DISCOUNT (fwd)

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


SCALE of DISCOUNT

Dead

There is no problem.

There is a problem but no solution.

There is a problem and a solution but no one will ever find it.

There is a problem and a solution and someone may find it.

There is a problem and a solution and someone will find it but
not me.

There is a problem and a solution and I may find it.

There is a problem and a solution and I will find it.

There is a solution but no problem so I will create one.

There is no solution and no problem and I can and may or may not
create either.

I can't imagine what a problem is.


P.S.

There is also,

There is a problem and a solution and ONLY I will find it.

There is a problem and a solution and ONLY I won't find it.

From Adore, stolen from Transactional Analysis.

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ====================
Mon Jan 30 12:06:03 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/discount
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)

iD8DBQFYj3J7URT1lqxE3HERAvZPAJ955MrU3tBCMGGDPJwGHu6gNjqCPwCgw+Gg
3NRkikZHE7UZMjWvPv1Lfq0=
=le8H
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

RHO (fwd)

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

RHO

> what does "scalar" mean then? that something has no dimensions, or no
> extension?

It means no dimension. One has to have 1 or more dimensions to have
extension in that/those dimensions. You can only have 0 or more extension
if you have a dimension to have the extension in.

Mathematically a scalar is a point or single number, no matter
how long like pi etc.

One asks how thick is a line? One might be tempted to say, zero
thickness, but this is incorrect, as a line doesn't have a thickness
dimension in which to have zero thickness. One has to HAVE a dimension
before one can have zero extension.

A 2x2 2 dimensional piece of gold is not zero thick in the third
dimension. If it were, it would be a 2x2x0 3 dimensional piece of gold,
which would actually be no gold at all as 2x2x0 = 0.

A 2x2 2 dimensional piece of gold however is definitely some gold,
albeit 2 dimensional :)

Same with a scalar, it is not a 3 dimensional 0x0x0 entity, nor
a 2 dimensional 0x0 entity nor even a line of 0 length. It is
a zero dimensional entity.

In APL, a programming langauge, the AxBxC is called the rho of the
object, denoted {a,b,c}.

A 3 dimensional object has 3 members in its rho, one for
each dimension. Thus a {2,3,4} is a 2 by 3 by 4 object.

A 2 dimensional object has 2 members i.e. {2,3} which is
a 2 by 3 object.

A 1 dimensional object has 1 member, ie {3} which is a 3 unit
object.

A 0 dimensional object has 0 members in its rho, its rho
is the empty set. {zip}

Thus a {0,0,0} 3 dimensional object, which is in fact
a nothing of no substance, is not the same as a {zip} scalar
object of definite substance.

People have a hard time picturing a scalar universe, as their
consciousness is capable of only picturing 3D spaces. So they mock
up a 0x0x0 'point' of 3D space and miss entirely what an infinite
scalar universe might be like.

Homer

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

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jan 29 12:06:02 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/rho
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)

iD8DBQFYjiD7URT1lqxE3HERAuolAKCwKMBCKN59WQ9Gw0LCt9y29T6ASQCgmbFu
GCFuf/nj167lAgrTKxjYhgc=
=s4+S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ACT4 (fwd)

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







POWER PROCESS FOUR

ACT - 4
20 June 1993

Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.


> Basically it's plastered in every Church's ethics office. The
>Process is one question repeated over and over again until you stumble
>onto the answer. At which point you will think you have had a
>cognition!! The question is "Tell me a source.".


There are 6 process to Power or Grade V.

The 4th process in the series of six is,

"Tell me a Source."
"Tell me about it."
"Tell me a no Source."
"Tell me about it."

Or,

"Spot a Source."
"Tell me about it."
"Spot a no Source."
"Tell me about it."

The purpose of running the six power processes is revivification of
the most detested incident on the track. One of the End Phenomenon of
Power is 'Ability to handle Power. Freedom from detested parts of the
track.'

It is very possible that any one person has an analytical
understanding in present time that he is indeed a source, but it is a
far different matter to maintain that awareness during the worst engram
you ever went through in all time (whole track).

Engrams are moments of being an effect, of thinking that you AREN'T
source. The fact that the incident is still unconfrontable and remains
unerased in your bank (you can't remember it right?), means that you
still consider THAT moment of time to be something that you aren't
source of. After such an incident people try to reclaim their
Sovereignty by forgetting or nailing out of existence the incident that
made them the most wrong about being a source.

The PICTURES of the incident are as bad as the incident to them.

So it gets NOT-ISed. Bye bye memory.

It's a deceit, which is why they aren't clear.

Further when things happen in present time that beset the pc with
trouble, pain, travail, loss and sorrow, he again feels that he is not
source, not source of what ails him, or is besetting him, and not source
of being in an arena (universe) where he can be so beset.

These moments restimulate the forgotten most detested parts of his
track, a moment where he was CERTAIN that he was not source, such as a
time of Crucifixion, or worse before bodies.

Thus the end phenomenon of Power is the revivification of one's
worst incident of not being source, of detesting source forever for
free, or what ever is source, and wishing to hell it never happened. A
being that has successfully run Power, (very few) have a widely expanded
sense of what they are source of including the incident they most
considered they weren't source of when it happened.

Thus although your raw meat pc may have some inkling that he is a
source, he considers himself to be a very SMALL source among very BIG
other sources, many of them detested.

After Power, the pc considers that he is a very BIG source, and
that no source is detested. This is beyond most people's imagination,
and certainly is beyond the Church's ability to run properly.

Which is why they can't handle power, but abuse it instead.

Until a pc has been properly set up for Power Processes, he can't
handle them either, they just won't run or will run glibly.

He will get a 'big deal' reaction out of them, rather than a reviv
of his most detested part of the track.

Power gets you Uncrucified for the first time in 100 billion years.

It also returns the ability to Handle Power, because your own
personal power flow is no longer all tied up denying that the detested
incident ever happened (the seed of Corruption) and following that, no
longer protecting your own ass from future similar incidents AT ALL
COSTS (Temptation and Seduction.)

Like all Scientology processes, the higher on the Bridge you go,
the simpler they get. The simplicity is deceiving to the lower level pc
as he expects enormous complexity to help him out of his perceived mess.

And like all higher level Scientology processes, simple though they
may be, they depend absolutely on all lower processes having been run
properly and thoroughly, or else the high level process will not bite.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jan 27 12:06:03 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act4.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)

iD8DBQFYi337URT1lqxE3HERAoTUAJ9sRToYQzaHsTNDOooBPKxvuZdYcwCfX2F2
qsS50KbNDu6kbKlfXPFrZo4=
=yKwb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE806 (fwd)

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


10/09/10 Saturday 8:26pm EST
12/08/16 Thursday 4:56pm EST

C/S FOR ROLAND II, Part 3

Roland Berry experienced an exteriorization with full perception
during routine auditing ca. 1999 and wrote up his experiences to the
net.

http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/roland0.memo

Not only did he experience a full exteriorization, he WENT exterior
on the exact right buttons laid out by LRH in the 50's, namely,
affinity, nosympathy, sympathy, propitiation, BEING a body.

Apparently however, over time Roland lost reality on his own
experience, and started to publicly berate auditing, dianetics, and
scientology, started demanding proof etc, and eventually became one of
the biggest meatball basher assholes in the history of the net.

Eventually I kind of had it with him, feeling that his direct
experience of something man as longed for, for thousands of years, was
wasted on a useless pinheaded nitwit.

So I started to write up a set of postings detailing a C/S for him
to rehab his experience and get certainty back on the subjects of
dianetics and scientology.

(A C/S is a program of auditing written by a preclear's Case
Supervisor in order to handle the next step in auditing or to repair a
prior step gone wrong.)

These postings are here:

C/S FOR ROLAND
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/roland
C/S FOR ROLAND II Part 1
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore615.memo
C/S FOR ROLAND II Part 2
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore616.memo

This posting continues where the last one left off, and was
inspired by ADORE86.memo which was recently posted to the net.

ADORE86.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore86.memo

We have come a long ways since ADORE86.memo and I can now speak to
some of the problems mentioned there, mostly the unrunability and
unauditability of some items, particularly solo.

QUESTION AND ANSWERS

The first important advance is a better understanding of the nature
of Questions and Answers and the effect they have on a case, something
mentioned in detail in adore86.memo, without full awareness of just how
right it was.

I have gone into this in endless detail in recent postings, so I
will sum it up by saying that the target of auditing is an incident.

An incident is *DEFINED* as a run in with a question causing a
persistence via a prior postulate or consideration that 'things do not
vanish on their own'. The question is usually of the form 'what to do
about it' or one of its many endless variety.

