-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
COPS AND THE CONSTITUTION
Do not look to a cop to understand constitutional issues.
Cops work for the government who filters out those who can.
The government is fundamentally anti constitutional, they are
interested only in their own security and persistence through financial
gain and power for its own sake.
Thus the only part of 'constitution' the government understands is
a police state.
That makes cops feel warm and fuzzy inside because it implies job
security as long as they obey orders without question and gives them
their license to violence which they crave so deeply.
The government will claim that they need to protect and serve
themselves, at your expense and collateral damage, in order to protect
and serve you.
Thus we have peace and security through silence and compliance,
which is a corrupt government's one and only modus operandi for
appearing to serve the people when in fact it is serving itself at the
expense of the people.
At some point, when the people begin to question the government and
its level of collateral damage to person, property and rights, and
alternative governments begin to vie for attention promising less
collateral damage, the incumbent government will call them terrorists,
not because they terrorize the people, but because they terrorize THE
GOVERNMENT.
Understand this now.
Many times when somsone says they have to hurt you to help you
without your permission and at the point of a gun, they really want to
help themseves at your expense.
The definintion of evil is:
Saying something is good for you, when in fact it is good for THEM
and bad for you, and they know it.
Dig it and don't leave it.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Dec 27 07:06:01 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore973.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)
iD8DBQFYYlkpURT1lqxE3HERAhvdAKDEh2dkX4aAC1hByxqfCcxIKZYhQgCfchW3
pq2XjvYS0yNIJJn4ucwQjWI=
=TMzq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, December 27, 2016
exm29b.memo (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
((Editors Comments in double parentheses - Homer))
THE STORY OF ELECTRA
EXM - 29B
22 April 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
In August 1991 we had just come back from 100 hours of auditing
with Filbert. I was still just barely able to crawl across the floor
from my bed to the bathroom, to puke in the toilet, but I was doing
better in life and looking around to see what I could salvage of my
future.
Well being is often born of the rights of control over accumulated
havingness.
Havingness is ownership, and ownership is rights of control.
Thus one uses one's existing ownership of things and the inherent
rights of control over them to build more havingness and that way try to
assure a margin of survial in one's future.
Our present havingness looked like a town after a war, so I was
kicking smoldering embers in the rubble.
One of the things that happened was we bought a couple of personal
computers for our business and got connected to the internet sort of by
force of change at Cornell.
One day I was 'surfing' the alt.groups and purely by accident I
came across alt.religion.scientology. A jolt kind of went through my
spine, a mixture of fear, jealousy and excitement.
I got into scientology in 1973 first reading Hubbard full time
after school ended, then joined the Org in 1976, did a lot of course
work, training as an auditor and got lots of auditing as a preclear.
My life quickly went from ruin to disaster, so I left in 1978 and
spent that time until we went to Filbert in 1991 soloing and finding out
what was real for myself.
So finding alt.religion.scientology was a kind of coming home
again, and in trepidation I signed on and began to read what was there.
What I found was endless noise and bashing with hardly a defense by
the Church in sight. I really wanted to post something in return but I
was terrified out of my wits, not only of the Church, but also that all
my wog contacts that I worked with would finally find out I was a
Scientologist. I had managed to keep it a secret from them for 8 years,
and I was not prepared to ruin it now.
So I kept quiet and eventually signed off the list in disgust. It
was JUST bashers talking to each other. How sad.
A few months later, around November maybe, I signed back on to see
what was going on, and there was some discussion between bashers and
Churchies so at least someone was defending Scientology, but as usual
the Churchies were making greater asses of themselves than they were
worth.
But I continued to read, always one keystroke away from telling
these bashers where they could put it.
Then one day out of the blue came a posting from vfz@world.com or
some such thing, a clearly forged address. It was signed Electra, who
signed her e-mail Voice of the Free Zone, and to this day I remember
what she said.
She said (from memory),
"There are 3 kinds of people in the world.
Those that love Scientology and love the Church (Churchies).
Those that love Scientology and hate the Church (Free Zoners).
Those that hate Scientology and hate the Church (Bashers).
Which are you?"
I would add that there is a fourth group,
Those that hate Scientology and love the Church (Upper management)
Apparently Electra was posting anonymously via various 'outlaw'
backdoor methods that were well known to the internet community but were
sort of non trivial to implement. Her posting and method of entrance
electrified the entire atmosphere on the group and things have never
been the same since.
I want to go over just what Electra was doing in some detail
because it is important to the history of what happened and will also
give you some insight into the growth of more conventional anonymous
servers that everyone uses to this day.
Both mail and usenet news use special protocols to convey their
messages from machine to machine. Just like when you telnet to another
machine and logon using telnet protocols, machines can telnet to special
ports on other machines where rather than getting the familiar logon
prompt, they are presented with the mail or news server.
Mail works with a protocol called SMTP (Simple Mail Transport
Protocol) and news works with NNTP (Network News Transport Protocol.)
NNTP is not hard to use, the manuals documenting its various
commands and procedures are readily available and in fact any one can
telnet to various machines that take news and actually talk to that
machine's news server by hand if they know the right commands.
This is not something you are not supposed to know, its not even
stuff you are not supposed to use, in fact there is a group called
alt.forgery that is openly devoted to how to use the SMTP and NNTP
protocols to send and receive anonymous mail. It's called forgery in
the lingo because the usual way to send anonymous mail is to give the
receiving news server on the remote host a false header containing your
forged name and machine name including the message you want to send.
Since the machines that hand news back and forth do not check the
accuracy of the headers, anyone who knows how to talk SMTP directly to a
receiving machine can essentially hand it any message with anyone's
address in the header, and in fact people often do this as pranks or
malicious mischief. The most useful purpose it serves though is not to
come across as someone else to get them in trouble, but to create a
fictitious name and return address for yourself that no one can trace.
As I said learning how to do all this is no small feat, but a
number of shell scripts have been written that do all the work for you,
you just hand the script your message, and it links up to the NNTP port
of your nearest machine, creates a false header of your choice and sends
it. These are in common use in the alt.porn binaries groups where
people submit girlie (and not so girlie) pictures all the time using
anonymous headers.
Apparently Electra was well versed in all this and she used
Electra@vfz.anonymous to identify herself. I presume VFZ stood for A
Voice of the Free Zone.
You got to remember that this was long before anonymous servers
came into being that made anonymous mail easy, painless and available to
the masses, such as anon@penet.fi.
Although anyone could 'forge' an address using a direct connection
to an NNTP site, very few knew how to do it, so it was kind of a big
deal when something like this came across the net. It meant the person
posting anonymously was serious about what they were doing and probably
knowledgeable in the ways of the internet.
I am going to present a few more technical points for history's
sake and then we will get on with the rest of the story.
Most machines that act as NNTP sites, which means they are running
news servers and are available to receive news from other machines, also
have a list that details exactly which machines in the surrounding world
are allowed to give them news. This limits the number of machines that
can connect to them to feed them news. Most machines don't want to get
news from just anyone. So they have a list of who is allowed to connect
to them and if your machine isn't on that list it won't accept your
connection attempt.
As usual in the unix world, such things are often left in a default
state when the operating software is first installed and unless the
system administrator explicitly sets it to what he wants he will find
himself operating under the default state of the software.
The default state at that time was apparently for NNTP software
at that time to allow EVERYONE to post news to your machine.
I don't really know, there were a lot of open news servers at that
time that allowed anyone to post anything from anywhere.
The system administrator has to know about a special control file
that NNTP uses to limit who it is willing to receive news from, and he
must set it up to limit who can send his machine news. A lot of admins
either do not know about the file or they choose to ignore it figuring
it will never be any trouble to them.
Thus if you are a person who wants to post anonymously you have to
find a machine that will accept your effort to connect to its NNTP port.
Since MOST machines have their special files set up to limit who can
talk to them, it can be hard to find a machine whose NNTP ports are
still open to the whole world.
This kind of knowledge is so valuable in fact that those on
alt.forgery jealously guard this data in secret files that they only
share with others that they trust not to be a jerk about it. This is
because if too many people start to use an open NNTP site, they may
increase the load on the machine or otherwise piss off the sys admin
with inappropriate or even illegal postings and thus get that site's
NNTP port shut down to general use.
Now most of the time people don't complain about anonymous
postings, they WANT their porn to come on through on alt.porn, they WANT
the latest dirt on the Clinton's to come down on alt.dirt, so in fact
many machines have anonymous postings going through them all the time
and the sys admin never notices and never takes action to close down the
NNTP port. As long as people don't abuse the port, no one cares.
Other sys admins know damn well that anonymous postings are going
through their system and they leave the NNTP port open on purpose,
either because they believe in the principles of anonymous postings or
they want the porn too. THESE systems are the most valuable, because
even if someone complains to such a sys admin about anonymous postings
going through their system, he is likely to say "So what?" and tell them
to take a walk.
On the other hand a sys admin that is seriously worried about 'who
is posting what' through his site, can take steps to trace anon postings
coming through his machine once he knows to look for them, assuming that
more come through once he is alerted.
Each posting that comes across has a Path: line in its header that
shows the names of all the machines the posting has traversed to get to
you. Anyone reading a posting can check the Path: line to see where
that posting came from and how it got to your site.
The very last name in the line is the machine the posting was
originally sent FROM. The next to last name is the machine the posting
was sent TO, and the rest of the names convey the further machines the
posting was passed on to before it got to you. Since each machine that
gets a posting adds its name to the BEGINNING of the list, your own site
where you are reading the posting will be the first name in the Path:
header.
There is no way to forge the path line except for the very last
item which of course is the machine you are posting FROM. The machine
you are posting TO assumes that the person doing the posting is honest
and takes whatever name is handed it as the name of the machine being
posted FROM. So people make sure to hand over some non existent name,
and that way the original posting machine can not be traced.
However the machine that the person is posting TO puts its name
right there on the path line and that can't be changed or forged. So if
a forged posting comes in that they don't like, the first thing people
do is contact the sys admin at the machine that was posted TO and tell
him to start looking out for anon postings coming into his system.
If he chooses to pursue the matter he will get himself involved in
quite a lot of work.
He has to turn on special logging software that logs every
transaction coming into his machine, which often numbers in the tens of
thousands, and he has to search the postings one by one for the
anonymous name that the person is using assuming he isn't changing it
wildly every time.
If the sys admin catches the posting, he can easily see what
machine the person is SAYING they are posting from which is a forgery,
but he can also look at the exact packet data that will tell him the
actual machine it really is coming from. This all takes an enormous
amount of time and effort. He still won't know WHO is sending the data
though because that information is not contained in the packet data.
Once the posting has been fully received by his machine, the
original packet data is lost and if the logs are erased, the opportunity
for finding the name of the real machine it was posted from is lost, so
this really has to be done in real time.
In any case, he may never find out exactly WHO is sending the
posting, but if he can catch a posting coming in AS IT IS BEING POSTED,
he can know which machine it is being posted FROM, and then by
communicating with the sys admin of that machine he can find out who was
on at that time and who might be making such postings.
If the complaint against the anonymous poster is serious enough,
the sys admin of the sending machine can be talked into searching
through all the files of all users who were on at the time to see if he
can find the posting that was posted, which of course would locate who
posted it. There are also posting logs on the machine the posting was
posted from, and if the times in those logs match the times the posting
was received at the receiving machine, then it can be assumed that that
was the person who sent the posting.
People can and have been traced in this fashion, but its a LOT of
work for both sys admins and you really have to piss someone off to get
that kind of attention.
However tracing efforts do happen and if you are posting important
or controversial material you can get kind of worried about who is
trying to track you down.
For this reason people who are posting serious material often take
to changing, every couple of postings, which machine they are posting
TO, which makes it real hard for any particular sys admin to catch
postings coming in, because by the time they are alerted to watch for
them, the poster is already posting to another machine. The problem
however is FINDING such machines with open NNTP sites willing to take
postings from just anyone, because as time went on, they became rare and
far between. So constantly changing the machine you are posting TO is a
real pain.
Thus people who are worried about being traced usually don't get
into long winded communications with people, as every posting they make
opens the door to be traced if some sys admin is on the alert for them.
They post what they need, and they get the hell out of there and let
things cool off.
So it was within this highly charged atmosphere that Electra was
posting into a hot bed of natter and criticism from really vile, crass
and blitheringly mindless folks most of whom have left never to be heard
from again, thank God.
A few of these bashers however were incensed at Electra's
anonymity, they apparently considered it a threat to their personal
freedom. Electra explained in great detail, as you have seen in her
earlier postings, why she was posting anonymously, she explained the
dangers involved in criticizing the Church and her experiences with it,
but these few bashers just wouldn't have any of that, and they insisted
that she show herself or be branded a coward.
One of them went a bit further.
Somewhere just after Electra posted EXM-29, the following letter
arrived on a.r.s from one Nick Papadakis at MIT. He was the news admin
for a small site called mintaka at MIT university, and he had received a
private e-mail from one Scott Goehring, one of the more vocal bashers
attacking Electra.
Mr. Goehring in fact seemed, from the tone of his attacks on
Electra, to be almost hysterical, driven to distraction by Electra's
postings and anonymity. He just couldn't stand the fact that he
couldn't shut her up, and so he wrote all the news admins of the various
sites that Electra had used to post anonymously to, telling them their
news site was being abused by Electra's anonymous 'forgeries' and if
they were of a mind, they should do something about it.
You might ask how did Mr. Goehring find out which machines Electra
was posting to?
Although no one ever found out where Electra was posting FROM, it
was easy to tell where she was posting TO because that was contained as
the next to last machine named in the Path: header in the postings
themselves.
A typical path line would say
Path: lots of stuff ..... !mintaka!world.com
Electra was posting FROM world.com TO mintaka, which then passed it
on to endless numbers of other machines to get to the rest of the world.
World.com was a forgery and didn't exist, mintaka was quite real.
So anyone reading the posting could tell where she had posted TO,
and in fact some people originally thought that world.com was real too.
No doubt they tried to finger vfz@world.com to see who Electra really
was, and of course found out that world.com didn't exist.
They then complained about how they had been 'fooled' and how
cowardly, dishonest and deceitful Electra had been to use a pretend
name. There was a lot of indignant complaints about Electra's 'forged'
name and how she was trying to fool everyone etc. So she changed her
name to simply Electra@vfz.anonymous, a clearly non existent address, so
at least no one could complain about the treachery.
Electra explained very calmly that she had no intention of fooling
people or making them think her address was real, she explained very
carefully that she didn't want to 'forge' anyone else's name, or fool
anyone into thinking she was someone who wasn't, but only to use an
anonymous pen name for her own protection.
It turns out that the people who screamed and yelled the most
bitterly about how deceitful and underhanded Electra's anonymous
postings were, were the very people who had the most knowledge of
anonymous postings through their own involvement in alt.forgery! This I
checked out for myself.
Anyhow, Nick worked as the news admin at mintaka and received Mr.
Goehring's letter. He saw fit to respond to the letter and repost his
response plus Mr. Goehring's letter to the a.r.s. newsgroup publicly.
Now you have all read most of what Electra had posted to a.r.s,
because I have reposted it as EXM-1 through EXM-29. There may have been
some small exchanges that Electra chose to not send me for reposting,
but what I have reposted is pretty much what she originally put on the
net. You can judge for yourself whether Mr. Goehring's
description of her material fits it well.
Anyhow, Electra took all this in stride and a few weeks later she
posted 9 more postings in one day, probably to avoid giving the tracers
any time to catch her act. She posted them through mintaka as before
probably figuring that since Nick had stood up for her before it was
safe to continue posting through that site. She wrote a letter to Nick
thanking him for his strong stand for freedom of speech, which you will
read in EXM-30, and she called for the creation of a new news group
devoted to the Free Zone.
Nothing ever came of that call for the new group, and Electra was
never heard from again.
I personally checked the NNTP port at mintaka after Goehring's
letter was posted to the net and it was still open which meant that Nick
had decided to leave it open. And Electra did use it one more time in
her last 9 postings. But then I checked that same port again many
months later and it was closed. It is possible that the tracers had
gone above Nick's head to his bosses and gotten THEM to get Nick to
close the port.
The pressures towards silence in this universe are legion.
So that is Electra's story as I remember it and have been able to
piece it together. I kept Nick's letter for posterity, hoping someday
to be able to live up to what he had done for me. As I said Electra's
postings meant a lot to me, and Mr. Goehring's attitude and actions
incensed me no end, but there was little I could or was willing to do
about it at the time.
It was only a LONG time later that this little dream of Electra's
started to foment in my mind as I began to regain my strength and nerve
from my auditing, mostly of her material.
I remember making my first postings to a.r.s., practically scared
out of my wits, kind of pretending to not be myself, but using my own
name. When I lived through the week, my car didn't blow up, my house
wasn't bombed, I became more confident and started to post more on what
my real feelings were.
One day I received a floppy disk in the mail without a return
address. I opened it up and plugged it into my computer. It had the
Electra Material on it. There was no note, no instructions, no
explanation, no nothing, just the postings.
To my unconstrained joy I found that Electra HAD continued to write
after she had left off at EXM-38, (I thought she had been taken out by
the Church) and she had seen fit to send the whole series to me. I have
spent the time since reading and rereading them, studying them in every
detail, and auditing the hell out of the processes and concepts that she
gave me. The my entire auditing series called ADO-1 through ADO-10 came
directly from her material as I gradually made her material 'my own'.
After that though the little red disk sat on my desk for a LONG
time while I considered long and hard what the future of a chicken might
look like.
When I finally saw what was at the end of that trail, I saw I had a
job to do, and I did it.
The rest is history.
I couldn't have done it if the material hadn't worked.
Homer
Article 1359 of alt.religion.scientology
Newsgroups alt.religion.scientology
Path batcomputer!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-
state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!nntp!nick
From nick@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu (Nick Papadakis)
Subject An open letter to Electra, Mr. Goehring, and the readers of
this newsgroup
In-Reply-To Electra@vfz.anonymous's message of 27 Jan 92 231634 GMT
Message-ID <NICK.92Jan27214102@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu>
Followup-To alt.religion.scientology
Sender news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
References <27jan92-83791@vfz.anonymous>
Date Tue, 28 Jan 1992 024102 GMT
Lines 42
Hello. I am the system manager for the Laboratory for Computer
Science at MIT. I recently received the following message
> To usenet@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
> Subject forged postings originating at your site
> Date Mon, 27 Jan 92 091624 -0500
> From Mr. Goehring <goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
> There has been a recent spate of forged postings to
>alt.religion.scientology originating from your site. The poster in
>question is being belligerent and harassing. Since this same poster
>has also been forging postings from several other sites on the USENET,
>I thought I would bring the probably unauthorized use of your news
>system to your attention.
>
> I shall include the headers of the most recent article which
>appears to have been forged at your site for your reference.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Mr. Goehring
Mr. Goehring, I believe you need a short lesson in the operation
of free speech. I have no particular opinions on the subject of this
newsgroup, but I took the trouble to read some of the "belligerent and
harassing" postings of which you speak, and, frankly, they weren't.
It seems to me that your attempt to characterize them as such stems
from a desire to stifle ideas with which you disagree. I have no
intention of cooperating with you in this. The remedy for speech with
which you disagree is more speech, not a silencing (the rather low
signal-to-noise ratio on usenet notwithstanding).
If these postings offend you, I suggest you find out how "kill
files" work, rather than wasting the time of overworked system
administrators who aren't being underpaid to deal with this sort of
childishness.
- nick
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Dec 27 07:03:32 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm29b.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)
iD8DBQFYYliUURT1lqxE3HERAgMDAJ9uXQjvG+XaEcEo9vbUg1oB3BHPGwCffjmW
SH3d/7ARfyzq3R3JLUf91ro=
=MXvU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
((Editors Comments in double parentheses - Homer))
THE STORY OF ELECTRA
EXM - 29B
22 April 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
In August 1991 we had just come back from 100 hours of auditing
with Filbert. I was still just barely able to crawl across the floor
from my bed to the bathroom, to puke in the toilet, but I was doing
better in life and looking around to see what I could salvage of my
future.
Well being is often born of the rights of control over accumulated
havingness.
Havingness is ownership, and ownership is rights of control.
Thus one uses one's existing ownership of things and the inherent
rights of control over them to build more havingness and that way try to
assure a margin of survial in one's future.
Our present havingness looked like a town after a war, so I was
kicking smoldering embers in the rubble.
One of the things that happened was we bought a couple of personal
computers for our business and got connected to the internet sort of by
force of change at Cornell.
One day I was 'surfing' the alt.groups and purely by accident I
came across alt.religion.scientology. A jolt kind of went through my
spine, a mixture of fear, jealousy and excitement.
I got into scientology in 1973 first reading Hubbard full time
after school ended, then joined the Org in 1976, did a lot of course
work, training as an auditor and got lots of auditing as a preclear.
My life quickly went from ruin to disaster, so I left in 1978 and
spent that time until we went to Filbert in 1991 soloing and finding out
what was real for myself.
So finding alt.religion.scientology was a kind of coming home
again, and in trepidation I signed on and began to read what was there.
What I found was endless noise and bashing with hardly a defense by
the Church in sight. I really wanted to post something in return but I
was terrified out of my wits, not only of the Church, but also that all
my wog contacts that I worked with would finally find out I was a
Scientologist. I had managed to keep it a secret from them for 8 years,
and I was not prepared to ruin it now.
So I kept quiet and eventually signed off the list in disgust. It
was JUST bashers talking to each other. How sad.
A few months later, around November maybe, I signed back on to see
what was going on, and there was some discussion between bashers and
Churchies so at least someone was defending Scientology, but as usual
the Churchies were making greater asses of themselves than they were
worth.
But I continued to read, always one keystroke away from telling
these bashers where they could put it.
Then one day out of the blue came a posting from vfz@world.com or
some such thing, a clearly forged address. It was signed Electra, who
signed her e-mail Voice of the Free Zone, and to this day I remember
what she said.
She said (from memory),
"There are 3 kinds of people in the world.
Those that love Scientology and love the Church (Churchies).
Those that love Scientology and hate the Church (Free Zoners).
Those that hate Scientology and hate the Church (Bashers).
Which are you?"
I would add that there is a fourth group,
Those that hate Scientology and love the Church (Upper management)
Apparently Electra was posting anonymously via various 'outlaw'
backdoor methods that were well known to the internet community but were
sort of non trivial to implement. Her posting and method of entrance
electrified the entire atmosphere on the group and things have never
been the same since.
I want to go over just what Electra was doing in some detail
because it is important to the history of what happened and will also
give you some insight into the growth of more conventional anonymous
servers that everyone uses to this day.
Both mail and usenet news use special protocols to convey their
messages from machine to machine. Just like when you telnet to another
machine and logon using telnet protocols, machines can telnet to special
ports on other machines where rather than getting the familiar logon
prompt, they are presented with the mail or news server.
Mail works with a protocol called SMTP (Simple Mail Transport
Protocol) and news works with NNTP (Network News Transport Protocol.)
NNTP is not hard to use, the manuals documenting its various
commands and procedures are readily available and in fact any one can
telnet to various machines that take news and actually talk to that
machine's news server by hand if they know the right commands.
This is not something you are not supposed to know, its not even
stuff you are not supposed to use, in fact there is a group called
alt.forgery that is openly devoted to how to use the SMTP and NNTP
protocols to send and receive anonymous mail. It's called forgery in
the lingo because the usual way to send anonymous mail is to give the
receiving news server on the remote host a false header containing your
forged name and machine name including the message you want to send.
Since the machines that hand news back and forth do not check the
accuracy of the headers, anyone who knows how to talk SMTP directly to a
receiving machine can essentially hand it any message with anyone's
address in the header, and in fact people often do this as pranks or
malicious mischief. The most useful purpose it serves though is not to
come across as someone else to get them in trouble, but to create a
fictitious name and return address for yourself that no one can trace.
As I said learning how to do all this is no small feat, but a
number of shell scripts have been written that do all the work for you,
you just hand the script your message, and it links up to the NNTP port
of your nearest machine, creates a false header of your choice and sends
it. These are in common use in the alt.porn binaries groups where
people submit girlie (and not so girlie) pictures all the time using
anonymous headers.
Apparently Electra was well versed in all this and she used
Electra@vfz.anonymous to identify herself. I presume VFZ stood for A
Voice of the Free Zone.
You got to remember that this was long before anonymous servers
came into being that made anonymous mail easy, painless and available to
the masses, such as anon@penet.fi.
Although anyone could 'forge' an address using a direct connection
to an NNTP site, very few knew how to do it, so it was kind of a big
deal when something like this came across the net. It meant the person
posting anonymously was serious about what they were doing and probably
knowledgeable in the ways of the internet.
I am going to present a few more technical points for history's
sake and then we will get on with the rest of the story.
Most machines that act as NNTP sites, which means they are running
news servers and are available to receive news from other machines, also
have a list that details exactly which machines in the surrounding world
are allowed to give them news. This limits the number of machines that
can connect to them to feed them news. Most machines don't want to get
news from just anyone. So they have a list of who is allowed to connect
to them and if your machine isn't on that list it won't accept your
connection attempt.
As usual in the unix world, such things are often left in a default
state when the operating software is first installed and unless the
system administrator explicitly sets it to what he wants he will find
himself operating under the default state of the software.
The default state at that time was apparently for NNTP software
at that time to allow EVERYONE to post news to your machine.
I don't really know, there were a lot of open news servers at that
time that allowed anyone to post anything from anywhere.
The system administrator has to know about a special control file
that NNTP uses to limit who it is willing to receive news from, and he
must set it up to limit who can send his machine news. A lot of admins
either do not know about the file or they choose to ignore it figuring
it will never be any trouble to them.
Thus if you are a person who wants to post anonymously you have to
find a machine that will accept your effort to connect to its NNTP port.
Since MOST machines have their special files set up to limit who can
talk to them, it can be hard to find a machine whose NNTP ports are
still open to the whole world.
This kind of knowledge is so valuable in fact that those on
alt.forgery jealously guard this data in secret files that they only
share with others that they trust not to be a jerk about it. This is
because if too many people start to use an open NNTP site, they may
increase the load on the machine or otherwise piss off the sys admin
with inappropriate or even illegal postings and thus get that site's
NNTP port shut down to general use.
Now most of the time people don't complain about anonymous
postings, they WANT their porn to come on through on alt.porn, they WANT
the latest dirt on the Clinton's to come down on alt.dirt, so in fact
many machines have anonymous postings going through them all the time
and the sys admin never notices and never takes action to close down the
NNTP port. As long as people don't abuse the port, no one cares.
Other sys admins know damn well that anonymous postings are going
through their system and they leave the NNTP port open on purpose,
either because they believe in the principles of anonymous postings or
they want the porn too. THESE systems are the most valuable, because
even if someone complains to such a sys admin about anonymous postings
going through their system, he is likely to say "So what?" and tell them
to take a walk.
On the other hand a sys admin that is seriously worried about 'who
is posting what' through his site, can take steps to trace anon postings
coming through his machine once he knows to look for them, assuming that
more come through once he is alerted.
Each posting that comes across has a Path: line in its header that
shows the names of all the machines the posting has traversed to get to
you. Anyone reading a posting can check the Path: line to see where
that posting came from and how it got to your site.
The very last name in the line is the machine the posting was
originally sent FROM. The next to last name is the machine the posting
was sent TO, and the rest of the names convey the further machines the
posting was passed on to before it got to you. Since each machine that
gets a posting adds its name to the BEGINNING of the list, your own site
where you are reading the posting will be the first name in the Path:
header.
There is no way to forge the path line except for the very last
item which of course is the machine you are posting FROM. The machine
you are posting TO assumes that the person doing the posting is honest
and takes whatever name is handed it as the name of the machine being
posted FROM. So people make sure to hand over some non existent name,
and that way the original posting machine can not be traced.
