ACT47 (fwd)

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



((Editors Comments in double parentheses - Homer))

THE SINS OF THE CHILDREN

ACT - 47
21 February 1994

Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.


The sins of children will read on the parents as a withhold.

The parents will not want others to know what their children did.

They won't want others to know that the child is their child.

They will be trying to withhold the child from doing it again.

And in the end they will be withholding having had that child, or
ever having more.

Thus asking the preclear if he is withholding the overts of any of
his children or grand children etc, in this or in past lives is a good
way to find the central computation on the 2nd dynamic case of life
begetting life.

If you knowingly and willingly create a Free Will, and you let it
loose on the world, with full awareness of the possible consequences,
well then you are fully responsible, accountable and culpable for all of
its actions and all of the consequences.

If God is the Father, then he is fully responsible, accountable,
and culpable for the sins of his children, regardless of any
considerations about Free Will.

Christians try to deny that God is responsible, accountable and
culpable for the sins of His children, because they wish to deny that
they are responsible, accountable and culpable for the sins of their own
children.

The Christians will tell you that sins of the father are visited on
the children for 4 generations.

The truth is that the sins of the children are visited upon the
father forever or until a true confession is gleaned.

The way to happiness is a true confession.

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Mar 30 18:42:50 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act47.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)

iD8DBQFVGdFqURT1lqxE3HERAi+rAJ9TgIWIvv0xBj9ESGoB0tgYZnL2YACgmDb6
twV1MXdXW8A9vzluYh6GG3c=
=G7RL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE834 (fwd)

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


POWER AND DUTY

I think that power also restimulates duty/right conflicts.

If one can help, one SHOULD help.

Probably a computation born of debt or obligation, but a strong
opinion in the eyes of others about you.

A lot of meatballs don't 'believe in God' just because he
apparently isn't doing anything about anything.

For example he wants people to behave, but he won't get rid of
criminals and assholes that tempt us to 'misbehave'.

With inability to do something comes relief from the duty.

With return of power at least comes back the duty to compute
greatest good for greatest number, with people dying and other
collateral damage on both sides of that equation, a being can and has
chosen to go nuts rather than make a decision and take the consequences.

'I didn't sign up for this!' is the refrain.

The OT power protocol rundown as posted here many times needs to
deal with these issues or else people will not be prepared when suddenly
they remember where their sword of excaliber is on their hips and how to
pull it.

"What power could you have?"
What could you do with that power?"
How would you feel about that?"

What power could you not have?"
What could you not do with that?"
How would you feel about that?"

Sometimes when a pre OT is just trying to get well and be able to
stand up again with out puking, but just can't can't can't can't, one
has to run the negative,

"What might be the consequences of getting better?"

He will find it astounding how sick one has to be just to be left
alone and survive quietly in this world.

If only left alone by him self from his own calls of duty.

But his calls to duty by others will play in to it.

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Pip wrote:

>
>
> Bob1357 wrote:
>
>> On Jan 8, 11:06 pm, Clearing Archive Roboposter
>> <robopos...@lightlink.com> wrote:
>>
>> <Possibly the greatest liability connected to an Ascension Experience
>> is
>> the misuse of the powers, awarenesses, and abilities contained in the
>> higher universes they go into, to "engulf" others.
>>
>> A further possibilty of how a being lost their power, awareness and
>> abilities contained in those higher universes had to do with
>> "engulfing
>> others". >
>>
>> Just had another ascension experience, but yet again was unable to
>> maintain the perspective. Birds eye view, moving around in a heavy,
>> cumbersome meat suit. Detached from emotion and thought, but connected
>> to all. Actually a pretty great feeling.
>>
>> As fate or the universe would have it, I find myself searching for the
>> "Why can I not maintain this perspective/experience". While blindly
>> searching, I stumble onto this site of tens of millions and click on
>> this post of tens of thousands and there I go. The answer. Misuse of
>> powers - greed and power begin to set in, and as they do, descendancy
>> (for lack of a better word) begins.
>> So yes, I would agree that misuse of powers is possibly the greatest
>> liability and obstacle to overcome connected to an ascension
>> experience. Apparently, I have more house cleaning to do. I suppose
>> when I am ready I'll be ready. Still a major eye opener every time
>> though.
>> Anyway, I thought I would share,
>> ____________________________________
>>
>
> Thanks for sharing. Good work. I once had an experience which led me
> to believe that I was about to acquire great spiritual powers and it
> made me very depressed. I didn't get any powers from that experience
> although it did turn on some life altering phenomena, but years later I
> discovered why I got depressed about it. Once again was in a similar
> position. This time I during a program of processing I realized that
> what I was doing was really working and suddenly I had an overwhelming
> urge to run away from it. Fortunately I didn't and took my feelings up
> in session. It was fear of regaining power. There was a past life
> where I misused great power out of grief and desire for vengence. Soon
> after that session I did re-acquire a paranormal ability but ony for a
> few seconds. Sometimes the problem is about EFFORT. Such abilities
> should be effortless. When You try to "hold on" to it or "maintain" it,
> the counter intention is restimulated. The key may be to apply no
> effort - to completely relax and have no considerations about it.
> Equanimity is easier said than done. In my case I got too excited, then
> scared, then a ton of case-stuff snuffed it out. Just keep chipping
> away.
>
> Pip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
Tue Jan 11 13:35:01 EST 2011

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Mar 29 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore834.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)

iD8DBQFVF6RaURT1lqxE3HERAgMeAKDBhOljVNL9tmoOrFCE9hJRPEzDzwCfZGdl
tX6nInd8KSHHZhA9h3SBXsQ=
=ycpp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ECO2 (fwd)

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

THE INTERNET

The internet is inherently a global market.

It is not for local merchants to sit around and chit chat, although
it can and should be used for that too.

But the internet did not come from local merchants munching the fat
with each other; the power and the quality of the internet comes from
the driving force of a world wide market that exists at the speed of
light across all national boundaries, for the first time in history.

Much of that market is for ideas, but much of it is also for hard
goods and services.

In local economies where people are bound by the ruggedness of
terrain and the cost of communication and travel most people are
perforce local buyers and sellers. Once the boundaries of the local
economy are vanquished though, a good many of these people will find
themselves to be global buyers and sellers because they were global in
nature all along.

For example, Sadie D's is probably inherently a local seller
because she is not going to sell the best turkey sandwiches in town to
someone in California. (I hope Nathan is doing better and recovering
from his surgery.)

But a CD store would probably be very interested in the markets
opened by the internet.

I know at least one person who is supporting themselves out of
their own homes solely on the sales of their own CD across the internet.

The internet is its own thing, it does not fit into any model of
commerce that has existed before. It produces an instant almost FREE
global market of any local market that can take advantage of it. By
definition then, many local markets will loose customers to the global
market the day the internet comes to town.

The question is then can the local markets survive solely off of
the other local markets in town.

Sadie's probably will, as no one is going to buy turkey sandwiches
over the internet.

CD stores may not.

The CD store has the option of going global itself through the
internet, but other stores may not be so fortunate.

Even Sadie's will suffer because people probably do not come into
town just to eat there. They make it part of their visit, but they came
into town to get a CD say. If they instead get the CD from the global
market then Sadie's is out of a sale.

It helps to determine exactly why people COME to town, and then to
determine WHERE ELSE they visit and buy WHILE they are there.