The question "what to DO about it" bypasses the earlier charge on
the prior postulate (called a God Postulate because it works) by putting
the preclear's attention on the future where 'doing something about it'
is hoped to have vanished the problem with the original condition.

So we have in time order:

Condition, failure of some kind.

Postulate that the condition is not caused by a postulate and thus
no postulate can be vanished to handle it.

Question: What to DO about it, where DO is defined as futher
creations of effort in the future to destroy or ameliorate the now
persisting condition.

Answers galore, each one creating solutions to the original problem
which then become problems themselves inviting more questions about what
to DO about them etc, forever.

The above cycle violates the basic truth that one can never vanish
a creation by creating something MORE in the future.

The exact prior condition, failure, postulate and consideration
followed by the exact question and pursuant answers and actions and
estimated future time to solution, need to be recovered to fully erase
the incident.

A Postulate is a posted beingness, something that is there because
you say it is there and you are looking at it. It is looking by knowing
or

KNOWING -> LOOKING (Looking by Knowing)

Know first, see second. Knowing gives rise to looking.

Imagination works this way, things are created to look at in the
very conception of them?

Looking by Knowing is contrasted to Knowing by Looking, or
learning.

LOOKING -> KNOWING (Knowing by Looking).

Look first, know second. Looking gives rise to knowing.

Observations of the physical universe work this way.

A consideration is the postulation of a relationship between two or
more posted beingnesses.

Postulate: This is a cigarette
Postulate: This is an ashtray
Consideration: Ashtrays are used to hold cigarette ashes.

Postulation and consideration are often used interchangeably to
little harm, but in truth considerations are a subset of postulates, as
they are postulates that relate two other standalone postulates to each
other.

Consideration comes from CON SIDE, to put together, or to relate
two standalone postulates to each other.

The consideration that posted things are not self vanishing,
becomes part of a God postulate conglomerate because things ARE self
vanishing until the preclear gets the consideration they aren't.

Thus the God postulate that postulates do not work, works.

The God postulate that we need something ELSE or MORE than just
upostulating creates then the entire future time track of problems
begetting solutions becoming problems begetting more solutions.

Later in time observation of the now unwanted posted beingness
still persisting in time, is then used as evidence to the effect that
things are indeed not self vanishing, and away we go down the time
track.

Thus consideration and observation are dicoms.

The consideration that things do not vanish on their own, plus the
*LATER* observation that things do seem to be persisting on their own to
back it up, is known as the Consideration/Observation flip flop.

Consideration is cause and means I consider it is there, therefore
it is there. That's looking by knowing. Knowing is cause, and looking
is effect.

Observation is effect and means I consider it is there, BECAUSE I
looked and observed it was there. That's knowing by looking, or
learning. Looking is cause and knowing is effect gleaned from looking.

Consideration is 'It is there because I consider it is there.'

Observation is 'I consider it is there because I observe it is
there.'

Consideration says that consideration is cause, until it says LATER
that consideration is not cause.

Observation agrees that consideration is not cause, and provides
evidence that consideration is instead the effect of something already
existing before it was observed or even known to exist.

The observation of the continued persistence of the thing provides
evidence for the truth of the (false) consideration that things do not
vanish on their own, and thus he proves himself into a persisting trap.

LATER observations of persistence are used as conclusive proof
that the persistence was not caused by a self vanishing postulate
in the first place.

This is HOW self vanishing postulates are made to persist!

Things do not vanish on their own because he considers that things
do not vanish on their own, and his observation of those things
persisting verifies it for him that things do not vanish on their own.

So now he has happily verified that he is stuck with a persistence
forever, because things which persist, persist, and that is all there is
to it.

Try to knock out time sometime, and see how far you get.

So there.

Time is the ultimate persisting 'thing'.

He goes from a self vanishing postulate to a consideration that it
won't vanish, to an observation of it persisting, to a an unwanted
persistence, to a question about what to do about it.

This produces a locked down persistence and travels in time away
from the original postulate which in the end is the source of the whole
travail.

Let's do this again for posterities sake.

There are two phases to the consideration/observation flip flop.

In phase A the being is going, there is a pink elephant,
there is a pink elephant, there is a pink elephant, and so he has
a non self persisting pink elephant because he keeps putting it there
as fast as it can self vanish.

But he know that the pink elephant is there BECAUSE he knows
the pink elephant is there.

He is thinking,
I see a pink elephant, knowingness creates beingness.

BUt then he goes I

It is the question that locks it all down into persistence with Q&A
away from pure as-isness of the original postulate.

Vanishing something through as-isness of its original moment of
creation is NOT asking a question about what to do about it.

You see?

Question asking is death when it comes to trying to vanish
something that was created but now is no longer wanted.

The correct way to vanish anything created thing is to be at the
moment of its original creation, be creating it again, and let go of it,
minus all the consideratorial nonsense about things not vanishing on
their own, and especially minus all the question asking about what to do
about its persistence.

Formally we say that the question and answer that he comes up with
(to DO something about it) commits efforts to the idea that the original
postulate won't vanish on his own. The more he DOES to solve that
persistence, the more he commits to the consideration it is not self
vanishing.

Until he has committed effort to solving the unwanted postulate,
his second postulate that the first one won't just vanish on its own is
still tenuous.

He could still flip back to the moment of creation and
let go, not enough time has passed to confuse things.

And it's 'light time' between the postulate and the consideration
it won't vanish, unlike the heavy time that gets created once he gets
into question asking and using effort to make the original postulate not
be any more through change, destruction and outright not-isness.

Once he commits to effort, he *COMMITS* to time and pursuit and he
moves further and further away from as-isness of the original postulate,
thus making it more and more impossible to as-is and vanish.

As-isness of the original postulate exists only at the moment
of original creation.

The further in time he goes away from that moment the more
he has traveled into alter-isness and thus persisting is-ness,
and eventually not-isness.

Q&A stands for Question and Answer, but means veering off course
into new questions without having dealt with the first one.

Such a person starting off at A going to B, has trouble going to B,
so he goes to C. But then he has trouble going to C and so starts for
D. He NEVER gets anywhere he intends to go, but is ALWAYS continuing to
go somewhere new, never getting there either.

No rest, never arrives.

This is a Q&A artist. Every time he changes course he creates
trails of persistence behind him. Eventually he gets buried in them.

Thus the structure of a God postulate is like this:

Postulate -> Consideration -> Observation -> Question -> Answer ->
pursuit and execution of answer via effort in time.

Effort and pursuit creates time, chase and eventual total failure
to vanish an unwanted persistence.

Since the way out is the original way in, the more TIME a being
spends looking for a way out, the further he gets from the original way
in.

Time is a practical joke of magnitude.

NO AND SOME

The second important advance is an understanding of NO and SOME and
how to run them.

The problem with almost all of Church auditing is it only assesses
for and runs the SOME and ignores the NO.

So you ask for 'Hate?' and there is no read, but the auditor
doesn't ask for 'NO Hate?' and so they miss the item entirely.

The problem is worse though, you have to assess for NO hate first!

And if perchance 'Hate' read, you would have to start running NO
hate anyhow right off, because the hate already has flowed in the
original assessment and NO hate is waiting to run next.

If you lose sync between NO and SOME, the item will dry up and
never read again.

If you assess or run the NO item first, the SOME item will then
read and run. For a while. Then you have to go back to the NO item,
then the SOME item again, back and forth and stay in SYNC with the flows
that are happening.

So what happens is after hundreds of hours of normal auditing, all
the isness side of the preclear's items are pretty well flattened as far
as they could be, but the not-isness side of those same items has been
left restimulated but not pulled.

This acts as a missed withhold, creates an ARC break and results in
a blow, leaving the session, leaving auditing, and leaving the Church
who 'couldn't pull a missed withhold if their lives depended on it'.

The SOME item isn't the withhold! The NO item is.

SOME item, some lying, some cheating, some stealing, some murder,
some death, damnation and demise, who cares. If the preclear knows
about it or can access it easily, it just doesn't amount to a hill of
beans no matter how many people are missing it, or he isn't talking to
them about it.

You can run this kind of 'Has a withhold been missed?' forever, and
the preclear will just go lower and lower and lower until you don't have
a preclear any more.

He's taken up dealing drugs in Bangladesh, you see?

But ask him 'Is there a NO missed withhold?' and watch what
happens.

Standard Tech tries to do this with Suppressed and Invalidated, but
neither of them are NO.

And neither are the 20 other items on the standard prepcheck
list, all of which try to mean NO without being NO!

Prepcheck means checking preperatory to clearing and are used
heavily to get a preclear into session and do simply Life Repairs etc.

THE PREPCHECK BUTTONS
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/exm10.memo

The first set of buttons are the standard tech buttons, the rest
were added by the Freezone later, although all are part of LRH tech
in some measure or another.

Talk about missing or bypassing an entire case.