However the machine that the person is posting TO puts its name
right there on the path line and that can't be changed or forged. So if
a forged posting comes in that they don't like, the first thing people
do is contact the sys admin at the machine that was posted TO and tell
him to start looking out for anon postings coming into his system.
If he chooses to pursue the matter he will get himself involved in
quite a lot of work.
He has to turn on special logging software that logs every
transaction coming into his machine, which often numbers in the tens of
thousands, and he has to search the postings one by one for the
anonymous name that the person is using assuming he isn't changing it
wildly every time.
If the sys admin catches the posting, he can easily see what
machine the person is SAYING they are posting from which is a forgery,
but he can also look at the exact packet data that will tell him the
actual machine it really is coming from. This all takes an enormous
amount of time and effort. He still won't know WHO is sending the data
though because that information is not contained in the packet data.
Once the posting has been fully received by his machine, the
original packet data is lost and if the logs are erased, the opportunity
for finding the name of the real machine it was posted from is lost, so
this really has to be done in real time.
In any case, he may never find out exactly WHO is sending the
posting, but if he can catch a posting coming in AS IT IS BEING POSTED,
he can know which machine it is being posted FROM, and then by
communicating with the sys admin of that machine he can find out who was
on at that time and who might be making such postings.
If the complaint against the anonymous poster is serious enough,
the sys admin of the sending machine can be talked into searching
through all the files of all users who were on at the time to see if he
can find the posting that was posted, which of course would locate who
posted it. There are also posting logs on the machine the posting was
posted from, and if the times in those logs match the times the posting
was received at the receiving machine, then it can be assumed that that
was the person who sent the posting.
People can and have been traced in this fashion, but its a LOT of
work for both sys admins and you really have to piss someone off to get
that kind of attention.
However tracing efforts do happen and if you are posting important
or controversial material you can get kind of worried about who is
trying to track you down.
For this reason people who are posting serious material often take
to changing, every couple of postings, which machine they are posting
TO, which makes it real hard for any particular sys admin to catch
postings coming in, because by the time they are alerted to watch for
them, the poster is already posting to another machine. The problem
however is FINDING such machines with open NNTP sites willing to take
postings from just anyone, because as time went on, they became rare and
far between. So constantly changing the machine you are posting TO is a
real pain.
Thus people who are worried about being traced usually don't get
into long winded communications with people, as every posting they make
opens the door to be traced if some sys admin is on the alert for them.
They post what they need, and they get the hell out of there and let
things cool off.
So it was within this highly charged atmosphere that Electra was
posting into a hot bed of natter and criticism from really vile, crass
and blitheringly mindless folks most of whom have left never to be heard
from again, thank God.
A few of these bashers however were incensed at Electra's
anonymity, they apparently considered it a threat to their personal
freedom. Electra explained in great detail, as you have seen in her
earlier postings, why she was posting anonymously, she explained the
dangers involved in criticizing the Church and her experiences with it,
but these few bashers just wouldn't have any of that, and they insisted
that she show herself or be branded a coward.
One of them went a bit further.
Somewhere just after Electra posted EXM-29, the following letter
arrived on a.r.s from one Nick Papadakis at MIT. He was the news admin
for a small site called mintaka at MIT university, and he had received a
private e-mail from one Scott Goehring, one of the more vocal bashers
attacking Electra.
Mr. Goehring in fact seemed, from the tone of his attacks on
Electra, to be almost hysterical, driven to distraction by Electra's
postings and anonymity. He just couldn't stand the fact that he
couldn't shut her up, and so he wrote all the news admins of the various
sites that Electra had used to post anonymously to, telling them their
news site was being abused by Electra's anonymous 'forgeries' and if
they were of a mind, they should do something about it.
You might ask how did Mr. Goehring find out which machines Electra
was posting to?
Although no one ever found out where Electra was posting FROM, it
was easy to tell where she was posting TO because that was contained as
the next to last machine named in the Path: header in the postings
themselves.
A typical path line would say
Path: lots of stuff ..... !mintaka!world.com
Electra was posting FROM world.com TO mintaka, which then passed it
on to endless numbers of other machines to get to the rest of the world.
World.com was a forgery and didn't exist, mintaka was quite real.
So anyone reading the posting could tell where she had posted TO,
and in fact some people originally thought that world.com was real too.
No doubt they tried to finger vfz@world.com to see who Electra really
was, and of course found out that world.com didn't exist.
They then complained about how they had been 'fooled' and how
cowardly, dishonest and deceitful Electra had been to use a pretend
name. There was a lot of indignant complaints about Electra's 'forged'
name and how she was trying to fool everyone etc. So she changed her
name to simply Electra@vfz.anonymous, a clearly non existent address, so
at least no one could complain about the treachery.
Electra explained very calmly that she had no intention of fooling
people or making them think her address was real, she explained very
carefully that she didn't want to 'forge' anyone else's name, or fool
anyone into thinking she was someone who wasn't, but only to use an
anonymous pen name for her own protection.
It turns out that the people who screamed and yelled the most
bitterly about how deceitful and underhanded Electra's anonymous
postings were, were the very people who had the most knowledge of
anonymous postings through their own involvement in alt.forgery! This I
checked out for myself.
Anyhow, Nick worked as the news admin at mintaka and received Mr.
Goehring's letter. He saw fit to respond to the letter and repost his
response plus Mr. Goehring's letter to the a.r.s. newsgroup publicly.
Now you have all read most of what Electra had posted to a.r.s,
because I have reposted it as EXM-1 through EXM-29. There may have been
some small exchanges that Electra chose to not send me for reposting,
but what I have reposted is pretty much what she originally put on the
net. You can judge for yourself whether Mr. Goehring's
description of her material fits it well.
Anyhow, Electra took all this in stride and a few weeks later she
posted 9 more postings in one day, probably to avoid giving the tracers
any time to catch her act. She posted them through mintaka as before
probably figuring that since Nick had stood up for her before it was
safe to continue posting through that site. She wrote a letter to Nick
thanking him for his strong stand for freedom of speech, which you will
read in EXM-30, and she called for the creation of a new news group
devoted to the Free Zone.
Nothing ever came of that call for the new group, and Electra was
never heard from again.
I personally checked the NNTP port at mintaka after Goehring's
letter was posted to the net and it was still open which meant that Nick
had decided to leave it open. And Electra did use it one more time in
her last 9 postings. But then I checked that same port again many
months later and it was closed. It is possible that the tracers had
gone above Nick's head to his bosses and gotten THEM to get Nick to
close the port.
The pressures towards silence in this universe are legion.
So that is Electra's story as I remember it and have been able to
piece it together. I kept Nick's letter for posterity, hoping someday
to be able to live up to what he had done for me. As I said Electra's
postings meant a lot to me, and Mr. Goehring's attitude and actions
incensed me no end, but there was little I could or was willing to do
about it at the time.
It was only a LONG time later that this little dream of Electra's
started to foment in my mind as I began to regain my strength and nerve
from my auditing, mostly of her material.
I remember making my first postings to a.r.s., practically scared
out of my wits, kind of pretending to not be myself, but using my own
name. When I lived through the week, my car didn't blow up, my house
wasn't bombed, I became more confident and started to post more on what
my real feelings were.
One day I received a floppy disk in the mail without a return
address. I opened it up and plugged it into my computer. It had the
Electra Material on it. There was no note, no instructions, no
explanation, no nothing, just the postings.
To my unconstrained joy I found that Electra HAD continued to write
after she had left off at EXM-38, (I thought she had been taken out by
the Church) and she had seen fit to send the whole series to me. I have
spent the time since reading and rereading them, studying them in every
detail, and auditing the hell out of the processes and concepts that she
gave me. The my entire auditing series called ADO-1 through ADO-10 came
directly from her material as I gradually made her material 'my own'.
After that though the little red disk sat on my desk for a LONG
time while I considered long and hard what the future of a chicken might
look like.
When I finally saw what was at the end of that trail, I saw I had a
job to do, and I did it.
The rest is history.
I couldn't have done it if the material hadn't worked.
Homer
Article 1359 of alt.religion.scientology
Newsgroups alt.religion.scientology
Path batcomputer!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-
state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!nntp!nick
From nick@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu (Nick Papadakis)
Subject An open letter to Electra, Mr. Goehring, and the readers of
this newsgroup
In-Reply-To Electra@vfz.anonymous's message of 27 Jan 92 231634 GMT
Message-ID <NICK.92Jan27214102@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu>
Followup-To alt.religion.scientology
Sender news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
References <27jan92-83791@vfz.anonymous>
Date Tue, 28 Jan 1992 024102 GMT
Lines 42
Hello. I am the system manager for the Laboratory for Computer
Science at MIT. I recently received the following message
> To usenet@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
> Subject forged postings originating at your site
> Date Mon, 27 Jan 92 091624 -0500
> From Mr. Goehring <goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
> There has been a recent spate of forged postings to
>alt.religion.scientology originating from your site. The poster in
>question is being belligerent and harassing. Since this same poster
>has also been forging postings from several other sites on the USENET,
>I thought I would bring the probably unauthorized use of your news
>system to your attention.
>
> I shall include the headers of the most recent article which
>appears to have been forged at your site for your reference.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Mr. Goehring
Mr. Goehring, I believe you need a short lesson in the operation
of free speech. I have no particular opinions on the subject of this
newsgroup, but I took the trouble to read some of the "belligerent and
harassing" postings of which you speak, and, frankly, they weren't.
It seems to me that your attempt to characterize them as such stems
from a desire to stifle ideas with which you disagree. I have no
intention of cooperating with you in this. The remedy for speech with
which you disagree is more speech, not a silencing (the rather low
signal-to-noise ratio on usenet notwithstanding).
If these postings offend you, I suggest you find out how "kill
files" work, rather than wasting the time of overworked system
administrators who aren't being underpaid to deal with this sort of
childishness.
- nick
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Dec 27 07:03:32 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm29b.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)
iD8DBQFYYliUURT1lqxE3HERAgMDAJ9uXQjvG+XaEcEo9vbUg1oB3BHPGwCffjmW
SH3d/7ARfyzq3R3JLUf91ro=
=MXvU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE973 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
COPS AND THE CONSTITUTION
Do not look to a cop to understand constitutional issues.
Cops work for the government who filters out those who can.
The government is fundamentally anti constitutional, they are
interested only in their own security and persistence through financial
gain and power for its own sake.
Thus the only part of 'constitution' the government understands is
a police state.
That makes cops feel warm and fuzzy inside because it implies job
security as long as they obey orders without question and gives them
their license to violence which they crave so deeply.
The government will claim that they need to protect and serve
themselves, at your expense and collateral damage, in order to protect and
serve you.
Thus we have peace and security through silence and compliance,
which is a corrupt government's one and only modus operandi for
appearing to serve the people when in fact it is serving itself at the
expense of the people.
At some point, when the people begin to question the government and
its level of collateral damage to person, property and rights, and
alternative governments begin to vie for attention promising less
collateral damage, the incumbent government will call them terrorists,
not because they terrorize the people, but because they terrorize THE
GOVERNMENT.
Understand this now.
Man times when somsone says they have to hurt you to help you
without your permission and at the point of a gun, they really want to
help themseves at your expense.
The definintion of evil is:
Saying something is good for you, when in fact it is good for THEM
and bad for you, and they know it.
Dig it and don't leave it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Aug 5 14:19:20 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 26 12:06:03 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore973.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)
iD8DBQFYYU37URT1lqxE3HERAsUGAJ9hi2oRDktuFB9pw8XiTP+V0JgD9ACgy+3F
KoqD/e5A8CRWFTl4ZNyPH8Q=
=2qZB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
COPS AND THE CONSTITUTION
Do not look to a cop to understand constitutional issues.
Cops work for the government who filters out those who can.
The government is fundamentally anti constitutional, they are
interested only in their own security and persistence through financial
gain and power for its own sake.
Thus the only part of 'constitution' the government understands is
a police state.
That makes cops feel warm and fuzzy inside because it implies job
security as long as they obey orders without question and gives them
their license to violence which they crave so deeply.
The government will claim that they need to protect and serve
themselves, at your expense and collateral damage, in order to protect and
serve you.
Thus we have peace and security through silence and compliance,
which is a corrupt government's one and only modus operandi for
appearing to serve the people when in fact it is serving itself at the
expense of the people.
At some point, when the people begin to question the government and
its level of collateral damage to person, property and rights, and
alternative governments begin to vie for attention promising less
collateral damage, the incumbent government will call them terrorists,
not because they terrorize the people, but because they terrorize THE
GOVERNMENT.
Understand this now.
Man times when somsone says they have to hurt you to help you
without your permission and at the point of a gun, they really want to
help themseves at your expense.
The definintion of evil is:
Saying something is good for you, when in fact it is good for THEM
and bad for you, and they know it.
Dig it and don't leave it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Aug 5 14:19:20 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 26 12:06:03 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore973.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)
iD8DBQFYYU37URT1lqxE3HERAsUGAJ9hi2oRDktuFB9pw8XiTP+V0JgD9ACgy+3F
KoqD/e5A8CRWFTl4ZNyPH8Q=
=2qZB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 26, 2016
ADORE237 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
HANDLE and NOT HANDLE
"What would you like to handle in your life?"
"What would you like to not handle in your life?"
List it dry, take reads, note VGI items, let them add to it as
session/sessions proceed, handle per taste.
If list or case does not change across sessions, find a religion that
works.
Homer
PS. Things have changed over time, what questions have fallen into
bad repute as they crunch the whole bank which is built on questions and
answers, usually wrong ones. The preclear misses the questions which
ARE the answers to themselves.
One might change the above to
Get the idea of
"Handling something in your life."
"NOT Handling something in our life."
"Failing to handle something in your life."
"Faliing to NOT handle something in your life."
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 ====================
Sun Dec 25 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore237.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)
iD8DBQFYX/x7URT1lqxE3HERAj9qAJ0U4MFsCTFXRgP24xCeZZlauZ2yiwCdFQNX
QB3DZJXhABUDzNiJ1zJclps=
=cfMg
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Dec 26 03:35:06 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore237.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)
iD8DBQFYYNY7URT1lqxE3HERAj4KAJ0VsBJ4S2Hj+Zu0LV1k+ObmYsTJgwCeN1mI
U8PjCaCpR28VaqwV4OnOs1A=
=jF/P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
HANDLE and NOT HANDLE
"What would you like to handle in your life?"
"What would you like to not handle in your life?"
List it dry, take reads, note VGI items, let them add to it as
session/sessions proceed, handle per taste.
If list or case does not change across sessions, find a religion that
works.
Homer
PS. Things have changed over time, what questions have fallen into
bad repute as they crunch the whole bank which is built on questions and
answers, usually wrong ones. The preclear misses the questions which
ARE the answers to themselves.
One might change the above to
Get the idea of
"Handling something in your life."
"NOT Handling something in our life."
"Failing to handle something in your life."
"Faliing to NOT handle something in your life."
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 ====================
Sun Dec 25 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore237.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)
iD8DBQFYX/x7URT1lqxE3HERAj9qAJ0U4MFsCTFXRgP24xCeZZlauZ2yiwCdFQNX
QB3DZJXhABUDzNiJ1zJclps=
=cfMg
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Dec 26 03:35:06 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore237.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)
iD8DBQFYYNY7URT1lqxE3HERAj4KAJ0VsBJ4S2Hj+Zu0LV1k+ObmYsTJgwCeN1mI
U8PjCaCpR28VaqwV4OnOs1A=
=jF/P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE386 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHEN DUTY CALLS
The issue of auditor 'altitude' and comparable magnitude to the
preclear have come up.
I don't need a 'big' being to audit me, but I do need a being who
knows what they are doing, which I guess means has handled this thing in
himself.
It might even be ok if he hadn't, but was auditing under a C/S who
had.
I finally decided that LRH hadn't handled it, nor had anyone else I
knew, so at that moment I felt the blind were leading the blind, only I
knew I was blind and they thought they saw, so there was little hope
amongst that crowd.
Later I realized that even amongst the good auditors, they just had
no clue because of lack of experience of the state I was in.
Most good auditors I have known have never been here, they haven't
a clue where I am, let alone how to get me out of it.
The good auditor is supposed to audit the preclear in front of
them, and not some imagined case, but if the auditor has never been
where the preclear has been, then it becomes a monumental job for the
preclear to get the auditor to mockup that level of demise.
There are preclear's that auditing has never reached, we call them
inaccessible, SP's, dog preclear's etc, but basically they are simply
super charged meatballs. They KNOW you haven't handled it, no matter
WHO you are, and they know you aren't going to be able to handle them.
And most of them are down in 'there is nothing to handle anyhow'.
Then there are preclear's that are easy to audit, they have past
life recall, have known almost since birth that this is not their only
life, their whole case state is almost insignificantly charged compared
to the mortal meat case.
In fact most of their charge is ABOUT the mortal meat cases they
had to grow up with.
Now me I am half way in between the two, a mortal meat case that
knows analytically that it was all a lie, but has been unable to touch
any of the charge on that lie even after thousands of hours in the
Church, in the freezone and solo.
Perhaps that is why I frustrate the rest of you so much, because I
seem accessible enough, I at least understand the principles and can
rant them back at you along with the best of them, but at the end of the
day the TA is 6.5, and I am still solid as a rock. And if you ever
tried to make a rock breath, you might get some idea of what this body
is like. It doesn't FORGET to breath, it takes HEAVY EFFORT to MAKE it
breath, and the chronic pain and nausea are ever present.
Now except for the assholes like Muldoon and Phil who really don't
seem to have a clue, from my point of view the rest of you are good
intentioned but glib.
Your depth of understanding is sufficient to your own survival and
the survival of those many preclear's you have helped, but is not
sufficient to handle the mortal meat case, including me.
The things you say help, although sometimes I am tempted to scream
"would someone please say something new", but it is good to hear
agreement, particularly on Alan's black core cases which most people
seem to want to gloss over.
The black by the way covers something...
At the end of the day, a preclear who is in trouble with life has
an upset with ability. And it isn't necessarily HUMAN ability, because
that which became human surely was not human to begin with.
That may be hard for the theetie wheeties but the more one looks
into one's self, the more one doesn't want to go there.
Ability has become a problem to him, and then a withhold. The
withhold is that he is able! That he can! And maybe has.
Perhaps his ability ended up in horror or disaster for others,
either intentionally or unintentionally. Life tends to recruit ability
to evil ends particularly when people are engaged in the game of wars.
Oppenheimer when he first saw the atomic bomb go off said "God what
have we wrought". He was a Jew working against the Nazis and he knew
the Nazis were working on the bomb too. So the game was afoot, the race
to who got it first and along with it the rights to survival.
But then when the hydrogen bomb came along, he didn't want anything
to do with it. He had seen something, been surprised by the enormity of
what he had wrought, and this put him into a moral conflict.
This resulted in all his friends turning against him, calling him a
commie sympathizer because he was aiding the enemy by not working on the
bomb, and eventually he lost his clearance and status in the physics
community.
Was it wrong to not want to help build the H bomb? Well the
russians were building it you see, and the first to have it would have
world domination and so those who could help against the Russians should
help, but Oppie didn't want to help any more because he was sick at
heart from it all and so he had a conflict.
A being can answer this situation by saying, screw it, next life
time I am coming back so stupid, fat and ugly the army will throw me in
jail first before they put me on the battle field let alone a think
tank.
The computation that those that who can do, should do, leads to
conflicts when duty calls, and the being decides, probably incorrectly,
to drop out by becoming unable. The solution becomes can't do, never
could do.
Does Oppie really want to be remembered as the being who got the
A-bomb in time to kill a million Japs? At what point in a war do we
consider that a million Japs are worth more a million Americans?
Wouldn't most people easily answer that one American was worth more than
a million of the enemy?
Surely blowing away even a few million Japs would be worth saving
just a few thousand American lives, the Japs started the god damn war
after all, right?
So what's the problem, build the bomb already.
Well down deep, and particularly for Oppie who was a Hindu, he
could feel the High-US tearing apart over which it was going to be, Jap
or American. Both were beings to him.
Yes without the bomb that might mean the end of the free world, but
with the bomb, that might definitely mean the end of the world entirely.
And that still may be the case.
So a being, entirely and totally without doing anything 'wrong',
can yet get into a terrible moral conflict with life and ability just
and only because he has ability. His solution then is to not have
abiliity, and never want to think about it again, and certainly not let
anyone else know who or what he was, lest they come and recruit him
again, '...but the enemy of the free world might get it first!'
"If you're not with us, you're against us!"
At first he tries to justify his apparent overts of ability, then
he tries to restrain them, and eventually ends up both justifying and
restraining them which leads to the physical feeling of hysteria.
Now trying to undo this is not an 'Oh Posh' kind of game.
"come on down to Dallas, 10 hours and we get you all cleaned up."
After THOUSANDS of hours of failing at this, you can see such
claims might be met with some more hysteria at the invalidation of prior
personal effort,
The being is very serious about being unable lest you recruit him
into your cause.
Yet there he is dying, the efforts to become unable are enough to
kill the Russian Army let alone his one poor body.
So what are you going to do?
No clue, but I will tell you something.
First you have to make it safe for him to be able again.
Safe even to KNOW what ability is under duress, and safe to have it
back again, and able to withhold it from everyone else no matter what
their need or plans for its use.
Are you up to that job?
"Get over it, whimp" won't cut it.
Homer
Thu Sep 7 02:42:33 EDT 2006
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Dec 26 03:28:51 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore386.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)
iD8DBQFYYNTDURT1lqxE3HERAkW8AJwKFVM9XlsivBNhMzyvvvVvxsfXCQCeKJEX
+GgE64Ml0iHc1G6G1ZalR1c=
=7hw8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WHEN DUTY CALLS
The issue of auditor 'altitude' and comparable magnitude to the
preclear have come up.
I don't need a 'big' being to audit me, but I do need a being who
knows what they are doing, which I guess means has handled this thing in
himself.
It might even be ok if he hadn't, but was auditing under a C/S who
had.
I finally decided that LRH hadn't handled it, nor had anyone else I
knew, so at that moment I felt the blind were leading the blind, only I
knew I was blind and they thought they saw, so there was little hope
amongst that crowd.
Later I realized that even amongst the good auditors, they just had
no clue because of lack of experience of the state I was in.
Most good auditors I have known have never been here, they haven't
a clue where I am, let alone how to get me out of it.
The good auditor is supposed to audit the preclear in front of
them, and not some imagined case, but if the auditor has never been
where the preclear has been, then it becomes a monumental job for the
preclear to get the auditor to mockup that level of demise.
There are preclear's that auditing has never reached, we call them
inaccessible, SP's, dog preclear's etc, but basically they are simply
super charged meatballs. They KNOW you haven't handled it, no matter
WHO you are, and they know you aren't going to be able to handle them.
And most of them are down in 'there is nothing to handle anyhow'.
Then there are preclear's that are easy to audit, they have past
life recall, have known almost since birth that this is not their only
life, their whole case state is almost insignificantly charged compared
to the mortal meat case.
In fact most of their charge is ABOUT the mortal meat cases they
had to grow up with.
Now me I am half way in between the two, a mortal meat case that
knows analytically that it was all a lie, but has been unable to touch
any of the charge on that lie even after thousands of hours in the
Church, in the freezone and solo.
Perhaps that is why I frustrate the rest of you so much, because I
seem accessible enough, I at least understand the principles and can
rant them back at you along with the best of them, but at the end of the
day the TA is 6.5, and I am still solid as a rock. And if you ever
tried to make a rock breath, you might get some idea of what this body
is like. It doesn't FORGET to breath, it takes HEAVY EFFORT to MAKE it
breath, and the chronic pain and nausea are ever present.
Now except for the assholes like Muldoon and Phil who really don't
seem to have a clue, from my point of view the rest of you are good
intentioned but glib.
Your depth of understanding is sufficient to your own survival and
the survival of those many preclear's you have helped, but is not
sufficient to handle the mortal meat case, including me.
The things you say help, although sometimes I am tempted to scream
"would someone please say something new", but it is good to hear
agreement, particularly on Alan's black core cases which most people
seem to want to gloss over.
The black by the way covers something...
At the end of the day, a preclear who is in trouble with life has
an upset with ability. And it isn't necessarily HUMAN ability, because
that which became human surely was not human to begin with.
That may be hard for the theetie wheeties but the more one looks
into one's self, the more one doesn't want to go there.
Ability has become a problem to him, and then a withhold. The
withhold is that he is able! That he can! And maybe has.
Perhaps his ability ended up in horror or disaster for others,
either intentionally or unintentionally. Life tends to recruit ability
to evil ends particularly when people are engaged in the game of wars.
Oppenheimer when he first saw the atomic bomb go off said "God what
have we wrought". He was a Jew working against the Nazis and he knew
the Nazis were working on the bomb too. So the game was afoot, the race
to who got it first and along with it the rights to survival.
But then when the hydrogen bomb came along, he didn't want anything
to do with it. He had seen something, been surprised by the enormity of
what he had wrought, and this put him into a moral conflict.
This resulted in all his friends turning against him, calling him a
commie sympathizer because he was aiding the enemy by not working on the
bomb, and eventually he lost his clearance and status in the physics
community.
Was it wrong to not want to help build the H bomb? Well the
russians were building it you see, and the first to have it would have
world domination and so those who could help against the Russians should
help, but Oppie didn't want to help any more because he was sick at
heart from it all and so he had a conflict.
A being can answer this situation by saying, screw it, next life
time I am coming back so stupid, fat and ugly the army will throw me in
jail first before they put me on the battle field let alone a think
tank.
The computation that those that who can do, should do, leads to
conflicts when duty calls, and the being decides, probably incorrectly,
to drop out by becoming unable. The solution becomes can't do, never
could do.
Does Oppie really want to be remembered as the being who got the
A-bomb in time to kill a million Japs? At what point in a war do we
consider that a million Japs are worth more a million Americans?
Wouldn't most people easily answer that one American was worth more than
a million of the enemy?
Surely blowing away even a few million Japs would be worth saving
just a few thousand American lives, the Japs started the god damn war
after all, right?
So what's the problem, build the bomb already.
Well down deep, and particularly for Oppie who was a Hindu, he
could feel the High-US tearing apart over which it was going to be, Jap
or American. Both were beings to him.
Yes without the bomb that might mean the end of the free world, but
with the bomb, that might definitely mean the end of the world entirely.
And that still may be the case.
So a being, entirely and totally without doing anything 'wrong',
can yet get into a terrible moral conflict with life and ability just
and only because he has ability. His solution then is to not have
abiliity, and never want to think about it again, and certainly not let
anyone else know who or what he was, lest they come and recruit him
again, '...but the enemy of the free world might get it first!'
"If you're not with us, you're against us!"
At first he tries to justify his apparent overts of ability, then
he tries to restrain them, and eventually ends up both justifying and
restraining them which leads to the physical feeling of hysteria.
Now trying to undo this is not an 'Oh Posh' kind of game.
"come on down to Dallas, 10 hours and we get you all cleaned up."
After THOUSANDS of hours of failing at this, you can see such
claims might be met with some more hysteria at the invalidation of prior
personal effort,
The being is very serious about being unable lest you recruit him
into your cause.
Yet there he is dying, the efforts to become unable are enough to
kill the Russian Army let alone his one poor body.
So what are you going to do?
No clue, but I will tell you something.
First you have to make it safe for him to be able again.
Safe even to KNOW what ability is under duress, and safe to have it
back again, and able to withhold it from everyone else no matter what
their need or plans for its use.
Are you up to that job?
"Get over it, whimp" won't cut it.