For example I would probably NEVER come down town just to get a
sandwich at Sadie D's. But I *ALWAYS* stop there and buy 1 or more of
them every time I do go downtown. My main reason for going downtown is
to pick up mail at our postoffice box or to visit the two banks.

The postoffice and the banks are basically local markets, in
general you wouldn't want to do either long distance.

But sometimes I come down for Harold's Army Navy store for
clothing. The problem is clothing is a global market, and being a fatty
boobalatty myself, I can never find what I need there, so I have taken
to ordering over the internet from major catalogue stores, some times in
wholesale quantities.

I learned to do this from my fractal T-shirt selling days. We
would buy HUNDREDS of every kind of T-shirt to print on, so I stopped
going to Woolworth's to get T-shirts in packages of 3's.

So Sadie D's is out of a few sales to me, because the global market
has stolen just that many trips to the local market.

If the stores that attract people down town sell items which are
better bought on the global market then not only are those stores in
trouble, but so is everyone else!

It behooves everyone then to find out what stores are the primary
attractors to the downtown and whether they are inherently local or
global markets.

There is going to be a complex and painful shuffling and
rearrangement of services and markets over the next 3 to 4 years as the
internet matures and really begins to sink in. Sort of a world wide
shakeout of magnitude.

Those who wish to survive it need to look vigilantly to where their
buyers and sellers are coming from, and whether they NEED to be part of
the global market themselves to survive.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 E-mail, FTP, Shell Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com info@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Mar 28 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco2.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)

iD8DBQFVFlLaURT1lqxE3HERAht6AKDAFM6N9gBSbvjlnx+We50/qMK82ACdH85j
O7P65fVKTZ7TfT7ii7LhWaM=
=rlcw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

A DEADLY PROCESS

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


A DEADLY PROCESS

If you wish to experience some really dangerous and rough clearing
techology at work, get someone to run the following on you, or do it to
them.

"Get the idea of not having a body."
"Get the idea of having a body."
"Get the idea of the body being in(side) you."
"Get the idea of being in(side) the body."
"Get the idea of BEING a body."

Start at the top and run to the bottom, then starta again at the top,
round robin style, past the puking your brains out part, or chasing your
heart all over the room to stop it from pounding, to a good stable win,
and awareness who is what, where and when, and what the relationship
between the being and the body are.

Demo session:

Auditor: "Get the idea of not having a body."
Preclear: "I can do that... OK!"
Auditor: "Thank you."

Auditor: "Get the idea of having a body"
Preclear: "No problem, yak yak... OK!"
Auditor: "Thank you."

Auditor: "Get the idea of..."
etc.

Repeat the complete cycle of 5 over and over to cognition, win,
exteriorization, or death.

Make sure preclear says OK at the end of his communication if
any, that's his signal he is handing the auditing ball back to you.
ready for the next command.

This process can be run again across many months and years as
necessary.

Homer

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

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Mar 27 14:48:31 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore967.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)

iD8DBQFVFaX/URT1lqxE3HERAs4YAJ4r2iJhRL36bvVue0W1iIhMnCdOzwCfXQoc
4VtS2owpf62XRSf6RpsDH2o=
=Vzkl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE821 (fwd)

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


PRIME DIRECTIVE RESUME

> What's a prime directive resume?

You seem somewhat intelligent, but really when you enter a new
group, you should take the time to find out who the players are, and
what their views are, before you start swinging your sword.

Anyhow, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and answer your
question at face value, even though you should be able to figure it out
for yourself.

And in particular if you have ever run the Vital Information Rundown
in the Church, you would be very clear on this subject.

When people were admitted to the secret pythagorean society, they
had to present a new and original proof of pythagoras's theorem. It can
be proved a hundred billion different ways, so the demand was not all
that unreasonable.

For the super power society, they demand a prime directive writeup,
concerning the subjects of demonstration, use and deployment of super
powers. And they need to know you will live by it.

The term is of course stolen from star trek, where it meant not to
interfere with the societies of more primitive people. In other words
don't use your advanced scientific powers to overwhelm them by solving
all their problems for them, or in some cases even let them know you
exist and are watching.

In this case, its more simple, namely the security around research
into super powers because some people will have a very negative reaction
to you having such powers, particularly powers that can be considered
weapons of war.

Who do you trust learning them from, practicing them with,
demonstrating them to etc.

What do you use them for and when?

Many think there should be no such directive, but those that are
working on the powers would not trust such a being into their group. So
it really is a matter of trust.

In the military its called top secret clearance.

In pythag's time if you leaked to the public that the square root of
2 was not rational, they would take you out to the lake and drown you.
Could be legend...

So in your resume, it would be required to present a comprehensive
writeup delineating the kinds of super powers there could be, how they
could be used, and what kind of security should be placed around their
development, practice, demonstration, use and deployment, in order to
protect yourself and your loved ones and the broad public masses from
harm, not only from the use of the powers directly, but also from the
reactives that populate the world finding out about it.

Second, but not part of the prime directive, would be a write up
detailing your own personal failures to live up to your own prime
directives and how that resulted in the loss or diminuation of your
existing super powers, in particular how it got you involved in taking
care of bodies.

Homer

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Nov 26 13:30:33 EST 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Mar 27 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore821.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)

iD8DBQFVFQFaURT1lqxE3HERAg4vAKDRmI7Zv3VaNmRkTGgaCXN4wXdXegCePnN6
2U9E32XITjMKhsflfMU2y1k=
=Gyy5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE819 (fwd)

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


TERMINAL AND CONDITION

Homer said:
> Electra spends a lot of time talking about Central Conditions, yet
> I always thought that Hubbard said that conditions were unauditable,
> that one needed to find the terminal that had the condition and audit
> that.

Lamont said:
> The "Hubbard" viewpoint stems back to Dianetics and valence
> handling. It is NOT the significance, one is after, in order to release
> charge, it is the TERMINAL. (A valence is a WHO in an incident)

It is common in Scn/Dianetics to consider that what the preclear is
PTS to, is a WHO, namely a specific terminal, like Mrs. Roberts, his 4th
grade home room teacher.

To be PTS means to be suppressed or overwhelmed by another, it
stands for Potential Trouble Source, which is what happens to a preclear
when they become suppressed by someone or something. The preclear
actually does it to himself in the process of trying to prove the
Suppressive wrong.

But later research by John McMasters, the first clear, indicated
that the true item was a WHAT, for example a TEACHER.

The argument continues to this day.

The auditing question lists for "WHO OR WHAT are you PTS to?"

The preclear lists out many different items but Mrs. Roberts turns
out to be the item that makes all other items stop reading.

But the case does not resolve.

So having found a WHO, the process continues with,

"WHAT did Mrs. Roberts represent to you?"

Again many items are listed until TEACHER nails the meter.

Then one continues with the process by finding more WHO's with

"Who would represent a teacher to you?"

Finally the whole package blows, and the preclear is no longer PTS
to teachers nor Mrs. Roberts nor the whole line of other whos that he
also considered to be teachers.

LaMont:
> I am not familiar with Electra and have no idea of what he/she means by
> "Central Condition" - at first glance it appears to be a misunderstood on the
> word "condition".

Unfortunately, to LaMont anything he didn't understand was usually
someone else's misunderstoods on LRH's material.

The general theory goes that the preclear chooses his anti survival
conditions during moments of true non survival, where the created
condition gets him sympathy and coopertion from those who are
suppressing him, or garners help from a third part to quell the
suppressives.