It's not enough to have written the right thing in some corner of a
book, where its importance is completely bypassed or missed.

So its kind of built into their tech, not intentionally, but the
result is the same, NO tech, NO preclears, NO auditing, NO wins and NO
Church.

Here is what happens. Your preclear has interiorized and
exteriorized thousands of times along the whole track, into bodies, out
of bodies, into groups, out of groups, into objects, out of objects,
into memories, out of memories, into universes, out of universe. Just
on and on and on.

50 percent of these are on the isness side of his case, if you ask
him about it, there it is and he will tell you about it. He may have to
dig for it, its charged, he doesn't want to talk about it, but he can
get at it.

The other 50 percent of these are on the not-isness side of his
case, and if you ask him about it, he will give you a blank stare, say
'What exteriorization?' and take a loss.

HE CAN'T GET AT A NO ITEM WITHOUT RUNNING NO ITEM!

Dig it and don't leave it.

He can't contact the not-ised exteriorizations, because they are
not-ised, covered in black, mass and charge, BUT HE CAN CONTACT THE NOT
IS!

The not-is is right there in front of his face.

So instead of saying to him 'Tell me about an exteriorization', you
say instead 'Tell me about NO exteriorization.'

Now you might ask, if he can't contact the exteriorization because
it is not-ised, how can he tell you about it, and guess what, you would
be 100 percent right.

WE DO NOT WANT HIM TO TELL US ABOUT THE EXTERIORIZATION, WE WANT
HIM TO TELL US ABOUT THE NO SITTING ON TOP OF THE EXTERIORIZATION.

Now remember NO means pretended no, remember the CDEINR scale.

Curious about, Desire, Enforce, Inhibit, NO, Refused.

If there were truly a no exteriorization, then the needle would
float as there is nothing there to run.

But if its a not-ised exteriorization then the needle will stop and
fall and get dirty and dance the polka, whistle dixie, play Beethoven's
5th, and the pc will still say 'nothing there'.

He's lying of course, but its what appears to him as the truth, he
can't get at it, and he is totally not sure it is there.

That's because the way to get inside a not-isness is NOT to look
real hard into the darkness and hope to see what is behind it, in it, or
under it. THAT DOES NOT WORK.

A preclear can out not-is himself all day long, for the rest of
time, forever for free.

THE STATIC IS AN EXPERT AT CREATING LOSS AS LOSS AND NOT HAVING IS
WHAT IT CREATES!

Source sources what Source is not.

What source is not is time.

Time is having, via chase and not having.

Thus time is 100 percent wanting and not having and hoping
to get via committed effort.

Believe me SOURCE HAS.

And what Source has is the ability to not have.

Not-isness is a form of pretending to not have what you actually
have, the few times Source messes up and you actually have it!

That's a joke, actually not-isness is often used against
things you have that you don't want, Source is good at that too.

Thus the way to deal with a not-isness is MAKE MORE NOT-ISNESS!

It doesn't matter what is under the not-isness, maybe its an
exteriorization, maybe its not, maybe its beautiful, maybe its ugly, but
once he contacts the not-isness, AS NOT-ISNESS, it will start to run,
flow and lift. Then whatever is under it will in due time become
visible.

Of course he will just shut it out again, but now the jig is up,
now he KNOWS he is not-ising it and will keep control over the matter
for a while.

Now again you might ask, well if he is not-ising the
exteriorization, or what ever item you are asking for, how does he know
that the not-isness he is running is THAT particular not-isness?

Good question. The answer is, it doesn't matter, whatever
not-isness he ends up running is THE not-isness that he needs to run,
next, and if its not an exteriorization under it, but a pink elephant,
well then you probably should be running pink elephants anyhow, instead
of exteriorization.

Running the not-isness will tell you in the end what isness you
should be running.

But really if exteriorization is the next item that needs to be
run, and you ask for NO exteriorization, the file clerk will be damn
sure to hand it to your preclear, because he is sitting in the NO as the
next layer of blackness to be as-ised.

(The file clerk is a Dianetic mechanism that hands the preclear the
next incident necessary to resolve his case, if asked to do so by the
auditor.)

If you don't believe in the file clerk, then believe in yourself,
if the item you are running is truly the next correct item to run, then
the NO item will blow off with complete certainty and amazement, and
will allow the SOME item to continue to run.

Now look this is important, I am not making a big deal over this
for nothing, NO and SOME are the make break between a running case and a
pissed off pc.

Remember in the old days you were told that an ARC broken pc won't
read on the meter?

In fact an ARC broken pc will not read on a meter so much that his
needle will float!

That's called an ARC break float, and must never, ever, ever be
confused with a true float which results from VGI's (very good
indicators) smiling, laughing, cogniting, going WOW! this is great etc.

So why doesn't an ARC broken pc read on a meter?

There he is sitting in front of you, kind of dead, maybe glum or
glowering, and you say,

"Is there an ARC break?"

Well you know not to take up non reading items, but just in case
you also check,

"On the question is there an ARC break, has anything been
Suppressed?"

"On the question, is there an ARC break, has anything been
Invalidated?"

But nothing reads, so the auditor goes on. He writes down there is
no read, but ALSO NO FLOAT, so he knows he is going to have to come back
to it sooner or later, perhaps after he has messed up the preclear more
with present time problems and withholds.

BUT HOW CAN ASKING FOR AN ARC BREAK READ, IF ARC BROKEN PRECLEARS
DON'T READ ON THE METER!?

Sometimes you have to put the meter away, and audit what you see in
front of you, "You LOOK ARC broken dude, so tell me about it whether you
are or not!", but let's take a deeper look at this.

Say the ARC break did read, and Goober says yeah, I am ARC broke
with Dufus.

So now you know that ARC is made of Affinity, Reality and
Communication, so somewhere Goober got pissed off or sad about Dufus and
went out of affinity, out of agreement (reality) or out of
communication, certainly all 3, but maybe one more than the other.

So you start to assess for which was it mostly, was it affinity,
was it reality, was it communication?

Goober says "Oh yes, its reality, Dufus thinks global warming is
all a bunch of bunk invented by the greenies to stop our God given
rights to produce and conquer the Earth!"

You say 'Thank you, now let's find out just how ARC broken
you are by that reality.'

Was it a curious about a reality?
Was it a desired reality?
Was it an enforced reality?
Was it an inhibited reality?
Was is a NO reality?
Was it a refused reality?

Goober says, "Oh yeah it was an enforced reality, he was pushing it
so hard, making cracks about anyone who disagreed with him, insulting
anyone who brought up data about it etc."

You say "Thank you, was there an earlier similar ARC break?"
and away you go to finish the ruds with a floating needle before
you begin session proper.

(Ruds are rudiments before starting a session, cleaning up ARC
breaks, Present Time Problems (PTP's) and missed Withholds.)

But now let's take a different example.

An ARC break consists of Affinity, Reality and Communication where
each of the 3 legs is somewhere on the CDEINR scale.

So say instead Goober happens to have an ARC break of long duration
where EACH OF THE LEGS IS DOWN AT NO!

NO affinity, NO reality, NO communication.

So you ask Goober "Is there an ARC break?" and he just looks at
you, and says NO, and the needle does not read nor float, and session
goes no where.

So you get this evil grin on your face, you put on your atomic
protective clothing, you stand back a few feet from the meter, you get
your preclear's undivided attention, and you say,

"Goober is there a NO ARC break?"

Once the smoke has cleared, the fuses in the building replaced, and
you have a new e-meter, you will then find Goober more than willing and
interested to run,

"Get the idea of NO ARC break."
"Get the idea of SOME ARC break."

And you know he will be all smiles from there on out.

THE STRUCTURE OF NOT-IS

OK, there is one more thing that is important here.

Your average woggy on the street doesn't know he has a case.

He has a NO case.

He is completely oblivious to the fact that he has dicoms he is
dramatizing and their items, but that most of them are in a state of NO
item.

(A dicom is a DIchotomy of Comparable but Opposite Magnitude).

He knows he gets mad once in a while or sad, but he has not the
faintest slightest clue that these are but fumaroles blowing off steam
on the side of a NO volcano of charge, emotion, grief, anguish, turmoil
and eternal hell forever.

That's why he is mortal in his own mind, that's a kind of NO
Immortality, NO hell forever, NO thank God!

Now a well trained preclear will understand after a few hours of
auditing that he has many SOME items and many NO items. All it takes is
finding one NO item and he's hooked on finding more, the relief is so
great.

So this preclear is now living with SOME SOME items, and SOME NO
ITEMS, and he is happy with that.

But the unaudited woggy doesn't know this, he is living with NO
SOME items, and NO NO items!

He doesn't know that he doesn't know, that's a NO NO item.

