ACT17 (fwd)

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


AGREE OR GO TO HELL

ACT-17
15 September 1993

Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith

What I find most obnoxious about the 'Agree or Go To Hell' crowd,
are their human relation dynamics.

They are told by their religion that they are supposed to love
everyone, to make friends with the down and out, get close to people
etc.

But how can you afford to get close to or emotionally involved with
someone who is going to hell? What kind of deep and abiding Love can
you hold for your fellow man when he is destined to hang on a Cross for
all of time, no doubt for his own sins?

Now the Christian philosophy says that we are all sinners, its not
that Christians are some how more deserving of Heaven than others, so
what it comes down to really is whether you accept their God as your
Savior or not. You may know you are a sinner, you may seek and ask for
forgiveness and try to repent of your ways, you may even believe in God,
but unless you ask for forgiveness from THE CHRISTIAN GOD, unless you
ask JESUS specifically into your heart, unless you accept all their
'live only once, everyone who disagrees goes to hell' philosophy, then
all of your good intentions and right minded ways are a waste, for you
are going to hell too.

Thus it ultimately has nothing to do with what kind of person you
are, but what exact philosophy or world view or 'conception of the
cosmic all' that you hold. For example, you may be a Christian in every
sense of the word, but if you die believing you have lived before and
will live again, a TECHNICAL PHILOSOPHICAL POINT, then right to hell you
go, because apparently you have not purged the Devil from your heart and
mind quite enough. I mean you would have to have some big unconfessed
flaw remaining in your Soul to dare hold your own ideas against the
Standard Tech teachings of the day, right?

Thus making friends with a Christian is a fragile undertaking at
best. They will be most happy to make friends with you in the
beginning, but demonstrate the slightest deviation from their technical
party line and they fold up like a morning glory at night.

Here today, gone tomorrow.

No one can get emotionally close to someone who is going to hell or
some other kind of execution with out having their heart torn and
rendered, and why bother if the guy deserves it?

Now I KNOW I have lived before, I have memories of my friends, my
homes, places I have lived entire lives around, flooding me every day.
The pain and the sorrow and the nostalgia are almost too much to bear,
which is probably part of why I forgot about them in the first place.
They aren't just pictures that seem real, I have lots of them too, they
are probably BT memories. I have my own memories, I recognize them, I
recognize the people in them, I recognize who I was and what I did, just
as I recognize yesterday.

But the Christians come along and tell me that this is all
hallucination, the work of devils and demons who hang out around me
feeding me pictures and lies. I guess they have all been going to the
mortal meatball school of scientific truth which essentially says if you
can't prove it to us, it didn't happen. So Chris and the Christians
would be on solid ground for agreement here.

But from my point of view they are all nuts, they have a rather
large and unconfrontable case of amnesia, and frankly nothing is going
to change my mind about having lived before and living again any more
than anyone is going to convince me I didn't exist yesterday. Proof or
no proof.

(By the way, so far, proof would be hard to come by, because these
lives I am remembering were clearly not on Earth. The time frame in
these memories and dreams is of a technological age that Earth has not
yet attained, and apparently the planets they did happen on didn't
survive a nuclear or biological war scenario. The memories span many
lifetimes, some good, some VERY bad, gas masks and all.)

So of course all this makes me an enemy to the Christians for
harboring politically incorrect thought.

I am not even allowed to pursue the POSSIBILITY of past or future
lives with regression therapy, for it would be an immoral waste of time
to study what has already been stated in the Christian Standard Book of
Truth to be patently false.

But worse, I WANT to live again, I WANT to come back to Earth and
continue my goals here, I don't want to go to heaven and leave it all
behind when I die. I don't mind if there is a heaven we all CAN go to,
but I mind very much if there is a heaven we all MUST go to.

You see the big secret is, the Christians DON'T WANT to be here,
they can't wait to get out, so they are sitting back being OBEDIENT GOOD
LITTLE MAMA'S boys in the hope that the Big Soul Train in the end will
take them out of here.

But it ain't gonna happen that way.

Besides who is God to interrupt what I am doing for His ends? It's
bad enough losing a body every 70 years or so and having to start all
over again without some Big Guy with a swelled head, who has forgotten
who hired him in the first place, butting into the matter.

My plans and projects will take maybe hundreds of life times to
complete. If I thought I only had one chance on Earth, I wouldn't even
start 99 percent of them. Those who think they only have 3 score years
to live don't plan for very much. They build short term goals with
short term considerations. They can't even think about the long term,
it hurts too much, besides God is going to wipe it all out in 3000 years
anyhow when the final act is played out.

Their sweetness and light Heaven is the only long term they can
think of which is why so many people have claimed that religion is the
opiate for the masses.

I also mind very much being separated from those who are going to
hell. What happens if I want to spend more time on them trying to
salvage them from their fate? Why should I be forced to quit on someone
just because God says 'Time's up?'

What happens if you owe your life to someone who 'is going to
hell?' Isn't he worth the extra effort, in fact as long as it takes, to
turn him around?

You know anyone can be turned around, this being bent for hell
thing is mainly a matter of ignorance and aberration. Yes they have a
confession to make and yes they are refusing to make that confession,
and yes they are hiding behind all sorts of excuses as to why they don't
have a confession and shouldn't have to make it even if they did.

But that's what being an auditor is all about, getting the damn
confession.

Now Patrick says that Christianity and clearing have little to do
with each other, and that cleansing unrighteousness from the soul goes
beyond gleaning a confession. Being the expert on righteousness that he
is, I am sure that Patrick would know.

However in my opinion he is wrong on both accounts.

The end goal of clearing is the salvation of the human spirit from
ruin, the return of full self determinism and the rehabilitation of
Operating Sovereignty to the being.

There are no different goals between clearing and any religion that
ever has been or ever will be, only the approach might be different.

Christianity tells you that you must ask God to save you and accept
Him and His Other Determinism into your life as its ruling force in
order to be saved.

Clearing tells you that you must replicate your position in the
game of being unsaved in order to save yourself.

Christianity offers that saving yourself is impossible, and that
such an idea is in fact setting yourself up as a God above the real God,
the highest High Crime there is.

Clearing offers that you ruined yourself and that by replicating
the process you used to ruin yourself, you can as-is the condition you
find yourself in, and vanish it returning yourself to your original
pristine state of grace. Of course you might just go ruin yourself
again, that's your own Sovereign Choice.

Christianity presents this ruination/salvation thing as very grave
and serious, its FOR EEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVERRRRRR.

Clearing presents it all as a game between the creative forces of
lightheartedness and humor, and the destructive forces of seriousness
and tragedy.

'Tragedy and Travesty, Romance and Sin,
Miracles and Majesty, that's where I've been.
Miracles in Majesty, Romance and Song,
Tragedy and Travesty, that's where I've gone.'

Christianity says that you are responsible for your ruin, and that
God is responsible for your salvation.

Clearing says that not only are you responsible for your ruin AND
salvation, you are ALSO responsible for God who has been hired by YOU as
a public servant for this universe, or more accurately who was
commissioned by us or others before us to create this universe as a work
of art, a comedy-tragedy for our own enjoyment. He's been paid, what's
His beef?

Now if the Christians are not having a screaming fit by this time,
I will have to look into it and see what I can do.

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jan 31 23:51:04 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act17.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)

iD8DBQFWruQ5URT1lqxE3HERAuPDAJ0TGrzTNtzYiFT6IkEwcnqgNHAAPwCdE+t+
yUM/qXIguZeAIOgvZaJst+0=
=hWRN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE377 (fwd)

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


STRONGER CLAIM, WEAKER CLAIM

You see you are trying to restore a being's freedom of choice,
not only to give them more options to choose, but to make their
choices agent, so they work.

