-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHY WRITE
"Why write? To write the right why." - Adore
I am a scientist.
I engage in the normal process of learning, to wit:
Observation, Description, Hypothesis, Models, predictions, and
verification or execration.
Since I can SEE a chunk of God, namely me, I am proceeding with the
standard scientific method on what I can see.
Conscious color forms are actual, are used as symbols for dubious
external referents, have qualities, color, dimensionality, the apparency
of out thereness, implied viewpoint (where they are being looked at
from), self luminosity, agency, perfect certainty etc, many of which do
NOT apply to the alleged referents.
So there is a lot to know about that red ball there in my dreams.
Now when I was a child, I asked my father "Daddy, where did I come
from."
He told me about the Willy and the Wendy, and although this seemed
a bit strange to me, I couldn't see anything contradicting it, so I
bought into it, hook line and sinker. I accepted a wrong indication
from a wrong theory and became VERY much the worse off for it.
What I see is, this world today suffers from a wrong indication of
massive magnitude. The indication is about "What are we, where did we
come from, where are we going" etc.
The indication has been wrong for a long time, and unfortunately
has been going down hill and getting worse, even as science has been
getting smarter and wiser.
It went from a living God is the cause of all things, to dead MEST
is the cause of all things. Well that helped us live better in the MEST
universe but it took the life out of living.
The world presently consists mostly of meatballs pushing death
forever, religious fanatics pushing hell forever, and a whole mess of
new age crystal gazers saying "oh relax, peace, good will, love, take
another toke!"
But that's not a theory you see. The Crystal heads, like the
religious fanatics don't seem to have a mind to think with any more, but
the scientists which do are simply not awake.
So my postings here are an effort to delineate the 'other' theory
of existence which is that APPARENCIES of matter arose out of
consciousness, rather than consciousness arose out of matter.
Everything stated in my postings are just that, delineation of
theory, nothing more nothing less.
Like all theories it is presented in the third person indicative
assertive:
"You are an adorable operating pride source.
There is nothing better or higher than Pride.
Except perhaps Omni Awesome Peace." - Adore
That's because that is the way the theory is.
All auditing is based on some theory of existence, discussing what
to audit or how to audit without discussing some underlying theory and
model of what you are auditing is a silly waste of time, unless the
process has been handed down to you by the Gods without understanding.
The idea is there is anatomy and approach. The anatomy is what is
wrong and how we got there, and approach is what to do about it to fix
it.
Models of anatomy are a rich source of predictions, audit this and
you will get that, kind of thing. If the predictions prove false, then
you toss the model or improve on it.
Now both KP and Phil are saying about the same thing, all this
scientific work that I am doing and publishing is a dangerous
hallucinatory, figure-figure, think, self aggrandizing waste of time,
more trouble that it is worth.
KP has his one process and Phil has his also in the Black Magician
series, neither of which I found workable. Hell Hubbard had books and
books and books of processes, none of which I found workable for me.
But I have found workable what I am doing, so I continue to do it,
and I expect there will be others like me who also find it workable.
Observing, describing, modeling the AllThatIs, is not an evil
occupation and it certainly is not counterproductive. It is not useful
to say that all thoughts are wrong except this one, turn off the mind
and you will find peace. Try it, see if its that simple.
You can't use the mind to turn off the mind.
On the other hand a bit of study about what the mind is about,
questions and answers, a bit of clarity on the nature of self answering
questions, wrong indications, and seeking for answers you already have
in the question itself, can go a long ways towards allowing the mind to
to go quiescent, once one sees what it is that needs to be shut up and
why.
Without that understanding, the mind is just a broncing bucko.
Same is true for dramatizion of forevers, its a major subject, lots
of charge to be spotted and run out, and the body just starts to heal on
its own. Or die on its own if you don't.
Also true for desire and view, once one sees what one has done to
one's own desire, the consequences become obvious and you get this 'no
wonder' feeling about the condition you are in, or "well I sure deserved
what I got from that!"
You see that's peace, even if you are still in the soup learning to
swim, or learning to not swim down.
So for all that Phil and KP may be 'right' about things, as far as
I can tell they are still dramatizing forevers on things, making service
facs out of basic truths and generally being destructive to postings
made here without themselves actually adding much to clearing tech
itself in a way that most people can use it.
I too may not be helping a lot of people here or in the future, but
I am laying down a record of how I helped myself or in the end failed
to. That is science you see?
My original stated goal was to open the channels of communication
and speak the truth as I see it, and I have been doing that and will
continue to do so.
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 ====================
Thu Sep 29 12:06:01 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore217.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)
iD8DBQFX7TvqURT1lqxE3HERAkQLAJ9FJ2HilaYevxif2ApFsx4bvTnHhgCgmEv4
u0iP6oGTPsY1HmMl18l/DNI=
=3yNm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
ADORE49 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PERSISTING AND VANISHING TRUTH
Adore makes the following definitions.
A Postulate: a posted beingness. (AS-IS)
A Consideration: an added significance usually of a causal relation
between two or more posted beingness. (ALTER-IS)
Remember color forms as a kid? They had this black board and a
whole mess of bright vinyl color forms that you could put up on the
board and they would stick.
Well the board is the void.
The vinyl color forms are creations, these are postulates, posted
beingnesses, no time, no change, no significance, just IS. You post
them to the board and they IS.
Now on the real board the color forms would stay put once you put
them there, so this analogy breaks down at this point because in the
static void, if you post a color form, it will vanish shortly thereafter
unless you make a consideration about it.
A consideration is an added significance relating two posted
beingnesses to each other.
A significance is who or what created it, when it was created, why
it was created, where it was created, what it is used for, what its
purpose is, what it is, whether it is good or bad etc.
When a thetan first puts up a color form it just IS. It isn't
ANYTHING in particular. He puts up a few of these, and they keep
vanishing as fast as he puts them up. Then he does something different,
he adds significance to a couple of them.
He says "This color form is an ashtray, and that color form is a
cigarette, and the ashtray is USED to hold the ashes that come off the
cigarette and the ashes are CAUSED by the cigarette burning which was
caused by this other color form I'm gonna call a match over here."
There is a process in Scn that has to do with simply naming
objects. This is because, although names can be completely arbitrary
and mean nothing, usually they signify the considerations that have been
placed on an object.
You say "This is a car", and wham its use, purpose, history,
future, problems, concerns etc all come up to the mind. These are the
added significances to the pure unadulterated color form that has been
labeled a car.
By running this process for a while, pretty soon the significances
begin to as-is, and the pure color form is left behind, and pretty soon
IT begins to as-is and you get a vanishment of the image in the pc's
space.
Book and Bottle does this to some pc's, you say pick up the bottle,
they say "What bottle?"
Hubbard wrote in the PABs something like the following scale.
Native State KNOW Nothing created
AS-IS Not KNOW Color form posted, vanishing truth
ALTER-IS Know About Significance added
ISNESS Result Persisting truth
NOT-IS Not Know About Denial of persisting truth.
SUB ISNESS Wrong Know About Persisting falsehoods
Native state isn't 'KNOW' in the sense of consciousness-of, or in
the sense of know about, it is KNOW HOW TO, able to, natively capable,
in the sense that the native quiescing God is fully capable of
exercising all of its abilities at any time although none are being
exercised at that moment. Those abilities ARE the ability to engage in
as-is, alter-is, not-is and is.
The state of as-isness is when the static makes its first color
form, posts its first beingness, experiences its first consciousness-of
color form.
This color form, perceived without added significance is a
vanishing truth, because it is what IS, and it won't hang around for
long. It's just the way things work. This mechanism is not even
created or considered into existence, it is the basic operating mode of
the static and its first creation.
The as-is state is called NOT KNOW because the static is no longer
in the quiescent potential state of total KNOW. It has begun to
manifest perceivable color forms and thus to limit itself.
The state of alter-is is when the static has a few as-is color
forms going and starts to add significances to them, what they are, what
they are used for, which causes what, why he created them. The static
begins to KNOW ABOUT it's color forms. All know about is created,
fabricated just as the color forms are.
These added significances add change, and therefore time, into the
scene, thus we get 'dreamtime'.
To the degree that the static forgets that the added significances
are created arbitrarily and to the degree that the static chooses to
BELIEVE that these significances are actually true, just to that degree
do the altered color forms begin to persist "on their own" through time.
He's still making them but they seem to be making themselves, its a
good illusion.
Persistence is an as-is color form altered with significance that
is considered to be TRUE.
These significances are called persisting truths. They are a lie
in that they are an alteration of the original as-is color forms, but
they are truth in that they are the original significances added onto
the color forms that makes them persist, so although they are not a true
as-isness, they are a true is-ness, you see?
It is important to note that the significances added onto the color
form are arbitrarily chosen, the color form that got called an ashtray
could just have easily gotten called a hockey puck in another round of
creation.
Thus persisting truths are 'true' only in that they are indeed the
first significance added to the object, not that they have any
fundamental rightness.
After the static has created a persisting scene of color forms and
persisting truths added onto them, it can then engage in further
alterations.
It can either engage in denial of what it knows about, that is
pretending that it doesn't know, which is not-isness. Or it can invent
further significances to confound the original significances put on the
object.
Where at first he said "This is an ashtray used to hold ashes made
by me", he later says "This is a paper weight made by Joe".
Both not-isness and these second added significances are then
called persisting falsehoods.
So in order to make something really persist the being needs to do
4 things called the persistence sandwich.
1.) AS-IS, create an as-is color form
2.) ALTER-IS, add a persisting truth to it
3.) NOT-IS, deny the persisting truth
4.) ALTER-IS add another persisting truth which is therefore
a persisting falsehood.
The being at 4.) thinks he is at 2.) and thus gets into a lot of
trouble when he tries to undo it.
To vanish any manifesting condition of existence then, one must
bring the pc back to the original persisting truth of color form plus
added significance, then to separate these as both independent and
arbitrary creations, at which point both will become vanishing truths
and return to non manifestation.
In theory this is true for both physical universe masses and for
mental masses in the preclear's mind.
Remember each being has his own version of the PU, there isn't just
ONE that all share, there is a common agreement that makes them all the
same across all beings inside it, but each being has his own copy. It
is a fantastic alter-is just to claim there is only one PU!
It is generally accepted that we don't want to vanish physical
universe masses, violating the laws of conservation of matter and energy
would have dire consequences on the balance of the universe.
Instantaneously removing one marble from the atmosphere of earth
would cause a collapsing atmospheric shock wave that could be felt
around the planet by any seismographic instrument.
But it is desirable to vanish the mental masses that a pc has
accumulated over this life and many lives.
In the physical universe we only want to find better and original
persisting truths so that we can leave the masses standing but not be so
lost about them.
This we call science.
In the pc we certainly want to bring the pc to a persisting truth
where the masses still stand, but we also want a full vanishing truth
where the worst of these masses disappear completely and forever.
This we call auditing.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Sep 27 15:32:45 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore49.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)
iD8DBQFX6sldURT1lqxE3HERAkBiAJ9CC/3Kpj9y3EupWnehAV4DVfbMfACdFROO
ut/PbpgYWJwGqNIna9gqon4=
=MnpV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PERSISTING AND VANISHING TRUTH
Adore makes the following definitions.
A Postulate: a posted beingness. (AS-IS)
A Consideration: an added significance usually of a causal relation
between two or more posted beingness. (ALTER-IS)
Remember color forms as a kid? They had this black board and a
whole mess of bright vinyl color forms that you could put up on the
board and they would stick.
Well the board is the void.
The vinyl color forms are creations, these are postulates, posted
beingnesses, no time, no change, no significance, just IS. You post
them to the board and they IS.
Now on the real board the color forms would stay put once you put
them there, so this analogy breaks down at this point because in the
static void, if you post a color form, it will vanish shortly thereafter
unless you make a consideration about it.
A consideration is an added significance relating two posted
beingnesses to each other.
A significance is who or what created it, when it was created, why
it was created, where it was created, what it is used for, what its
purpose is, what it is, whether it is good or bad etc.
When a thetan first puts up a color form it just IS. It isn't
ANYTHING in particular. He puts up a few of these, and they keep
vanishing as fast as he puts them up. Then he does something different,
he adds significance to a couple of them.
He says "This color form is an ashtray, and that color form is a
cigarette, and the ashtray is USED to hold the ashes that come off the
cigarette and the ashes are CAUSED by the cigarette burning which was
caused by this other color form I'm gonna call a match over here."
There is a process in Scn that has to do with simply naming
objects. This is because, although names can be completely arbitrary
and mean nothing, usually they signify the considerations that have been
placed on an object.
You say "This is a car", and wham its use, purpose, history,
future, problems, concerns etc all come up to the mind. These are the
added significances to the pure unadulterated color form that has been
labeled a car.
By running this process for a while, pretty soon the significances
begin to as-is, and the pure color form is left behind, and pretty soon
IT begins to as-is and you get a vanishment of the image in the pc's
space.
Book and Bottle does this to some pc's, you say pick up the bottle,
they say "What bottle?"
Hubbard wrote in the PABs something like the following scale.
Native State KNOW Nothing created
AS-IS Not KNOW Color form posted, vanishing truth
ALTER-IS Know About Significance added
ISNESS Result Persisting truth
NOT-IS Not Know About Denial of persisting truth.
SUB ISNESS Wrong Know About Persisting falsehoods
Native state isn't 'KNOW' in the sense of consciousness-of, or in
the sense of know about, it is KNOW HOW TO, able to, natively capable,
in the sense that the native quiescing God is fully capable of
exercising all of its abilities at any time although none are being
exercised at that moment. Those abilities ARE the ability to engage in
as-is, alter-is, not-is and is.
The state of as-isness is when the static makes its first color
form, posts its first beingness, experiences its first consciousness-of
color form.
This color form, perceived without added significance is a
vanishing truth, because it is what IS, and it won't hang around for
long. It's just the way things work. This mechanism is not even
created or considered into existence, it is the basic operating mode of
the static and its first creation.
