-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
A DEADLY PROCESS
If you wish to experience some really dangerous and rough clearing
techology at work, get someone to run the following on you, or do it to
them.
"Get the idea of not having a body."
"Get the idea of having a body."
"Get the idea of the body being in(side) you."
"Get the idea of being in(side) the body."
"Get the idea of BEING a body."
Start at the top and run to the bottom, then starta again at the top,
round robin style, past the puking your brains out part, or chasing your
heart all over the room to stop it from pounding, to a good stable win,
and awareness who is what, where and when, and what the relationship
between the being and the body are.
Demo session:
Auditor: "Get the idea of not having a body."
Preclear: "I can do that... OK!"
Auditor: "Thank you."
Auditor: "Get the idea of having a body"
Preclear: "No problem, yak yak... OK!"
Auditor: "Thank you."
Auditor: "Get the idea of..."
etc.
Repeat the complete cycle of 5 over and over to cognition, win,
exteriorization, or death.
Make sure preclear says OK at the end of his communication if
any, that's his signal he is handing the auditing ball back to you.
ready for the next command.
This process can be run again across many months and years as
necessary.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Mar 27 14:48:31 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 30 12:06:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore967.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)
iD8DBQFY3SzqURT1lqxE3HERAn8dAKDDvTXWV9OJB97SNt6Cj9nD5wlUSACdGlLo
nXqSuN7ZQ/Xz/TFvs6qDrZw=
=hE4B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, March 31, 2017
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
MCT2 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE GUY IN THE TANK
MCT - 2
13 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
>HS> Have you observed that observation is subjective and prone to
> > flawed interpretation?
>
>Yes. I've seen multiple observers have multiple and sometime
>contradictory interpretations, which suggests a potential for
>inaccuracy. Have you observed that observation is not subjective?
Your implication is that subjective implies flawed.
This is true if subjective observations are being used to learn
about objective referents, but it is not true if the subjective
observation is ABOUT the subjective experience or color form itself.
One can never know with certainty about anything other than what
one is looking at. If one is looking at his subjective color form to
determine what is true in the outside world, then of course his
observations, being done on a via, are uncertain.
Just because I SEE a Chris Schafmeister doesn't mean there IS a
Chris Schafmeister. However the fact that I SEE something does mean
that I SEE something, and that is certain.
Subjective observations are always certain when they are about
themselves, and such subjective observations are the ONLY kind of
observations that CAN be certain, because the observation is being done
on a direct contact basis and not on an implication from a via.
People have discounted the importance of observations about color
form because they are so worried about the physical universe that what
the color form IMPLIES about the external world is more important to
them than what it implies about the internal world.
You can't eat immortality.
This is short sighted though. I will admit we do need to eat, and
so uncertain knowledge gained through our subjective color form ABOUT
the hypothesized outside world is important, but it is also important to
know that our subjective color form ITSELF does not work on space-time
mechanical principles. If it did, we couldn't see it.
Machines are quite blind. They can't SEE, they can only respond.
RED COLOR FORM IS ITS OWN THING, machines can not SEE RED.
They can't see anything.
>I am certain when I have total confidence that my analysis cannot be
>wrong because it is a flawless application of deductive logic arriving
>at certain conclusions from given definitions or premises. That sort of
>certainty, however, is conditional on the accuracy of the premises; i.e.
>IF the premises are true, THEN the conclusion is true. In reality, it
>is a very rare premise that has 0 percent chance of being wrong.
Very rare premise? That says that there ARE premises that can be
certain. You can not say I am wrong about the existence of certainty
only because it is rare. Either it exists or it don't.
Anyhow we agree that the logic of a proof can be certain, but then
we have to ascertain the possible certainty of the premises, which
themselves, to be meaningful to reality, have to be actual observations
about reality.
I agree that finding certainty in observations is hard, but only if
one is using vias to learn. This means of course that, since we use our
conscious color form to learn about the supposed external universe, and
that we can not know about the external universe EXCEPT through our
conscious color forms, that there is no hope of a certain observation
about the external universe.