Now the weak claim is that we have no idea why a being's state of
choice is so bad, but we are going to try and improve it anyhow.

The strong claim is that the being MADE A CHOICE that his choice
should no longer work, and by duplicating the who, how, what, where,
when, why and which of that choice, he can undo that choice and then
his choice will work again naturally.

Sure, use a gradient scale if you just have to :)

Now if the stronger claim is true, do you see why it is hopeless
trying to rehab a being's ability to choose without getting him to
erase the God postulate that his choices don't work?

You got him fighting himself.

HE WANTS TO BE SICK, so you are going to make him better by
auditing something other than his desire to be sick?

I don't think so.

"What who me, take responsibility?"

That's why they had the A-J check in the Church to catch the 'not
responsible for condition cases'. But that's a strong claim position
don't you see.

Run,

PURPOSE -> NO PURPOSE -> NO NO-PURPOSE
CHOICE -> NO CHOICE -> NO NO-CHOICE

Until freedom of choice is restored.

At purpose the being is aware he has a purpose and what it is.

At NO purpose, the being is aware he has no purpose.

At NO NO purpose, the being is no longer aware he has no purpose.

NO purpose is inactuality.

NO NO purpose is oblivion.

When the being starts to go 360 (perceive all around), pictures
turning on, they will be of disaster.

The point is that the weaker claim approach to clearing will only
produce results if the stronger claim ALLOWS it to. In this case the
weaker claim approach is doomed.

The weaker claim is the being is an innocent victim.

The stronger claim is the being is an imp soul playing villain.

The postulate that postulates don't work, works.

Until that postulate is cleared or approached, no amount of other
auditing will make postulates work.

Thus a top down look at why the being is suffering is necessary
to restoring his good humor.

Without sovereignty for condition, there is no good humor.

Homer

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

Tue Aug 29 01:13:40 EDT 2006

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jan 30 12:06:01 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore377.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)

iD8DBQFWrO15URT1lqxE3HERAoJ5AKCbAcbhboiPDKg6k9xZNqB00primwCgl4/c
hCU7EQYDoNNFwufF8eVUGqs=
=acAt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

LOVE AND SORROW

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


LOVE AND SORROW

"Love is all we know of heaven, and sorrow all we need of hell." -
Poet

But sorrow IS love, love burdened by considerations.

Love is hello, sorrow is goodbye.

Love is hello forever, sorrow is goodbye forever.

Thus sorrow, the ability to cry freely and deeply for those that
you love BEFORE they are gone, and for those you will never know, is the
gateway to love and to heaven.

Heaven is not happiness, heaven is freedom of emotion, heaven is
like the ocean waves in the wind, coming in with love and going out with
sorrow, over and over again.

Hell is nothingness, no ocean, no depth, no sorrow, no love.

They call it avichi.

A conscious coma, alive but emotionally dead.

If you refuse to cry, you refuse to love.

If you refuse to love, you refuse to cry.

If you are shamed of your crying, you are ashamed of your love.

If you are ashamed of your love, you are ashamed of your crying.

PTSness is your worry about those who would interrupt your sorrow
with ridicule or hysteria.

Who is to be ashamed now, those that cry or those that can't?

PTS means YOU become a Potential Trouble Source. The SP,
Suppressive Person, is one who can neither love nor cry. The intent of
the suppressive is to destroy facility in intimacy, intimacy with
yourself and those you have loved and will love again through all of
time into the next.

Things are not alright, things will not be alright, unless you can
love and cry freely, as deep as the river runs.

Fear of sorrow is fear of love.

Fear of love is fear of sorrow.

Mock up last days.

How will it be on that last day?

Say goodbye now.

Say hello now.

Say goodbye now.

Say hello now.

This process will run forever, never miss an opportunity to let the
sorrow flow into love, and the love flow into sorrow. Cry now, so you
can love later.

Excess of joy weeps. Excess of sorrow laughs.

Eventually one sees that our love is SO DEEP that it could
never have been anything less than eternal and immutable.

Be proud of the depth of your love, of the depth of your loss.

When you scream out in sorrow, you are screaming out your love.

Do not let infinite love and caring become a problem to you.

Even the littlest kitty is a full instantiation of the infinite.

Run to completion: the ocean free to roll in and roll out, in all
it's unfathomable depth and glory, in your heart.

Surrender and hope that it carries you away utterly to a better
place where Truth reigns and shallowness of existence is no more.

Don't worry, its only your own infinite heart that carries you
there.

Depth of sorrow and love is all you need of proof.

Don't disparage those that demand it, show them the proof they dare
not know.

Once free to cry and love again your physical pains will vanish and
your purpose will once again align with the Cosmic All, the Cosmic Lover
who cries and laughs for itself through all Eternity.

Homer

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

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Jan 29 19:16:11 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore816.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)

iD8DBQFWrADMURT1lqxE3HERAvhlAKC5kIpifLPO/BMN1TSbBroyozcwaACgoED1
yOD6x7lExVsinuoi2oXOg3g=
=JxCh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ACT94 (fwd)

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



((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))

UNAUDITABILITY

ACT - 94
7 October 1996

Copyright (C) 1996 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

LaMont tells me there is no such thing as an Unauditability.

Let us hope he is right.

Be that as it may, the following is presented for your reading
pleasure.

The way to vanish any mass or condition is to generally replicate
the efforts that went into its creation with full responsibility and
Sovereignty.

Make it once, it persists, make it again it releases.

This not quite accurate but we can describe it this way.

We work from two major premises in the devising of any auditing
strategy.

Premise I. Conception is both necessary and suffcient to create
any mass or condition, which is then created in the mere conceiving of
it.

Premise II. All conceivings and thus all creations are self
vanishing, thus anything that is persisting in time is being repeatedly
conceived and thus repeatedly created again and again in a new unit of
time.

Thus the way to get rid of any mass or condition is to cease
creating it, NOT to create something else or more to counter it.

Thus we get the preclear to conceive knowingly what he is already
conceiving unknowingly without knowing it, and once he can conceive and
thus create his condition in its entirety, he can let off on the
conception of it by unconceiving it, and thus the mass or condition will
self vanish.

An Unauditability is a mass or condition that will not release even
when it is "properly" replicated.

Theoretically of course this is absurd, however the fact is that a
thetan can WISH for a mass or condition to be unauditable and he can put
much effort, intention and energy into making it unauditable.

Unless this is spotted, the mass or condition will in fact become
unauditable because the thetan is failing to replicate his own desire
that it be unauditable and the extra efforts he put into it to make sure
it is.

There are 5 primary factors to any unauditability.

They are, HOW, WHY, WHEN, WHERE, WHO, and WHAT, in that order of
auditing importance.

At the bottom of the unauditability will be the WHO or WHAT that
the being is rendering unauditable.

There will be a WHEN and a WHERE that the incident took place,
including a when and a where the rendering of it unauditable took place.

There will be WHY the thetan wanted to render it unauditable. That
means he had a reason that he wanted to never resolve this thing or
release it, a reason to make communication with it and replication of it
INFINITELY and ETERNALLY ineffective.

And lastly there will be HOW he rendered the incident unauditable.
These are the exact efforts, forces conceptions and postulates that he
made that produced the masses and conditions that will not release no
matter how much he replicates creating them.