No if you think about it, if you really want to forget something,
you ALSO need to forget that you wanted to forget it!

Thus as soon as you create a NO item, you HAVE to create a NO NO
item to make the NO item stick, or else it will just come up to the
surface again the next time you sneeze.

But even the NO NO item won't stick forever, you have to forget
that too, so now you have a NO NO NO item. You see how this goes?

So in fact when a being gets dead serious about never knowing about
something never again, he creates an infinite regression of ... NO NO NO
NO item, which puts the power of the infinite behind that forgetfulness.

This infinite regression is part of what keeps time going, because
NO is another layer of effort committed to covering over the item, and
then covering over the covering over,etc forever.

As your preclear starts to run NO items, he will suddenly start to
contact the infinite regression and his time and space will rock and
start to expand significantly.

This can be dangerous, so watch it.

If your preclear goes wildly unstable, just continue to run NO and
SOME. He can stabilize anything with NO for a while, then SOME for a
while etc.

Remember also that at the craziest part of his core, the part that
really starts him swirling and swimming in dizziness, he is running both
NO *AND* SOME on the same item at the same time.

We used to talk about the poor guy who came to a fork in the
road and couldn't decide whether to go left or right. So eventually
he built a house at the fork, and decided to live there for
rest of his life.

He got stuck in an indecision, and yes building the house
was pure Q&A from getting on with going where he was going.

But he's not insane. He's stuck in an indecision to
go left *OR* go right.

The indecision is not only not insane, it isn't unethical
either, because its not illogical, and ethics is logic.

But his indecision is problematic in that his life stops
at that point and he does something else.

But imagine now that rather than settle for an unending
indecision to left or right, he makes a DECISION to go BOTH
left *AND* right.

Now he is insane, because he can't do that, and its not logical,
and thus it is unethical, and this is beginning of hysteria and all out
loss of control.

So just so is your preclear doing a item *AND* NOT item on various
things, he is also doing a NO *AND* SOME on both the item AND its
opposite.

NO *AND* SOME on love *AND* hate for mother.

This is the beginning of hysteria and insanity, because he can't
open and close the door at the same time, but the way to stabilize it is
to DO IT knowingly. Just get the idea of NO *AND* SOME of the item at
the same time, and it will stabilize and he can let go of it SLOWLY and
under control.

The destabilization comes from letting go of the nut and fruit
factory too fast.

He starts to feel unstable with all this hysteria energy swirling
around him, making his dizzy and nauseous, and he starts to panic and
starts asking questions "What should I do?!!!!" which is NOT what he
should do. He should get the idea of NO AND SOME item at the same time,
and keep doing that, and he will maintain control, and not die on you.

OK, so we didn't know all that back in adore86.memo.

That was hard won knowledge, I am lucky to be sitting here writing
this.

The important part is, that if you don't run the NO, the preclear
will start to fall into the NO anyhow and eventually blow.

(Blow means leave, leave his post, leave his friends, his auditor,
auditing, and eventually the Church).

Say you are running exteriorization, and you run it and you run it,
and the preclear exteriorizes, full perception, lights on bright in the
room even if the lights are off, moves out of his body, over across the
street, and sees all kinds of things, remote reports back and proves
each and every one of them, and then comes back into his body, and you
continue to run ext, ext, ext, ext.

Two weeks later, you are talking to this preclear and you say 'Hey
Goober I heard you exteriorized in session!"

Goober says "Yeah, well, I don't really believe in exteriorization,
there's all kinds of mental phenomenon that you really just can't say
whether its real or not."

And you say "What? What about all those things you saw outside and
could prove?"

And Goober says "Prove? Oh well, right, prove, can we talk about
this later? Thanks..."

See? Goober has had so much SOME exteriorization run that he is
now totally swamped in the missed wittholds of NO exteriorizations,
charge restimulated by auditing SOME, but not pulled by failing to run
NO.

So you grab Goober and put him back into session, and you ask him
"Tell me about NO exteriorization".

The room goes dark, blackness forever runs out and covers the
earth, and 3 hours later all the dark matter in the universe is glowing
bright, and he is so exteriorized you don't know which galaxy he is in,
or which time line.

So this is an important phenomenon. Particularly if you consider
that 'case gain' is an item, and what the consequences of failing to run
NO case gain will be to your clearing production line.

Not to mention what the consequences of failing to run NO
exteriorization on Roland will be to your future reputation in his field.

OK, take a break, donuts and coffee for everyone!

Homer

Sat Oct 9 20:51:05 EDT 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 8 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore806.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)

iD8DBQFYSZL7URT1lqxE3HERApMuAJ0bzfaQw5M7Wvne1XuTfKZve4YdSwCdHiX8
QHUE2ck/clKizuiMJSvjLts=
=yk+8
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jan 29 14:57:59 EST 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore806.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)

iD8DBQFYjklHURT1lqxE3HERAtoJAJ9J8OFhXkB75tQU+4unWojGmMm7CQCgw0OM
QfBK4jj0VT8RxcZAoawAlkE=
=4FFZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

exm29b.memo (fwd)

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



((Editors Comments in double parentheses - Homer))

THE STORY OF ELECTRA

EXM - 29B
22 April 1994

Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

In August 1991 we had just come back from 100 hours of auditing
with Filbert. I was still just barely able to crawl across the floor
from my bed to the bathroom, to puke in the toilet, but I was doing
better in life and looking around to see what I could salvage of my
future.

One of the things that happened was we bought a couple of personal
computers for our business and got connected to the internet sort of by
force of change at Cornell.

One day I was 'surfing' the alt.groups and purely by accident I
came across alt.religion.scientology. A jolt kind of went through my
spine, a mixture of fear, jealousy and excitement. In trepidation I
signed on and began to read what was there.

What I found was endless noise and bashing with hardly a defense by
the Church in sight. I really wanted to post something in return but I
was terrified out of my wits, not only of the Church, but also that all
my wog contacts that I worked with would finally find out I was a
Scientologist. I had managed to keep it a secret from them for 8 years,
and I was not prepared to ruin it now.

So I kept quiet and eventually signed off the list in disgust. It
was JUST bashers talking to each other. How sad.

A few months later, around November maybe, I signed back on to see
what was going on, and there was some discussion between bashers and
Churchies so at least someone was defending Scientology, but as usual
the Churchies were making greater asses of themselves than they were
worth.

But I continued to read, always one keystroke away from telling
these bashers where they could put it.

Then one day out of the blue came a posting from vfz@world.com or
some such thing, a clearly forged address. It was signed Electra, and
to this day I remember what she said.

She said (from memory),

"There are 3 kinds of people in the world.

Those that love Scientology and love the Church (Churchies).

Those that love Scientology and hate the Church (Free Zoners).

Those that hate Scientology and hate the Church (Bashers).

Which are you?"

I would add that there is a fourth group,

Those that hate Scientology and love the Church (Upper management)

Apparently Electra was posting anonymously via various 'outlaw'
backdoor methods that were well known to the internet community but were
sort of non trivial to implement. Her posting and method of entrance
electrified the entire atmosphere on the group and things have never
been the same since.

I want to go over just what Electra was doing in some detail
because it is important to the history of what happened and will also
give you some insight into the growth of more conventional anonymous
servers that everyone uses to this day.

Both mail and usenet news use special protocols to convey their
messages from machine to machine. Just like when you telnet to another
machine and logon using telnet protocols, machines can telnet to special
ports on other machines where rather than getting the familiar logon
prompt, they are presented with the mail or news server.

Mail works with a protocol called SMTP (Simple Mail Transport
Protocol) and news works with NNTP (Network News Transport Protocol.)

NNTP is not hard to use, the manuals documenting its various
commands and procedures are readily available and in fact any one can
telnet to various machines that take news and actually talk to that
machine's news server by hand if they know the right commands.

This is not something you are not supposed to know, its not even
stuff you are not supposed to use, in fact there is a group called
alt.forgery that is openly devoted to how to use the SMTP and NNTP
protocols to send and receive anonymous mail. It's called forgery in
the lingo because the usual way to send anonymous mail is to give the
receiving news server on the remote host a false header containing your
forged name and machine name including the message you want to send.

Since the machines that hand news back and forth do not check the
accuracy of the headers, anyone who knows how to talk SMTP directly to a
receiving machine can essentially hand it any message with anyone's
address in the header, and in fact people often do this as pranks or
malicious mischief. The most useful purpose it serves though is not to
come across as someone else to get them in trouble, but to create a
fictitious name and return address for yourself that no one can trace.

As I said learning how to do all this is no small feat, but a
number of shell scripts have been written that do all the work for you,
you just hand the script your message, and it links up to the NNTP port
of your nearest machine, creates a false header of your choice and sends
it. These are in common use in the alt.porn binaries groups where
people submit girlie (and not so girlie) pictures all the time using
anonymous headers.

