-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
INTEGRITY REVISITED
roger.larsson@live.com wrote:
> So squirrels can be whole heading for one direction and LRH and DM splinted running around in a treadmill?
>
> They sure are in trouble.
The word integrity has 3 distinct meanings in english.
1.) Moral rectitude, principled, honest etc.
2.) Wholeness, undivided against one's self
3.) Soundness, or correctness, as it should be or as expected, non
contradictory.
Integrity is used by Adore and in the below posting in the sense of
number 3.
Personal integrity is NOT a state of wholeness, it is a state of
uncorrupted correctness of data and understanding, like a database that
is as it should be and not corrupted with file allocation table errors,
or held down 7's.
This meaning is justified in the sense of wholeness of Truth,
that is no errors in one's awareness of Truth.
The E/P of Life Repair is Awareness of Truth and the way to
Personal Freedom.
It was later changed to Personal Integrity.
Most people probably don't have a sense of their lack of wholeness,
its absurd to start with on the face of it, but even in the vulgar, most
people just don't spend their time thinking about loss of wholeness.
They might understand not being divided against yourself
knowingly or unknowingly by being buried in endless ANDs, both wanting
to live and wanting to die at the same time!
But mostly they spend their time thinking about loss of freedom and
understand that very well.
Thus I was very downcast when they downgraded the E/P from Freedom
to Integrity in the middle of my Life Repair.
After hundreds of hours on Life Repair they finally gave up.
I actually attested to life repair one day after a mildly boring
cog, it gave me hope about getting on with the rest of the bridge as my
Life Repair was burning up my resources and getting me nowhere.
But I felt so bad about it afterwards, my 'personal integrity' had
a major crack in it from the attest, I knew I couldn't live with it, so
I went back to the examiners and retracted my attestation.
Boy did that piss them off.
My life was not repaired in any possible sense of the word, and I
had no more awareness of truth or way to personal anything than I had
going into it many intensives before.
They blamed the failure of my auditing on drugs.
They sent me to Flag to see if they could do anything about me.
6 intensives later I was out of money, and I was not a single
division of TA better and sinking fast, no matter how many divs they
wrote down in my stupid folders.
The saddest day was the last day I was there saying good bye to
everyone, I was looking at the wins board, reading all these wins
written by others, many my friends, and I didn't have a single win to
report similar or otherwise to the one's posted. I left a black sheep,
ashamed, hopeless, hysterical, dejected and massively sad effect.
Ruin headed for disaster.
How hard can a life repair be?
Find the ruin, and repair.
That's the biggest error Scn ever made, forget the Ruin,
*FIND THE DISASTER*
Eternal disasters, immortal disasters and mortal disasters.
But disaster is followed by inactuality, delusion, hysteria, shock,
catatonia and oblivion, followed by unspeakable things not mentioned
here.
But directing their attention to mere ruins will not run,
its too surface, but you can't audit disaster without running
the not-is of inactuality, delusion and hysteria.
And you can't run Ruins without running Being CAUSE of being
an effect, despair (can't run), suffering/misery, *NUMBNESS* and
introversion.
Do you even have a clue what EXTROVERSION ME5CS around tone 20.0 on
the tone scale, fair chosen games and action?
I had one hope though, I had heard a tape a few weeks before by
LRH, and from that tape I got an understanding that led me to know that
I could do this thing myself, deal with my case.
40 years and many many hours of dual and solo later in the field, I
am not where I was in 1973, but I am still climbing that wall of
overwhelm with greater certainty than ever that my original dreams of
spiritual freedom are possible and available if I keep going and don't
give up from the monsterous overwhelms and jeers and evil hatred of
others from both sides of the fence.
As for the Church, they are walking their last green mile and do
not know it.
You might want to consider who YOU would like to run the Church and
be C/S Int if and when it falls to pieces from the inside out.
As for scientology as a subject, it is probably a dead subject on
this planet. In a hundred years, amidst the armegeddon smoke there will
be no slightest hint of the existence of these understandings anywhere,
except maybe in hidden sanctuaries of mindless cults.
If scientology continues at all, scientology and OTdom will belong
only to the very rich and very elite.
As for squirrels, it is prima facie not acceptable that a sold
service remain in the hands of one corporation forming a market
monopoly.
Monopolies lead to sky high prices, a social elite, bad service, no
aftermarket technical support, no guarantees, no advancement or
enhancement of the product, and wicked penalties for breaking contracts,
and a SERIOUSLY BAD ATTITUDE.
Competition leads to market sustainable pricing available to
everyone, better service, good after market guarantees and technical
support, and advancement and enhancement of the product.
Without competition clearing will die, end of story, or become the
secret playtoy of the corrupt rich and powerful, creating a spiritual
elite on this planet and a slave state for everyone else, the likes of
which have never been written in the books of man.
Over my dead thetan.
The skeptic critics are fools, they think clearing doesn't work, oh
in truth they fear it does work but don't want it to, their fate is to
shine the jack boots of the new age rulers, with their tongues.
Those who know the tech does work, need to wake up a bit and
realize the present dual auditing model is not long term practical, and
if they too wish to be part of the wealthy spiritual elite, their fate
is also a noose at the end of a hang man's rope.
Or a guillotine.
They can talk about co audits, but who will C/S and for how much?
Who will train and for how much?
And with what materials, and for how much?
And if the tech is kept secret to protect income and global victims
from further implanting, who will be able to rise to the occasion and
take what has been done and carry it to a new and much faster level.
If you don't put your tech on the net, you become part of the
problem and not part of the solution. The government already has it,
and is working to enslave everyone with it. Thus the victims we feared
for, by making the tech public, are already on their way to the
slaughterhouse.
Who has the tech enough to save them?
If only the controllers have tech, then only criminals have tech.
The disbelief of fools whose mothers bred without a license is the
government's greatest protection. It will be WAY too late for fools
when they finally get around to admitting the stuff does work, to their
total detriment and everything they have loved and cared for.
Do you for a single moment believe that when the time comes for YOU
to know the higher tech and get the higher levels that there will be
*ANY* benign organization on this planet that will welcome you and your
money with open arms and give it to you?
Without owning your soul forever afterwards?
Or practicing black Scientology on you to keep your income
flow coming in without ever allowing you to ARRIVE where you wanted
to go?
Will you be safe to work on the levels you wish?
Will you be safe having ATTAINED and publicly attested to those
levels?
Do you really want the government to know you are OT?
Once you are OT, do you want the government to put you to
work for their ends?
DO YOU REALLY THINK THE GOVERNMENT IS INTERESTED IN FREE BEINGS?
Integrity can mean wholeness, undivided against one's self.
With incredible ability to help, comes incredible ability to harm.
LRH was a multivalent son of a bitch.
Which valence are you going to choose?
"This work was free, keep it so."
What does that mean?
Homer
Found this in a dusty pile of paper...
INTEGRITY
To doubt that you have any doubts is absurd.
To be certain that can't be certain of anything is absurd.
To not know what you can know may kill you.
To think you know what you can't know will kill you.
It is better to not know what you can know than to 'know'
what you can't know.
To doubt a certainty may kill you.
To be 'certain' of something that is false will kill you.
Uncertainty exists.
To doubt this, is to prove it.
Therefore certainty of uncertainty exists.
Therefore certainty exists.
To wonder if you are certain, is to be uncertain.
Uncertainty is different from certainty.
To be uncertain of this or anything is to be certainly uncertain
of this or anything.
If you are certainly uncertain of something and can't tell the
difference between certainty and uncertainty, boy are you in trouble.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Jul 27 21:50:48 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore926.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)
iD8DBQFVtt/5URT1lqxE3HERApZsAJ9loDE+E158FsZ4MQqr83skZ9cvIACfRRS0
nSoX3MhFdo1DECGpZN2PlpM=
=xE0Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, July 27, 2015
Sunday, July 26, 2015
ADORE0 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHO STARTED IT
Homer:
>> They deserve to get mother's like that themselves
>
Someone:
> There must have been a 'first' bad mother if we follow your reasoning.
> What did the child do if S/he had the First one?
Nothing. The rain falls on everyone. But it also didn't stick to
the child if there were no earlier or later similar overts of the child,
so says Electra.
I got no idea.
Adore says the first overt was comitted by a Regal Asshole, someone
who was paid by everyone to pretend he was a Royal Asshole (asshole fer
real), which then allowed everyone to have their first motivator and
dramatize it.
Adore says "You started them starting it."
Aodre says the primary overt is to try to destroy laughter, humor
etc, make the other guy feel "This is not funny!"
Alternately Electra tends to think overts are generated by who ever
thinks of them first, and they roll off the backs of those that are still
guilt free, but once you have even TRIED to overt on someone, whether or
not the target victim was clean or guilty, you are now prone to having
them work on you and stick to you because now you are guilty in the
ATTEMPT.
The first overt of course was trying to convince another they had
committed an overt when they hadn't, but that's not relevant to who
started it, just an added twist to WHAT the guy who started it did, when
he started it.
Thus you have
1.) people who originated a first overt towards others, and then
later got it back from others doing the same or dramatizing what had been
done to them, and
2.) others who had it done to them first, and later dramatized it.
Notice it doesn't stick to anyone to have an overt done to them if
they themselves are clean. Worse case they 'heal', best case it goes
right through them. None the less the originator is now guilty of the
ATTEMPT, and when the same thing is done to him it will stick and not
heal. He sticks it in order to justify having done it and to restrain
doing it again. Justify and Restrain.
Electra says that's the Big Joke, he justifies it by saying it was
right to do, but then he restrains it because he regrets it! Both the
justification and the restraint are powered by the regret.
Those that had it done to them first, don't have it stick to them
until after they dramatize it later on another, either clean or guilty,
then the original event that happened to them before they dramatized it,
sticks to them as justification for having dramatized it, and restraint on
doing it again.
When it was first done to them, it went through them or it healed,
but once they dramatize it on others LATER, then it sticks to them, they
unheal, and they never get rid of the wound of what was done to them,
EARLIER.
Those that originated the overt first, when someone does it back to
them, will have the incoming overt stick to them and they will place it
BEFORE the overt they originated in order again to justify their
unprovoked DED, and also to restrain doing it again.
(DED = unprovoked overt act, *NOT* DEserveD by the recipient)
This is all Electra nonsense, I have no idea if its true.
Electra seemed to like to track Hubbard this thought, but she
went to great extents to flesh it out in detail.
Clearly the idea an overt on another between two sovereign
beings is ludicrous on the face of it, each must be postulating
that the other could hurt and did hurt him.
The game of 'you hurt me' has been going on for a long time, but
the firstg overt was to claim someone committed an overt on you when
they hadn't. So its a bit twisty.
Running overts has never gone as far as I thought it would in
session.
> I'm a terrible mother,I don't even have a license to breed (grin)
>
>>how do you think I got mine? :)
>
> You borrowed Phil Scott's?
Phil's mother was quite reasonable compared to mine.
Being the Victim Son, *NO ONE* has a worse mother than I.
In fact Electra said one way to access the early unrememberable
areas of child hood is to run "What have I done to a child as a mother."
In this or a past life.
That will eventually bring up what my mother did to me, and why I
am holding onto it.
Your milage may vary.
Frankly I think the first overt was going up to someone and trying
to audit them with what questions, in particular who did what to whom
questions.
The insane decision to protest or regret dones is pretty close to
the source of insanity.
No one is 'putting it there' in a while, they are too busy trying
to unput it there forever.
And that changing a while into a forever/never might very well be
the first overt and the original cause of persistence.
Who cares who did what to whom, y'all chose don't you see?
Blaming others is a DED against yourself as it denies your
responsibility for the other being there and agent in your
dream.
And maybe we did that out of some weird divine aesthetic to be an
'innocent victim' for a while.
Down here that kind of thinking may not be too workable, but if you
want to get out of here, its the only way out.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jul 26 15:59:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore0.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)
iD8DBQFVtTwIURT1lqxE3HERAmALAJ9KDf/t8MBBKYBDHu2Q9WaJu0mAHQCgpf2S
Y4xB9anrzsPVxX/NAkFLvzM=
=Ij28
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WHO STARTED IT
Homer:
>> They deserve to get mother's like that themselves
>
Someone:
> There must have been a 'first' bad mother if we follow your reasoning.
> What did the child do if S/he had the First one?
Nothing. The rain falls on everyone. But it also didn't stick to
the child if there were no earlier or later similar overts of the child,
so says Electra.
I got no idea.
Adore says the first overt was comitted by a Regal Asshole, someone
who was paid by everyone to pretend he was a Royal Asshole (asshole fer
real), which then allowed everyone to have their first motivator and
dramatize it.
Adore says "You started them starting it."
Aodre says the primary overt is to try to destroy laughter, humor
etc, make the other guy feel "This is not funny!"
Alternately Electra tends to think overts are generated by who ever
thinks of them first, and they roll off the backs of those that are still
guilt free, but once you have even TRIED to overt on someone, whether or
not the target victim was clean or guilty, you are now prone to having
them work on you and stick to you because now you are guilty in the
ATTEMPT.
The first overt of course was trying to convince another they had
committed an overt when they hadn't, but that's not relevant to who
started it, just an added twist to WHAT the guy who started it did, when
he started it.
Thus you have
1.) people who originated a first overt towards others, and then
later got it back from others doing the same or dramatizing what had been
done to them, and
2.) others who had it done to them first, and later dramatized it.
Notice it doesn't stick to anyone to have an overt done to them if
they themselves are clean. Worse case they 'heal', best case it goes
right through them. None the less the originator is now guilty of the
ATTEMPT, and when the same thing is done to him it will stick and not
heal. He sticks it in order to justify having done it and to restrain
doing it again. Justify and Restrain.
Electra says that's the Big Joke, he justifies it by saying it was
right to do, but then he restrains it because he regrets it! Both the
justification and the restraint are powered by the regret.
Those that had it done to them first, don't have it stick to them
until after they dramatize it later on another, either clean or guilty,
then the original event that happened to them before they dramatized it,
sticks to them as justification for having dramatized it, and restraint on
doing it again.
When it was first done to them, it went through them or it healed,
but once they dramatize it on others LATER, then it sticks to them, they
unheal, and they never get rid of the wound of what was done to them,
EARLIER.
Those that originated the overt first, when someone does it back to
them, will have the incoming overt stick to them and they will place it
BEFORE the overt they originated in order again to justify their
unprovoked DED, and also to restrain doing it again.
(DED = unprovoked overt act, *NOT* DEserveD by the recipient)
This is all Electra nonsense, I have no idea if its true.
Electra seemed to like to track Hubbard this thought, but she
went to great extents to flesh it out in detail.
Clearly the idea an overt on another between two sovereign
beings is ludicrous on the face of it, each must be postulating
that the other could hurt and did hurt him.
The game of 'you hurt me' has been going on for a long time, but
the firstg overt was to claim someone committed an overt on you when
they hadn't. So its a bit twisty.
Running overts has never gone as far as I thought it would in
session.
> I'm a terrible mother,I don't even have a license to breed (grin)
>
>>how do you think I got mine? :)
>
> You borrowed Phil Scott's?
Phil's mother was quite reasonable compared to mine.
Being the Victim Son, *NO ONE* has a worse mother than I.
In fact Electra said one way to access the early unrememberable
areas of child hood is to run "What have I done to a child as a mother."
In this or a past life.
That will eventually bring up what my mother did to me, and why I
am holding onto it.
Your milage may vary.
Frankly I think the first overt was going up to someone and trying
to audit them with what questions, in particular who did what to whom
questions.
The insane decision to protest or regret dones is pretty close to
the source of insanity.
No one is 'putting it there' in a while, they are too busy trying
to unput it there forever.
And that changing a while into a forever/never might very well be
the first overt and the original cause of persistence.
Who cares who did what to whom, y'all chose don't you see?
Blaming others is a DED against yourself as it denies your
responsibility for the other being there and agent in your
dream.
And maybe we did that out of some weird divine aesthetic to be an
'innocent victim' for a while.
Down here that kind of thinking may not be too workable, but if you
want to get out of here, its the only way out.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jul 26 15:59:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore0.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)
iD8DBQFVtTwIURT1lqxE3HERAmALAJ9KDf/t8MBBKYBDHu2Q9WaJu0mAHQCgpf2S
Y4xB9anrzsPVxX/NAkFLvzM=
=Ij28
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, July 25, 2015
ADORE141 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
HOW TO END UNWANTED GAMES
Homer:
>> This flip flop from creating and orchestrating virtual realities
>> into believing those virtual realities to be actualities is how beings
>> create and play games in space/time game streams.