The HOW is still going on in present time, and the WHY is always
about the future. He won't know the WHEN, WHERE, WHO or WHAT any more
because they have been rendered unauditable. That means ANY question
you ask of them will return an I DON'T KNOW or NOTHING THERE.

However he will be able to get some vague sense of WHY he rendered
the scene unauditable as he is still doing it, and he will certainly be
able to get the HOW he is continuing to render it unauditable in present
time, particularly on the meter.

It's a convulsive shut down which bars entrance to the incident, he
will have to 'be there' when it happens to begin noticing it at all,
otherwise it happens all day long periodically but escapes him entirely.

He will first have to go through a stage where he notices it only
AFTER it happens, just after, and he says 'I saw that!'. Then he will
be start being there WHEN it is happening, then BEFORE. At that point
he can divert the convulsion and start to run it out and its damage.

The needle will come alive with stops and falls when he comes
anywhere near the efforts to render an incident unauditable.

The needle is reading on HOW and WHY, *NOT* on WHEN, WHERE, WHO or
WHAT!

The HOW and WHY are in present time or the future, the WHEN, WHERE,
WHO and WHAT are in the past.

The WHY will have something to do with Infinities, Eternalities and
the future.

FOREVERS and NEVERS.

The Structure of the mass or condition that is unauditable will be
a standard Grades Stack. A Grades Stack consists of the following,
listed from earliest to latest:

Goal - No Goal
Communication - No Communication
Problem - No Problem
Overt - No Overt
Withhold - No Withhold
Upset - No Upset
CO Excused Withhold - No Co Excused Withhold
Make Wrong - No Make Wrong
Power - No Power
Auditability - No Auditability

He will start off with a Goal opposed by an Opp Goal, leading to an
intention to produce a No Goal of his own goal.

He will fall down in Communication and denial of Communication,
This will get him into Problems and denial of Problems, which will lead
to Overts and denial of Overts, which will get him into Withholds and
denial of Withholds. This ends him up in major Motivators and Upsets
which stick to him like glue due to Justification and Restraint on the
earlier items on the Grades Stack.

The next level down is Co Excused Withholds.

A Co Excused Withhold is a withheld Overt/Motivator *PAIR*.

It is an IDENTITY <-> OPP IDENTITY lockup.

He receives a serious Motivator or Upset in present time, and it
restimulates an earlier Overt or Upset he caused to someone else in the
far distant past when he was being then an identity similar to the
perpetrator in present time.

His mother tries to kill him in this life as a son, which restims a
time in the past when he as a mother, tried to kill her son.

This is a problem is between WHATs not WHOs.

His mother hurts him in this life time, this has nothing to do with
anything he might have done to his mother in this life time, or to the
being who is his present time mother in a previous life or hers.

It has to do with when he as a son has been hurt by a mother in the
present, which locks up with he as a mother hurting a son in the past.

He has been hurt EGREGIOUSLY in present time and he does not
complain about it at all. His computation is:

"If you forgive me for what I did then, and I will forgive you for
what you did to me just now."

Both become better left unsaid.

Before this the Overt was subconsciously queued for confession.
Now, he is not sure he is interested in that any more.

It is called a CO-EXCUSED WITHHOLD because HE is excusing his
present mother and withholding what his mother did to him now, and
excusing himself for what he did as a mother in the past.

This results in BOTH earlier Overt and later Motivator sinking into
forgetfulness and oblivion.

Below this the person will get into defense and offense, commonly
called Make Wrong, and end up in an astounding condition of No Power.

The result of all this is a No Auditability.

THE UNAUDITABILITY RUNDOWN

One approaches this by educating the pc in the above material until
he has a good grasp of it and his good indicators come in.

Then you run,

"Is there an unauditability?"

until the pc can spot one with good reality. You will probably get
VGI's and a good blow down item on the meter when he finds one.

Remember he is not going to know what the unauditability is about,
so don't expect him to get an incident at this stage, he will merely
have spotted a significant area of absolute Non Sovereignty, usually a
mass or unwanted condition.

Then run gently without force,

"HOW are you making this unauditable"
"WHY are you making this unauditable"

until he gets a release.

If you your pc gets jammed and can't find answers to HOW and WHY,
ask gently:

"Is that because this is an unauditability?"

((This is old and dangerous technology.

Run instead, in all cases

"Get the idea of making something unauditable" etc.

Unauditabilities do not respond to question asking of any kind.))

If he gets a release end off.

He may still not be able to spot WHEN, WHERE, WHO or WHAT, but he
will have spotted that there is a HOW and a WHY, and he will begin the
process of reevaluating the WHY to his long term benefit, and in the
meantime he won't be doing the HOW quite so hard.

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jan 28 18:56:27 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act94.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)

iD8DBQFWqqqsURT1lqxE3HERAql9AJ40M+oSqkwrsID6TXe7BcWt8g/3rgCghv7U
811tGKAjyStMM2J0G10d63M=
=RiKQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE195 (fwd)

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

MANIFEST AND UNMANIFEST

anonymous@electra.lightlink.com wrote:
>But why did spiritual beings create the physical universe in the
>first place? What was their motivation?

To Manifest the UnManifest.

To manifest eternal havingness via the *MECHANISM* of temporal
loss.

Manifestation comes and goes like the waves on the sand.

Potential -> Kinetic -> Potential

More specifically it is the desire of absolute peace to engage in
humor which is the transition between Eternal Havingness and Temporal
Loss and back again.

It is the Imp Soul engaging in exquisitely brilliant Astounding
Imperial Stupidity for the sake of its audience, namely itself and
others.

Loss is a kind of havingness: from the world of Dura, where we have
everything eternally, we *DESIGN* the world of Sabe, where we suffer
'loss'.

Trying to 'have' in the world of Sabe is a joke, humor results from
realizing how the loss IS havingness via the mechanism of loss, and one
then enters the world of Dura again passing from sorrow, through humor
to absolute peace again.

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 ====================
Tue Jan 26 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore195.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)

iD8DBQFWp6d6URT1lqxE3HERAlalAJ9LSCv8urge+mFR1eoXSWhJK4U/AQCeKTNF
q2aVSOxJb6vEqoKHF2c7rnI=
=3Ef4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE17 (fwd)

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

CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Darkness is an absence of light.

*BLACKNESS* is not an absence of light.

Unconsciousness of everything, sleep, is an absence of light.

Consciousness is consciousness of SOMETHING, that something is
either WHITE light or BLACK light. Black light is not nothing.
Darkness here means black light.

Just so, conscious intent is either good or bad, good or evil,
light or dark, white or black, love or hate, beauty or ugly etc.

Blackness is not the absence of whiteness.
Darkness is not the absence of lightness.
Hate is not the absence of Love.
Ugly is not the absence of Beauty.

The absence of Blackness, Whiteness, Darkness, Lightness, Hate,
Love, Ugly and Beauty is *STATIC VOID SLEEP*.

>Things can get so dark we forget the
>light and see darkness as something in its own right.

Again this is wrong. Darkness is a presence that we create in
the absence of light. Darkness is not itself an absence, it is a
conscious presence *THAT IS USED TO SIGNIFY AN ABSENCE*.

The night sky is perceived as dark because there is no light.

The static is not perceived as dark even though there is no
light.

Absence of light does not itself create presence of darkness.

BEINGS create presence of darkness to SIGNIFY absence of light in
physical universe games.

>It's more workable for many purposes to stay oriented to light and good,
>not drop down to and become entangled or trapped in the level of
>dichotomies and opposition, not give darkness and evil the time of day as
>if they are normal or desirable, or GRANT them any ontological status. It

There we go, 'nor grant darkness and evil any ontological
status.'