The condition is created after the pattern of an actual injury in
this life or a past life in which such sympathy or amelioration of
suppression actually happened as similar to this life time's incident.

The incident in the past life that is used is called a service
facsimile, because it is a memory (facimile) put into service to the aid
of the preclear. The basic computation is "the way to survive is to be
unable, sick or injured."

He kind of goes to sleep in the pain of the restimulated memory,
in the hopes no one will notice it is a deceit employed to save
his will to live in the presence of really nasty people.

There is a first use of a service fac incident in this life, and
there are many more piled on top of the first one. Thus the preclear is
a composite of anti survival conditions, with a first or core or
'CENTRAL CONDITION' being the most important one to get handled.

He may need to handle all the others ones before the finds the
central condition, but he won't get any better really until the central
one is found and relieved.

Such conditions are relieved by uncovering for the preclear the
incident in which he concluded he would survive better if unable, sick
or injured, and get him to reeevaluate the sensibility of the
computation in present time.

Mother always wanted to kill him except when he was sick, so he got
sick intentionally through manipulation of the service facsimile, and
stayed sick.

Mama is now dead, he's a grown man, mama couldn't kill him if he
helped her to, yet he is still sick all the time and he continually goes
out with women who clearly want to kill him except when he is sick. Of
course every one else sees this but him.

Auditing is often REALLY bad for relationships, because the vast
majority of people form relationships with someone similar to their
favorite suppressor in the past, and then use the service fac in present
time to civilize them into decent human beings.

Thus they live half way between being sick and getting killed all
of the time.

Auditing tends to get people to cognite what they are doing, and
they drop the relationship and all others like it like a hot potato.

Lamont:
> Without the actual material in front of me, I can make no
> adjudication. However, "condition" is "condition". A "Central Condition"
> would have to be a subset of "condition", which would then relegate it to the
> position of a "significance". Wrong target.

Thus the condition exists between the preclear and another
person, a terminal.

Whether one searches for the terminal or condition first is open to
question. Terminals tend to be occluded as hell, but the condition is
right there in present time killing him.

Even so listing for the exact right wording on the condition will
be as difficult as finding the terminal directly, it may be mother, may
not be, but even if it is, he still won't have any contact with the time
place form and event when mother caused him to use a service fac to
survive and hide it from himself and everyone else for the rest of time.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Nov 20 20:16:00 EST 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Mar 23 03:06:03 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore819.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)

iD8DBQFVD7tbURT1lqxE3HERAvpfAKCNsvdbpp5Yx2AUh1mVS+CGQd30FQCfa5dr
DNSdmrclEHttiZJo+d5aW4I=
=dCac
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADO2 (fwd)

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







CALVARY

ADO-2
18 February 1993

Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
All Rights Reserved

You know they say Jesus died on the Cross for our sins at Calvary.
This might be true, I don't know. I don't particularly like
Christianity because they keep it to one life. They tell you you must
confess, then they prevent you from confessing.

That's a high crime in my book, one well worthy of the fate that I
believe befalls most Christians.

The Lord reserves a special place in hell for Christians, on Earth
or some other neat joint, life after life, until they wake up, wise up
and grow out for real.

The Lord is merciful though, people get as many chances as they can
stand. Eventually they get it right.

However the possibility still exists that something miraculous
happened 2000 years ago.

It says in ADORE that Christ died in the flesh and was reborn in
the flesh and the spirit so that me and thee don't have to die in the
flesh to be reborn in the spirit.

Having almost died more than once during my own dark night of the
soul, a journey of personal discovery into why I was so sick, this one
idea alone has probably saved my life more than once. Just THINKING the
idea at the last moment kept me from falling over dead from fear and
pain.

It didn't even take believing the idea, it only took considering
the possibility of it.

However ADORE also says Christ didn't die on a Cross of Wood, He
died on a Cross of Pride and Shame.

That implies the Jews did not crucify Christ, that story is a
fabrication. He crucified himself, much as we all have.

ADORE also says not everyone needs Christ. Christians need Christ.
So if you are not a Christian or resent the idea of a personal Savior,
that's ok. It's not critical to your salvation.

What is critical to your salvation however is confession. That is
absolute. Confession at least to YOURSELF.

But its always nice to have at least one other as your trusted
friend, right?

For those who need Him, that's what Christ is for, He is someone
you can confess to.

So we are not saying anything bad here about Christ or Christianity
in all this, we are only saying that once you tell a person he must
confess and repent to be saved, you had better God damn well let him
confess and be saved.

That the theory of confession has possibly taken a new turn with
the inclusion of past lives and co-excused withholds does not invalidate
the original precepts of Christianity one bit, it does however condemn
its one life time view, along possibly with its followers who would be
so foolish as to condemn others for not following with them in their
voyage of personal self deceit.

The only people who really deserve to go to Hell for a while are
those who preach that some others deserve to go to Hell forever. And
really you can only stay in Hell for as long as you are trying to send
someone else to Hell forever, all the while failing to confess the
sorrow and darkness in your own soul.

Anyhow, you certainly can't get to Heaven without being saved, but
if you aren't saved by the time you die you certainly are not going to
be saved after you die. To whom will you confess in your in between
lives? What was waiting for you there the last time you died out of a
body?

Thus you had better get saved BEFORE you die. You had better get
to Heaven while you are still alive if you want to get to Heaven after
your last breath.

Being reborn in the flesh over and over again is the result of not
facing up to your death in the spirit which you suffered when you did
your first wrong and failed to get it confessed and amended many
millions of years ago.

It didn't help that later you failed to get other's confession
along the same lines because it might remind them of your's.

So the universe has slowly become a quagmire of mutual missed
withholds. Everyone is guilty, and no one is admitting it.

So strutting around in this life claiming 'I have lived only once,
I never did any wrong before this life because I did not exist before
this life, and Jesus will save me after I die because I have called on
his Name to do so and if you don't believe as I believe you will all go
to Hell forever' is a walking open wound of a religion and is probably,
along with its warring brethren, responsible for most of the suffering
going on on this planet today.

Did you know that some Christians believe that most Jews are going
to go to Hell forever just because they are not Christians and don't
accept Christ as their Savior?

What wonderful people.

A real pleasure to know.

Such people who promulgate this form of religious bigotry usually
end up hanging from Crosses on the underbelly of the astral plane.

No one, and I do mean NO ONE with an unconfessed regret will ever
enter the Kingdom of Heaven just because he died, no matter whose Name
he calls on, how many times he calls on it, or how much he pays them.

No one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven with moments of his memory
time track gone because 'it didn't happen.'

So if you don't have a clear memory when you die, you will get
reborn again.

At best death removes the veil a bit so that you can see some of
what you have done and how much those have been hurt who were once under
your thumb. In fact you may never find regret looking into a past life
area because the realization of wrong and the regret that followed may
not actually have happened until after you died in the in between lives
area, although your overts, sins, crimes, unannounced cruelties and
crass injustices all happened during the lifetime just gone by.

It is partly this lifting of the veil after death, and the
resulting cognizance of what they have wrought that leads many people to
CHOOSE to enter life again in a new body to continue to work out their
'Karma' until they can do it right HERE ON EARTH.

People take their Crosses with them though into their present life,
so they have a hard time.

By the way, bad things do not happen to you in this life just
BECAUSE you did something bad in a past life. But when something bad
DOES happen to you in this life, if you HAVE done something bad in the
past, watch out, for those co-excused withholds will sink you every
time.

