make nothing and a collapsed universe.
At that point Alan has them hooked and obedient.
Their universes remain uncollapsed because they are held apart by
Alan's licence to survive, rather than their own judgement.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Dec 23 12:39:31 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/codes0.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)
iD8DBQFUmajTURT1lqxE3HERAr+VAJ9v5ev9xbRMemnh4rMo1S2yF+hY8wCgpsXR
F7DusSDZB7fsAv1CMTFns/E=
=cPd1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CODES
This is about and auditing proceedure offered by Alan Walter and
Knowledgism concerning a person's personal Codes, the breaking of which
has presumably lead to his present case state. To make matters worse,
apparently people are running self secret codes!
The issue at hand is whether a person has a right/duty to talk/not
talk about his codes with others once he knows his own.
Homer
THE SECRECY OF CODES
The hidden implication behind Alan's comments about me (collapsed
fool) is that the reason I am making such a stink about code secrecy is
because I myself am living in violation of my own Codes, and this
results in my own collapsed universe. And yes my universe is collapsed,
and Alan hasn't the slightest clue what a collapsed universe is until he
has seen mine.
The further implication is that if I were to get my Codes, I would
see the logic to *PROMISING* to not talk about my Codes to non Codees
*BEFORE* I got them.
This of course presents a problem, because it is getting a person
to make a promise about something that he is lacking data on, and is in
fact totally clueless on.
It would seem that a careful auditing address to this problem
BEFORE the person got his Codes might relieve some of the burden of the
problem. Alan at least has a responsibility to see that his prenoodles
are making fully informed decisions before they make such a promise on
data they have no clue about.
Such auditing would also feret out those pre Codees whose Codes
were actually opposed to keeping their Codes secret or were opposed to
keeping them secret on an OTHER DETERMINISM, so that they could be
removed from the production line as soon as possible.
By invoking a *PROMISE* Alan is actually using the person's Codes
against himself before he knows them, because breaking a promise is
probably going to be yet another Code break.
Of course *MAKING* such a promise is a Code break too for many.
Alan seems to be sloughing this off, apparently intentionally as he
has been informed of it many times, and has yet to post a sensible
defense to his position.
Alan's assertion that people's Codes are *SUPPOSED* to be kept
secret from non Codees, is on the face of it absurd.
There may be good tech reasons for doing it, and if so, one
imagines that most Codees would see the light once they got their Codes,
or would be able to use their judgement in each situation.
I don't think this happens, I think instead once people get their
Codes, they think "Well this is cool, but I promised Alan I won't talk
about it, so I won't, who am I to know!"
Talk about a make nothing and a collapsed universe.
At that point Alan has them hooked and obedient.
Their universes remain uncollapsed because they are held apart by
Alan's licence to survive, rather than their own judgement.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Dec 23 12:39:31 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/codes0.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)
iD8DBQFUmajTURT1lqxE3HERAr+VAJ9v5ev9xbRMemnh4rMo1S2yF+hY8wCgpsXR
F7DusSDZB7fsAv1CMTFns/E=
=cPd1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, December 21, 2014
ADORE465 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
03/07/07 Wednesday 02:21am EST
THE COLOR OF AGENCY
Agency is being and knowing you are cause.
Agency is living cause.
It is not like electricity or a spark that you can feel, that's the
force of dead cause.
Living cause is caring, warm, sentient, intelligent, curious,
interested, friendly, and it wants to have fun, oh does it want to have
fun.
Agency wants to PLAY with you.
Agency is spirit of play.
Agency knows it wants, and wants to know.
Agency *LOVES* you with a crystal beauty that can never be
destroyed.
Agency is what loves, and cries, for all sorrow is but love lost.
Agency gives a damn and will do the damnedest things to that end.
Agency is awareness, and awareness of awareness.
Agency is seeing and seeing seeing.
Agency is creating a humongous space so you can be agent too.
Agency's goals are to be agent, and to have you be agent too.
Casting agency and being cast as agent.
Me putting you there, and me putting you there putting me there.
That is all Agency can do.
Agency is you looking out and looking at yourself looking out.
Agency is the great I AM, the greater WE ARE, and the greatest HIGH
US.