Therefore all the certainty that can ever be would have to be about
our own personal conscious color forms and our self.
It also follows that proof of the existence of the supposed
external universe is impossible.
The supposed external 'objective' universe, is at best a theory
developed to model what we observe with certainty in our conscious color
forms.
>Many persons have felt and expressed certainty and been
>proven wrong. You appear to be suggesting a definition of certainty
>that would necessitate agreement that these people weren't really
>certain when they said and thought they were.
Yes. If certainty is a gradient scale from 0 to 100 percent, and 0
percent means no chance of being right, and 100 percent means no chance
of being wrong, and 50 percent means total uncertainty, then what I mean
by perfect certainty is 100 percent certainty.
It is clear that if a 100 percent certainty can be wrong, then by
default any 100 percent certainty is self discounting, therefore there
IS no 100 percent certainty.
I claim that there are 100 percent certainties that can not be
proven wrong because they are clearly right, and so therefore any OTHER
certainty that was proven wrong, had to have been less than 100 percent
to start with.
Claiming you are 100 percent certain does not mean that you are.
If what you claim to be certain of later proves to be wrong, THAT
proves you weren't really 100 percent certain of it.
Sloppy 'certainties' open the door to being wrong.
>Who, then, is capable of certainty? How, then, may I distinguish
>between the certainty of one who is certain and the quasi-certainty of
>one who may be wrong?
You can not distinguish anything about another with certainty, only
about yourself. We are all just as blind to the nature of other people,
even their existence, as we are to the physical universe.
All we can see and know for sure is our own color TV set, our own
conscious color forms.
What other people claim, is merely what other people claim, that
must be for you, BY DEFAULT, an UN certainty.
>HS> I am sorry but what you say does not carry much weight with
> > me as you have already denied the surety of your own words.
>
>Would my words carry more weight if I claimed they were unchallengably
>accurate, correct, and precise?
No just logical.
"All generalities are false.
This sentence is untrue.
There are no absolutes.
There certainly is no certainty."
are all logical contradictions in terms. CERTAINLY. They are
meaningless and self denying. If people can live their lives with
circular self denying statements in their repertoire of 'what's true',
then all the more power to them.
You seem to have said that logic is certain, if so, then being
certain you can't be certain of anything is being illogical. Is it
useful to be illogical?
>I don't insist on defining what machines can have as consciousness, but
>I do see a strong similarity between bioconsciousness and computer
>consciousness.
Yes, bioconsciousness is being used as a TV monitor to display data
about the external universe, much as a soldier in a tank would use a
real TV set to monitor what was going on outside the tank, if he had
external TV cameras attached to the top of the tank on the outside aimed
at the external universe.
>I do see a need to discriminate between them, but I am
>not at all convinced that the presence or lack of "certainty" is the
>characteristic by which one may reasonably assign a CU candidate to
>its appropriate category.
I understand this, you have here demonstrated a complete grasp on
the challenge put before me.
Just as a foretaste of things to come, notice that the guy in a
tank looking at a TV monitor in order to 'learn' about what is going on
in the outside world, can not really be certain of the data coming in,
because anything might be interfering with the cause lines coming in
from the outside world to his TV screen inside the tank.
The image on the TV monitor is a SYMBOL for the external referent
that the symbol refers to and implies things about. A REFERENT is the
object in the external universe that is being referred to or referenced
by the symbol.
What he is trying to learn about is the external referent, HOWEVER
what he SEES is the symbol.
This is called learning about a cause by looking at it's effect.
The symbol is the effect. The referent is the cause.
The symbol is HOPEFULLY an accurate REPRESENTATION of the external
referent. As long as the symbol is an actual effect of the external
cause, then perhaps an argument can be made that the state of the symbol
accurately implies, follows and parallels the state of the external
cause. But there is no way to prove the integrity of the cause lines
coming into the symbol from the external referent.