The answer is of course to confess everything that you can when you
know you have done wrong, don't justify it or not-is it, and when
someone does you wrong in this life which reminds you of a quiet wrong
you are hiding from a past life, just give them YOUR confession right
there and then, and THEN give them hell for what they are doing to you.

You will all come out clean and friends in the end.

The Christians say there is fire and brimstone in Hell. They are
quite wrong. Hell is aloneness and silence, forever for free.

Hell is very real, but no Hell can last forever, eventually people
read the writing on their own tombstones where it always says the same
thing.

The way to happiness is a true confession.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Mar 22 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado2.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)

iD8DBQFVDmnaURT1lqxE3HERAvzNAKCF0s8dCroRbxPvkQ9/GtVqrdesMQCfVHnV
GF6pYc3LQry4Tln6PHWtTOE=
=Hzat
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE778 (fwd)

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

07/29/10 Thursday 10:53pm EST

ONE AND MANY AGAIN

By One, we do not mean single being, but single thing.

Take a plate of glass and etch circles on one side, and put
etchings of images in them.

Those are souls with lives going on, them's the Many.

The other side is sheer glass connecting them all, that's the One.

The One forms the substrate of the Many.

Together they form the AllThatIs.

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
Thu Jul 29 22:53:55 EDT 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Mar 21 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore778.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)

iD8DBQFVDRhaURT1lqxE3HERAoGTAKDYWDycCv/s8ydMpjHW6rvPz2psxQCbBCUS
Jklt/aYQLlQIs2CQCV6m+4Q=
=+6Hh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

HOM6 (fwd)

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


Zaliwa (zaliwa@hotmail.com) wrote:

>I know, from my perusings, that the PL "Keeping Scientology Working" is
>anathema to many on ARS and ACT, but you again point to it in your
>writings....it is not the "Public RelationsR" that will make Scientology
acceptable or
>sought after as a path of enlightenment or betterment, but the exact
>application of not only the tech...

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

'Exact application' of the tech is a service fac.

Truth works, approach doesn't.

'Exact application' needs to be balanced by technical advance,
growth, research and correction otherwise it leads only to making
better crosses with better nails.

Permeation of the pc is more important than permeation of "The
Tech".

Knowing the tech and not knowing the pc is a sin.

LRH was a GREAT auditor long before he knew word one ABOUT auditing.

LRH unfortunately erected more dramatization than he tore down in
the process of clearing the planet, he couldn't or wouldn't walk his
own talk and no one else can or will either.

They pick up on the parts that are pure Service Fac and
Dramatization and march with them as off to war.

May the sun set happily on their dust when they are done.

Run on the Church:

"Spot a moment of Granting of Beingness."

Or run by any orthodoxy you wish:

NO Granting Beingness.
SOME Granting Beingness.

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Mar 20 14:21:39 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom6.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)

iD8DBQFVDGUzURT1lqxE3HERAiXpAJ9si9pMDORQLxHv8KCmhUs5TBKgswCg05kf
YwcSVXrPBGctxU8wmuzXAMo=
=U16y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

MCT3 (fwd)

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

INTRO TO LOGIC

Here follows the first broad public issue of the Machine Certainty
Theorem (MCT), one of the deeper theorems in Information Theory.

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 Demonstrandum, '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
in between 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."

Notice that if Jane IS an animal, one cannot tell if Jane is a dog
or not, because it is NOT true that if A implies B, then B implies A!

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 of 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 prooven 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, because YOUR proof has to
do with Christians as YOU have defined the word.

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.

No one can ever say your proof about Christians is wrong because
your DEFINITION of 'Christian' is wrong.

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 referring
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
as observers 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.

The fact 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 causes '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 will 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 ====================
Thu Mar 19 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct3.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)

iD8DBQFVCnVbURT1lqxE3HERAtOIAKCFeEiVPwmDnsZsCxKnppXdTP4WyQCbBVGd
Wm20aWXz4tgez/TUMM28J+I=
=P1IC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

PROOF11 (fwd)

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


ASSUMPTIONS AND CERTAINTIES

CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Homer, do other living beings exist?
>Your statement now assumes that they do.

1.) I do not know that others exist. I suspect that if they do, it
may yet be impossible for me to know that they do. If I am able to know
that others exist eventually with the same certainty that I know I
exist, then I would bet that it will turn out that they and me are in
some sense one, and that I will actually be certain of a deeper part of
myself in being certain of them.

2.) I prefer to assume that others exist.

3.) The proof shows me that I do not and CAN not know that the
alleged external physical universe exists, which I see in my conscious
colorforms. Other visionary experiences indicate that it is very
unlikely that the external physical universe exists.

Therefore I am pressed to assume for the moment that it does not
exist, that the world is a dream among dreamers, at least one me,
perhaps more.

I am also pressed to assume that the world is a virtual reality of
apparently real but actually nonexistant external objects and causes
projected onto our conscious color form for our amusement, much as an
arcade game projects virtual realities onto the 'conscious color form
screen' of the TV monitor.

4.) I can make mockups, another word for conscious color forms.

5.) I experience mockups that I am clearly not making and can not
make go away.

6.) It is therefore reasonable to presume that maybe others are
making these mockps and I am in resistence to them. The resistance is
clear, that others are making them is not.

7.) If others are making mockups that I am resisting, thus
resulting in stuck mockups that I can not control, then it makes sense
that spotting the correct who, how, what, where, why, when, and which of
the other being or beings who are making the mockups will allow me to
disentagle my self from their power in my universe. My own overts of
like kind would be handled in a similar vein.

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Mar 18 23:17:12 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof11.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)

iD8DBQFVCj+4URT1lqxE3HERAos2AJ4rRAGTaBXc0F/Fdy5rmfyho5S+pgCgm1gS
M/CibQcNFHEggcGESGslJEs=
=mwNy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

HOM36 (fwd)

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


GOD MAN WOMAN AND CHILD yet again.

Its the same thing between woman and child.

You don't try to help the child by blaming the parents for all the horrible
things they did to the child, you get the child to own up to its own self
covert complicity in its ludicrous demise. NO MATTER WHAT THE PARENTS DID.

Same thing with women, you don't help them by blaming men for all the
horrible things men do to women, you get the woman to spot her complicity in
her own ludicrous demise.

Same thing with men, you don't help them by blaming God for all the
horrible things Gods do to men, you get the man to spot his own complicity in
his own ludicrous demise.

And ludicrous it is.

As the late great philosopher X, who is unfortunately no longer with us
once said, "its not the past that determines the victim, its the present time
benefit that they get from being a victim that keeps them so."

Homer



======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Mar 18 23:14:29 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom36.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)

iD8DBQFVCj8VURT1lqxE3HERAsFFAJ9+XJsZKDrp4a6aOeeo/oi0vPZxYgCgv/Sr
GWs41UPzZZaDo9OIMIhH2Hk=
=MYkM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

HOM36 (fwd)

repost homer miramira hom36

GOD MAN WOMAN AND CHILD yet again.

Its the same thing between woman and child.

You don't try to help the child by blaming the parents for all the
horrible things they did to the child, you get the child to own up to its
own self covert complicity in its ludicrous demise. NO MATTER WHAT THE
PARENTS DID.

Same thing with women, you don't help them by blaming men for all the
horrible things men do to women, you get the woman to spot her complicity
in her own ludicrous demise.