WILKA (freesolo@freenet.de) wrote:
>...how to END those Games, which Individual I-AMs and/or Groups of, found
>unpleasant ?
I can only give you the answer that both Hubbard and Adore give:
"The way out, is the way in." -Adore
"The creature can become the creator at will. The way for the
creature to become the creator is to BE the creator becoming the
creature." -Adore
By recreating coming into a game, you put yourself out, because you
have to be out to come in.
Trying to get out, puts you in, because you have to be in to try to
get out.
Trying to get in, puts you out, because you have to be out to get
in.
Thus ending a game involves recreating the moment of creating the
game, which includes the intention and aesthetics and the fore-knowing
if there was any, and the postulates that made the game, and then the
effort and intention to jump into the game by operating the various
consideration/observation flip flops we have been discussing here.
This is hardest when a being has created a game that he "couldn't
have, shouldn't have, wouldn't have" ever created. That sticks him in a
"I didn't start it," so he becomes stuck at trying to stop it. He can't
stop what he can't start, because the way to stop anything is to
practice starting it thus perfectly duplicating the original moment of
creation.
Trying to start something assumes it is stopped etc.
Once one is at the start point, one can simply changing one's mind
and not continue it.
Thus Hubbard said the being goes psycho at the exact moment he
becomes totally devoted to stopping something. He no longer has his
finger on start, so he can't stop, and thus gets stuck in must stop,
can't stop forever.
Or at least until he wakes up to his error.
It's like a chinese finger trap, the way in is the way out. Trying
to get out sticks you in. Pushing in, allows you to get out.
This forms a kind of catch-22 with games, namely that the moment a
being tries to back out of a game, he gets stuck in it, but the moment
he tries to get into the game, he tends to wake up out of it.
Thus beings had the problem of how to stay in the game, they kept
waking up. So they made the game unpleasant so that once they were in
it, they would be DEVOTED to getting out, and thus guaranteeing they
would stay in.
This was all as intended.
Look for the "couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't" point of any stuck
game to find the lock the being left beind him to make sure he stayed in
the game.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Jul 25 17:31:36 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore141.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)
iD8DBQFVtAA4URT1lqxE3HERAg/XAJ0f/C5fUoKSM/LOlthD1zrdeLMVHQCgumT5
zjFjHFUJ+VbNMS2d1/F9meU=
=ozAd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
HOW TO END UNWANTED GAMES
Homer:
>> This flip flop from creating and orchestrating virtual realities
>> into believing those virtual realities to be actualities is how beings
>> create and play games in space/time game streams.
WILKA (freesolo@freenet.de) wrote:
>...how to END those Games, which Individual I-AMs and/or Groups of, found
>unpleasant ?
I can only give you the answer that both Hubbard and Adore give:
"The way out, is the way in." -Adore
"The creature can become the creator at will. The way for the
creature to become the creator is to BE the creator becoming the
creature." -Adore
By recreating coming into a game, you put yourself out, because you
have to be out to come in.
Trying to get out, puts you in, because you have to be in to try to
get out.
Trying to get in, puts you out, because you have to be out to get
in.
Thus ending a game involves recreating the moment of creating the
game, which includes the intention and aesthetics and the fore-knowing
if there was any, and the postulates that made the game, and then the
effort and intention to jump into the game by operating the various
consideration/observation flip flops we have been discussing here.
This is hardest when a being has created a game that he "couldn't
have, shouldn't have, wouldn't have" ever created. That sticks him in a
"I didn't start it," so he becomes stuck at trying to stop it. He can't
stop what he can't start, because the way to stop anything is to
practice starting it thus perfectly duplicating the original moment of
creation.
Trying to start something assumes it is stopped etc.
Once one is at the start point, one can simply changing one's mind
and not continue it.
Thus Hubbard said the being goes psycho at the exact moment he
becomes totally devoted to stopping something. He no longer has his
finger on start, so he can't stop, and thus gets stuck in must stop,
can't stop forever.
Or at least until he wakes up to his error.
It's like a chinese finger trap, the way in is the way out. Trying
to get out sticks you in. Pushing in, allows you to get out.
This forms a kind of catch-22 with games, namely that the moment a
being tries to back out of a game, he gets stuck in it, but the moment
he tries to get into the game, he tends to wake up out of it.
Thus beings had the problem of how to stay in the game, they kept
waking up. So they made the game unpleasant so that once they were in
it, they would be DEVOTED to getting out, and thus guaranteeing they
would stay in.
This was all as intended.
Look for the "couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't" point of any stuck
game to find the lock the being left beind him to make sure he stayed in
the game.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Jul 25 17:31:36 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore141.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)
iD8DBQFVtAA4URT1lqxE3HERAg/XAJ0f/C5fUoKSM/LOlthD1zrdeLMVHQCgumT5
zjFjHFUJ+VbNMS2d1/F9meU=
=ozAd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, July 24, 2015
ADORE223 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Amended...
POSTULATES
Every being has the inalienable right to make his own postulates for
the greatest good of the greatest number, according to his own true desire
and wisdom at the time.
Balancing that right is the duty to take full responsibility for the
consequences.
Anyone who abdicates that right and duty becomes subsumed by
whom they have abdicated to.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 24 03:06:02 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore223.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFVsePbURT1lqxE3HERAh+LAJ9dCr0G2Khs7IEyk9UVMCraS2r5kACfdXsh
apR4bIsv2Ek9OL11Ft3qT4U=
=Fq+x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Amended...
POSTULATES
Every being has the inalienable right to make his own postulates for
the greatest good of the greatest number, according to his own true desire
and wisdom at the time.
Balancing that right is the duty to take full responsibility for the
consequences.
Anyone who abdicates that right and duty becomes subsumed by
whom they have abdicated to.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 24 03:06:02 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore223.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFVsePbURT1lqxE3HERAh+LAJ9dCr0G2Khs7IEyk9UVMCraS2r5kACfdXsh
apR4bIsv2Ek9OL11Ft3qT4U=
=Fq+x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Checking Gateway
Please ignore
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
LOGIC10 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Homer:
>> What about the plagues, the earthquakes, the tidal waves, the
>>hurricanes, the volcanoes, the famines that destroy millions of lives,
>>crushing bodies, leaving little children homeless, splitting lovers
>>forever.
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>We're talking about moral/ethical "bad", commonly known as "evil", not
>about non-ethically-related pain-"bad."
Exactly, morals have to do with CHOICES that we make. Since God
has a choice about what he creates, namely planets and men, and has a
choice about putting men on planets where the bugs can come feast on
their skin, I would say we very definitely have a problem in moral
badness here.
If any *HUMAN* were to do to humans what God has done to humans
WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, he would be hunted down to extinction.
You repeatedly fail to deal with this issue.
If God is 'The Father' and we are 'His Children', and a human
parent were to treat a human child the way God treats man, God would be
thrown in jail for child abuse.
Treating God as the Father and Man as his children leads to
infantile behavior on the part of adults in their relationship to God.
They never grow up to BECOME God again or even real men.
Homer:
>> What about asteroids that take out half the planet and ruin life
>>for millions of years?
>> What about suns going super nova destroying entire solar systems
>>and all civilizations on them forever?
Carol:
>Just nature doing its thing.
God made nature, God made man, God PUT MAN IN NATURE. That's
like putting your child in a tiger cage and locking the door.
Homer:
>> Certainly these did not come from Man, even though Carol once said to
>>me that people had a choice about living at the bottom of the volcano
>>so they were responsible for their own suffering.
Carol:
>Produce the quote. Doesn't sound like something I'd say.
>I may have said something about why live near volcanos.
It was a phone conversation Carol, and I was using the volcano as
an example of something bad that God does to humans that is not
human's fault, and you said it was human's fault for they could have
chosen to live elsewhere.
Homer:
>> No these things did not come from man, they come from God the
>>creator, who created this universe of thermonuclear explosions and
>>put man on their planets to fend as best he could against the forces
>>of the night.
>> So is it true that Only Good comes from God?
>Yes.
I rest my case Carol. Thanks for putting it in writing.
Homer:
>> If it is not true that only Good comes from God, if in fact both Good
>>and Bad come from God, what relationship then is there between the IDEAL
>>OF GOOD and God?
>Over the long course of the dialogue, "bad" was originally construed as a
>synonym of [moral/ethical] evil, at least it was so intended by me, now it
>seems to be construed in this post to mean fostering pain, though not
>necessarily evil, as natural events can cause pain to man if man gets in
>the way of them.
"If man gets in the way of them." So he should know better eh?
It's man's fault if nature hurts man?
Oh yeah, I left out congenital defects in my list of Good things
that God spawned.
Also what about the fact that good men are victimized by bad men,
whose fault is this, the fault of the Good men who happen to get in
the way of the Bad men? No it is God's fault for giving man the
ability to do bad in the first place, so that those who chose bad
could victimize the Good men.
Carol:
>Assumptions aside, let's look at your question: the relationship
>between the IDEAL OF GOOD and God. The Ideal of Good is an eternal
>creative Idea (eidos) of God, used in the process of creation.
I do not see any Good to creation, I see a tiger cage with
a hungry tiger in it feeding on the bones of man and his hopes
and aspirations.
>> Does God live up to that ideal of Good?
>Always, as all-goodness is an attribute of God's being.
I reset my case, you are nuts pushing party lines without
a consistency editor.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jul 23 16:17:53 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic10.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)
iD8DBQFVsUvxURT1lqxE3HERAsvIAJ9iUbv2bXUarNWv2tkxVAg8VQNRCQCfdCp2
gK3SW9vXAxUoWTXfaVex8Fo=
=kmhA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Homer:
>> What about the plagues, the earthquakes, the tidal waves, the
>>hurricanes, the volcanoes, the famines that destroy millions of lives,
>>crushing bodies, leaving little children homeless, splitting lovers
>>forever.
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>We're talking about moral/ethical "bad", commonly known as "evil", not
>about non-ethically-related pain-"bad."
Exactly, morals have to do with CHOICES that we make. Since God
has a choice about what he creates, namely planets and men, and has a
choice about putting men on planets where the bugs can come feast on
their skin, I would say we very definitely have a problem in moral
badness here.
If any *HUMAN* were to do to humans what God has done to humans
WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, he would be hunted down to extinction.
You repeatedly fail to deal with this issue.
If God is 'The Father' and we are 'His Children', and a human
parent were to treat a human child the way God treats man, God would be
thrown in jail for child abuse.
Treating God as the Father and Man as his children leads to
infantile behavior on the part of adults in their relationship to God.
They never grow up to BECOME God again or even real men.
Homer:
>> What about asteroids that take out half the planet and ruin life
>>for millions of years?
>> What about suns going super nova destroying entire solar systems
>>and all civilizations on them forever?
Carol:
>Just nature doing its thing.
God made nature, God made man, God PUT MAN IN NATURE. That's
like putting your child in a tiger cage and locking the door.
Homer:
>> Certainly these did not come from Man, even though Carol once said to
>>me that people had a choice about living at the bottom of the volcano
>>so they were responsible for their own suffering.
Carol:
>Produce the quote. Doesn't sound like something I'd say.
>I may have said something about why live near volcanos.
It was a phone conversation Carol, and I was using the volcano as
an example of something bad that God does to humans that is not
human's fault, and you said it was human's fault for they could have
chosen to live elsewhere.
Homer:
>> No these things did not come from man, they come from God the
>>creator, who created this universe of thermonuclear explosions and
>>put man on their planets to fend as best he could against the forces
>>of the night.
>> So is it true that Only Good comes from God?
>Yes.
I rest my case Carol. Thanks for putting it in writing.
Homer:
>> If it is not true that only Good comes from God, if in fact both Good
>>and Bad come from God, what relationship then is there between the IDEAL
>>OF GOOD and God?
>Over the long course of the dialogue, "bad" was originally construed as a
>synonym of [moral/ethical] evil, at least it was so intended by me, now it
>seems to be construed in this post to mean fostering pain, though not
>necessarily evil, as natural events can cause pain to man if man gets in
>the way of them.
"If man gets in the way of them." So he should know better eh?
It's man's fault if nature hurts man?
Oh yeah, I left out congenital defects in my list of Good things
that God spawned.
Also what about the fact that good men are victimized by bad men,
whose fault is this, the fault of the Good men who happen to get in
the way of the Bad men? No it is God's fault for giving man the
ability to do bad in the first place, so that those who chose bad
could victimize the Good men.
Carol:
>Assumptions aside, let's look at your question: the relationship
>between the IDEAL OF GOOD and God. The Ideal of Good is an eternal
>creative Idea (eidos) of God, used in the process of creation.
I do not see any Good to creation, I see a tiger cage with
a hungry tiger in it feeding on the bones of man and his hopes
and aspirations.
>> Does God live up to that ideal of Good?
>Always, as all-goodness is an attribute of God's being.
I reset my case, you are nuts pushing party lines without
a consistency editor.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jul 23 16:17:53 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic10.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)
iD8DBQFVsUvxURT1lqxE3HERAsvIAJ9iUbv2bXUarNWv2tkxVAg8VQNRCQCfdCp2
gK3SW9vXAxUoWTXfaVex8Fo=
=kmhA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
FINDER1 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NOODLES AND TECH FINDERS
Well, ahem yes, I was not in a good mood that day... :)
Homer
RDucharme (VoltR@ctinet.net) wrote:
> Tech finders can't stand alone. For instance, without PCs and auditors,
> they would have no reason to be; their researches would be only an exercise
> in mental masturbation. In the same way, audiences are as valuable as the
> speaker, lowly laborers are as valuable as company presidents; linemen are
> as valuable as quarterbacks; vegetation is as valuable as human life. All
> because of interdependence.
Yes, clearly. However historically I have benefited more from my
own work solo than from other's, with few exceptions, namely you,
Enid, Filbert etc, and my reality is that a world full of pc's isn't
going to help me at all.
When I was in the Church, even though I didn't get to audit very long on
Dianetics, my one pc was a pure joy to behold, ran track like greased butter,
ruds flew swiftly and everything was exactly according to the book. Ruds would
get the needle floating, drug assessments would find the reading item, running
it R3R would drive the needle up, TA 5.0, pc looking like death, E/S, E/S,
finally needle would start cascading down, pc would have cognitions, needle
would go into a dial wide float at Ta 2.5, and pc would be beaming, laughing,
VVVGI's.
Yet when they ran this stuff on me, over 300 hours and almost $100,000
worth, at the Org and at Flag, I got *NOTHING* but grind and heartache and loss
after loss after loss.
Last day at Flag, when I was out of money, being sent home, I was reading
the wins on the writeup boards, and I was crying tears because everyone else
was winning but me.
So I haven't forgotten that, what people already know about tech isn't
worth shit, no matter how pumped up they pretend to be.
It's *EASY* to help a noodle, but the end result is a more powerful and
more suppressive noodle.
Tech Finding is *MY* salvation and that is all I care about, because you
know, those other standard pc's, those that did well being obedient "track
obeys the auditor" types, they turned me into ethics for asking questions, for
not clapping, for bringing up the subject of total responsibility and Tech
Finding.
THEY can all go to hell forever for free, and I will gladly kick them into
the abyss and pay for the right to do so.
*THESE* people will not come onto this list and usurp it for their own
ends, and I will make *SURE* over my dead body that they don't, I don't care
what anyone else says.
And I will NOT tolerate professional auditors recruiting professional pcs
on this list either.
Either the person wants to become a Tech Finder or die trying, or he has
earned my personal enmity for the rest of time.
If there is a market for noodles, it ain't here.
I don't actually wish to know how to help a noodle and I would in fact
suppress that tech completely out of existence, as they don't deserve help and
should not be helped.
Because a well helped noodle just takes to harming tech finders with more
zest, particularly if the Tech Finder isn't THEIR tech finder.
How's that for an enemy formula.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Jul 22 16:13:31 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/finder1.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)
iD8DBQFVr/lrURT1lqxE3HERAqXLAJ9uBO5xjo6QKEXY+4n3FLGxPpPkOQCfYRMP
Zu1ENFKFQuAv9xxKXE8V4pY=
=IKp4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
NOODLES AND TECH FINDERS
Well, ahem yes, I was not in a good mood that day... :)
Homer
RDucharme (VoltR@ctinet.net) wrote:
> Tech finders can't stand alone. For instance, without PCs and auditors,
> they would have no reason to be; their researches would be only an exercise
> in mental masturbation. In the same way, audiences are as valuable as the
> speaker, lowly laborers are as valuable as company presidents; linemen are
> as valuable as quarterbacks; vegetation is as valuable as human life. All
> because of interdependence.