The as-is state is called NOT KNOW because the static is no longer
in the quiescent potential state of total KNOW. It has begun to
manifest perceivable color forms and thus to limit itself.
The state of alter-is is when the static has a few as-is color
forms going and starts to add significances to them, what they are, what
they are used for, which causes what, why he created them. The static
begins to KNOW ABOUT it's color forms. All know about is created,
fabricated just as the color forms are.
These added significances add change, and therefore time, into the
scene, thus we get 'dreamtime'.
To the degree that the static forgets that the added significances
are created arbitrarily and to the degree that the static chooses to
BELIEVE that these significances are actually true, just to that degree
do the altered color forms begin to persist "on their own" through time.
He's still making them but they seem to be making themselves, its a
good illusion.
Persistence is an as-is color form altered with significance that
is considered to be TRUE.
These significances are called persisting truths. They are a lie
in that they are an alteration of the original as-is color forms, but
they are truth in that they are the original significances added onto
the color forms that makes them persist, so although they are not a true
as-isness, they are a true is-ness, you see?
It is important to note that the significances added onto the color
form are arbitrarily chosen, the color form that got called an ashtray
could just have easily gotten called a hockey puck in another round of
creation.
Thus persisting truths are 'true' only in that they are indeed the
first significance added to the object, not that they have any
fundamental rightness.
After the static has created a persisting scene of color forms and
persisting truths added onto them, it can then engage in further
alterations.
It can either engage in denial of what it knows about, that is
pretending that it doesn't know, which is not-isness. Or it can invent
further significances to confound the original significances put on the
object.
Where at first he said "This is an ashtray used to hold ashes made
by me", he later says "This is a paper weight made by Joe".
Both not-isness and these second added significances are then
called persisting falsehoods.
So in order to make something really persist the being needs to do
4 things called the persistence sandwich.
1.) AS-IS, create an as-is color form
2.) ALTER-IS, add a persisting truth to it
3.) NOT-IS, deny the persisting truth
4.) ALTER-IS add another persisting truth which is therefore
a persisting falsehood.
The being at 4.) thinks he is at 2.) and thus gets into a lot of
trouble when he tries to undo it.
To vanish any manifesting condition of existence then, one must
bring the pc back to the original persisting truth of color form plus
added significance, then to separate these as both independent and
arbitrary creations, at which point both will become vanishing truths
and return to non manifestation.
In theory this is true for both physical universe masses and for
mental masses in the preclear's mind.
Remember each being has his own version of the PU, there isn't just
ONE that all share, there is a common agreement that makes them all the
same across all beings inside it, but each being has his own copy. It
is a fantastic alter-is just to claim there is only one PU!
It is generally accepted that we don't want to vanish physical
universe masses, violating the laws of conservation of matter and energy
would have dire consequences on the balance of the universe.
Instantaneously removing one marble from the atmosphere of earth
would cause a collapsing atmospheric shock wave that could be felt
around the planet by any seismographic instrument.
But it is desirable to vanish the mental masses that a pc has
accumulated over this life and many lives.
In the physical universe we only want to find better and original
persisting truths so that we can leave the masses standing but not be so
lost about them.
This we call science.
In the pc we certainly want to bring the pc to a persisting truth
where the masses still stand, but we also want a full vanishing truth
where the worst of these masses disappear completely and forever.
This we call auditing.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Sep 27 15:32:45 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore49.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)
iD8DBQFX6sldURT1lqxE3HERAkBiAJ9CC/3Kpj9y3EupWnehAV4DVfbMfACdFROO
ut/PbpgYWJwGqNIna9gqon4=
=MnpV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, September 26, 2016
MCT9 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE PROOF
MCT - 9
29 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1985 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The following was taped up in the grad student lounge in the
Department of Mathematics for 8 years. I never got one commment. I
guess it must be wrong.
Since,
Learning Across a Distance
Implies
Learning by Being an Effect, and
Since,
Learning by Being an Effect
Implies
Not Learning with Certainty,
One can conclude that,
Learning with Certainty
Implies
Learning, but not by Being an Effect,
and therefore, not across a Distance.
1985
Homer Wilson Smith
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Sep 26 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct9.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)
iD8DBQFX6UdqURT1lqxE3HERAvbyAJ4/vEQEiI/YqGqQs/Jm0rPEkXU7UACdGO3O
YolI+3Rc4MO9f9z4lYbS/Js=
=54Lt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE PROOF
MCT - 9
29 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1985 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The following was taped up in the grad student lounge in the
Department of Mathematics for 8 years. I never got one commment. I
guess it must be wrong.
Since,
Learning Across a Distance
Implies
Learning by Being an Effect, and
Since,
Learning by Being an Effect
Implies
Not Learning with Certainty,
One can conclude that,
Learning with Certainty
Implies
Learning, but not by Being an Effect,
and therefore, not across a Distance.
1985
Homer Wilson Smith
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Sep 26 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct9.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)
iD8DBQFX6UdqURT1lqxE3HERAvbyAJ4/vEQEiI/YqGqQs/Jm0rPEkXU7UACdGO3O
YolI+3Rc4MO9f9z4lYbS/Js=
=54Lt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
LOGIC29 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TRUTH AND CAUSE
It is fashionable among the philosophically effete to claim that
anything is true only because it was postulated by someone to be true.
Was that truth postulated to be true by someone?
What would happen if someone postulated the opposite, that some
things could be true that WEREN'T postulated to be true?
Are postulates capable of creating some 'truths'? Yes.
Is that true because someone postulated it?
Of course not, its an inherent ability in Source, the total
knowingness.
A thetan upon first waking may make postulates that parallel
Sources inherent abilities for the sake of keeping his postulates
aligned with What Is, but to then claim that the What IS exists BECAUSE
of those postulates is getting cause backwards.
The postulates exist because of Sources inherent abilities, not the
other way around.
The ability to postulate existed before any postulates were made
about that ability.
Therefore some things are just true period, and other created
truths are true because we create them as true through postulates.
The difference of course is the difference between the actual
WhatIs and the virtual WhatIs.
Postulates can only create truth in the virtual reality, the actual
reality exists and has its own truths regardless of any postulates made.
One of those truths that exists in the actual reality regardless of
any postulates made, is that postulates can create truths in the virtual
reality.
CERTAINTY is not a created truth in the virtual reality, it is an
eternal truth in the actual reality. Just as one does not have to
postulate that one can postulate before one can postulate, one does not
have to postulate certainty in order to have certainty or operate it.
Certainty comes as part and parcel of the very act of postulating
anything in the virtual reality. Certainty shows you that it actually
happened as you postulated it, its a form of "checking it out".
Certainty connects the actual reality through the conscious unit to
the virtual reality. It verifies that what was sourced from the actual
reality through the conscious unit actually arrived and was manifested
in the virtual reality.
Certainty is part of the process of postulation and exists as
potential ability before any postulates are made. Postulates can not be
made without certainty, although later postulates can counter postulate
that certainty and try to make postulates without certainty.
Thus an inability to contact certainty, PERFECT certainty, is in
fact an inability to contact the true fountainhead of Source, and what
was postulated.
Source does not take kindly to effete snobbery passing as wisdom
and philosophy.
You either get it right, or you don't get it.
Basically certainty is the perception of an as-isness, and its
concommittant alter-is's that keep it in a state of persisting truth.
Without certainty, no as-isness can take place because it just
isn't being fully viewed.
One does not get to heaven on doubt, and one does not go free on
uncertainty of uncertainty.
And these are perfect certainties, not gradient scale certainties
that still have a finite possibility of being wrong.
The guy who says "I AM,... er uh, I think" is gone.
Certainty of Certainty and Certainty of Uncertainty are the only
way out.
Uncertainty of Certainty and Uncertainty of Uncertainty are the
only way in.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Sep 26 14:22:20 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic29.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)
iD8DBQFX6WdcURT1lqxE3HERAnv8AJ4qUwznDOCBVMnIc0mqdjr+EZ1IxwCghoLk
9PLUNTXNbc+VgqdTXfU7xTk=
=ZA9u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TRUTH AND CAUSE
It is fashionable among the philosophically effete to claim that
anything is true only because it was postulated by someone to be true.
Was that truth postulated to be true by someone?
What would happen if someone postulated the opposite, that some
things could be true that WEREN'T postulated to be true?
Are postulates capable of creating some 'truths'? Yes.
Is that true because someone postulated it?
Of course not, its an inherent ability in Source, the total
knowingness.
A thetan upon first waking may make postulates that parallel
Sources inherent abilities for the sake of keeping his postulates
aligned with What Is, but to then claim that the What IS exists BECAUSE
of those postulates is getting cause backwards.
The postulates exist because of Sources inherent abilities, not the
other way around.
The ability to postulate existed before any postulates were made
about that ability.
Therefore some things are just true period, and other created
truths are true because we create them as true through postulates.
The difference of course is the difference between the actual
WhatIs and the virtual WhatIs.
Postulates can only create truth in the virtual reality, the actual
reality exists and has its own truths regardless of any postulates made.
One of those truths that exists in the actual reality regardless of
any postulates made, is that postulates can create truths in the virtual
reality.
CERTAINTY is not a created truth in the virtual reality, it is an
eternal truth in the actual reality. Just as one does not have to
postulate that one can postulate before one can postulate, one does not
have to postulate certainty in order to have certainty or operate it.
Certainty comes as part and parcel of the very act of postulating
anything in the virtual reality. Certainty shows you that it actually
happened as you postulated it, its a form of "checking it out".
Certainty connects the actual reality through the conscious unit to
the virtual reality. It verifies that what was sourced from the actual
reality through the conscious unit actually arrived and was manifested
in the virtual reality.
Certainty is part of the process of postulation and exists as
potential ability before any postulates are made. Postulates can not be
made without certainty, although later postulates can counter postulate
that certainty and try to make postulates without certainty.
Thus an inability to contact certainty, PERFECT certainty, is in
fact an inability to contact the true fountainhead of Source, and what
was postulated.
Source does not take kindly to effete snobbery passing as wisdom
and philosophy.
You either get it right, or you don't get it.
Basically certainty is the perception of an as-isness, and its
concommittant alter-is's that keep it in a state of persisting truth.
Without certainty, no as-isness can take place because it just
isn't being fully viewed.
One does not get to heaven on doubt, and one does not go free on
uncertainty of uncertainty.
And these are perfect certainties, not gradient scale certainties
that still have a finite possibility of being wrong.
The guy who says "I AM,... er uh, I think" is gone.
Certainty of Certainty and Certainty of Uncertainty are the only
way out.
Uncertainty of Certainty and Uncertainty of Uncertainty are the
only way in.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Sep 26 14:22:20 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic29.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)
iD8DBQFX6WdcURT1lqxE3HERAnv8AJ4qUwznDOCBVMnIc0mqdjr+EZ1IxwCghoLk
9PLUNTXNbc+VgqdTXfU7xTk=
=ZA9u
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, September 24, 2016
ADORE554 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PROOF OF EXTERIORIZATION
Ted <ted_crammer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> An auditor who requires physical proof of exteriorization would be a
> very bad auditor in my estimation.
We used to joke back at the ORG about putting a 3x5 card on the
back of the pc's head with a number on it.
When the pc could tell us what the number was, it was EOS. End Of
Session.
There are many kinds of exteriorization, the most common being the
kind where the being kind of spills out of his eyes and can touch
everything in front of him for as far as he can see.
But his viewpoint is still stuck in head.
The being first entered the body knowing he was doing so, so the
viewpoint was put behind the eyes, but the being still pervaded out in
all directions. He could count the branches on a tree because he could
FEEL them like he can feel his own fingers and toes and count them with
his eyes closed.
His radius of feel though was limited to a few hundred feet.
Eventually his radius of murder and other kinds of pain began to drive
him smaller and smaller. The radius of murder is how many feet outward
from you do you have to go to find at least one murder/torture/rape
taking place. Then futher out is the outside of the radius murder which
is how big do you have to be before there is ALWAYS at least one murder
going on at any time.
Later the being wanted to BE the body to be more careful, and so
withdrew all spillingness into the face and skin, so now everything is
inside and the body dying from the resentment of it.
When the being starts to exteriorize again, he starts to spill out
all over everything like a conscious liquid that would run down to the
basement through the cracks. Well he can see the rats in the basement
if that's any comfort.
But the viewpoint remains in the head.
There is another kind of exterioriation, where the being finally
realizes that OUT THERE is actually IN HERE.
Suddenly he finds himself on the surface of sphere about 5 inches
across, looking inward at the chunck of the universe that he is
presently at. The perception is immaculately clear, and the being is
smaller that the body's head, but the body is entirely inside the sphere
anyhow.
Now the being can move the viewpoint of the image inside the sphere
to anywhere that he wants, the sphere never moves because there is no
where to move it.
The pc WANTS to prove these conditions, he wants to CO ENGAGE in them
with other play mates, but there has been SO MUCH whole track punishment
of bodies, friends and lovers (or pets), for refusal to cooperate using
these powers to other's ends, that the being just won't do it any more.
Any effort to prove it, and he wilts with the willies back into the
'lowest common denominator acceptable' condition relative to those "around
him" which can be a very wide sphere at that point, more than earth.
So he becomes safe by becoming like the lowest in that
large shere of beings and he thus becomes very low indeed.
Homer
Fri Dec 7 23:32:30 EST 2007
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Sep 24 15:41:28 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore554.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)
iD8DBQFX5tboURT1lqxE3HERAjN+AJ9pHROOHmYyFiiqpLdEA9esuwJTgwCgtqgP
pWaKxcStA/NeUf8obvbUpKY=
=1Q19
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PROOF OF EXTERIORIZATION
Ted <ted_crammer@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> An auditor who requires physical proof of exteriorization would be a
> very bad auditor in my estimation.
We used to joke back at the ORG about putting a 3x5 card on the
back of the pc's head with a number on it.
When the pc could tell us what the number was, it was EOS. End Of
Session.