At any point in the cause lines, someone or something, even God,
could be feeding in false data to the data lines. In a worst case
scenario the guy's data lines could be fed a recording of an external
universe that bore no resemblance to any actual universe present or
past.
Even if he turned the external TV cameras on themselves and their
own data lines to the internal TV monitor, if the lines were corrupt,
anything they might report about their own integrity could be wrong, and
therefore could not be trusted.
Therefore such a mechanical system of learning, which is dependent
on vias or internal symbols to symbolize external referents, HAS to be
uncertain by design.
This is what every one is screaming at me about when they tell me
there can never be any certainty. I KNOW THIS!
It is true because looking at effects (the internal TV monitor)
does not prove cause (the implied external objects represented by the
images on the TV monitor).
The establishment of the absolute CERTAIN UNCERTAINTY inherent in
learning via symbols or learning by looking at effects IS the machine
certainty theorem, namely a machine can not be certain of anything.
The only way a machine can learn about anything including itself is
via 'symbols and referents', or effects implying causes, or changes in
states here implying prior changes in states there.
There are two parts then to the MCT.
The first is to prove WITH CERTAINTY that a machine can not be
certain of anything. Considering how many of you are screaming at me
that certainty certainly doesn't exist, is dangerous, is immoral etc, I
would think this part would be easy.
The second part is to prove that a Conscious Unit CAN be certain of
SOME things concerning its own internal TV set and color forms.
This would imply that the INTERNAL nature by which a CU comes to
know of its own existence AND the nature of its own internal TV set, is
NOT a space-time mechanical process, but something else entirely.
If the process by which a conscious unit came to know of its own
existence and the nature of its own internal TV set of color forms, were
a mechanical process, then the CU could only surmise that maybe it
existed, and it could not know for sure.
It is CERTAINTY of self existence that implies that the conscious
unit is NOT learning about it self by looking at effects which merely
imply its own existence, but rather that it has direct contact WITH its
own existence.
A conscious unit learning about itself is NOT the same thing as a
TV monitor hooked up to a TV camera which is able to look at the TV
monitor. THAT may produce pretty infinite regressions, but it will
never produce a certain conclusion ON the TV monitor that the TV monitor
is there or even that the TV camera is there. The line could be
corrupted or fed a false image anywhere along the causal path. Wouldn't
you be able to see the spurious cable coming in providing the false
feed? Not if the data fed in by the false feed didn't show it!
Even if you have TWO TV cameras looking at each other hooked up to
the same TV monitor you still don't get certainty. What ends up on the
TV monitor may or may not be representative of what is really going on
in reality, in the TV cameras, in the data lines, and in the TV monitor.
There is no way you can get the TV monitor to display WITH
CERTAINTY what is being picked up by the TV cameras.
There is NO way you can hook a TV monitor up to a TV camera in such
a way that the TV monitor ALWAYS CERTAINLY displays what the TV camera
is actually pointed at.
Certainty is not possible in a mechanically linked learning system.
It has nothing in particular to do with nuts and bolts, or wires
d and electrons. It has to do with learning about causes VIA effects,
regardless of what they are made of.
There is CERTAINLY no certainty in that game.
Are we clear on this?
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Mar 27 12:06:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct2.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)
iD8DBQFY2ThqURT1lqxE3HERAqOxAKC+V+ncE4TFY1qVKnm+mJM3WFhJfACfQho3
JoqkCxDtnRM3Uzt9SA0Mgiw=
=Vmro
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE GUY IN THE TANK
MCT - 2
13 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
>HS> Have you observed that observation is subjective and prone to
> > flawed interpretation?
>
>Yes. I've seen multiple observers have multiple and sometime
>contradictory interpretations, which suggests a potential for
>inaccuracy. Have you observed that observation is not subjective?
Your implication is that subjective implies flawed.