Yes, clearly. However historically I have benefited more from my
own work solo than from other's, with few exceptions, namely you,
Enid, Filbert etc, and my reality is that a world full of pc's isn't
going to help me at all.
When I was in the Church, even though I didn't get to audit very long on
Dianetics, my one pc was a pure joy to behold, ran track like greased butter,
ruds flew swiftly and everything was exactly according to the book. Ruds would
get the needle floating, drug assessments would find the reading item, running
it R3R would drive the needle up, TA 5.0, pc looking like death, E/S, E/S,
finally needle would start cascading down, pc would have cognitions, needle
would go into a dial wide float at Ta 2.5, and pc would be beaming, laughing,
VVVGI's.
Yet when they ran this stuff on me, over 300 hours and almost $100,000
worth, at the Org and at Flag, I got *NOTHING* but grind and heartache and loss
after loss after loss.
Last day at Flag, when I was out of money, being sent home, I was reading
the wins on the writeup boards, and I was crying tears because everyone else
was winning but me.
So I haven't forgotten that, what people already know about tech isn't
worth shit, no matter how pumped up they pretend to be.
It's *EASY* to help a noodle, but the end result is a more powerful and
more suppressive noodle.
Tech Finding is *MY* salvation and that is all I care about, because you
know, those other standard pc's, those that did well being obedient "track
obeys the auditor" types, they turned me into ethics for asking questions, for
not clapping, for bringing up the subject of total responsibility and Tech
Finding.
THEY can all go to hell forever for free, and I will gladly kick them into
the abyss and pay for the right to do so.
*THESE* people will not come onto this list and usurp it for their own
ends, and I will make *SURE* over my dead body that they don't, I don't care
what anyone else says.
And I will NOT tolerate professional auditors recruiting professional pcs
on this list either.
Either the person wants to become a Tech Finder or die trying, or he has
earned my personal enmity for the rest of time.
If there is a market for noodles, it ain't here.
I don't actually wish to know how to help a noodle and I would in fact
suppress that tech completely out of existence, as they don't deserve help and
should not be helped.
Because a well helped noodle just takes to harming tech finders with more
zest, particularly if the Tech Finder isn't THEIR tech finder.
How's that for an enemy formula.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Jul 22 16:13:31 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/finder1.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)
iD8DBQFVr/lrURT1lqxE3HERAqXLAJ9uBO5xjo6QKEXY+4n3FLGxPpPkOQCfYRMP
Zu1ENFKFQuAv9xxKXE8V4pY=
=IKp4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
FINDER1 (fwd)
repost homer ilovemira finder1
NOODLES AND TECH FINDERS
Well, ahem yes, I was not in a good mood that day... :)
Homer
RDucharme (VoltR@ctinet.net) wrote:
>Tech finders can't stand alone. For instance, without PCs and auditors,
>they would have no reason to be; their researches would be only an exercise
>in mental masturbation. In the same way, audiences are as valuable as the
>speaker, lowly laborers are as valuable as company presidents; linemen are
>as valuable as quarterbacks; vegetation is as valuable as human life. All
>because of interdependence.
Yes, clearly. However historically I have benefited more from my
own work solo than from other's, with few exceptions, namely you,
Enid, Filbert etc, and my reality is that a world full of pc's isn't
going to help me at all.
When I was in the Church, even though I didn't get to audit very long
on Dianetics, my one pc was a pure joy to behold, ran track like greased
butter, ruds flew swiftly and everything was exactly according to the
book. Ruds would get the needle floating, drug assessments would find the
reading item, running it R3R would drive the needle up, TA 5.0, pc looking
like death, E/S, E/S, finally needle would start cascading down, pc would
have cognitions, needle would go into a dial wide float at Ta 2.5, and pc
would be beaming, laughing, VVVGI's.
Yet when they ran this stuff on me, over 300 hours and almost
$100,000 worth, at the Org and at Flag, I got *NOTHING* but grind and
heartache and loss after loss after loss.
Last day at Flag, when I was out of money, being sent home, I was
reading the wins on the writeup boards, and I was crying tears because
everyone else was winning but me.
So I haven't forgotten that, what people already know about tech
isn't worth shit, no matter how pumped up they pretend to be.
It's *EASY* to help a noodle, but the end result is a more powerful
and more suppressive noodle.
Tech Finding is *MY* salvation and that is all I care about, because
you know, those other standard pc's, those that did well being obedient
"track obeys the auditor" types, they turned me into ethics for asking
questions, for not clapping, for bringing up the subject of total
responsibility and Tech Finding.
THEY can all go to hell forever for free, and I will gladly kick them
into the abyss and pay for the right to do so.
*THESE* people will not come onto this list and usurp it for their
own ends, and I will make *SURE* over my dead body that they don't, I
don't care what anyone else says.
And I will NOT tolerate professional auditors recruiting professional
pcs on this list either.
Either the person wants to become a Tech Finder or die trying, or he
has earned my personal enmity for the rest of time.
If there is a market for noodles, it ain't here.
I don't actually wish to know how to help a noodle and I would in
fact suppress that tech completely out of existence, as they don't deserve
help and should not be helped.
Because a well helped noodle just takes to harming tech finders with
more zest, particularly if the Tech Finder isn't THEIR tech finder.
How's that for an enemy formula.
Homer
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
NOODLES AND TECH FINDERS
Well, ahem yes, I was not in a good mood that day... :)
Homer
RDucharme (VoltR@ctinet.net) wrote:
>Tech finders can't stand alone. For instance, without PCs and auditors,
>they would have no reason to be; their researches would be only an exercise
>in mental masturbation. In the same way, audiences are as valuable as the
>speaker, lowly laborers are as valuable as company presidents; linemen are
>as valuable as quarterbacks; vegetation is as valuable as human life. All
>because of interdependence.
Yes, clearly. However historically I have benefited more from my
own work solo than from other's, with few exceptions, namely you,
Enid, Filbert etc, and my reality is that a world full of pc's isn't
going to help me at all.
When I was in the Church, even though I didn't get to audit very long
on Dianetics, my one pc was a pure joy to behold, ran track like greased
butter, ruds flew swiftly and everything was exactly according to the
book. Ruds would get the needle floating, drug assessments would find the
reading item, running it R3R would drive the needle up, TA 5.0, pc looking
like death, E/S, E/S, finally needle would start cascading down, pc would
have cognitions, needle would go into a dial wide float at Ta 2.5, and pc
would be beaming, laughing, VVVGI's.
Yet when they ran this stuff on me, over 300 hours and almost
$100,000 worth, at the Org and at Flag, I got *NOTHING* but grind and
heartache and loss after loss after loss.
Last day at Flag, when I was out of money, being sent home, I was
reading the wins on the writeup boards, and I was crying tears because
everyone else was winning but me.
So I haven't forgotten that, what people already know about tech
isn't worth shit, no matter how pumped up they pretend to be.
It's *EASY* to help a noodle, but the end result is a more powerful
and more suppressive noodle.
Tech Finding is *MY* salvation and that is all I care about, because
you know, those other standard pc's, those that did well being obedient
"track obeys the auditor" types, they turned me into ethics for asking
questions, for not clapping, for bringing up the subject of total
responsibility and Tech Finding.
THEY can all go to hell forever for free, and I will gladly kick them
into the abyss and pay for the right to do so.
*THESE* people will not come onto this list and usurp it for their
own ends, and I will make *SURE* over my dead body that they don't, I
don't care what anyone else says.
And I will NOT tolerate professional auditors recruiting professional
pcs on this list either.
Either the person wants to become a Tech Finder or die trying, or he
has earned my personal enmity for the rest of time.
If there is a market for noodles, it ain't here.
I don't actually wish to know how to help a noodle and I would in
fact suppress that tech completely out of existence, as they don't deserve
help and should not be helped.
Because a well helped noodle just takes to harming tech finders with
more zest, particularly if the Tech Finder isn't THEIR tech finder.
How's that for an enemy formula.
Homer
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
ADORE494 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
DESIRE OF THE CREATOR, DESIRE OF THE CREATURE
Hubbard said that there was theta the problem creator, and theta
the problem solver.
Adore says there is the game creator and the game player,
Author and Character.
Creator and Creature.
The primary opposition of desire then is between the desire of the
game creator to extend the game, and the desire of the player to win the
game.
Justice is that we get what we postulate.
That would be a best of all possible worlds, wouldn't it?
Surely justice is that we deserve that!
If any justice exists at all then, of course justice reigns at all
times, for the first thing we would have postulated is that it do so.
Thus one can surmise that we want what we have, and we have what we
want, and we have it exactly and only because we want it.
The question is which one of us wants it, the game creator or the
game player?
For those lost in the valley of the shadow of death, this can be a
hard question, for life certainly does not look desirable even as a game
we would have created for ourselves.
No one in their right mind would create themselves and their
loved ones as human in this meat grinder of a universe.
Naivety is thinking they would. :)
Life boggles our sense of could, would and should.
This is overwhelm, overwhelm of our sense of artistic motivation
for the creation of ourselves as creature and the context we live in, we
can't create ourselves big enough as creatures to consider that we were
or are creators over our own game.
"Who me? Not I, Sir! I certainly did not create or even agree
to this game, I am still seeking a place to hide from it!
Thus the creator has created something for itself that exceeds
itself as a creature.
However all of life is God in carnation, thus it can be no other
way.
Thus the creature spends its whole life seeking for who or what
created him, and to chew a bone with it, asking why is it such an
asshole. when in truth God is to be found under your own pillow.
utterly and absolutely where you already are and always will be, here
now.
Doubt in this leads to resentment, faith in this Creator/Creature
relationship should lead to acceptance which leads to vanishment.
Thus recovering for the being that he is playing HIS game, and that
he can call time outs on it periodically to adjust the laws of play,
goes a long ways to making a well and happy being.
No longer human perhaps, for who would call a resentment free
being, human, but recognizable none the less as something to make and
be friends with, in yourself and in others.
The creature doesn't mind playing other people's games too, but
only by HIS choice, and if he gets too impressed with someone else's
game he will want to out do it himself in return favor.
Thus games and trade in games have gotten quite involved, and the
competition as to who can make the roughest, toughest, longest lasting
game is in the semi finals.
The games we lose quickly are no fun, the games we win easily are
no fun either. The games that are the most fun are the games that put a
load on our motor and keep it there.
The fun is in the chase, the quality of that dance from conception
to attainment called time and the effort to win that flows through it.
Caught between the desire for greatness and seriousness, the being
dances as if on the ball floor of hell, dodging the gauntlet of fire to
win whatever bauble he envisions is worth the danger of failure and
defeat.
The only mercy is that if he is defeated utterly, and I do mean
*UTTERLY*, he wakes up to Eternal Omni Awesome Peace again as if the
whole thing never happened.
He designed it this way as his backup out should he never win at
anything ever again.
Thus although the player pretends he wants to win, down deep he
knows the glory is in the play.
In the ideal game, he will play forever and then win at the end
just before his energy runs out :)
Much art only exists where there is form in motion, and thus time,
and time only exists where there is separation between conception and
attainment.
Thus the hardest games are the games of long duration, because they
were and are the most fun, but many of them may be forgotten by now, as
they went on 'too long'.
No they didn't, he's just saying that to keep them going.
If he didn't complain about the game, they might all vanish on him
and everyone else too.
Thus your preclear may be found to be in a state of trying to continue a
game by resisting it, not playing it fully, or trying to win a game by
losing it.
These inversions need to be handled so the preclear can come back to
orientation about what game it is he really wants to play and what game
he is, and has been, playing anyhow born of high appreciation for
ludicrous demise.
Every thing else will handle itself once the vectors of game play
are reoriented towards action and ability and willingness, nay
eagerness, to be here.
Get the idea of Eternal Eagerness.
That games of seriousness and greatness run on courage does not in
any way change any of the above.
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 May 3 01:00:14 EDT 2007
Sun Sep 22 01:07:06 EDT 2013
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 21 03:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore494.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)
iD8DBQFVre9aURT1lqxE3HERAja0AJwL+OAXMkvSxykL38yY5Wc67gpYYwCgm3hx
MdtD2GssQDWgtMPW5z8LrIY=
=cFRk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
DESIRE OF THE CREATOR, DESIRE OF THE CREATURE
Hubbard said that there was theta the problem creator, and theta
the problem solver.
Adore says there is the game creator and the game player,
Author and Character.
Creator and Creature.
The primary opposition of desire then is between the desire of the
game creator to extend the game, and the desire of the player to win the
game.
Justice is that we get what we postulate.
That would be a best of all possible worlds, wouldn't it?
Surely justice is that we deserve that!
If any justice exists at all then, of course justice reigns at all
times, for the first thing we would have postulated is that it do so.
Thus one can surmise that we want what we have, and we have what we
want, and we have it exactly and only because we want it.
The question is which one of us wants it, the game creator or the
game player?
For those lost in the valley of the shadow of death, this can be a
hard question, for life certainly does not look desirable even as a game
we would have created for ourselves.
No one in their right mind would create themselves and their
loved ones as human in this meat grinder of a universe.
Naivety is thinking they would. :)
Life boggles our sense of could, would and should.
This is overwhelm, overwhelm of our sense of artistic motivation
for the creation of ourselves as creature and the context we live in, we
can't create ourselves big enough as creatures to consider that we were
or are creators over our own game.
"Who me? Not I, Sir! I certainly did not create or even agree
to this game, I am still seeking a place to hide from it!
Thus the creator has created something for itself that exceeds
itself as a creature.
However all of life is God in carnation, thus it can be no other
way.
Thus the creature spends its whole life seeking for who or what
created him, and to chew a bone with it, asking why is it such an
asshole. when in truth God is to be found under your own pillow.
utterly and absolutely where you already are and always will be, here
now.
Doubt in this leads to resentment, faith in this Creator/Creature
relationship should lead to acceptance which leads to vanishment.
Thus recovering for the being that he is playing HIS game, and that
he can call time outs on it periodically to adjust the laws of play,
goes a long ways to making a well and happy being.
No longer human perhaps, for who would call a resentment free
being, human, but recognizable none the less as something to make and
be friends with, in yourself and in others.
The creature doesn't mind playing other people's games too, but
only by HIS choice, and if he gets too impressed with someone else's
game he will want to out do it himself in return favor.
Thus games and trade in games have gotten quite involved, and the
competition as to who can make the roughest, toughest, longest lasting
game is in the semi finals.
The games we lose quickly are no fun, the games we win easily are
no fun either. The games that are the most fun are the games that put a
load on our motor and keep it there.
The fun is in the chase, the quality of that dance from conception
to attainment called time and the effort to win that flows through it.
Caught between the desire for greatness and seriousness, the being
dances as if on the ball floor of hell, dodging the gauntlet of fire to
win whatever bauble he envisions is worth the danger of failure and
defeat.
The only mercy is that if he is defeated utterly, and I do mean
*UTTERLY*, he wakes up to Eternal Omni Awesome Peace again as if the
whole thing never happened.
He designed it this way as his backup out should he never win at
anything ever again.
Thus although the player pretends he wants to win, down deep he
knows the glory is in the play.
In the ideal game, he will play forever and then win at the end
just before his energy runs out :)
Much art only exists where there is form in motion, and thus time,
and time only exists where there is separation between conception and
attainment.
Thus the hardest games are the games of long duration, because they
were and are the most fun, but many of them may be forgotten by now, as
they went on 'too long'.
No they didn't, he's just saying that to keep them going.
If he didn't complain about the game, they might all vanish on him
and everyone else too.
Thus your preclear may be found to be in a state of trying to continue a
game by resisting it, not playing it fully, or trying to win a game by
losing it.
These inversions need to be handled so the preclear can come back to
orientation about what game it is he really wants to play and what game
he is, and has been, playing anyhow born of high appreciation for
ludicrous demise.
Every thing else will handle itself once the vectors of game play
are reoriented towards action and ability and willingness, nay
eagerness, to be here.
Get the idea of Eternal Eagerness.
That games of seriousness and greatness run on courage does not in
any way change any of the above.
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 May 3 01:00:14 EDT 2007
Sun Sep 22 01:07:06 EDT 2013
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 21 03:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore494.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)
iD8DBQFVre9aURT1lqxE3HERAja0AJwL+OAXMkvSxykL38yY5Wc67gpYYwCgm3hx
MdtD2GssQDWgtMPW5z8LrIY=
=cFRk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE508 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
06/06/07 Wednesday 01:05am EST
06/23/09 Tuesday 01:37am EST
PURPOSE, ORIGINATION and MOCKUPS
When you first ask the pc 'Whasamatter?', he will tell you all
about his 'hard to confront' items.