Apparently Electra was well versed in all this and she used
Electra@vfz.anonymous to identify herself. I presume VFZ stood for A
Voice of the Free Zone.

You got to remember that this was long before anonymous servers
came into being that made anonymous mail easy, painless and available to
the masses.

Although anyone could 'forge' an address using a direct connection
to an NNTP site, very few knew how to do it, so it was kind of a big
deal when something like this came across the net. It meant the person
posting anonymously was serious about what they were doing and probably
knowledgeable in the ways of the internet.

I am going to present a few more technical points for history's
sake and then we will get on with the rest of the story.

Most machines that act as NNTP sites, which means they are running
news servers and are available to receive news from other machines, also
have a list that details exactly which machines in the surrounding world
are allowed to give them news. This limits the number of machines that
can connect to them to feed them news. Most machines don't want to get
news from just anyone. So they have a list of who is allowed to connect
to them and if your machine isn't on that list it won't accept your
connection attempt.

As usual in the unix world, such things are often left in a default
state when the operating software is first installed and unless the
system administrator explicitly sets it to what he wants he will find
himself operating under the default state of the software.

The default state for NNTP software is to allow EVERYONE to post
news to your machine. ((This is not true with innd)). The system
administrator has to know about a special control file that NNTP uses to
limit who it is willing to receive news from, and he must set it up to
limit who can send his machine news. A lot of admins either do not know
about the file or they choose to ignore it figuring it will never be any
trouble to them.

Thus if you are a person who wants to post anonymously you have to
find a machine that will accept your effort to connect to its NNTP port.
Since MOST machines have their special files set up to limit who can
talk to them, it can be hard to find a machine whose NNTP ports are
still open to the whole world.

This kind of knowledge is so valuable in fact that those on
alt.forgery jealously guard this data in secret files that they only
share with others that they trust not to be a jerk about it. This is
because if too many people start to use an open NNTP site, they may
increase the load on the machine or otherwise piss off the sys admin
with inappropriate or even illegal postings and thus get that site's
NNTP port shut down to general use.

Now most of the time people don't complain about anonymous
postings, they WANT their porn to come on through on alt.porn, they WANT
the latest dirt on the Clinton's to come down on alt.dirt, so in fact
many machines have anonymous postings going through them all the time
and the sys admin never notices and never takes action to close down the
NNTP port. As long as people don't abuse the port, no one cares.

Other sys admins know damn well that anonymous postings are going
through their system and they leave the NNTP port open on purpose,
either because they believe in the principles of anonymous postings or
they want the porn too. THESE systems are the most valuable, because
even if someone complains to such a sys admin about anonymous postings
going through their system, he is likely to say "So what?" and tell them
to take a walk.

On the other hand a sys admin that is seriously worried about 'who
is posting what' through his site, can take steps to trace anon postings
coming through his machine once he knows to look for them, assuming that
more come through once he is alerted.

Each posting that comes across has a Path: line in its header that
shows the names of all the machines the posting has traversed to get to
you. Anyone reading a posting can check the Path: line to see where
that posting came from and how it got to your site.

The very last name in the line is the machine the posting was
originally sent FROM. The next to last name is the machine the posting
was sent TO, and the rest of the names convey the further machines the
posting was passed on to before it got to you. Since each machine that
gets a posting adds its name to the BEGINNING of the list, your own site
where you are reading the posting will be the first name in the Path:
header.

There is no way to forge the path line except for the very last
item which of course is the machine you are posting FROM. The machine
you are posting TO assumes that the person doing the posting is honest
and takes whatever name is handed it as the name of the machine being
posted FROM. So people make sure to hand over some non existent name,
and that way the original posting machine can not be traced.

However the machine that the person is posting TO puts its name
right there on the path line and that can't be changed or forged. So if
a forged posting comes in that they don't like, the first thing people
do is contact the sys admin at the machine that was posted TO and tell
him to start looking out for anon postings coming into his system.

If he chooses to pursue the matter he will get himself involved in
quite a lot of work.

He has to turn on special logging software that logs every
transaction coming into his machine, which often numbers in the tens of
thousands, and he has to search the postings one by one for the
anonymous name that the person is using assuming he isn't changing it
wildly every time.

If the sys admin catches the posting, he can easily see what
machine the person is SAYING they are posting from which is a forgery,
but he can also look at the exact packet data that will tell him the
actual machine it really is coming from. This all takes an enormous
amount of time and effort. He still won't know WHO is sending the data
though because that information is not contained in the packet data.

Once the posting has been fully received by his machine, the
original packet data is lost and the opportunity for finding the name of
the real machine it was posted from is lost, so this really has to be
done in real time.

In any case, he may never find out exactly WHO is sending the
posting, but if he can catch a posting coming in AS IT IS BEING POSTED,
he can know which machine it is being posted FROM, and then by
communicating with the sys admin of that machine he can find out who was
on at that time and who might be making such postings. If the complaint
against the anonymous poster is serious enough, the sys admin of the
posting machine can be talked into searching through all the files of
all users who were on at the time to see if he can find the posting that
was posted, which of course would locate who posted it. There are also
posting logs on the machine the posting was posted from, and if the
times in those logs match the times the posting was received at the
other machine, then it can be assumed that that was the person who sent
the posting.

People can and have been traced in this fashion, but its a LOT of
work for both sys admins and you really have to piss someone off to get
that kind of attention.

However tracing efforts do happen and if you are posting important
or controversial material you can get kind of worried about who is
trying to track you down.

For this reason people who are posting serious material often take
to changing, every couple of postings, which machine they are posting
TO, which makes it real hard for any particular sys admin to catch
postings coming in, because by the time they are alerted to watch for
them, the poster is already posting to another machine. The problem
however is FINDING such machines with open NNTP sites willing to take
postings from just anyone, because they are rare and far between. So
constantly changing the machine you are posting TO is a real pain.

Thus people who are worried about being traced usually don't get
into long winded communications with people, as every posting they make
opens the door to be traced if some sys admin is on the alert for them.
They post what they need, and they get the hell out of there and let
things cool off.

So it was within this highly charged atmosphere that Electra was
posting into a hot bed of natter and criticism from really vile, crass
and mindless folks most of whom have left never to be heard from again,
thank God.

A few of these bashers however were incensed at Electra's
anonymity, they apparently considered it a threat to their personal
freedom. Electra explained in great detail, as you have seen, why she
was posting anonymously, she explained the dangers involved in
criticizing the Church and her experiences with it, but these few
bashers just wouldn't have any of that, and they insisted that she show
herself or be branded a coward.

One of them went a bit further.

Somewhere just after Electra posted EXM-29, the following letter
arrived on a.r.s from one Nick Papadakis at MIT. He was the news admin
for a small site called mintaka at MIT university, and he had received a
private e-mail from one Scott Goehring, one of the more vocal bashers
attacking Electra.

Scott in fact seemed, from the tone of his attacks on Electra, to
be almost hysterically driven to distraction by Electra's postings and
anonymity. He just couldn't stand the fact that he couldn't shut her
up, and so he wrote all the news admins of the various sites that
Electra had used to post anonymously to, telling them their news site
was being abused by Electra's anonymous 'forgeries' and if they were of
a mind, they should do something about it.

You might ask how did Scott find out which machines Electra was
posting to?

Although no one ever found out where Electra was posting FROM, it
was easy to tell where she was posting TO because that was contained as
the next to last machine named in the Path: header in the postings
themselves.

A typical path line would say

Path: lots of stuff ..... !mintaka!world.com

Electra was posting FROM world.com TO mintaka, which then passed it
on to endless numbers of other machines to get to the rest of the world.
World.com was a forgery and didn't exist, mintaka was quite real.

So anyone reading the posting could tell where she had posted TO,
and in fact some people originally thought that world.com was real too.
No doubt they tried to finger Electra@world.com to see who Electra
really was, and of course found out that world.com didn't exist.

They then complained about how they had been 'fooled' and how
cowardly, dishonest and deceitful Electra had been to use a pretend
name. There was a lot of indignant complaints about Electra's 'forged'
name and how she was trying to fool everyone etc. So she changed her
name to simply Electra@vfz.anonymous so that at least no one could
complain about the treachery.

Electra explained very calmly that she had no intention of fooling
people or making them think her address was real, she explained very
carefully that she didn't want to 'forge' anyone else's name, or fool
anyone, but only to use an anonymous pen name for her own protection.

It turns out that the people who screamed and yelled the most
bitterly about how deceitful and underhanded Electra's anonymous
postings were, were the very people who had the most knowledge of
anonymous postings through their own involvement in alt.forgery! This I
checked out for myself.