Run

"Some ontological status not being granted?"

>is a way of LOOKING at something that is more workable vs. less workable
>for the purpose of remaining oriented to light and good so as to
>accomplish constructive goals.

Translation:

Believe what one will so that one can only see what one can
tolerate seeing.

The TRUTH is that light and dark, good and evil, love and hate,
beauty and ugly all have EQUAL ontological status, they both ARE and
they are both PERSISTING LIES, and choosing one's truth in order to
force orient oneself towards one Wing of the Dicom is suppressive to
one's self and to others and marks Koosies comments about you as spot
on as they come.

>We can talk about these things as if that's what they ARE, but we have a
>choice in how to look at them, frame them in language, how to model
>them, so they're most workable for us with regard to achieving worthy
>goals.

It is NOT a worthy goal to become good and oriented to the light.

It is a worthy goal to become Master Weavers of Light and Dark,
Good and Evil, Love and Hate, Beauty and Ugly, to become Authors
again, and not good little creatures in an Author's play.

YOUR goal is to become a better Creature.

OUR goal is to become a better Creator.

No *WONDER* your tech has nothing to do with clearing.

>To treat basic goodness as if it were evil, is also evil.

To say that God is Good is evil.

God is not a creature, God is the Creator of Good and Evil.

Carol you still don't get it, what we are all about here.

We been saying it for 6 years, and you been making nothing of it
as fast as we say it.

No wonder you never run

"Something been made nothing of".
"Some ontological status not been granted".

Not seeing the parity of ontological status between the wings of
the dicom IS what you are doing, either they are both true, or they
are both nuts, but never is one true and the other non existent.

That's pitiful.

Even the Monsters will spit you out.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jan 25 12:06:01 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore17.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)

iD4DBQFWplX5URT1lqxE3HERAp61AJ4ofxH9KvHIX4zyvh9tFekzCn1FDgCXRkV8
YLc0H9y65RXOnz4eTCab4Q==
=lmGt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

BOYS AND GIRLS

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


BOYS AND GIRLS

When we were young, boys were thinking "Eeuuww Girls!", and
girls were thinking "Eeuuww Boys!".

Now that we are grown, men are thinking "Ahh Women!", and
women are thinking "Eeuuww Men!"

Homer, who longs for the days of preboobesence.

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

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Jan 26 13:39:20 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore995.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)

iD8DBQFWp71ZURT1lqxE3HERAhL3AKCJRFJMh0YxsEFZX1l4pO9p1d/TOQCfegaY
/0bR2bG00da+zAWOqFeTkXY=
=nOT8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

adore472.memo (fwd)

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


LESSON OF UNLEARNING LESSONS

> We do need to aquire knowledge though in order to do this and to help
> others, should one choose to help others.

OK, so there is the 'lesson' of unlearning lessons.

But you see that is still a lesson.

Why are you wanting so bad to 'help' people? Still got a karma
group going?

Your OT postulate that they need help and will die without you is
CAUSE.

How can you help someone by postulating with full power that they
need help?

So best thing for you to do is go OT and disappear. If you
postulate that people NEED help, they will, it will be worse you see?

Go out and run Union Station on:

"Spot a person. Consider him perfect as he is, no further need of
change and no need of help."

It may or may not change him, but it sure as hell will change you.

Help is a games thing, we are going to help each other get the old
wind bag over the goal post. That's team action.

Now turning the process of as-ising games into a game creates
something like the Church of Slimetology, maybe you win, maybe you lose,
its like the postulate "I NEED to not need any more".

That's not an asisness you see?

Life persists because people are living it 180 degrees ass
backwards.

The theetie wheetie wants to 'help' all the poor little pygmies at
the bottom of the volcanoe to survive the next eruption. That's
natural. But it isn't OT.

The OT paints the picture in the first place. The OT can move
mountains so he can PUT THE VOLCANO THERE and the pygmies and all the do
gooders etc. Title the painting "Jesus Christ, look at all those
fucking Indians" (Custer's last stand.)

OT power comes from OT motivation, to create killer pits and throw
humans into it, watch them run around screaming, or become one of them
more likely. But an OT is not beneath selling his paintings to others
so they can run around screaming too.

To feel fear and anger and sorrow and upset etc.

The POINT of life is death, how we handle death. Death of our
loved ones, our detested ones, our pets, and ultimately our own death.

Death is not an accidental unfortunate circumstance, it is WHY life
exists in the first place for the spirit. How a being handles death day
after day during his life, determines what happens with him in the
between lives area.

If he is all dead in the head from so much death, he won't be in
very good shape will he?

"Oh death doesn't bother me, its natural for us to become fodder
for those that come after us."

Meatballs are so full of it. They die, there they are hanging out
in pity along a warm dead body asking directions to the nearest fodder
factory.

The person who absorbs death, puts death there, can say hello to
the dead when they die rather than goodbye, who can cry and savor sorrow
to the last drop like fine wine, until he finds the joy and humor at the
sheer enormity of his love, at the bottom of his wine glass, is the one
who can remain in affinity with himself and the AllThatIs.

The human wants OT power to be better able to survive as a human,
but if he had really wanted that as an OT he would have painted the game
that way.

Human power comes from human motivation, to win the game of
survival and never lose. The MUST on it drives it down tone where it
can never win because he isn't putting the game there in the first
place.

Thus humans live in fear and below, or forgetfullness if they are
deceit addicts.

Even the fear is carried on a carrier wave of sorrow and horror, no
wonder so many meatballs can wait to find a cause that will allow them
to die and get to heaven anyhow.

No human in his right mind would have created the game he is
playing. Thus it never as-ises because the human will not take on the
view point of that which would create that game and jump into it.

Any movement at all on the part of a human comes from desire, a
disatisfaction with the here-now and a promise of a better future
there-then.

So he is always moving towards somewhere and somewhen else in
spacetime than here now.

But this very movement is an alter-is of the here now, why not just
vanish it, and put a new here now in place. That is what the OT would
do.

But the human is trying to BETTER things, make sure humans win and
bugs lose etc, the OT is trying to BALANCE things. Human wants to win,
OT wants to play. The OT will never let the human or the bugs win. If
either wins, the OT will revert the game and redesign it to continue to
play.

If the human instead moves as an OT, keeping awareness that HE
created the game and jumped into it, then he can play the game of desire
and motivation and bettering things with out the MUST creating a solid
wake behind him that eventually sinks him.

It is possible to move through space and time and not solidify into
stone, but you won't be quite human at that point.

Thus look to your motivation for wishing power. As Author you can
have all the power you wish to create grand and excalibur tapestries of
love and sorrow.

As a character/creature in the story, the search for OT power in
order to protect your sorry ass and the ones you love only ends in
despair.

> I still think life is a fun adventure, and I think we have to learn things
> otherwise I might as well go down the pub, have a good laugh, spend my time
> talking about the weather, what was on the TV last night and all my
>> them are bad as they stick you to the temporal.

Being serious about helping people will really stick you in the
temporal and fill your world with the sick dead and dying, and those
that need help.

You get what you put your attention on.

On the other hand help as team work is higher tone, but
what are you going to build?

Homer


======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Jan 23 16:29:44 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore472.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)

iD8DBQFWo/DIURT1lqxE3HERAuSKAJ4hxvlYajV98EGVRy4pKfEBQkjwrgCfZ3yY
myBfK0k0L/VF1kYJdPPlBls=
=D3Mm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE233 (fwd)

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


CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>ok, I later saw Homer's long post, so the quote about "drive" would be
>something akin to "inspire by being."