There are many kinds of exteriorization, the most common being the
kind where the being kind of spills out of his eyes and can touch
everything in front of him for as far as he can see.
But his viewpoint is still stuck in head.
The being first entered the body knowing he was doing so, so the
viewpoint was put behind the eyes, but the being still pervaded out in
all directions. He could count the branches on a tree because he could
FEEL them like he can feel his own fingers and toes and count them with
his eyes closed.
His radius of feel though was limited to a few hundred feet.
Eventually his radius of murder and other kinds of pain began to drive
him smaller and smaller. The radius of murder is how many feet outward
from you do you have to go to find at least one murder/torture/rape
taking place. Then futher out is the outside of the radius murder which
is how big do you have to be before there is ALWAYS at least one murder
going on at any time.
Later the being wanted to BE the body to be more careful, and so
withdrew all spillingness into the face and skin, so now everything is
inside and the body dying from the resentment of it.
When the being starts to exteriorize again, he starts to spill out
all over everything like a conscious liquid that would run down to the
basement through the cracks. Well he can see the rats in the basement
if that's any comfort.
But the viewpoint remains in the head.
There is another kind of exterioriation, where the being finally
realizes that OUT THERE is actually IN HERE.
Suddenly he finds himself on the surface of sphere about 5 inches
across, looking inward at the chunck of the universe that he is
presently at. The perception is immaculately clear, and the being is
smaller that the body's head, but the body is entirely inside the sphere
anyhow.
Now the being can move the viewpoint of the image inside the sphere
to anywhere that he wants, the sphere never moves because there is no
where to move it.
The pc WANTS to prove these conditions, he wants to CO ENGAGE in them
with other play mates, but there has been SO MUCH whole track punishment
of bodies, friends and lovers (or pets), for refusal to cooperate using
these powers to other's ends, that the being just won't do it any more.
Any effort to prove it, and he wilts with the willies back into the
'lowest common denominator acceptable' condition relative to those "around
him" which can be a very wide sphere at that point, more than earth.
So he becomes safe by becoming like the lowest in that
large shere of beings and he thus becomes very low indeed.
Homer
Fri Dec 7 23:32:30 EST 2007
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Sep 24 15:41:28 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore554.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)
iD8DBQFX5tboURT1lqxE3HERAjN+AJ9pHROOHmYyFiiqpLdEA9esuwJTgwCgtqgP
pWaKxcStA/NeUf8obvbUpKY=
=1Q19
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE350 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE UNCERTAINTY OF CERTAINTY
It's a common assertion by people that all certainties are
untrustable.
Like the certainty that certainty is impossible, the certainty that
all certainties are untrustable is illogical.
The certainty that all certainties are untrustable implies this
certainty is untrustable.
This opens the door to the possibility that some certainties are
trustable.
This is in fact the truth.
It behooves the auditor to help the pc to a state where he knows
what certainties are trustable and which aren't. Otherwise there is no
personal integrity to be had.
If the pc can't know what he knows and not know what he doesn't
know, then what hope is there of him ever drawing a correct conclusion
about anything?
It is commonly accepted that being "certain" of various things is
dangerous, because these 'certainties' turn out to be wrong.
(This is true, meatballs claim certainty on all kinds of things
that are in fact unknowable. Meatballs claim they are certain of
THEORIES which can never proven 'right' and thus can never be called a
perfect certainty. Only an untrained slob of a mind would make this
mistake.)
It is therefore considered 'best practice' to consider all
certainties untrustable.
This is called a safe solution.
There is nothing more dangerous in the universe than a safe
solution.
Particularly when the light of consciousness is living certainty
itself.
In fact every consciousness-of is a perfect certainty.
The perfect certainties of consciousness are perfect because they
are continuously reverifiable, and thus can not be wrong.
Does anything exist? Yes? Good. Now let's check it out again.
Does anything exist? Yes? Good. Now let's check it out again.
Does anything exist? Yes? Good. Now let's check it out again.
Do you see two different colors in present time? Yes? Are you
sure? Would you bet your eternity in hell on it? Easily? Good. Now
let's check it out again...
The fact that you see a car doesn't mean that there IS a car, you
may be hallucinating. But the fact that you see a car does mean that
you see a car. People have their symbols and referents confused.
What you SEE is the symbol for a car in your consciousness.
What you believe is out there is what you hope the symbol refers
to, the referent, but there is no evidenced at all that such a thing
actually exists beyond your personal dream of it, and everyone else's in
sync with yours.
That's not evidence of the objective external world, that's
how mass hallucination works, and how the AllThatIS works, as
actuality is virtual reality dream machine.
It's easy and trivial to 'prove', just get out of your body.
The fact of the hallucination and the hallucinators are not
hallucinations.
The LOOKER, the LOOKED THROUGH and the LOOKED AT are not
hallucinations, they are actual.
The existence of implied referents is always uncertain, and can not
be otherwise. The external world is a theory. Consciousness however is
not.
The conscious experience of a car is a symbol for the referent
which is the alleged actual car 'out there'.
A hallucination is a symbol without a referent. The symbol is
always perfectly certain as it is a conscious experience. The referent
is never certain, as the existence of a symbol does not prove the
existence of a referent. No one has ever seen an actual car, they have
only ever seen their own personal conscious color form picture of a car.
There is in fact no evidence at all that an actual car exists out
there. Most people simply can't conceive of the alternative, that
matter energy space and time are dreams in the self luminous light of an
infinite number of consciousnesses.
Its an emotional thing for them.
No one wants to be the fool on the hill, and besides they enjoy the
game of death.
Only an Eternal sunk to the level of an Immortal could.
A conscious unit, which thinks that all certainty is untrustable,
is untrusting of its own existence, agency and care.
This is called 'mind broke'.
CERTAINTY OF CERTAINTY is sanity.
CERTAINTY OF UNCERTAINY is sanity.
UNCERTAINTY OF CERTAINTY is insanity.
UNCERTAINTY OF UNCERTAINTY is more insanity.
That last one is "I don't know if I don't know!"
We are not talking about MEMORY here, "Well maybe I KNEW, I just
can't remember. On the other hand maybe I never knew, I just don't know
if I know!"
All certainty and uncertainty is in present time.
If you don't know something NOW, then you are certainly uncertain
of it NOW. Now is a stream of conscious perfect certainties.
A thetan however can doubt anything, even that he is doubting.
This is willfull out integrity.
Personal integrity is:
"I doubt I am, therefore I am, for a nothing could never wonder
if it was a nothing or a something." -- Descartes
Homer
- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plate 1: Party Line
A party line is a fixed idea, pet theory, or other philosophical
vanity that when confronted by evidence or reason that it is wrong, over
rules that evidence or reason.
People may be stuck in one or more party lines.
The core party line is the perfect certainty that perfect certainty
is impossible, untrustable, undesirable, unimportant, dangerous or
useless.
We call this 'mind broke'.
Perfect certainty of uncertainty is the beginning of personal
integrity.
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plate 2: Logic
Logic is the ethics of language, a description of IS AND IS NOT.
If you say "All dogs are animals, and Joey is an animal, but Joey
is not a dog", what have you said?
If you say "All that comes from God is good, and Man came from God,
but Man is not all good," what have you said? It is good that Man is
not all good?
Logic means:
IS is IS. IS means IS.
IS is not IS NOT. IS does not mean IS NOT.
IS NOT is IS NOT. IS NOT means IS NOT.
IS NOT is not IS. IS NOT does not mean IS.
Bi valued logic means:
A is A.
A is not not A.
Its never the case that A and not A.
It is always the case that A or not A.
Any use of the word IS and all of its grammatical equivalents
(namely all of the possible conjugations of the finitive TO BE) is a use
and assertion of the validity of bi valued logic.
For example the statement "Logic IS invalid", is nuts, as it is
using logic to deny logic.
Some would assert that multi or infinite valued logic IS a superset
of bi valued logic, but the assertion that infinite valued logic *IS*
anything, automatically makes it a subset of bi valued logic.
To assert that infinite valued logic *IS* better than bi valued
logic is to use bi valued logic to make the assertion.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Sep 24 00:41:56 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore350.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)
iD8DBQFX5gQUURT1lqxE3HERAhCKAKCXJ31ffprvnXowhx4F3qfxzRoHlQCgoeOh
nGM5zhlt8KRVoO6yDswhe/g=
=gwd2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE UNCERTAINTY OF CERTAINTY
It's a common assertion by people that all certainties are
untrustable.
Like the certainty that certainty is impossible, the certainty that
all certainties are untrustable is illogical.
The certainty that all certainties are untrustable implies this
certainty is untrustable.
This opens the door to the possibility that some certainties are
trustable.
This is in fact the truth.
It behooves the auditor to help the pc to a state where he knows
what certainties are trustable and which aren't. Otherwise there is no
personal integrity to be had.
If the pc can't know what he knows and not know what he doesn't
know, then what hope is there of him ever drawing a correct conclusion
about anything?
It is commonly accepted that being "certain" of various things is
dangerous, because these 'certainties' turn out to be wrong.
(This is true, meatballs claim certainty on all kinds of things
that are in fact unknowable. Meatballs claim they are certain of
THEORIES which can never proven 'right' and thus can never be called a
perfect certainty. Only an untrained slob of a mind would make this
mistake.)
It is therefore considered 'best practice' to consider all
certainties untrustable.
This is called a safe solution.
There is nothing more dangerous in the universe than a safe
solution.
Particularly when the light of consciousness is living certainty
itself.
In fact every consciousness-of is a perfect certainty.
The perfect certainties of consciousness are perfect because they
are continuously reverifiable, and thus can not be wrong.
Does anything exist? Yes? Good. Now let's check it out again.
Does anything exist? Yes? Good. Now let's check it out again.
Does anything exist? Yes? Good. Now let's check it out again.
Do you see two different colors in present time? Yes? Are you
sure? Would you bet your eternity in hell on it? Easily? Good. Now
let's check it out again...
The fact that you see a car doesn't mean that there IS a car, you
may be hallucinating. But the fact that you see a car does mean that
you see a car. People have their symbols and referents confused.
What you SEE is the symbol for a car in your consciousness.
What you believe is out there is what you hope the symbol refers
to, the referent, but there is no evidenced at all that such a thing
actually exists beyond your personal dream of it, and everyone else's in
sync with yours.
That's not evidence of the objective external world, that's
how mass hallucination works, and how the AllThatIS works, as
actuality is virtual reality dream machine.
It's easy and trivial to 'prove', just get out of your body.
The fact of the hallucination and the hallucinators are not
hallucinations.
The LOOKER, the LOOKED THROUGH and the LOOKED AT are not
hallucinations, they are actual.
The existence of implied referents is always uncertain, and can not
be otherwise. The external world is a theory. Consciousness however is
not.
The conscious experience of a car is a symbol for the referent
which is the alleged actual car 'out there'.
A hallucination is a symbol without a referent. The symbol is
always perfectly certain as it is a conscious experience. The referent
is never certain, as the existence of a symbol does not prove the
existence of a referent. No one has ever seen an actual car, they have
only ever seen their own personal conscious color form picture of a car.
There is in fact no evidence at all that an actual car exists out
there. Most people simply can't conceive of the alternative, that
matter energy space and time are dreams in the self luminous light of an
infinite number of consciousnesses.
Its an emotional thing for them.
No one wants to be the fool on the hill, and besides they enjoy the
game of death.
Only an Eternal sunk to the level of an Immortal could.
A conscious unit, which thinks that all certainty is untrustable,
is untrusting of its own existence, agency and care.
This is called 'mind broke'.
CERTAINTY OF CERTAINTY is sanity.
CERTAINTY OF UNCERTAINY is sanity.
UNCERTAINTY OF CERTAINTY is insanity.
UNCERTAINTY OF UNCERTAINTY is more insanity.
That last one is "I don't know if I don't know!"
We are not talking about MEMORY here, "Well maybe I KNEW, I just
can't remember. On the other hand maybe I never knew, I just don't know
if I know!"
All certainty and uncertainty is in present time.
If you don't know something NOW, then you are certainly uncertain
of it NOW. Now is a stream of conscious perfect certainties.
A thetan however can doubt anything, even that he is doubting.
This is willfull out integrity.
Personal integrity is:
"I doubt I am, therefore I am, for a nothing could never wonder
if it was a nothing or a something." -- Descartes
Homer
- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plate 1: Party Line
A party line is a fixed idea, pet theory, or other philosophical
vanity that when confronted by evidence or reason that it is wrong, over
rules that evidence or reason.
People may be stuck in one or more party lines.
The core party line is the perfect certainty that perfect certainty
is impossible, untrustable, undesirable, unimportant, dangerous or
useless.
We call this 'mind broke'.
Perfect certainty of uncertainty is the beginning of personal
integrity.
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Plate 2: Logic
Logic is the ethics of language, a description of IS AND IS NOT.
If you say "All dogs are animals, and Joey is an animal, but Joey
is not a dog", what have you said?
If you say "All that comes from God is good, and Man came from God,
but Man is not all good," what have you said? It is good that Man is
not all good?
Logic means:
IS is IS. IS means IS.
IS is not IS NOT. IS does not mean IS NOT.
IS NOT is IS NOT. IS NOT means IS NOT.
IS NOT is not IS. IS NOT does not mean IS.
Bi valued logic means:
A is A.
A is not not A.
Its never the case that A and not A.
It is always the case that A or not A.
Any use of the word IS and all of its grammatical equivalents
(namely all of the possible conjugations of the finitive TO BE) is a use
and assertion of the validity of bi valued logic.
For example the statement "Logic IS invalid", is nuts, as it is
using logic to deny logic.
Some would assert that multi or infinite valued logic IS a superset
of bi valued logic, but the assertion that infinite valued logic *IS*
anything, automatically makes it a subset of bi valued logic.