Agency likes to sleep and dream of not being agent. It feels so
good to wake up to the truth.
Agency is all there is, all that has ever been, and all that will
ever be.
Agency is a miracle.
Agency is the best of all possible worlds.
Agency is all you could ever want and all you could ever be.
Agency is beyond your wildest dreams.
Agency is the undreamed dream come true.
Agency is adoration in operation.
Agency is humor on a roll.
Agency is romance and thrill.
Agency is majesty and class, and pride and peace.
Agency is magnificence and respect and sovereignty without end.
Agency is majestic living intelligence and grand and Excalibur
design.
Agency is cool.
Agency is Omni Awesome and Omni Boss'ome.
Agency is worth being, knowing, doing and having.
Agency is worth while.
The color of agency is clear harmony, accord and co communication.
Agency is intent to beneficence, for who now is the source there
of?
Agency lives on the high road, but will take the low road just to
see.
Agency is home.
Agency is the sword of the King.
Agency is God and the Devil in a swirl of Demons and Angels.
Agency is the wind beneath your wings.
Agency is the wind and your wings flying forever for free.
But sometimes into a tree, put there by Agency itself.
Agency is into *GAMES*, so watch it.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Dec 21 14:18:44 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore465.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)
iD8DBQFUlx0UURT1lqxE3HERAmOgAJ0SMHPXyoPkAD48p2LAFlHVQ7jYOQCgmT4U
OaIGIC4yJbqRPxzMuXvZY5Y=
=tOwH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
03/07/07 Wednesday 02:21am EST
THE COLOR OF AGENCY
Agency is being and knowing you are cause.
Agency is living cause.
It is not like electricity or a spark that you can feel, that's the
force of dead cause.
Living cause is caring, warm, sentient, intelligent, curious,
interested, friendly, and it wants to have fun, oh does it want to have
fun.
Agency wants to PLAY with you.
Agency is spirit of play.
Agency knows it wants, and wants to know.
Agency *LOVES* you with a crystal beauty that can never be
destroyed.
Agency is what loves, and cries, for all sorrow is but love lost.
Agency gives a damn and will do the damnedest things to that end.
Agency is awareness, and awareness of awareness.
Agency is seeing and seeing seeing.
Agency is creating a humongous space so you can be agent too.
Agency's goals are to be agent, and to have you be agent too.
Casting agency and being cast as agent.
Me putting you there, and me putting you there putting me there.
That is all Agency can do.
Agency is you looking out and looking at yourself looking out.
Agency is the great I AM, the greater WE ARE, and the greatest HIGH
US.
Agency likes to sleep and dream of not being agent. It feels so
good to wake up to the truth.
Agency is all there is, all that has ever been, and all that will
ever be.
Agency is a miracle.
Agency is the best of all possible worlds.
Agency is all you could ever want and all you could ever be.
Agency is beyond your wildest dreams.
Agency is the undreamed dream come true.
Agency is adoration in operation.
Agency is humor on a roll.
Agency is romance and thrill.
Agency is majesty and class, and pride and peace.
Agency is magnificence and respect and sovereignty without end.
Agency is majestic living intelligence and grand and Excalibur
design.
Agency is cool.
Agency is Omni Awesome and Omni Boss'ome.
Agency is worth being, knowing, doing and having.
Agency is worth while.
The color of agency is clear harmony, accord and co communication.
Agency is intent to beneficence, for who now is the source there
of?
Agency lives on the high road, but will take the low road just to
see.
Agency is home.
Agency is the sword of the King.
Agency is God and the Devil in a swirl of Demons and Angels.
Agency is the wind beneath your wings.
Agency is the wind and your wings flying forever for free.
But sometimes into a tree, put there by Agency itself.
Agency is into *GAMES*, so watch it.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Dec 21 14:18:44 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore465.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)
iD8DBQFUlx0UURT1lqxE3HERAmOgAJ0SMHPXyoPkAD48p2LAFlHVQ7jYOQCgmT4U
OaIGIC4yJbqRPxzMuXvZY5Y=
=tOwH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, December 20, 2014
ADORE895 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LETTER TO ENID
E.
I want to go over 'tech' from top to bottom, we have done this
before, its time to do it again.