Drive = to give purpose to, reason to be do have.

Thrust through spacetime towards an end goal.

Women comes into bar and says "Hey you, I got this child here to
take care of, what are YOU going to do about it?"

Man looks up from his drink and bar brawls and says "Oh shit, I
gotta get responsible around here!"

You see?

Woman provides reason for man to stop being an asshole, and reason
to start being a man.

The woman *HIRES* the man to give her orders and provide a larger
sphere of control in which she can safely bring up her children.

Men move the world.

Women bitch and men move.

Woman create the vision statement, build me a school, protect me
etc.

Men create the mission statement to get it done.

War is engendered by men who have no reason to be men but only
reason to be assholes, war is matricide. Mother is to blame.

"Every mother's son.

Every mother can turn her son into a monster.

Men are monsters.

How do women do it?

I mean to have something come out of your cunt and not know if it
is going to rape, kill or suck blood, must be really something else."

"If something evil is bugging you, track it down to where it came
from, and napalm the hole it crawled out of." - Adore

Run on mother:

"How are you responsible for your son's behavior".
"How are you not responsible for your son's behavior."

Or

"Get the idea of being responsible for your son's behavior."
"Get the idea of not being responsible for your son's behavior."

Run to E/P of "I created the body and I gave it to him and the buck
stops here."

If you can keep the blob of protoplasm in session long enough to
get there.

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Jan 22 16:25:01 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore233.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)

iD8DBQFWop4tURT1lqxE3HERAj9dAJ9nD2RCDj3RUe+rOJmNG/8ESrlXzwCeOBOF
IrobHUs893Aqg7B4WuPLNEQ=
=M80V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE887 (fwd)

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


KARMA

Jane:
> What's that quote from Adore about immortals
> finding mortals despicable and the karma of that?

Its been years (1985) since I been banging my head in an Adorian
Madrassa smoking pot all day long and cursing the Great Satan Meatball,
but it went something like this:

"KARMA

Immortals who dislike mortals have some karma to face.

Namely, mortals who dislike immortals are despicable.

Karma is present time involvement in hidden shames of the past.

Shame is a waste of time.

So is karma.

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT

Since you cannot die (forever outside of time),

You do not deserve to die or suffer forever, no matter what you do,
have done, or will do.

and

Your body does not deserve to be hurt or damaged for anything you
have done.

When Earth learns these two lessons, there will be peace on Earth
and good will towards men.

Until then, there will be suffering forever." - Adore


NOTE:

This was written before the distinction between immortal (in time)
and eternal (out of time) was made. Replace immortal with eternal in
all occurances above.

No one is mortal, no one is immortal, everyone is eternal.

Mortal is death forever.

Immortal is hell forever.

Eternal is peace forever interspersed with FINITE whiles
in dream time of the pretense of death and hell forever.

Homer
Thu Dec 15 17:33:40 EST 2011

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jan 21 12:06:01 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore887.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)

iD8DBQFWoQ/6URT1lqxE3HERAk93AJ9VYnF+KFhGikzw4BzTvkPb6A6oZwCdElBl
qUBvehIsfy/dwkDRFZ2kwN8=
=cXU0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE710 (fwd)

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

THE NOT SO ROUND THEORY BALL

The effete intellectual snottery on a.r.s exceeds the capacity of
modern day science to measure it.

Dennis:
>> This is what I mean by your complexity. Assumption building on
>> assumption. Begging the question. No, Homer. All this to explain
>> why different people measuring the same thing get the same results.

I see the problem more as a closed or round theory ball, as
described in the first of the Valentine Day's Lectures on the proof.

http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore646.memo

THEORY BALLS

Theory balls consist of observations, theories, predictions,
experiments and further observations.

EVIDENCE

Observations are evidence.

THEORIES

Theories consist of specifications (daisies exist), generalizations
(all daisies grow in the summer), and causal relationships between them
or explanations, (all daisies grow in the summer because they need
sunlight.)

VERIFIABILITY and FALSIFIABILITY

Specifications can be verified but not falsified.

SPECIFICATION: Some daisies exist.

Find one daisy, and your theory that some daisies exist is proven
true.

Failing to find a daisy merely supports but does not prove your
theory false, as absence of evidence for a specification, is not
evidence against it.

GENERALIZATIONS: All daisies grow in the summer.

Generalizations can be falsified, but not verified.

Find one daisy that grows in the winter and your theory that all
daisies grow in the summer is proven false.

Failing to find one daisy that grows in the winter supports but
does not prove your theory true, as absence of evidence against a
generalization is not evidence for it.

EXPLANATIONS: All daisies grow in the summer because daisies need
sunlight to grow.

Explanations of causal relation are a kind of generalization, thus
they too can be falsified but not verified.

Find one daisy that can grow without sunlight, and your theory that
all daisies need sunlight is proven false.

Failure to find a daisy that can grow without sunlight, does not
prove your theory true, it merely supports it, as absence of evidence
against a generalization is not evidence for it.

This might sound weird, take the following experiment for example.
Turn off all the sunlight and see if all your daisies die. If they do
that supports but does not prove with perfect certainty the
generalization that ALL daisies need sunlight to live let alone that
lack of sunlight is why they die in the winter. They could also die of
the cold or length of day or shift in the magnetic field.

COMPLETE THEORY BALLS

A theory ball is 'round' or complete when all observations are
explained and all predictions are observed.

This indicates that one has a complete understanding of everything.

The problem arises when certain observations have not yet been made
or have been left out. These can crack the theory ball, or at least
make it out of round, when such observations can neither be explained
nor predicted by existing theory.

For example the physics boys are looking for the Grand Unified
Theory of Everything, they hope that by unifying the so called four
fundamental forces of nature, gravity, electromagnetism, and the weak
and strong nuclear forces, they can explain everything.

They might be able to predict and explain much of the mechanical
universe this way, but consciousness is not mechanical, as no machine
can be perfectly certain of anything, and you can.

See the proof at http://www.lightlink.com/theproof

Sorry boys, love and shame can not of force and mass be made.

Think about it, you all been taught that force and mass is all
there is, that YOU and your consciousness are only processes in force
and mass in motion, tick, tock, tick, tock.

For those of you who aren't divinity challenged, a euphemism for
shallow as a dry river bed, you know that will and motivation are not
force and mass, and you know they can't be made of force and mass. Well
neither can consiousness as a whole.

But that ain't science, that's enlightenment.

These are two different things apparently, so let's get back to
science.

ACTUAL OR VIRTUAL

Now here is my exact position on this, it has nothing to do with
belief, faith or bogus religion, it has only to do with solid science,
using both verifiability and falsifiability as guidelines.

There are a spectrum of theories to explain why we see things in
our consciousness which is a graphics rendition engine for space and
time and the objects in them, These theories range from the dreamball to
the meatball theory.

The dreamballs say that our conscious rendition is a representation
of a virtual universe, a dream or hallucination if you will. Something
seen in consciousness with no exterior existence at all.

The meatballs say that our conscious rendition is a representation
of an actual universe 'out there'. They point out into their conscious
picture to show us where exactly out there is.

WHY BOTHER WITH THEORY?

We have a number of key observations that need to be accounted for.

The primary observation is that two different people see the same
object at the same time, for example a pen on my desk. I see it, and
you see it, and so how come we have an in sync conscious experience of
that part of the landscape?