To assert that infinite valued logic *IS* better than bi valued
logic is to use bi valued logic to make the assertion.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Sep 24 00:41:56 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore350.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)
iD8DBQFX5gQUURT1lqxE3HERAhCKAKCXJ31ffprvnXowhx4F3qfxzRoHlQCgoeOh
nGM5zhlt8KRVoO6yDswhe/g=
=gwd2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, September 22, 2016
adore221 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE JOKE
There are many on this list that continue to insist that God does
not design and orchestrate badness.
Adore on the other hand says that everything is orchestrated in a
grand tapestry of good and bad.
The villager of course wants God to save him from the volcano, but
the true God will be creating the Volcano AND villager in a complete
scene that plays out however it does.
The villager of course won't take kindly to this, but God considers
most of his prayers to be spam anyhow.
Why?
Because God is the Creator of EVERYTHING, 'from the Word came
everything that came.'
God as creator creates these games for HIMSELF to play. It
wouldn't make any sense for God to stick some lowly creature into the
path of his volcano, but stick "HIMSELF" in that path pretending to be a
lowly creature, oh now THAT'S an idea!
Imagine how pissed off that God-become-creature is going to be at
God!
It is God having fun with himself at his own expense.
So he creates this world called 'Killer Pit', fills it with
supernova, asteroids, earth quakes, plague, pestilence, famine, war,
insanity, fear and women, and then jumps in to play the game.
Now Phil says there is no humor to war and suffering, but of course
there is no humor to any joke until you get the joke.
The joke resides in the mechanism of how the God sticks himself in
the scene and proceeds to get eaten by everything that moves.
If he doesn't see the mechanism, if he instead is operating the
mechanism in the direction of doing himself in without any longer
knowing it, of course he wouldn't get the joke, it will all be death and
damnation to him.
He will resent the idea that it is a joke and will in fact try to
crucify anyone claiming it is a joke in an effort to get them to take it
back. "Oh you think this is funny eh, we'll show you funny...!"
So you shouldn't be talking about these things unless you yourself
are well versed in the mechanism yourself. You don't want the whole
dream stopping their play to come wipe you out of existence, so they can
go back to their game of wiping each other out.
Being stuck in the mechanism and being oblivious that it is a
mechanism, the best the God can do is learn the rules of play, never
forget them, evolve as things pressure him to, and probably lose in the
end anyhow.
"Life treats love like the ocean treats sand castles in the sand."
The God as creature tries to be good and tries to make sure a whole
litany of things must never ever happen again.
He propitiates his God as incomprehensible because he is taught
that God is the father and he is the son, but no father in his right
mind would ever do this to his son.
No, but God as father would do it to himself as son!
Life is not for children, it is for adult play only, even if its
adult Gods playing at being innocent victim children.
OK, so where is the joke that heals all the suffering and misery
and sorrow?
The cycle of Divine Orchestration (True design) is
PEACE-> LOVE -> SORROW -> LAUGHTER -> PEACE
The mechanism of transit from love to sorrow is the same mechanism
of transit from sorrow to laughter.
The way in is the way out.
Once one sees how one gets into the dream and sticks oneself there
and WHY, one can reoperate that mechanism or not at will, and stop
operating it convulsively.
Where it does operate convulsively, one can spot it, and rather
than continuing it, making it worse, one can chill it out, thus
unsticking oneself from that particular part of the nightmare.
Now the primary mechanism of course is the consideration -
observation flip flop we have discussed previously at length.
As Eternal Immutable Unmovable Orientation Point the God creates a
space/time scene with lots of adversaries in it, symbols to the
orientation point. Symbols have mass, meaning and mobility.
The God then reverses his view, jumping into the scene, BECOMES one
of the symbols with mass, meaning and mobility, considers the space/time
scene Eternal, Immutable and Unmovable, and hence makes it his
Orientation Point, namely the AllThatIs.
The God then takes inventory of all his adversaries, senses the
danger he is in, flinches, computes a MUST DO something about this, that
is runs, and of course they come after him and eat him for dinner.
The dream goes solid the moment you consider the *NEED* to *DO*
anything about the dream.
DOING is *FORCE* exercised against mass in motion to change its
motion.
Both the mass and the force are put there by prior postulate and
consideration, which are actual cause, so of course using later force
which is only apparent cause, to DO something about things already
created by actual cause does not work, and can not work out of the gate.
Force is action, and action is always fight. Fight is using force
and already existing mass coralled to fight other unwanted masses
impinging with force.
If he just held still, without flinch, his adversaries would ride
right through him. But he would have to be the Orientation Point again,
and not a symbol in the dream scene.
If he holds onto being the symbol to defend himself OR OTHERS in
any way, or to offend others coming at him, he will suffer the fate of
the symbol.
The symbol doesn't HAVE to get taken down, the God can just have
everything ride through him and his symbol, as both he and them are now
not solid. But all considerations of danger and flinch would be gone
before that.
The joke applies to war in this way.
War is basically the effort to make others be nothing by shooting
them with solidities. But before a solid bullet will harm an enemy
solider, THEY have to be solid too!
But the minute you intend that another become solid so you can harm
them with a solidity, you become solid too because you postulate we are
all bodies, and so you can be and will be harmed in return.
Trying to make others solid while you yourself remain unsolid is
very hard, try it, see how well it works out for you.
Justice is instant because justice reigns at all times.
The more you try to convince another they are solid, that they must
run, must flinch, must DO something about the predicament you are trying
to put them into, the more you will fall down into that level also,
often to convince them its true for them too!
"Yo, stupid, I am solid, what makes you think you aren't?"
So who ends up solid now? Not them.
All kinds of ways to fall into this trap.
Any joke to be found anywhere around here?
J.O.K.E. means Justice of Kindship Excaliper.
Ex Caliper means Without Measure, beyond measure.
What that means, is that the only thing that will ever make up for,
wipe away, or assuage the suffering you have seen or experienced is
getting the joke mechanism that created it all and allowed it to
persist.
The humor of the joke will balance the sorrow of the loss.
The two together will blow off as laughter and tears of love and
appreciation,
"Halcyon is High Appreciation for Ludicrous Demise." - Adore.
High appreciation includes willingness to have had it all happen in
the first place, it was a damn good joke after all, a blooming
masterpiece actually, and thus the whole cycle becomes WORTHWHILE, even
though it doesn't look like it while in it.
This is the worthwhileness of unworthwhileness.
But it has to be a SPECIAL kind of unworthwhileness to be
ultimately worthwhile, so you aren't just suffering some stupid
unworthwhileness that would never be funny no matter how much you
understood it.
J.O.Y. means the Joke's On You.
The sorrow and humor HAVE to balance each other perfectly, so there
will be nothing left.
This results in high appreciation for ludicrous demise, it will
have been worthwhile, you will be glad you did it, and be willing and
able to do it again, and you won't be carrying around with you, any
more, all these 'must not happens' or 'must not happen agains.'
No lessons learned, no jokes will you be spared.
Not even a memory or a warning will be left.
Interiorization is a kind of pulling away from areas of sorrow and
jokes that are too big to feel.
But if run completely, the incident of loss will erase to where it
never happened at all. The universe ends this way, when the circle of
friends are all holding hands again laughing and crying their way to
absolute unimpingeable peace.
Eternal Omni Awesome Peace.
But long before that, once you get the joke and are free of the
mechanism operating without your consent, you are able and willing to
appreciate others still engaging in the mechanism of doom as a play put
on by them for your enjoyment.
The beauty and warmth of their tragi-comedy production is heroic
and oceanic indeed.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Sep 22 17:46:42 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore221.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)
iD8DBQFX5FFCURT1lqxE3HERAndQAJ9ks3sYe9UE3IIb8TNJk83b0vnqnQCggPkx
0ukdTvemuS6vzCis6JWiwt4=
=GYGa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE JOKE
There are many on this list that continue to insist that God does
not design and orchestrate badness.
Adore on the other hand says that everything is orchestrated in a
grand tapestry of good and bad.
The villager of course wants God to save him from the volcano, but
the true God will be creating the Volcano AND villager in a complete
scene that plays out however it does.
The villager of course won't take kindly to this, but God considers
most of his prayers to be spam anyhow.
Why?
Because God is the Creator of EVERYTHING, 'from the Word came
everything that came.'
God as creator creates these games for HIMSELF to play. It
wouldn't make any sense for God to stick some lowly creature into the
path of his volcano, but stick "HIMSELF" in that path pretending to be a
lowly creature, oh now THAT'S an idea!
Imagine how pissed off that God-become-creature is going to be at
God!
It is God having fun with himself at his own expense.
So he creates this world called 'Killer Pit', fills it with
supernova, asteroids, earth quakes, plague, pestilence, famine, war,
insanity, fear and women, and then jumps in to play the game.
Now Phil says there is no humor to war and suffering, but of course
there is no humor to any joke until you get the joke.
The joke resides in the mechanism of how the God sticks himself in
the scene and proceeds to get eaten by everything that moves.
If he doesn't see the mechanism, if he instead is operating the
mechanism in the direction of doing himself in without any longer
knowing it, of course he wouldn't get the joke, it will all be death and
damnation to him.
He will resent the idea that it is a joke and will in fact try to
crucify anyone claiming it is a joke in an effort to get them to take it
back. "Oh you think this is funny eh, we'll show you funny...!"
So you shouldn't be talking about these things unless you yourself
are well versed in the mechanism yourself. You don't want the whole
dream stopping their play to come wipe you out of existence, so they can
go back to their game of wiping each other out.
Being stuck in the mechanism and being oblivious that it is a
mechanism, the best the God can do is learn the rules of play, never
forget them, evolve as things pressure him to, and probably lose in the
end anyhow.
"Life treats love like the ocean treats sand castles in the sand."
The God as creature tries to be good and tries to make sure a whole
litany of things must never ever happen again.
He propitiates his God as incomprehensible because he is taught
that God is the father and he is the son, but no father in his right
mind would ever do this to his son.
No, but God as father would do it to himself as son!
Life is not for children, it is for adult play only, even if its
adult Gods playing at being innocent victim children.
OK, so where is the joke that heals all the suffering and misery
and sorrow?
The cycle of Divine Orchestration (True design) is
PEACE-> LOVE -> SORROW -> LAUGHTER -> PEACE
The mechanism of transit from love to sorrow is the same mechanism
of transit from sorrow to laughter.
The way in is the way out.
Once one sees how one gets into the dream and sticks oneself there
and WHY, one can reoperate that mechanism or not at will, and stop
operating it convulsively.
Where it does operate convulsively, one can spot it, and rather
than continuing it, making it worse, one can chill it out, thus
unsticking oneself from that particular part of the nightmare.
Now the primary mechanism of course is the consideration -
observation flip flop we have discussed previously at length.
As Eternal Immutable Unmovable Orientation Point the God creates a
space/time scene with lots of adversaries in it, symbols to the
orientation point. Symbols have mass, meaning and mobility.
The God then reverses his view, jumping into the scene, BECOMES one
of the symbols with mass, meaning and mobility, considers the space/time
scene Eternal, Immutable and Unmovable, and hence makes it his
Orientation Point, namely the AllThatIs.
The God then takes inventory of all his adversaries, senses the
danger he is in, flinches, computes a MUST DO something about this, that
is runs, and of course they come after him and eat him for dinner.
The dream goes solid the moment you consider the *NEED* to *DO*
anything about the dream.
DOING is *FORCE* exercised against mass in motion to change its
motion.
Both the mass and the force are put there by prior postulate and
consideration, which are actual cause, so of course using later force
which is only apparent cause, to DO something about things already
created by actual cause does not work, and can not work out of the gate.
Force is action, and action is always fight. Fight is using force
and already existing mass coralled to fight other unwanted masses
impinging with force.
If he just held still, without flinch, his adversaries would ride
right through him. But he would have to be the Orientation Point again,
and not a symbol in the dream scene.
If he holds onto being the symbol to defend himself OR OTHERS in
any way, or to offend others coming at him, he will suffer the fate of
the symbol.
The symbol doesn't HAVE to get taken down, the God can just have
everything ride through him and his symbol, as both he and them are now
not solid. But all considerations of danger and flinch would be gone
before that.
The joke applies to war in this way.
War is basically the effort to make others be nothing by shooting
them with solidities. But before a solid bullet will harm an enemy
solider, THEY have to be solid too!
But the minute you intend that another become solid so you can harm
them with a solidity, you become solid too because you postulate we are
all bodies, and so you can be and will be harmed in return.
Trying to make others solid while you yourself remain unsolid is
very hard, try it, see how well it works out for you.
Justice is instant because justice reigns at all times.
The more you try to convince another they are solid, that they must
run, must flinch, must DO something about the predicament you are trying
to put them into, the more you will fall down into that level also,
often to convince them its true for them too!
"Yo, stupid, I am solid, what makes you think you aren't?"
So who ends up solid now? Not them.
All kinds of ways to fall into this trap.
Any joke to be found anywhere around here?
J.O.K.E. means Justice of Kindship Excaliper.
Ex Caliper means Without Measure, beyond measure.
What that means, is that the only thing that will ever make up for,
wipe away, or assuage the suffering you have seen or experienced is
getting the joke mechanism that created it all and allowed it to
persist.
The humor of the joke will balance the sorrow of the loss.
The two together will blow off as laughter and tears of love and
appreciation,
"Halcyon is High Appreciation for Ludicrous Demise." - Adore.
High appreciation includes willingness to have had it all happen in
the first place, it was a damn good joke after all, a blooming
masterpiece actually, and thus the whole cycle becomes WORTHWHILE, even
though it doesn't look like it while in it.
This is the worthwhileness of unworthwhileness.
But it has to be a SPECIAL kind of unworthwhileness to be
ultimately worthwhile, so you aren't just suffering some stupid
unworthwhileness that would never be funny no matter how much you
understood it.
J.O.Y. means the Joke's On You.
The sorrow and humor HAVE to balance each other perfectly, so there
will be nothing left.
This results in high appreciation for ludicrous demise, it will
have been worthwhile, you will be glad you did it, and be willing and
able to do it again, and you won't be carrying around with you, any
more, all these 'must not happens' or 'must not happen agains.'
No lessons learned, no jokes will you be spared.