This is true if subjective observations are being used to learn
about objective referents, but it is not true if the subjective
observation is ABOUT the subjective experience or color form itself.
One can never know with certainty about anything other than what
one is looking at. If one is looking at his subjective color form to
determine what is true in the outside world, then of course his
observations, being done on a via, are uncertain.
Just because I SEE a Chris Schafmeister doesn't mean there IS a
Chris Schafmeister. However the fact that I SEE something does mean
that I SEE something, and that is certain.
Subjective observations are always certain when they are about
themselves, and such subjective observations are the ONLY kind of
observations that CAN be certain, because the observation is being done
on a direct contact basis and not on an implication from a via.
People have discounted the importance of observations about color
form because they are so worried about the physical universe that what
the color form IMPLIES about the external world is more important to
them than what it implies about the internal world.
You can't eat immortality.
This is short sighted though. I will admit we do need to eat, and
so uncertain knowledge gained through our subjective color form ABOUT
the hypothesized outside world is important, but it is also important to
know that our subjective color form ITSELF does not work on space-time
mechanical principles. If it did, we couldn't see it.
Machines are quite blind. They can't SEE, they can only respond.
RED COLOR FORM IS ITS OWN THING, machines can not SEE RED.
They can't see anything.
>I am certain when I have total confidence that my analysis cannot be
>wrong because it is a flawless application of deductive logic arriving
>at certain conclusions from given definitions or premises. That sort of
>certainty, however, is conditional on the accuracy of the premises; i.e.
>IF the premises are true, THEN the conclusion is true. In reality, it
>is a very rare premise that has 0 percent chance of being wrong.
Very rare premise? That says that there ARE premises that can be
certain. You can not say I am wrong about the existence of certainty
only because it is rare. Either it exists or it don't.
Anyhow we agree that the logic of a proof can be certain, but then
we have to ascertain the possible certainty of the premises, which
themselves, to be meaningful to reality, have to be actual observations
about reality.
I agree that finding certainty in observations is hard, but only if
one is using vias to learn. This means of course that, since we use our
conscious color form to learn about the supposed external universe, and
that we can not know about the external universe EXCEPT through our
conscious color forms, that there is no hope of a certain observation
about the external universe.
Therefore all the certainty that can ever be would have to be about
our own personal conscious color forms and our self.
It also follows that proof of the existence of the supposed
external universe is impossible.
The supposed external 'objective' universe, is at best a theory
developed to model what we observe with certainty in our conscious color
forms.
>Many persons have felt and expressed certainty and been
>proven wrong. You appear to be suggesting a definition of certainty
>that would necessitate agreement that these people weren't really
>certain when they said and thought they were.
Yes. If certainty is a gradient scale from 0 to 100 percent, and 0
percent means no chance of being right, and 100 percent means no chance
of being wrong, and 50 percent means total uncertainty, then what I mean
by perfect certainty is 100 percent certainty.
It is clear that if a 100 percent certainty can be wrong, then by
default any 100 percent certainty is self discounting, therefore there
IS no 100 percent certainty.
I claim that there are 100 percent certainties that can not be
proven wrong because they are clearly right, and so therefore any OTHER
certainty that was proven wrong, had to have been less than 100 percent
to start with.
Claiming you are 100 percent certain does not mean that you are.
If what you claim to be certain of later proves to be wrong, THAT
proves you weren't really 100 percent certain of it.
Sloppy 'certainties' open the door to being wrong.
>Who, then, is capable of certainty? How, then, may I distinguish
>between the certainty of one who is certain and the quasi-certainty of
>one who may be wrong?
You can not distinguish anything about another with certainty, only
about yourself. We are all just as blind to the nature of other people,
even their existence, as we are to the physical universe.
All we can see and know for sure is our own color TV set, our own
conscious color forms.
What other people claim, is merely what other people claim, that
must be for you, BY DEFAULT, an UN certainty.