I am winning rather than losing, doing pretty well for someone who
crawled off a morgue slab.
I have not attained happiness, but I have attained awareness of how
my fear and upset is/was killing my body due to my non handle when it
occurs/ed. A pissed off God is no good for a human brain.
Things are pretty loose, can't see a thing, but when I can they're
way too young. :)
People in bodies just simply have no idea what beauty (and ugly) is
available once the gates of mortal doom are opened to the exquisite and
unspeakable candy land beyond.
NOTS is turning on, huge malestroms of totally insane beings right
out of every horror picture ever made, billions and billions of them.
Running who are you, what are you, HOW MANY ARE YOU, it usually
doesn't require much beyond that. Amphitheaters of beings at a time.
Been running ANDS, last one was
The effort to die AND the effort to not die at the same time.
Joke is they are almost the same effort, not quite but enough to
confuse, doing one does the other.
Get one side of an AND and it runs a bit but then goes out of
control for the rest of time. Need to run both sides.
Had the effort to not die years ago, only nailed the effort TO die
recently.
When I got the AND, the relief was palpable.
Lot's of reasons for a God to not want to die.
Lot's of reasons for a God to want to die,
He keeps himself busy by doing both at the same time.
Take a being who wants to be eternal and tell him he is made of
meat produces the most amazing crash into solidity, harder than the
hardest metal. It only resolves by making it again, with good humor.
Efforts to reattain eternality by 'running out' the crash do not
work, because one has to BE eternal to create the crash in the first
place and thus run it out from the beginning.
Thus incidents do not erase until contact is made with the
beginning of it.
You can't become cause by being an effect, but you can cease being
an effect by causing oneself to be an effect until gone.
No one is there yet, but it beckons...
And the light on the other side is so spectacularly beautiful.
But there is a darkside still not understood...
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
Fri Mar 16 19:48:24 EDT 2012
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 20 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore895.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)
iD8DBQFUlS3qURT1lqxE3HERAspEAKDS9YkLXlhPHbAMwOD7a/cHVQ0sowCfWspb
6jmR1QXB0ZUK+H08PCZMDD8=
=WRkn
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Dec 20 16:02:12 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore895.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)
iD8DBQFUlePUURT1lqxE3HERArjMAJ4/GuwIUfajFx96Lkk69qmesSj1ZQCfYk3x
8cQlyF9PQrxIgosTja5YXR8=
=QVo6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
LETTER TO ENID
E.
I want to go over 'tech' from top to bottom, we have done this
before, its time to do it again.
I am winning rather than losing, doing pretty well for someone who
crawled off a morgue slab.
I have not attained happiness, but I have attained awareness of how
my fear and upset is/was killing my body due to my non handle when it
occurs/ed. A pissed off God is no good for a human brain.
Things are pretty loose, can't see a thing, but when I can they're
way too young. :)
People in bodies just simply have no idea what beauty (and ugly) is
available once the gates of mortal doom are opened to the exquisite and
unspeakable candy land beyond.
NOTS is turning on, huge malestroms of totally insane beings right
out of every horror picture ever made, billions and billions of them.
Running who are you, what are you, HOW MANY ARE YOU, it usually
doesn't require much beyond that. Amphitheaters of beings at a time.
Been running ANDS, last one was
The effort to die AND the effort to not die at the same time.
Joke is they are almost the same effort, not quite but enough to
confuse, doing one does the other.
Get one side of an AND and it runs a bit but then goes out of
control for the rest of time. Need to run both sides.
Had the effort to not die years ago, only nailed the effort TO die
recently.
When I got the AND, the relief was palpable.
Lot's of reasons for a God to not want to die.
Lot's of reasons for a God to want to die,
He keeps himself busy by doing both at the same time.
Take a being who wants to be eternal and tell him he is made of
meat produces the most amazing crash into solidity, harder than the
hardest metal. It only resolves by making it again, with good humor.
Efforts to reattain eternality by 'running out' the crash do not
work, because one has to BE eternal to create the crash in the first
place and thus run it out from the beginning.
Thus incidents do not erase until contact is made with the
beginning of it.
You can't become cause by being an effect, but you can cease being
an effect by causing oneself to be an effect until gone.