He will talk and talk and talk and get sicker and sicker, because
not one of these items is anything but a smoke screen for what he really
can't confront and what is really wrong with him.
Every one of these things that the pc complains about gets its
energy and stems from a staggering, utter unwillingness to know
something else.
In fact the items he talks about HELP him continue to not know his
true items, because he is successfully running an artful dodge on his
true items, namely not knowing the true items BY knowing or trying to
know about the false items.
When he finally comes up to realizing this, he will stop all the
struggle, and self auditing and trying to know, and get back to being
quite happy not knowing and making damn sure it stays that way (for a
while).
"You can not know anything by not knowing.
You can know anything by not knowing.
But only if you pride not knowing.
And pride knowing and not knowing only proud knowledge." - Adore
If he can't confront it, he won't know about it.
Thus all this 'trying to know' is bogus. He knows damn well that
if he just settles down into not knowing about it, he WILL start to know
about it spontaneously, probably before he is 'ready' for it.
He complains about not knowing, but really has too little not
knowing. He had to create false knowing and false trying to know in
order to keep the not knowing safely in place, because not knowing is
inherently self erasing when done knowingly!
There are two rules in auditing, the first is more generally true
than the second.
The first rule is, only the pc knows what is wrong with him.
Worded differently, only the pc has a clue what is wrong with him.
That means the auditor should not evaluate for the pc or tell him
what his item is, period.
The second rule is, if the pc knows about it, it isn't what is
wrong with him.
Worded differently, the pc hasn't a clue what is wrong with him.
That means you continue running the superficial garbage just long
enough for the pc to realize its all garbage and no longer, certainly
don't spend hours and hours running the pc's havingness into the ground
with it.
Asking a pc 'Whasamatter?' is a sure fire way for the pc to hand
you endless problems that are actually SOLUTIONS to him, and thus his
havingness falls like a lead balloon as you take the force out of his
solutions.
People will hate you for as-ising their solutions for them, unless
you are prepared to handle the underlying problem QUICK!
One real problem here is Q&A, the auditor says "Whasamatter?" the
pc says, "Oh my mother insulted me again", the auditor says "Ah, your
mother, of course, tell me about your mother."
GOD DAMN FLUNK!
Thus if you are going to start a session with 'Ok so Whasamatter?"
you had better FINISH the session 300 commands later with the same
question!
Then your pc might get a hint that what's going on is he is not
knowing something so ferocious that he has filled his entire life with
garbage just to forget about it.
But the other real problem is simply, if the pc knows about it, its
a waste of time auditing it!
In fact it is a gross auditing error because it runs the pc's
havingness down.
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC
Now here is the truth about evaluation.
The auditor DOES know exactly what is wrong with the pc *IN
GENERAL*, at the ONE level.
But only the pc knows what is wrong with him *IN SPECIFIC*, at the
MANY level, but if he is chattering all about it up front, it ain't it.
Thus the auditor MUST evaluate for the pc by choosing the general
process to run, but must never evaluate for the pc as to the E/P or
specific item that needs to be found.
The general item has its roots in the ONE, it is the same for
everyone, the specific item has its roots in the MANY, it is different
for each individual.
Thus the auditor starts at the ONE, where we are all one being, and
works down from there into the MANY, the specific for each different
being.
From this we can state a little rule which says, the auditor knows
the general and not the specific, and the pc knows the specific but not
the general.
That is why the pc needs an auditor at first to help him with the
general. But in the mean time, the pc doesn't consciously know the
specific either, because he has long ago entombed it in the mausoleum of
his life.
At the moment the auditor has chosen the general process he has
already evaluated the ONE for the pc, and thus once he starts running
that process, any answer which is a specific, must be the pc's, not the
auditor's, because the auditor has no clue.
The pc will EXPECT this evaluation to take place by the auditor
from the ONE, or else the pc won't go into session at all.
If the auditor is not in contact enough with the ONE to be able to
create the presence of the general evaluation, the pc will sense this
and bolt.
In session is defined by LRH as interested in own case and willing
to talk to the auditor.
It can further be defined as the auditor is asking the questions
and the pc is answering.
The second the pc turns it around and starts asking questions and
the auditor is answering them, guess who is the pc?
Some pc's are very skilled at this, they just want some help,
spelled advice. Such pc's turn the session around from the word go.
Some auditors are very skilled at billing the pc for this time, as
there is no need to audit the pc which is a hell of alot harder than
giving useless advice and opinions to the pc.
IN SESSION means auditor asks the questions and pc answers.
OUT OF SESSION means pc asks the questions and auditor answers.
IN SESSION means auditor says "Whatsit?" and pc says "Itsa".
OUT OF SESSION means pc says "Whatsit?" and auditor says "Itsa".
That pretty much defines evaulation for you, and its a high risk,
high crime.
It will put the pc INSTANTLY out of session, but they will continue
to ask and pay for advice forever afterwards.
To absolutely no avail.
By the way for ISNESS cases without a lot of not know on their
case, whatsit and itsa may work well, but for seriously far gone not
isness cases like we are talking about here, its a waste of time.
Why are you asking him 'Whatsit?'. The pc hasn't a clue what it
is. Why are you asking him to look, he CAN'T look, it just gives him a
loss.
The pc has been not looking BY looking (at something else) for
eons, the more you ask him to look the more he will not look.
You are going to win doing this?
Most case failures can be attributed to this one cause, running
ISNESS level processes on a NOTISNESS case.
Auditor says "Whatsit", pc says "I dont know".
Usual answer is to get the pc into something lighter. His bank
weighs 40 tons and we are going to run something lighter?
Something lighter = no auditing = treason.
Much better to simply run the command to create the not isness in
the first place.
Prepchecks approach doing this indirectly:
"Has anything been not-ised?"
"Has anything been made nothing of?"
So what's wrong with these?
Well in the first place they are QUESTIONS, questions are evil.
Tring to know locks in not know.
Secondly they direct the pc's attention to his memory to see if he
has a MEMORY of not-ising something. Efforts to not-is are not recorded
in memory in a way they can be accessed easily.
The pc is busy not knowing, you expect him to have a clear memory
of not knowing?
And lastly questions just don't carry the punch of a direct
command:
Spot NO not-ising.
Spot SOME not-ising.
The pc is going to turn it into a question anyhow:
"Gee, I wonder what I have been not-ising?"
so you might as well make it as hard as possible for the pc to do
this by keeping the flow of commands going smoothly enough that the pc
doesn't have a moment's chance to formulate a question out of it.
ASKING 'WHAT AM I NOT-ISING?' IS NOT RUNNING THE AUDITING COMMAND
"NOT-IS SOMETHING!"
You understand this? If not read it again until you do.
You can't not-is something and ask "what am I not-ising?" at
the same time!
Once you get a pc smoothly into running commands mode, you will see
the damage done by asking a single question that throws him over into
question asking mode again.
You might as well scramble his entire bank.
Not know is like taffy, questions put it through the taffy wringer.
Stay away from asking questions looking for answers, audit only
with commands. Question/Answer pairs will arise on their own.
Remember asking the pc WHAT he is not-ising is asking him to look
through the not-isness to find what is underneath. This is frankly
impossible as long as the not-is is there.
It is treating a not-isness case as an isness case who CAN see what
is there.
You don't want the pc to look at what is under the not-isness, you
want him to look AT the not-ising process itself in present time.
In other words you want him to stop not-ising not-ising, so you get
him to practice not-ising knowingly, until he nails the not-ising he has
been doing unknowingly. Then question and answer will appear.
What is underneath will show on its own once the not-ising is
as-ised.
"Spot the effort to not know something."
"Get the idea of not knowing something."
"Not know something".
"Not know an effort to not know."
"Spot an effort to not know a purpose".
"Spot an effort to not originate."
That's what he is doing anyhow, and getting him to do it
consciously will cause it to become self vanishing and startle the hell
out of the pc when something actually turns on.
The auditor may have a heart attack and jump out the window, but
the pc will get better and be left crying and laughing his eyes out,
because he has found his personal fountain head of love again.
The pc may have informational questions before session which the
auditor should address,
The PC may ask, "Will this hurt"?
Answer kindly and quickly "I do hope so."
Be sure to explain the difference between dull chronic pains
(grind) and loud acute pains (blowoff).
If the pc doesn't scream "OW!" at the top of his lungs once in a
while, well what are you auditing, the Pablum Rundown?
And there will probably be basic indoctrination as to what and why
the pc should be there and get auditing, such as what is provided below.
BUT NOT DURING SESSION.
Not after you have said "TITS!" (This Is The Session.)
Once a session has started, that's it with the pc's questions, he
can originate, even originate a question, but never let the pc put you
into answer mode.
"That's a good question you got there, perhaps you might give me a
few answers..."
Then get back to the process, "
"That was interesting, thank you for telling me that ...so spot
no notisness."
And even before session don't make a big deal out of answering the
pc's questions, he knows damn well why he is there, he just wants to
know if you know also.
*EVERYTHING* beyond that is a pc's pretense designed to forget
about things more.
The pc is a MASTER at not knowing BY asking questions.
He is running one of the deepest most fundamental service fac
computations in existence, the way to not know an answer is to ask
questions. It is the effort to not know A by trying to know B.
The guy with all the questions, is trying the hardest to not know,
and all his questions will be about everything but.
You got a white colar on? He KNOWS what he is there for.
But man is he wondering if you do.
He has a whole track of white colars that pretended to know, but
didn't know. Worse they wanted the pc to help *THEM* continue to not
know!
"Today we are going to audit the Pablum Rundown, so we can all
continue to not know. The registrar is this way..."
REMEMBER THE PC KNOWS, even the woggie on the street knows.
Natter merely means you have missed it, you have helped him in his
pretense that nothing is wrong, and boy DOES THAT HURT. He has to
practically kill himself to not know what he is not knowing.
Your preclear just doesn't have it to close his pandora's box
once you have nicked it open a bit.
What the pc wants to know is, if you know how much he is not knowing
and with how much force.
If he gets the feeling you have been there and lived to tell the
tale, all will be well. If he feels you are a twit with no confront at
all for force and not know, or worse he thinks you are trying to subsume
him into YOUR OWN need to not know, then HE WILL EAT YOU.
YUM FOOD, fresh foolish auditor meat, bringing me stupid questions.
So here is a basic general truth that works for all pc's, that a
process can be built around and run on anyone.
This starts the session by properly evaluating for the pc from the
ONE, thus putting the pc happily in session because he knows his auditor
knows too.
With a properly formulated ONE question, the pc and auditor are
one, because the question will indicate deeply to the pc giving him the
feeling the auditor knows the pc from the inside out, IN GENERAL.
That's called 'pc interest'.
In sessionness = relief.
OK, here then is some general brainwash or indoctrination, the
auditor does NOT have to teach this to the pc, but the auditor had
better damn well know it himself.
PURPOSES, ORIGINATIONS AND MOCKUPS
Prime purposes give rise to originations of communication.
Originations of communication are presented as mockups.
Mockups are full surround sound 3D holographic mental images.
When a preclear mocks up something, he IS IT, mocking up is an
act of BEING not LOOKING. After he mocks something up, he can separate
from it, and look at it.
Words are a via to mockups, the pc sees it as a mockup, tries to
get it across to others as a mockup, and will lower himself to using
words for those who can't BE or see his mockups directly.
If I BE a pink elephant, and you can BE a pink elephant too, then
we are in direct telepathic resonation with each other, as everything I
choose to BE, you become too. That's 'seeing' each other's mockups.
People think "Oh I am not powerful enough to get someone else to
see my mockups."
No, any being can shut out anyone else's mockups he wants to. If
he can't see your mockups, no matter how faintly, that's his problem not
yours. Taking it on as your problem is a wrong indication about the
severity of his condition, and will get you auditing you rather than
him.
Yet a pc can be in the odd position of not being able to see his
own mockups!
Nice. But its the same causal principle, a being can block out
anyone's mockups including his own. So if you can't get through to him,
its his fault, and if you can't get through to you, its your fault.
Not being able to see one's own mockups arises from the basic
causal equation we laid out above:
PURPOSE -> WORTHWHILE ORIGINATION OF COMMUNICATION -> MOCKUPS.
Turn it around and we get
NO MOCKUPS -> NO WORTHWHILE ORIGINATION OF COMMUNICATION -> NO
PURPOSE
So there we have the basic not know on the case and the basic
dicoms that need to be run.
NO PURPOSE - SOME PURPOSE
NO ORIGINATION - SOME ORIGINATION
NO MOCKUPS - SOME MOCKUPS
Loneliness by the way is simply having no reason to originate to
another, or to receive an origination from another.
Deeper, one can be alone amongst millions chattering away with you
forever, as long as no one is chattering about *PURPOSE*.
The minute purpose comes up, interest comes up, and interest means
no longer lonely, even if you are the only being who ever lived.
People who have lost their purpose, think they need others to have
purpose. That might be true at a practical level of doing something
about that purpose, but having purpose is something a being has alone
anyhow and gives him reason to be. Others are merely icing on the cake.
It is tempting to blame others for not being interested in your
originations, and that may well be, but believe me, if you could
originate a communication of worth, a REAL origination, they would
become just fascinated by you, and follow you around like a puppy dog
that just found a new friend.
Imagine you sitting in a huge beautiful plaza with thousands of
people crossing it every day, without one thing to say to anyone of them
for the rest of your life.
No reason to get up and move in any direction means no
communication terminals of worth in any direction.
Which means no purpose of worth in any direction.
Imagine sitting in a chair alone for a few hours and never once
having a single interesting thought occur to you. This can cause untold
panic in a being, who then feels he must DO something to get interested.
No, no interest means no purpose. Once purpose is recovered, you
CAN'T sit in a chair alone for an hour and not have so many interesting
thoughts you don't know what to do with them all.
Invisibility of original purpose, no mockups, dead silence on
everything of importance to both sides, and a substitute purpose that
strangles the being to death with every step he takes pursuing it, is
hell.
Remember as you run this process, purpose, origination and mockups,
one of the first mockups that will turn on with be infinite BLACKNESS
forever for free.
He has never seen this kind of blackness before and it will give
him the qualms.
Worse he can hallucinate anything he wants into that blackness, if
he thinks a growing spot of wriggling blackness is a bunch of spiders,
IT WILL TURN INTO THE WORST SPIDERS HE HAS EVER SEEN.
There is a mechanism behind this, its called doubt is self casting.
This is what happens.
The energetic black spot turns on and the pc goes "WHAT *IS* THAT?"
He's worried it might BE something, so he thinks "MAYBE ITS
SPIDERS!" Suddenly the black spot obliges him and starts to turn into
millions of writhing spiders, so the pc goes "OH MY GOD IT IS SPIDERS!"
and away we go.
He has to learn not to do this, it is energetic BLACKNESS period,
if he chills out about it, it will REMAIN just blackness.
Eventually it will turn into beautiful blackness and become his
friend again.
Worry about "WHAT IT IS", Whatsit, will turn it into whatever ugly
blackness he can conceive of, usually his worst fear.
Your pc is absolutely beyond trigger happy on mocking up things so
ugly they make him want to make nothing of everything forever.
So the minute he regains the ability to mockup anything at all,
that is what he will mockup.
When mockups first turn on, he will either get totally banal stuff
he has no clue where it came from and even less interest in it, except
that he can finally see something, and he will marvel at the clarity of
the colors and detail of objects in the picture.
Or it will be mockups of searing beauty.
Or it will be mockups of disaster or agony.
By disaster I mean he is dangling over the abyss, holding onto a
single branch by one hand, and the other end of the branch is not
connected to anything any more. That's where the mockup STARTS.
Talk about fear and the willies.
By agony, I mean take all the pain ever suffered across all people
and all time and all universes, and put it into one face blaming him for
it all. He will be very happy to mockup that face and never go near
mockups again.
You will know this has happened by the distinct sound of gulping.
As an auditor you had better be the Rock of Gilbralter at this
stage.
So say the pc suddenly opens up a picture of disaster, being
covered by spiders all over him.
Pc says "Oh my god you even have a spider crawling on your arm!"
Now you understand this isn't just any old spider, this is the
meanest nastiest BLACK spider there could be, and it has smaller spiders
all over it, and they have more spiders all over them. And they are ALL
just breeding and multiplying all over the place even as the pc watches
in horror.