The second observation is that when I move the pen on the desk, you
see the pen move on the desk, and visa versa.

Clearly my rendition of the pen in my consciousness is somehow
causally connected to your rendition of the pen in your consciousness.

These are two incredible observations that really need to be
accounted for.

Neither one of us sees the pen directly, both of us are using our
own eyes and bodies and brains to render a likeness of the pen in our
consciousness. So how come when my rendition moves, yours does too?

THE MEATBALL THEORY

The meatball theory gives a very complicated but internally
consistent theory as to how this synchronicity could happen, namely that
there exists a single actual pen out there, photons bounce off it to
each of our eyes, albeit from different viewpoints, the nerve impulses
are rendered by our brain into our own personal 3D color rendition of the
pen.

Thus we have two people looking at one actual object from different
viewpoints.

When I exercise cause over the pen by moving it with my hand, you
pick up the change because both you and I are in causal sensory contact
with the same pen. There is a causal pathway from the pen, via photons,
to our eyes, brain, and consciousness, so when the actual pen moves, we
both get it rendered as having moved in our conscious rendition of the
common landscape.

It is the same actual pen for both of us, creating two identical
personal renditions differing only by angle of view.

Thus we have one actual pen, and two conscious renditions of that
pen, one for you and one for me. Since our renditions are each causally
connected to the actual pen, if the pen moves, both of our renditions
are changed to reflect the change in the actual pen.

Thus both our conscious rendition engines are in contact with the
same actual external universe and thus bring us consistent data about
what is going on out there.

Sanity would be defined as properly rendering that external actual
universe. In theory everyone should agree as to what is out there in
the actual universe, because even though we see it from different
viewpoints, there is only one actual thing out there, and thus
ultimately all our perceptions of it should agree.

If everyone's rendition engine renders a green tree, and mine
renders a pink elephant, mine is nuts, or out of contact.

THE DREAMBALL THEORY

The dreamball theory gives a simpler but also internally consistent
theory which says that the source of our conscious rendition of the pen
and its landscape is not sensory input from an actual external universe,
but a direct data feed from an internal and eternal source of data from
which our conscious image is rendered.

Eternity is the holographic film of space and time.

Thus both you and I can render a pen never having seen one before,
because there are no pens except those that have been so rendered.

God did not have to see a tree before conceiving of one to create.

Further somehow we can make sure that the pen I render looks the
same as the pen you render, so that we can PRETEND there is a common
actual pen out there, where there isn't.

This would be how God works, did you think it could ever be any
other way?

In other words we are sharing a co dream together. This demands a
whole new synchronization mechanism that connects the two of us so we
can render in sync with each other, 'see the same thing at the same
time', that is independent of any alleged actual universe out there,
otherwise we could never share the dream.

Notice at all times each being is seeing only his own dream, his
own rendition. But both beings have identical copies of the pen, which
having synced up into one virtual pen, can be moved and controlled by
both parties.

Ever have a shared sleep dream with someone else?

How do you think that took place?

In the meatball theory, all cause between two beings travels from
one being, OUT through the alleged exterior physical universe over to
the other being, via OUT THERE.

There is no direct cause between beings that travels directly
between beings, and not out through space and time and back again.

In the dreamball theory there is no OUT THERE, out there is only
virtual, and thus can not carry causation through itself. Thus like a
multiplayer arcade game, there must be an actual causal path between two
different beings independent of the virtual out there being displayed.

The virtual bullet you shoot causes the virtual enemy to drop not
because of any interaction between the bullet and the enemy but because
of a lower level shared rendition system that orchestrates both to act
as if they had affected each other across all players at the same time.

Thus shooter, victim, and all observers in the game see and think
that the bullet killed the victim. The bullet certainly didn't kill the
victim because it has no causal efficacy at all. The victim was killed
by the computer controlling the multi being rendition system, which
created both the bullet and the victim getting killed through
simultaneous orchestration of each player's personal rendition of the
game.

A virtual universe is a rendition engine acting AS IF there were an
actual universe and the rendition engine is in causal contact with with
that actual universe keeping track of what it going on.

Such orchestration is a pretense, as there is no actual universe
out there at all, and the rendition engine pulls its data from an
internal source that has no physical geometric similarity to the space
time universe being virtualized on the display screen, your
consciousness.

One doesn't need to have a cube in order to render a cube, only
merely needs the data that describes a cube to render a cube.

The data that describes a cube doesn't at all look like a cube!

In the meatball theory, the conscious rendition has geometric
similarity, it looks like, the actual universe it is rendering.

In the dreamball theory, the conscious rendition has no geometric
similarity to anything at all, except itself, certainly not the data it
was drawn from.

WHICH IS MORE COMPLICATED?

In that sense some might feel that the dreamball theory is more
complicated than the meatball theory, but many are just upset they spent
their whole lives hunting cause in a dream.

So if all we had to explain is why do two beings see the same
landscape and why when I move my pen, does your pen move too, then the
meatball theory might be the simplest one.

But the meatball theory says that cause travels out through the
meatball universe from being to being, or between external object and
being, using cause waves (photons), and eyes and brains etc.

Thus if a being HAS no eyes, lenses, or brains, he won't be able to
see any part of the meatball universe because he won't be able to pick
up its cause waves.

But if just one person is able to get out of his body, and see the
world where there are no eyes and no lens, and then engage others with
direct telepathy or telekinesis, and remember past lives and go dig up
the box he left wherever, then suddenly the meatball theory has met its
achilles heel of falsifiability.

If ALL communication about the meatball universe MUST travel
through the meatball universe to meatball entities such as bodies and
eyes, and just one instance can be found where communication, data about
and/or causal action in the universe is traveling with out such means,
then the meatball theory is dead out of the gate.

Now admittedly a number of paranormal phenomenon might be explained
by adding complexity to the meatball theory, stupid people often
consider that just a little more complexity and obfuscation of what they
don't understand will explain it all, just like a little more cocaine
will make them feel perfect.

The physics boys are doing this with their race to the Grand
Unified Theory of Everything. They say they are almost there, and you
say 'But what about consiousness", and they say "Oh yes well,
consciousness is just chemistry bubbling away at 98.6, you know, its
just a process in the brain, and like other brain things it is too
complex to understand presently, but we, uh, are sure the brain works
with the basic 4 forces of nature just like everything else, Occam's
Razor you know, so if we understand THEM better we will understand the
brain better and eventually we will understand consciousness too."

The hell they will.

In other words more complexity of cold dark dead matter will
produce self luminous consciousness that is capable of perfect
certainty.

Divinity = force and mass in motion.

But I suspect that scientists would be hard pressed to find the
energy waves that travel from being to being during telepathy or even
telekinesis, particularly if they are faster than light.

The amount of energy it would take to move the marble, or lift a
brick would burn a brain out, so if someone tried to do with with
physical energy, he would probably go "Scanners" on us, heads blowing
up, the whole ordeal.

So the minute you move the marble or lift a brick, someone is going
to say where the hell is the energy coming from to do this?

If he can lift the brick can he light a city? Should we be asking
for a contract? Or should he be eminently domained into being a weapon
of war for us in the name of national security?

Meatballs are so stupid, there is no negative number large enough
to measure it.

OK, sorry.

But at some point someone is going to say if we are going to hunt
the paranormal, the meatball's round theory ball ain't so round any
more, we got observations and anecdotal stories that can't be predicted
by the theory, and it is time to apply the nutcracker to it, crack it
open completely and rearrange its parts until it is round again.