Same thing with men, you don't help them by blaming God for all the
horrible things Gods do to men, you get the man to spot his own complicity
in his own ludicrous demise.

And ludicrous it is.

As the late great philosopher X, who is unfortunately no longer with
us once said, "its not the past that determines the victim, its the
present time benefit that they get from being a victim that keeps them
so."

Homer


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

ADORE507 (fwd)

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


THE GAME OF CASES

cockatoo@aussieisp.net.au wrote:
>You can't go it alone. You've got to listen to others. You've
>got to accept others ideas as well as your own. We cover each
>other's weak spots.

>And the real game is to figure it all out and set ourselves
>free. It is not a game of one-upmanship. We shouldn't be
>competing for the staring role in "The Battle of the Service
>Facs".

Correct.

The game of being the first one to crack our case completely assumes
that one HAS a case, and thus commits to that fact and thus makes one's
case persist even harder.

Once our case is cracked, there is no one home any more to
receive the admiration. Scary isn't it?

Trying to get admiration is a sure fire way to get stuck in tar.

Giving admiration on the other hand, is FREE and free of consequences,
(except maybe vanishment of all mechanical conditions of existence) as
long as one isn't giving it BECAUSE...

The second one connects the giving of admiration to some prior cause
or reason why, oh boy...

And that is probably the scariest thing I have ever said.

Homer



======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Mar 15 17:55:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore507.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)

iD8DBQFVBf+3URT1lqxE3HERAvHzAKDFCIX3tW7B0ElYG5+D8Vh1peXRxACcDenI
EYD3l+CeBWUiNgT+UyxsAo0=
=tmif
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE868 (fwd)

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


JUSTICE OF CHOICE

It is pretty clear that most of the psychosomatic stuff people are
walking around with is not of this life, but rather immortal hells of
their own or others they are pulling in on themselves to deal with the
blunt injustices of life that they have suffered and have occasioned on
others, in this life and prior, including inbetween lives.

One might claim that all these restimulations were done in this
life, thus auditing this life alone should be able to key them all out
again, but I would counter that the being was in a highly restimulated
state when he took on the body in the first place, and in fact the
assumption of the body was itself part of those immortal hells he was
stuck in before.

Namely, immortally stuck in the hell of having to suffer mortal
flesh over and over again and not know it.

Thus our lives are in no way benign, we are here to suffer and
eventually perish as spiritual beings at the bottom of the tone scale.

We are not in the good hands of AllState.

However, since the whole thing is based on a stupidity, not a true
deservingness, it can be turned around for everyone.

In looking at our present sufferings then, and possibly recognizing
them to be a cave in of pre existing immortal hells, we need to consider
the possibility of a GOD, similar to the Christian God, from whom only
good flows, and from whom man flowed, but from whom all evil flows.

As an eternal being we are theoretically able to mock up any kind
of nonsense universe we wish, including the above mentioned scenario,
particularly in our lust for such hells that always arise.

It is perfectly conceivable that we mocked up a universe, with a
God who 'created' us, and got involved in the war between good and evil,
and annoyed our God a bit too much and got thrown into an immortal hell,
of one kind or another. Namely the one we are sitting in, in present
time, going to doctors for.

Doctors in this sense are the devil's minions, as they help us to
cover symptoms, but in the end hardly help us undo the source of our
sufferings.

In trying to run this out, one naturally tries to rebuild one's
relationship to that God, hey if he can throw us into a hell, he can
throw us into a heaven too. Maybe with a little humility and awareness
of God's purpose (which WE created), we could realign ourselves with
him, and stop making him wrong, and maybe on a good day he might forgive
us, and set our lives right.

But in trying to do this, one always runs into the problem of
CHOICE.

If God created us in the absolute sense, (assuming we didn't mock
him up to pretend he did so), then we had no CHOICE in being created and
thus no choice in our existing.

For a being conceived in choice, and whose very nature is to make
choices, it would be odd that this being's very existence was based in
NO choice, or SOMEONE ELSE'S CHOICE.

"I exist because someone else wanted me to and created me for their
purposes."

If you didn't have a choice in your very existence, then probably
you would have no choice in needing to choose more choices after you
existed, You know, you gotta make choices just to survive in this
universe.

So once you exist, making choices becomes mandatory whether you
want to make them or not.

Now maybe you didn't have to choose more choices after you were
created, maybe you could have just sat there forever doing nothing.

But could you have chosen to not exist if you had wanted to, to
just end it all forever?

So there may be a God, or a being playing God, or a being elected
to the post of God by the rest of us, but in all cases, the idea that
God CREATED us is problematic, because that starts our existence with no
choice, or the apparency of no choice.

And if God CREATED us, he can UNCREATE us on a bad hair day, and
that forever puts our very existence which we didn't choose in the first
place, in jeopardy.

Some say that this God is a woman, imagine keeping a bitch happy
forever?

Now if we are eternal beings, above, before and outside of time,
then we probably have no choice about existing anyway, and just so do we
also not have any choice about not existing, because we can't not exist.
I don't mean existing in time, I mean existing period.

If there is no time where we exist, there can't be any TIME in
which to CHANGE from existing to non existing, get it?

So a timeless home guarantees eternal existence.

But we as good as have a choice to not exist in that we can choose
sleep and unimpingable unmanifestation for as long as we wish.

We do not need to not exist to be free, we do however need
unimpingable sleep for as long as we wish, to be free.

Sleep at least gives us the option to dream again and get into
trouble only when we want to :)

The problem with God then, is not that we didn't have a choice to
exist or not, but that our existence was dependent on SOMETHING ELSE'S
choice, and thus so is our non existence similarly dependent.

What created us, can destroy us.

As an eternal being nothing created us, we simply existed forever,
and thus nothing can destroy us either.

But with a God, we didn't exist, then by his choice we came to
exist, and by his choice we can come to not exist again, or not, as his
whim determines.

This is an ARC break of magnitude. Most beings are not willing to
admit it, because they are afraid of their God, a petty jealous tyrant,
to say the least, who detests the truth of himself most of all, and the
truth of his creatures who secretly hate him. And he is just vain
enough to miss it on them. Or to hold it against them if he manages to
notice the seething incandescent broil of hatred underneath their
smiling renditions of the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty".

But the truth is, being created is like being raped, only worse.

You couldn't have been raped until you were created.

If there is no choice in our existence, and no choice in the kind
of universe we find ourselves in, that creates a whole hell of a lot of
people walking around in a hot bed of charge on the subject of no
choice.

It's not the rape or the crucifixion that matters, its the prior no
choice in being there.

Even if one didn't choose the crucifixion, even if one wasn't even
vaguely appraised of the possibility of the crucifixion, the mere fact
that one had CHOSEN to be in that arena and could have not chosen, makes
the crucifixion runable, where otherwise it never will be.

That goes for rape too, and any other childhood or adult injustice.

Because nothing will run until basic on the chain is resolved, and
basic on the chain of injustice is EXISTENCE IN THE HANDS OF SOMEONE
ELSE'S CHOICE.

That's the primary DONE TO YOU, you were MADE without a purchase
order.

Being created IMPLIES no purchase order.

No invite.

Thus it is the aim of auditing to spot and run the purchase order
anyhow:

The choice to believe in no choice.