Not even a memory or a warning will be left.
Interiorization is a kind of pulling away from areas of sorrow and
jokes that are too big to feel.
But if run completely, the incident of loss will erase to where it
never happened at all. The universe ends this way, when the circle of
friends are all holding hands again laughing and crying their way to
absolute unimpingeable peace.
Eternal Omni Awesome Peace.
But long before that, once you get the joke and are free of the
mechanism operating without your consent, you are able and willing to
appreciate others still engaging in the mechanism of doom as a play put
on by them for your enjoyment.
The beauty and warmth of their tragi-comedy production is heroic
and oceanic indeed.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Sep 22 17:46:42 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore221.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)
iD8DBQFX5FFCURT1lqxE3HERAndQAJ9ks3sYe9UE3IIb8TNJk83b0vnqnQCggPkx
0ukdTvemuS6vzCis6JWiwt4=
=GYGa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
HOM50 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CONTRIBUTIION TO EARTH
Rogers (here-i-yam@erols.com) wrote:
>Hmmm! That's a deep (and hard hitting) thought, Homer. I promise I will
>think about this more later, but right now I will address it as best I can
>for efficiency's sake. Funnily enough, the above is what Crowley said
>(essentially) and you know that I think Crowley was brilliant. Yes, it IS a
>problem. To NOT validate sickness, aberration, insanity and so forth, and
>yet still try to make a contribution to asylum Earth.
The main contribution that each OT needs to make to asylum Earth
is to remove himself and his postulates from the Dharma Pool of cause
that keeps everyone locked into their condition.
The idea that we have to STAY here and help is actually a chinese
finger trap, the way this universe is built, as you get what you put
your attention on, particularly if you assign it all kinds of importance
and seriousness on it.
That's why talking to a real OT is so hard, you are trying to get
help, usually to help others who wanted to help others etc, and he just
won't respond to your dramatization. If you get helped by him, its
usually because he broke you out of your 'putting it all there in order
to get rid of it, asking what do I *DO* about all this' dramatization,
so it becomes handled in you AND in the others.
A thetan can't WANT something without first postulating he doesn't
have it. Making more of that little trick is imperative to being able
to have what you want merely by conceiving of it.
Majesty is the *SOVEREIGN DESIRE* that desire not be Sovereign *FOR
A WHILE*.
'A while' is a created span of time, with beginning and end, that
exists in the envelope of Eternity.
The low level guru will 'help' you get what you want by improving
or optimizing the game for you, getting your engines going again,
blowing the stops off the line, but the game barriers are still there,
maybe you win, maybe you lose, but you feel better because you can play
again. Enthusiasm is desagreing with one's environment and hoping you
can do something about it.
The high level OT guru will 'help' you get what you want, by
getting you to dispense with the consideration that you don't have it.
First he needs you to cognite on what you *REALLY* want, and then the
postulate that you don't have it is just there to blow, hard to keep
around in fact.
Recent auditing indicates that we are all connected to *SOME* other
beings, who have a karmic connection to us, through overts, withholds
and help. If we blow our karmic connection to the lot, they all lose
the conditions that we are most concerned about having caused them, "Oh
my God, look what I did to HIM! Now I gotta DO something about it
(because I can't just as-is this mess!")
By blowing the postulates that they are harmed and need help, the
being 'you harmed' is released from your cause, AND his consideration
that he is the effect of your cause, and that other's are the effect of
*HIS* cause to just that degree.
That helps them instantly, where staying around trying to help
them, makes it worse.
Where is Making Amends on the tone scale?
Well coming up *THROUGH* making amends and demanding that other's
do the same to you, involves recognizing that it is nuts and counter
productive. But that is *WAY* OT.
Jiggling out of a chinese finger trap is very enlightening and
illustrative of jiggling out of pre OT to full OT.
OT's can vanish conditions in themselves and others merely by
voiding out, leaving the scene entirely. When he decides he has to stay
around and DO something about it, he has come down a level below
straight as-isness, into alter-isness, and then the DOING is even more
alter-isness.
The joke is, it doesn't work.
That's why auditing sessions need to be SOLO as-ised eventually.
"Jesus, look at all this cause I assigned over there!"
>> It's the *METHODS* that are chosen to deal with problems that
>>mark the tone and nature of the being dealing with the problem.
>>
>> Ryan resorted to *FORCE*.
>>
>> Think about it.
>It's still a bit better, a bit more uptone, than my intestine process. :-)
That is true.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Sep 20 12:06:01 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom50.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)
iD8DBQFX4V5pURT1lqxE3HERAqyqAJwPETUtgUwPqgXLSsb+8NKw4GkLDwCfdJvT
BfMGygWAJNoQshM7ILmxQ4Q=
=1QeG
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Sep 21 00:56:53 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom50.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)
iD8DBQFX4hMVURT1lqxE3HERAti5AKDENm+AgZvlKFyaj4tiaQvgFgMUIwCgz010
fJJbI07H0+cKIN5787dj7jk=
=7gPm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CONTRIBUTIION TO EARTH
Rogers (here-i-yam@erols.com) wrote:
>Hmmm! That's a deep (and hard hitting) thought, Homer. I promise I will
>think about this more later, but right now I will address it as best I can
>for efficiency's sake. Funnily enough, the above is what Crowley said
>(essentially) and you know that I think Crowley was brilliant. Yes, it IS a
>problem. To NOT validate sickness, aberration, insanity and so forth, and
>yet still try to make a contribution to asylum Earth.
The main contribution that each OT needs to make to asylum Earth
is to remove himself and his postulates from the Dharma Pool of cause
that keeps everyone locked into their condition.
The idea that we have to STAY here and help is actually a chinese
finger trap, the way this universe is built, as you get what you put
your attention on, particularly if you assign it all kinds of importance
and seriousness on it.
That's why talking to a real OT is so hard, you are trying to get
help, usually to help others who wanted to help others etc, and he just
won't respond to your dramatization. If you get helped by him, its
usually because he broke you out of your 'putting it all there in order
to get rid of it, asking what do I *DO* about all this' dramatization,
so it becomes handled in you AND in the others.
A thetan can't WANT something without first postulating he doesn't
have it. Making more of that little trick is imperative to being able
to have what you want merely by conceiving of it.
Majesty is the *SOVEREIGN DESIRE* that desire not be Sovereign *FOR
A WHILE*.
'A while' is a created span of time, with beginning and end, that
exists in the envelope of Eternity.
The low level guru will 'help' you get what you want by improving
or optimizing the game for you, getting your engines going again,
blowing the stops off the line, but the game barriers are still there,
maybe you win, maybe you lose, but you feel better because you can play
again. Enthusiasm is desagreing with one's environment and hoping you
can do something about it.
The high level OT guru will 'help' you get what you want, by
getting you to dispense with the consideration that you don't have it.
First he needs you to cognite on what you *REALLY* want, and then the
postulate that you don't have it is just there to blow, hard to keep
around in fact.
Recent auditing indicates that we are all connected to *SOME* other
beings, who have a karmic connection to us, through overts, withholds
and help. If we blow our karmic connection to the lot, they all lose
the conditions that we are most concerned about having caused them, "Oh
my God, look what I did to HIM! Now I gotta DO something about it
(because I can't just as-is this mess!")
By blowing the postulates that they are harmed and need help, the
being 'you harmed' is released from your cause, AND his consideration
that he is the effect of your cause, and that other's are the effect of
*HIS* cause to just that degree.
That helps them instantly, where staying around trying to help
them, makes it worse.
Where is Making Amends on the tone scale?
Well coming up *THROUGH* making amends and demanding that other's
do the same to you, involves recognizing that it is nuts and counter
productive. But that is *WAY* OT.
Jiggling out of a chinese finger trap is very enlightening and
illustrative of jiggling out of pre OT to full OT.
OT's can vanish conditions in themselves and others merely by
voiding out, leaving the scene entirely. When he decides he has to stay
around and DO something about it, he has come down a level below
straight as-isness, into alter-isness, and then the DOING is even more
alter-isness.
The joke is, it doesn't work.
That's why auditing sessions need to be SOLO as-ised eventually.
"Jesus, look at all this cause I assigned over there!"
>> It's the *METHODS* that are chosen to deal with problems that
>>mark the tone and nature of the being dealing with the problem.
>>
>> Ryan resorted to *FORCE*.
>>
>> Think about it.
>It's still a bit better, a bit more uptone, than my intestine process. :-)
That is true.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Sep 20 12:06:01 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom50.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)
iD8DBQFX4V5pURT1lqxE3HERAqyqAJwPETUtgUwPqgXLSsb+8NKw4GkLDwCfdJvT
BfMGygWAJNoQshM7ILmxQ4Q=
=1QeG
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Sep 21 00:56:53 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom50.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)
iD8DBQFX4hMVURT1lqxE3HERAti5AKDENm+AgZvlKFyaj4tiaQvgFgMUIwCgz010
fJJbI07H0+cKIN5787dj7jk=
=7gPm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, September 19, 2016
APL3 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
A D O R E - L P O L I C Y L E T T E R
APL No. 3 4 MARCH 1989
50 PERCENT RULE.
Simply put, the 50 percent rule is that all communications to
ADORE-L should have a content to flame ratio greater than or equal to 50
percent.
Flame is anything that is not content.
Content is specifics. You do not have to prove everything you say,
you do not have to support it with endless references, but you should
say something. Meaningful and specific.
If you think someone is wrong or ignornant, do not just say 'so and
so is wrong and ignorant'. Quote EXACTLY the viewpoint you disagree
with and state an exact counter viewpoint. You do not have to prove you
are right. The first goal here is to STATE the Truth, not to prove it.
Just getting it said would be a major leap for mankind.
VIOLATIONS
If someone violates the 50 percent rule in responding to you, this
does not give you the right to violate the rule in return. You are ALL
under oath to abide by the 50 percent rule no matter what. This is your
HONOR at stake. Honor is the ability to make, keep and trade fair
chosen promises. The promise in this case is to stick to the 50 percent
rule.
On many lists flames are not allowed at all. What can happen there
is that people will intentionally misinterpret your content and consider
it a flame. For example if your content happens to be a criticism they
will take it as a flame. Their intention of course is to suppress your
communication as the criticism is usually of them. This makes other
people very afraid to post.
On ADORE-L the 50 percent rule gives you a WIDE MARGIN OF ERROR.
You can flame people or ideas for 1/3 of a page and give content for
2/3's of a page and still be well within game rules. This makes it
impossible for someone to nit pick you into silence. Defend your rights
to this rule. It exists for you.
Every once in a while someone will step over the line. Short
postings containing nothing but value judgements such as 'I like...' or
'I dislike...', sweeping generalities (not specifics) and endless
dripping sarcasm and slime are good candidates for this kind of posting.
Endless dripping sarcasm is fine by the way, as long as it is
followed by 100 percent specific content. This produces a perfect 50/50
message. It is really walking on the edge though.
HANDLING VIOLATIONS.
A good way to handle violations of the 50 percent rule is to
analyze in detail the content and flame of the message, add up the
percentages, and post the results.
Suggesting what content could have been added to the message to
balance the flame already present is also very constructive. Suggesting
what flame could have been left out of the message is not so
constructive.
Teaching people not to flame is teaching them to speak LESS.
Teaching people to post more content is teaching the to speak MORE.
Thus if people flame too much, get them to post content to match it.
This is fitting justice.
OFFENSE
Do not confuse the 50 percent rule with OFFENDING someone.
The statement
'The Bible was written by the Devil to mislead Christians
into a life of irresponsibility for their own birth,
a fear of God and His Universe, and to further entrap
some Christians in their own wish that there be a Hell
FOREVER that they could send all their enemies to by providing
an All Powerful Being to do it for them.'
is 100 percent content although it might offend some. In fact some
would consider it a direct blaspheme of their religion.
On the other hand, the statement,
'Some Christians are stupid jerks who deserve to go to Hell
forever.'
is 100 percent flame and 0 percent content.
One can improve the ratio on the above sentence by altering it in
the following way.
'Some Christians deserve to go to Hell forever because they
themselves wish non believers to go to Hell forever.'
This statement is 100 percent content and in fact can be argued
with by returning,
'It does not take going to Hell FOREVER to get someone
to give up their desire to have it happen to others.
About 5 minutes will do. Since it is not NECESSARY
to send a person to Hell FOREVER to change his mind,
and since God is not only BIG but also SMART, it
is unlikely that such ever occurs. However it is possible
that some are roasting there for a while. The good Lord
probably checks in on them periodically to see if they
are well done. Some Christians need a little longer to cook.
Then he lets them all go and gives them another chance.
He gives them as many chances as they need. Thus one day
ALL Men attain the awakened state.'
The following is a statement with 100 percent flame and 0 percent
content.
'I love Christians. They are such wonderful people. We
should encourage them all we can and accord them all the
respect in the world.'
One last example of a perfect 50/50 statement.
'I was born and raised a Christian,
of COURSE I hate Christians!'
HAVE GUN, WILL TRAVEL.
When you are ALLOWED to flame, you are much less likely to do so.
When flame is matched by content, people will respect you in spite
of the flame. Content heals the wounds so to speak.
If you look closely to your Duties and Rights in this matter,
ADORE-L will thrive and you will have a forum not elsewhere provided.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Sep 19 12:06:01 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/apl3.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)
iD8DBQFX4AzpURT1lqxE3HERAjSbAJ4+QVi23rJB+IHefuXoc1SO4bLGygCg1Sli
ZkGR1uYNx+pA56F7r+gvRRc=
=RmHJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
A D O R E - L P O L I C Y L E T T E R
APL No. 3 4 MARCH 1989
50 PERCENT RULE.
Simply put, the 50 percent rule is that all communications to
ADORE-L should have a content to flame ratio greater than or equal to 50
percent.
Flame is anything that is not content.
Content is specifics. You do not have to prove everything you say,
you do not have to support it with endless references, but you should
say something. Meaningful and specific.