You say "Oh yes, his name is Goober, he likes jokes, tell him jokes
until he laughs!"
All the spiders start laughing and they become a beautiful black
spot again peaceably.
Beautiful blackness runs smoothly in all directions, ugly blackness
is enturbulation, which is caused by worry about WHAT IT IS.
"Make it laugh, make it smile" will handle just about anything that
turns on.
The auditor must never allow the pc to take these visions
seriously, because they can out serious the pc right into the mental
ward.
ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT 'WHAT IS IT?' MAKES IT WORSE, BECAUSE THE
ONLY ANSWER IS ALWAYS THE SAME THING, SOMETHING SO UGLY IT WILL MAKE HIM
WANT TO MAKE NOTHING OUT OF EVERYTHING FOREVER.
And that is exactly what he is doing.
The blackness becomes what the pc fears most if he allows it to.
The pc's wondering what is in the blackness, allows the blackness
to tell HIM what is in it, and fear and doubt then become self casting.
That is why you can't ask a not isness case "What is it?"
The last time it started to open up on him and he asked "What is
it?" it made him want to make nothing out of everything, and that's what
an invisible or black V case is.
A black V case is someone who can't mockup anything or sees only
darkness. The 5 senses are sight, sound, touch, taste and smell, but
also includes emotion, effort, and motion among many other things that
can be mocked up.
One way to audit a black V case is to ask him
"What are you not mocking up?"
GOD DAMN FLUNK!
That would violate everything we have said in this posting, so run
instead,
"Not mockup something!"
The beauty of the process is he doesn't have to know WHAT he is not
mocking up before he not mocks it up, thus he can't lose by failing the
command, until his mockups turn on in spite of his efforts to turn them
off. But that's a win :)
But don't let him ask 'What am I not mocking up?' because then it
will turn on all kinds of terrible things he can't confront. He is just
certain that if he turns them on, he will never be able to turn them off
again.
So FIRST we get him ABLE to not mockup things, and once he is
stable KNOWINGLY not mocking up things, he can then let go a bit and
allow the stuff to turn on under his control.
And remember part of not mocking up something, is not knowing WHAT
you are not mocking up! Because if you know, even a little bit, what
you are not mocking up, you are in fact mocking it up a bit. In this
case enough to kill you and your body, or send the two of you to the
mental ward.
Pandora's Box has an odd kind of lid, you push once on it to close
it and it locks closed. You push it again, and it flies open, letting
everything out. Your pc is terrified to tears of this mechanism.
So now he CAN'T open the box, can't make any mockups of any kind,
good or bad, beacuse he dares not touch the lid again lest it open, and
he doesn't know what to do about it, and worse he has completely
forgotten how it works. He knows there is something he shouldn't do
lest he open the lid, but he no longer remembers that what he shouldn't
do is try to close it more, as that will open it for good!
The trick then is to get him to SIT on the lid, so the top unlocks,
but does not fly open, then he can let things out on HIS determinism,
slowly, one thing at a time, until it all turns beautiful again.
It takes an infinite feed back loop to turn an infinite knowing
being into a blind basket case.
He hates spiders, so he wonders if there are spiders in the
blackness, and so he starts to see spiders. He THINKS the spiders were
there before he wondered what was there, but in fact his wonder created
the spiders. Now that he believes the spiders are there, he is just
sure they are going to come eat him, so he runs away, but they are his
spiders, so they go with him, and he can't get away fast enough, for the
faster he runs, the faster they follow. And God, he just never knew
spiders had teeth that big...
That is what it takes to put a GodSoul in the looney bin.
A being can confront anything as long as he doesn't turn it against
himself by asking questions about it.
The *QUESTION ASKING*, the worrying about what it might be, is the
problem, and thus the QUESTION IS THE ANSWER.
The guy thinks the problem is the absence of an answer, but the
problem is in fact the presence of the question.
Chill out the question, chill out the need for an answer, and the
problem ceases and things return to a state of sovereign peace.
Wonder kills.
Terror is knowing by looking, "What is it?", being an effect.
Peace is looking by knowing, "It is.", being cause.
Cease the question, and the whole thing smooths out and runs out as
beautifull rather than enturbulated blackness.
Otherwise, the question turns the full power of the being against
himself, and so he can't win.
A being can lose utterly, this is how.
Not know is your friend.
True not know is self erasing because it is the perfect as-ising of
the not know originally added to the item one wanted to not know.
One can only keep not know around by pretending to try to know,
question asking.
Thus knowing not-knowing will always lead you to the truth in the
end.
In the end spiders are probably enemies and not natural opponents
to his goals, so too much attention on them is not needed. See
discussion below on enemies and natural opponents.
After the black will come white and color in a dizzying
kaleidoscopic array of frenzy.
Then scenes, motion and significance, usually of beauty and
disaster.
Most of it not even his. Nice, no need to go to the movies any
more.
Want to get scared silly, just close your eyes and relax.
Talk about pc interest, he will just want to turn it down, TOO MUCH
pc interest!
Not know is your friend at this stage, you can not know ANYTHING
you want for as long as you want.
In the presence of knowing not-knowing, ANYTHING will run out
smoothly.
Go "What's it?" and you are dead.
It is quite alright to let the lid off pandora's box SLOWLY by
sitting on it for a while while things crawl out.
So you start running:
Spot no purpose. Spot some purpose.
Sometimes a pc will say to you "Well I always wanted to be an
auditor, I want to help people!"
Bull. What would he do if everyone were clear?
The pc will hand you all kinds of 'get rid of goals', "A world
without insanity, criminality or war, now there's a star high goal,
yup!"
He can't touch putting something there, all he can conceive of is
getting rid of things.
He would be happy if only he could get rid of ...
Auditing that list is a deadly high crime.
Because guess what, if he can't PUT the bad things there, he can't
get rid of them either.
So you must never waste time on get rid of goals. They are all
precious solutions to deeper problems of putting things there in the
first place.
"Spot a no put there."
"Spot a put there."
"Spot no worthwhile origination."
"Spot some worthwhile origination."
An origination is a PUT THERE.
A worthwhile origination is a WORTHWHILE PUT THERE.
Happiness is engaging in WORTHWHILE PUT THERES.
You see, THAT will tear him up, and quiet him down, because all the
crap he has been putting there, that he has been complaining about are
things that he wants to UN PUT THERE, get rid of, and these aren't the
problem at all.
Now the question comes up, what about running enemies?
"Who or what is your worst enemy?
He will say "Oh I just hate it when my big brother picks on me."
Oh garbage, he loves that to pieces, it just totally keeps him from
thinking about anything real.
How about those asteroids coming into smash earth?
Remember your first monster feelings as a child?
The first time the toilet water came UP rather than went down!
Or how about that mountain out in the pacific that is about to
split and cause an 1800 foot tidal wave across the USA.
Or all the religious nut cases trying to get to heaven by sending
sinners to hell before their time, and who don't give a damn if they
leave the Earth growing green or glowing green?
But in the end enemies are things that shoot at you from the side
while you are driving on the road to Baghdad.
Every once in a while an enemy will occupy the FRONT of the road
and you can get so bogged down fighting the enemy that IT becomes your
basic purpose and total reason for living.
Getting to Baghdad becomes lost in the fray.
He will audit his ENEMIES all day long, because it is easier to
fight enemies and lose than confront why he has a problem with winning
and getting to where he was going in the first place.
Enemies are like spiders, the slightest doubt about your heading,
and suddenly things are shooting at you from all sides.
If you put too much attention on them, and slow down, they will get
ahead of you and STOP you.
Involvement with enemies is a SOLUTION to the problem of ARRIVING.
*GETTING* TO BAGHDAD had become a problem to him, so all the
enemies now in the way are a SOLUTION TO HIM because now he has a reason
he can't get there.
Thank God for all these enemies!
He has become so introverted on the original problem that he has
closed terminals with the enemies, and now all he can talk about is
"ain't it awful", namely all these enemies to the left, right and
center.
Part of it is a matter of size, the goal to get to Baghdad was
HUGE, as was the problem that resulted.
The enemies are just tiny swarms of dev-t, but now they look the
world to him because he had to get small in order to get introverted
enough to worry about them.
Dev-T means unnecessary developed traffic, detour.
He used to be bigger than his enemies, as big as the original goal,
but now he is smaller than his enemies, and the goal is GONE to him.
Fighting the enemy has BECOME the GOAL.
Ask him what happens when he wins?
"Oh that will be a relief, probably go home and get a job pushing
hamburgers."
?
WHAT HAPPENED TO GETTING TO BAGHDAD?
What happened to his original purpose?
You see?
Prime purposes have enemies, but most of these enemies are
sideliners throwing peanuts from the peanut gallery, they don't have the
same ontological status as the goal itself. One doesn't need enemies to
have a goal and to have fun with it.
Beware of people who think that life without enemies is no fun.
They will be bogged down doing NOTHING of import, but watch it when
they win against all their enemies, they will begin to create more
rather than get on with their original purpose.
They may be big enough to vanquish a few enemies along the way, but
they are no longer big enough to encompass their original goal let alone
remember it.
They win against their enemies and they get a kind of sad forlorn
'now what?' feeling.
Your average being is SO afraid of that forlorness that when they
come close to finishing off their last enemy, they won't. They will
mess up and lose, or go mercenary on other people's enemies, or start to
wrong target people who aren't enemies at all.
ANYTHING BUT HAVE NO ENEMIES ANY MORE.
They just can't say goodbye to that 'good fight'.
But the sorrow and loss is based on the feeling of smaller size and
having been vanquished oneself anyhow, because the original goal is
still too big to be re embraced.
This is in part why so many people got depressed after WW II ended,
and is common for vets coming home from war even if they won.
They are stuck in a NO ACTION point, underneath a much bigger
sphere of action of their original goal that was once theirs before they
got sidetracked into fighting enemies.
They just have to spot this, to fix it, with a little help from a
good auditor who can span big goals.
There will be NATURAL oppositions to your goals, mostly consisting
of MEST and it's inexorable move towards entropy.
MEST means Matter, Energy, Space and Time, the physical universe at
large.
Most games have NATURAL oppositions but they are always invited
opponents, not enemies per se.
The guy on the other side of the chess table is a natural opponent,
and shouldn't be confused with the guy on the side about to shoot you if
you come near winning. HE's an ENEMY.
The guy you are PLAYING against is an OPPONENT.
Enemies are dev-t, opponents are the fundamental fabric of the
game.
Enemies are sometimes fun to audit, and may lead back to the
original goal and its problem if the pc is all enmired in making enemies
into his basic purpose.
But get rid of goals are not good for people, there is no love in
them.
People HAVE to put something constructive there as natural
oppositions during normal game play in order to have fun, and without
fun, they eventually die themselves.
To clear the Invisible V case, bring him up to blazing blackness by
spotting no mockups, no worthwhile originations, and no purpose on all
dynamics.
If purposes won't run, try FALSE purposes, first.
NO FALSE PURPOSE
SOME FALSE PURPOSE
NO TRUE PURPOSE
SOME TRUE PURPOSE
Around and around, if you can't get them to read and run, your
meter is off.
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
Wed Jun 6 01:05:54 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul 20 21:39:45 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore508.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)
iD8DBQFVraLhURT1lqxE3HERAuFkAJ4iw374yDyASCK3qaysdOdM1Cnr+QCcCAyx
VJcJjvshkafCXnfskaD7Uqc=
=OGTX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
06/06/07 Wednesday 01:05am EST
06/23/09 Tuesday 01:37am EST
PURPOSE, ORIGINATION and MOCKUPS
When you first ask the pc 'Whasamatter?', he will tell you all
about his 'hard to confront' items.
He will talk and talk and talk and get sicker and sicker, because
not one of these items is anything but a smoke screen for what he really
can't confront and what is really wrong with him.
Every one of these things that the pc complains about gets its
energy and stems from a staggering, utter unwillingness to know
something else.
In fact the items he talks about HELP him continue to not know his
true items, because he is successfully running an artful dodge on his
true items, namely not knowing the true items BY knowing or trying to
know about the false items.
When he finally comes up to realizing this, he will stop all the
struggle, and self auditing and trying to know, and get back to being
quite happy not knowing and making damn sure it stays that way (for a
while).
"You can not know anything by not knowing.
You can know anything by not knowing.
But only if you pride not knowing.
And pride knowing and not knowing only proud knowledge." - Adore
If he can't confront it, he won't know about it.
Thus all this 'trying to know' is bogus. He knows damn well that
if he just settles down into not knowing about it, he WILL start to know
about it spontaneously, probably before he is 'ready' for it.
He complains about not knowing, but really has too little not
knowing. He had to create false knowing and false trying to know in
order to keep the not knowing safely in place, because not knowing is
inherently self erasing when done knowingly!
There are two rules in auditing, the first is more generally true
than the second.
The first rule is, only the pc knows what is wrong with him.
Worded differently, only the pc has a clue what is wrong with him.
That means the auditor should not evaluate for the pc or tell him
what his item is, period.
The second rule is, if the pc knows about it, it isn't what is
wrong with him.
Worded differently, the pc hasn't a clue what is wrong with him.
That means you continue running the superficial garbage just long
enough for the pc to realize its all garbage and no longer, certainly
don't spend hours and hours running the pc's havingness into the ground
with it.
Asking a pc 'Whasamatter?' is a sure fire way for the pc to hand
you endless problems that are actually SOLUTIONS to him, and thus his
havingness falls like a lead balloon as you take the force out of his
solutions.
People will hate you for as-ising their solutions for them, unless
you are prepared to handle the underlying problem QUICK!
One real problem here is Q&A, the auditor says "Whasamatter?" the
pc says, "Oh my mother insulted me again", the auditor says "Ah, your
mother, of course, tell me about your mother."
GOD DAMN FLUNK!
Thus if you are going to start a session with 'Ok so Whasamatter?"
you had better FINISH the session 300 commands later with the same
question!
Then your pc might get a hint that what's going on is he is not
knowing something so ferocious that he has filled his entire life with
garbage just to forget about it.
But the other real problem is simply, if the pc knows about it, its
a waste of time auditing it!
In fact it is a gross auditing error because it runs the pc's
havingness down.
GENERAL AND SPECIFIC
Now here is the truth about evaluation.
The auditor DOES know exactly what is wrong with the pc *IN
GENERAL*, at the ONE level.
But only the pc knows what is wrong with him *IN SPECIFIC*, at the
MANY level, but if he is chattering all about it up front, it ain't it.
Thus the auditor MUST evaluate for the pc by choosing the general
process to run, but must never evaluate for the pc as to the E/P or
specific item that needs to be found.
The general item has its roots in the ONE, it is the same for
everyone, the specific item has its roots in the MANY, it is different
for each individual.
Thus the auditor starts at the ONE, where we are all one being, and
works down from there into the MANY, the specific for each different
being.
From this we can state a little rule which says, the auditor knows
the general and not the specific, and the pc knows the specific but not
the general.
That is why the pc needs an auditor at first to help him with the
general. But in the mean time, the pc doesn't consciously know the
specific either, because he has long ago entombed it in the mausoleum of
his life.
At the moment the auditor has chosen the general process he has
already evaluated the ONE for the pc, and thus once he starts running
that process, any answer which is a specific, must be the pc's, not the
auditor's, because the auditor has no clue.
The pc will EXPECT this evaluation to take place by the auditor
from the ONE, or else the pc won't go into session at all.
If the auditor is not in contact enough with the ONE to be able to
create the presence of the general evaluation, the pc will sense this
and bolt.
In session is defined by LRH as interested in own case and willing
to talk to the auditor.
It can further be defined as the auditor is asking the questions
and the pc is answering.
The second the pc turns it around and starts asking questions and
the auditor is answering them, guess who is the pc?
Some pc's are very skilled at this, they just want some help,
spelled advice. Such pc's turn the session around from the word go.
Some auditors are very skilled at billing the pc for this time, as
there is no need to audit the pc which is a hell of alot harder than
giving useless advice and opinions to the pc.
IN SESSION means auditor asks the questions and pc answers.
OUT OF SESSION means pc asks the questions and auditor answers.
IN SESSION means auditor says "Whatsit?" and pc says "Itsa".
OUT OF SESSION means pc says "Whatsit?" and auditor says "Itsa".
That pretty much defines evaulation for you, and its a high risk,
high crime.
It will put the pc INSTANTLY out of session, but they will continue
to ask and pay for advice forever afterwards.
To absolutely no avail.
By the way for ISNESS cases without a lot of not know on their
case, whatsit and itsa may work well, but for seriously far gone not
isness cases like we are talking about here, its a waste of time.