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
Mon May 30 10:58:19 EDT 2011

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Mar 13 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore868.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)

iD8DBQFVAoxaURT1lqxE3HERAk2rAJ4y1jO9k8kS8l4TpK8S6jjB39cvGgCfS14w
Dd4CmclMJO+0Ix09p+MrV9s=
=uUr5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADO6 (fwd)

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







THE TRUE NATURE OF MISSED WITHHOLDS

ADO - 6
25 May 1993

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

The following is a theoretical underpinning for the discussion on
missed withholds that follows. If you don't buy this particular world
view, that's fine, it is only presented to help you understand the
material on missed withholds.

A being is basically an Operating Intention Unit. His basic action
is to cause things to exist, which amounts to creating knowledge, and
then to not know that he has done so, and then to indulge in the game of
learning what he created.

The being does this in tandem with other beings who are doing the
same, thus any being can create something to know, and other beings,
along with him, can play the game of learning what was created.

Thus the cycle of creation goes:

Create -> Survive -> Destroy
Knowledge -> Question -> Answer

The being creates things to know and then by not knowing that he
has done so turns this knowledge into unknowns or questions. The game
of course is to answer the question. Once he answers a question, that
particular game of answering that particular question is ended.

Actually he doesn't even know what questions there are any more,
so the game is to find (precreated) questions to answer, and then to
find answers to questions.

More technically the cycle looks like this,

Knowing - Looking - Not Knowing - Looking - Knowing again (Learning)

Creating Answers - Creating Questions - Answering Questions

KNOWING:

The being in Creator mode starts off with nothing and then
creatively causes something to come into existence by knowing it. In
this sense, knowing is a creative action because the created thing comes
to be true because the person KNOWS it is true. It is knowing something
into existence, literally.

We are not talking about creating fundmental truths that are true
no matter what, we are talking about creating CREATED truths that are
only true because something created them into existence.

LOOKING:

Once he has known something into existence he can then look at
it, knowing full well he just created it. Looking allows the being to
CHECK-OUT what he just created to make sure it got created exactly as
he originally knowed it into existence.

NOT KNOWING:

The Creator then indulges in NOT knowing about the created
knowledge or object and he hides it from himself or puts it in a far off
galaxy where he can run across it in a million years on some voyage of
discovery.

This is the transition from Creator to Creature.

LOOKING AGAIN:

Later, the person in Creature mode, runs into something he or
others have created in Creator mode, and he finds he doesn't know what
the thing is. Thus he takes to LOOKING at it carefully, inspecting it,
playing with it, experimenting with it, until he again knows what it is.

KNOWING AGAIN:

Thus the being in Creature mode begins to accumulate knowledge on a
vast scale concerning the universe that he is in.

This knowledge is originally created with Looking by Knowing, and
is eventually rediscovered with Knowing by Looking.

Looking by Knowing means the Creator is able to LOOK at something
BECAUSE he has just created it by KNOWING it.

Knowing by Looking means the Creature is able to LEARN about
something BECAUSE he is presently LOOKING at it.

Looking by Knowing and Knowing by Looking define the two basic
operating modes of Creator and Creature.

Creator = Looking by Knowing, or Knowing -> Looking.

Creature = Knowing by Looking, or Looking -> Knowing.

In SUMMARY:

In summary then, the being in Creator mode creates things to look
at by knowing them into existence. This is called Looking by Knowing.

The being in Creature mode rediscovers things to know by looking at
them until he learns about them. This is called Knowing by Looking or
Learning by Looking.

If one graphs this as,

Knowing -> Looking -> Not knowing -> Looking -> Knowing

it can then be said that the shift from Creator mode to Creature
mode is a shift from operating the first 3 items to operating the last 3
items. The middle item, not knowing, it shared by both sides, and is
the shift over point from Creator mode to Creature mode.

This then is the cycle of a game. The cycle of a game involves the
creation of knowledge to learn in Creator mode, followed by the process
of learning it in Creature mode.

From the above discussion it is apparent that a being is inherently
a knower, something that can know, either by creating knowledge and
things to know, or by learning about things already so created. Thus it
can be surmised that anything that fouls up a being's ability to know or
to learn, or to cause others to know or to learn, will be of great upset
to him.

One of the things that beings like to do is to share what they know
with others or to hide what they know from others.

This is all part of the warp and woof of games.

You communicate to your customers that you have a product, you hide
from your competitors how you made it.

Beings use the presence or absence of communication cycles in order
to indulge in sharing or hiding things they know from others.

For example, if a being learns something of value in the struggle
for survival, he will go to some effort to communicate this to his
friends. When they finally get the message they will send back to him
an acknowledgment so that the originating being can know for sure they
got the communication and so end cycle on the effort to communicate with
them, and so proceed to take up something new.

In the same way, if a being knows something that he does NOT want
others to know, he will go to some effort to NOT communicate it to other
people, and he will look for the absence of an acknowledgement from the
other person to verify to himself that in fact they do not know it.

Thus we have these two fundamental cycles of action in this game
universe.

The first cycle of action is the effort to communicate something to
another being, followed by the clear presence of a return
acknowledgement.

The second cycle of action is the effort to NOT communicate
something to another being, followed by the clear absence of a return
acknowledgement.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF THE RETURN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CAN NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED AS IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
VERIFICATION OF THE COMMUNICATION OR NON COMMUNICATION CYCLE THE BEING
IS INDULGING IN.

Without the clear presence or absence of a return acknowledgement
the being can not end cycle on his intention to communicate or not
communicate. He thus gets stuck in that cycle forever.

1. TRYING TO COMMUNICATE

If a being is trying to communicate something to another, and no
acknowledgement is forthcoming, the originating being will be left in
doubt about whether the other being got the communication or not.

He won't know if they know.

THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO SEND THE COMMUNICATION.

It's constantly LOOKING for the presence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.

He may even take to fabricating acknowledgments where there aren't
any just to end cycle on the deal.

He can't stand not knowing.

Once he gets a clear indication of the presence of a return
acknowledgement he is free to DO other things.

2. TRYING TO NOT COMMUNICATE

If a being is trying to NOT communicate something to another, yet
he is getting constant indications that indeed the other party is
getting the communication anyhow, the withholding being will be left in
a doubt about whether the other party is NOT getting the communication
or not.

He won't know if they know.

THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO STOP THE COMMUNICATION.

It's constantly LOOKING for the absence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.

He may even take to NOT-ISing possible acknowledgments where there
may be some, just to end cycle on the deal.

He can't stand not knowing.

Once he gets a clear indication of the absence of any return
acknowledgment, meaning that he has successfully prevented others from
knowing what ever he was hiding, he is free to DO other things.

If the being is ultimately unable to determine whether his
intention has been carried out, whether it be to communicate or to not
communicate, he will suffer a DECISION CYCLE FAILURE. He won't be able
to go on to DO other things, yet he won't know what to do about his
present problem.

He gets stuck instead in a question, 'Do they know? Do they not
know?' Since he can not answer that question, he can not DECIDE what to
do next and so he starts to build up charge.

He is like a man sitting at the fork of a road asking 'Should I go
right? Should I go left?' He's been there for a LONG time.

Eventually he makes a decision about his indecision which is
usually to bury it, where it will fester, continuing to create charge
for the rest of time.

This is like the same man who DECIDES to build his home at the fork
of the road and says 'there is no fork in the road, and there is nowhere
to go, and I have arrived where I wanted to go anyway'.