Homer
Thu Sep 7 02:42:33 EDT 2006
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Dec 26 03:28:51 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore386.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)
iD8DBQFYYNTDURT1lqxE3HERAkW8AJwKFVM9XlsivBNhMzyvvvVvxsfXCQCeKJEX
+GgE64Ml0iHc1G6G1ZalR1c=
=7hw8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, December 25, 2016
VISION AND MISSION
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
VISION AND MISSION
This is long, please read the whole thing, but read it in parts.
Take a break, read it across a few days with a few donuts inbetween.
It will probably change your life.
Homer
VISION AND MISSION
Every business must have strong vision and mission statements in
order to survive.
Without these no one knows in the general sense what they are
producing or why. Life and work are more than the immediate widget in
front of your nose.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VISION AND MISSION?
Take the example of the young man who decides to become a Green
Beret.
One day he is sent on a mission to recover a kidnapped girl and her
scientist father and to kill the terrorists who are intending to use the
father's secret formula to destroy the world.
When that mission is over, he is then sent on another mission, and
another and another. These missions can be and usually are very
different.
Did he join the military because he wanted to save that particular
girl and father, no of course not, he didn't even know about them.
So why did he join the military?
Well that was part of his vision, perhaps 'To make the world safe
for democracy.'
GENERAL VISIONS AND SUB VISIONS
"To make the world safe for democracy' would be a specific sub
vision, above that would be a more general vision, something like 'the
world living in peace and prosperity and no longer living in terror.'
And above that would be the most general vision of all, long term
survival for the greatest good for the greatest number, which is common
to everyone who is sane.
By survival we do not mean mere survival or hand to mouth
subsistence, for that is not survival and those living on the edge that
way do not survive for long.
Things can never stay the same, so a person is either expanding in
their affluence of survival or contracting. Contraction is not long
term survival either, so by survival we mean expanding long term
affluence for self and for others. Affluence of survival is necessary
to provide margin of safety during downturns, but what is sufficient and
comfortable affluence will depend on the being involved and the size of
his goals and his commitments to life and those that depend on him.
Thus to survive means to prosper and flourish relative to the needs
of the being and everyone he cares about, which underneath is everyone.
THE VISION -> MISSION TREE
Missions are derived from visions and the various existing
'situations' that one is suffering in present time.
A 'situation' is the furthest deviation from an ideal scene.
An ideal scene is how you would like the world to be.
Thus visions trickle down into sub visions which give rise to
overall missions which finally give rise to micro missions, specific
orders to DO something right now to get something done.
This trickle down forms an upside down inverted tree with SURVIVE at
the top at the main trunk, and the myriad ways we could all be surviving
better form the branches leading down from the top, and the missions that
arise out of these main branches then are the leaves at the bottom of the
tree. (It's an upside down tree!)
For example even for the soldier, there are many ways to 'bring
peace and prosperity to a world without terror' that have nothing to do
with joining the military. In fact all these other ways to accomplish
this vision are necessary to the final outcome and none of them are
sufficient alone.
Thus it may be true that 'having a strong military' is a necessary
goal to bringing peace to the world, but so is 'having enough to eat for
everyone'. But the soldier doesn't know anything about growing food, so
that's not up his alley. But he knows a lot about having a strong
military, and he ENJOYS being part of making it so, so he chooses that
branch of the vision-mission tree to guide his life all the while
encouraging everyone else to engage their own branch of the
vision-mission tree.
So the geneticist who is trying to make golden rice with vitamin A
already in it and the soldier who is trying to knock off the terrorists,
are BOTH working for the exact same vision 'a world of peace, prosperity
and without terror' but through completely different mission ways.
VISIONS OF THE WORLD
Vision statements right below the absolute top level of long term
survival, are of the form
"A BETTER WORLD THROUGH..."
Everyone walking around has an idea of their ideal scene, of what
they would like the world to be.
If you were to get people to write down every single thing they
could think of for a better world and compare them all, you would find
almost 100 percent agreement with some exceptions.
More interesting if Joe wrote one thing, and Sue another, both
would agree with the other's goals too, and quickly add them into their
own list.
Let's take some concrete examples.
Almost everyone would agree that 'A world without war, criminality
or insanity' would be a good thing. That happens to be the vision
statement of a Church I know. Notice it is a sub vision, one of the
main branches coming down from survive or greatest long term good for
the greatest number.
A world without hunger would probably be an another one.
A world without disease, or barring that with affordable medical
care for all would be another.
A world where everyone was educated, 'no child left behind' is in
fact a vision statement of one such group working towards this end.
A world where there was social justice, that includes no religious,
racial or ethnic bigotry or racism, and equal opportunity for all to
take advantage of, according to their God given abilities.
Ability consists of a triangle of passion, talent and honed skills.
Passion and talent we are born with, honed skills come from experience
operating passion and talent :)
Without all three, a person is dead in the water and becomes just so
much dead weight on the productiveness of the rest of society. He eats
what others produce.
Thus attention needs to be paid to each and every being to make
sure they 'flower' properly so they can operate at their maximum
potential. Societies with 'green thumbs' do better than those that
suppress, oppress, and repress creativity and the ability triangle.
Social justice includes human rights for both adults and children
and even for animals.
Then there are the subjects of politics and markets. Politics is
the process by which people design a society, and in particular the
markets of that society, as without sow and reap, buy and sell, there is
no society. As we shall see the needs of politics are sometimes opposed
to and outweigh the desires of markets, so we need to be very careful
not to sacrifice the needs of politics to the desires of markets, lest
the social planners end up in a police state run by market criminals.
Then there are basic freedoms, freedom to think and speak, freedom
to congregate, freedom to privacy, freedom to practice religion, freedom
to vote, and freedom to bear and carry arms in case some wise acre
thinks he is going to get rid of the first 5.
So there are a lot of situations in the world today that need a lot
of hard work.
Let's summarize the various highest level visions that a person
might have, and you should take the time now to add any of your own that
might have been left out and if you have a chance see if you can get
agreement on them from others.
Vision statement:
"A better world through..."
1.) No WAR
2.) No CRIMINALITY
3.) No INSANITY
4.) FOOD AND SHELTER
5.) PHYSICAL HEALTH
6.) MENTAL HEALTH
7.) EDUCATION
7.) SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR ADULTS, CHILDREN AND ANIMALS
8.) FREEDOM TO THINK SPEAK AND CONGREGATE SAFELY
9.) FREEDOM TO PRIVACY
10.) FREEDOM TO PRACTICE RELIGION
11.) FREEDOM TO VOTE
12.) FREEDOM TO SELF DEFENSE
13.) FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN POLITICS AND MARKETS"
14.) many many more...
DISAGREEMENTS
You will find as you walk this planet that there will be people,
sometimes lots of people, that will strongly disagree with your estimate
of what a better world might look like.
For example vast areas of the globe believe that the freedoms to
engage in capitalism (a market) is not showing 'love of the people', and
they will fight you to the death to get rid of you.
CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM
Although capitalism is often associated with democracy, and communism
is associated with tyranny, we need to keep political systems and economic
systems separated in our minds in order to understand government and
business.
Democracy and tyranny are two forms of POLITICS (government),
along with monarchies, oligarchies, kingships, and other forms of rule.
Capitalism, socialism, and communism are forms of MARKETS, how we
consume, produce, buy and sell.
It is quite possible for a communism to be a democracy, and a
capitalism to be a tyranny.
For example in a true democracy a person is welcome to vote for the
communist party, as long as the communist sticks to market issues, and
doesn't try to undermine the DEMOCRACY OF VOTING otherwise he is a
tyrant commie rather than a democratic one.
You see?
OK, so what is the basic difference between a capitalism and a
communism?. This is important, because if you are going to start a
business of your own, you are being a capitalist for the duration of
that business.
The basic difference lies in the following questions.
1.) What are you going to produce?
2.) Who are you going to sell it to?
3.) How much are you going to charge for it.
4.) WHO is going to produce it?
5.) WHO gets to own the rights of control over the profits?
In a capitalism you make those decisions.
In a communism someone else makes those decisions for you, a
centrally planned committee that oversees all production, and sale of
products.
A communism believes that a very few, very bright minds, can
determine all the GLOBAL actions of a market as defined in those three
questions above.
A capitalism believes that no single mind can handle the global
equations, and thus the problem must be distributed to each and every
local entrepreneur to make those decisions for himself.
In an ideal communism, all property belongs to the state, which
then becomes the Grand Business of the country, and everyone else is an
employee of the state.
Everyone is paid according to their need, and everyone is expected
to produce as much as they can. 'From each according to his ability,
and to each according to his need.'
Since your need is about 3000 calories a day, that's what you get,
and you work all day long for love of the people.
The downside is you don't own anything that is truly yours, and the
upside is you get your 3000 calories whether or not you produce
anything. That means you can fail and continue on, because you are
protected from Darwinian selection by the Committee. You get paid for
trying, not succeeding. Of course if you don't try, they will take you
out back and shoot you.
In a capitalism you get to keep what you own as yours.
By OWNERSHIP we mean the rights to control.
Thus you take out a loan, you invent toilet paper, you sell to
millions of people at a penny a roll, you pay back your loan, and you
get to keep the rest as YOURS.
That's the upside.
The downside is, if people don't like your toilet paper because it
sticks to their butt, you don't sell any, the bank forecloses on your
means of production and you are left with nothing.
There is no one to take you out back to end your misery, except
Darwinian starvation.
This, by the way, is one reason why we have politics, no one wants
to support a welfare state, but everyone wants a safety net, so you find
that the optimum market is actually a mixture of of capitalism,
socialism and communism, although few will agree to that.
Politics is where people argue it out.
DISAGREEMENTS AGAIN.
OK, so let's get back to disagreements with your vision of an ideal
scene again.
WAR. Some people think that war is good for the planet, it prunes
the population, it makes people work under dire necessity to find better
ways of doing things, knowledge about how the physical universe works
increases exponentially etc. Most of the computer technology you use
today came out of World War II, as did the interest in radar and
encryption. Although we use encryption for commercial transactions, it
was actually developed by people concerned for national security. And
even when things are invented in the civilian arena, the military gets
interested in it very fast and pours millions of dollars into it. If
you think Intel and the Military have no interest in each other you
should think again.
In fact one can argue that if the planet were so wealthy that
everyone could just eat and sit around all day long, people would become
like the Eloi in 'The Time Machine', friendly, peaceable, but totally
unable to defend themselves. Thus they become easy targets for those
that would enslave or eat them as the case may be.
Thus you will find people who don't actually want a world without
war, they want a world with OPTIMUM WAR, just enough to keep us all on
our toes and letting necessity be the mother of invention, but not
enough to destroy the place. Besides how is an honest arms dealer going
to turn a profit if there is no war?
Others would argue there are things to fight besides each other,
like that asteroid coming in towards Earth etc, but the arms dealers
like the short term profits of feeding lies and weapons to both sides.
SOCIAL JUSTICE. It would be hard to imagine anyone against social
justice, but when you get into justice for animals, which they sorely
need, you will run into people who want the whole world to be
vegetarian. So expect some rancor.
Anyhow I am sure you get the point, the vision held by the greatest
number is the one that has the greatest chance of survival, but don't be
surprised if a backrunner comes forward and takes over, particularly if
YOU are the one who wants the forerunner.
THE MISSION STATEMENT
The mission statement is derived from your vision statement.
To make this clear, I am going to give a very specific example from
our own lives, Lightlink Internet.
When dealing with visions and vision statements you are dealing
with global ideals, desires and goals that you can share with anyone.
You WANT everyone to know your vision statement.
Vision statements are goals for the future state of mankind, final
ideal scenes of the form
"A better world through..."
When you start to move into specific mission statements, you are
dealing with your personal enjoyment, feelings, abilities and
involvement in those higher visions, passions, talents and honed skills.
Mission statements are present time actions and short term goals
directed at the long term future vision.
Everyone can agree on 'peace on earth', but if you are a soldier
rescuing the girl, you might find it hard relating to others about the
sweet sound of the breaking of a terrorist's neck. To you it is heaven,
to others, well...
Thus mission statements have to be made in such a way that they
reflect the higher visions from which they came so as to maintain,
affinity, agreement and communication with everyone else. You do want
them to buy your product, even if your monthly stat is 'number of
terrorist necks broken'.
Thus to understand Lightlink's mission statement, to some degree
you have to understand me personally.
HOMER WILSON SMITH
I like, others, long for a better world.
I came from a highly regarded, almost famous, medical family, my
father was a leading researcher and teacher in the field of human
physiology. My mother was a nurse who worked at Oak Ridge during the
development of the atomic bomb.
Thus my childhood was full of chemistry, physics, electronics,
motors, explosives, geology, glow in the dark things, math, music and
orange juice, milk and corn flakes.
But alas I did not have an academic mind, not even a musical mind,
although I can and do all of the above things with great trouble.
I had the mind of a philosopher, and my main interests were
was the philosophies behind religion, science, art, business and
government.
I saw a world going to hell in atomic war in the 1st grade, Kennedy
and Kruschev were going at in the 5th grade, and Kennedy was killed in
the 6th.
I saw that Russia and America hated each other at the government
level, mostly born of insane paranoia and no communication.
But I had a Russian Nanny, and later after my parents died in 5th
grade, I had Jewish foster parents, and I saw that people were people.
It just wasn't true that the peasant on the farm in Russia was hateful
or fearful of an American capitalist, except maybe for the propaganda
that the government fed them about our tendency towards preemptive
nuclear strikes, born of WW II.
What I saw was a tremendous lack of FREE communication between the
people of the planet.
By free I do not mean no money, I mean free from suppression,
moderation, prohibition etc.,
At the time, there was not much choice, we had radio, we had news
papers, the first black and white TV's, I watched Felix the Cat, but not
even the President had a clue what was up in Russia, they were still
using AMBASSADORS to communicate between Kennedy and Kruschev.
That's nuts don't you see?
I went to Cornell in 1969 as a student in Electrical Engineering.
Now EE is an interesting subject because it spans theoretical physics at
one end, and hard core things like phones, radios, TV's and cell phones
at the other.
Of course EE can also be used to make bombs and guidance systems
for their delivery, but at the height of the Vietnam War in the early
70's I had little interest in that branch of the vision tree.
Too many being killed, too many insane at the helm on all sides,
too many making money off the insanity, and not enough free
communication of the truth.
TV started to change that, we saw not only the count of the Vietnam
dead, but the dead themselves every night for dinner. This changed how
people thought of the war. It is a never ending disgrace that it took
SEEING war to change how people THOUGHT about war, but there it is.
Later in the 80's, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the revolt at
Tiananmen Square were directly influenced by FAX machines, because now
people could write up what they thought, and get it to many many people
all at once compared to how it had been before.
When free communication can travel between people faster than
the police state can move, the police state has little chance to
take hold or stay in power.
As more people were able to talk to more people on all sides of the
walls, the walls started to come down. Rather than pointing guns at
each other, they started to point advertisements at each other, to come
visit and have lunch on their side of the bridge (true story).
So an important law was learned, in the presence of communication,
affinity and agreement go up which results in market trade, which
results in peace and prosperity, and in the absence of communication,
affinity and agreement go down until a point of war is started.
Now communication is one part of the highest level of visions
written above, namely freedom to think, speak and congregate.
Prior to the 80's most communication was one way, namely the owners
of the newspapers, radios, TV's or their advertisers pushing their
pablum message to us.
Once people could start talking freely to EACH OTHER in mass
communication, then the world changed forever for the better.
POLITICS, MARKETS AND COMMUNICATION
So to understand me better, we need to go back to politics, markets
and communication.
A society is a collection of people engaged in survival, sow and
reap cycles, and the markets that arise from them. Thus we could say
that society IS the markets that are spawned by the people trying to
survive.
Those markets consist of religion, science, art and business.
Religion is creation, science is discovery, art is expression, and
business is trade, where the rubber meets the road so to speak, and
where the coin meets the table.
You could also throw government in there, which is the ultimate
manager of the markets and the governor of the mint.
Society is designed by the 'body politic' which are the members of
the designing committee. In a free society the body politic is
everyone.
A free society is the one that everyone wants to be in, unless they
do not desire any personal responsibility for how things turn out.
Usually if you look at the border between two countries, the vast
majority of foot prints in the mud will be going towards the freer of
the two societies. A balance of trade in footsteps means both societies
are doing pretty well, unless the footsteps are being dragged one way.
In order for the body politic to function and design their society,
people need to be able to communicate with each other in order to
express their ideal scenes, views, concerns, problems and solutions.
AND THEY MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO SO WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
For example in any group of people trying to form a society, many
will be capitalistic and others will be communistic. Sometimes the
arguments can get heated to a point of war.
Capitalists for example don't like being told that everything they
make must be put in a central lot to be given away to first in liners.
First in liners for a hand out tend to be the least productive of
return on investment in them, because they are busy waiting in line
rather than working.
If you are brighter and more valuable to society than someone else,
produce more, consume less, you deserve to be rewarded by the natural
affluence of the return on your production.
YOU sow, YOU reap. Get it?
Or if your market bent is communism, then its
WE sow, WE reap.
But never should it be
I sow, THEY reap, nor
THEY sow, I reap.
For example, say you are an native Indian in a forest, and you
discover how to make a boat out of chopping a big tree trunk into the
shape of a boat. No one else can do this as well as you, and soon a
line is forming bidding for your services, and you end up with a great
big pile of wampum as a result.
Those that buy your boat, catch more fish, then have more
money to pay you for bigger and better boats.
Good invention amplifies the return on sow and reap cycles, and the
inventor is worthy of his hire.
Then some big guys come around and tell you that you need to give
them your wampum so they can distribute it to the poor and not quite as
bright, and you have a duty to make your boats for free.
This makes you madder than hell, but there is some validity to it.
The community supports you as best it can, and you should support
it the best you can.
Further who owns the trees you are carving up into boats?
They belong to the community, so you are benefiting from community
assets in your process of getting rich.
The whole subject of ownership of natural resources and land has
probably given rise to more wars and arguments between capitalists and
communists than any other single subject.
Every square inch of arable land on Earth is soaked in someone's
blood.
So anyhow, there you all are, arguing this out, as part of the body
politic, and it starts to get violent. Some of the capitalists just
sort of disappear in the night, and some of the communists are found at
the bottom of cliffs.
You see how this goes? It is a very serious problem to the body
politic of ANY planet and any social design group. Any time you start
talking about taking the production of he who is brighter or more able,
and giving to the others who are not so bright in the name of 'love for
the people', you have a problem.
So the first requirement of a communication line being used by the
body politic to discuss its agendas in safety, is anonymity. That means
no one knows who is saying what, if they don't want to be known. And no
one can trace them back to where and who they are, in order to punish,
silence or moderate them or their loved ones.
Thus the FIRST and most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is anonymous untraceable communication to anyone else.
This is the right of PUBLIC CONGREGATION. Public congregation
doesn't just mean getting together in a crowd out on a street or in a
church where everyone is identifiable and easy to round up or attack.
More broadly public congregation means the ability to issue a
public communication and feel assured that everyone who wants to receive
it can and does in a timely fashion, ALL OVER THE PLANET, and that the
issuer and his loved ones can not be threatened, punished or silenced.
Internet anonymity provides public congregation in a way that has
never been available before.
But then sometimes you and your cohorts want to be able to talk to
each other, without other hostile elements listening in. This is the
right of PRIVATE CONGREGATION.
Thus the SECOND most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is the right to encryption, so only the chosen can understand
the communication even if others intercept it.
Public key encryption (RSA) now provides people the ability to
communicate privately and securely to anyone they wish, in a way that
has never existed before.
This is the right to privacy, not just in your home, but in your
entire web of communication lines, that you extend to those you wish to
communicate with, and who wish to be communicated to by you.
Do you really want to give the government access to your e-mail?
Do you really want the vying parties for power to know who you are
going to vote for, before you vote for them?
Now often you find that people actually don't mind being known as
the author of some idea, in fact they WANT to be known. Soon they are
finding that hostile and anonymous forces are posting things in their
name and people are getting confused as to who is saying what.
Thus the THIRD most fundamental right to all people in a free
society is the right to non repudability, to irrefutably sign a document
so anyone reading it can verify for themselves who it came from, namely
you.
To sum up, the three basic rights in a free society are anonymity,
privacy and non repudiation.
The first is provided by anonymous remailers, and the second two
are provided by public key encryption.
If you want anonymity to safely talk to a public audience, you use
an anonymous remailer chain.
Public key encryption allows each person to create a private/public
key pair. The private key they keep to themselves, and the public key
they publish widely.
If you want to talk privately to someone, you encrypt your message
with the recipient's public key, and they decode it with their private
key. Only they can read it.
If you want to sign something as irrefutably yours, you encrypt it
with your private key, and everyone can read it with your public key.
PROBLEMS WITH NON ANONYMITY AND ANONYMITY.
Now there are obvious problems on both sides of the anonymity coin.
If good people speak openly, non anonymously, then criminals can
hunt them down and hurt them and their loved ones. Try speaking out
against the Nazi's in France 1941, or in east Berlin 1970, or in Pol
Pot's Cambodia or Stalin's Russia. Even in America during the
revolution and afterwards, people chose to speak anonymously in order to
protect themselves against those who would silence them.
THE HISTORY OF MANKIND IS A STORY TOLD OF ONE SIDE OF THE BODY
POLITIC TRYING TO SILENCE AND DESTROY THE OTHER.
On the other hand if you provide anonymity to everyone, then the
criminals can talk among themselves safely to plot the downfall of the
free society.
The upside is that good people, if they find out about such
criminal conspiracies, can blow the whistle on the criminals in safety
using those same anonymous communication lines.
So you have two choices.
The first is a world where there is no anonymity, where everyone
can be tracked and held accountable for what they say. Sounds good for
keeping the criminals under control, but bad for the good who know that
criminals can't be controlled anyhow, and that the criminals will
eventually become the controllers of the good if the good are not
allowed to speak and plan anonymously or privately.
Or you can have a world where everyone has anonymity, where
everyone can speak freely without fear of repercussion. Thus the
criminals can talk safely amongst themselves, but the good can blow the
whistle on them in safety if they know something.
The world has been playing the game of body politic ever since we
crawled out of the ocean using the first method, track and kill.
Now we can play it using the second method, you can speak safely
but I can too.
MARKETS
But now we have the markets and boy do we have a problem.
The problem is that the communication lines that have been created
so the body politic can design the market system, ARE THE SAME LINES
USED BY THE MARKET SYSTEM TO CARRY OUT ITS OPERATIONS.
So now someone buys a CD, rips the mp3 onto his hard drive, and
sends it on to everyone he knows for free.
Markets don't like free communication, markets thrive on secrets,
trade secrets, competition secrets, plan secrets, and they thrive on the
inability of just anyone to make the product they are trying to sell.
Intellectual ownership has become the next war between the
capitalists who want to own, and the communists who think everyone owns
everything or nothing.
The whole subject of copyrights still has the body politic arguing
with each other, even AFTER the markets were designed and set in motion.
Copyrights were invented in the distant past to protect the
publisher, not the artist. Further, publishers were owned by the King
(who got his cut), and the publisher could only publish what the King
approved of.
At the time it was very hard to publish, so copyright violations by
the reading public were not the problem. The problem were rogue
publishers who may or may not have been loyal to the King.
As time went on, copyrights were considered a good thing for the
authors too, along with patents and the rest, with limitations on time
so that eventually works could belong to the general public, because
after all "everyone owns everything." Even capitalists have a sense of
the public good.
This has given rise to two major problems.
The first is the little kid with the mp3 ripper sending songs to
everyone else for free. Napster caused the biggest scare in the history
of man for the record industry, they thought it was OVER.
Napster was easy to shut down, but using anonymity and encryption,
music sharing continues to this day. The only limiting factor on it, is
people's general ignorance of how to do it, and fear of being caught
anyway. The music industry knows there is nothing they can do about it.
Thus in some sense, ideas of copyright and ownership become moot
because they can't be enforced.
Once a technological war starts on these things, it becomes never
ending. Someone invents an encryption scheme so CD's can't be ripped,
and someone cracks the scheme and posts it to the net anonymously.
The other problem is when various people started to patent things
that were not theirs to patent, such as the genes in your breast that
make you prone to breast cancer. Under some interpretations of the law,
if your breast has that gene, your BREAST belongs to the owner of the
patent. Silly? Think again.
There are company CEO's that wants every drop of water on the
planet, including rain water falling in a cup in your hand or on your
house, to be owned by a corporation that then resells it back to you at
a profit. Google 'water wars'.
But the war over land and natural resource property rights has now
moved to a war over intellectual property rights that is bad enough to
make both the capitalists and the communists hopping mad.
MARKET EFFORTS TO LIMIT THE BODY POLITIC
Because the markets have a very hard time with free communication,
they try to put restraints it. For example by changing the nature of
computers so they can't talk anonymously. That is like putting a cop in
every bedroom to prevent child molestation.
These kind of solutions of watching over everyone to make sure they
don't break market rules, can then be used against them to make sure
they stay silent during political debate.
Market players ARE ALWAYS trying to sacrifice political freedoms of
communication to benefit the profits in the markets. This is either
very short sighted with a firm belief in a benign government, or it is
knowingly selfish or evil.
Thus the body politic wants everyone to have anonymity, strong
encryption, and non repudiation, while the markets want everyone
trackable, moderateable, and with plausible deniability.
THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT.
Although we tend to think of politics and government in the same
breath, politics is actually above the government, politics comes first
and in fact creates the the government you get. Thus government
fundamentally has no right whatsoever to say word one about politics or
how it operates or what communication freedoms it needs to operate.
GOVERNMENT IS ON THE SIDE OF THE MARKETS, NOT THE BODY POLITIC, BY
DESIGN OF THE BODY POLITIC!
Once markets are created, we create a government to mange them, and
to enforce the rules of fair trade.
Fair trade means each party enters into the trade willingly and
fully informed.
If a criminal sticks a gun in your face and says give me all your
produce, you are no longer a willing participant in that transaction and
thus it is not a fair trade.
We could leave the problem of criminality to vigilante justice, but
long history has shown that matters of criminal justice need to be left
to objective professionals, who do it full time, and who have a sense of
the society that its members may not have, AND NO VESTED INTEREST IN THE
MARKET OUTCOMES.
Never leave oversight of a corporation to the corporation.
The professional justice system includes the court system, from the
Supreme Court on down, the cops that arrest criminals, and the lawyers
that prosecute and defend them in court. That is an amazing edifice to
erect to replace a couple of guys with a noose and a gun.
Thus besides governing the mint and the markets, one primary
purpose of the government is to enforce fair trade, USING FORCE WHERE
NECESSARY, in a way we don't want lesser market players doing on their
own.
In other words where a person can not defend themselves, we call on
the government to defend them for them.
Sometimes the government acts poorly, sometimes the government acts
criminally, sometimes the government acts like a tyranny, moved by
personal fancy, whim, greed and caprice, rather than a nation of law.
Sometimes we might feel that anarchy would be better than that
tyranny.
But eventually a true ANARCHY BECOMES A SEA OF MICRO TYRANNIES.
In the absence of government, people coalesce into thousands of
little groups, each controlled by the biggest, meanest, strongest, most
selfish guy, and thus you have a thousand little absolute tyrannies all
over again. Such groups quickly try to throw their self elected tyrant
leaders off as soon as they can, rebuild a democratic power structure
again, including professional police forces, judges, lawyers and armies!
So in the end, although the 3 fundamental communication rights of
all people in a free society, untrackable anonymity, unbreakable
encryption, and irrefutable signature, are controversial and have their
collateral damage IN THE MARKET ARENA, I believe they are necessary to
the survival of the POLITICAL ARENA and thus, in the end, to the very
survival of the markets and society itself.