Anyhow, Nick worked as the news admin at mintaka and received
Scott's letter. He saw fit to respond to the letter and repost his
response plus Scott's letter to the a.r.s. newsgroup publicly.

Now you have all read most of what Electra had posted to a.r.s,
because I have reposted it as EXM-1 through EXM-29. There may have been
some small exchanges that Electra chose to not send me for reposting,
but what I have reposted is pretty much what she originally put on the
net. You can judge for yourself whether Scott Goehring's description of
her material fits it well.

Anyhow, Electra took all this in stride and a few weeks later she
posted 9 more postings in one day, probably to avoid giving the tracers
any time to catch her act. She posted them through mintaka as before
probably figuring that since Nick had stood up for her before it was
safe to continue posting through that site. She wrote a letter to Nick
thanking him for his strong stand for freedom of speech, which you will
read in EXM-30, and she called for the creation of a new news group
devoted to the Free Zone.

Nothing ever came of that call for the new group, and Electra was
never heard from again.

I personally checked the NNTP port at mintaka after Goehring's
letter was posted to the net and it was still open which meant that Nick
had decided to leave it open. And Electra did use it one more time in
her last 9 postings. But then I checked that same port again many
months later and it was closed. It is possible that the tracers had
gone above Nick's head to his bosses and gotten THEM to get Nick to
close the port.

The pressures towards silence in this universe are tremendous.

So that is Electra's story as I remember it and have been able to
piece it together. I kept Nick's letter for posterity, hoping someday
to be able to live up to what he had done for me. As I said Electra's
postings meant a lot to me, and Scott Goehring's attitude and actions
incensed me no end, but there was little I could or was willing to do
about it at the time.

It was only a LONG time later that this little dream of Electra's
started to foment in my mind as I began to regain my strength and nerve
from my auditing, mostly of her material.

I remember making my first postings to a.r.s., practically scared
out of my wits, kind of pretending to not be myself, but using my own
name. When I lived through the week, my car didn't blow up, my house
wasn't bombed, I became more confident and started to post more on what
my real feelings were.

One day I received a disk in the mail without a return address. I
opened it up and plugged it into my computer. It had the Electra
Material on it. There was no note, no instructions, no explanation, no
nothing, just the postings.

To my unconstrained joy I found that Electra HAD continued to write
after she had left off at EXM-38, (I thought she had been taken out by
the Church) and she had seen fit to send the whole series to me. I have
spent the time since reading and rereading them, studying them in every
detail, and auditing the hell out of the processes and concepts that she
gave me. The entire series called ADO-1 through ADO-10 came directly
from her material as I gradually made her material 'my own'.

After that though the little red disk sat on my desk for a LONG
time while I considered long and hard what the future of a chicken might
look like.

When I finally saw what was at the end of that trail, I saw I had a
job to do, and I did it.

The rest is history.

I couldn't have done it if the material hadn't worked.

Homer


Article 1359 of alt.religion.scientology
Newsgroups alt.religion.scientology
Path batcomputer!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-
state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!yale!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!nntp!nick
From nick@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu (Nick Papadakis)
Subject An open letter to Electra, Scott Goehring, and the readers of
this newsgroup
In-Reply-To Electra@vfz.anonymous's message of 27 Jan 92 231634 GMT
Message-ID <NICK.92Jan27214102@ghoti.lcs.mit.edu>
Followup-To alt.religion.scientology
Sender news@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
References <27jan92-83791@vfz.anonymous>
Date Tue, 28 Jan 1992 024102 GMT
Lines 42


Hello. I am the system manager for the Laboratory for Computer
Science at MIT. I recently received the following message

> To usenet@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
> Subject forged postings originating at your site
> Date Mon, 27 Jan 92 091624 -0500
> From Scott Goehring <goehring@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>

> There has been a recent spate of forged postings to
>alt.religion.scientology originating from your site. The poster in
>question is being belligerent and harassing. Since this same poster
>has also been forging postings from several other sites on the USENET,
>I thought I would bring the probably unauthorized use of your news
>system to your attention.
>
> I shall include the headers of the most recent article which
>appears to have been forged at your site for your reference.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Scott Goehring


Mr. Goehring, I believe you need a short lesson in the operation
of free speech. I have no particular opinions on the subject of this
newsgroup, but I took the trouble to read some of the "belligerent and
harassing" postings of which you speak, and, frankly, they weren't.

It seems to me that your attempt to characterize them as such stems
from a desire to stifle ideas with which you disagree. I have no
intention of cooperating with you in this. The remedy for speech with
which you disagree is more speech, not a silencing (the rather low
signal-to-noise ratio on usenet notwithstanding).

If these postings offend you, I suggest you find out how "kill
files" work, rather than wasting the time of overworked system
administrators who aren't being underpaid to deal with this sort of
childishness.

- nick

- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith This file may be found at
homer@lightlink.com ftp.lightlink.com/pub/homer/act/EXM29B.MEMO

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 26 18:06:03 EST 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm29b.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jan 29 14:57:45 EST 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/exm/exm29b.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFYjkk6URT1lqxE3HERAiHFAKCT1mTN3kw7stdFFMk0qufhOx0mwwCfZ2Zc
ctsgonFx/XRykuwWeojlAfA=
=oUep
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE86 (fwd)

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

ON THE WINGS OF THE DICOM III

This posting depends on two earlier postings.

http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/ado13.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore85.memo

Homer:
>> Some people, if you don't GIVE them any tech, they don't HAVE any
>> tech. You see the problem with this, right?

XXXXX:
> Well so far my path has been to squirrel around until my TA is at six and
> then my ep is to cave in:-)...
> So I need a better path.

OK, this is a good sign. It means you are missing the real items
on your case, the ones that can kill you. I am in the same shape, and
gain is very hard, but when it comes it is interstellar, then we crash
and burn again.

by the way the items that can kill you are something like,

To cause the death of (forever).
To kill
To Murder etc.

Try running "What would make you real happy to get up and start
killing people forever for free."

That WHAT is the oppterm of your present time truncated (incomplete
GPM).

It is the restraint on acting against that what is that is killing
YOU. Don't forget the ANDS, to kill AND not to kill at the same time.

Don't figure that anyone has it all taped out, they don't. People
who are 'stable' are for the birds, just skating on thin ice, whistling
past the grave yard.

That's why you aren't allowed to SAY anything to them, you might
disturb their pretense of an F/N and turn it into a head lopping R/S.

They would be happier lopping heads, but what would society think?

The computation on the case is why its right to lop heads.

The anti computation on the case is why its not right to lop heads.

The computation and the anti computation together form an AND.

To lop heads AND to not lop heads at the same time.

That's not an indecision, should I lop heads or shouldn't I?

An indecision is idling deciding which way to go.

And AND is a DECISION to BOTH lop heads AND not lop heads at the
same time forever.

That's full power nuts, pedal to the metal.

That he isn't going anywhere, is covered in the dust and smoke from
the spinning burning tires.

Take a look at the negative awareness characteristic chart.

HELP
HOPE
DEMAND FOR IMPROVEMENT
NEED FOR CHANGE
FEAR OF WORSENING
BEING AN EFFECT <- TRYING TO MAKE OTHER'S AN EFFECT AND FAILING
RUIN <- THIS GAME IS RUINED
DESPAIR <- MUST RUN CAN'T RUN
SUFFERING <- TERROR/HORROR
NUMBNESS <- BEING EATEN
INTROVERSION <- QUESTION ASKING, WHATS WRONG WITH ME?
DISASTER <- REVIVS (ALL GAMES ARE RUINED)
INACTUALITY <- NO DISASTER
DELUSION
HYSTERIA <- ANDS
SHOCK <- INCREDIBILITY
CATATONIA <- HEAD BANGING
OBLIVION <- "Who me? What problem?"

You are trying to bring your preclear from under oblivion, (run
nothing there, something there), to HYSTERIA (run ANDS), to INACTUALITY
(run NO PROBLEM, SOME PROBLEM) up to DISASTER and blow the reviv with
dianetics, run the INTROVERSION (spot self answering questions), and get
the guy up to DESPAIR.

Confronting DESPAIR he will find his first God Postulate and end
the must run/can't run. Then pull his overts on trying to win a game by
making other's be the effect, killing, death, murder, the regrets, the
collateral damage, and he becomes free to float up to hope and helping
others.

If they run the GPM properly all the way, they exit the GPM and become neither
interested in lopping heads nor helping those whose heads are being
lopped.

You see freedom from goals isn't human any more.

The polite social human has simply forgotten what he wants to kill.

That's OBLIVION.

So he lives in drugs, sex and rock and roll, and tries to remain
civil until he dies of it, cancer, heart attacks, brain turmors,
whatever.

Poor me, sympathy, sniff, sniff.