Thus when the being is unable to reach a CONCLUSION about whether
other's know or not, he is also unable to DECIDE what to do next.

A CONCLUSION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what is true.

A DECISION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what to do.

The failure of the conclusion cycle leads to a failure of the
decision cycle.

Now a being in good condition will have a balance of the Creator
and Creature modes within him. He will be creating some new things to
know, and he will be discovering other things already created by himself
and others to learn about.

If such a being gets stuck in a conclusion cycle of the form 'Do
they know? Do they not know?' he will put all of his attention into his
Creature mode trying to determine the answer to the question 'Do they
know or not?'

He is trying to know by learning and loses all interest in knowing
by creating.

He is not willing or able to just CAUSE others to know or not,
which would end his quandary; so he devotes more and more time to
Creature mode where he attempts to learn by looking whether the other
party knows or not.

What he is LOOKING for is the presence or absence of a return
acknowledgment.

The long term end result of this is the being becomes incapable of
Creator modes at all, and is totally swimming in failed Creature modes.

They are failed Creature modes in that he is trying to learn by
looking whether they know or not, but can't, so he is never able to make
a decision as to what to DO next, so he never gets on with this life or
the game.

This is what Hubbard referred to as 'being stuck in a decision in
the past.' He is still there trying to draw a conclusion and make a
decision.

'Do they know or don't they know?'

Since at a high enough state two beings can see each other's
pictures anyway, not knowing whether someone else knows something is
rather silly. Thus strenuous involvement in such efforts to know if
they know, leads to a dwindling spiral of less and less direct
perception of others and what they do and do not know, and eventually to
total aloneness.

This is 'spiritual death' at the bottom of the tone scale.

Such conclusion cycle failures invalidate the being's basic
causativeness over life by invalidating his CREATIVE causative
knowingness, his ability to bring about certain knowledge in others by
creating it so, and also invalidates his ability to learn by looking,
specifically by looking directly into the minds of others.

That's why missed withholds make you DUMB.

A being who is hiding something and yet is wondering if others
know, can always end cycle on his quandary by just outright informing
the other party of what he did. You see that is ending the endless
knowing by looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing
cycle, you just CAUSE them to know, and poof no more doubt. Of course
you might get executed.

But you wouldn't be in doubt any more and you could get on with
your life. Being parked at a fork in the road is a waste of time to an
Immortal Being.

Likewise if a being is trying to get something across to someone
and yet is wondering if they have gotten it or not, he can always end
cycle on his quandary by outright NOT informing the other party of what
he wanted them to know. You see that is ending the endless knowing by
looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing cycle, you
just CAUSE them to NOT know, and poof no more doubt. Of course you
might get executed.

The point is that the correct answer to any endless failure of the
knowing by looking cycle is to exercise a causative looking by knowing
cycle and take your lumps with the consequences.

The consequences are never as bad as staying in a learning by
looking quandary for the rest of time.

THAT'S HELL. It's better to be executed.

Executions end, Hell's don't.

Mortal's by the way can always be counted upon to make the wrong
choice. That's why you always find them parked so far into their
reactive minds (their 'Bank').

Their Bank is the home they built for themselves at the fork in the
road, snarling guard dogs and all.

So there are two kinds of missed withholds when looked at in this
light.

There are those things you wanted others to know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a POSITIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.

There are those things you wanted others to NOT know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a NEGATIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.

It is this last one that most people consider the missed withhold.

You do something bad, someone almost finds out, you are left unsure
if they did or not.

One day you are smoking in your bedroom, and you know you are not
supposed to be smoking. You hear your mother coming up the stairs and
you quickly throw the cigarette out the window. She comes in the room,
and looks around, sniffing the air, and says 'boy does it smell in here,
your sneakers need washing?'

So here is something that you wanted to NOT communicate to your
mother, namely that you were smoking a cigarette. Surely she couldn't
have possibly missed the smell or misidentified it. Yet she would have
had your hide if she thought you were smoking. So what's going on?
Does she know, or doesn't she know?

Positive missed withholds are important too.

You try to communicate something to someone, and you just never can
figure out if they got it or not.

One day you go up to your boy friend, and you tell him that you
love him and want to marry him. He says, 'Oh sure dear, that's fine.'

Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside you or is he missing the enormity of your
statement?

Wonder, wonder, wonder...

Positive missed withholds can also happen when people are trying to
confess negative withholds.

You go up to a minister on the street one night wringing your hands
and looking really distraught and you say, 'I killed my wife last night,
what should I do?' and he says, 'Thank you for telling me that, why
don't you get some sleep?'

Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside YOU or did he miss significance of the
communication?

Wonder, wonder, wonder...

So withholds can get missed even when people are desperately trying
to confess them. You say 'I feel like killing myself' and someone says
'Yeah, I know EXACTLY what you mean, life can do that to you. Don't
worry about it, I read in Psychology Today that we all feel that way
sometimes.'

Bang. The withhold was not communicated. This is deadly.

This can be particularly bad in session where bad auditing can
cause the preclear to have a DOUBLE missed withhold.

PC = Pre Clear, one who is not yet clear.

AUDITOR = One who is applying clearing to a pre clear to help
them become more clear.

Pc: 'You know you haven't been very warm to me recently, I guess I
have something to confess, and I have been wondering for a few days
whether or not you already know, so here it is... I have been sleeping
with your girl friend.'

Auditor: 'Ok, now we are going to take up your relationship with
your mother...'

Double Bang. The PC has a clearly missed severe negative
withhold from the Auditor, and he brings himself to tell the Auditor,
and the Auditor acts like he didn't even hear it, so now its a
positive missed withhold too!

'Did he know, didn't he know?' (negative missed withhold)

'DOES he know, DOESN'T he know?' (Positive missed withhold)

'Yipes!'

So in auditing you are looking for those moments of WONDER when the
person was unable to DETERMINE if the other person knows or not.

You see even the word 'determine' has this two tiered meaning.

To determine can mean to CAUSE to come into being.

"The ability to determine one's own future."

To determine can also mean to LEARN about what has already been
caused to come into being.

"The ability to determine the past."

So this whole Creator mode - Creature mode thing is built into the
very fabric of our language.

Determination can mean being determined to CAUSE, or it can mean a
determination, what was gleaned through learning by looking.

The first kind of determination is Creator mode and the second kind
of determination is Creature mode.

Creator determination is Creation arising from from Knowing,
Creature determination is Knowing arising from Creation, learning by
looking at what was already created.

Thus the being gets caught up in his failure to determine (find
out) whether others know or not, and he also fails to causatively
determine them into knowing or not knowing, and so he slowly goes crazy,
as BOTH Creature mode AND Creator mode are on hold in an inconclusion,
followed by an indecision.

So what you are looking for are those times your preclear tried to
communicate something to someone but is still wondering whether they
know or not, and also those times your preclear tried to NOT communicate
something to someone and is still wondering if they know or not.

Watch out for the can't believe its: 'I can't believe they don't
know' or 'I can't believe they found out', as these leave him in an
incredibility which stops his mind cold.

The anatomy of an incredibility is:

Certainty something is true, and
Certainty something is impossible.

Each one of these conclusion failures will be followed by a
decision failure, because being unable to determine whether they know or
not, your preclear was then unable to determine what to DO next in his
life.

He is still sitting there swimming in not know and unable to know,
and UNWILLING TO CAUSE KNOWING OR NOT KNOWING IN OTHERS outright to end
his conclusion failure.