Thus I formed the first part of my personal sub vision statement,
I envision a world where
EVERYONE IS FREE TO COMMUNICATE WITH WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE, ABOUT
ANYTHING WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
Yes that means little kiddies can trade nuclear secrets and naked
pictures of themselves in safety, but the military can use encryption to
make sure the kiddies don't get those secrets in the first place.
I also believe it is wrong for the government and its markets to
wish backdoors on encryption to make sure that its people haven't become
overloaded with criminals, but I do believe it is right for the people,
as the body politic, to wish back door's on the government's encryption
to make sure the government hasn't become overloaded with criminals.
Now there are many many ways to improve the communication abilities
among the people of the planet, from newspapers, radio, TV, faxes all
the way to the internet.
But for me personally, I could never understand nor get into any of
them, except for the internet which became a natural for me.
The two way nature of the internet made it deliciously subversive,
and it allowed everyone to be come a publisher overnight without
permission of the King or his assigns, and it allowed everyone to speak
freely and anonymously to everyone on the planet, and secretly to
whomever they wished.
For me it was a no brainer that this was the way *I* should go
towards 'making a better world through free communication.'
This is where MY abilities locked in, I felt "I can do that" and I
can do it better than the other guy, so I had better get a crackin'.
Thus from my vision statement I then formed my mission statement.
Vision statement: A better world through free communication.
Mission statement: To deliver dependable but affordable internet
access to those who are under served.
So you see we have moved from a vision of how I would like the
world to be, to a specific mission of what to do about it.
Now lower down the Vision tree, even below the mission statement,
we get into explicit orders on what exactly to do in order to deploy
that 'dependable but affordable' product. That then becomes all the
technogobble about modems, T1's, wireless, DSL, web hosting, e-mail and
usenet news.
Without the mission statement it is easy to lose my way towards
fulfilling my top level vision statement of a better world through free
and open communication.
The energy to do what I am doing when I am nailing another wire to
a wall, or helping another person online, comes down from the top of the
tree.
"Why exactly am I talking to this idiot on the other end of my
phone line? Oh yeah, a world of free and open communication between all
people in it."
That's why you need a vision statement, and you need a mission
statement, because the two of them give you your marching orders. AND
THE ENERGY AND WILL DO TO THEM.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@Lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.Lightlink.com
Fri Mar 5 20:01:30 EST 2010
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Dec 25 04:24:31 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/vision.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)
iD8DBQFYX5BPURT1lqxE3HERAo6OAJ9MsGtvB4gOPnE83sOOmLQ/mL97RACdFrB9
8k/A3SMOOaGxYfkRKF/B0AU=
=Xb/P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
VISION AND MISSION
This is long, please read the whole thing, but read it in parts.
Take a break, read it across a few days with a few donuts inbetween.
It will probably change your life.
Homer
VISION AND MISSION
Every business must have strong vision and mission statements in
order to survive.
Without these no one knows in the general sense what they are
producing or why. Life and work are more than the immediate widget in
front of your nose.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VISION AND MISSION?
Take the example of the young man who decides to become a Green
Beret.
One day he is sent on a mission to recover a kidnapped girl and her
scientist father and to kill the terrorists who are intending to use the
father's secret formula to destroy the world.
When that mission is over, he is then sent on another mission, and
another and another. These missions can be and usually are very
different.
Did he join the military because he wanted to save that particular
girl and father, no of course not, he didn't even know about them.
So why did he join the military?
Well that was part of his vision, perhaps 'To make the world safe
for democracy.'
GENERAL VISIONS AND SUB VISIONS
"To make the world safe for democracy' would be a specific sub
vision, above that would be a more general vision, something like 'the
world living in peace and prosperity and no longer living in terror.'
And above that would be the most general vision of all, long term
survival for the greatest good for the greatest number, which is common
to everyone who is sane.
By survival we do not mean mere survival or hand to mouth
subsistence, for that is not survival and those living on the edge that
way do not survive for long.
Things can never stay the same, so a person is either expanding in
their affluence of survival or contracting. Contraction is not long
term survival either, so by survival we mean expanding long term
affluence for self and for others. Affluence of survival is necessary
to provide margin of safety during downturns, but what is sufficient and
comfortable affluence will depend on the being involved and the size of
his goals and his commitments to life and those that depend on him.
Thus to survive means to prosper and flourish relative to the needs
of the being and everyone he cares about, which underneath is everyone.
THE VISION -> MISSION TREE
Missions are derived from visions and the various existing
'situations' that one is suffering in present time.
A 'situation' is the furthest deviation from an ideal scene.
An ideal scene is how you would like the world to be.
Thus visions trickle down into sub visions which give rise to
overall missions which finally give rise to micro missions, specific
orders to DO something right now to get something done.
This trickle down forms an upside down inverted tree with SURVIVE at
the top at the main trunk, and the myriad ways we could all be surviving
better form the branches leading down from the top, and the missions that
arise out of these main branches then are the leaves at the bottom of the
tree. (It's an upside down tree!)
For example even for the soldier, there are many ways to 'bring
peace and prosperity to a world without terror' that have nothing to do
with joining the military. In fact all these other ways to accomplish
this vision are necessary to the final outcome and none of them are
sufficient alone.
Thus it may be true that 'having a strong military' is a necessary
goal to bringing peace to the world, but so is 'having enough to eat for
everyone'. But the soldier doesn't know anything about growing food, so
that's not up his alley. But he knows a lot about having a strong
military, and he ENJOYS being part of making it so, so he chooses that
branch of the vision-mission tree to guide his life all the while
encouraging everyone else to engage their own branch of the
vision-mission tree.
So the geneticist who is trying to make golden rice with vitamin A
already in it and the soldier who is trying to knock off the terrorists,
are BOTH working for the exact same vision 'a world of peace, prosperity
and without terror' but through completely different mission ways.
VISIONS OF THE WORLD
Vision statements right below the absolute top level of long term
survival, are of the form
"A BETTER WORLD THROUGH..."
Everyone walking around has an idea of their ideal scene, of what
they would like the world to be.
If you were to get people to write down every single thing they
could think of for a better world and compare them all, you would find
almost 100 percent agreement with some exceptions.
More interesting if Joe wrote one thing, and Sue another, both
would agree with the other's goals too, and quickly add them into their
own list.
Let's take some concrete examples.
Almost everyone would agree that 'A world without war, criminality
or insanity' would be a good thing. That happens to be the vision
statement of a Church I know. Notice it is a sub vision, one of the
main branches coming down from survive or greatest long term good for
the greatest number.
A world without hunger would probably be an another one.
A world without disease, or barring that with affordable medical
care for all would be another.
A world where everyone was educated, 'no child left behind' is in
fact a vision statement of one such group working towards this end.
A world where there was social justice, that includes no religious,
racial or ethnic bigotry or racism, and equal opportunity for all to
take advantage of, according to their God given abilities.
Ability consists of a triangle of passion, talent and honed skills.
Passion and talent we are born with, honed skills come from experience
operating passion and talent :)
Without all three, a person is dead in the water and becomes just so
much dead weight on the productiveness of the rest of society. He eats
what others produce.
Thus attention needs to be paid to each and every being to make
sure they 'flower' properly so they can operate at their maximum
potential. Societies with 'green thumbs' do better than those that
suppress, oppress, and repress creativity and the ability triangle.
Social justice includes human rights for both adults and children
and even for animals.
Then there are the subjects of politics and markets. Politics is
the process by which people design a society, and in particular the
markets of that society, as without sow and reap, buy and sell, there is
no society. As we shall see the needs of politics are sometimes opposed
to and outweigh the desires of markets, so we need to be very careful
not to sacrifice the needs of politics to the desires of markets, lest
the social planners end up in a police state run by market criminals.
Then there are basic freedoms, freedom to think and speak, freedom
to congregate, freedom to privacy, freedom to practice religion, freedom
to vote, and freedom to bear and carry arms in case some wise acre
thinks he is going to get rid of the first 5.
So there are a lot of situations in the world today that need a lot
of hard work.
Let's summarize the various highest level visions that a person
might have, and you should take the time now to add any of your own that
might have been left out and if you have a chance see if you can get
agreement on them from others.
Vision statement:
"A better world through..."
1.) No WAR
2.) No CRIMINALITY
3.) No INSANITY
4.) FOOD AND SHELTER
5.) PHYSICAL HEALTH
6.) MENTAL HEALTH
7.) EDUCATION
7.) SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR ADULTS, CHILDREN AND ANIMALS
8.) FREEDOM TO THINK SPEAK AND CONGREGATE SAFELY
9.) FREEDOM TO PRIVACY
10.) FREEDOM TO PRACTICE RELIGION
11.) FREEDOM TO VOTE
12.) FREEDOM TO SELF DEFENSE
13.) FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN POLITICS AND MARKETS"
14.) many many more...
DISAGREEMENTS
You will find as you walk this planet that there will be people,
sometimes lots of people, that will strongly disagree with your estimate
of what a better world might look like.
For example vast areas of the globe believe that the freedoms to
engage in capitalism (a market) is not showing 'love of the people', and
they will fight you to the death to get rid of you.
CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM
Although capitalism is often associated with democracy, and communism
is associated with tyranny, we need to keep political systems and economic
systems separated in our minds in order to understand government and
business.
Democracy and tyranny are two forms of POLITICS (government),
along with monarchies, oligarchies, kingships, and other forms of rule.
Capitalism, socialism, and communism are forms of MARKETS, how we
consume, produce, buy and sell.
It is quite possible for a communism to be a democracy, and a
capitalism to be a tyranny.
For example in a true democracy a person is welcome to vote for the
communist party, as long as the communist sticks to market issues, and
doesn't try to undermine the DEMOCRACY OF VOTING otherwise he is a
tyrant commie rather than a democratic one.
You see?
OK, so what is the basic difference between a capitalism and a
communism?. This is important, because if you are going to start a
business of your own, you are being a capitalist for the duration of
that business.
The basic difference lies in the following questions.
1.) What are you going to produce?
2.) Who are you going to sell it to?
3.) How much are you going to charge for it.
4.) WHO is going to produce it?
5.) WHO gets to own the rights of control over the profits?
In a capitalism you make those decisions.
In a communism someone else makes those decisions for you, a
centrally planned committee that oversees all production, and sale of
products.
A communism believes that a very few, very bright minds, can
determine all the GLOBAL actions of a market as defined in those three
questions above.
A capitalism believes that no single mind can handle the global
equations, and thus the problem must be distributed to each and every
local entrepreneur to make those decisions for himself.
In an ideal communism, all property belongs to the state, which
then becomes the Grand Business of the country, and everyone else is an
employee of the state.
Everyone is paid according to their need, and everyone is expected
to produce as much as they can. 'From each according to his ability,
and to each according to his need.'
Since your need is about 3000 calories a day, that's what you get,
and you work all day long for love of the people.
The downside is you don't own anything that is truly yours, and the
upside is you get your 3000 calories whether or not you produce
anything. That means you can fail and continue on, because you are
protected from Darwinian selection by the Committee. You get paid for
trying, not succeeding. Of course if you don't try, they will take you
out back and shoot you.
In a capitalism you get to keep what you own as yours.
By OWNERSHIP we mean the rights to control.
Thus you take out a loan, you invent toilet paper, you sell to
millions of people at a penny a roll, you pay back your loan, and you
get to keep the rest as YOURS.
That's the upside.
The downside is, if people don't like your toilet paper because it
sticks to their butt, you don't sell any, the bank forecloses on your
means of production and you are left with nothing.
There is no one to take you out back to end your misery, except
Darwinian starvation.
This, by the way, is one reason why we have politics, no one wants
to support a welfare state, but everyone wants a safety net, so you find
that the optimum market is actually a mixture of of capitalism,
socialism and communism, although few will agree to that.
Politics is where people argue it out.
DISAGREEMENTS AGAIN.
OK, so let's get back to disagreements with your vision of an ideal
scene again.
WAR. Some people think that war is good for the planet, it prunes
the population, it makes people work under dire necessity to find better
ways of doing things, knowledge about how the physical universe works
increases exponentially etc. Most of the computer technology you use
today came out of World War II, as did the interest in radar and
encryption. Although we use encryption for commercial transactions, it
was actually developed by people concerned for national security. And
even when things are invented in the civilian arena, the military gets
interested in it very fast and pours millions of dollars into it. If
you think Intel and the Military have no interest in each other you
should think again.
In fact one can argue that if the planet were so wealthy that
everyone could just eat and sit around all day long, people would become
like the Eloi in 'The Time Machine', friendly, peaceable, but totally
unable to defend themselves. Thus they become easy targets for those
that would enslave or eat them as the case may be.
Thus you will find people who don't actually want a world without
war, they want a world with OPTIMUM WAR, just enough to keep us all on
our toes and letting necessity be the mother of invention, but not
enough to destroy the place. Besides how is an honest arms dealer going
to turn a profit if there is no war?
Others would argue there are things to fight besides each other,
like that asteroid coming in towards Earth etc, but the arms dealers
like the short term profits of feeding lies and weapons to both sides.
SOCIAL JUSTICE. It would be hard to imagine anyone against social
justice, but when you get into justice for animals, which they sorely
need, you will run into people who want the whole world to be
vegetarian. So expect some rancor.
Anyhow I am sure you get the point, the vision held by the greatest
number is the one that has the greatest chance of survival, but don't be
surprised if a backrunner comes forward and takes over, particularly if
YOU are the one who wants the forerunner.
THE MISSION STATEMENT
The mission statement is derived from your vision statement.
To make this clear, I am going to give a very specific example from
our own lives, Lightlink Internet.
When dealing with visions and vision statements you are dealing
with global ideals, desires and goals that you can share with anyone.
You WANT everyone to know your vision statement.
Vision statements are goals for the future state of mankind, final
ideal scenes of the form
"A better world through..."
When you start to move into specific mission statements, you are
dealing with your personal enjoyment, feelings, abilities and
involvement in those higher visions, passions, talents and honed skills.
Mission statements are present time actions and short term goals
directed at the long term future vision.
Everyone can agree on 'peace on earth', but if you are a soldier
rescuing the girl, you might find it hard relating to others about the
sweet sound of the breaking of a terrorist's neck. To you it is heaven,
to others, well...
Thus mission statements have to be made in such a way that they
reflect the higher visions from which they came so as to maintain,
affinity, agreement and communication with everyone else. You do want
them to buy your product, even if your monthly stat is 'number of
terrorist necks broken'.
Thus to understand Lightlink's mission statement, to some degree
you have to understand me personally.
HOMER WILSON SMITH
I like, others, long for a better world.
I came from a highly regarded, almost famous, medical family, my
father was a leading researcher and teacher in the field of human
physiology. My mother was a nurse who worked at Oak Ridge during the
development of the atomic bomb.
Thus my childhood was full of chemistry, physics, electronics,
motors, explosives, geology, glow in the dark things, math, music and
orange juice, milk and corn flakes.
But alas I did not have an academic mind, not even a musical mind,
although I can and do all of the above things with great trouble.
I had the mind of a philosopher, and my main interests were
was the philosophies behind religion, science, art, business and
government.
I saw a world going to hell in atomic war in the 1st grade, Kennedy
and Kruschev were going at in the 5th grade, and Kennedy was killed in
the 6th.
I saw that Russia and America hated each other at the government
level, mostly born of insane paranoia and no communication.
But I had a Russian Nanny, and later after my parents died in 5th
grade, I had Jewish foster parents, and I saw that people were people.
It just wasn't true that the peasant on the farm in Russia was hateful
or fearful of an American capitalist, except maybe for the propaganda
that the government fed them about our tendency towards preemptive
nuclear strikes, born of WW II.
What I saw was a tremendous lack of FREE communication between the
people of the planet.
By free I do not mean no money, I mean free from suppression,
moderation, prohibition etc.,
At the time, there was not much choice, we had radio, we had news
papers, the first black and white TV's, I watched Felix the Cat, but not
even the President had a clue what was up in Russia, they were still
using AMBASSADORS to communicate between Kennedy and Kruschev.
That's nuts don't you see?
I went to Cornell in 1969 as a student in Electrical Engineering.
Now EE is an interesting subject because it spans theoretical physics at
one end, and hard core things like phones, radios, TV's and cell phones
at the other.
Of course EE can also be used to make bombs and guidance systems
for their delivery, but at the height of the Vietnam War in the early
70's I had little interest in that branch of the vision tree.
Too many being killed, too many insane at the helm on all sides,
too many making money off the insanity, and not enough free
communication of the truth.
TV started to change that, we saw not only the count of the Vietnam
dead, but the dead themselves every night for dinner. This changed how
people thought of the war. It is a never ending disgrace that it took
SEEING war to change how people THOUGHT about war, but there it is.
Later in the 80's, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the revolt at
Tiananmen Square were directly influenced by FAX machines, because now
people could write up what they thought, and get it to many many people
all at once compared to how it had been before.
When free communication can travel between people faster than
the police state can move, the police state has little chance to
take hold or stay in power.
As more people were able to talk to more people on all sides of the
walls, the walls started to come down. Rather than pointing guns at
each other, they started to point advertisements at each other, to come
visit and have lunch on their side of the bridge (true story).
So an important law was learned, in the presence of communication,
affinity and agreement go up which results in market trade, which
results in peace and prosperity, and in the absence of communication,
affinity and agreement go down until a point of war is started.
Now communication is one part of the highest level of visions
written above, namely freedom to think, speak and congregate.
Prior to the 80's most communication was one way, namely the owners
of the newspapers, radios, TV's or their advertisers pushing their
pablum message to us.
Once people could start talking freely to EACH OTHER in mass
communication, then the world changed forever for the better.
POLITICS, MARKETS AND COMMUNICATION
So to understand me better, we need to go back to politics, markets
and communication.
A society is a collection of people engaged in survival, sow and
reap cycles, and the markets that arise from them. Thus we could say
that society IS the markets that are spawned by the people trying to
survive.
Those markets consist of religion, science, art and business.
Religion is creation, science is discovery, art is expression, and
business is trade, where the rubber meets the road so to speak, and
where the coin meets the table.
You could also throw government in there, which is the ultimate
manager of the markets and the governor of the mint.
Society is designed by the 'body politic' which are the members of
the designing committee. In a free society the body politic is
everyone.
A free society is the one that everyone wants to be in, unless they
do not desire any personal responsibility for how things turn out.
Usually if you look at the border between two countries, the vast
majority of foot prints in the mud will be going towards the freer of
the two societies. A balance of trade in footsteps means both societies
are doing pretty well, unless the footsteps are being dragged one way.
In order for the body politic to function and design their society,
people need to be able to communicate with each other in order to
express their ideal scenes, views, concerns, problems and solutions.
AND THEY MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO SO WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
For example in any group of people trying to form a society, many
will be capitalistic and others will be communistic. Sometimes the
arguments can get heated to a point of war.
Capitalists for example don't like being told that everything they
make must be put in a central lot to be given away to first in liners.
First in liners for a hand out tend to be the least productive of
return on investment in them, because they are busy waiting in line
rather than working.
If you are brighter and more valuable to society than someone else,
produce more, consume less, you deserve to be rewarded by the natural
affluence of the return on your production.
YOU sow, YOU reap. Get it?
Or if your market bent is communism, then its
WE sow, WE reap.
But never should it be
I sow, THEY reap, nor
THEY sow, I reap.
For example, say you are an native Indian in a forest, and you
discover how to make a boat out of chopping a big tree trunk into the
shape of a boat. No one else can do this as well as you, and soon a
line is forming bidding for your services, and you end up with a great
big pile of wampum as a result.
Those that buy your boat, catch more fish, then have more
money to pay you for bigger and better boats.
Good invention amplifies the return on sow and reap cycles, and the
inventor is worthy of his hire.
Then some big guys come around and tell you that you need to give
them your wampum so they can distribute it to the poor and not quite as
bright, and you have a duty to make your boats for free.
This makes you madder than hell, but there is some validity to it.
The community supports you as best it can, and you should support
it the best you can.
Further who owns the trees you are carving up into boats?
They belong to the community, so you are benefiting from community
assets in your process of getting rich.
The whole subject of ownership of natural resources and land has
probably given rise to more wars and arguments between capitalists and
communists than any other single subject.
Every square inch of arable land on Earth is soaked in someone's
blood.
So anyhow, there you all are, arguing this out, as part of the body
politic, and it starts to get violent. Some of the capitalists just
sort of disappear in the night, and some of the communists are found at
the bottom of cliffs.
You see how this goes? It is a very serious problem to the body
politic of ANY planet and any social design group. Any time you start
talking about taking the production of he who is brighter or more able,
and giving to the others who are not so bright in the name of 'love for
the people', you have a problem.
So the first requirement of a communication line being used by the
body politic to discuss its agendas in safety, is anonymity. That means
no one knows who is saying what, if they don't want to be known. And no
one can trace them back to where and who they are, in order to punish,
silence or moderate them or their loved ones.
Thus the FIRST and most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is anonymous untraceable communication to anyone else.
This is the right of PUBLIC CONGREGATION. Public congregation
doesn't just mean getting together in a crowd out on a street or in a
church where everyone is identifiable and easy to round up or attack.
More broadly public congregation means the ability to issue a
public communication and feel assured that everyone who wants to receive
it can and does in a timely fashion, ALL OVER THE PLANET, and that the
issuer and his loved ones can not be threatened, punished or silenced.
Internet anonymity provides public congregation in a way that has
never been available before.
But then sometimes you and your cohorts want to be able to talk to
each other, without other hostile elements listening in. This is the
right of PRIVATE CONGREGATION.
Thus the SECOND most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is the right to encryption, so only the chosen can understand
the communication even if others intercept it.
Public key encryption (RSA) now provides people the ability to
communicate privately and securely to anyone they wish, in a way that
has never existed before.
This is the right to privacy, not just in your home, but in your
entire web of communication lines, that you extend to those you wish to
communicate with, and who wish to be communicated to by you.
Do you really want to give the government access to your e-mail?
Do you really want the vying parties for power to know who you are
going to vote for, before you vote for them?
Now often you find that people actually don't mind being known as
the author of some idea, in fact they WANT to be known. Soon they are
finding that hostile and anonymous forces are posting things in their
name and people are getting confused as to who is saying what.
Thus the THIRD most fundamental right to all people in a free
society is the right to non repudability, to irrefutably sign a document
so anyone reading it can verify for themselves who it came from, namely
you.
To sum up, the three basic rights in a free society are anonymity,
privacy and non repudiation.
The first is provided by anonymous remailers, and the second two
are provided by public key encryption.
If you want anonymity to safely talk to a public audience, you use
an anonymous remailer chain.
Public key encryption allows each person to create a private/public
key pair. The private key they keep to themselves, and the public key
they publish widely.
If you want to talk privately to someone, you encrypt your message
with the recipient's public key, and they decode it with their private
key. Only they can read it.
If you want to sign something as irrefutably yours, you encrypt it
with your private key, and everyone can read it with your public key.
PROBLEMS WITH NON ANONYMITY AND ANONYMITY.
Now there are obvious problems on both sides of the anonymity coin.
If good people speak openly, non anonymously, then criminals can
hunt them down and hurt them and their loved ones. Try speaking out
against the Nazi's in France 1941, or in east Berlin 1970, or in Pol
Pot's Cambodia or Stalin's Russia. Even in America during the
revolution and afterwards, people chose to speak anonymously in order to
protect themselves against those who would silence them.
THE HISTORY OF MANKIND IS A STORY TOLD OF ONE SIDE OF THE BODY
POLITIC TRYING TO SILENCE AND DESTROY THE OTHER.
On the other hand if you provide anonymity to everyone, then the
criminals can talk among themselves safely to plot the downfall of the
free society.
The upside is that good people, if they find out about such
criminal conspiracies, can blow the whistle on the criminals in safety
using those same anonymous communication lines.
So you have two choices.
The first is a world where there is no anonymity, where everyone
can be tracked and held accountable for what they say. Sounds good for
keeping the criminals under control, but bad for the good who know that
criminals can't be controlled anyhow, and that the criminals will
eventually become the controllers of the good if the good are not
allowed to speak and plan anonymously or privately.
Or you can have a world where everyone has anonymity, where
everyone can speak freely without fear of repercussion. Thus the
criminals can talk safely amongst themselves, but the good can blow the
whistle on them in safety if they know something.
The world has been playing the game of body politic ever since we
crawled out of the ocean using the first method, track and kill.
Now we can play it using the second method, you can speak safely
but I can too.
MARKETS
But now we have the markets and boy do we have a problem.
The problem is that the communication lines that have been created
so the body politic can design the market system, ARE THE SAME LINES
USED BY THE MARKET SYSTEM TO CARRY OUT ITS OPERATIONS.
So now someone buys a CD, rips the mp3 onto his hard drive, and
sends it on to everyone he knows for free.
Markets don't like free communication, markets thrive on secrets,
trade secrets, competition secrets, plan secrets, and they thrive on the
inability of just anyone to make the product they are trying to sell.
Intellectual ownership has become the next war between the
capitalists who want to own, and the communists who think everyone owns
everything or nothing.
The whole subject of copyrights still has the body politic arguing
with each other, even AFTER the markets were designed and set in motion.
Copyrights were invented in the distant past to protect the
publisher, not the artist. Further, publishers were owned by the King
(who got his cut), and the publisher could only publish what the King
approved of.
At the time it was very hard to publish, so copyright violations by
the reading public were not the problem. The problem were rogue
publishers who may or may not have been loyal to the King.
As time went on, copyrights were considered a good thing for the
authors too, along with patents and the rest, with limitations on time
so that eventually works could belong to the general public, because
after all "everyone owns everything." Even capitalists have a sense of
the public good.
This has given rise to two major problems.
The first is the little kid with the mp3 ripper sending songs to
everyone else for free. Napster caused the biggest scare in the history
of man for the record industry, they thought it was OVER.
Napster was easy to shut down, but using anonymity and encryption,
music sharing continues to this day. The only limiting factor on it, is
people's general ignorance of how to do it, and fear of being caught
anyway. The music industry knows there is nothing they can do about it.
Thus in some sense, ideas of copyright and ownership become moot
because they can't be enforced.
Once a technological war starts on these things, it becomes never
ending. Someone invents an encryption scheme so CD's can't be ripped,
and someone cracks the scheme and posts it to the net anonymously.
The other problem is when various people started to patent things
that were not theirs to patent, such as the genes in your breast that
make you prone to breast cancer. Under some interpretations of the law,
if your breast has that gene, your BREAST belongs to the owner of the
patent. Silly? Think again.
There are company CEO's that wants every drop of water on the
planet, including rain water falling in a cup in your hand or on your
house, to be owned by a corporation that then resells it back to you at
a profit. Google 'water wars'.
But the war over land and natural resource property rights has now
moved to a war over intellectual property rights that is bad enough to
make both the capitalists and the communists hopping mad.
MARKET EFFORTS TO LIMIT THE BODY POLITIC
Because the markets have a very hard time with free communication,
they try to put restraints it. For example by changing the nature of
computers so they can't talk anonymously. That is like putting a cop in
every bedroom to prevent child molestation.
These kind of solutions of watching over everyone to make sure they
don't break market rules, can then be used against them to make sure
they stay silent during political debate.
Market players ARE ALWAYS trying to sacrifice political freedoms of
communication to benefit the profits in the markets. This is either
very short sighted with a firm belief in a benign government, or it is
knowingly selfish or evil.
Thus the body politic wants everyone to have anonymity, strong
encryption, and non repudiation, while the markets want everyone
trackable, moderateable, and with plausible deniability.
THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT.
Although we tend to think of politics and government in the same
breath, politics is actually above the government, politics comes first
and in fact creates the the government you get. Thus government
fundamentally has no right whatsoever to say word one about politics or
how it operates or what communication freedoms it needs to operate.