Why are you asking him 'Whatsit?'. The pc hasn't a clue what it
is. Why are you asking him to look, he CAN'T look, it just gives him a
loss.
The pc has been not looking BY looking (at something else) for
eons, the more you ask him to look the more he will not look.
You are going to win doing this?
Most case failures can be attributed to this one cause, running
ISNESS level processes on a NOTISNESS case.
Auditor says "Whatsit", pc says "I dont know".
Usual answer is to get the pc into something lighter. His bank
weighs 40 tons and we are going to run something lighter?
Something lighter = no auditing = treason.
Much better to simply run the command to create the not isness in
the first place.
Prepchecks approach doing this indirectly:
"Has anything been not-ised?"
"Has anything been made nothing of?"
So what's wrong with these?
Well in the first place they are QUESTIONS, questions are evil.
Tring to know locks in not know.
Secondly they direct the pc's attention to his memory to see if he
has a MEMORY of not-ising something. Efforts to not-is are not recorded
in memory in a way they can be accessed easily.
The pc is busy not knowing, you expect him to have a clear memory
of not knowing?
And lastly questions just don't carry the punch of a direct
command:
Spot NO not-ising.
Spot SOME not-ising.
The pc is going to turn it into a question anyhow:
"Gee, I wonder what I have been not-ising?"
so you might as well make it as hard as possible for the pc to do
this by keeping the flow of commands going smoothly enough that the pc
doesn't have a moment's chance to formulate a question out of it.
ASKING 'WHAT AM I NOT-ISING?' IS NOT RUNNING THE AUDITING COMMAND
"NOT-IS SOMETHING!"
You understand this? If not read it again until you do.
You can't not-is something and ask "what am I not-ising?" at
the same time!
Once you get a pc smoothly into running commands mode, you will see
the damage done by asking a single question that throws him over into
question asking mode again.
You might as well scramble his entire bank.
Not know is like taffy, questions put it through the taffy wringer.
Stay away from asking questions looking for answers, audit only
with commands. Question/Answer pairs will arise on their own.
Remember asking the pc WHAT he is not-ising is asking him to look
through the not-isness to find what is underneath. This is frankly
impossible as long as the not-is is there.
It is treating a not-isness case as an isness case who CAN see what
is there.
You don't want the pc to look at what is under the not-isness, you
want him to look AT the not-ising process itself in present time.
In other words you want him to stop not-ising not-ising, so you get
him to practice not-ising knowingly, until he nails the not-ising he has
been doing unknowingly. Then question and answer will appear.
What is underneath will show on its own once the not-ising is
as-ised.
"Spot the effort to not know something."
"Get the idea of not knowing something."
"Not know something".
"Not know an effort to not know."
"Spot an effort to not know a purpose".
"Spot an effort to not originate."
That's what he is doing anyhow, and getting him to do it
consciously will cause it to become self vanishing and startle the hell
out of the pc when something actually turns on.
The auditor may have a heart attack and jump out the window, but
the pc will get better and be left crying and laughing his eyes out,
because he has found his personal fountain head of love again.
The pc may have informational questions before session which the
auditor should address,
The PC may ask, "Will this hurt"?
Answer kindly and quickly "I do hope so."
Be sure to explain the difference between dull chronic pains
(grind) and loud acute pains (blowoff).
If the pc doesn't scream "OW!" at the top of his lungs once in a
while, well what are you auditing, the Pablum Rundown?
And there will probably be basic indoctrination as to what and why
the pc should be there and get auditing, such as what is provided below.
BUT NOT DURING SESSION.
Not after you have said "TITS!" (This Is The Session.)
Once a session has started, that's it with the pc's questions, he
can originate, even originate a question, but never let the pc put you
into answer mode.
"That's a good question you got there, perhaps you might give me a
few answers..."
Then get back to the process, "
"That was interesting, thank you for telling me that ...so spot
no notisness."
And even before session don't make a big deal out of answering the
pc's questions, he knows damn well why he is there, he just wants to
know if you know also.
*EVERYTHING* beyond that is a pc's pretense designed to forget
about things more.
The pc is a MASTER at not knowing BY asking questions.
He is running one of the deepest most fundamental service fac
computations in existence, the way to not know an answer is to ask
questions. It is the effort to not know A by trying to know B.
The guy with all the questions, is trying the hardest to not know,
and all his questions will be about everything but.
You got a white colar on? He KNOWS what he is there for.
But man is he wondering if you do.
He has a whole track of white colars that pretended to know, but
didn't know. Worse they wanted the pc to help *THEM* continue to not
know!
"Today we are going to audit the Pablum Rundown, so we can all
continue to not know. The registrar is this way..."
REMEMBER THE PC KNOWS, even the woggie on the street knows.
Natter merely means you have missed it, you have helped him in his
pretense that nothing is wrong, and boy DOES THAT HURT. He has to
practically kill himself to not know what he is not knowing.
Your preclear just doesn't have it to close his pandora's box
once you have nicked it open a bit.
What the pc wants to know is, if you know how much he is not knowing
and with how much force.
If he gets the feeling you have been there and lived to tell the
tale, all will be well. If he feels you are a twit with no confront at
all for force and not know, or worse he thinks you are trying to subsume
him into YOUR OWN need to not know, then HE WILL EAT YOU.
YUM FOOD, fresh foolish auditor meat, bringing me stupid questions.
So here is a basic general truth that works for all pc's, that a
process can be built around and run on anyone.
This starts the session by properly evaluating for the pc from the
ONE, thus putting the pc happily in session because he knows his auditor
knows too.
With a properly formulated ONE question, the pc and auditor are
one, because the question will indicate deeply to the pc giving him the
feeling the auditor knows the pc from the inside out, IN GENERAL.
That's called 'pc interest'.
In sessionness = relief.
OK, here then is some general brainwash or indoctrination, the
auditor does NOT have to teach this to the pc, but the auditor had
better damn well know it himself.
PURPOSES, ORIGINATIONS AND MOCKUPS
Prime purposes give rise to originations of communication.
Originations of communication are presented as mockups.
Mockups are full surround sound 3D holographic mental images.
When a preclear mocks up something, he IS IT, mocking up is an
act of BEING not LOOKING. After he mocks something up, he can separate
from it, and look at it.
Words are a via to mockups, the pc sees it as a mockup, tries to
get it across to others as a mockup, and will lower himself to using
words for those who can't BE or see his mockups directly.
If I BE a pink elephant, and you can BE a pink elephant too, then
we are in direct telepathic resonation with each other, as everything I
choose to BE, you become too. That's 'seeing' each other's mockups.
People think "Oh I am not powerful enough to get someone else to
see my mockups."
No, any being can shut out anyone else's mockups he wants to. If
he can't see your mockups, no matter how faintly, that's his problem not
yours. Taking it on as your problem is a wrong indication about the
severity of his condition, and will get you auditing you rather than
him.
Yet a pc can be in the odd position of not being able to see his
own mockups!
Nice. But its the same causal principle, a being can block out
anyone's mockups including his own. So if you can't get through to him,
its his fault, and if you can't get through to you, its your fault.
Not being able to see one's own mockups arises from the basic
causal equation we laid out above:
PURPOSE -> WORTHWHILE ORIGINATION OF COMMUNICATION -> MOCKUPS.
Turn it around and we get
NO MOCKUPS -> NO WORTHWHILE ORIGINATION OF COMMUNICATION -> NO
PURPOSE
So there we have the basic not know on the case and the basic
dicoms that need to be run.
NO PURPOSE - SOME PURPOSE
NO ORIGINATION - SOME ORIGINATION
NO MOCKUPS - SOME MOCKUPS
Loneliness by the way is simply having no reason to originate to
another, or to receive an origination from another.
Deeper, one can be alone amongst millions chattering away with you
forever, as long as no one is chattering about *PURPOSE*.
The minute purpose comes up, interest comes up, and interest means
no longer lonely, even if you are the only being who ever lived.
People who have lost their purpose, think they need others to have
purpose. That might be true at a practical level of doing something
about that purpose, but having purpose is something a being has alone
anyhow and gives him reason to be. Others are merely icing on the cake.
It is tempting to blame others for not being interested in your
originations, and that may well be, but believe me, if you could
originate a communication of worth, a REAL origination, they would
become just fascinated by you, and follow you around like a puppy dog
that just found a new friend.
Imagine you sitting in a huge beautiful plaza with thousands of
people crossing it every day, without one thing to say to anyone of them
for the rest of your life.
No reason to get up and move in any direction means no
communication terminals of worth in any direction.
Which means no purpose of worth in any direction.
Imagine sitting in a chair alone for a few hours and never once
having a single interesting thought occur to you. This can cause untold
panic in a being, who then feels he must DO something to get interested.
No, no interest means no purpose. Once purpose is recovered, you
CAN'T sit in a chair alone for an hour and not have so many interesting
thoughts you don't know what to do with them all.
Invisibility of original purpose, no mockups, dead silence on
everything of importance to both sides, and a substitute purpose that
strangles the being to death with every step he takes pursuing it, is
hell.
Remember as you run this process, purpose, origination and mockups,
one of the first mockups that will turn on with be infinite BLACKNESS
forever for free.
He has never seen this kind of blackness before and it will give
him the qualms.
Worse he can hallucinate anything he wants into that blackness, if
he thinks a growing spot of wriggling blackness is a bunch of spiders,
IT WILL TURN INTO THE WORST SPIDERS HE HAS EVER SEEN.
There is a mechanism behind this, its called doubt is self casting.
This is what happens.
The energetic black spot turns on and the pc goes "WHAT *IS* THAT?"
He's worried it might BE something, so he thinks "MAYBE ITS
SPIDERS!" Suddenly the black spot obliges him and starts to turn into
millions of writhing spiders, so the pc goes "OH MY GOD IT IS SPIDERS!"
and away we go.
He has to learn not to do this, it is energetic BLACKNESS period,
if he chills out about it, it will REMAIN just blackness.
Eventually it will turn into beautiful blackness and become his
friend again.
Worry about "WHAT IT IS", Whatsit, will turn it into whatever ugly
blackness he can conceive of, usually his worst fear.
Your pc is absolutely beyond trigger happy on mocking up things so
ugly they make him want to make nothing of everything forever.
So the minute he regains the ability to mockup anything at all,
that is what he will mockup.
When mockups first turn on, he will either get totally banal stuff
he has no clue where it came from and even less interest in it, except
that he can finally see something, and he will marvel at the clarity of
the colors and detail of objects in the picture.
Or it will be mockups of searing beauty.
Or it will be mockups of disaster or agony.
By disaster I mean he is dangling over the abyss, holding onto a
single branch by one hand, and the other end of the branch is not
connected to anything any more. That's where the mockup STARTS.
Talk about fear and the willies.
By agony, I mean take all the pain ever suffered across all people
and all time and all universes, and put it into one face blaming him for
it all. He will be very happy to mockup that face and never go near
mockups again.
You will know this has happened by the distinct sound of gulping.
As an auditor you had better be the Rock of Gilbralter at this
stage.
So say the pc suddenly opens up a picture of disaster, being
covered by spiders all over him.
Pc says "Oh my god you even have a spider crawling on your arm!"
Now you understand this isn't just any old spider, this is the
meanest nastiest BLACK spider there could be, and it has smaller spiders
all over it, and they have more spiders all over them. And they are ALL
just breeding and multiplying all over the place even as the pc watches
in horror.
You say "Oh yes, his name is Goober, he likes jokes, tell him jokes
until he laughs!"
All the spiders start laughing and they become a beautiful black
spot again peaceably.
Beautiful blackness runs smoothly in all directions, ugly blackness
is enturbulation, which is caused by worry about WHAT IT IS.
"Make it laugh, make it smile" will handle just about anything that
turns on.
The auditor must never allow the pc to take these visions
seriously, because they can out serious the pc right into the mental
ward.
ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT 'WHAT IS IT?' MAKES IT WORSE, BECAUSE THE
ONLY ANSWER IS ALWAYS THE SAME THING, SOMETHING SO UGLY IT WILL MAKE HIM
WANT TO MAKE NOTHING OUT OF EVERYTHING FOREVER.
And that is exactly what he is doing.
The blackness becomes what the pc fears most if he allows it to.
The pc's wondering what is in the blackness, allows the blackness
to tell HIM what is in it, and fear and doubt then become self casting.
That is why you can't ask a not isness case "What is it?"
The last time it started to open up on him and he asked "What is
it?" it made him want to make nothing out of everything, and that's what
an invisible or black V case is.
A black V case is someone who can't mockup anything or sees only
darkness. The 5 senses are sight, sound, touch, taste and smell, but
also includes emotion, effort, and motion among many other things that
can be mocked up.
One way to audit a black V case is to ask him
"What are you not mocking up?"
GOD DAMN FLUNK!
That would violate everything we have said in this posting, so run
instead,
"Not mockup something!"
The beauty of the process is he doesn't have to know WHAT he is not
mocking up before he not mocks it up, thus he can't lose by failing the
command, until his mockups turn on in spite of his efforts to turn them
off. But that's a win :)
But don't let him ask 'What am I not mocking up?' because then it
will turn on all kinds of terrible things he can't confront. He is just
certain that if he turns them on, he will never be able to turn them off
again.
So FIRST we get him ABLE to not mockup things, and once he is
stable KNOWINGLY not mocking up things, he can then let go a bit and
allow the stuff to turn on under his control.
And remember part of not mocking up something, is not knowing WHAT
you are not mocking up! Because if you know, even a little bit, what
you are not mocking up, you are in fact mocking it up a bit. In this
case enough to kill you and your body, or send the two of you to the
mental ward.
Pandora's Box has an odd kind of lid, you push once on it to close
it and it locks closed. You push it again, and it flies open, letting
everything out. Your pc is terrified to tears of this mechanism.
So now he CAN'T open the box, can't make any mockups of any kind,
good or bad, beacuse he dares not touch the lid again lest it open, and
he doesn't know what to do about it, and worse he has completely
forgotten how it works. He knows there is something he shouldn't do
lest he open the lid, but he no longer remembers that what he shouldn't
do is try to close it more, as that will open it for good!
The trick then is to get him to SIT on the lid, so the top unlocks,
but does not fly open, then he can let things out on HIS determinism,
slowly, one thing at a time, until it all turns beautiful again.
It takes an infinite feed back loop to turn an infinite knowing
being into a blind basket case.
He hates spiders, so he wonders if there are spiders in the
blackness, and so he starts to see spiders. He THINKS the spiders were
there before he wondered what was there, but in fact his wonder created
the spiders. Now that he believes the spiders are there, he is just
sure they are going to come eat him, so he runs away, but they are his
spiders, so they go with him, and he can't get away fast enough, for the
faster he runs, the faster they follow. And God, he just never knew
spiders had teeth that big...
That is what it takes to put a GodSoul in the looney bin.
A being can confront anything as long as he doesn't turn it against
himself by asking questions about it.
The *QUESTION ASKING*, the worrying about what it might be, is the
problem, and thus the QUESTION IS THE ANSWER.
The guy thinks the problem is the absence of an answer, but the
problem is in fact the presence of the question.
Chill out the question, chill out the need for an answer, and the
problem ceases and things return to a state of sovereign peace.
Wonder kills.
Terror is knowing by looking, "What is it?", being an effect.
Peace is looking by knowing, "It is.", being cause.
Cease the question, and the whole thing smooths out and runs out as
beautifull rather than enturbulated blackness.
Otherwise, the question turns the full power of the being against
himself, and so he can't win.
A being can lose utterly, this is how.
Not know is your friend.
True not know is self erasing because it is the perfect as-ising of
the not know originally added to the item one wanted to not know.
One can only keep not know around by pretending to try to know,
question asking.
Thus knowing not-knowing will always lead you to the truth in the
end.
In the end spiders are probably enemies and not natural opponents
to his goals, so too much attention on them is not needed. See
discussion below on enemies and natural opponents.
After the black will come white and color in a dizzying
kaleidoscopic array of frenzy.
Then scenes, motion and significance, usually of beauty and
disaster.
Most of it not even his. Nice, no need to go to the movies any
more.
Want to get scared silly, just close your eyes and relax.
Talk about pc interest, he will just want to turn it down, TOO MUCH
pc interest!
Not know is your friend at this stage, you can not know ANYTHING
you want for as long as you want.
In the presence of knowing not-knowing, ANYTHING will run out
smoothly.
Go "What's it?" and you are dead.
It is quite alright to let the lid off pandora's box SLOWLY by
sitting on it for a while while things crawl out.