The number of paranormal reports through history is staggering, and
modern science is choo-chooing in the direction of they are all
delusional. You want to be on that ride?

So we are not asking anyone to believe or have faith, but merely to
understand that they MUST have a working model of how the paranormal
could be possible before they will ever be able to replicate these
things to their satisfaction.

In this case, my gut instincts tell me this would involve reversing
the idea that consciousness arose out of actual meat, and considering
instead that virtual meat arose out of consciousness.

However there are serious consequences to this theory if true.

For one consciousness could no longer be a process in the brain
because consciousness existed before any virtual universe.

(We assume philosophically that a consciousness that existed before
the creation of space and time, and which then created space and time,
would still itself have no space or time, and thus would be
fundamentally different than an analogue or pretend consciousness
created as a process in a space time machine like the brain, whether
virtual or actual. In other words robots can say ouch, but will never
feel love or pain.)

Second consciousness can not be interfaced with a brain, because in
the far end case, the meat universe is a virtual universe and has no
actual cause traveling through it, to it, or from it at all. It's a
movie, even though the conscious unit can change the direction of the
movie according to his own choice of which way to go.

By analogy the conscious unit is both the arcade game designer and
player, although he may be playing a game he didn't design, and the
universe at large is the virtual landscape of that game, in which cause
in the landscape doesn't exist except at the pretense level.

This may be shocking and insulting to those who have committed to
the seriousness and mystery of life and the hunt for cause, but their
feelings are not science.

We can ask why would the multi being God incarnate and forget that
he had done so?

That's fine, ask all you want, but who are you going to go complain
to?

So we have shown how the meatball theory could be falsifiable.

One verifiable exteriorization and the meatball theory is past its
due date.

Can we show how the dreamball theory could be falsifiable?

That would involve verifying the assertion 'there is an actual
physical universe'. Notice that is a specification, not a
generalization.

So that's easy, show me an actual physical universe, just one, and
its done, meatballs rule.

Notice however we need to be shown an actual physical universe, not
a picture of one, nor a rendition of one, nor a representation of one,
nor a symbol of one, nor a video or one, nor a copy of one, nor a
written account of one, but the actual thing itself.

There is a philosophical problem with this demand in that a being
locked inside a room with only a TV set to see, can only see pictures
and renditions of things, thus you could never show him the actual
thing.

The being locked inside his consciousness is the same way, all he
can see is his consciousness, which is clearly a rendering engine, and
thus from the existence of the rendition which he can see, he can not
verify with absolute certainty the existence of the allegedly rendered.
What he is seeing could be a dream, imagination, hallucination or play
back from some simulated data source.

Which it is.

There is also no symmetry between proving the meatball theory and
proving the dreamball theory because in a sense the meatball theory is a
subset of the dreamball theory.

We KNOW we are conscious, and we KNOW that our consciousness is
rendering things for our edification.

So there is no need to prove that.

Only an idiot wonders whether or not he wonders.

The question only remains whether the rendered images represent
real time actualities out in the actual physical universe, or if we are
sitting in a flight simulator if you will. Both look the same, you
can't tell FROM what is rendered, whether the implied referent is
actually out there or not.

You can't break the window of your consciousness and stick your
neck out to see if the picture painted on the window matches the
actually out side.

In fact a theorem can be made from this which is that any being
that is stuck looking at something via a rendition of it, can never know
if the thing itself is there, because you can't prove the existence of A
by looking at B even if B is in fact a causally related rendition of A.

Thus if we assume that beings are in fact stuck inside their
consciousness, we can argue that it becomes impossible to know if the
implied external actuality exists.

However it is suggestably possible to know that it doesn't exist,
if in fact it doesn't.

If the meatball theory is true, then consciousness can never do any
thing outside the realm of physical causality because by definition
consciousness is MADE of physical causality, just chemistry bubbling
away at 98.6.

However one instance of consciousness violating physical causality,
then it is suggested that consciousness is not MADE of that physical
causality because it is virtualizing it instead, and the need to assert
that meat is actual falls away.

This doesn't prove meat doesn't exist, but we start to lose
interest in meat in the absence of impelling reasons to keep it around.

Much better to study consciousness of meat and what consciousness
can do than study the meat which consciousness renders, which may not
even be out there. Except of course as a virtual game to get fed etc.

THE NATURE AND EXISTENCE OF THE RENDITION ENGINE BECOMES MUCH MORE
IMPORTANT THAN ANYTHING IT CAN RENDER.

You might not be able to eat knowledge about consciousness, but you
might be able to create a world where you don't have a body that 'needs
to eat', or other pesky little dreams.

The only reason people are in love with the meatball theory is
because they know THEY exist, and they want to know why. The meatball
theory claims meat exists and thus explains why consciousness exists,
namely that consciousness is a process in meat.

One you show that consciousness can do something that meat can't,
and that consciousness can exist independent of meat or space and time
and anything in it, then consciousness takes on its own stature and the
existence of meat becomes moot.

The primary thing that consciousness can do that meat can't is the
function of perfect certainty of itself and what it sees.

A space time machine can not do that.

Learn the proof. http://www.lightlink.com/theproof

Thus we already have some slightest evidence enough that
consciousness is not meat, which gives us courage to study the dreamball
theory to see if we can explain and replicate all these very many
anecdotal reports of para normal powers.

If beings share a dream by telepathy even when awake, and there is
no external cause at all, then clearly the God function that keeps the
waking dreams going is already operating telepathy, telekinesis, and
creation all the time, or we wouldn't be able to create and experience
dreams together.

Tapping in to the God function then just becomes a matter of
understanding how.

Understanding how to get back to God, involves only understanding
how and why we left it.

The way in, is the way out.

Practice coming in, puts you out.

That one line my friends leads to a WHOLE technology of repairing
God hood.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Jan 30 01:14:03 EST 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jan 20 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore710.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)

iD8DBQFWn756URT1lqxE3HERAmzEAKCDMMzERX/vMvkXS33k7QprgNshLwCgpw8h
PutXyWvkIEF+3A5+9irU/pI=
=h7cH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

AT (fwd)

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


ANARCHY AND TYRANNY

My Political Philosophy.

Tyranny means rule by one.

Anarchy means rule by none.

Anarchy and Tyranny form the two extreme ends of a DICOM, DIchotomy
of Comparable and Opposite Magnitude.

When people become enslaved by a planetary tyranny, then tend to
revolt and wish for a planetary anarchy.

As an anarchy however, individual people tend to coalesce into
small groups for their own good, which however then become ruled by the
toughest and meanest.

Thus an anarchy usually results in an endless sea of micro
tyrannies.

In order to solve this problem, people try to put into place a
government that is just strong enough to step in and wipe out any single
micro tyranny trying to become Ruler of All, and at the same time not
strong enough to become a tyranny itself.

The most overriding principle of law, the one that comes before all
other principles of law, and the one that governs all others after it,
is:

"When lawmakers outlaw criminals, criminals become lawmakers."

A criminal is someone who wishes to create a tyranny in order to
profit himself at the expense of everyone else.

Criminals and Lawmakers also form the extreme ends of a dicom that
interweaves with the dicom of Anarchy and Tyranny.

An Anarchy is rule by Criminals, and a Tyranny is rule by
Lawmakers.

Neither is rule of the people, by the people, for the people.

It has been said that "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.", and
although perhaps true it falls short of a complete understanding.

Even if one were to put in place a Divine Oligarchy (a small group
of governing rulers) of Uncorruptible Beings, at the head of a planet
wide government, you would still have a basic and fundamental problem.