Yes that is harsh, wait 'til you meet God, and see what He thinks
of your travail.

Travail is absolutely real inside the context of the GPM, its a
travesty of ludicrous demise outside.

Where ever and however your preclear is choking down the intent to
kill, that part of his body homogenizes and starts to die from the force
and counter force, bubbling rancor.

It helps to have a good auditor, and to be a good auditor, but it
helps most to have someone audit you who knows they are clueless so they
don't force you into wrong items and ways of being.

There are many of worth in the freezone.

>> Take respect and not respect. He respects some things, and
>> doesn't respect other things, and he takes his respect VERY SERIOUSLY.
>> You see, it owns him, he doesn't own it. He isn't free to make things
>> he would not respect and to destroy things he does respect,
>
> So are we talking for the most part about implants, and postulates made
> after an engram that might involve the creation of ser-fac's and new
> valences? I ask because running implants I am comfortable with, I just
> confront and sort of probe them until they as-is, with no process comands at
> all. I have no idea how to run out or spot valences on myself.

Run detested self images, just notice how much you detest them :)

Yeah spot and poof is very good, using pervasion and conductance,
rather than withdrawal and resistence. Life will present the next set
of masses necessary to run, the trick is to the find what they are
about, that's the hard part. One has to sometimes just shut up and
confront them for a LONG time before one gets a glimpse into what they
are about, then they start to come undone and vanish.

One expects human suffering to come from human reasons, that just
ain't right, so the human will find he has no clue while auditing, what
it is about, and once he shuts up about it, it might start presenting
itself to him, if he can handle the dicom.

A valence on oneself is something valuable to you. What part of
you, if it were to be destroyed or endangered, would really be a problem
to you, like you wouldn't exist any more etc.

Those are valences.

What gets your jucies flowing in battle?

What is it that when someone else claims to be good at something,
it just makes you stand up and feel 'how dare you claim to be better at
this than me!' That's the valence you are being at the moment, your most
prized 'expertness'.

What is it that makes you hit the floor running in karate stance?
That's your most detested enemy, your Nemesis One. These two give you
reason to get up in the morning. Morning is a good time to audit them
just after waking. The impulse to get up dramatizes one's whole case.

>> but as a sovereign Creator in control of his own experience as a
>>Creature, he has to be able to make both sides of the wings of the
>>dicom.

> Ok... What is a dicom? Is it a dichotomy?

Yes.

DICOM = DIchotomy of Comparable and Opposite Magnitude.

> >The Void, freedom, lives in the center of the wings.
>
> So you mean something like pan-deterninism?

Yes. Consider the Author. A story of nothing but good people is
boring. A story of nothing but evil people is boring.

The author creates a meticulous interweave of good and evil,
producing art. The good story is not the same thing as the good
character. What makes a character in a story good, is not what makes
the whole story good, it needs both sides of the dicom.

Consider what you are being. Consider what would create what you
are being. That gets you to spot the Creator/Creature dicom.

>> He is parked at the respect end of the wing, trying to be
>> respectable and fighting everything that is not respectable, and thus
>> sliding ever so inexorably towards the other side of the wings.
>> Eventually he becomes an abomination.
>> So you run any process you know that will break the process of
>> dramatization, of taking respect and not respect seriously,
>> permanently, importantly and with pain etc.
>
> Does this mean that just finding dramatizations and running them out with
> any process I like will keep me blowing charge for a few years?

Forever. Yes as long as it is the next dramatization in line that
really needs to be run. If you run too shallow you will get all messed
up, if you run too deep you will scare the living daylights out of your
self and feel you have no permission 'to go there'. If you just remain
open to what you as Creator/Creature show you, the proper ball will land
in your hands and you can run it. Running the item is different than
running WITH the item which is being carried away by the dramatization.

> I would
> like to find something like that, that I can just keep on running and keep
> on getting better instead of wondering what kind of charge do I run next.

One of the primary aberrations in the being is Questions and
Answers.

The very asking of a Question can be a dramatization. The NEED for
answers, the inability to just ask the question and not need an answer
etc. Questions about dramatizations can take you deep into dramatizing,
as they seem so important to answer!

The whole fabric of 'reality' starts to come apart when you start
to spot the dramatizations of questions and answers.

The whole of TROM (a process) is based on

The Goal to Know The Goal to Not Be Known
The Goal to not Know The Goal to Be Known.

It is in the archives under act7x.memo in the homer directory.

The need to blow charge itself forms charge if you start to fail.
One needs to make optimum case gain. Too much and one falters with 'no
permission'. Too little and one starts to panic with 'I am getting no
where and time is running out'.

Check out what drugs people do. Downers are used to stop
case gain that is happening too fast. Uppers are used to speed
up case gain that is happening too slow.

>> You have simple dianetics "Locate an incident of respect/not
>> respect",
>
> If I did that I would run a chain of "respect " and then a chain of "not
> respect" ? They wouldn't both be run together as one dianetic item right?

Well if you are willing to throw off Orthodox Scientology, and just
run with things as they come to you, you can run a lot of bank in a very
short period of time. particularly if you start running the *MASSES*
and the efforts that make them through out the day, without worrying
about specific events or 'memories'.

The being is living life like "I respect this, I don't respect
that", tick tock, tick tock, every day, all day, 24 hours a day, even in
his dreams. You can quickly see that they form a tightly interwoven
stream of charge, like the DNA helix, that goes back from present time
into the past, and also into the future.

Where he respects something but can't have it, he has charge, where
he doesn't respect something but has to have it, he has charge.

So they form a sort of long term continuous spiral of mass into the
past, that ranges in intensity from light locks to heavy death efforts.
What you respect and don't respect can get you killed and make you kill
others, and get yourself killed in the name of the cause etc.

Same is true of any dicom.

And then you have your masses, your BT's masses, THEIR BT's masses,
the body's masses, and everyone else's masses all doing the same damn
thing, DNA helix back into the past and into the future on respect and
not respect.

The future isn't hard to audit if you just understand that the guy
is concerned about losses that WILL happen just as bad as about losses
that HAVE happened. There is much more charge on the future than on the
past. Engrams from the past only charge up BECAUSE of the future.

Try "How do you feel about your eternal future?"

If you contact one of these things properly, like I mean its really
the next item you need to run because your whole life is dramatizing it
etc, your needle will cascade down to 2.5 and float for *HOURS* and
produce a smile you can't wipe off your face.

Can you imagine being in love again with the AllThatIS?

Then the next item will kick in and your TA will go to 6 and stay
there for a year until you find it.

>> you have all the Grades, Comm, problems, withholds, arc
>> breaks, make wrongs, service fac computations on the subjects of
>> respect and not respect, and everyone else's also. You have goals and
>> terminals on respect and not respect
>
> But where can I find the comands for running goals and terminals, as I
> mentioned I have never done the clearing course?

Forget that. The clearing course is a lot of spotting on weird
GPMS. Its a lot of eval. You don't need it. Its on the net if you
really want to know about it, but Hubbard sold it as if it were the end
all of aberration.

The commands of the clearing course are merely to spot the given
items until the meter no longer reads. So its spot and poof again.
You don't need any other 'process', and the items that you need to run
are right in front of your face and life, not on the clearing course.

In looking for a process, you are looking for what question to ask
or what subject to broach. Questions are bad for you, so take a look
at what subject to broach. Who or what do you want to kill? Once you
spot the WHAT, the class of whos, the whole thing starts to come apart
on its own.

Spot where you are dying, spot what kill/death/murder is being
suppressed, don't ask what, just look at it until you see it, and then
watch the whole game come apart in fury and surprise.

> and you have the whole CDEINR
>> scale on respect and not respect.
>
> So for example, if "curious about not respect" got a read, I would run
> "curious about not respect" earlier similar to EP and then run "respect" the
> same way? Or would I have to check for a read on each terminal seporately.
> Which would mean that I might be running only one terminal if the other
> didn't read??

You seem to be very 'into' standard Scn procedure which was
developed so that one person can help another in a very standard rote
way.

Me, I can never run E/S, because my memory as such does not work
at all. In fact I balk at any 'remember at time' type commands.

When I found the respect/not respect item for myself, I ran it very
simply on the meter for a while with,

"What do you respect?"
"What do you not respect?"

"Spot something you do not respect"
"Spot something you respect"

Then it became ludicrous as I SAW the masses created by the real
time dramatization of respect
and not respect.

I also saw that asking the QUESTIONS above was just more
dramatization, and that it was more important for me to simply keep an
eye on how I was dramatizing in real time than to ask any question about
it or run any rote commmand on it. That isn't DOING IT.

Running 'What do I respect or not respect' is not
respecting or not respecting, do you see?