So you start running:
Spot no purpose. Spot some purpose.
Sometimes a pc will say to you "Well I always wanted to be an
auditor, I want to help people!"
Bull. What would he do if everyone were clear?
The pc will hand you all kinds of 'get rid of goals', "A world
without insanity, criminality or war, now there's a star high goal,
yup!"
He can't touch putting something there, all he can conceive of is
getting rid of things.
He would be happy if only he could get rid of ...
Auditing that list is a deadly high crime.
Because guess what, if he can't PUT the bad things there, he can't
get rid of them either.
So you must never waste time on get rid of goals. They are all
precious solutions to deeper problems of putting things there in the
first place.
"Spot a no put there."
"Spot a put there."
"Spot no worthwhile origination."
"Spot some worthwhile origination."
An origination is a PUT THERE.
A worthwhile origination is a WORTHWHILE PUT THERE.
Happiness is engaging in WORTHWHILE PUT THERES.
You see, THAT will tear him up, and quiet him down, because all the
crap he has been putting there, that he has been complaining about are
things that he wants to UN PUT THERE, get rid of, and these aren't the
problem at all.
Now the question comes up, what about running enemies?
"Who or what is your worst enemy?
He will say "Oh I just hate it when my big brother picks on me."
Oh garbage, he loves that to pieces, it just totally keeps him from
thinking about anything real.
How about those asteroids coming into smash earth?
Remember your first monster feelings as a child?
The first time the toilet water came UP rather than went down!
Or how about that mountain out in the pacific that is about to
split and cause an 1800 foot tidal wave across the USA.
Or all the religious nut cases trying to get to heaven by sending
sinners to hell before their time, and who don't give a damn if they
leave the Earth growing green or glowing green?
But in the end enemies are things that shoot at you from the side
while you are driving on the road to Baghdad.
Every once in a while an enemy will occupy the FRONT of the road
and you can get so bogged down fighting the enemy that IT becomes your
basic purpose and total reason for living.
Getting to Baghdad becomes lost in the fray.
He will audit his ENEMIES all day long, because it is easier to
fight enemies and lose than confront why he has a problem with winning
and getting to where he was going in the first place.
Enemies are like spiders, the slightest doubt about your heading,
and suddenly things are shooting at you from all sides.
If you put too much attention on them, and slow down, they will get
ahead of you and STOP you.
Involvement with enemies is a SOLUTION to the problem of ARRIVING.
*GETTING* TO BAGHDAD had become a problem to him, so all the
enemies now in the way are a SOLUTION TO HIM because now he has a reason
he can't get there.
Thank God for all these enemies!
He has become so introverted on the original problem that he has
closed terminals with the enemies, and now all he can talk about is
"ain't it awful", namely all these enemies to the left, right and
center.
Part of it is a matter of size, the goal to get to Baghdad was
HUGE, as was the problem that resulted.
The enemies are just tiny swarms of dev-t, but now they look the
world to him because he had to get small in order to get introverted
enough to worry about them.
Dev-T means unnecessary developed traffic, detour.
He used to be bigger than his enemies, as big as the original goal,
but now he is smaller than his enemies, and the goal is GONE to him.
Fighting the enemy has BECOME the GOAL.
Ask him what happens when he wins?
"Oh that will be a relief, probably go home and get a job pushing
hamburgers."
?
WHAT HAPPENED TO GETTING TO BAGHDAD?
What happened to his original purpose?
You see?
Prime purposes have enemies, but most of these enemies are
sideliners throwing peanuts from the peanut gallery, they don't have the
same ontological status as the goal itself. One doesn't need enemies to
have a goal and to have fun with it.
Beware of people who think that life without enemies is no fun.
They will be bogged down doing NOTHING of import, but watch it when
they win against all their enemies, they will begin to create more
rather than get on with their original purpose.
They may be big enough to vanquish a few enemies along the way, but
they are no longer big enough to encompass their original goal let alone
remember it.
They win against their enemies and they get a kind of sad forlorn
'now what?' feeling.
Your average being is SO afraid of that forlorness that when they
come close to finishing off their last enemy, they won't. They will
mess up and lose, or go mercenary on other people's enemies, or start to
wrong target people who aren't enemies at all.
ANYTHING BUT HAVE NO ENEMIES ANY MORE.
They just can't say goodbye to that 'good fight'.
But the sorrow and loss is based on the feeling of smaller size and
having been vanquished oneself anyhow, because the original goal is
still too big to be re embraced.
This is in part why so many people got depressed after WW II ended,
and is common for vets coming home from war even if they won.
They are stuck in a NO ACTION point, underneath a much bigger
sphere of action of their original goal that was once theirs before they
got sidetracked into fighting enemies.
They just have to spot this, to fix it, with a little help from a
good auditor who can span big goals.
There will be NATURAL oppositions to your goals, mostly consisting
of MEST and it's inexorable move towards entropy.
MEST means Matter, Energy, Space and Time, the physical universe at
large.
Most games have NATURAL oppositions but they are always invited
opponents, not enemies per se.
The guy on the other side of the chess table is a natural opponent,
and shouldn't be confused with the guy on the side about to shoot you if
you come near winning. HE's an ENEMY.
The guy you are PLAYING against is an OPPONENT.
Enemies are dev-t, opponents are the fundamental fabric of the
game.
Enemies are sometimes fun to audit, and may lead back to the
original goal and its problem if the pc is all enmired in making enemies
into his basic purpose.
But get rid of goals are not good for people, there is no love in
them.
People HAVE to put something constructive there as natural
oppositions during normal game play in order to have fun, and without
fun, they eventually die themselves.
To clear the Invisible V case, bring him up to blazing blackness by
spotting no mockups, no worthwhile originations, and no purpose on all
dynamics.
If purposes won't run, try FALSE purposes, first.
NO FALSE PURPOSE
SOME FALSE PURPOSE
NO TRUE PURPOSE
SOME TRUE PURPOSE
Around and around, if you can't get them to read and run, your
meter is off.
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
Wed Jun 6 01:05:54 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul 20 21:39:45 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore508.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)
iD8DBQFVraLhURT1lqxE3HERAuFkAJ4iw374yDyASCK3qaysdOdM1Cnr+QCcCAyx
VJcJjvshkafCXnfskaD7Uqc=
=OGTX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE51 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SCIENTOLOGY AND EPISTOMOLOGY
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>How is scientology different from epistemology?
Epistomology: 1.) The division of philosophy that investigates the
nature and origin of knowledge. 2.) A theory of the nature of
Knowledge.
At its most basic levels Scientology is a *BRAND* of epistomology,
a specific theory of the nature and origin of knowledge.
It's basic catechism is:
The source of all things that are created is a Static. All things
that are created are Kinetics.
The static is a 'knowingness', an infinite potential knowledge
creator. Knowledge is kinetics, and knowledge about kinetics.
First created, is a signficance-free perception of color form, this
is a vanishing truth. Color forms are the kinetic objects you see
around you.
Second created, are add on significances that alter the perception
of the color form producing a persisting truth. This gives a 'What is
it?' to the color form.
Third created are further add on significances that contradict the
original ones producing a persisting falsehood.
The static itself is a knowingness, it has no knowledge as defined
in 1 2 and 3 above, it simply CAN operate with innate facility the
creating and destroying items in the 1 2 and 3 category.
The static has no innate knowledge, it only has the innate ability
to create knowledge.
The static 'knows how to create knowledge', it has no knowledge
itself until it creates some.
The static's knowingness is not a knowledge based knowingness, it
just knows how to do it! It is skill without thought.
At more practical levels of Scientology, Scn is a body of technique
and approach based on the above epistomological theory, that allows
beings to undo the process of creation and recover the native state
either in all or in part, and regain the ability to create further.
It is a science of how to undo the mess, based on how we got into
the mess. Mess = manifesting and persisting knowledge, both true and
false.
Scn tries to bring the static up from a state of not know about,
back into a state of know about and know.
'Science of knowing how to know' refers to this practical level of
recovery and enhancement of the ability to create knowledge, postulate
vanishing and persisting truths, and persisting falsehoods, and dis
create them later.
This process of creation by the static is called in the vernacular
'Questions and Answers'.
The static creates knowledge (Answers) out of whole cloth, then
covers them with alter-is and falsehoods and not-is, and this results in
not know and therefore Questions.
The static then plays the self created game of Question Asking and
Answering Questions.
The average person thinks that Questions come first, and Answers
second, but the above epistomology claims that Answers come first and
ignorance and Questions second. This is intentional and defines 'game'.
Thus Ron says Scn is the 'Science of knowing how to know Answers to
Questions.' - Phoenix Lectures
He also says 'The only aberration there is waiting for an Answer.'
- - Dianetics 55!
This of course makes no sense to the Question asker, but if you
look at it from the static point of view, the Answer came first, so why
is it asking Questions and then waiting for an Answer?
It CREATED the Answers as cause, so waiting for an Answer as effect
is kind of silly.
Again the term 'aberration' has a connotation of something bad,
something that oughtn't be, something that we could do with out, but in
this sense it IS the mechanism of static at play.
Thus by definition all games are 'aberrated'.
The efforts to answer questions and to question answers on the part
of the mind form part of that aberration.
Stilling the mind from all efforts to ask and answer questions,
and to question answers, is a powerful meditation exercise.
Doing this breaks the game and can return one to the static
state.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul 20 03:06:04 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore51.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)
iD8DBQFVrJ3cURT1lqxE3HERAuSRAKDPzsL9dNtKqAbfAoYLbjC1RTjj+ACgoJQo
IrKBLj/s5oa038uijat6Na0=
=Yxhj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SCIENTOLOGY AND EPISTOMOLOGY
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>How is scientology different from epistemology?
Epistomology: 1.) The division of philosophy that investigates the
nature and origin of knowledge. 2.) A theory of the nature of
Knowledge.
At its most basic levels Scientology is a *BRAND* of epistomology,
a specific theory of the nature and origin of knowledge.
It's basic catechism is:
The source of all things that are created is a Static. All things
that are created are Kinetics.
The static is a 'knowingness', an infinite potential knowledge
creator. Knowledge is kinetics, and knowledge about kinetics.
First created, is a signficance-free perception of color form, this
is a vanishing truth. Color forms are the kinetic objects you see
around you.
Second created, are add on significances that alter the perception
of the color form producing a persisting truth. This gives a 'What is
it?' to the color form.
Third created are further add on significances that contradict the
original ones producing a persisting falsehood.
The static itself is a knowingness, it has no knowledge as defined
in 1 2 and 3 above, it simply CAN operate with innate facility the
creating and destroying items in the 1 2 and 3 category.
The static has no innate knowledge, it only has the innate ability
to create knowledge.
The static 'knows how to create knowledge', it has no knowledge
itself until it creates some.
The static's knowingness is not a knowledge based knowingness, it
just knows how to do it! It is skill without thought.
At more practical levels of Scientology, Scn is a body of technique
and approach based on the above epistomological theory, that allows
beings to undo the process of creation and recover the native state
either in all or in part, and regain the ability to create further.
It is a science of how to undo the mess, based on how we got into
the mess. Mess = manifesting and persisting knowledge, both true and
false.
Scn tries to bring the static up from a state of not know about,
back into a state of know about and know.
'Science of knowing how to know' refers to this practical level of
recovery and enhancement of the ability to create knowledge, postulate
vanishing and persisting truths, and persisting falsehoods, and dis
create them later.
This process of creation by the static is called in the vernacular
'Questions and Answers'.
The static creates knowledge (Answers) out of whole cloth, then
covers them with alter-is and falsehoods and not-is, and this results in
not know and therefore Questions.
The static then plays the self created game of Question Asking and
Answering Questions.
The average person thinks that Questions come first, and Answers
second, but the above epistomology claims that Answers come first and
ignorance and Questions second. This is intentional and defines 'game'.
Thus Ron says Scn is the 'Science of knowing how to know Answers to
Questions.' - Phoenix Lectures
He also says 'The only aberration there is waiting for an Answer.'
- - Dianetics 55!
This of course makes no sense to the Question asker, but if you
look at it from the static point of view, the Answer came first, so why
is it asking Questions and then waiting for an Answer?
It CREATED the Answers as cause, so waiting for an Answer as effect
is kind of silly.
Again the term 'aberration' has a connotation of something bad,
something that oughtn't be, something that we could do with out, but in
this sense it IS the mechanism of static at play.
Thus by definition all games are 'aberrated'.
The efforts to answer questions and to question answers on the part
of the mind form part of that aberration.
Stilling the mind from all efforts to ask and answer questions,
and to question answers, is a powerful meditation exercise.
Doing this breaks the game and can return one to the static
state.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul 20 03:06:04 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore51.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)
iD8DBQFVrJ3cURT1lqxE3HERAuSRAKDPzsL9dNtKqAbfAoYLbjC1RTjj+ACgoJQo
IrKBLj/s5oa038uijat6Na0=
=Yxhj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE801 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ADORE vs SCIENTOLOGY
I gotta make a few comments here.
CANONICALIZATION OF AUDITING COMMANDS
What items you run is much more important than how you run them,
but using questions to run items is death.
Death, death, death.
For example who and what questions are rampant in Scientology, but
even Scientology offers different ways of running the same thing.
So rather than run "What did your mother do to you?" you could run
'Tell me something your mother did to you", which is a command, or
simply 'Spot something your mother did to you."
We call the 'Spot item' form of command the canonical form, as it
will always work, but there might be times when other forms might work
better or be more grammatically correct.
And if a preclear can't spot squat, use
"Get the idea of..."
Conceiving of things will brings all the memories forward you could
ever want and postulates and considerations.
Notice "Get the idea of" does NOT include an implicit "Tell me
about it..."
If he wants to tell you about it he will.
If you aren't sure whether the preclear is going to talk or not,
use the OK protocol, which means the auditor doesn't say anything until
the preclear says OK, meaning that's the end of that command cycle
whether the preclear said anything or not.
Auditor: Get the idea of a dog.
Prclear: OK
Auditor: Thank you
Auditor: Get the idea of a dog.
Preclear: God I hate dogs, oh yes yak yak. OK,
Auditor: Thank you.
QUESTIONS
The issue of questions in auditing is a serious matter, as the bank
runs on questions, they are the cylinders of the bank's car, and you
can't push one cylinder around without moving all (the trillions) of
other ones too.
Every time you ask a preclear 'What's the matter', well he's got a
trillion years of matter to hand you, all in deep failed question churn.
Who, how, what, where, when, why, which, is it, can it could it,
would it, should it, has it, will it, and does it, along with a lot
more.
Thus question asking about one item, restimulates ALL items there
ever were or ever will be at the core level of the big queetion answer
crank.
The ITEM does not cause the restim, the EFFORTS TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION do.
That's because heavy efforts to answer questions are common to all
items. It's the WANTING TO KNOW AND WANTNG TO NOT KNOW that drives the
bank. ANd he ain't got repsonsibility for either side of it.
The bank creators knew that truth seekers would be a problem,
eventually finding their way to clear, so they made sure that seeking,
searching, finding, looking for, discovering and question asking were
charged to the hilt.
Seeking, searching, finding, looking for and discovering ANSWERS is
the way to death.
Seeking, searching, finding, looking for and discovering QUESTIONS
is the way back to life.
* BUT NOT BY ASKING QUESTIONS! *
Don't you see?
Your preclear thinks that
Questions are the problem and answers are the solution.
The clear understands that
Answers are the problem, questions are the solution.
Thus even if the item is a proper item to be running, the amount of
charge stirred up by QUESTION ASKING will often swamp the amount of
charge coming off that item, and the preclear is worse for the wear.
Thus for any item, we first canonicalize it, then try to create a
form to run it in that is as far way from asking a question as possible.
We want auditing COMMANDS, not questions, always, always, always.
If the preclear can honestly say 'I don't know' to the auditing
command, then it is too close to a question.
The big joke here is we do not want to audit BY asking questinos,
you want to audit asking questions by NOT asking questions.
When it comes to auditing questions, asking questions is deadly,
because it just give the preclear another question!
Questions lead to losses in auditing every time the preclear
can't answer one.
"Aud: What dogs have you known?"
"PC: I don't know!"
"Aud: Get the idea of a dog."
"PC: Sure OK, that's easy."
The percentage of failed auditing cycles determines whether the
preclear blows charge or accumulates more than he blows because of the
failures.
Any failure of an auditing command is an incomplete cycle
and leads to wandering away if you don't get it completed, that's
called Q&A. Fail to go left, so you right instead. Bleccch.