Governments are huge entities, they need thousands if not millions
of people to work for them. The problem with Divine Uncorruptible
Beings is not that they themselves are corruptible, but that they can't
necessarily tell the good guys from the bad guys, when it comes to
*EVERYONE ELSE*.

They may be perfect within themselves, but they still don't have
infinite wisdom.

Thus when they put out an ad in the papers offering government jobs
for hire, saying 'only the good and pure in heart need apply', you can
be sure that every criminal on the planet will show up at the door
looking for a job.

If the criminal sees that the only positions of power and
opportunity to do wrong left in society are positions of trust in the
government, you can be sure that they will quickly work their way into
every position of power in the government they can.

Now the Divine Oligarchy knows this, they realize full well that
even though they themselves are incorruptible, the rest of the world is
not, and thus the government will be built upon people who are a wild
mixture of both good and bad.

The Divine Oligarchy also knows full well that although
uncorruptible themselves, they do not have infinite wisdom, and thus
will not be able to perfectly tell the good from the bad, and will thus
be unable to keep the bad from being accepted into positions of trust
and power within the government.

Would *YOU* want to be the Personnel Manager of the Government, if
every time someone you hired did wrong it came back to you?

Thus no matter the quality of beings at the head of the Government,
it is impossible to have a perfectly uncorrupt government itself.

Thus no matter how tempting it is to put all power into the
government in order to protect the good people from the bad, this will
inevitably result in an overwhelmingly high concentration of bad people
bubbling up into positions of power within the government ruling over
the good, and the good purpose will be defeated.

It is for this reason that the *PEOPLE* who are not in government
must *ALWAYS* have the power, either through political means or force,
vote or arms, to take any government that they create, out.

It is the *CITIZEN* who is Sovereign, not the government, nor the
rulers, nor even the King.

The government and those that work for the government, are doing a
fair chosen tour of duty, and are sworn on their honor to uphold the law
of the land.

The citizen is NOT above the law of the sky which is right and
wrong determined by the highest arbiter, personal conscience.

But the Citizen is always above the law of the land because the law
of the land is designed by the sovereign citizen to constrain the
GOVENMENT and what it can do to the citizen!

The government is created by the citizen, and the law is created by
the citizen to constrain the government the citizen created. Get it?

Only the sworn civil servant has sworn an oath to follow the law of
the land right or wrong, the sovereign citizen has not and must not.
otherwise he becomes owned by criminal laws written by criminal law
makers that inure to the benefit of criminals!

Confusing criminality (conscience) with illegality, is the glue
which holds the police state together.

Once you get to the Pearly Gates, St. Peter will not be asking you
if you did what was legal, he will be asking you if you did what was
right.

Thus the sovereign citizen is free to dishonorably discharge any
sworn civil servant who has failed in his duty TO FOLLOW THE LAW OF THE
LAND.

*THIS INCLUDES THOSE THAT MAKE THE LAWS AND THE LAWS THEY HAVE
MADE*, for the Lawmaker is the most dangerous of the bunch, being the
favorite position of power for the criminal to aspire to.

The balance of power between the people and the government they
have created, might be set so that it would take no more than a majority
of the people to take the government out, through vote or arms.

Thus the people must be armed one way or another so that they can
remove a planet wide government that they themselves originally created
repleat with force and arms, to protect themselves from micro tyrannies.

IF YOU CREATE IT, YOU HAD BETTER BE ABLE TO UNCREATE IT, OR IT
*WILL* COME TO OWN YOU.

That balance of power is accomplished through the BIG TRIAD, strong
vote and arms, strong encryption and strong anonymity, and of course education in
the principles laid out above, among other things.

The people should never be transparent to the government, the
government should always be transparent to the people.

Secrets belong to the people, not the government.

Those are big words, NO ONE has the balls for it yet.

Everyone wants to be protected, so they create a police state to
protect themselves, hopefully a small one, but any fire, no matter how
small, given an inch will take a mile.

So the minute secrets belong to the government and not the people,
the very instant the people are transparent to the government, and the
government is not transparent to the people, you have a police state
aburning, er aborning.

The house of society is on fire and it needs to be put out FAST or
all will be lost.

Encryption allows people the right to safely communicate in
private.

Anonymity allows people the right to safely communicate in public.

The purpose of politics is to design a society of markets.

The same communication lines are used to first design the markets
(communism or capitalism say), and then are used to operate those very
same markets a designed.

The e-mails you use to to discuss privately with your friends who
you will vote for (body politic issue) are also used to swap mp3's
ripped from CDROM's you bought (market issue).

The body politic's needs for a strong triad of vote and arms,
encryption and anonymity, superceeds the market's need for a weak triad,
no vote or arms, no encryption and no anonymity.

YOU NEVER WANT TO GIVE A MONOPOLY OF FORCE TO ANY GROUP THAT HAS
MORE VOTE/ARMS, ENCRYPTION AND ANONYMITY THAN YOU DO.

The reason we give force to the police is NOT to monitor or affect
the design of society by the body politic composed of sovereign
citizens, but to monitor the behavior of people in the markets once they
get going.

The market doesn't want you swapping copyrighted mp3's privately or
publically.

Strong vote and arms, encryption and anonymity are ANTHEMA to the
markets, especially to the big corporate markets.

The foundation of a police state is THE MARKET's needs for total
control, not the body politic's needs, as no body politic would ever
knowingly design and create into existence a police state for itself.

The police are CREATED to control misbehavior in the markets not
the body politic!

The police has no purpose at all to the body politic that designed
the society in the first place.

Once the police are turned against the body politic because of
disagreements about MARKET DESIGN, one has a 100 percent corrupt and
untenable social situation going that DEFINES the classic police state.

Imagine the commies controlling the police and sending them after
the capitalists during the design phase of society?

But mostly police states arise from market demands, not body
politic demands, market demands that try to subjugate the body politic's
design of the markets to some market player's benefit.

The body politic is above the law BECAUSE THERE IS NO LAW YET, so
any use of the police by any part of the body politic against any other
part is criminal lawlessness, a tyranny of the very kind we were trying
to avoid by designing a society of markets with a properly monitoring
police force in the first place.

Police states usually arise AFTER the fact of a society of markets
created by a body politic.

These societies of markets where police states flourish and grow,
were not crafted properly to ensure basic public rights that protect the
body politic. Namely the rights to vote and arms, encryption (secrecy
of data), anonymity (secrecy of source), and to ensure government
transparency in all matters.

Government secrecy for MARKET MATTERS is one thing, as are national
security reasons, but national security is a market issue not a
political issue, national security is the effort to protect against one
group from ripping off the markets of another group through invasion.

It then becomes their police force against our police force which
is a valid purpose of the police force.

The problem is the secrecy that is necessary in the MARKET WAR,
then becomes used in a POLITICAL WAR against the designers of the
markets.

Once politics (design of markets) is suborned to serve the markets
above politics, then a police state is obtained and YOU become a slave
to the markets which have taken to designing themselves under the
control of market players, usually the criminally rich, as money buys
the police state!

If the government has more vote/arms, encryption and anonymity than
the majority of the people, then the civilization is on its way out, and
it will become ruled by criminals to the benefit of the criminal rich,
in the name of protecting the productive good, who will become cows on
the government's cow farm.

Moo!

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Jan 19 17:29:11 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/AT.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)

iD8DBQFWnri3URT1lqxE3HERAmFFAKCBucd22dC5fhzhxYhcs8Dasen80wCgy1PJ
hN4jBgz3Or1TFsSnVd1m2Us=
=4516
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l