GOVERNMENT IS ON THE SIDE OF THE MARKETS, NOT THE BODY POLITIC, BY
DESIGN OF THE BODY POLITIC!
Once markets are created, we create a government to mange them, and
to enforce the rules of fair trade.
Fair trade means each party enters into the trade willingly and
fully informed.
If a criminal sticks a gun in your face and says give me all your
produce, you are no longer a willing participant in that transaction and
thus it is not a fair trade.
We could leave the problem of criminality to vigilante justice, but
long history has shown that matters of criminal justice need to be left
to objective professionals, who do it full time, and who have a sense of
the society that its members may not have, AND NO VESTED INTEREST IN THE
MARKET OUTCOMES.
Never leave oversight of a corporation to the corporation.
The professional justice system includes the court system, from the
Supreme Court on down, the cops that arrest criminals, and the lawyers
that prosecute and defend them in court. That is an amazing edifice to
erect to replace a couple of guys with a noose and a gun.
Thus besides governing the mint and the markets, one primary
purpose of the government is to enforce fair trade, USING FORCE WHERE
NECESSARY, in a way we don't want lesser market players doing on their
own.
In other words where a person can not defend themselves, we call on
the government to defend them for them.
Sometimes the government acts poorly, sometimes the government acts
criminally, sometimes the government acts like a tyranny, moved by
personal fancy, whim, greed and caprice, rather than a nation of law.
Sometimes we might feel that anarchy would be better than that
tyranny.
But eventually a true ANARCHY BECOMES A SEA OF MICRO TYRANNIES.
In the absence of government, people coalesce into thousands of
little groups, each controlled by the biggest, meanest, strongest, most
selfish guy, and thus you have a thousand little absolute tyrannies all
over again. Such groups quickly try to throw their self elected tyrant
leaders off as soon as they can, rebuild a democratic power structure
again, including professional police forces, judges, lawyers and armies!
So in the end, although the 3 fundamental communication rights of
all people in a free society, untrackable anonymity, unbreakable
encryption, and irrefutable signature, are controversial and have their
collateral damage IN THE MARKET ARENA, I believe they are necessary to
the survival of the POLITICAL ARENA and thus, in the end, to the very
survival of the markets and society itself.
Thus I formed the first part of my personal sub vision statement,
I envision a world where
EVERYONE IS FREE TO COMMUNICATE WITH WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE, ABOUT
ANYTHING WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
Yes that means little kiddies can trade nuclear secrets and naked
pictures of themselves in safety, but the military can use encryption to
make sure the kiddies don't get those secrets in the first place.
I also believe it is wrong for the government and its markets to
wish backdoors on encryption to make sure that its people haven't become
overloaded with criminals, but I do believe it is right for the people,
as the body politic, to wish back door's on the government's encryption
to make sure the government hasn't become overloaded with criminals.
Now there are many many ways to improve the communication abilities
among the people of the planet, from newspapers, radio, TV, faxes all
the way to the internet.
But for me personally, I could never understand nor get into any of
them, except for the internet which became a natural for me.
The two way nature of the internet made it deliciously subversive,
and it allowed everyone to be come a publisher overnight without
permission of the King or his assigns, and it allowed everyone to speak
freely and anonymously to everyone on the planet, and secretly to
whomever they wished.
For me it was a no brainer that this was the way *I* should go
towards 'making a better world through free communication.'
This is where MY abilities locked in, I felt "I can do that" and I
can do it better than the other guy, so I had better get a crackin'.
Thus from my vision statement I then formed my mission statement.
Vision statement: A better world through free communication.
Mission statement: To deliver dependable but affordable internet
access to those who are under served.
So you see we have moved from a vision of how I would like the
world to be, to a specific mission of what to do about it.
Now lower down the Vision tree, even below the mission statement,
we get into explicit orders on what exactly to do in order to deploy
that 'dependable but affordable' product. That then becomes all the
technogobble about modems, T1's, wireless, DSL, web hosting, e-mail and
usenet news.
Without the mission statement it is easy to lose my way towards
fulfilling my top level vision statement of a better world through free
and open communication.
The energy to do what I am doing when I am nailing another wire to
a wall, or helping another person online, comes down from the top of the
tree.
"Why exactly am I talking to this idiot on the other end of my
phone line? Oh yeah, a world of free and open communication between all
people in it."
That's why you need a vision statement, and you need a mission
statement, because the two of them give you your marching orders. AND
THE ENERGY AND WILL DO TO THEM.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@Lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.Lightlink.com
Fri Mar 5 20:01:30 EST 2010
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Dec 25 04:24:31 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/vision.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)
iD8DBQFYX5BPURT1lqxE3HERAo6OAJ9MsGtvB4gOPnE83sOOmLQ/mL97RACdFrB9
8k/A3SMOOaGxYfkRKF/B0AU=
=Xb/P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, December 24, 2016
ADORE969 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I AM THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS
> Is a memory in a conscious mind an example of perfect certainty? In other
> words, is a memory in the same class as simple self-awareness, in that the
> memory, even if flawed or deluded, exists in a way that can be categorized
> as direct perception?
Most mechanical memory is simple picture taking, so no, a mere
picture of the past is not proof of squat. SEEING THE MEMORY in present
time is a perfect certainty, but relating it to what happened where you
can no longer look is not a certainty.
Certainty is ONLY of the living now.
You can never learn with certainty about A (the past) by looking at
B (a picture of the past in the present).
However that said, the question is more difficult for trailing near
present time memories, like the ones I have of writing this posting as I
am writing it.
Imagine trying to build a machine that could tell if time is taking
place. You take a picture, you take another picture later and compare,
if different there was time.
But causal pathways can be 'messed' with, how does the machine
really know something didn't mess up the second picture during the
taking of it, to make it different when it shouldn't have been.
Since any causal pathway can be messed with by a superior third
party such as God, no causal pathway can be trusted. And no amount of
other causal pathways can verify the first causal pathway.
Using more causal pathways to inspect and verify other causal
pathways is nuts, for who will inspect and verify the second inspector
and verfier pathways.
So when trying to verify a causal pathway, "More causal pathways do
not a more certain causal pathway make."
If a machine has 3 cameras, and 2 says something happened and 1
didn't, which report do you trust, the majority report or the minority
report?
Because of the causal path way problem, it is well known that no
matter how many cameras a machine has, nor how well they can see into
the very circuits of the machine itself, nor how accurate the machine's
internal records of its own circuits are, it is impossible for the
machine to verify the correctness of its circuits to a perfect certainty
by comparing what it sees to its internal diagrams.
What ever conclusion it draws is always a theory based on trust
that things are working and not being messed with by a higher causal
third party.
Thus a machine can ever verify that it is working properly.
So that's the third party law, any two events in the physical
universe that follow each other, might be causing each other, or might
be being caused by a third cause that causes both of the other events in
such a way that they LOOK like they cause each other.
Do electrons have anything to do with why electrons repell?
In the arcade game of PONG do the light paddle and light ball and
light wall have anything to do with the ball bouncing off the paddle and
the wall?
In the first place nothing is bouncing, only being reprojected. in
new locations. As time goes on, the paddle, the ball and the wall are
each forever new.
No, the 'bounce' is caused by a spanning third party causing the
ILLUSION of cause between the paddle, the ball and the wall.
Worse a machine can not even tell if it has changed state, because
its present state contains no data about any possible prior state. The
machine is stuck forever in IS, it can't know anything of BECOMING.
So a machine takes a picture, then another picture, and compares
them and finds out they are different. That whole set of circuitry
right there, who knows where the results come from, any third party or
interfering party could cause results to be wrong no matter how careful
the machine is to 'look' at what is going on.
Thus a machine can not tell it has changed state with perfect
certainty, let alone compare states with perfect certainty. Since all
learning IS a change in state, the machine can never tell with perfect
certainty if it has learned anything or not.
Thus a machine can not learn with perfect certainty anything about
anything.
And in particular, can not tell with perfect certainty that time is
taking place which involves a certainty that a change has taken place.
So you go out and look at a blinking red stop light for a few hours
at night at 3am in the morning. Is the light blinking? Yes, how do you
know?
YOU CAN SEE IT BLINK.
That is not seeing just states, but CHANGES in state.
A machine can never see the change directly, it can only BE in one
or the other of the two ends states. Your consciousness can see the
CHANGE.
A non scalar machine can not do that.
So would you bet your and everyone else's eternity in hell on your
perception that the light is blinking?
Yes of course.
But how are you doing this, by taking a memory picture, then
comparing to a later picture when the light has changed state. At the
later time, how do you KNOW the memory is correct and not messed with?
Can you take a memory and then 10 seconds later LOOK INTO THE PAST
by 10 seconds DIRECTLY and compare the memory with the past directly?
How about a memory of 1 second ago?
How wide is present time? Can we see into the past and future by
even a millionth of a second, thus having trans time 'memory' which is
perfectly certain? Or is that just direct perception of a width of time
and not memory at all but none the less gives us certainty of time and
change.
Same thing with the perception of time and space, both are
illusions, if they existed you could never know it, so the fact that you
'know it' by seeing it with certainty, means they don't actually exist.
Only a timeless entity could be certain of change and time. Only a
spaceless entity could be perceptually certain of space and distance, a
machine can't do it at all.
This isn't true because a timeless entity can see time, its because
a machine working in time CAN'T see time.
Thus if you can see time, you must not be a machine working in
time.
That does not at all explain how a timeless entity can experience
time.
It is conceivable that there is both the timeless state and the
timefull state, then the timeless entity can see time in the timefull
state, but the timefull machine never will.
Same thing for differences, look at two different colors. Are you
certain they look different? A machine can't do that, it can only
receive signals and voltages, compare them with some circuitry that may
or may not work and print out a yes or a no.
The machine never SEES anything, it just passes incoming effects on
through it self back to the outside again.
Two frequencies come in, and it prints yes they are different.
That's just dominoes falling according to code.
No domino can see any prior domino, it can only change state (fall)
as an alleged result of the prior domino pushing on it with a causal
messenger wave when they 'collide'.
The two domino's never actually touch, and after the second domino
starts falling, it can never know that it was 'touched' to start the
fall.
So the second domino can never know anything about the cause of its
falling, and there is not continuity of certainty from moment of touch
to later during the fall.
And WHAT it was touched by will always remain a mystery of theory,
never direct perception of the touching domino, nor even the virtual
photon that came across during the collision.
The falling domino doesn't even 'feel the force' pushing it, in any
conscious sense of the word, it merely responds to the force by falling.
Just as pleasure and pain can not be reduced to force and mass in
motion, either can color nor any other conscious experience including
the experience of time and space.
Color in particular can not be numerified, yes shades of red can be
numerified, but the difference between red and green can not, thus a
machine can never see red, as machines are nothing but numbers of force
and mass.
OK, so you have a memory of what you ate at breakfast.
Are you willing to bet your eternity in hell its right?
If yes, then that mechanism is not a mechanical one, and only a
scalar non mechanical conscious entity could do it.
But what is the mechanism?
And what the hell is a scalar 'mechanism anyhow' where cause and
effect are one and the same event.
In a mechanical system the learner computes back to the nature of
the cause from the effect it receives.
That's indirect perception.
In a scalar system, the learner and the learned about are one and
the same entity, and the learning about cause is NOT from looking at the
effect and computing back to some theoretical nature and existence of
the cause, but from looking at the cause directly.
Well what is the mechanism behind an object being able to see
itself without merely being the effect of itself and declaring that
because it was an effect it must have been cause.
That's thinking and logical deduction, 'there was an effect so
there must have been a cause.'
Scalar perception is 'There's a cause because I can SEE it
directly.'
In the physical universe, causation is not sufficient to witness
causation.
That's why causal pathways can't be used to verify either
themselves or other causal pathways. And if they can't verify
themselves, they sure as hell can't verify any other causal pathway.
Verification of a causal pathway means one can tell with perfect
certainty that any particular change happened BECAUSE of a designated
change before it, and not some 3rd party making it look like there was a
prior different cause.
In the physical universe all we can see are the two end events, the
two things that 'changed because of each other'. We can never see the
CAUSE between them.
We can never tell if two electrons repel because they have actual
cause between them, or because God is moving them directly as if they
have cause between them.
If two electrons are out in space, and you wiggle one, a while
later the second will wiggle. Are you perfectly certain that because
the second electron wiggled, that the first one even existed.
No, God or anything could have wiggled the second for no reason at
all. So its a theory that the second wiggled BECAUSE the first wiggled,
and the theory is made of model and evidence.
The model is that there is a first electron that wiggled first and
causal messenger wiggles went between them, and thus the evidence that
there is a first electron is BECAUSE the second wiggled.
The evidence is always the EFFECT, never the cause.
And the model is whatever THEORETICAL causation you wish to surmise
between the effect and its prior cause.
Since all observation of effects and their so called causes USES
this very mechanism to look with, the whole thing may be consistent and
peer reviewed, and completely wrong with God laughing at everyone.
And with what peers are you going to review your proof that peers
even exist?
So the whole dependency on peer review depends on ASSUMING with out
peer review without peer review.
The bedrock of 'objective universe' science is fairy dust.
Consciousness however can see the cause between things, hold your
finger up, notice the cause between YOU and your finger being in the
air. That's direct perception of personal agency.
Look at two different colors, and then hold your finger up BECAUSE
they are different. Notice the intra conscious causal pathway between
colors, YOU and figure in the air.
Certainty that any cause of any kind exists at all is the hall mark
of consiousness.
It may be hard to behold, but in the absence of cause there can be
no learning. No change, means no learning.
Thus there has to be cause of some kind, scalar or not, between the
two different conscious colors (not PHOTONS, photons have no color) and
your knowing they are different. You can see this incoming cause IN THE
COLORS, glowing at you TELLING you with perfect certainty that they are
different.
Thus you are learning about the existence of cause by looking at
cause in the colors directly, not by looking at some effect in yourself
and computing back taht the two alleged colors must be different and
might be cause of whatever you are computing back from.
Think is not direct perception is not think is not direct
perception.
Thus certainty of incoming causation is unique to conscious
experiences. Certainty of outgoing cause is also unique as you observe
yourself hold your finger up and know YOU are doing it, and that it is
up BECAUSE you are PUTTING IT UP, not because some third party is
putting it up for you, or worse making you THINK it is up via some
return effect, when really its still down.
We are not talking about the physical finger, but the conscious
finger you can see.
You see the reason you can't learn about A by looking at B, is the
their party could always be between A and B. You see B, but can't see
A, so you have to trust the changes in B were 'caused by A'.
A messenger hands you a message from the King, how do you know it
came from the King?
But with two different colors, you can SEE the KING, you can see
the colors, you can SEE there is no third party between the event of the
colors and your knowledge that they are two different colors. Thus your
learning is certain, and continuously reverifiable.
Doubt free perception is the miracle of scalar learning.
So we have this spaceless timeless mechanism by which consciousness
can behold itself in the NOW, not the THEN which ALL mechanical cause
and effect systems are limited to, because they take TIME betwen the
cause and the effect!
By the time the effect happens, the cause is gone, so what
certainty is there from the effect that there was a cause?
Only direct perception of CAUSE proves cause!
But direct perception of CAUSE has to be timeless by definition,
otherwise one is learning LATER about the cause EARLIER, and now we are
back to learning about A by looking at B.
Since our minds can ONLY understand scalar mechanics, looking at
effects and computing possible causes (which is not directly perceiving
them), we are at a loss to UNDERSTAND spaceless timeless processes.
And if spaceless timeless process isn't an oxymoron squared, then I
don't know what is.
But there it is, no space time process can be certain of anything,
but certainty surely exists.
Uncertainty certainty exists. To doubt this is to prove it.
Therefore certainty exists. QED
Certainty of uncertainty is the beginning of wisdom.
So we DEFINE that which is perfectly certain to be a scalar
process, which uses an oxymoron at best to describe it.
Scalar processes violate everything we know about everything
because in our lives we are using (wasting) our scalar consciousness to
monitor and learn about the non scalar dimensional universe of space and
time.
Its an arcade game in our consciousness, how can it be more
important in its utter uncertainty of existence, than the consciousness
which perceives it with perfect certainty?
Certainty of the TV set is more important than anything going on in
the TV screen.
We conceive we ARE our space time avatars, bodies, that
consciousness is a process in constituency (what we are made of),
arrangement (of that constituency,) and process, which is the flow of
energy through the machine from high anti entropy to high entropy.
If the arrangement or the consituency are destroy, busted apart or
jammed, the process dies, and if consciousness IS merely the process,
chemistry bubbling away at 98.6, then the consious unit dies too.
But if consciousness is scalar, then there is no time for it to
come and go in, so it must be eternal, can't be created nor destroyed,
and in truth, it can't even CHANGE, and when the dream avatars die, the
illusion that we ARE our avatar blows up and we ext from the dream
forcibly.
What we are exting from is not the avatar but the illusion that we
ARE the avatar.
We can do that while still living, if we dare.
Also notice about memory, the primary memory of interest is
RECOGNITION OF SELF, that means I know I am the same self as I was 30
years ago, its still me, and although a lot of my avatars that I
identify myself with are changing all the time, there is at least one
thing about me that isn't changing at all, or I wouldn't be me any more.
Every atom in my body can be replaced but the core conscious is
never touched.
So when the avatar dies, and space time blow up when the being
wakes up to his eternality, there he is again, FOREVER AND EVER the same
being, and remembers again WHAT he is, and what he has chosen and how he
got into this mess. But above that there is no memory of anything to do
with space time retained at all, that's when the being is ready to sleep
and then start a whole new cycle. No memory of past cycles remain, but
he is aware this is what he does, so he knows there have been past
cycles and will be again, none of which he will remember once they are
done, all by his own choice.
How likely is that? Too good to be true?
An infinite number of finite whiles in which to create, play, close
up shop, sleep and do it again.
In present time we are using a conscious display screen capable of
perceiving itself and its displays with perfect certainty, to display a
universe in which there IS and CAN NOT BE perfect certainty due to the
two different objects rule.
Its like the guy in a tank looking at a TV screen and fighting a
life and death war with all the people displayed on the screen, but he
doesn't know if any of the are actual, but he does know that the TV is
actual.
Kind of inverted, to use a perfect certainty to symbolize a
hallucinated virtual reality.
And from inside the tank he can never prove one way or another that
the story line on TV screen is actually going on, because he can't get
out of the tank. So he plays his arcade game forever.
Of course he will eventually realize that even his TV screen is
part of the arcade because he is seeing that with his eyes, and brain,
and even they are part of the arcade, because all he really has is his
conscious unit, himself, which is actual and sure.
But as long as the conscious unit thinks it is a brain in a tank in
a universe, well then fight he must, and the perfect certainty facility
of his conscious unit goes to total waste.
The perfect certainty facility is subserviated to the needs of
defending himself in a certainly uncertain nightmare of magnitude.
"Who cares about perfect certainty, all I care about are the enemy
out there, who I don't have a fucking clue whether they exist or not,
AND CAN'T have a clue, because it is fundamentally unclueable."
So if you have a memory of which you are perfectly certain, then
its not a mechanical memory, its part of the scalar magic that
consciousness is doing all day long, perhaps even a direct perception of
the past.
Sometimes you can get flooded with pictures with exquisite detail
and you know this must be SOMEBODY'S picture memory, but without
RECOGNITION as to having seen it before, it can't be yours.
Since every huma body being is a composite of billions of other
smaller and bigger beings, any one walking around has trillions of
memories to take experiences from and get confused by thinking they are
his own.
Recognition however comes from the eternal awareness of one's self
as one's self, unchanging, immutable and always you and always will be
you.
If you have a memory of a time in which you recognized yourself,
then perhaps those memories have enough of an eternal aspect that they
can be said to be perfectly certain, but that's really stretching it.
The fact of you recognizing yourself may be certain, but the space
time avatarial circumstances surrounding the event, well who knows...
Recognition of others is also important, loves from forever ago are
just as alive today as they were, and just as you can recognize yourself
though the cloud of illusory spaces and times, so can you recognize
others across eternity.
But you have to perceive via eternity, not via space and time!
> Theory two is pure and simple Vedic philosophy.
Yes, I know I wrote it.
They still don't believe me :)
> I always thought this was nicely poetic, but never understood a word of what
> it meant. Years later I was given a translation of this work, and when I got
> to the good part, I was floored. It read:
>
> "Time I am, the shatterer of worlds"
>
> Shows how different translations can change the very heart of a text.
>
> Anyway, this I got. Timelessness is, I think. what you meant by:
>
> "It casts APPARENT cause into the kinetics, but in fact the static scale
> maintains cause at all time over the kinetics to make it seem like the
> kinetics has cause over itself."
Yes, in a sleep dream, the ball bounces off the wall not
because there is cause between them, but because the alleged brain
controls both to make it seem like they control each other.
Same with the waking state.
All physics is orchestrated down to the last quark.
Some will complain 'But how could I have gotten the idea
that a ball could bounce off a wall' unless I had first experienced
a real ball bouncing of a real wall?
They define themselves as the accumulation of being an effect.
God did not have to see a tree before he could creat one.
Since we are all God in carnation, the High US, and at the top we
create in the mere conception of things, we do not need to have been the
prior effect of external impingement in order to create an experience
for ourselves or others.
Thus one can dream new things anytime one wants, either in sleep
or in the 'awake' state.
> Arjuna was being told that all of time is an illusion, that the battle, its
> antecedents and its consequences are all, have all been, predetermined, have
> all taken place, and will take place, and always will. Same with the
> universe.
Not sure about predetermined, the static is envessled in the
kinetic avatar and it CAN act like a state determined machine, dominos
falling, but it can also make a prime postulate and start something new
not related to the past or present of the existing avatarial scene or
state of things.
The creation of the dream physical universe was itself not state
determined by an earlier dream universe, and thus that same creator can
create new again again even within the avatarial context of his
immediate surroundings.
He has to be awake enough to do it.
If he thinks he is a machine and his consciousness is a process
in a space time gizmo like the brain, he won't be able to rise
above is own conception of things.
> Did you ever read Slaughterhouse Five?
No.
> The read was terrific. Did you write that just to me?
Yes.
But its now in the public archives, as is this one.
> Do you know that years ago, I wrote the line in your father's Wikipedia
> entry, about you?
I will check it out.
>
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Apr 4 23:43:02 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 22 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore969.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.
rather than a pure decay, would be necessary in truly
early implants that could not assume the prior existence of a
complex environment.
If there are earlier and more basic versions of the penalty
universes, then this also might not be the earliest. It does not
quite start from total nothingness. It seems to assume that there
are other beings and there is already the possibility of a game,
and it seems that one's desire for games was used as the hook that
suckered you into the implant. Therefore, I will call this the
games tone scale. Note that the penalty universes and the ordinary
tone scale use aesthetics and action as the hook which keeps you
attached to the incident. That is far lower than a desire for games,
but it hints that there might be more basic things that drive
directly off of a desire for creation (which is senior to games).
The scale is as follows:
Anticipation
Curiosity
Interest
Desire
Fascination
Excitement
Experience
Enjoyment
Achievement
Expansion
Overextension
Overcomplexity
Confusion
Gone on too long (over-run/tired)
Must continue
Enforcement
Solidity (Mass)
Inhibit
Can't Stop
Struggle
Protection
Failed Protect
Punish
Own
Desperation
Dispersal
Failure
Overwhelm
Blame
Shame
Regret
Unreality
Waste
Substitute
Degradation
disinterest
Abandonment
Failed to Leave
Protest
Frantic
Unknownness
Unknowing Fixidity
In other words, the implant universe "To Grow" had the item
"To Grow is To Anticipate" up near the top and the item "To Grow
is To Be Fixated" down near the bottom. And goals like "To
Energize", "To Eternalize", and "To Individuate" all react strongly
on these items.
This whole area is very much in need of further research.
===============================================
11. HOME UNIVERSE VALENCE GAME: TERMINALS
June 1996
These work like rock/paper/scissors, each beats the next in a
circular pattern.
There are probably missing pairs.
The one you are now is the one you crushed. The one before it
is the one you played in the game.
Which item you're sitting on affects how fast you move through
specific goals in the GPM pattern of the current universe (example,
the scientist will rush through goals like "to be beautiful" and
linger on goals like "to be intelligent").
Usually the game was played with the actual valences covertly hidden
and only revealed at the moment of impact.
The game was played on the original earth.
THE KING -> THE WORKER -> THE CRIMINAL -> THE NOBEL --
/
-------------------------------------------/
/
/
THE SLAVE -> THE SOLDIER -> THE BUREAUCRAT -> THE TEACHER
/
-------------------------------------------/
/
/
THE PRIEST -> THE SURGEON -> THE BUSINESSMAN -> THE REVOLUTIONARY
/
-------------------------------------------/
/
/
THE GIRL -> THE SCIENTIST ->
( THE MINISTER -> THE ASSASSIN ? )
- -----> (full circle back to THE KING)
(maybe THE SPY, THE PROPHET, THE GENERAL, THE EMPRESS,
THE JESTER (FOOL), THE MECHANIC (TECHNICIAN), THE POLICEMAN,
THE WITCH, THE HUNTER )
This is all highly speculative
===============================================
12. THEORY OF RESET TIME
17 Dec. 1992
The theory given here is so incredible that even I have to look
at it with some doubt and reservation. If true, the
implications are immense. But it reads like the wildest
science fiction, far beyond the easily accepted space opera
style material that we are used to encountering. As a PC, I
have no doubts about the incidents described here. They ran
with great reality and good meter behavior, showing large
reads on dating, blowdowns on running, and going to proper
EPs. As an auditor, I run whatever is there to run without
any Q & As about the PCs data. But as a researcher, I have to
allow for the possibility that the incidents contained a high
degree of dub-in and that the conclusions are incorrect.
Eventually I may find that these are simply twisted up and
misdated incidents which occurred long ago. But it would be
wrong to withhold potentially vital information even though
it might be wrong data. So here it is. Just take it with a grain
of salt and don't jam it down anybody's throat.
Before going into the theory, I would like to provide a bit
more clarification on how one can be mislead by session data.
Many years ago, I was running a PC on Dianetics and he
started running an incident of being grabbed by invaders and
implanted. The incident had a heavy somatic of suffocating.
The date was "last night". My first thought was that we either
had a wrong date or serious dub-in. But I did not jump down
the PC's throat and correct the date. That would have been
quite a mistake because the date was correct. The PC's data
turned out to be correct too and the incident ran well,
everything going by the book. If we hadn't taken one last pass
through, I might have been left either doubting the PC's data
or having wild ideas about saucer people sneaking into
peoples homes and implanting them late at night. As it turned
out, the PC was having a very real dream about being
implanted while his cat was sitting on his face delivering a
very real suffocating somatic along with a purring rumble that
seemed like some sort of implant vibration. The moral is to
always take the PC's data no matter how wild and illogical it
seems, but don't jump to wild conclusions based on
insufficient information.
1. POCKET UNIVERSES
We have been assuming all along that we are in the main
framework of the current physical universe. We see a galaxy
full of stars around us and assume that it is there and we are a
part of it. And that galaxy is definitely one of the group of
galaxies that makeup the current physical universe. It has a
pretty distinctive look, quite different from the magic
universe. Space opera incidents of running around in this
galaxy are quite easy to find on PCs.
But there are other things besides the large scale, full fledged,
agreed upon universes. Besides the independent little
universes used for implanting or story telling or whatever, it is
also possible for the big universes to have little side pockets.
These pocket universes are not quite independent. They
connect to the main universe and mostly share its laws. But
the laws can be different and the space-time is a bit sideways
of the main universe. It is possible to manipulate the space
and time in these little side universes without having to
manipulate the huge agreed upon universe.