The solution to dramatizing A, is not to ask questions about
dramatizing A because question asking is dramatizing B. Asking
questions helps at first, but then one just gets into the grove of
DOING IT, of DOING A and watching DOING A and watching the masses
vanish and cease to affect you and drive you into further
dramatization.

So instead I would run today:

"Spot something you respect"
"Spot something you do not respect."

Or even,

"Get the idea of respecting something".
"Get the idea of not respecting something."


>> You also have Adorian stair cases like
>>
>> The Beauty of Respect
>> The Ugly of Respect
>> The Beauty of No Respect
>> The Ugly of No Respect
>
> What is "Adorian stair cases" , never heard of it before?

ADORE is my own religion.

It stands for A Divine Operating REligion.

A staircase is like a descending tone scale.

The guy starts off with

The Beauty of Memory. Then he does something bad and goes to
The Ugly of Memory. Then he does a lot of drugs and goes to
The Beauty of No Memory. Then he realizes he can't remember anything
any more and goes into
The Ugly of No Memory, and wants auditing!

There is lots of stuff on this in the homer directory of the
archives.

>> So that adds up to about 2 million different 'processes' to run
>> on the pc and his items, so you choose the one that indicates.
>>
>> Simply "What do you respect?", "What do you not respect?" is
>> enough to break into the dramatization while it is going on and kick
>> the being upstairs to Creator/Author and away from Creature/Character.
>
> And that would of course be run alternating comands right?

Yeah, for me when I hit the item, I ran it back and forth,
listing each question until the next one became interesting, then back
to the first one again. Nothing was run rote, too much energy to keep
composure and anality about being rote etc.

I just kept at which ever side of the dicom was interesting at
the moment.

> I was just reading about the "Over Under" process and the author of the
> posting said that it probably wouldn't run well on solo. So are ther
> certain types of processes that shouldn't be run solo?

Don't know. It takes a really deep understanding of why
processing works to understand what makes a solo process work well.

Most processes aren't things you would do to your worst enemy,
but they get the pc to cough up or vomit up items that the pc can then
run. The pc doesn't consciously know how to pervade, and he doesn't
know that he SHOULD pervade, and he is quite sure he shouldn't
pervade, so you trick him into pervading anyhow by getting him to tell
you about the accident over and over again.

"Go to the beginning of the incident, tell me when you are there."

Running this solo is like putting your nose to the grindstone.

Forget it. If you have an item, real solo auditing is more like
doing a touch assist on your space/time track, all around over and
under the incident. Certainly you don't tell yourself 'Go to the
beginning tell me when you are there!'. You poke around from
beginning to end and before and after and all over the known universe
including other's incidents until its flat for you. If you try to run
R3R rotely on yourself, you are taking your attention off of doing
what is actually working to release the incident which is pervasion
and replication of the efforts and postulates.

Again *LOOKING* and *NOT LOOKING* is much more effective than
looking for a *QUESTION* to ask. Look at your life, spot the
dramatizations. Don't look for questions to ask ABOUT your life. AS-IS
takes place at the level of knowingness, not at the level of knowing
aboutness (questions/answers).

People who know alot about what questions to audit others with,
tend to be in lousy case state themselves, even if they can help others.
Because they can not pervade, they can only ask questions, and although
asking another a question, in the beginning, will help him pervade in
spite of himself, asking oneself a question takes one further away from
pervading the dramatization.

Once one gets good at pervading, one will shoot any auditor that
asks questions of you because questions are Q&A with just simply DOING
IT.

Asking "What am I dramatizing now?" is rhetorically correct, but
lousy solo because the answer is "You are dramatizing asking a stupid
question about your GPMs, rather than dramatizing the GPM and SEEING
what you are doing!"

The guy asking "What am I dramatizing now?" isn't dramtizing what
he is looking for, so how is he going to see it?

Better to just give the command,

"Dramatize your next item!"
"Tell me about it.

If the pc says "But I don't know what my next item is, how can I
dramatize it?" tell him to shut the fuck up and dramatize his next item!

He is trying to look at himself doing it, that won't work, as that
is putting separation in there between the pc and his item. FIRST get
him to dramatize it, THEN in retrospect he can start to put separation
in himself and report back what he is doing.

Asking questions about what one is doing, is not DOING IT.

You need to DO IT and OBSERVE DOING IT to as-is dramtization. No
questions are needed at all.

>> We want the being willing and able to artistically make both
>> sides of all dicoms, good and evil, light and dark, love and hate etc.
>> The Creator as Author creates tapestries of space/time manifestations
>> of these dicoms at war with each other.
>> God is not good. God is Author. Creatures/Characters are good
>> or evil, and to the degree that they take themselves seriously,
>> permanently, importantly and with pain, they lose. Because there is
>> no willingness to create the other side. Once the Good get the idea
>> "Hey lets create some evil so we can have a game!" they are no longer
>> good, they are Author again. That is the final E/P of all auditing.
>
> Sounds great!
> Are there items that can't be run as terminals? I mean can ideas and
> concepts and mest things all be run as terminals?

Terminals are solid masses that are being something.

A Teacher with the Goal to Teach is a terminal.

They are identities, valences, taken on by the being to resist
everything that he considers bad in the world and which shouldn't
exist, ignorance, stupidity, dufussness, whatever opposes The Teacher
in his mind.

Items can be terminals like Teacher, Goals like To Teach, or just
relationships between Teach and Taught like respect. Run Whatever
comes up. It's important to get the terminals, the goals and the
attitudes (like respect/not respect) that glue the being to his
Nemesis One.

All are runnable and must be run with spot and poof.

But notice it is way more important to get the WHAT than the WHO.
Mrs. Jones was a nut case, but she was a TEACHER and the GPM is on
TEACHERS not Mrs. Jones.

>> It doesn't matter WHO you audit, yourself, your body, your
>> friends, your families, bugs, animals, universes, gods, BT's, etc.
>> Everyone is dramatizing. Wherever you can get a wedge in that
>> dramatization, no matter who it is, you free someone from something.
>> The point is to find deep items,
>
> By "deep" do you mean items that are basic or fundimental to life, right?

Yes. Items that underlie EVERYTHING, like respect, choice,
willingness etc.

Doesn't matter whether the guy is being a Teacher or a Soldier,
respect is applicable to both. Probably there isn't a terminal in the
universe that doesn't have respect/not respect underlying it. So if you
manage to hit one of these types of items, relationships between
terminal and opposed, it will run out the charge of ALL terminals and
opposed terminals at once without ever knowing what they are!

That makes it much easier to run the actual terminals later
when they do pop up, which they will.

I can't tell you what item you need to run next, you will find
it, and even if you tell it to others, it won't be their next item
either, even if it is fundamental. But as each being runs his own
items, the whole fabric of encasement between beings starts to come
apart.

>>for example just for yuks, try
>> 1.) Respect - Not Respect
>> 2.) Chosen - Not Chosen
>> 3.) Benefit - Detriment
>>
>> Spot them in operation, that is the basic 'process'. Everything
>> more complicated than that is rote mechanical auditing that works and
>> serves its purpose but eventually is just so much dev-t, to a mind
>> that can make and not make at will.
>
> Yes, so I would eventually hope to just run the terminals by confront with
> no comands?

Yes. I would discriminate between questions and commands.

Asking a pc "What are you dramatizing?" is a question.

Telling the pc "Dramatize!" "Tell me about it!" is a command.

When you first wake up, notice the commands you give to 'Live your
life.' Notice the seriousness, importance, permanence and pain of your
concerns about the future. Fear and Need.

Notice the interweave of your postulates and how you are just SURE
they are right because you OBSERVE they are right, rather than change
your mind and have it be otherwise because you are a Creator that
precipitates everything you conceive of in the very conception of it.

Again one needs to change one's mind in the right order, the next
postulate in line that needs to be reversed is waiting for you to spot
it. These are called God Postulates by Adore, because you CAN change
your mind about them, and alter your entire future effortlessly. But
try to change them out of order, and they all hang up and freeze you on
a Cross of pride and shame.

So the auditing game is to continue spotting your dramatizations in
present time, your get up and gos with seriousness, and in those
dramatizations and the reason for their existence, spot the God
Postulates that you believe are true because you observe they are true,
when in fact they are true only because in the moment you say they are.

Once you find one of these, and you change your mind on them,
the POWER that is yours at that moment is unfathomable.

We aren't talking 'well and happy human being here'.

We are talking something else that makes a well and happy human
being worry about permission and places that Angels dare not tread and
Gods go screaming for their mama.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jan 26 12:06:02 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore86.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)

iD8DBQFYiix6URT1lqxE3HERAu0IAKCvH7GSbabS3wtXAWa9uGMqp2i8JACfcmkY
x5NHpIURAioh3x191rUy+JY=
=CYTA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l