>HS> I am sorry but what you say does not carry much weight with
> > me as you have already denied the surety of your own words.
>
>Would my words carry more weight if I claimed they were unchallengably
>accurate, correct, and precise?
No just logical.
"All generalities are false.
This sentence is untrue.
There are no absolutes.
There certainly is no certainty."
are all logical contradictions in terms. CERTAINLY. They are
meaningless and self denying. If people can live their lives with
circular self denying statements in their repertoire of 'what's true',
then all the more power to them.
You seem to have said that logic is certain, if so, then being
certain you can't be certain of anything is being illogical. Is it
useful to be illogical?
>I don't insist on defining what machines can have as consciousness, but
>I do see a strong similarity between bioconsciousness and computer
>consciousness.
Yes, bioconsciousness is being used as a TV monitor to display data
about the external universe, much as a soldier in a tank would use a
real TV set to monitor what was going on outside the tank, if he had
external TV cameras attached to the top of the tank on the outside aimed
at the external universe.
>I do see a need to discriminate between them, but I am
>not at all convinced that the presence or lack of "certainty" is the
>characteristic by which one may reasonably assign a CU candidate to
>its appropriate category.
I understand this, you have here demonstrated a complete grasp on
the challenge put before me.
Just as a foretaste of things to come, notice that the guy in a
tank looking at a TV monitor in order to 'learn' about what is going on
in the outside world, can not really be certain of the data coming in,
because anything might be interfering with the cause lines coming in
from the outside world to his TV screen inside the tank.
The image on the TV monitor is a SYMBOL for the external referent
that the symbol refers to and implies things about. A REFERENT is the
object in the external universe that is being referred to or referenced
by the symbol.
What he is trying to learn about is the external referent, HOWEVER
what he SEES is the symbol.
This is called learning about a cause by looking at it's effect.
The symbol is the effect. The referent is the cause.
The symbol is HOPEFULLY an accurate REPRESENTATION of the external
referent. As long as the symbol is an actual effect of the external
cause, then perhaps an argument can be made that the state of the symbol
accurately implies, follows and parallels the state of the external
cause. But there is no way to prove the integrity of the cause lines
coming into the symbol from the external referent.
At any point in the cause lines, someone or something, even God,
could be feeding in false data to the data lines. In a worst case
scenario the guy's data lines could be fed a recording of an external
universe that bore no resemblance to any actual universe present or
past.
Even if he turned the external TV cameras on themselves and their
own data lines to the internal TV monitor, if the lines were corrupt,
anything they might report about their own integrity could be wrong, and
therefore could not be trusted.
Therefore such a mechanical system of learning, which is dependent
on vias or internal symbols to symbolize external referents, HAS to be
uncertain by design.
This is what every one is screaming at me about when they tell me
there can never be any certainty. I KNOW THIS!
It is true because looking at effects (the internal TV monitor)
does not prove cause (the implied external objects represented by the
images on the TV monitor).
The establishment of the absolute CERTAIN UNCERTAINTY inherent in
learning via symbols or learning by looking at effects IS the machine
certainty theorem, namely a machine can not be certain of anything.
The only way a machine can learn about anything including itself is
via 'symbols and referents', or effects implying causes, or changes in
states here implying prior changes in states there.
There are two parts then to the MCT.
The first is to prove WITH CERTAINTY that a machine can not be
certain of anything. Considering how many of you are screaming at me
that certainty certainly doesn't exist, is dangerous, is immoral etc, I
would think this part would be easy.
The second part is to prove that a Conscious Unit CAN be certain of
SOME things concerning its own internal TV set and color forms.
This would imply that the INTERNAL nature by which a CU comes to
know of its own existence AND the nature of its own internal TV set, is
NOT a space-time mechanical process, but something else entirely.
If the process by which a conscious unit came to know of its own
existence and the nature of its own internal TV set of color forms, were
a mechanical process, then the CU could only surmise that maybe it
existed, and it could not know for sure.