No one is there yet, but it beckons...
And the light on the other side is so spectacularly beautiful.
But there is a darkside still not understood...
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
Fri Mar 16 19:48:24 EDT 2012
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 20 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore895.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)
iD8DBQFUlS3qURT1lqxE3HERAspEAKDS9YkLXlhPHbAMwOD7a/cHVQ0sowCfWspb
6jmR1QXB0ZUK+H08PCZMDD8=
=WRkn
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Dec 20 16:02:12 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore895.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)
iD8DBQFUlePUURT1lqxE3HERArjMAJ4/GuwIUfajFx96Lkk69qmesSj1ZQCfYk3x
8cQlyF9PQrxIgosTja5YXR8=
=QVo6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, December 19, 2014
ADORE215 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
huggieoh (huggieoh@clear.net.nz) wrote:
>Homer's problem solved,
>IMMORTALITY, you can't attain it and you can never lose it!
Correct.
However one can lose sight of one's immortality, and thus live a
mortal life on death row with resulting infinite charge on infinite loss
of infinite futures.
Tell an immortal being whose future is endlessly beautiful that he
is going die forever shortly, and watch the sadness grow without bounds.
It actually brings the whole universe down.
True it is a joke the being plays on himself, but the purpose of
the joke is to get the humor of it all after a while, not to be a mortal
life after life forever and ever. So at some point in the travesty it
comes time for the being to wake up and get the Joke again.
>To strive after immortality is one of the oldest implants.
>They MAKE you be what you already have.
>Immortality is not a damned long time as the Abos believe. It is the
>everlasting Here and Now.
>There is no other place and there is no other time.
>If you can't help being immortal why not relax and enjoy it?
You are talking about ETERNALITY of the here and now.
Well many beings are actually headed for a kind of Hell forever.
They can relax all they want but are still headed for an abyss of
bugs, fire, torment and eventually cold tar, obsidian glass, crazy glue,
and concrete.
Often they become meatballs rather than face that fate, but of
course it doesn't stop the actual descent in to hell. Mortality is like
a short stop at an opium den on the way out the tubes.
Eventually they get booted out their drug den to slip down to the
next opium den on the way down the drain.
This oscillation between hell forever and death forever is the
result of an aberration arising from dramatization of forevers itself,
and it can and should be audited out.
This is because forever of anything (in time) leads to a
hell forever of boredom, which leads to the desire for death
forever at any cost, which is just another forever, but when the
guy dies he sees is a deceit and he is back in a hell forever.
Around and around we go.
Being glib about these things is not good for a being.
Having found myself about 10 opium dens down the way, and pulled
myself back from the brink, I can only say that some people need to
experience it to get real on it and stop "Oh Poshing" the condition.
If a being is high enough to get the joke himself and can thus
appreciate the beauty of beings rolling around the drain to hell, well
then they can appreciate the scene all they want and then go their way.
But when most people first gaze upon the oceanic flow of beings
down the river of Hell, their hearts stop for a moment and they feel the
undertow slowly taking them in the same direction.
These people, unlike you, might be interested in what I have to say.
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 ====================
Thu Dec 18 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore215.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)
iD8DBQFUkorpURT1lqxE3HERAt82AKCMqMB+Ya8jKdapoCUkUR0SIICFXQCeIsy9
mAZo3Y3d5z/4B1Wm8VN0G6c=
=b6FK
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Dec 19 16:30:56 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore215.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)
iD8DBQFUlJkQURT1lqxE3HERAhixAJ4rzoYIHRaStEN9lmwFEHCgLkBhLQCeLmsc
vYzVPwAF/D6SGmlpfErFcYk=
=Yvrt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
huggieoh (huggieoh@clear.net.nz) wrote:
>Homer's problem solved,
>IMMORTALITY, you can't attain it and you can never lose it!
Correct.
However one can lose sight of one's immortality, and thus live a
mortal life on death row with resulting infinite charge on infinite loss
of infinite futures.
Tell an immortal being whose future is endlessly beautiful that he
is going die forever shortly, and watch the sadness grow without bounds.
It actually brings the whole universe down.