If you think someone is wrong or ignornant, do not just say 'so and
so is wrong and ignorant'. Quote EXACTLY the viewpoint you disagree
with and state an exact counter viewpoint. You do not have to prove you
are right. The first goal here is to STATE the Truth, not to prove it.
Just getting it said would be a major leap for mankind.
VIOLATIONS
If someone violates the 50 percent rule in responding to you, this
does not give you the right to violate the rule in return. You are ALL
under oath to abide by the 50 percent rule no matter what. This is your
HONOR at stake. Honor is the ability to make, keep and trade fair
chosen promises. The promise in this case is to stick to the 50 percent
rule.
On many lists flames are not allowed at all. What can happen there
is that people will intentionally misinterpret your content and consider
it a flame. For example if your content happens to be a criticism they
will take it as a flame. Their intention of course is to suppress your
communication as the criticism is usually of them. This makes other
people very afraid to post.
On ADORE-L the 50 percent rule gives you a WIDE MARGIN OF ERROR.
You can flame people or ideas for 1/3 of a page and give content for
2/3's of a page and still be well within game rules. This makes it
impossible for someone to nit pick you into silence. Defend your rights
to this rule. It exists for you.
Every once in a while someone will step over the line. Short
postings containing nothing but value judgements such as 'I like...' or
'I dislike...', sweeping generalities (not specifics) and endless
dripping sarcasm and slime are good candidates for this kind of posting.
Endless dripping sarcasm is fine by the way, as long as it is
followed by 100 percent specific content. This produces a perfect 50/50
message. It is really walking on the edge though.
HANDLING VIOLATIONS.
A good way to handle violations of the 50 percent rule is to
analyze in detail the content and flame of the message, add up the
percentages, and post the results.
Suggesting what content could have been added to the message to
balance the flame already present is also very constructive. Suggesting
what flame could have been left out of the message is not so
constructive.
Teaching people not to flame is teaching them to speak LESS.
Teaching people to post more content is teaching the to speak MORE.
Thus if people flame too much, get them to post content to match it.
This is fitting justice.
OFFENSE
Do not confuse the 50 percent rule with OFFENDING someone.
The statement
'The Bible was written by the Devil to mislead Christians
into a life of irresponsibility for their own birth,
a fear of God and His Universe, and to further entrap
some Christians in their own wish that there be a Hell
FOREVER that they could send all their enemies to by providing
an All Powerful Being to do it for them.'
is 100 percent content although it might offend some. In fact some
would consider it a direct blaspheme of their religion.
On the other hand, the statement,
'Some Christians are stupid jerks who deserve to go to Hell
forever.'
is 100 percent flame and 0 percent content.
One can improve the ratio on the above sentence by altering it in
the following way.
'Some Christians deserve to go to Hell forever because they
themselves wish non believers to go to Hell forever.'
This statement is 100 percent content and in fact can be argued
with by returning,
'It does not take going to Hell FOREVER to get someone
to give up their desire to have it happen to others.
About 5 minutes will do. Since it is not NECESSARY
to send a person to Hell FOREVER to change his mind,
and since God is not only BIG but also SMART, it
is unlikely that such ever occurs. However it is possible
that some are roasting there for a while. The good Lord
probably checks in on them periodically to see if they
are well done. Some Christians need a little longer to cook.
Then he lets them all go and gives them another chance.
He gives them as many chances as they need. Thus one day
ALL Men attain the awakened state.'
The following is a statement with 100 percent flame and 0 percent
content.
'I love Christians. They are such wonderful people. We
should encourage them all we can and accord them all the
respect in the world.'
One last example of a perfect 50/50 statement.
'I was born and raised a Christian,
of COURSE I hate Christians!'
HAVE GUN, WILL TRAVEL.
When you are ALLOWED to flame, you are much less likely to do so.
When flame is matched by content, people will respect you in spite
of the flame. Content heals the wounds so to speak.
If you look closely to your Duties and Rights in this matter,
ADORE-L will thrive and you will have a forum not elsewhere provided.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Sep 19 12:06:01 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/apl3.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)
iD8DBQFX4AzpURT1lqxE3HERAjSbAJ4+QVi23rJB+IHefuXoc1SO4bLGygCg1Sli
ZkGR1uYNx+pA56F7r+gvRRc=
=RmHJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, September 18, 2016
ACT37 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
((Editors Comments in double parentheses - Homer))
MY RELIGION, MY MESSIAH
ACT - 37
15 January 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
In article <114306Z15011994@anon.penet.fi> an40286@anon.penet.fi writes:
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>The Religious Technology Center is the holder of the trade and service
>marks of the Scientology religion.
1.) SCIENTOLOGY IS MY RELIGION
2.) L. RON HUBBARD IS MY MESSIAH AND SAVIOR
MESSIAH means One who TEACHES.
SAVIOR means One who SAVES FROM RUIN.
COMMANDING OFFICER is One whom one OBEYS.
Notice that there is a difference between a Messiah or a Savior and
a COMMANDING OFFICER.
L. RON HUBBARD is not now, never has been and never will be my
Commanding Officer.
Any abridgement of my practice of my religion under its proper name
will be considered a violation of my First Amendment Rights.
I presently follow the precepts of 3 religions, Christianity,
Scientology and Adore, and I also therefore hold to three different
Messiahs and Saviors. They are Jesus of Nazareth, L. Ron Hubbard and
Myself.
It is possibly a new idea that Salvation is a Group effort across
many lifetimes, many Messiahs, many Saviors, and many Religions.
Consider the point at the Supreme Court Level.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Sep 18 12:06:01 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act37.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)
iD8DBQFX3rtpURT1lqxE3HERAgHfAKCjYwrir6hCsXr6QAVAMgEMzg9YfwCgtD3R
Uf1/XVq3BlBfP96EViYk3HY=
=NL4j
-----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))
MY RELIGION, MY MESSIAH
ACT - 37
15 January 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
In article <114306Z15011994@anon.penet.fi> an40286@anon.penet.fi writes:
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*REWARD*
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
>The Religious Technology Center is the holder of the trade and service
>marks of the Scientology religion.
1.) SCIENTOLOGY IS MY RELIGION
2.) L. RON HUBBARD IS MY MESSIAH AND SAVIOR
MESSIAH means One who TEACHES.
SAVIOR means One who SAVES FROM RUIN.
COMMANDING OFFICER is One whom one OBEYS.
Notice that there is a difference between a Messiah or a Savior and
a COMMANDING OFFICER.
L. RON HUBBARD is not now, never has been and never will be my
Commanding Officer.
Any abridgement of my practice of my religion under its proper name
will be considered a violation of my First Amendment Rights.
I presently follow the precepts of 3 religions, Christianity,
Scientology and Adore, and I also therefore hold to three different
Messiahs and Saviors. They are Jesus of Nazareth, L. Ron Hubbard and
Myself.
It is possibly a new idea that Salvation is a Group effort across
many lifetimes, many Messiahs, many Saviors, and many Religions.
Consider the point at the Supreme Court Level.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Sep 18 12:06:01 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act37.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)
iD8DBQFX3rtpURT1lqxE3HERAgHfAKCjYwrir6hCsXr6QAVAMgEMzg9YfwCgtD3R
Uf1/XVq3BlBfP96EViYk3HY=
=NL4j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE682 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CODES AND SECRETS
> Alan's answer to What is a Code?
>
> A Code is basically the rules, diguises and creations by which you run your
> lives in order to attain what you WANT.
>
> A secret code means hidden rules, hidden disguises, hidden creations, hidden
> keys to understanding what has been encrypted.
>
> Having the Being's secret Code, is the key to decoding and finding those
> rules, those diguises, those creations, etc.
I have always had a problem with Walter's and Hubbard's penchant
for secrets.
I refused to get auditing from Walter ("come down to Dallas, we
will crack your case in a few hours"), because of his insistence on my
signing a non disclosure agreement concerning the tech and any codes
found.
This crashed me so hard, I couldn't resolve it, and so I told him
no, signing a non disclosure agreement on any form of tech or results
would violate my codes.
He never saw more than a potential trouble source in me.
I have no idea what my codes are, and it is very hard to talk about
them because of a total lack of solid real life examples from those who
have audited them.
There are quite a number 'codees' now, people how have had their
codes found for them, but I am not sure if they are not speaking because
they truly believe that their codes should be kept secret, or because
they are still under the legal thumb of the late Walter and his
organization or fear expulsion.
For some people, if someone doesn't GIVE them any tech, they don't
HAVE any tech. Thus being cut off from tech can be a serious worry for
them.
I don't think there is any tech anywhere on the planet that I would
give a damn about if I lost access to it.
I am not saying that tech doesn't work, although I might be saying
that their tech didn't or wouldn't work on me.
And if it don't work on me, I sure as hell ain't interested in
using it on others that it might work on. There are already too many
noodle-oos in the world.
(A wog is someone who is not sufficient to his own survival if he
has no help.
A noodle is someone who doesn't have any tech if he isn't given any
tech.
The Church wanted to turn wogs into able beings, but stopped at the
point they became noodles, as to cognite your own tech was considered
suppressive.
THAT IS SUPPRESSIVE
Being trained solely in another's tech leaves the being a noodle,
able to do what he is told, but he falls down when there is no one there
to tell him what to do.
So you might say that a noodle is half way between a wog and a
fully able being.)
On the other hand if some tech works for me, it will certainly work
on a noodle, although they might get over toasted sometimes.
Tech for me comes from understandings, if one has even a modicum of
basic understandings related to desire and view, tech then comes from
cognitions that result from playing the game of living.
COGNITIONS THUS GLEANED *ARE* THE TECH for the next mini process to
run!
Thus really once one is in even vaguely good shape of any kind and
oriented as to how it all works, cognitions don't come from tech, tech
comes from cognitions while runnnig the process called life.
May LRH roll over in his grave.
The process one runs is adoration of operation of desire and view
which we call living.
If you ain't living, or you are detesting operation, then something
has to change between desire and view, and you can only change false
desires and false views. So anything that gets you closer to the true
lies will free you.
Anyhow I just simply refused to be owned or controlled by anyone
period. Back in the Church days I complained about feeling I was
becoming Hubbard's lackey, because he 'saved' my soul and now I owed him
an eternity of service.
For me, well I ain't going to be around for eternity for them to be
in service to me, so when I help someone or give someone a piece of
workable tech, it is THEIRS, end of deal.
I don't think I have ever told someone, here's a really good tech
tidbit but I am only going to give if to you if you promise never to
reveal it to anyone or pass it on to others.
I am not in the business of creating spiritual secrets and
withholds.
The snot nosed lords of secrecy will say that I don't have any tech
worth knowing, look at how well it hasn't worked on me!
Emphasis on the word snot, let these wizzards give me the proof in
their own words, and let's see how long they stay standing.
THE PROOF http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
I once tried to show Harry Palmer the proof, and had him give it
back to me in his own words. Not a single clue what it was about.
Then I gave him a very short personal session on it, right there in
his living room, and suddenly he got real silent, and he looked at me
and you know what he said?
He said, "Homer, don't ruin people's games."
Well now if you want to be a barnacle on the inside of the drain to
hell, that's fine by me, but me, I think it's time for a little drano.
Now I have to admit that religions down the ages have always had
their secrets, so has science and math for that matter, that the broad
public should not know about.
The Bible tells us not to throw pearls before swine, and since
earth seems like one big Oscar Mayer Bacon Factory, being open can be
hard.
Particularly if you are going after spiritual freedom and ability.
Well the religious bigots don't want you getting there, the CIA
wants to know about it if you do, and generally you lose your ownership
over your own life if anyone ever takes you seriously about going free.
Thus we must be careful never to be taken seriously :)
But one has to ask a few salient questions.
Is it really true that a being needs to keep his most fundamental
codes, operating procedures, and desires a secret to win at his games?
Are these merely trade secrets in a win-lose game of competition
where there can only be one winner?
Or are these dramatizations down at ...ruin, despair, suffering,
numbness, introversion, inactuality, disaster, hysteria, shock
catatonia, oblivion, duality, SECRECY, hallucination, sadism,
masochism... on the awareness characteristic chart?
AWARENESS CHARACTERISTIC CHART
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/exm6.memo
Does a being really need secrets of this magnitude to win?
Or even to play?
Does he really need others to not know what he is BEING in order to
move forward in the games of life?
What about the group mind? Is he individuating away from total
meld with others in order to keep his secret BEINGNESSES intact?
What happens if someone misses his secret?
Now Hubbard was worried about coffee shop auditing, 'any auditing
is better than no auditing' became 'you audit out of session and you are
dead for eternity.'
Particularly when the GPM materials started to surface in 1962 with
R2-3D criss cross.
GPMS are Goals Problem Masses, that are formed when a being takes
on certain games that are available to be played in this universe or
others.
They consist of a ladder of rungs, each rung is an item pair of
terminals that would oppose each other.
Bottom rung at beginning of GPM might be
God - Devil
The being starts off trying to be Godly, and ends up crossing over
to becoming Devilish. Usually the goal at the end nearest present time
is the opposite of the goal at the beginning. Thus the guy starts off
as a saint and ends up as a monster. Easy to fail at being a saint,
hard to fail at being a monster, you see?
That's the slippery slope, the 'sashay', the 'dosey doe' down the
GPM (from bottom to top nearest present time!) that sinks beings and
organizations, sometimes in one life.
Implanted GPMS had a number of rungs, maybe 17 to 19, with a middle
rung called the cross over, and were used mostly to trap and control
beings.
Personal GPMS, had far fewer rungs and were the top level games of
the being in this universe.
You might see how possible top level goals such as To Find, Look
For, Discover, or Search For, might keep a being busy for eons.
R2-3D criss cross got the being to spot the various item pairs and
run them out so he was no longer dramatizing them.
It was during this time that Hubbard gave a lecture where he
clearly had crossed over from openness to secrecy. The reason at the
time was people were auditing GPMS out of session and seriously messing
up people. The stuff is dangerous and it was almost impossible to
repair people after they messed it up.