So of course his life goes nowhere, either in parts or en masse.

So here is one way that this could be run.

Positive Missed Withholds:

'Who or what are you wondering might NOT know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might not know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might not know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'

Negative Missed Withholds:

'Who or what are you wondering might know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'

Instead of 'wondering' you can use 'worried' or 'concerned' or what
ever else indicates to your preclear.

'Who are you worried might know something about you?'
'Who are you worried might NOT know something about you?'

'Who are you concerned might know something about you?'
'Who are you concerned might NOT know something about you?'
etc.

Does she know how much you hate her?

Does she know how much you love her?

For a wider run, you can leave off the 'about you?'

'Who are you wondering might know something?'
etc.

There is no rote way to run this, run which ever questions bite and
your PC is interested in. Switch back and forth between positive and
negative missed withholds as needed.

Remember you the auditor and your preclear don't make case gain
together by doing it RIGHT, you make case gain by DOING it.

Run this alternately and repetitively, until the PC has spotted all
of his missed withholds. He will come up with more later, so this can
be run over and over again as needed.

This will turn on a LOT of anxiety. That means its biting.

As long a there is anxiety on the case, chances are there is more
to find.

Don't expect to get it all in one day.

Expect it to get pretty fantastical. Mundane human life ain't the
source of your case.

If you are co-auditing, run it back and forth on each other.

Running this on someone will open up your own case so that when
they run it on you there will be stuff to find, and visa versa. Many
processes are dead ends when audited in only one direction, but continue
to run forever when run back and forth between two people.

Auditing others and being audited are BOTH auditing.

If you miss a positive or negative withhold on your PC, if you put
them into doubt about whether you know or not, they will ARC break on
you, get pissed off in other words. You can run any ARC break at any
time with something like,

ARC = Affinity, Reality, Communication, Understanding.
ARC break = a sudden sundering of such.

'What didn't I know about you that I should have?'
'What should I have known?'
'What weren't you sure I knew?'
'What wasn't known?'
'What don't I have any idea of that you wish I did?'
'What would you like me to know about you?'

Remember an ARC break is ALWAYS caused by the MISSING of a positive
or negative withhold. The ARC break IS their wondering if you know or
not. It is an ARC break with themselves for no longer being able to
just cause you to know or not know, and know that they have.

So asking the PC 'What are you wondering if I know or not?' will
nail it.

Once the ARC break is clean, the PC will forgive you and be able to
go back into session easily. If the PC is still hedging inside, they
still have something they wish you knew but aren't sure you do, or wish
you didn't know but think you might.

When a pc is afraid there is something you might know about him,
it's usually because the pc is afraid there is something you DON'T know
about him.

In other words he doesn't want to let you know about him, until he
is sure you know something else about him!

"What would I have to know about you to let you be willing to let
me know everything about you?"

Thus negative missed withholds become difficult to pull to the
degree that the pc has positive missed withholds too.

IT IS THE PC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL THE AUDITOR IF THEY ARE ARC
BROKEN, AND IT IS A HIGH CRIME FOR THE PC TO CONTINUE TO PRETEND TO RUN
A PROCESS WHEN REALLY THEY ARE WISHING THE AUDITOR KNEW SOMETHING.

It is the Auditor's responsibility to make sure that the PC lives
up to his or her own Preclear Code. And it is the Preclear's
responsibility to make sure that the Auditor lives up to his or her own
Auditor's Code.

The Auditor's Code and the Preclear's Code are contracts that both
parties enter into willingly and with full responsibility. Each is a
bargaining tool for the other. The Auditor offers to follow the
Auditor's Code as set out by the Preclear, and in exchange the Preclear
offers to follow the Preclear's Code as set out by the Auditor.

Remember any PC WANTS to confess all their negative withholds, but
they are unsure you are a safe space, so really they only become
recalcitrant to discuss what they are hiding once they become unsure
that you don't know something that you should.

You can run,

'What would I need to know for you to feel good about my auditing
you?'

'What would I need to be, do, have or know for you to be willing to
communicate to me on this subject?'

or some such variant. You will surely figure out your own
questions once the understanding of all this bites on you.

You know a hefty portion of this material is just to get the
Auditor and PC in session with each other. This doesn't mean that this
stuff isn't deep auditing or won't blow your case to Kingdom come, but
if the Auditor and PC are chary of each other, they will have to go
through these little trials by fire in the beginning no matter what.

Auditing safe or polite material is a waste of time.

No auditing process known to man will stay safe or polite for long,
and if you aren't willing to communicate when the withholds start
showing up and the going gets hot, the process will stop dead in its
tracks. You can continue to pretend to give answers, but you will lose
what case gain you made, as each false answer after the withhold is an
overt act, and becomes another MISSED withhold.

As the PC, you will be looking at your Auditor thinking to
yourself, 'What a dumb turkey, how come he doesn't know I just stopped
myself from taking about something? How could he NOT know!?"

Although the auditor will often do something that makes the
preclear think they auditor might know, truth is, if the preclear thinks
the auditor SHOULD know or have found out, the PRECLEAR will miss the
withhold on himself out of the blue just by starting to wonder on it.

You know sessionability is not just a matter of the PC. Sure if
the PC is unhappy or unwilling to talk to the Auditor, then of course no
auditing will take place. But if the Auditor doesn't like the PC, or if
the Auditor is afraid the PC will bring up the Auditor's recent affair
with the neighbor's dog, then no auditing will take place either.

It is vitally important that the Auditor be as willing to talk to
be PC as the PC is willing to talk to the Auditor.

Auditing is not a one way confession.

Especially during a co audit, where both will be PC and both will
be Auditor.

If the person who is doing the auditing develops a withhold that
they will have to give up to the PC when the tables are turned, then
that withhold will prevent the Auditor from auditing the PC as well as
he could while he is still being the auditor.

His attention will be in the future when he must face his own
session and not on the PC in present time. Thus the acknowledgments
that the Auditor gives will all be lacking, as he won't be completely
there for the PC.

Thus it is just as important that the Auditor be able to talk to
the PC as it is that the PC be able to talk to the Auditor.

No one is really even asking you to give up having affairs with the
neighbor's dog, just so long as you can TALK about it freely to your PC
or Auditor.

If you can't talk about it freely with your PC or Auditor, don't do
it. You gotta have a full disclosure relationship with at least ONE
living human being on Earth to remain sane.

Auditing is a walk towards a group mind, where each being
intimately knows immediately everything about everyone in the group.

This is a form of telepathic co union.

The minute two people don't want to share every detail of
themselves, they are walking towards some other goal AND CASE GAIN WILL
CEASE, for there is no freedom in hiing in telepathic isolation.

Sometimes its just too much to expect auditor and pc to swap back
and forth this way, so you get a three some going, each one auditing the
other, and that way everyone's secrets remain secure.

If two people can run these withhold processes totally flat on each
other to a point where there is NO ANXIETY about communicating about any
subject to each other, they will have attained a new and totally
brilliant state in the history of the human race.

It's worth dreaming of, and striving for, even if there is a whole
mess of human emotion and reaction in between.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 12 03:06:16 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado6.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)

iD8DBQFVATroURT1lqxE3HERArO0AJ9aYR/2P75X/qj+eke8rzs71XekmQCcCUQV
sqpctmCQ7xFU4pRhYvzt0yQ=
=EOzU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l