The Home universe matrix was nothing more than a simple
agreed upon space that provided a reference point from which
endless little pocket universes could be set up. These pocket
universes were the individual home universes of the thetans
involved.
Pocket universes were still quite common even as late as the
symbols universe. It was not unusual to walk sideways into a
painting on the wall and find yourself in another three
dimensional space which could be considered to be a pocket
universe of the large agreed upon symbols universe.
Pocket universes have become very rare. But is it still
possible for a group of OTs to get together and push a space-
time framework sideways of the normal space-time and create
a pocket universe. Although pockets are often small, they can
also be so big that one could easily contain this solar system.
It would also be possible to surround one with a pre-recorded
image of the galaxy, or even to relay a real view of the current
galaxy into it. You could toss all sorts of undesirables and
convicts into such a construction.
Would it make any difference if we're in a pocket universe
instead of the main framework of the physical universe?
Unfortunately, it does. If we are in a space-time pocket, it
becomes possible for the people controlling the prison
machinery to manipulate space-time in a manner that would
be inconceivable if applied to the full sized physical universe.
The very structure of space-time in this local might be designed
expressly for the purpose of using earth as a prison. And
everybody is sitting on a single planet so that it becomes
possible to deliver implants to the entire population of the
"pocket universe" if necessary.
2. HEAVEN AND HELL
I didn't used to believe in the existence of heaven and hell. I
figured that these were simply pictures used to lure or chase
people into the between lives implants. Running track, these
things never showed up in space opera or anywhere else in the
physical universe before earth. These kinds of mockups did
show up in places like the magic universe, but that is quite a
different mockup from this one.
However, running the items of the PT Actual GPM opened up
some recall on just about every lifetime I spent here on earth
and also pulled up a few time periods spent in one of the
heavens or hells or in the purgatory-like between lives admin
area. So there does seem to be something to this, and it seems
to be a local phenomena that only applies to recent earth track.
The heavens and hells seem to be used according to the
Buddhist theories rather than in the absolute manner preached
by Christianity.
If one leads an exceedingly good life, such as sacrificing
oneself for others, one might be given a sort of vacation in one
of the heavens. My one experience with this was that it was
very nice but mostly a scam. I only actually experienced a
few weeks at the beginning and at the end of my stay plus an
implant in between that told me I had a good time for a couple
hundred years. The mockups just take too much work to
make it cost effective for them to deliver more than a taste of
heaven.
As to hell, they count on you punishing yourself through the
overt motivator sequence. But where that fails because the
overts aren't real to you, they adjust your reality with a stay in
hell.
Unfortunately, their judgment of good and evil are based on
arbitraries. Things such as violating physical universe laws
are considered evil. If there is anything behind the current
religious superstitions, then the between lives boys probably
sentenced Christ to hell for his working of miracles. And he
probably tore the place up and lead a whole bunch of people
out of there as described in Dante.
After a stay in hell (which is generally very brief), you are usually
set to work in between lives admin to make amends. There you spends
decades of tedium pushing papers around or whatever to keep the
between lives machinery working.
If you're viciously harmful in a good cause, you generally
get sent to hell as a demon to torture others instead of as a
victim. You're supposed to get disgusted with yourself and
flatten any harmful desires while not actually being punished
because you did something good.
The god of this pocket universe is basically a prison warden.
He and his staff are also convicts, but they are evil people who
did great service to the empire and are being reward (by
getting to play god) while being kept in exile because the
empire doesn't want them around. Note that the existence of a
sour local god neither proves nor invalidates the existence of a
supreme being. The theta flow that some holy men connect
with is certainly not a manifestation of this petty local tyrant.
According to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, there are many
heavens and hells of varying appearance and qualities, some
being higher or lower than others. They consider that most of
the heavens are mere pleasure places where one cannot gain
any true spiritual advancement. Buddha considered the entire
cycle, including going to heaven and hell etc., to be a trap.
The between lives area including the heavens and hells seems
to be sideways of our physical plane. See the various other
materials where I have discussed 4 dimensional mockups. In
the local area, if you exteriorize and go sideways in a 4th
direction without moving in the normal 3 dimensions, you
will find various mockups of heaven & hell etc. The various
"invader" installations, implant machinery, etc. is all there in
this odd direction. This is why you can exteriorize and find
bases on Mars or orbital stations around Venus that are not
visible in our telescopes. You have shifted sideways slightly
in a 4th dimension.
A 4 dimensional structure is only to be expected since this is a
prison area. Perception and most mockups were narrowed
down to 3 dimensions sometime before home universe. But 4
dimensional spaces can still be handled (with great difficulty)
and are used for things such as building prisons and
implanting precisely because they are difficult to perceive and
figure out.
The pocket universe seems to extend out to a distance of 1.3
light years. At this distance, there are 12 "zodiac masses"
which are the generating stations that manipulate the 4D space
time. I call them zodiac masses because they correspond to the
12 signs of the zodiac and may be used as part of the between
lives implant to lay in a bit of an astrological pattern.
Out beyond this distance is normal space/time. Out there the
universe has a 4D thickness, but all the layers are identical.
Here, in the prison, they have pried apart the edges and used
them for the fake heavens and hells and also to provide storage
areas which are capable of holding copies of the Earth reality
so that they can store the mockup for re-use as needed.
3. THE IMPOSSIBLE INCIDENTS
I'd had a bunch of odd ball ideas lying around for quite
awhile, feelings that I'd died in a nuclear war in the 1960s,
feelings that I'd been in Scientology before, etc. All
seemingly absurd and were shrugged off as some sort of dubin.
One day I decided to set aside logic and see if I could find and
run a 1960s nuclear war incident. I figured that I'd get
something which would eventually turn out to be a much
older incident after I'd run through it a few times and taken
some charge off. Instead I got the following:
In 1963, Richard M. Nixon was president, having beaten
Kennedy by a narrow margin in 1960. He had badly
mishandled the Cuban missile crisis and things had grown
worse to the point where a nuclear war was eminent. I was
in school when they herded us down to the basement, this was
around 9:15 AM. They told us that we had launched a
nuclear first strike at 8:32 AM. The public had not been
warned until the Soviet counter-strike was launched for fear
of giving early warning to the enemy. The sonic and visio on
this were quite real (the assistant headmaster saying to us
"Gentlemen, we are at war" etc.). At 9:26AM, the ceiling
smashed down on us as a nuclear blast destroyed the city.
Normally when you die, you come out in an "astral body".
But the heavy radiation tore this energy body as well as
the physical one and I had the feeling of dying as a spirit
as well as dying as a body. I remember trying to rise up
through the firestorm as my fields and substance shredded
and I died the double death.
And then there was nothing. Just blackness.
And then I seemed to be waking up in some higher space.
It was dark and I had no perceptions. But I felt a pressure
trying to push me back and put me back to sleep. But I
resisted.
And then there seemed to be lights circling around me in the
distance. And they seemed to be singing, but there was no
sound, only intention. This impression of singing was probably a
subjective impression of being hit with a strong energy wave
that was implanting an intention. And the intention was for me to
go back to earth.
Then I found myself above the Earth looking down, and I could
see the explosions down on the surface. And gradually I came
to be aware of millions of other beings up in orbit along with
me, all of them watching the destruction of the world. And
more and more joined us as the dying continued. And there
was a sadness, not at mere death, but at the end of everything.
We were all of us ripe for any implant or orders which would
do something about the situation.
And then the circling lights were there again, orbiting around
all of us and around the Earth as well. And this time they
were singing "Go Back to 1957".
And it was February and it had just snowed. My child's body
was standing ontop of a snow mound and I felt irresistibly
drawn to it. And I forgot everything of the future and picked
up my experience and memories as they had been in 1957, and
lived on from there.
And this time Kennedy beat Nixon by a narrow margin and
everything was different.
I've been back over this incident quite a few times and I can't
find anything wrong with it except for the sheer impossibility
of it ever having happened.
So I tried to look for other things like this, and began to
try to meter asses years ago and Earth calendar dates as separate
things that did not have to add up properly. And I found many
occurrences of 1957 at varying numbers of years ago. And I found
many occurrences of the 20th century here on Earth and even some
times when we carried a bit into the 21st century before it all
fell apart for one reason or another.
The earliest 20th century incident that I could find seemed
to be in 1961 on Easter Sunday when Tesla's power grid went live
and the atmosphere burned.
And strangely enough, one's case and incidents and aberrations and
even GPM items all seem to shift back when time is reset. You
lose aberrations that you picked up later and you regain aberrations
that you mastered through will power or education. The only
exception being that if something were really thoroughly run out,
you only get back a shadow of it that seems to have little power
but you still try to put it there and don't remember getting rid
of it. But these shadows of aberrations that had been run in
earlier cycles seem to fall away extremely easily.
We went through many cycles of the 20th century before Scientology
was ever dreamed of. They can't let us get much later because
our technology gets too far advanced, and they can't push us too
far back because they have added too many new prisoners and
earlier centuries can't support a high enough population level.
So they have repeated this time period too many times. And that
may be causing us to wake up.
When Scientology was researched the first time, it was a slow
orderly progression building up from Dianetics. Techniques that
showed up in 1952 this time around were the final processes discovered
in the 1980s and 1990s during the first pass through the subject.
These were the things that had most recently been studied when
we found ourselves suddenly back in 1952 and so they sort of
showed up immediately even though no one remembered the years
of research that had gone into them.
And in a later major pass through the subject, the advanced
org was out on Long Island and things went fairly smoothly
because nobody considered us a threat. The endless troubles
that we have seen this time around did not occur then, and many
of us worked on the research.
In the year 1987 of that earlier cycle, with Ron and many others
all alive and well who are now dead or declared suppressive, we
attempted a prison break.
I'm not sure if we used some drug or trance or simply had gone
very very far with OT drills, but I remember lying down and
having a coach whispering in my ear and a thousand of us all
left our bodies simultaneously and stormed the heavenly plane.
And we fought a strange battle of mockups against angels and
demons and won because our confront was better. And as we
held victory in our grasp, the sun went nova and time was
reset and we were back in 1952 again.
And ever since that time, they've made sure that we were
always at each others throats and busy declaring each other
suppressive and making the subject into a mess and a scam and we
never again had a clean sweep forward like we did that one time
when we were unopposed.
Now that I've dumped all this in your laps, I'd better advise
you that I'm quite willing to find out that this is all just
some strange dub-in. Perhaps I just have an overly active
imagination. I certainly would not bet that the above is correct.
But lets keep it in mind, just in case.
If true, this would explain deja vu as being a real recollection
of the future (meaning an earlier pass through the same time period).
It also would mean that you'd better date incidents on Earth in
terms of years ago and not make any fuss if the answers are a bit
strange. Also be prepared for earlier similar occurrences of the
same incident at the same date.
There is also the possibility that so called "Natural Clears" actually
did the clearing course in earlier occurrences of these years on
Earth.
There is something you can do which would be quite harmless if
this is just a stupid theory but which could be extremely helpful
if it turns out that time is being reset and repeated on us.
Pick a few key points earlier in your life when you first saw something
that had some great significance for you, and postulate very
firmly that when you see it again or relive the experience again,
you will remember this earlier time around.
Interestingly enough, this idea of reliving your current lifetime
has been around for quite some time. Usually the idea is stated
as reliving it to the point of perfection rather than the prison
theory which I have presented here. A recent popularization was
the movie "Groundhog day". The earlier source on this comes from
Bennet the mathematician who was a disciple of Gurdief in the early
part of this century.
===============================================
13. RESEARCHING PAST LIVES
After fooling around with this business of time being reset and
living the same lifetime multiple times, I began to doubt my vague
recollection of past lives.
I had run endless incidents, and some had been very productive of
case gain, but that did not guarantee the accuracy of the data.
Also, if you include Nots in the picture, you have to allow for
picking up and running other's incidents as well as your own.
By this point I had mapped out my current actual GPM and had dated
the last few dozen lifetimes here on Earth and had a vague idea of
who I was etc. But this also had some oddball stuff and loose ends.
What I felt was that the past life recall should be like remembering
having breakfast last week, and it was far from that. And I realized
that I was using the certainty of the impacts that occurred in heavy
incidents to dig up snatches of past life data. If I did that
for my current lifetime, I would have a few recollections of things
like being in the hospital once and no real idea of who I was or
what I was doing.
So I began to work with light everyday incidents and pleasure
moments. I tried to spot things like what kind of breakfast would
I have had or what would I have done for entertainment etc. And
at the same time, I searched for things that would validate my
recall and convince me that I was not just imagining this stuff
lock stock and barrel.
And finally I did come up with some things that convinced me that
I was remembering real data. Of course this was only subjective
proof and there is no way to show that I didn't look things up in
the history books first and then make up some lifetimes that fit
in. But the following stories should at least be a bit interesting
and maybe they will help you when you reach the point where you
need to undertake a similar search and validation for your own
past life recall (and please realize that you need to build up a
great deal of recall before you should even consider trying to
validate any of it, its just too vague and only half correct in
the early stages of processing).
Back around 1994 I was sitting in a coffee shop having breakfast
and considering how I might have sat around in similar circumstances
in earlier lives. And I thought of Constantinople.
I was already pretty sure of being at the fall of Constantinople,
and I had run an incident of standing on the walls and feeling great
sadness as the enemy overwhelmed the defenses. But now I found a
lighter and clearer recall of sitting in a tavern overlooking the
harbor and having some kind of sausage for breakfast. And I
frequented that place regularly and it seemed that I would sit
there in the mornings sketching out things that had to do with
defending the city.
And I remember drawing a plan for reinforcing a sort of elevator,
which was a huge wooden platform lifted by chains and pulleys.
This was used to raise catapults up to the top of the walls. But
in my sketch I was modifying it so that it could be used for
cannons. With that I knew that I was dubbing stuff in because
Constantinople had fallen in 1453 and I was sure that gunpowder
had not yet been invented.
But I decided not to worry about it and to keep running through
that time period on the basis that the dub-in would gradually
lift as I took more charge off. And it seemed that there was
a lot of charge there to be confronted. It seemed to me that
I had been some sort of leader or strategist planning the defense
of the city, but somebody else had shown up and replaced me as
commander and they had betrayed the city and caused it to fall.
My certainty in the incident was that we could have held the
city if it hadn't been for that. It seemed to me that the city
had been impregnable and that a traitor had opened the gates.
And then I tried to get the name I had then. I'm almost hopeless
on last names, but first names are fairly easy to remember.
But then it seemed to me that my first name was Paul, and that
didn't seem at all appropriate for somebody living in Constantinople.
The whole recollection was still pretty vague, but the Italian
sounding name and the cannons seemed to be unshakable on repeated
scanning through the time period. Eventually I decided to let the
matter drop and look things up in the history books.
I was shocked when I read the Brittanica's account. Giustiniani
(or Julian or Justin) had arrived just before the battle and taken over
the city's defenses. Paul (or Paolo) Bocchiardo and his brothers
had therefore been demoted from managing the main defenses (and
the main gate) and were placed in charge of holding the next
weakest of the gates. Julian then left a gate (actually a small
sally port) open and a few Turks stormed in before the Bocciardos
could get it closed again. When this handful of Turks showed up
behind the walls, Julian announced that the city was lost and
that he was badly wounded, and lead his troops from the walls
and sailed off while the city fell. And Constantinople did
indeed have cannons but they weren't used in the battle because
Julian convinced the Emperor that they would shake down the
city walls (which were a hundred foot thick) if they were mounted
on the walls and fired.
As to the Italian names, both Julian and the Bocciardos were from
Genoa and each had raised troops and brought them to defend the
city. My impression is that the Bocciardos had a rich shipping
business between the two cities and that the family maintained a
residence in Constantinople as well as in Genoa.
And another impression I had on reading about this was that I
would have followed Julian after the battle and killed him.
Eventually I found much more detailed accounts. When the Turks
stormed the position abandoned by Julian and swept into the city,
the Bocciardos maintained their position and held their section
of the wall until nightfall. They successfully evacuated their
men and got their ships out of the harbor and then sneaked out
themselves under cover of darkness. Now the accounts get
interesting. Paul was officially reported as having died while the
Bocciardos were escaping the city, but there are accounts of
people talking with him afterwards. The historians hypothesis that
there was some confusion as to which brother was which. I would
suggest however that if you were going to hunt down and kill another
citizen of Genoa, you might want to issue a false report of
your own death.
Then there is the matter of Julian's wound which he used as an
excuse to explain why he was leaving the walls (the Emperor mustered
what few troops he could and bravely held the main gate while
Julian made good his escape, the Emperor of course perished with
his men). All but one account consider that Julian's wound was
a fake or a minor scratch that was self inflicted. But one historian
considers that it must have been a real wound because there is
a record that Julian died at Chios on the day following the battle.
Although the cause of Julian's death is not recorded, it would
obviously be related to the battle, either being due to a real
wound, or, more likely in my opinion, being due to an angry man
extracting vengeance from a horrible traitor. I seem to recall
catching up with him in a tavern.
One might well ask why the city was betrayed. Julian was rich and
certainly didn't need any kind of payoff. Another interesting point
is that the Pope sent a fleet from Venice to help the city but it
managed to dawdle around and avoided arriving until after the city
had fallen.
And the politics are very interesting. Until the fall,
Constantinople had the greatest library of ancient documents in
the world. It was primarily a city of scholars and traders with a
small but highly educated population (three quarters of the city
within the walls was uninhabited and the parks etc. had been turned
into farming land - the population was under a hundred thousand
when it had been over a million in early times). They had original
versions of biblical books etc. which were quite different from the
versions that had been heavily edited by Rome, and they were
considered religious heretics and dangerous to the church.
They had all sorts of wild and non-standard ideas that were
a mixture of early (pre-Roman) Christianity combined with
Greek philosophy. This included things like trying to tap cosmic
energy, etc. When the head of the church in Constantinople made
peace with the Pope, his own priests rebelled and continued the
conflict.
My own feeling is that Julian was asked to betray the city to
eliminate a dangerous source of heresy. This fits in well with
the Venetian navy rushing to the rescue (to create good public
opinion) while never quite making it to the city (they had
plenty of time and zig zagged around at sea for months). This
was the time period when the Catholic church was sinking into its
darkest era, with the Popes being concerned mainly with money and
power. Within a generation, the church would hit rock bottom
under control of the Borgia Popes and it would be a century before
the church was cleaned up and reformed.
As to the Turks, the previous sultan had been friendly to
Constantinople and the city was generally useful to them as a
neutral intermediary between the Catholic and Islamic worlds.
A hothead had just come into power and was making his name
with a holy war. But the cause was not popular and the siege
was running out of steam. A final attack was called for before
abandoning the whole thing as a bad job. That's when the city
was betrayed. Without that, the city would have made it into the
modern era. Of course we have Istanbul instead, and perhaps there
is not much difference. Except for one thing. All the books were
burned. It was comparable to the loss of the library at Alexandria.
For example, the Hermetica of Hermes Trimagistus (a metaphysical
reference work which is popular among mystics) was compiled from
earlier materials during the 1100s in Constantinople. Both the
compilation and the earlier documents were destroyed when the
city fell. The currently available editions are incomplete
reconstructions from other sources that had had access to the
library at Constantinople before it was burned.
----------
The other lifetime I found where the history books provided some
validation was during the American Civil War.
Although I abhor slavery and prejudice, I always felt a strange
sympathy for the Confederate armies. This was hard for me to
understand because I had pretty much swallowed the popular view
that the war was fought over slavery. Even though I had seen the
occasional mention of the fact that it was really fought over
state's rights, this seemed to me to be a minor side issue when
I was in school and the teacher's did not really bring the point
home or offset the heavy federal propaganda which was originally
used to justify an unnecessary and bloodthirsty war and which still
remains a part of our culture to this day.
The truth of the matter is that popular opinion in Virginia and
North Carolina and the upper half of the south had already turned
against slavery. These states actually voted to remain in the
union after the deep south succeeded. And they did so knowing
that with Georgia and the rest of the gulf states gone, the heavy
anti-slavery majority in congress under Lincoln would ensure that
slavery would be eliminated within a few years as did happen in
Maryland and Delaware.
Of course the slave holding land barons were resisting this, but
the bulk of the population in the cities had already turned against
slavery. Most ordinary people had no vested interest to blind them
to the horrors of it, and even the rich businessmen were beginning to
see that you can't run an industrial economy with slave labor and
that you need a free population as a market for your goods. And
there was dissension among the ranks of the landed gentry.
General Lee for example, had freed his slaves before the war and
was sympathetic enough to the abolitionists to be offered the
command of the US Army by President Lincoln.
As to the deep south, they went into an immediate economic collapse
as soon as they succeeded. With a heavy trade embargo, Lincoln could
have brought them to their knees, and the morally torn states of
Virginia and North Carolina would have debated and protested and
waffled back and forth. It would have taken time, but it might even
have been accomplished before 1865. With only vested interests
and a morally repugnant practice to encourage resistance, the gulf
states could not have resisted the pressure. They had no real
industrial base and could not go it alone in a modern economy. The
true industrial base of the confederacy was in Virginia and North
Carolina and they were sticking with the Union.
But Lincoln was probably worried about the 1864 election, which might
disrupt a potentially successful embargo. He couldn't count on
winning it if the union was still divided, and he probably worried
about a compromiser being elected. And he must have foolishly
thought that a quick military strike could end the whole thing and
leave him as the great president who had both ended slavery and
beaten the rebels into line. I'm sure he never imagined that we
would still be at war by the fall of 1864 or he never would have
risked it. The faintest shift of events at Gettysburg gives Lee
a successful strike at one of the big northeastern cities and that
almost guarantees Lincoln's defeat in the election which comes in the
following year. And that almost certainly gives us a
worst case result which is a permanent division bathed in blood,
hatred, and periodic wars with slavery perpetuated for an ungodly
length of time.
And so Lincoln makes the stupid and horrifying mistake of launching
an all out war and calling for troops. And when he tries to draft
the citizens of Virginia and North Carolina, they promptly rebel.
And Maryland would have revolted as well except that Lincoln had
the Governor and his staff arrested for treason. And there were
even draft riots and barricades thrown up in the streets of New
York City.
Of course at this point Virginia and North Carolina should have
practiced civil disobedience and covert non-compliance and a
Vietnam style protest rather than going into open rebellion.
It is doubtful that Lincoln could have set himself up as a
dictator (which is what the Virginian's were really fighting
against) and a hated president can be ousted at the next election.
Even here a sane course could have reduced the horror and the evil
consequences. But events had proceeded past the point where
people would listen to reason.
The true price we paid was to be shackled under a strong central
government (instead of a loose amalgamation of states) and to
see a century of unjust prejudice perpetuated by hatred and
vengeance. For it is the engramic impact and the continual
reminder in terms of dead and maimed relatives and unscrupulous
carpetbaggers that ensured that the racial prejudices would be
cast in concrete instead of fading over the course of a few
generations. We might have had true civil rights by the turn
of the century (and certainly by the time of the suffragettes)
if Mr. Lincoln had restrained himself from launching the blood bath.
Of course I didn't think all of this initially. I used to think
that Lincoln was a great man. My change in attitude came first of
all from running incidents, and then from following it up with a
great deal of reading about the time period. I believe that all
of the above is historically correct.
Before my recall opened up on this time period, I only had a few
odd loose ends. First was an actual GPM item for that lifetime
which did not fit properly in terms of dating the birth. I was
certain that I had left the previous body in 1853 and the dates
I was getting for this late 1800s lifetime were obviously incorrect
and overlapping the previous life. Although I seemed to have some
sort of reaction on confederate generals and the civil war, I was
sure that I could not have been in it because I would have been
a child in 1860. There was also my odd fascination with American
railroads, which seemed to have no basis in any past life experience.
I knew I was European in both the preceding and following lifetimes
(the next one starts in 1893) and it seemed unlikely to me that
I would have had anything to do with America.
But, despite believing wars to be part of the trap and a grave
mistake, I have always found military strategy to be interesting
in a game playing sense. And there is a proposition, both by
Ron, and by other intelligent writers such as Gordon Dickinson,
etc. that a small group operating as individuals can take on a
large army. There is also the additional point that the American
Revolution was primarily won by frontier style fighting opposing
orderly regimentation.
So one day I wondered why the confederates hadn't simply all run
around in the woods as individuals and shot apart the invading
union troops in a guerrilla warfare like action. And then I had
the wild idea that I had tried it. And then the memory came back
to me.
What I recalled was that I was some sort of junior officer with
perhaps a company of men under me. Things were disorganized and
there were few trained officers at the lower ranks. So I had my
group to train as I saw fit, and I had heard stories about
revolutionaries bushwhacking the British. So that's how I trained
my men. I didn't believe in drilling them as if they were on
parade. Instead we went into the woods and ran around in mock
combat, hiding and sniping and trying to stay in touch with each
other while we did so.
And finally we marched off to battle. I couldn't remember which
one, but logically it seemed to me that it had to have been Bull
Run because I knew that one was a confused mess that happened at
the beginning of the war.
On the battlefield, while most of the regiments were marching around
in orderly lines, we were crawling and diving around through the
bushes. Of course what happened is that we got confused about our
position and lost contact with the rest of the Confederate troops.
About an hour later, we were crawling around in some tall grass
near a rise and I sent one of our men to go peak over the top.
He waved me over frantically. When I peered over the edge, there
was a wide creek and what seemed like thousands of Union troops lined
up along our side of it. And on the far side, upon a tree covered slope,
were the southern forces.
We tried to back away quietly, but one of the Union troupers looked
up and began shouting. I was freaked out. There were less than
a hundred of us and what seemed like ten thousand union soldiers
were about to turn around and come charging up at us. So I did
the only thing which I thought might save our lives. We had to
pretend to be a large Confederate force which had outflanked
the Union. I spread the men out and had them yelling like they
were company commanders. We had one flag, and I had them poke
it up once and then yelled at them to keep the flags down
until we're ready to attack. We fired one volley with every
gun we had (including firing pistols which were out of range)
and then yelled loudly to cease fire and wait for the main
attack.
Surprisingly enough, it worked. We created such a fuss that the
Union did think they were being outflanked and turned their
artillery on us. But the cannons were at the far end of the
union line and we were right on top of their people. So
they began blowing their own troops to hell because of their
poor aim. And then the Confederates across the creek, greatly
outnumbered, charged and the union line broke and ran from the
field.
After running this, I tried to get more about that lifetime.
It seemed to me that I would have been disgusted with fighting
after that first battle. I was sure that I was from North
Carolina and would have gone back there as soon as possible.
But it seemed to me that I would then have been in the local
defenses and gotten sucked back in when the Union landed
invasion forces on the North Carolina coast. And then maybe
I would have ended up back in Lee's army and perhaps even
ended up as a general because I was known as a hero from
that first battle.
All I could get of my name was that I was called Bill. And I
knew that I had died in Europe in 1853, so I must have picked
up a grown body there at that time. And it seemed to me that
there might have been a 17 year old southerner studying
architecture in Europe when he took deathly ill and went into
a coma. And maybe that thetan left and I picked up the body
then. And I could remember designing a stone arch bridge
for one of the southern railroads (maybe the Richmond and
Danville?) in the late 1850s when I returned home, suffering
a bit of amnesia after my sickness (I seemed to know the
language and engineering but was uncertain as to people's names
etc.). My father was a civil engineer and we lived in a small
city along the coast. We had no slaves and I had little
understanding of the reality of it. And after I designed
that bridge, I was sent to the construction site. And I was
horrified by how they treated the slave labor that was used to
build it. I remember having a fight with the foreman and getting
beaten up by him.
In that lifetime I certainly wouldn't have fought to defend
slavery. But I would fight to keep my homeland from being invaded.
And I would fight to overthrow a dictator or a government that
tried to draft me and was ordering me to attack neighboring cities
that were in the state next door.