You simply can not contact the goal to look for without the danger
of burning your eyes out.
You are auditing an item that may have hundreds of lifetimes on one
rung after all, open it up wrong and it can bend the body in two.
One of the more dangerous aspects of this auditing was the
forgotten item, a person would think of an item out of session, not
write it down, and then not be able to remember it later. That would
stop auditing cold. If you have ever forgotten an important cognition
and never gotten it back, you know how crashing this can be. So Hubbard
didn't want people even THINKING about auditing or their items out of
recorded session.
Me I carry a digital recorder with me at all times :)
Forgetting a cognition and never getting it back can be a
life long loss.
But all that to contrary, I saw long ago that a proprietary system
for clearing, distributed only on an as you can pay and are approved of
basis, controlled by a monolithic military command structure with the
stated purpose of controlling the world, was simply never going to work.
Hubbard knew that he had to give people new games to play, as the
auditing disintegrated the aberrated human games they had been playing.
In offering freedom from, he had to also offer freedom to, for a being
will not give up a game unless their is another better game to play.
So the organization became that better game for clears and OT's.
The problem is the people in it just aren't that clear or OT, so
its more like a machine gone mad where all the parts and people in it
are aberrated all the way from mildly human and neurotic, down to
totally intergalactically criminal.
Such structures are hives for criminals that bubble to the top of
the power structure, where they can hide out and protect their
criminality.
Healthy people seek advancement due to ambition and a sense of
civil duty.
Criminals seek advancement in order to *HIDE* and control.
Once the advancement process has one or more criminals with their
fingers in the proceedings, well its like a cancer, the org is done for.
Criminals act as filters, filtering out the healthy ones and advancing
the criminal ones. Eventually the whole org can become criminal from a
certain level on up.
Public coming in at the bottom don't know this, but once they
enter, they and their bank accounts become sheep to be eaten, kind of
like the Morlocks and the Eloi in the Time Machine.
When clearing is controlled by criminals you have a serious problem
on that planet. Might as well nuke the place for containment sake.
I also saw that any system of helping people that absolutely
depended on needing others to help you, led to people being stuck in
dependency and need for help.
There is nothing wrong with help, everyone wants to help others,
and everyone wants to be helped. It's a no brainer that sometimes two
people can get a job done faster than one, and its also obvious that
sometimes people get themselves into a jam where they need to be helped
to come out alive.
In fact civilization moved along out of the ice age because the
group became differentiated, so everyone needed everyone else.
All for one and one for all.
Trying to get auditing done on raw public without a group of
support terminals can be daunting. But eventually the group seeks
support from hirees that are just there for the job, they don't come
because they want to be clearing people, they come in because they need
to pay the rent. The org tries it's best to convert them after the fact
of putting them on the job, but it fails. That is part of how the
criminals get in.
One for all, and all for none.
But all that said, there is something wrong with making help the be
all and end all of existence.
And there is nothing wrong with helping yourself and helping others
to help themselves. Teach them to fish in other words, rather than make
them dependent on your fishing or insist that you fish together.
There is nothing wrong with needing help once in a while, but to
make a religion of needing help is self defeating. The being wants to
handle his dependencies, not cement them into place.
Spiritual freedom does not mean needing help for the rest of time.
If you want to help OTHERS, you will probably need a trusted group
to help you help others, but you should also be able to help yourself
when needed.
Hubbard once said "Those above 2.0 on the tone scale don't need
help (but can create and use it), and those below 2.0 can't be helped."
TONE SCALE
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/exm3.memo
Now back in the days when Dianetics was trying to clear people on
an irresponsibility, namely as victims, what had been done to them,
Hubbard said rightly that the pc's bank is bigger than the pc, but the
auditor plus the pc is bigger than the pc's bank.
That's because the auditor wasn't being a victim!
And this is true, when looked at from the motivator point of view,
what has been done to the pc, the preclear has more energy tied up in
victim charge than he has left to handle himself or anything. Thus help
is needed.
The very thought "I need help with this", postulates the continued
existence of the *THIS* that the preclear is demanding help for.
The preclear thinks he needs help, so he does. The help he should
get however, if its good help, is help that gets him over his need for
help and quick. But early on the bridge this is rare indeed.
That is why in early dianetics the preclear was expected to just
sit there, and the auditor was expected to move him on the track for
him! The preclear merely had to confront and report what was going on.
Hard enough work I suppose as it is, but to need someone else to
rub your track in your face for you, in order for you to get at what you
need to get at, well that's called degradation.
And leads to a highly dependent pc who can't for the life of him
figure out what you did to help him even after hundreds of hours of it,
and he certainly can't do it to others.
But the joke is, that when looked at from the overt point of view,
what the pc has done to others, the preclear alone is bigger than his
bank because looking at overts immediately keys the bank out.
The way to happiness is a true confession.
When the preclear is running a true confession, the preclear is
BEING THE AUDITOR, in fact a total OT auditor, and thus the track obeys
him and not his auditor! In fact since the preclear is now the auditor,
the other being who used to be the auditor will find it very hard to run
the preclear's track, BECAUSE ONLY THE MOTIVATOR SIDE OF THE TIME TRACK
RESPONDS TO THE INTENTIONS AND COMMANDS OF ANOTHER BEING!
Thus when running other determinism, you need other determinism to
run it.
But when running self determinism, you not only do not need other
determinism to help you run it, you might want to kick that other
determinism out of your session, because it will only slow you down, if
it insists on being in control!
May the good Lord Ron Hubbard find a more comfortable resting
position in his grave.
But rather than clarify the issues, Church dogma has stayed with
the idea that a preclear's bank is bigger than the preclear, at least in
the beginning of auditing, and the preclear plus auditor are bigger than
the preclear's bank. That makes the auditor necessary and gives him job
security.
Unfortunately what often happens is that the auditor's bank plus
the preclear's bank are bigger than both the auditor or the preclear.
If the thought of going into session WITH SOMEONE ELSE is a glum
area for you, you might just want to indicate to yourself the above and
see if it cheers you up any.
Most auditors auditing today are banks with certs.
Notice however, although you may not want to go into session with
someone else, you still want others to go into session with you as the
auditor. So you have to admit some affinity for help, even if it is
only on the giving side and not the receiving side.
So I have always erred on the side of openness, trying to find a
route to case gain that did not involve anyone else. We just don't have
the time on a planetary scale to make all the party arrangements.
Barriers of travel alone stop people from getting auditing from good
auditors, and often preclears find themselves spending more money on
airplanes and accommodations than they do on the auditing.
The internet has changed this somewhat, in that now there are
e-meters that work over the net, and people can talk by phone and use
video cameras to see each other, and so sessioning can take place once
one gets used to the communication lag that the internet imposes on
meter reads.
One also has to admit that getting auditing from a professional is
highly desirable compared to trying to do it alone from scratch. So the
only reason why one would go it alone is either lack of time or funds to
pay someone else, or lack of other people worthy of auditing with,
professional or not.
Picture an army of banks carrying e-meters...
Sometimes you HAVE to do it alone, in secret, away from your
'friends', state spies, suppressive parents, the PTA, controlling
governments, religious bigots, warlords, not to mention YOUR OWN GOD
DAMNED CHURCH AND MESSIAH.
So if you have the data necessary to start and continue the process
alone, certainly you have the ability to audit with others if and when
the time comes.
But the problem is that auditing alone involves auditing from the
top down. You DO NOT start at the bottom, and try to work your way up.
You do not start for example with Dianetics, although you might start
with the Self Analysis memory and mockup lists.
Being able to make a fresh new mockup of a desirable future is
always better than trying to duplicate past mockups of detested futures.
So really the way out is the way in.
If you know how you came in, you can figure your way out by
learning to operate coming in again.
Thus you have to know something of what the top looks like and how
we came down from there. Now since YOU did the bungee jump into the
abyss, you should be able to figure this all out yourself, but if you
are lacking in imagination it can be useful to get some basic data from
someone else.
In theory you don't need a hell of a lot.
And it all has to do with responsibility, choice, desire, view, and
the ability to confront guardian dicoms until they no longer impede you,
incredibility, impossibility, forbiddenness, ridiculousness, absurdity,
danger, too good to be true, etc.
If you had the ability to chose anything you wanted, what would the
AllThatIs have to be to accommodate you, and what would you choose?
That involves knowing what you want, and seeing your way in to the
mess you are in.
And if you are playing a game that depends on secrets, 'the way to
BE is to hide', well then that's fine. But don't be surprised to find
them on the front page of the New York Times after some spiritual hacker
pokes his nose into your holy of holies.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Sep 18 19:08:18 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore682.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)
iD8DBQFX3x5iURT1lqxE3HERAkInAKDSGU8AgVvbRKwSLFXvakc0A0TVrgCeNRC1
CkUWD0jWFmAJ9WO+/899gmI=
=isx4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CODES AND SECRETS
> Alan's answer to What is a Code?
>
> A Code is basically the rules, diguises and creations by which you run your
> lives in order to attain what you WANT.
>
> A secret code means hidden rules, hidden disguises, hidden creations, hidden
> keys to understanding what has been encrypted.
>
> Having the Being's secret Code, is the key to decoding and finding those
> rules, those diguises, those creations, etc.
I have always had a problem with Walter's and Hubbard's penchant
for secrets.
I refused to get auditing from Walter ("come down to Dallas, we
will crack your case in a few hours"), because of his insistence on my
signing a non disclosure agreement concerning the tech and any codes
found.
This crashed me so hard, I couldn't resolve it, and so I told him
no, signing a non disclosure agreement on any form of tech or results
would violate my codes.
He never saw more than a potential trouble source in me.
I have no idea what my codes are, and it is very hard to talk about
them because of a total lack of solid real life examples from those who
have audited them.
There are quite a number 'codees' now, people how have had their
codes found for them, but I am not sure if they are not speaking because
they truly believe that their codes should be kept secret, or because
they are still under the legal thumb of the late Walter and his
organization or fear expulsion.
For some people, if someone doesn't GIVE them any tech, they don't
HAVE any tech. Thus being cut off from tech can be a serious worry for
them.
I don't think there is any tech anywhere on the planet that I would
give a damn about if I lost access to it.
I am not saying that tech doesn't work, although I might be saying
that their tech didn't or wouldn't work on me.
And if it don't work on me, I sure as hell ain't interested in
using it on others that it might work on. There are already too many
noodle-oos in the world.
(A wog is someone who is not sufficient to his own survival if he
has no help.
A noodle is someone who doesn't have any tech if he isn't given any
tech.
The Church wanted to turn wogs into able beings, but stopped at the
point they became noodles, as to cognite your own tech was considered
suppressive.
THAT IS SUPPRESSIVE
Being trained solely in another's tech leaves the being a noodle,
able to do what he is told, but he falls down when there is no one there
to tell him what to do.
So you might say that a noodle is half way between a wog and a
fully able being.)
On the other hand if some tech works for me, it will certainly work
on a noodle, although they might get over toasted sometimes.
Tech for me comes from understandings, if one has even a modicum of
basic understandings related to desire and view, tech then comes from
cognitions that result from playing the game of living.
COGNITIONS THUS GLEANED *ARE* THE TECH for the next mini process to
run!
Thus really once one is in even vaguely good shape of any kind and
oriented as to how it all works, cognitions don't come from tech, tech
comes from cognitions while runnnig the process called life.
May LRH roll over in his grave.
The process one runs is adoration of operation of desire and view
which we call living.
If you ain't living, or you are detesting operation, then something
has to change between desire and view, and you can only change false
desires and false views. So anything that gets you closer to the true
lies will free you.
Anyhow I just simply refused to be owned or controlled by anyone
period. Back in the Church days I complained about feeling I was
becoming Hubbard's lackey, because he 'saved' my soul and now I owed him
an eternity of service.
For me, well I ain't going to be around for eternity for them to be
in service to me, so when I help someone or give someone a piece of
workable tech, it is THEIRS, end of deal.
I don't think I have ever told someone, here's a really good tech
tidbit but I am only going to give if to you if you promise never to
reveal it to anyone or pass it on to others.
I am not in the business of creating spiritual secrets and
withholds.
The snot nosed lords of secrecy will say that I don't have any tech
worth knowing, look at how well it hasn't worked on me!
Emphasis on the word snot, let these wizzards give me the proof in
their own words, and let's see how long they stay standing.
THE PROOF http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
I once tried to show Harry Palmer the proof, and had him give it
back to me in his own words. Not a single clue what it was about.
Then I gave him a very short personal session on it, right there in
his living room, and suddenly he got real silent, and he looked at me
and you know what he said?
He said, "Homer, don't ruin people's games."
Well now if you want to be a barnacle on the inside of the drain to
hell, that's fine by me, but me, I think it's time for a little drano.
Now I have to admit that religions down the ages have always had
their secrets, so has science and math for that matter, that the broad
public should not know about.
The Bible tells us not to throw pearls before swine, and since
earth seems like one big Oscar Mayer Bacon Factory, being open can be
hard.
Particularly if you are going after spiritual freedom and ability.
Well the religious bigots don't want you getting there, the CIA
wants to know about it if you do, and generally you lose your ownership
over your own life if anyone ever takes you seriously about going free.
Thus we must be careful never to be taken seriously :)
But one has to ask a few salient questions.
Is it really true that a being needs to keep his most fundamental
codes, operating procedures, and desires a secret to win at his games?
Are these merely trade secrets in a win-lose game of competition
where there can only be one winner?
Or are these dramatizations down at ...ruin, despair, suffering,
numbness, introversion, inactuality, disaster, hysteria, shock
catatonia, oblivion, duality, SECRECY, hallucination, sadism,
masochism... on the awareness characteristic chart?
AWARENESS CHARACTERISTIC CHART
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/exm6.memo
Does a being really need secrets of this magnitude to win?
Or even to play?
Does he really need others to not know what he is BEING in order to
move forward in the games of life?
What about the group mind? Is he individuating away from total
meld with others in order to keep his secret BEINGNESSES intact?
What happens if someone misses his secret?