Aud: "What question are you asking?"
PC: "I don't know."
Aud: Get the idea of asking a question.
PC: OK, got it.
Self auditing, or figure figure as LRH calls it, is mostly the
preclear asking questions of himself over and over, and is a deadly
waste of time, and not at all related to solo auditing where one is
trying to spot and erase the question asking altogether.
"Spot a question" might work, but it assumes the
preclear is able to see.
"Spot not being able to spot a question," might also work but it
makes the preclear go for the exact right question to release his case.
"Get the idea of asking a question." works marvelously.
Why not just create questions forever for free until he
is no longer stuck on the one he is trying to find and stop
asking.
Source has no answers and no questions.
If you can break the hold of questions and answers IN GENERAL on
the mind of the preclear, surely he will release from SPECIFIC questions
he hs been killing himself with for eons, you see?
The basic solo auditing program, if you wish to work on specific
items, is simply:
1.) Spot something of notice.
2.) Spot a question about that item.
Repeat 2 until no more, then go back to 1.
E/P: No questions, no answers. Wise. At peace.
As a reminder, complete canonicalization of an item would involve
both the NO and the SOME forms. Often the SOME won't run until the NO
runs first, and staying in sync is critical to really running the two
way flows out.
Spot NO item. (Pretended NO, not-ised)
Spot SOME item.
The preclear is never aberrated by a stuck one way flow, but by TWO
stuck one way flows, IS *AND* ISN'T.
So you will eventually find yourself running,
Spot NOT item AND SOME item at the same time.
"Spot NO AND SOME MOTHER."
"Spot LOVE AND HATE FOR MOTHER."
NOT KNOW.
LRH had a fantastic process that seems to be given little attention
in the Church standard line up, and which in fact should be run on the
Church itself by those having a problem with it.
Spot a condition or item and then run:
"What do or could you not know about that item."
First we canonicalize it to:
"Spot something you could or do not know about that item."
This is a rough one, because it offers a contradiction to the
preclear, how can he tell you something he doesn't know, if he doesn't
know it?
For example,
"Tell me something you could or don't know about your mother?"
Well if you don't know it, how can you tell it?
This process is NOT meant to find answers for you about your
mother, but to find QUESTIONS!
So the preclear may not know how old she is, but he can say
"I don't know how old she is."
"I don't know where she was born."
"I don't know if she was raped by her father."
But you see each of these are QUESTIONS in disguise.
"How old is she?"
"Where was she born?"
"Was she raped by her father?"
So why not approach the item directly simply by running
"Spot a question you have or could have about your mother."
This form runs exactly the same thing, gets right to the point, the
questions, and gets the preclear to not know the answers anyhow, BECAUSE
THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM OF MOTHER ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS HE HAS ASKED
AND FAILED TO ANSWER ABOUT HER.
Nothing will chill out a somatic faster than getting all the
questions off of it.
Spot a condition. Tell me a question you have about that
condition.
Remember the questions are a deceit, they are an effort to KEEP THE
SOMATIC AROUND by pretending to want to find out about it, so he can
PRETEND to do something about it.
A service facsimile is an excuse for not expressing a resentment by
asking a question. The E/P of running out the service fac is 'Operating
Solo Cool'. - Adore
It isn't necessary to find any answers to get better, it is only
necessary to spot the missed or bypassed questions that are causing the
persistence.
That's a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.
Once the preclear settles into this, he will suddenly be able to
spot and feel when his bank is convulsing with its fountain head of
question asking, even if he hasn't a clue what the question is. It will
be ALL his questions.
When this convulsing is chilled out, the bank will stop growing
more solid every living second the preclear is alive.
THE POWER PROCESSES
The Power process are merely running the top 3 items on the
Awareness Characteristic Chart, SOURCE, EXISTENCE and CONDITIONS.
Source is what is cause or not cause.
Existence is what is or what isn't.
And Conditions are how things are or are not causally connected or
conditional upon each other.
For example, a condition to getting across the river is to have a
bridge there. Or a condition to staying alive is being able to eat, and
a condition to being able to eat is to be able to hunt or grow food.
These causal necessaries to change existence from how it is to how
you might want it to be, form a web of 'travel' that the being must
causally walk to get from where he is to where he wants to be.
Thus conditions are not just more of existence, they are the
'barriers' of getting from one existence to another. The same barriers
that make up the freedoms, barriers and purposes of games.
So scientology runs Power Process 4 as
Spot a Source, Spot a not Source.
Well that's pretty close to canon isn't it?
We would run instead
Spot NO source. Spot SOME source.
Grammar isn't too important, as these ideas are beyond language and
words, but get the preclear running it however he feels comfortable with
the commands.
Scientology runs Power Process 5 as
What is? What isn't?
Flunk. Into the garbage pail you go.
Run it as:
Spot NO is. Spot SOME is.
Spot NO something. Spot SOME something.
Spot NO nothing. Spot SOME nothing.
Remember NO means PRETENDED NOTHING THERE.
Scientology runs power process 6 as
Spot an existing condition
Tell me how you handled it.
This is pretty close to canon, but misses the NO.
This also tends to confuse condition with UNWANTED existence, which
is not what it is meant to run, as condition is meant to be defined as
it is used on the awareness characteristic chart.
Spot NO condition, Spot SOME condition
Spot NO handle, Spot SOME handle
Spot NO problem, Spot SOME problem.
Spot NO solution, Spot SOME solution.
OK, now one last comment.
The power processes simply run the top 3 items of the
awareness characteristic chart.
Why keep it secret? You have already published the chart.
What else do you expect people to do with it except canonize it and
run it?
Why not run ALL the items on the chart the same way, using straight
auditing form?
Spot NO oblivion, Spot SOME oblivion
Spot NO criminality, Spot SOME criminality
If you really want power to be handled for good, run the whole
chart from bottom to top multiple times using NO and SOME.
That will give you a power clear like no one has seen before.
Here is the full awareness characteristic chart.
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/acc.memo
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 Sep 23 14:46:07 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jul 19 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore801.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)
iD8DBQFVq0xaURT1lqxE3HERAkIqAKCNIujSNRQmBpe8xx+K/qzJbqGu0ACdHnNw
zcE6AWgIXvGEOwvnFWHzsOc=
=2zF9
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Jul 21 20:33:11 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore801.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)
iD8DBQFVruTHURT1lqxE3HERAtOMAKDJI1q5nbY02gJlOqx7YdcDBnrNAwCeM5nd
dtefodQs8FVg1p1rky7CmkQ=
=aWkD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ADORE vs SCIENTOLOGY
I gotta make a few comments here.
CANONICALIZATION OF AUDITING COMMANDS
What items you run is much more important than how you run them,
but using questions to run items is death.
Death, death, death.
For example who and what questions are rampant in Scientology, but
even Scientology offers different ways of running the same thing.
So rather than run "What did your mother do to you?" you could run
'Tell me something your mother did to you", which is a command, or
simply 'Spot something your mother did to you."
We call the 'Spot item' form of command the canonical form, as it
will always work, but there might be times when other forms might work
better or be more grammatically correct.
And if a preclear can't spot squat, use
"Get the idea of..."
Conceiving of things will brings all the memories forward you could
ever want and postulates and considerations.
Notice "Get the idea of" does NOT include an implicit "Tell me
about it..."
If he wants to tell you about it he will.
If you aren't sure whether the preclear is going to talk or not,
use the OK protocol, which means the auditor doesn't say anything until
the preclear says OK, meaning that's the end of that command cycle
whether the preclear said anything or not.
Auditor: Get the idea of a dog.
Prclear: OK
Auditor: Thank you
Auditor: Get the idea of a dog.
Preclear: God I hate dogs, oh yes yak yak. OK,
Auditor: Thank you.
QUESTIONS
The issue of questions in auditing is a serious matter, as the bank
runs on questions, they are the cylinders of the bank's car, and you
can't push one cylinder around without moving all (the trillions) of
other ones too.
Every time you ask a preclear 'What's the matter', well he's got a
trillion years of matter to hand you, all in deep failed question churn.
Who, how, what, where, when, why, which, is it, can it could it,
would it, should it, has it, will it, and does it, along with a lot
more.
Thus question asking about one item, restimulates ALL items there
ever were or ever will be at the core level of the big queetion answer
crank.
The ITEM does not cause the restim, the EFFORTS TO ANSWER THE
QUESTION do.
That's because heavy efforts to answer questions are common to all
items. It's the WANTING TO KNOW AND WANTNG TO NOT KNOW that drives the
bank. ANd he ain't got repsonsibility for either side of it.
The bank creators knew that truth seekers would be a problem,
eventually finding their way to clear, so they made sure that seeking,
searching, finding, looking for, discovering and question asking were
charged to the hilt.
Seeking, searching, finding, looking for and discovering ANSWERS is
the way to death.
Seeking, searching, finding, looking for and discovering QUESTIONS
is the way back to life.
* BUT NOT BY ASKING QUESTIONS! *
Don't you see?
Your preclear thinks that
Questions are the problem and answers are the solution.
The clear understands that
Answers are the problem, questions are the solution.
Thus even if the item is a proper item to be running, the amount of
charge stirred up by QUESTION ASKING will often swamp the amount of
charge coming off that item, and the preclear is worse for the wear.
Thus for any item, we first canonicalize it, then try to create a
form to run it in that is as far way from asking a question as possible.
We want auditing COMMANDS, not questions, always, always, always.
If the preclear can honestly say 'I don't know' to the auditing
command, then it is too close to a question.
The big joke here is we do not want to audit BY asking questinos,
you want to audit asking questions by NOT asking questions.
When it comes to auditing questions, asking questions is deadly,
because it just give the preclear another question!
Questions lead to losses in auditing every time the preclear
can't answer one.
"Aud: What dogs have you known?"
"PC: I don't know!"
"Aud: Get the idea of a dog."
"PC: Sure OK, that's easy."
The percentage of failed auditing cycles determines whether the
preclear blows charge or accumulates more than he blows because of the
failures.
Any failure of an auditing command is an incomplete cycle
and leads to wandering away if you don't get it completed, that's
called Q&A. Fail to go left, so you right instead. Bleccch.
Aud: "What question are you asking?"
PC: "I don't know."
Aud: Get the idea of asking a question.
PC: OK, got it.
Self auditing, or figure figure as LRH calls it, is mostly the
preclear asking questions of himself over and over, and is a deadly
waste of time, and not at all related to solo auditing where one is
trying to spot and erase the question asking altogether.
"Spot a question" might work, but it assumes the
preclear is able to see.
"Spot not being able to spot a question," might also work but it
makes the preclear go for the exact right question to release his case.
"Get the idea of asking a question." works marvelously.
Why not just create questions forever for free until he
is no longer stuck on the one he is trying to find and stop
asking.
Source has no answers and no questions.
If you can break the hold of questions and answers IN GENERAL on
the mind of the preclear, surely he will release from SPECIFIC questions
he hs been killing himself with for eons, you see?
The basic solo auditing program, if you wish to work on specific
items, is simply:
1.) Spot something of notice.
2.) Spot a question about that item.
Repeat 2 until no more, then go back to 1.
E/P: No questions, no answers. Wise. At peace.
As a reminder, complete canonicalization of an item would involve
both the NO and the SOME forms. Often the SOME won't run until the NO
runs first, and staying in sync is critical to really running the two
way flows out.
Spot NO item. (Pretended NO, not-ised)
Spot SOME item.
The preclear is never aberrated by a stuck one way flow, but by TWO
stuck one way flows, IS *AND* ISN'T.
So you will eventually find yourself running,
Spot NOT item AND SOME item at the same time.
"Spot NO AND SOME MOTHER."
"Spot LOVE AND HATE FOR MOTHER."
NOT KNOW.
LRH had a fantastic process that seems to be given little attention
in the Church standard line up, and which in fact should be run on the
Church itself by those having a problem with it.
Spot a condition or item and then run:
"What do or could you not know about that item."
First we canonicalize it to:
"Spot something you could or do not know about that item."
This is a rough one, because it offers a contradiction to the
preclear, how can he tell you something he doesn't know, if he doesn't
know it?
For example,
"Tell me something you could or don't know about your mother?"
Well if you don't know it, how can you tell it?
This process is NOT meant to find answers for you about your
mother, but to find QUESTIONS!
So the preclear may not know how old she is, but he can say
"I don't know how old she is."
"I don't know where she was born."
"I don't know if she was raped by her father."
But you see each of these are QUESTIONS in disguise.
"How old is she?"
"Where was she born?"
"Was she raped by her father?"
So why not approach the item directly simply by running
"Spot a question you have or could have about your mother."
This form runs exactly the same thing, gets right to the point, the
questions, and gets the preclear to not know the answers anyhow, BECAUSE
THE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM OF MOTHER ARE ALL THE QUESTIONS HE HAS ASKED
AND FAILED TO ANSWER ABOUT HER.
Nothing will chill out a somatic faster than getting all the
questions off of it.
Spot a condition. Tell me a question you have about that
condition.
Remember the questions are a deceit, they are an effort to KEEP THE
SOMATIC AROUND by pretending to want to find out about it, so he can
PRETEND to do something about it.
A service facsimile is an excuse for not expressing a resentment by
asking a question. The E/P of running out the service fac is 'Operating
Solo Cool'. - Adore
It isn't necessary to find any answers to get better, it is only
necessary to spot the missed or bypassed questions that are causing the
persistence.
That's a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.
Once the preclear settles into this, he will suddenly be able to
spot and feel when his bank is convulsing with its fountain head of
question asking, even if he hasn't a clue what the question is. It will
be ALL his questions.
When this convulsing is chilled out, the bank will stop growing
more solid every living second the preclear is alive.
THE POWER PROCESSES
The Power process are merely running the top 3 items on the
Awareness Characteristic Chart, SOURCE, EXISTENCE and CONDITIONS.
Source is what is cause or not cause.
Existence is what is or what isn't.
And Conditions are how things are or are not causally connected or
conditional upon each other.
For example, a condition to getting across the river is to have a
bridge there. Or a condition to staying alive is being able to eat, and
a condition to being able to eat is to be able to hunt or grow food.
These causal necessaries to change existence from how it is to how
you might want it to be, form a web of 'travel' that the being must
causally walk to get from where he is to where he wants to be.
Thus conditions are not just more of existence, they are the
'barriers' of getting from one existence to another. The same barriers
that make up the freedoms, barriers and purposes of games.
So scientology runs Power Process 4 as
Spot a Source, Spot a not Source.
Well that's pretty close to canon isn't it?
We would run instead
Spot NO source. Spot SOME source.
Grammar isn't too important, as these ideas are beyond language and
words, but get the preclear running it however he feels comfortable with
the commands.
Scientology runs Power Process 5 as
What is? What isn't?
Flunk. Into the garbage pail you go.
Run it as:
Spot NO is. Spot SOME is.
Spot NO something. Spot SOME something.
Spot NO nothing. Spot SOME nothing.
Remember NO means PRETENDED NOTHING THERE.
Scientology runs power process 6 as
Spot an existing condition
Tell me how you handled it.
This is pretty close to canon, but misses the NO.
This also tends to confuse condition with UNWANTED existence, which
is not what it is meant to run, as condition is meant to be defined as
it is used on the awareness characteristic chart.
Spot NO condition, Spot SOME condition
Spot NO handle, Spot SOME handle
Spot NO problem, Spot SOME problem.
Spot NO solution, Spot SOME solution.
OK, now one last comment.
The power processes simply run the top 3 items of the
awareness characteristic chart.
Why keep it secret? You have already published the chart.
What else do you expect people to do with it except canonize it and
run it?
Why not run ALL the items on the chart the same way, using straight
auditing form?
Spot NO oblivion, Spot SOME oblivion
Spot NO criminality, Spot SOME criminality
If you really want power to be handled for good, run the whole
chart from bottom to top multiple times using NO and SOME.
That will give you a power clear like no one has seen before.
Here is the full awareness characteristic chart.
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/acc.memo
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 Sep 23 14:46:07 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jul 19 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore801.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)
iD8DBQFVq0xaURT1lqxE3HERAkIqAKCNIujSNRQmBpe8xx+K/qzJbqGu0ACdHnNw
zcE6AWgIXvGEOwvnFWHzsOc=
=2zF9
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Jul 21 20:33:11 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore801.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)
iD8DBQFVruTHURT1lqxE3HERAtOMAKDJI1q5nbY02gJlOqx7YdcDBnrNAwCeM5nd
dtefodQs8FVg1p1rky7CmkQ=
=aWkD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)