The attitudes I had in the incident when war first broke out
surprised me when I first discovered that I had felt that way.
Now that I have read a good bit more, they make a lot more sense.
It was at this point that I decided to dig into the history books
and see what I could find. And I found him. General William
Lewis of North Carolina. He was 17 in 1853, worked for the railroads
before the war, and became a civil engineer after the war, living
until 1893. The books don't say much, only about a paragraph, but he
was the hero of Big Bethel, the first battle in Virginia, with a few
thousand men on each side. And the Union artillery shelled
their own troops and the Confederates only lost a few men while
the Union ranks were decimated. I had gotten the name of the
battle wrong, but the details were right, and I certainly had
never even hear of the battle before, it only gets about a
paragraph in the biggest reference works. And after that he had
mustered out until the battle of Cape Fear where he is part of the
coastal defenses. And then he becomes a Corneal and joins the
regular army again, eventually begin promoted to General before the
end of the war.
As for military strategy, it seems to me that I decided that the
idea of loose individual forces was unworkable despite winning the
battle and went back to the ordered regimentation that was the usual
military style in the civil war. According to the history books,
the battle of Bull Run also had a lot of disorganized running around
which was handled by Stonewall Jackson forming his men up into a
"stone wall" which formed an organized position around which the
other troops could rally. These organized lines of men became
the keynote of military operation at that time. With hindsight,
however, it would seem to me that the ideal strategy would use
both with the solid formations providing strength and orientation
while the light individualized units drove the enemy PTS.
This concept might work well in many fields of endeavor. Having
both highly organized groups and totally independent individuals
all working towards the same long range goal should result in
the maximum horsepower possible. What ruins this are the implants
which place freedom and organization into opposition so that the
organized units try to force the individuals into line and the
individuals tend to fight the organization to retain their
independence.
The long range solution would be to run out the implants. In
the short term, the group members and the free beings should
work on mutual tolerance and those who are aware enough to
understand this should encourage the others to move in the right
direction. The right action when these two types come in contact
is to rehabilitate the shared goals rather than attempting to
control or unmock each other.
===============================================
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 22 12:06:02 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/pilot/ss28.script
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)
iD8DBQFYXAf7URT1lqxE3HERAnj+AJ9IoeJk5b1co/tCz0uOCN1mpaOE7QCfaqeh
1dT9g42W/o3Ae6rfaFeYUNM=
=UUzb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
I AM THE DESTROYER OF WORLDS
> Is a memory in a conscious mind an example of perfect certainty? In other
> words, is a memory in the same class as simple self-awareness, in that the
> memory, even if flawed or deluded, exists in a way that can be categorized
> as direct perception?
Most mechanical memory is simple picture taking, so no, a mere
picture of the past is not proof of squat. SEEING THE MEMORY in present
time is a perfect certainty, but relating it to what happened where you
can no longer look is not a certainty.
Certainty is ONLY of the living now.
You can never learn with certainty about A (the past) by looking at
B (a picture of the past in the present).
However that said, the question is more difficult for trailing near
present time memories, like the ones I have of writing this posting as I
am writing it.
Imagine trying to build a machine that could tell if time is taking
place. You take a picture, you take another picture later and compare,
if different there was time.
But causal pathways can be 'messed' with, how does the machine
really know something didn't mess up the second picture during the
taking of it, to make it different when it shouldn't have been.
Since any causal pathway can be messed with by a superior third
party such as God, no causal pathway can be trusted. And no amount of
other causal pathways can verify the first causal pathway.
Using more causal pathways to inspect and verify other causal
pathways is nuts, for who will inspect and verify the second inspector
and verfier pathways.
So when trying to verify a causal pathway, "More causal pathways do
not a more certain causal pathway make."
If a machine has 3 cameras, and 2 says something happened and 1
didn't, which report do you trust, the majority report or the minority
report?
Because of the causal path way problem, it is well known that no
matter how many cameras a machine has, nor how well they can see into
the very circuits of the machine itself, nor how accurate the machine's
internal records of its own circuits are, it is impossible for the
machine to verify the correctness of its circuits to a perfect certainty
by comparing what it sees to its internal diagrams.
What ever conclusion it draws is always a theory based on trust
that things are working and not being messed with by a higher causal
third party.
Thus a machine can ever verify that it is working properly.
So that's the third party law, any two events in the physical
universe that follow each other, might be causing each other, or might
be being caused by a third cause that causes both of the other events in
such a way that they LOOK like they cause each other.
Do electrons have anything to do with why electrons repell?
In the arcade game of PONG do the light paddle and light ball and
light wall have anything to do with the ball bouncing off the paddle and
the wall?
In the first place nothing is bouncing, only being reprojected. in
new locations. As time goes on, the paddle, the ball and the wall are
each forever new.
No, the 'bounce' is caused by a spanning third party causing the
ILLUSION of cause between the paddle, the ball and the wall.
Worse a machine can not even tell if it has changed state, because
its present state contains no data about any possible prior state. The
machine is stuck forever in IS, it can't know anything of BECOMING.
So a machine takes a picture, then another picture, and compares
them and finds out they are different. That whole set of circuitry
right there, who knows where the results come from, any third party or
interfering party could cause results to be wrong no matter how careful
the machine is to 'look' at what is going on.
Thus a machine can not tell it has changed state with perfect
certainty, let alone compare states with perfect certainty. Since all
learning IS a change in state, the machine can never tell with perfect
certainty if it has learned anything or not.
Thus a machine can not learn with perfect certainty anything about
anything.
And in particular, can not tell with perfect certainty that time is
taking place which involves a certainty that a change has taken place.
So you go out and look at a blinking red stop light for a few hours
at night at 3am in the morning. Is the light blinking? Yes, how do you
know?
YOU CAN SEE IT BLINK.
That is not seeing just states, but CHANGES in state.
A machine can never see the change directly, it can only BE in one
or the other of the two ends states. Your consciousness can see the
CHANGE.
A non scalar machine can not do that.
So would you bet your and everyone else's eternity in hell on your
perception that the light is blinking?
Yes of course.
But how are you doing this, by taking a memory picture, then
comparing to a later picture when the light has changed state. At the
later time, how do you KNOW the memory is correct and not messed with?
Can you take a memory and then 10 seconds later LOOK INTO THE PAST
by 10 seconds DIRECTLY and compare the memory with the past directly?
How about a memory of 1 second ago?
How wide is present time? Can we see into the past and future by
even a millionth of a second, thus having trans time 'memory' which is
perfectly certain? Or is that just direct perception of a width of time
and not memory at all but none the less gives us certainty of time and
change.
Same thing with the perception of time and space, both are
illusions, if they existed you could never know it, so the fact that you
'know it' by seeing it with certainty, means they don't actually exist.
Only a timeless entity could be certain of change and time. Only a
spaceless entity could be perceptually certain of space and distance, a
machine can't do it at all.
This isn't true because a timeless entity can see time, its because
a machine working in time CAN'T see time.
Thus if you can see time, you must not be a machine working in
time.
That does not at all explain how a timeless entity can experience
time.
It is conceivable that there is both the timeless state and the
timefull state, then the timeless entity can see time in the timefull
state, but the timefull machine never will.
Same thing for differences, look at two different colors. Are you
certain they look different? A machine can't do that, it can only
receive signals and voltages, compare them with some circuitry that may
or may not work and print out a yes or a no.
The machine never SEES anything, it just passes incoming effects on
through it self back to the outside again.
Two frequencies come in, and it prints yes they are different.
That's just dominoes falling according to code.
No domino can see any prior domino, it can only change state (fall)
as an alleged result of the prior domino pushing on it with a causal
messenger wave when they 'collide'.
The two domino's never actually touch, and after the second domino
starts falling, it can never know that it was 'touched' to start the
fall.
So the second domino can never know anything about the cause of its
falling, and there is not continuity of certainty from moment of touch
to later during the fall.
And WHAT it was touched by will always remain a mystery of theory,
never direct perception of the touching domino, nor even the virtual
photon that came across during the collision.
The falling domino doesn't even 'feel the force' pushing it, in any
conscious sense of the word, it merely responds to the force by falling.
Just as pleasure and pain can not be reduced to force and mass in
motion, either can color nor any other conscious experience including
the experience of time and space.
Color in particular can not be numerified, yes shades of red can be
numerified, but the difference between red and green can not, thus a
machine can never see red, as machines are nothing but numbers of force
and mass.
OK, so you have a memory of what you ate at breakfast.
Are you willing to bet your eternity in hell its right?
If yes, then that mechanism is not a mechanical one, and only a
scalar non mechanical conscious entity could do it.
But what is the mechanism?
And what the hell is a scalar 'mechanism anyhow' where cause and
effect are one and the same event.
In a mechanical system the learner computes back to the nature of
the cause from the effect it receives.
That's indirect perception.
In a scalar system, the learner and the learned about are one and
the same entity, and the learning about cause is NOT from looking at the
effect and computing back to some theoretical nature and existence of
the cause, but from looking at the cause directly.
Well what is the mechanism behind an object being able to see
itself without merely being the effect of itself and declaring that
because it was an effect it must have been cause.
That's thinking and logical deduction, 'there was an effect so
there must have been a cause.'
Scalar perception is 'There's a cause because I can SEE it
directly.'
In the physical universe, causation is not sufficient to witness
causation.
That's why causal pathways can't be used to verify either
themselves or other causal pathways. And if they can't verify
themselves, they sure as hell can't verify any other causal pathway.
Verification of a causal pathway means one can tell with perfect
certainty that any particular change happened BECAUSE of a designated
change before it, and not some 3rd party making it look like there was a
prior different cause.
In the physical universe all we can see are the two end events, the
two things that 'changed because of each other'. We can never see the
CAUSE between them.
We can never tell if two electrons repel because they have actual
cause between them, or because God is moving them directly as if they
have cause between them.
If two electrons are out in space, and you wiggle one, a while
later the second will wiggle. Are you perfectly certain that because
the second electron wiggled, that the first one even existed.
No, God or anything could have wiggled the second for no reason at
all. So its a theory that the second wiggled BECAUSE the first wiggled,
and the theory is made of model and evidence.
The model is that there is a first electron that wiggled first and
causal messenger wiggles went between them, and thus the evidence that
there is a first electron is BECAUSE the second wiggled.
The evidence is always the EFFECT, never the cause.
And the model is whatever THEORETICAL causation you wish to surmise
between the effect and its prior cause.
Since all observation of effects and their so called causes USES
this very mechanism to look with, the whole thing may be consistent and
peer reviewed, and completely wrong with God laughing at everyone.
And with what peers are you going to review your proof that peers
even exist?
So the whole dependency on peer review depends on ASSUMING with out
peer review without peer review.
The bedrock of 'objective universe' science is fairy dust.
Consciousness however can see the cause between things, hold your
finger up, notice the cause between YOU and your finger being in the
air. That's direct perception of personal agency.
Look at two different colors, and then hold your finger up BECAUSE
they are different. Notice the intra conscious causal pathway between
colors, YOU and figure in the air.
Certainty that any cause of any kind exists at all is the hall mark
of consiousness.
It may be hard to behold, but in the absence of cause there can be
no learning. No change, means no learning.
Thus there has to be cause of some kind, scalar or not, between the
two different conscious colors (not PHOTONS, photons have no color) and
your knowing they are different. You can see this incoming cause IN THE
COLORS, glowing at you TELLING you with perfect certainty that they are
different.
Thus you are learning about the existence of cause by looking at
cause in the colors directly, not by looking at some effect in yourself
and computing back taht the two alleged colors must be different and
might be cause of whatever you are computing back from.
Think is not direct perception is not think is not direct
perception.
Thus certainty of incoming causation is unique to conscious
experiences. Certainty of outgoing cause is also unique as you observe
yourself hold your finger up and know YOU are doing it, and that it is
up BECAUSE you are PUTTING IT UP, not because some third party is
putting it up for you, or worse making you THINK it is up via some
return effect, when really its still down.
We are not talking about the physical finger, but the conscious
finger you can see.
You see the reason you can't learn about A by looking at B, is the
their party could always be between A and B. You see B, but can't see
A, so you have to trust the changes in B were 'caused by A'.
A messenger hands you a message from the King, how do you know it
came from the King?
But with two different colors, you can SEE the KING, you can see
the colors, you can SEE there is no third party between the event of the
colors and your knowledge that they are two different colors. Thus your
learning is certain, and continuously reverifiable.
Doubt free perception is the miracle of scalar learning.
So we have this spaceless timeless mechanism by which consciousness
can behold itself in the NOW, not the THEN which ALL mechanical cause
and effect systems are limited to, because they take TIME betwen the
cause and the effect!
By the time the effect happens, the cause is gone, so what
certainty is there from the effect that there was a cause?
Only direct perception of CAUSE proves cause!
But direct perception of CAUSE has to be timeless by definition,
otherwise one is learning LATER about the cause EARLIER, and now we are
back to learning about A by looking at B.
Since our minds can ONLY understand scalar mechanics, looking at
effects and computing possible causes (which is not directly perceiving
them), we are at a loss to UNDERSTAND spaceless timeless processes.
And if spaceless timeless process isn't an oxymoron squared, then I
don't know what is.
But there it is, no space time process can be certain of anything,
but certainty surely exists.
Uncertainty certainty exists. To doubt this is to prove it.
Therefore certainty exists. QED
Certainty of uncertainty is the beginning of wisdom.
So we DEFINE that which is perfectly certain to be a scalar
process, which uses an oxymoron at best to describe it.
Scalar processes violate everything we know about everything
because in our lives we are using (wasting) our scalar consciousness to
monitor and learn about the non scalar dimensional universe of space and
time.
Its an arcade game in our consciousness, how can it be more
important in its utter uncertainty of existence, than the consciousness
which perceives it with perfect certainty?
Certainty of the TV set is more important than anything going on in
the TV screen.
We conceive we ARE our space time avatars, bodies, that
consciousness is a process in constituency (what we are made of),
arrangement (of that constituency,) and process, which is the flow of
energy through the machine from high anti entropy to high entropy.
If the arrangement or the consituency are destroy, busted apart or
jammed, the process dies, and if consciousness IS merely the process,
chemistry bubbling away at 98.6, then the consious unit dies too.
But if consciousness is scalar, then there is no time for it to
come and go in, so it must be eternal, can't be created nor destroyed,
and in truth, it can't even CHANGE, and when the dream avatars die, the
illusion that we ARE our avatar blows up and we ext from the dream
forcibly.
What we are exting from is not the avatar but the illusion that we
ARE the avatar.
We can do that while still living, if we dare.
Also notice about memory, the primary memory of interest is
RECOGNITION OF SELF, that means I know I am the same self as I was 30
years ago, its still me, and although a lot of my avatars that I
identify myself with are changing all the time, there is at least one
thing about me that isn't changing at all, or I wouldn't be me any more.
Every atom in my body can be replaced but the core conscious is
never touched.
So when the avatar dies, and space time blow up when the being
wakes up to his eternality, there he is again, FOREVER AND EVER the same
being, and remembers again WHAT he is, and what he has chosen and how he
got into this mess. But above that there is no memory of anything to do
with space time retained at all, that's when the being is ready to sleep
and then start a whole new cycle. No memory of past cycles remain, but
he is aware this is what he does, so he knows there have been past
cycles and will be again, none of which he will remember once they are
done, all by his own choice.
How likely is that? Too good to be true?
An infinite number of finite whiles in which to create, play, close
up shop, sleep and do it again.
In present time we are using a conscious display screen capable of
perceiving itself and its displays with perfect certainty, to display a
universe in which there IS and CAN NOT BE perfect certainty due to the
two different objects rule.
Its like the guy in a tank looking at a TV screen and fighting a
life and death war with all the people displayed on the screen, but he
doesn't know if any of the are actual, but he does know that the TV is
actual.
Kind of inverted, to use a perfect certainty to symbolize a
hallucinated virtual reality.
And from inside the tank he can never prove one way or another that
the story line on TV screen is actually going on, because he can't get
out of the tank. So he plays his arcade game forever.
Of course he will eventually realize that even his TV screen is
part of the arcade because he is seeing that with his eyes, and brain,
and even they are part of the arcade, because all he really has is his
conscious unit, himself, which is actual and sure.
But as long as the conscious unit thinks it is a brain in a tank in
a universe, well then fight he must, and the perfect certainty facility
of his conscious unit goes to total waste.
The perfect certainty facility is subserviated to the needs of
defending himself in a certainly uncertain nightmare of magnitude.
"Who cares about perfect certainty, all I care about are the enemy
out there, who I don't have a fucking clue whether they exist or not,
AND CAN'T have a clue, because it is fundamentally unclueable."
So if you have a memory of which you are perfectly certain, then
its not a mechanical memory, its part of the scalar magic that
consciousness is doing all day long, perhaps even a direct perception of
the past.
Sometimes you can get flooded with pictures with exquisite detail
and you know this must be SOMEBODY'S picture memory, but without
RECOGNITION as to having seen it before, it can't be yours.
Since every huma body being is a composite of billions of other
smaller and bigger beings, any one walking around has trillions of
memories to take experiences from and get confused by thinking they are
his own.
Recognition however comes from the eternal awareness of one's self
as one's self, unchanging, immutable and always you and always will be
you.
If you have a memory of a time in which you recognized yourself,
then perhaps those memories have enough of an eternal aspect that they
can be said to be perfectly certain, but that's really stretching it.
The fact of you recognizing yourself may be certain, but the space
time avatarial circumstances surrounding the event, well who knows...
Recognition of others is also important, loves from forever ago are
just as alive today as they were, and just as you can recognize yourself
though the cloud of illusory spaces and times, so can you recognize
others across eternity.
But you have to perceive via eternity, not via space and time!
> Theory two is pure and simple Vedic philosophy.
Yes, I know I wrote it.
They still don't believe me :)
> I always thought this was nicely poetic, but never understood a word of what
> it meant. Years later I was given a translation of this work, and when I got
> to the good part, I was floored. It read:
>
> "Time I am, the shatterer of worlds"
>
> Shows how different translations can change the very heart of a text.
>
> Anyway, this I got. Timelessness is, I think. what you meant by:
>
> "It casts APPARENT cause into the kinetics, but in fact the static scale
> maintains cause at all time over the kinetics to make it seem like the
> kinetics has cause over itself."
Yes, in a sleep dream, the ball bounces off the wall not
because there is cause between them, but because the alleged brain
controls both to make it seem like they control each other.
Same with the waking state.
All physics is orchestrated down to the last quark.
Some will complain 'But how could I have gotten the idea
that a ball could bounce off a wall' unless I had first experienced
a real ball bouncing of a real wall?
They define themselves as the accumulation of being an effect.
God did not have to see a tree before he could creat one.
Since we are all God in carnation, the High US, and at the top we
create in the mere conception of things, we do not need to have been the
prior effect of external impingement in order to create an experience
for ourselves or others.
Thus one can dream new things anytime one wants, either in sleep
or in the 'awake' state.
> Arjuna was being told that all of time is an illusion, that the battle, its
> antecedents and its consequences are all, have all been, predetermined, have
> all taken place, and will take place, and always will. Same with the
> universe.
Not sure about predetermined, the static is envessled in the
kinetic avatar and it CAN act like a state determined machine, dominos
falling, but it can also make a prime postulate and start something new
not related to the past or present of the existing avatarial scene or
state of things.
The creation of the dream physical universe was itself not state
determined by an earlier dream universe, and thus that same creator can
create new again again even within the avatarial context of his
immediate surroundings.
He has to be awake enough to do it.
If he thinks he is a machine and his consciousness is a process
in a space time gizmo like the brain, he won't be able to rise
above is own conception of things.
> Did you ever read Slaughterhouse Five?
No.
> The read was terrific. Did you write that just to me?
Yes.
But its now in the public archives, as is this one.
> Do you know that years ago, I wrote the line in your father's Wikipedia
> entry, about you?
I will check it out.
>
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Apr 4 23:43:02 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 22 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore969.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.
rather than a pure decay, would be necessary in truly
early implants that could not assume the prior existence of a
complex environment.
If there are earlier and more basic versions of the penalty
universes, then this also might not be the earliest. It does not
quite start from total nothingness. It seems to assume that there
are other beings and there is already the possibility of a game,
and it seems that one's desire for games was used as the hook that
suckered you into the implant. Therefore, I will call this the
games tone scale. Note that the penalty universes and the ordinary
tone scale use aesthetics and action as the hook which keeps you
attached to the incident. That is far lower than a desire for games,
but it hints that there might be more basic things that drive
directly off of a desire for creation (which is senior to games).
The scale is as follows:
Anticipation
Curiosity
Interest
Desire
Fascination
Excitement
Experience
Enjoyment
Achievement
Expansion
Overextension
Overcomplexity
Confusion
Gone on too long (over-run/tired)
Must continue
Enforcement
Solidity (Mass)
Inhibit
Can't Stop
Struggle
Protection
Failed Protect
Punish
Own
Desperation
Dispersal
Failure
Overwhelm
Blame
Shame
Regret
Unreality
Waste
Substitute
Degradation
disinterest
Abandonment
Failed to Leave
Protest
Frantic
Unknownness
Unknowing Fixidity
In other words, the implant universe "To Grow" had the item
"To Grow is To Anticipate" up near the top and the item "To Grow
is To Be Fixated" down near the bottom. And goals like "To
Energize", "To Eternalize", and "To Individuate" all react strongly
on these items.
This whole area is very much in need of further research.
===============================================
11. HOME UNIVERSE VALENCE GAME: TERMINALS
June 1996
These work like rock/paper/scissors, each beats the next in a
circular pattern.
There are probably missing pairs.
The one you are now is the one you crushed. The one before it
is the one you played in the game.
Which item you're sitting on affects how fast you move through
specific goals in the GPM pattern of the current universe (example,
the scientist will rush through goals like "to be beautiful" and
linger on goals like "to be intelligent").
Usually the game was played with the actual valences covertly hidden
and only revealed at the moment of impact.
The game was played on the original earth.
THE KING -> THE WORKER -> THE CRIMINAL -> THE NOBEL --
/
-------------------------------------------/
/
/
THE SLAVE -> THE SOLDIER -> THE BUREAUCRAT -> THE TEACHER
/
-------------------------------------------/
/
/
THE PRIEST -> THE SURGEON -> THE BUSINESSMAN -> THE REVOLUTIONARY
/
-------------------------------------------/
/
/
THE GIRL -> THE SCIENTIST ->
( THE MINISTER -> THE ASSASSIN ? )
- -----> (full circle back to THE KING)
(maybe THE SPY, THE PROPHET, THE GENERAL, THE EMPRESS,
THE JESTER (FOOL), THE MECHANIC (TECHNICIAN), THE POLICEMAN,
THE WITCH, THE HUNTER )
This is all highly speculative
===============================================
12. THEORY OF RESET TIME
17 Dec. 1992
The theory given here is so incredible that even I have to look
at it with some doubt and reservation. If true, the
implications are immense. But it reads like the wildest
science fiction, far beyond the easily accepted space opera
style material that we are used to encountering. As a PC, I
have no doubts about the incidents described here. They ran
with great reality and good meter behavior, showing large
reads on dating, blowdowns on running, and going to proper
EPs. As an auditor, I run whatever is there to run without
any Q & As about the PCs data. But as a researcher, I have to
allow for the possibility that the incidents contained a high
degree of dub-in and that the conclusions are incorrect.
Eventually I may find that these are simply twisted up and
misdated incidents which occurred long ago. But it would be
wrong to withhold potentially vital information even though
it might be wrong data. So here it is. Just take it with a grain
of salt and don't jam it down anybody's throat.
Before going into the theory, I would like to provide a bit
more clarification on how one can be mislead by session data.
Many years ago, I was running a PC on Dianetics and he
started running an incident of being grabbed by invaders and
implanted. The incident had a heavy somatic of suffocating.
The date was "last night". My first thought was that we either
had a wrong date or serious dub-in. But I did not jump down
the PC's throat and correct the date. That would have been
quite a mistake because the date was correct. The PC's data
turned out to be correct too and the incident ran well,
everything going by the book. If we hadn't taken one last pass
through, I might have been left either doubting the PC's data
or having wild ideas about saucer people sneaking into
peoples homes and implanting them late at night. As it turned
out, the PC was having a very real dream about being
implanted while his cat was sitting on his face delivering a
very real suffocating somatic along with a purring rumble that
seemed like some sort of implant vibration. The moral is to
always take the PC's data no matter how wild and illogical it
seems, but don't jump to wild conclusions based on
insufficient information.
1. POCKET UNIVERSES
We have been assuming all along that we are in the main
framework of the current physical universe. We see a galaxy
full of stars around us and assume that it is there and we are a
part of it. And that galaxy is definitely one of the group of
galaxies that makeup the current physical universe. It has a
pretty distinctive look, quite different from the magic
universe. Space opera incidents of running around in this
galaxy are quite easy to find on PCs.
But there are other things besides the large scale, full fledged,
agreed upon universes. Besides the independent little
universes used for implanting or story telling or whatever, it is
also possible for the big universes to have little side pockets.
These pocket universes are not quite independent. They
connect to the main universe and mostly share its laws. But
the laws can be different and the space-time is a bit sideways
of the main universe. It is possible to manipulate the space
and time in these little side universes without having to
manipulate the huge agreed upon universe.
The Home universe matrix was nothing more than a simple
agreed upon space that provided a reference point from which
endless little pocket universes could be set up. These pocket
universes were the individual home universes of the thetans
involved.
Pocket universes were still quite common even as late as the
symbols universe. It was not unusual to walk sideways into a
painting on the wall and find yourself in another three
dimensional space which could be considered to be a pocket
universe of the large agreed upon symbols universe.
Pocket universes have become very rare. But is it still
possible for a group of OTs to get together and push a space-
time framework sideways of the normal space-time and create
a pocket universe. Although pockets are often small, they can
also be so big that one could easily contain this solar system.
It would also be possible to surround one with a pre-recorded
image of the galaxy, or even to relay a real view of the current
galaxy into it. You could toss all sorts of undesirables and
convicts into such a construction.
Would it make any difference if we're in a pocket universe
instead of the main framework of the physical universe?
Unfortunately, it does. If we are in a space-time pocket, it
becomes possible for the people controlling the prison
machinery to manipulate space-time in a manner that would
be inconceivable if applied to the full sized physical universe.
The very structure of space-time in this local might be designed
expressly for the purpose of using earth as a prison. And
everybody is sitting on a single planet so that it becomes
possible to deliver implants to the entire population of the
"pocket universe" if necessary.
2. HEAVEN AND HELL
I didn't used to believe in the existence of heaven and hell. I
figured that these were simply pictures used to lure or chase
people into the between lives implants. Running track, these
things never showed up in space opera or anywhere else in the
physical universe before earth. These kinds of mockups did
show up in places like the magic universe, but that is quite a
different mockup from this one.
However, running the items of the PT Actual GPM opened up
some recall on just about every lifetime I spent here on earth
and also pulled up a few time periods spent in one of the
heavens or hells or in the purgatory-like between lives admin
area. So there does seem to be something to this, and it seems
to be a local phenomena that only applies to recent earth track.
The heavens and hells seem to be used according to the
Buddhist theories rather than in the absolute manner preached
by Christianity.
If one leads an exceedingly good life, such as sacrificing
oneself for others, one might be given a sort of vacation in one
of the heavens. My one experience with this was that it was
very nice but mostly a scam. I only actually experienced a
few weeks at the beginning and at the end of my stay plus an
implant in between that told me I had a good time for a couple
hundred years. The mockups just take too much work to
make it cost effective for them to deliver more than a taste of
heaven.
As to hell, they count on you punishing yourself through the
overt motivator sequence. But where that fails because the
overts aren't real to you, they adjust your reality with a stay in
hell.
