-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TATTOOS ON THE BODY OF GOD
You know people can get really low tone.
You talk to some person and he is not certain he exists, he thinks
maybe he is someone else's hallucination.
That he is also your boss at work doesn't make life any easier for
you. He may be able to do his job, but who or what is it that is doing
that job?
So you bring him up tone a bit and suddenly he realizes, "You know,
I AM!", he's got perfect certainty of his own existence.
The fact that he can doubt he exists, is now proof to him that he
does exist. Certainty of doubt is the first perfect certainty.
And then he looks around him and sees all those different colors
out there, and he's got certainty of difference.
Certainty of difference is certainty of existence because
difference implies existence. You can't BE different without BEING
first.
Then he realizes he also has desires, and knowledge, and agency, I
AM, I WANT, I KNOW and I DO, and now he's got perfect certainty on the
whole enchilada, himself.
But now he thinks maybe you are HIS hallucination.
That's rather high tone for a meatball and things should remain
that way as long as people are trying to verify each other's existence
via space time mechanics, bodies, words, actions, out thereness etc.
Certainty across a distance is impossible.
Certainty across a separation is impossible.
Certainty across a dimension is impossible.
Certainty across space time is impossible.
Certainty across a difference is impossible.
Certainty across two different objects is impossible.
Certainty by being an effect is impossible.
Certainty by changing state is impossible.
But at least the guy has attained perfect certainty of himself.
That's WAY up there.
Don't expect a meatball to have it, expect a meatball to ARGUE
about it.
"Heh, have you ever been certain of something and been wrong?"
"Maybe you just think you are certain you exist, but you are really
a wrong robot that has been mis programmed to think it is certain when
it can't be, because no machine can ever be certain of anything!"
You might answer "Well yes, but maybe you are a wrong conscious
unit that has been mis brainwashed into thinking you are a wrong robot
machine when it isn't."
He might ask "OK, well how would I know the difference?"
You might say "Are you CERTAIN you don't already know the
difference?"
He might say "No, I doubt EVERYTHING?"
You might say "Are you certain that you doubt everything?"
And he might say "Of course I doubt that I doubt! At least
I am being consistent."
And could say "Are you sure?" but that would be cruel, and you
probably won't get anywhere, need of doubt is strong, and some service
facsimile computations are impenetrable until the being deals.
You might want to notice that this guy has a bed rock computation
to the effect that being consistently illogical is better than possibly
being wrong once in a while.
People can be found in strange states of despair.
So the guy being perfectly certain of his own existence is now very
alone as he is not perfectly certain of anyone else's existence.
So the guy says to you, "I want to find God."
He looks at you forlornly. He is certain HE exists, but now you
have made him almost certain he is alone as he can't find certainty of
anyone else.
You say to him, well if God is perfect, then looking upon anything
perfect might be looking upon a part of God would it not? That would
include any perfect certainty and that which is capable of perfect
certainty.
So you tell him to go out and look at everything around him.
He comes back and says he saw a tree but didn't see any God.
You see, to him, God is not a tree, God may have MADE the tree, but
God is different than the tree. How can God be anything that he made?
Looking at what God made, is not the same as seeing God.
He believes however that God may permeate the tree, as God is
everywhere,
So he goes out again and tries to see God by sort of looking in and
around and through the tree, but never sees anything but more tree.
So where is God?
The tree is a tattoo on the body of God.
A self luminous *LIGHT* tattoo.
All of space and time and everything in it is a tattoo on the body
of God.
Self luminous tattoos are the way that God shows himself.
Tattoos are the way every member of the High US shows themselves to
every other member.
All of existence is tattoo on the body of God, the High US.
Tattos are called avatars, kinetic symbols for the static creator
behind each avatar, that the static creators use to represent themselves
to others static creators.
Now go out and take another look.
What you see out there is YOU in the conscious mirror.
"Christ you mean I am a tree?"
Well yes, its your avatar that you see in the mirror.
People may think they are only their body as an avatar, but really
the body is continuous with the entire projected universe of space time
and everything in it, so your avatar is the whole universe looking back
at itself.
Others have their own complete independent rendition of the kinetic
universe, but they have localized themselves to a different particular
part of that universe as their personal avatar, so when they are talking
to your avatar in their universe, they know they are talking to you
instead of to them!
But really, as long as we understand that each being has its own
complete rendition of the universe as its avatar, we can say that
everyone at the global level has equivalent 'avatars', which is the
entire universe projection, but at the local level each has limited
their concept of them selves to a very small portion of the entire
projection, allowing others to 'own' and 'control' other local parts of
the universe projection as avatars for themselves.
And that's how we share a dream.
I dream a body for myself, and I dream another body for you, and I
say through the static "Hey you, that body is for you to talk to me
through!" And now you can talk to me through the kinetic via MY
projection of YOUR body.
Homer
Wed May 23 00:02:24 EDT 2007
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Apr 7 14:09:05 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore503.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)
iD8DBQFVJB1BURT1lqxE3HERAjaqAKDIgLPdKMv8aac478LJ6Ix4u1GmVgCfUAuE
mmLrYjTE6GDp1VtkNeUSBfM=
=HIxf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
No comments:
Post a Comment