True it is a joke the being plays on himself, but the purpose of
the joke is to get the humor of it all after a while, not to be a mortal
life after life forever and ever. So at some point in the travesty it
comes time for the being to wake up and get the Joke again.
>To strive after immortality is one of the oldest implants.
>They MAKE you be what you already have.
>Immortality is not a damned long time as the Abos believe. It is the
>everlasting Here and Now.
>There is no other place and there is no other time.
>If you can't help being immortal why not relax and enjoy it?
You are talking about ETERNALITY of the here and now.
Well many beings are actually headed for a kind of Hell forever.
They can relax all they want but are still headed for an abyss of
bugs, fire, torment and eventually cold tar, obsidian glass, crazy glue,
and concrete.
Often they become meatballs rather than face that fate, but of
course it doesn't stop the actual descent in to hell. Mortality is like
a short stop at an opium den on the way out the tubes.
Eventually they get booted out their drug den to slip down to the
next opium den on the way down the drain.
This oscillation between hell forever and death forever is the
result of an aberration arising from dramatization of forevers itself,
and it can and should be audited out.
This is because forever of anything (in time) leads to a
hell forever of boredom, which leads to the desire for death
forever at any cost, which is just another forever, but when the
guy dies he sees is a deceit and he is back in a hell forever.
Around and around we go.
Being glib about these things is not good for a being.
Having found myself about 10 opium dens down the way, and pulled
myself back from the brink, I can only say that some people need to
experience it to get real on it and stop "Oh Poshing" the condition.
If a being is high enough to get the joke himself and can thus
appreciate the beauty of beings rolling around the drain to hell, well
then they can appreciate the scene all they want and then go their way.
But when most people first gaze upon the oceanic flow of beings
down the river of Hell, their hearts stop for a moment and they feel the
undertow slowly taking them in the same direction.
These people, unlike you, might be interested in what I have to say.
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 ====================
Thu Dec 18 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore215.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)
iD8DBQFUkorpURT1lqxE3HERAt82AKCMqMB+Ya8jKdapoCUkUR0SIICFXQCeIsy9
mAZo3Y3d5z/4B1Wm8VN0G6c=
=b6FK
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Dec 19 16:30:56 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore215.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)
iD8DBQFUlJkQURT1lqxE3HERAhixAJ4rzoYIHRaStEN9lmwFEHCgLkBhLQCeLmsc
vYzVPwAF/D6SGmlpfErFcYk=
=Yvrt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ACT39 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
((Editors Comments in double parentheses - Homer))
MY PURPOSE ON THIS NEWSGROUP
ACT - 39
16 January 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
My purpose on this list is to make the world as aware of the Field
as it is of the Church.
Also to provide competition to the Church, and to even the balance
of competition between the Church and the Field.
Now if that isn't the most 'suppressive' goal that one could have
towards the Church of Scientology, then I don't know what is.
That the Church won't survive at all without it will go unnoticed.
Neither the Free Zone nor the Church will survive with out
competition between them.
Long term life comes from free and open competition, not from being
an Only One, with no datum of comparable magnitude.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 17 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act39.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)
iD8DBQFUkTlpURT1lqxE3HERAgPXAJ9pybXOXisjOqT48qBPLTCWnokm2ACgi39E
ENllJSC9twWXHcrdMXZ7Fcc=
=g/GS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
((Editors Comments in double parentheses - Homer))
MY PURPOSE ON THIS NEWSGROUP
ACT - 39
16 January 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
My purpose on this list is to make the world as aware of the Field
as it is of the Church.
Also to provide competition to the Church, and to even the balance
of competition between the Church and the Field.
Now if that isn't the most 'suppressive' goal that one could have
towards the Church of Scientology, then I don't know what is.
That the Church won't survive at all without it will go unnoticed.
Neither the Free Zone nor the Church will survive with out
competition between them.
Long term life comes from free and open competition, not from being
an Only One, with no datum of comparable magnitude.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 17 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act39.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)
iD8DBQFUkTlpURT1lqxE3HERAgPXAJ9pybXOXisjOqT48qBPLTCWnokm2ACgi39E
ENllJSC9twWXHcrdMXZ7Fcc=
=g/GS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)