Unfortunately, their judgment of good and evil are based on
arbitraries. Things such as violating physical universe laws
are considered evil. If there is anything behind the current
religious superstitions, then the between lives boys probably
sentenced Christ to hell for his working of miracles. And he
probably tore the place up and lead a whole bunch of people
out of there as described in Dante.
After a stay in hell (which is generally very brief), you are usually
set to work in between lives admin to make amends. There you spends
decades of tedium pushing papers around or whatever to keep the
between lives machinery working.
If you're viciously harmful in a good cause, you generally
get sent to hell as a demon to torture others instead of as a
victim. You're supposed to get disgusted with yourself and
flatten any harmful desires while not actually being punished
because you did something good.
The god of this pocket universe is basically a prison warden.
He and his staff are also convicts, but they are evil people who
did great service to the empire and are being reward (by
getting to play god) while being kept in exile because the
empire doesn't want them around. Note that the existence of a
sour local god neither proves nor invalidates the existence of a
supreme being. The theta flow that some holy men connect
with is certainly not a manifestation of this petty local tyrant.
According to the Tibetan Book of the Dead, there are many
heavens and hells of varying appearance and qualities, some
being higher or lower than others. They consider that most of
the heavens are mere pleasure places where one cannot gain
any true spiritual advancement. Buddha considered the entire
cycle, including going to heaven and hell etc., to be a trap.
The between lives area including the heavens and hells seems
to be sideways of our physical plane. See the various other
materials where I have discussed 4 dimensional mockups. In
the local area, if you exteriorize and go sideways in a 4th
direction without moving in the normal 3 dimensions, you
will find various mockups of heaven & hell etc. The various
"invader" installations, implant machinery, etc. is all there in
this odd direction. This is why you can exteriorize and find
bases on Mars or orbital stations around Venus that are not
visible in our telescopes. You have shifted sideways slightly
in a 4th dimension.
A 4 dimensional structure is only to be expected since this is a
prison area. Perception and most mockups were narrowed
down to 3 dimensions sometime before home universe. But 4
dimensional spaces can still be handled (with great difficulty)
and are used for things such as building prisons and
implanting precisely because they are difficult to perceive and
figure out.
The pocket universe seems to extend out to a distance of 1.3
light years. At this distance, there are 12 "zodiac masses"
which are the generating stations that manipulate the 4D space
time. I call them zodiac masses because they correspond to the
12 signs of the zodiac and may be used as part of the between
lives implant to lay in a bit of an astrological pattern.
Out beyond this distance is normal space/time. Out there the
universe has a 4D thickness, but all the layers are identical.
Here, in the prison, they have pried apart the edges and used
them for the fake heavens and hells and also to provide storage
areas which are capable of holding copies of the Earth reality
so that they can store the mockup for re-use as needed.
3. THE IMPOSSIBLE INCIDENTS
I'd had a bunch of odd ball ideas lying around for quite
awhile, feelings that I'd died in a nuclear war in the 1960s,
feelings that I'd been in Scientology before, etc. All
seemingly absurd and were shrugged off as some sort of dubin.
One day I decided to set aside logic and see if I could find and
run a 1960s nuclear war incident. I figured that I'd get
something which would eventually turn out to be a much
older incident after I'd run through it a few times and taken
some charge off. Instead I got the following:
In 1963, Richard M. Nixon was president, having beaten
Kennedy by a narrow margin in 1960. He had badly
mishandled the Cuban missile crisis and things had grown
worse to the point where a nuclear war was eminent. I was
in school when they herded us down to the basement, this was
around 9:15 AM. They told us that we had launched a
nuclear first strike at 8:32 AM. The public had not been
warned until the Soviet counter-strike was launched for fear
of giving early warning to the enemy. The sonic and visio on
this were quite real (the assistant headmaster saying to us
"Gentlemen, we are at war" etc.). At 9:26AM, the ceiling
smashed down on us as a nuclear blast destroyed the city.
Normally when you die, you come out in an "astral body".
But the heavy radiation tore this energy body as well as
the physical one and I had the feeling of dying as a spirit
as well as dying as a body. I remember trying to rise up
through the firestorm as my fields and substance shredded
and I died the double death.
And then there was nothing. Just blackness.
And then I seemed to be waking up in some higher space.
It was dark and I had no perceptions. But I felt a pressure
trying to push me back and put me back to sleep. But I
resisted.
And then there seemed to be lights circling around me in the
distance. And they seemed to be singing, but there was no
sound, only intention. This impression of singing was probably a
subjective impression of being hit with a strong energy wave
that was implanting an intention. And the intention was for me to
go back to earth.
Then I found myself above the Earth looking down, and I could
see the explosions down on the surface. And gradually I came
to be aware of millions of other beings up in orbit along with
me, all of them watching the destruction of the world. And
more and more joined us as the dying continued. And there
was a sadness, not at mere death, but at the end of everything.
We were all of us ripe for any implant or orders which would
do something about the situation.
And then the circling lights were there again, orbiting around
all of us and around the Earth as well. And this time they
were singing "Go Back to 1957".
And it was February and it had just snowed. My child's body
was standing ontop of a snow mound and I felt irresistibly
drawn to it. And I forgot everything of the future and picked
up my experience and memories as they had been in 1957, and
lived on from there.
And this time Kennedy beat Nixon by a narrow margin and
everything was different.
I've been back over this incident quite a few times and I can't
find anything wrong with it except for the sheer impossibility
of it ever having happened.
So I tried to look for other things like this, and began to
try to meter asses years ago and Earth calendar dates as separate
things that did not have to add up properly. And I found many
occurrences of 1957 at varying numbers of years ago. And I found
many occurrences of the 20th century here on Earth and even some
times when we carried a bit into the 21st century before it all
fell apart for one reason or another.
The earliest 20th century incident that I could find seemed
to be in 1961 on Easter Sunday when Tesla's power grid went live
and the atmosphere burned.
And strangely enough, one's case and incidents and aberrations and
even GPM items all seem to shift back when time is reset. You
lose aberrations that you picked up later and you regain aberrations
that you mastered through will power or education. The only
exception being that if something were really thoroughly run out,
you only get back a shadow of it that seems to have little power
but you still try to put it there and don't remember getting rid
of it. But these shadows of aberrations that had been run in
earlier cycles seem to fall away extremely easily.
We went through many cycles of the 20th century before Scientology
was ever dreamed of. They can't let us get much later because
our technology gets too far advanced, and they can't push us too
far back because they have added too many new prisoners and
earlier centuries can't support a high enough population level.
So they have repeated this time period too many times. And that
may be causing us to wake up.
When Scientology was researched the first time, it was a slow
orderly progression building up from Dianetics. Techniques that
showed up in 1952 this time around were the final processes discovered
in the 1980s and 1990s during the first pass through the subject.
These were the things that had most recently been studied when
we found ourselves suddenly back in 1952 and so they sort of
showed up immediately even though no one remembered the years
of research that had gone into them.
And in a later major pass through the subject, the advanced
org was out on Long Island and things went fairly smoothly
because nobody considered us a threat. The endless troubles
that we have seen this time around did not occur then, and many
of us worked on the research.
In the year 1987 of that earlier cycle, with Ron and many others
all alive and well who are now dead or declared suppressive, we
attempted a prison break.
I'm not sure if we used some drug or trance or simply had gone
very very far with OT drills, but I remember lying down and
having a coach whispering in my ear and a thousand of us all
left our bodies simultaneously and stormed the heavenly plane.
And we fought a strange battle of mockups against angels and
demons and won because our confront was better. And as we
held victory in our grasp, the sun went nova and time was
reset and we were back in 1952 again.
And ever since that time, they've made sure that we were
always at each others throats and busy declaring each other
suppressive and making the subject into a mess and a scam and we
never again had a clean sweep forward like we did that one time
when we were unopposed.
Now that I've dumped all this in your laps, I'd better advise
you that I'm quite willing to find out that this is all just
some strange dub-in. Perhaps I just have an overly active
imagination. I certainly would not bet that the above is correct.
But lets keep it in mind, just in case.
If true, this would explain deja vu as being a real recollection
of the future (meaning an earlier pass through the same time period).
It also would mean that you'd better date incidents on Earth in
terms of years ago and not make any fuss if the answers are a bit
strange. Also be prepared for earlier similar occurrences of the
same incident at the same date.
There is also the possibility that so called "Natural Clears" actually
did the clearing course in earlier occurrences of these years on
Earth.
There is something you can do which would be quite harmless if
this is just a stupid theory but which could be extremely helpful
if it turns out that time is being reset and repeated on us.
Pick a few key points earlier in your life when you first saw something
that had some great significance for you, and postulate very
firmly that when you see it again or relive the experience again,
you will remember this earlier time around.
Interestingly enough, this idea of reliving your current lifetime
has been around for quite some time. Usually the idea is stated
as reliving it to the point of perfection rather than the prison
theory which I have presented here. A recent popularization was
the movie "Groundhog day". The earlier source on this comes from
Bennet the mathematician who was a disciple of Gurdief in the early
part of this century.
===============================================
13. RESEARCHING PAST LIVES
After fooling around with this business of time being reset and
living the same lifetime multiple times, I began to doubt my vague
recollection of past lives.
I had run endless incidents, and some had been very productive of
case gain, but that did not guarantee the accuracy of the data.
Also, if you include Nots in the picture, you have to allow for
picking up and running other's incidents as well as your own.
By this point I had mapped out my current actual GPM and had dated
the last few dozen lifetimes here on Earth and had a vague idea of
who I was etc. But this also had some oddball stuff and loose ends.
What I felt was that the past life recall should be like remembering
having breakfast last week, and it was far from that. And I realized
that I was using the certainty of the impacts that occurred in heavy
incidents to dig up snatches of past life data. If I did that
for my current lifetime, I would have a few recollections of things
like being in the hospital once and no real idea of who I was or
what I was doing.
So I began to work with light everyday incidents and pleasure
moments. I tried to spot things like what kind of breakfast would
I have had or what would I have done for entertainment etc. And
at the same time, I searched for things that would validate my
recall and convince me that I was not just imagining this stuff
lock stock and barrel.
And finally I did come up with some things that convinced me that
I was remembering real data. Of course this was only subjective
proof and there is no way to show that I didn't look things up in
the history books first and then make up some lifetimes that fit
in. But the following stories should at least be a bit interesting
and maybe they will help you when you reach the point where you
need to undertake a similar search and validation for your own
past life recall (and please realize that you need to build up a
great deal of recall before you should even consider trying to
validate any of it, its just too vague and only half correct in
the early stages of processing).
Back around 1994 I was sitting in a coffee shop having breakfast
and considering how I might have sat around in similar circumstances
in earlier lives. And I thought of Constantinople.
I was already pretty sure of being at the fall of Constantinople,
and I had run an incident of standing on the walls and feeling great
sadness as the enemy overwhelmed the defenses. But now I found a
lighter and clearer recall of sitting in a tavern overlooking the
harbor and having some kind of sausage for breakfast. And I
frequented that place regularly and it seemed that I would sit
there in the mornings sketching out things that had to do with
defending the city.
And I remember drawing a plan for reinforcing a sort of elevator,
which was a huge wooden platform lifted by chains and pulleys.
This was used to raise catapults up to the top of the walls. But
in my sketch I was modifying it so that it could be used for
cannons. With that I knew that I was dubbing stuff in because
Constantinople had fallen in 1453 and I was sure that gunpowder
had not yet been invented.
But I decided not to worry about it and to keep running through
that time period on the basis that the dub-in would gradually
lift as I took more charge off. And it seemed that there was
a lot of charge there to be confronted. It seemed to me that
I had been some sort of leader or strategist planning the defense
of the city, but somebody else had shown up and replaced me as
commander and they had betrayed the city and caused it to fall.
My certainty in the incident was that we could have held the
city if it hadn't been for that. It seemed to me that the city
had been impregnable and that a traitor had opened the gates.
And then I tried to get the name I had then. I'm almost hopeless
on last names, but first names are fairly easy to remember.
But then it seemed to me that my first name was Paul, and that
didn't seem at all appropriate for somebody living in Constantinople.
The whole recollection was still pretty vague, but the Italian
sounding name and the cannons seemed to be unshakable on repeated
scanning through the time period. Eventually I decided to let the
matter drop and look things up in the history books.
I was shocked when I read the Brittanica's account. Giustiniani
(or Julian or Justin) had arrived just before the battle and taken over
the city's defenses. Paul (or Paolo) Bocchiardo and his brothers
had therefore been demoted from managing the main defenses (and
the main gate) and were placed in charge of holding the next
weakest of the gates. Julian then left a gate (actually a small
sally port) open and a few Turks stormed in before the Bocciardos
could get it closed again. When this handful of Turks showed up
behind the walls, Julian announced that the city was lost and
that he was badly wounded, and lead his troops from the walls
and sailed off while the city fell. And Constantinople did
indeed have cannons but they weren't used in the battle because
Julian convinced the Emperor that they would shake down the
city walls (which were a hundred foot thick) if they were mounted
on the walls and fired.
As to the Italian names, both Julian and the Bocciardos were from
Genoa and each had raised troops and brought them to defend the
city. My impression is that the Bocciardos had a rich shipping
business between the two cities and that the family maintained a
residence in Constantinople as well as in Genoa.
And another impression I had on reading about this was that I
would have followed Julian after the battle and killed him.
Eventually I found much more detailed accounts. When the Turks
stormed the position abandoned by Julian and swept into the city,
the Bocciardos maintained their position and held their section
of the wall until nightfall. They successfully evacuated their
men and got their ships out of the harbor and then sneaked out
themselves under cover of darkness. Now the accounts get
interesting. Paul was officially reported as having died while the
Bocciardos were escaping the city, but there are accounts of
people talking with him afterwards. The historians hypothesis that
there was some confusion as to which brother was which. I would
suggest however that if you were going to hunt down and kill another
citizen of Genoa, you might want to issue a false report of
your own death.
Then there is the matter of Julian's wound which he used as an
excuse to explain why he was leaving the walls (the Emperor mustered
what few troops he could and bravely held the main gate while
Julian made good his escape, the Emperor of course perished with
his men). All but one account consider that Julian's wound was
a fake or a minor scratch that was self inflicted. But one historian
considers that it must have been a real wound because there is
a record that Julian died at Chios on the day following the battle.
Although the cause of Julian's death is not recorded, it would
obviously be related to the battle, either being due to a real
wound, or, more likely in my opinion, being due to an angry man
extracting vengeance from a horrible traitor. I seem to recall
catching up with him in a tavern.
One might well ask why the city was betrayed. Julian was rich and
certainly didn't need any kind of payoff. Another interesting point
is that the Pope sent a fleet from Venice to help the city but it
managed to dawdle around and avoided arriving until after the city
had fallen.
And the politics are very interesting. Until the fall,
Constantinople had the greatest library of ancient documents in
the world. It was primarily a city of scholars and traders with a
small but highly educated population (three quarters of the city
within the walls was uninhabited and the parks etc. had been turned
into farming land - the population was under a hundred thousand
when it had been over a million in early times). They had original
versions of biblical books etc. which were quite different from the
versions that had been heavily edited by Rome, and they were
considered religious heretics and dangerous to the church.
They had all sorts of wild and non-standard ideas that were
a mixture of early (pre-Roman) Christianity combined with
Greek philosophy. This included things like trying to tap cosmic
energy, etc. When the head of the church in Constantinople made
peace with the Pope, his own priests rebelled and continued the
conflict.
My own feeling is that Julian was asked to betray the city to
eliminate a dangerous source of heresy. This fits in well with
the Venetian navy rushing to the rescue (to create good public
opinion) while never quite making it to the city (they had
plenty of time and zig zagged around at sea for months). This
was the time period when the Catholic church was sinking into its
darkest era, with the Popes being concerned mainly with money and
power. Within a generation, the church would hit rock bottom
under control of the Borgia Popes and it would be a century before
the church was cleaned up and reformed.
As to the Turks, the previous sultan had been friendly to
Constantinople and the city was generally useful to them as a
neutral intermediary between the Catholic and Islamic worlds.
A hothead had just come into power and was making his name
with a holy war. But the cause was not popular and the siege
was running out of steam. A final attack was called for before
abandoning the whole thing as a bad job. That's when the city
was betrayed. Without that, the city would have made it into the
modern era. Of course we have Istanbul instead, and perhaps there
is not much difference. Except for one thing. All the books were
burned. It was comparable to the loss of the library at Alexandria.
For example, the Hermetica of Hermes Trimagistus (a metaphysical
reference work which is popular among mystics) was compiled from
earlier materials during the 1100s in Constantinople. Both the
compilation and the earlier documents were destroyed when the
city fell. The currently available editions are incomplete
reconstructions from other sources that had had access to the
library at Constantinople before it was burned.
----------
The other lifetime I found where the history books provided some
validation was during the American Civil War.
Although I abhor slavery and prejudice, I always felt a strange
sympathy for the Confederate armies. This was hard for me to
understand because I had pretty much swallowed the popular view
that the war was fought over slavery. Even though I had seen the
occasional mention of the fact that it was really fought over
state's rights, this seemed to me to be a minor side issue when
I was in school and the teacher's did not really bring the point
home or offset the heavy federal propaganda which was originally
used to justify an unnecessary and bloodthirsty war and which still
remains a part of our culture to this day.
The truth of the matter is that popular opinion in Virginia and
North Carolina and the upper half of the south had already turned
against slavery. These states actually voted to remain in the
union after the deep south succeeded. And they did so knowing
that with Georgia and the rest of the gulf states gone, the heavy
anti-slavery majority in congress under Lincoln would ensure that
slavery would be eliminated within a few years as did happen in
Maryland and Delaware.
Of course the slave holding land barons were resisting this, but
the bulk of the population in the cities had already turned against
slavery. Most ordinary people had no vested interest to blind them
to the horrors of it, and even the rich businessmen were beginning to
see that you can't run an industrial economy with slave labor and
that you need a free population as a market for your goods. And
there was dissension among the ranks of the landed gentry.
General Lee for example, had freed his slaves before the war and
was sympathetic enough to the abolitionists to be offered the
command of the US Army by President Lincoln.
As to the deep south, they went into an immediate economic collapse
as soon as they succeeded. With a heavy trade embargo, Lincoln could
have brought them to their knees, and the morally torn states of
Virginia and North Carolina would have debated and protested and
waffled back and forth. It would have taken time, but it might even
have been accomplished before 1865. With only vested interests
and a morally repugnant practice to encourage resistance, the gulf
states could not have resisted the pressure. They had no real
industrial base and could not go it alone in a modern economy. The
true industrial base of the confederacy was in Virginia and North
Carolina and they were sticking with the Union.
But Lincoln was probably worried about the 1864 election, which might
disrupt a potentially successful embargo. He couldn't count on
winning it if the union was still divided, and he probably worried
about a compromiser being elected. And he must have foolishly
thought that a quick military strike could end the whole thing and
leave him as the great president who had both ended slavery and
beaten the rebels into line. I'm sure he never imagined that we
would still be at war by the fall of 1864 or he never would have
risked it. The faintest shift of events at Gettysburg gives Lee
a successful strike at one of the big northeastern cities and that
almost guarantees Lincoln's defeat in the election which comes in the
following year. And that almost certainly gives us a
worst case result which is a permanent division bathed in blood,
hatred, and periodic wars with slavery perpetuated for an ungodly
length of time.
And so Lincoln makes the stupid and horrifying mistake of launching
an all out war and calling for troops. And when he tries to draft
the citizens of Virginia and North Carolina, they promptly rebel.
And Maryland would have revolted as well except that Lincoln had
the Governor and his staff arrested for treason. And there were
even draft riots and barricades thrown up in the streets of New
York City.
Of course at this point Virginia and North Carolina should have
practiced civil disobedience and covert non-compliance and a
Vietnam style protest rather than going into open rebellion.
It is doubtful that Lincoln could have set himself up as a
dictator (which is what the Virginian's were really fighting
against) and a hated president can be ousted at the next election.
Even here a sane course could have reduced the horror and the evil
consequences. But events had proceeded past the point where
people would listen to reason.
The true price we paid was to be shackled under a strong central
government (instead of a loose amalgamation of states) and to
see a century of unjust prejudice perpetuated by hatred and
vengeance. For it is the engramic impact and the continual
reminder in terms of dead and maimed relatives and unscrupulous
carpetbaggers that ensured that the racial prejudices would be
cast in concrete instead of fading over the course of a few
generations. We might have had true civil rights by the turn
of the century (and certainly by the time of the suffragettes)
if Mr. Lincoln had restrained himself from launching the blood bath.
Of course I didn't think all of this initially. I used to think
that Lincoln was a great man. My change in attitude came first of
all from running incidents, and then from following it up with a
great deal of reading about the time period. I believe that all
of the above is historically correct.
Before my recall opened up on this time period, I only had a few
odd loose ends. First was an actual GPM item for that lifetime
which did not fit properly in terms of dating the birth. I was
certain that I had left the previous body in 1853 and the dates
I was getting for this late 1800s lifetime were obviously incorrect
and overlapping the previous life. Although I seemed to have some
sort of reaction on confederate generals and the civil war, I was
sure that I could not have been in it because I would have been
a child in 1860. There was also my odd fascination with American
railroads, which seemed to have no basis in any past life experience.
I knew I was European in both the preceding and following lifetimes
(the next one starts in 1893) and it seemed unlikely to me that
I would have had anything to do with America.
But, despite believing wars to be part of the trap and a grave
mistake, I have always found military strategy to be interesting
in a game playing sense. And there is a proposition, both by
Ron, and by other intelligent writers such as Gordon Dickinson,
etc. that a small group operating as individuals can take on a
large army. There is also the additional point that the American
Revolution was primarily won by frontier style fighting opposing
orderly regimentation.
So one day I wondered why the confederates hadn't simply all run
around in the woods as individuals and shot apart the invading
union troops in a guerrilla warfare like action. And then I had
the wild idea that I had tried it. And then the memory came back
to me.
What I recalled was that I was some sort of junior officer with
perhaps a company of men under me. Things were disorganized and
there were few trained officers at the lower ranks. So I had my
group to train as I saw fit, and I had heard stories about
revolutionaries bushwhacking the British. So that's how I trained
my men. I didn't believe in drilling them as if they were on
parade. Instead we went into the woods and ran around in mock
combat, hiding and sniping and trying to stay in touch with each
other while we did so.
And finally we marched off to battle. I couldn't remember which
one, but logically it seemed to me that it had to have been Bull
Run because I knew that one was a confused mess that happened at
the beginning of the war.
On the battlefield, while most of the regiments were marching around
in orderly lines, we were crawling and diving around through the
bushes. Of course what happened is that we got confused about our
position and lost contact with the rest of the Confederate troops.
About an hour later, we were crawling around in some tall grass
near a rise and I sent one of our men to go peak over the top.
He waved me over frantically. When I peered over the edge, there
was a wide creek and what seemed like thousands of Union troops lined
up along our side of it. And on the far side, upon a tree covered slope,
were the southern forces.
We tried to back away quietly, but one of the Union troupers looked
up and began shouting. I was freaked out. There were less than
a hundred of us and what seemed like ten thousand union soldiers
were about to turn around and come charging up at us. So I did
the only thing which I thought might save our lives. We had to
pretend to be a large Confederate force which had outflanked
the Union. I spread the men out and had them yelling like they
were company commanders. We had one flag, and I had them poke
it up once and then yelled at them to keep the flags down
until we're ready to attack. We fired one volley with every
gun we had (including firing pistols which were out of range)
and then yelled loudly to cease fire and wait for the main
attack.
Surprisingly enough, it worked. We created such a fuss that the
Union did think they were being outflanked and turned their
artillery on us. But the cannons were at the far end of the
union line and we were right on top of their people. So
they began blowing their own troops to hell because of their
poor aim. And then the Confederates across the creek, greatly
outnumbered, charged and the union line broke and ran from the
field.
After running this, I tried to get more about that lifetime.
It seemed to me that I would have been disgusted with fighting
after that first battle. I was sure that I was from North
Carolina and would have gone back there as soon as possible.
But it seemed to me that I would then have been in the local
defenses and gotten sucked back in when the Union landed
invasion forces on the North Carolina coast. And then maybe
I would have ended up back in Lee's army and perhaps even
ended up as a general because I was known as a hero from
that first battle.
All I could get of my name was that I was called Bill. And I
knew that I had died in Europe in 1853, so I must have picked
up a grown body there at that time. And it seemed to me that
there might have been a 17 year old southerner studying
architecture in Europe when he took deathly ill and went into
a coma. And maybe that thetan left and I picked up the body
then. And I could remember designing a stone arch bridge
for one of the southern railroads (maybe the Richmond and
Danville?) in the late 1850s when I returned home, suffering
a bit of amnesia after my sickness (I seemed to know the
language and engineering but was uncertain as to people's names
etc.). My father was a civil engineer and we lived in a small
city along the coast. We had no slaves and I had little
understanding of the reality of it. And after I designed
that bridge, I was sent to the construction site. And I was
horrified by how they treated the slave labor that was used to
build it. I remember having a fight with the foreman and getting
beaten up by him.
In that lifetime I certainly wouldn't have fought to defend
slavery. But I would fight to keep my homeland from being invaded.
And I would fight to overthrow a dictator or a government that
tried to draft me and was ordering me to attack neighboring cities
that were in the state next door.
The attitudes I had in the incident when war first broke out
surprised me when I first discovered that I had felt that way.
Now that I have read a good bit more, they make a lot more sense.
It was at this point that I decided to dig into the history books
and see what I could find. And I found him. General William
Lewis of North Carolina. He was 17 in 1853, worked for the railroads
before the war, and became a civil engineer after the war, living
until 1893. The books don't say much, only about a paragraph, but he
was the hero of Big Bethel, the first battle in Virginia, with a few
thousand men on each side. And the Union artillery shelled
their own troops and the Confederates only lost a few men while
the Union ranks were decimated. I had gotten the name of the
battle wrong, but the details were right, and I certainly had
never even hear of the battle before, it only gets about a
paragraph in the biggest reference works. And after that he had
mustered out until the battle of Cape Fear where he is part of the
coastal defenses. And then he becomes a Corneal and joins the
regular army again, eventually begin promoted to General before the
end of the war.
As for military strategy, it seems to me that I decided that the
idea of loose individual forces was unworkable despite winning the
battle and went back to the ordered regimentation that was the usual
military style in the civil war. According to the history books,
the battle of Bull Run also had a lot of disorganized running around
which was handled by Stonewall Jackson forming his men up into a
"stone wall" which formed an organized position around which the
other troops could rally. These organized lines of men became
the keynote of military operation at that time. With hindsight,
however, it would seem to me that the ideal strategy would use
both with the solid formations providing strength and orientation
while the light individualized units drove the enemy PTS.
This concept might work well in many fields of endeavor. Having
both highly organized groups and totally independent individuals
all working towards the same long range goal should result in
the maximum horsepower possible. What ruins this are the implants
which place freedom and organization into opposition so that the
organized units try to force the individuals into line and the
individuals tend to fight the organization to retain their
independence.
The long range solution would be to run out the implants. In
the short term, the group members and the free beings should
work on mutual tolerance and those who are aware enough to
understand this should encourage the others to move in the right
direction. The right action when these two types come in contact
is to rehabilitate the shared goals rather than attempting to
control or unmock each other.
===============================================
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 22 12:06:02 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/pilot/ss28.script
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)
iD8DBQFYXAf7URT1lqxE3HERAnj+AJ9IoeJk5b1co/tCz0uOCN1mpaOE7QCfaqeh
1dT9g42W/o3Ae6rfaFeYUNM=
=UUzb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)