Now Hubbard was worried about coffee shop auditing, 'any auditing
is better than no auditing' became 'you audit out of session and you are
dead for eternity.'
Particularly when the GPM materials started to surface in 1962 with
R2-3D criss cross.
GPMS are Goals Problem Masses, that are formed when a being takes
on certain games that are available to be played in this universe or
others.
They consist of a ladder of rungs, each rung is an item pair of
terminals that would oppose each other.
Bottom rung at beginning of GPM might be
God - Devil
The being starts off trying to be Godly, and ends up crossing over
to becoming Devilish. Usually the goal at the end nearest present time
is the opposite of the goal at the beginning. Thus the guy starts off
as a saint and ends up as a monster. Easy to fail at being a saint,
hard to fail at being a monster, you see?
That's the slippery slope, the 'sashay', the 'dosey doe' down the
GPM (from bottom to top nearest present time!) that sinks beings and
organizations, sometimes in one life.
Implanted GPMS had a number of rungs, maybe 17 to 19, with a middle
rung called the cross over, and were used mostly to trap and control
beings.
Personal GPMS, had far fewer rungs and were the top level games of
the being in this universe.
You might see how possible top level goals such as To Find, Look
For, Discover, or Search For, might keep a being busy for eons.
R2-3D criss cross got the being to spot the various item pairs and
run them out so he was no longer dramatizing them.
It was during this time that Hubbard gave a lecture where he
clearly had crossed over from openness to secrecy. The reason at the
time was people were auditing GPMS out of session and seriously messing
up people. The stuff is dangerous and it was almost impossible to
repair people after they messed it up.
You simply can not contact the goal to look for without the danger
of burning your eyes out.
You are auditing an item that may have hundreds of lifetimes on one
rung after all, open it up wrong and it can bend the body in two.
One of the more dangerous aspects of this auditing was the
forgotten item, a person would think of an item out of session, not
write it down, and then not be able to remember it later. That would
stop auditing cold. If you have ever forgotten an important cognition
and never gotten it back, you know how crashing this can be. So Hubbard
didn't want people even THINKING about auditing or their items out of
recorded session.
Me I carry a digital recorder with me at all times :)
Forgetting a cognition and never getting it back can be a
life long loss.
But all that to contrary, I saw long ago that a proprietary system
for clearing, distributed only on an as you can pay and are approved of
basis, controlled by a monolithic military command structure with the
stated purpose of controlling the world, was simply never going to work.
Hubbard knew that he had to give people new games to play, as the
auditing disintegrated the aberrated human games they had been playing.
In offering freedom from, he had to also offer freedom to, for a being
will not give up a game unless their is another better game to play.
So the organization became that better game for clears and OT's.
The problem is the people in it just aren't that clear or OT, so
its more like a machine gone mad where all the parts and people in it
are aberrated all the way from mildly human and neurotic, down to
totally intergalactically criminal.
Such structures are hives for criminals that bubble to the top of
the power structure, where they can hide out and protect their
criminality.
Healthy people seek advancement due to ambition and a sense of
civil duty.
Criminals seek advancement in order to *HIDE* and control.
Once the advancement process has one or more criminals with their
fingers in the proceedings, well its like a cancer, the org is done for.
Criminals act as filters, filtering out the healthy ones and advancing
the criminal ones. Eventually the whole org can become criminal from a
certain level on up.
Public coming in at the bottom don't know this, but once they
enter, they and their bank accounts become sheep to be eaten, kind of
like the Morlocks and the Eloi in the Time Machine.
When clearing is controlled by criminals you have a serious problem
on that planet. Might as well nuke the place for containment sake.
I also saw that any system of helping people that absolutely
depended on needing others to help you, led to people being stuck in
dependency and need for help.
There is nothing wrong with help, everyone wants to help others,
and everyone wants to be helped. It's a no brainer that sometimes two
people can get a job done faster than one, and its also obvious that
sometimes people get themselves into a jam where they need to be helped
to come out alive.
In fact civilization moved along out of the ice age because the
group became differentiated, so everyone needed everyone else.
All for one and one for all.
Trying to get auditing done on raw public without a group of
support terminals can be daunting. But eventually the group seeks
support from hirees that are just there for the job, they don't come
because they want to be clearing people, they come in because they need
to pay the rent. The org tries it's best to convert them after the fact
of putting them on the job, but it fails. That is part of how the
criminals get in.
One for all, and all for none.
But all that said, there is something wrong with making help the be
all and end all of existence.
And there is nothing wrong with helping yourself and helping others
to help themselves. Teach them to fish in other words, rather than make
them dependent on your fishing or insist that you fish together.
There is nothing wrong with needing help once in a while, but to
make a religion of needing help is self defeating. The being wants to
handle his dependencies, not cement them into place.
Spiritual freedom does not mean needing help for the rest of time.
If you want to help OTHERS, you will probably need a trusted group
to help you help others, but you should also be able to help yourself
when needed.
Hubbard once said "Those above 2.0 on the tone scale don't need
help (but can create and use it), and those below 2.0 can't be helped."
TONE SCALE
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/exm3.memo
Now back in the days when Dianetics was trying to clear people on
an irresponsibility, namely as victims, what had been done to them,
Hubbard said rightly that the pc's bank is bigger than the pc, but the
auditor plus the pc is bigger than the pc's bank.
That's because the auditor wasn't being a victim!
And this is true, when looked at from the motivator point of view,
what has been done to the pc, the preclear has more energy tied up in
victim charge than he has left to handle himself or anything. Thus help
is needed.
The very thought "I need help with this", postulates the continued
existence of the *THIS* that the preclear is demanding help for.
The preclear thinks he needs help, so he does. The help he should
get however, if its good help, is help that gets him over his need for
help and quick. But early on the bridge this is rare indeed.
That is why in early dianetics the preclear was expected to just
sit there, and the auditor was expected to move him on the track for
him! The preclear merely had to confront and report what was going on.
Hard enough work I suppose as it is, but to need someone else to
rub your track in your face for you, in order for you to get at what you
need to get at, well that's called degradation.
And leads to a highly dependent pc who can't for the life of him
figure out what you did to help him even after hundreds of hours of it,
and he certainly can't do it to others.
But the joke is, that when looked at from the overt point of view,
what the pc has done to others, the preclear alone is bigger than his
bank because looking at overts immediately keys the bank out.
The way to happiness is a true confession.
When the preclear is running a true confession, the preclear is
BEING THE AUDITOR, in fact a total OT auditor, and thus the track obeys
him and not his auditor! In fact since the preclear is now the auditor,
the other being who used to be the auditor will find it very hard to run
the preclear's track, BECAUSE ONLY THE MOTIVATOR SIDE OF THE TIME TRACK
RESPONDS TO THE INTENTIONS AND COMMANDS OF ANOTHER BEING!
Thus when running other determinism, you need other determinism to
run it.
But when running self determinism, you not only do not need other
determinism to help you run it, you might want to kick that other
determinism out of your session, because it will only slow you down, if
it insists on being in control!
May the good Lord Ron Hubbard find a more comfortable resting
position in his grave.
But rather than clarify the issues, Church dogma has stayed with
the idea that a preclear's bank is bigger than the preclear, at least in
the beginning of auditing, and the preclear plus auditor are bigger than
the preclear's bank. That makes the auditor necessary and gives him job
security.
Unfortunately what often happens is that the auditor's bank plus
the preclear's bank are bigger than both the auditor or the preclear.
If the thought of going into session WITH SOMEONE ELSE is a glum
area for you, you might just want to indicate to yourself the above and
see if it cheers you up any.
Most auditors auditing today are banks with certs.
Notice however, although you may not want to go into session with
someone else, you still want others to go into session with you as the
auditor. So you have to admit some affinity for help, even if it is
only on the giving side and not the receiving side.
So I have always erred on the side of openness, trying to find a
route to case gain that did not involve anyone else. We just don't have
the time on a planetary scale to make all the party arrangements.
Barriers of travel alone stop people from getting auditing from good
auditors, and often preclears find themselves spending more money on
airplanes and accommodations than they do on the auditing.
The internet has changed this somewhat, in that now there are
e-meters that work over the net, and people can talk by phone and use
video cameras to see each other, and so sessioning can take place once
one gets used to the communication lag that the internet imposes on
meter reads.
One also has to admit that getting auditing from a professional is
highly desirable compared to trying to do it alone from scratch. So the
only reason why one would go it alone is either lack of time or funds to
pay someone else, or lack of other people worthy of auditing with,
professional or not.
Picture an army of banks carrying e-meters...
Sometimes you HAVE to do it alone, in secret, away from your
'friends', state spies, suppressive parents, the PTA, controlling
governments, religious bigots, warlords, not to mention YOUR OWN GOD
DAMNED CHURCH AND MESSIAH.
So if you have the data necessary to start and continue the process
alone, certainly you have the ability to audit with others if and when
the time comes.
But the problem is that auditing alone involves auditing from the
top down. You DO NOT start at the bottom, and try to work your way up.
You do not start for example with Dianetics, although you might start
with the Self Analysis memory and mockup lists.
Being able to make a fresh new mockup of a desirable future is
always better than trying to duplicate past mockups of detested futures.
So really the way out is the way in.
If you know how you came in, you can figure your way out by
learning to operate coming in again.
Thus you have to know something of what the top looks like and how
we came down from there. Now since YOU did the bungee jump into the
abyss, you should be able to figure this all out yourself, but if you
are lacking in imagination it can be useful to get some basic data from
someone else.
In theory you don't need a hell of a lot.
And it all has to do with responsibility, choice, desire, view, and
the ability to confront guardian dicoms until they no longer impede you,
incredibility, impossibility, forbiddenness, ridiculousness, absurdity,
danger, too good to be true, etc.
If you had the ability to chose anything you wanted, what would the
AllThatIs have to be to accommodate you, and what would you choose?
That involves knowing what you want, and seeing your way in to the
mess you are in.
And if you are playing a game that depends on secrets, 'the way to
BE is to hide', well then that's fine. But don't be surprised to find
them on the front page of the New York Times after some spiritual hacker
pokes his nose into your holy of holies.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Sep 18 19:08:18 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore682.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)
iD8DBQFX3x5iURT1lqxE3HERAkInAKDSGU8AgVvbRKwSLFXvakc0A0TVrgCeNRC1
CkUWD0jWFmAJ9WO+/899gmI=
=isx4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, September 16, 2016
ACT73 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TROM IV
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
OUTFLOW - INFLOW GPM
ACT - 73
11 August 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
(SD) = Self Determined postulate
(PD) = Pan Determined postulate
FOUR GAMES CONDITIONS ON TO OUTFLOW AND TO INFLOW
Being One Being Two
1.) To Outflow (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Inflow (SD)
2.) To Not Outflow (SD) <-----> 3.) To Inflow (SD)
3.) To Inflow (SD) <-----> 2.) To Not Outflow (SD)
4.) To Not Inflow (SD) <-----> 1.) To Outflow (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Not Outflow 1.O Forcing to Inflow
2.M Forced to Outflow 2.O Forcing to Not Inflow
3.M Forced to Not Inflow 3.O Forcing to Outflow
4.M Forced to Inflow 4.O Forcing to Not Outflow
FOUR GAMES CONDITIONS ON TO FLOW TO and TO BE FLOWED TO
Being One Being Two
1.) To Flow to (SD) <-----> 4.) To Be Not Flowed to (SD)
2.) To Not Flow to (SD) <-----> 3.) To Be Flowed to (SD)
3.) To Be Flowed to (SD) <-----> 2.) To Not Flow to (SD)
4.) To Be Not Flowed to (SD) <-----> 1.) To Flow to (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Not Flow to 1.O Forcing to Be Flowed to
2.M Forced to Flow to 2.O Forcing to Be Not Flowed to
3.M Forced to Be Not Flowed to 3.O Forcing to Flow to
4.M Forced to Be Flowed to 4.O Forcing to Not Flow to
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Sep 16 12:06:01 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act73.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)
iD8DBQFX3BhpURT1lqxE3HERAuXgAKDKvmr+Z8sx6fvdA8Pxh/v8EQueGQCZAdD9
cgihoCNh97M2yvUORAwLhV0=
=mdkq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TROM IV
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
OUTFLOW - INFLOW GPM
ACT - 73
11 August 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
(SD) = Self Determined postulate
(PD) = Pan Determined postulate
FOUR GAMES CONDITIONS ON TO OUTFLOW AND TO INFLOW
Being One Being Two
1.) To Outflow (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Inflow (SD)
2.) To Not Outflow (SD) <-----> 3.) To Inflow (SD)
3.) To Inflow (SD) <-----> 2.) To Not Outflow (SD)
4.) To Not Inflow (SD) <-----> 1.) To Outflow (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Not Outflow 1.O Forcing to Inflow
2.M Forced to Outflow 2.O Forcing to Not Inflow
3.M Forced to Not Inflow 3.O Forcing to Outflow
4.M Forced to Inflow 4.O Forcing to Not Outflow
FOUR GAMES CONDITIONS ON TO FLOW TO and TO BE FLOWED TO
Being One Being Two
1.) To Flow to (SD) <-----> 4.) To Be Not Flowed to (SD)
2.) To Not Flow to (SD) <-----> 3.) To Be Flowed to (SD)
3.) To Be Flowed to (SD) <-----> 2.) To Not Flow to (SD)
4.) To Be Not Flowed to (SD) <-----> 1.) To Flow to (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Not Flow to 1.O Forcing to Be Flowed to
2.M Forced to Flow to 2.O Forcing to Be Not Flowed to
3.M Forced to Be Not Flowed to 3.O Forcing to Flow to
4.M Forced to Be Flowed to 4.O Forcing to Not Flow to
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Sep 16 12:06:01 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act73.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)
iD8DBQFX3BhpURT1lqxE3HERAuXgAKDKvmr+Z8sx6fvdA8Pxh/v8EQueGQCZAdD9
cgihoCNh97M2yvUORAwLhV0=
=mdkq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)