It is CERTAINTY of self existence that implies that the conscious
unit is NOT learning about it self by looking at effects which merely
imply its own existence, but rather that it has direct contact WITH its
own existence.
A conscious unit learning about itself is NOT the same thing as a
TV monitor hooked up to a TV camera which is able to look at the TV
monitor. THAT may produce pretty infinite regressions, but it will
never produce a certain conclusion ON the TV monitor that the TV monitor
is there or even that the TV camera is there. The line could be
corrupted or fed a false image anywhere along the causal path. Wouldn't
you be able to see the spurious cable coming in providing the false
feed? Not if the data fed in by the false feed didn't show it!
Even if you have TWO TV cameras looking at each other hooked up to
the same TV monitor you still don't get certainty. What ends up on the
TV monitor may or may not be representative of what is really going on
in reality, in the TV cameras, in the data lines, and in the TV monitor.
There is no way you can get the TV monitor to display WITH
CERTAINTY what is being picked up by the TV cameras.
There is NO way you can hook a TV monitor up to a TV camera in such
a way that the TV monitor ALWAYS CERTAINLY displays what the TV camera
is actually pointed at.
Certainty is not possible in a mechanically linked learning system.
It has nothing in particular to do with nuts and bolts, or wires
d and electrons. It has to do with learning about causes VIA effects,
regardless of what they are made of.
There is CERTAINLY no certainty in that game.
Are we clear on this?
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Mar 27 12:06:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct2.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)
iD8DBQFY2ThqURT1lqxE3HERAqOxAKC+V+ncE4TFY1qVKnm+mJM3WFhJfACfQho3
JoqkCxDtnRM3Uzt9SA0Mgiw=
=Vmro
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, March 26, 2017
ADORE357 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ITEM AND NO ITEM
The source of all aberration is the effort to vanish an is-ness
with a not-isness rather than an as-isness.
Not-isness is the effort to make nothing out of something via
force and mass.
Thus the runnable opposite of Love is not Hate but NO Love.
Thus any item needs to be run as
Item - NO Item
NO is at CDEI NO R on the CDEINR scale.
Curious about
Desires
Enforced
Inhibited
*NO*
Refused
Not-isness is a lower harmonic of native state, no item.
Thus no worry can mean truely no worry at the top of the tone
scale, or it can mean the pretense of no worry at the bottom.
The pretense of no worry is created by force applied to the
is-ness of worry. Where ever there is a NO item there is either
nothing at all, or force applied to a something to create the
apparency of a nothing. Apparencies are reality is at 28.0 on the
tone scale.
If the no item is at as-isness at the tone scale, the meter will
F/N upon calling it. If the no item is at not-isness at the bottom of
the tone scale, the meter will stop and fall. The fall will be a
*CONTROLLABLE* fall, the pc will be able to start and stop it at will
until it expends and starts to rise again.
HIGH TA, no F/N means correct NO Item not yet found.
Items are encased in alternatiing current flows, item, no item,
item, no-item with a frequency ranging from less than a second to a
couple of minutes or hours.
Thus if item does not read, call no item. If no item doesn't
read call item.
Say pc is worried sick, you call worry, no read. So you call no
worry, meter cascades down a few dials. Go clear the word CASCADE
until you understand what meter action should look like.
The needle stops, then falls beautifully and slowly, and then it
begins to rest and just as you are about to call again, it falls again
and rests, and then falls again and rests. That's a cascade. If you
have ever seen one on yourself you know what freedom feels like.
*FREEDOM IS NO NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO GET THE NEEDLE TO FALL INTO
FLOATING RANGE AND TO KEEP FLOATING*.
It's the TA coming down by itself, no need to work at it, the flows
are running back and forth and the pc is just watching the whole thing
unravel and vanish in front of his eyes.
Why would NO worry read if the pc is ostensibly worried? The pc
has NO idea about worry, the worry item won't run because its a fumarole
blowing off steam.
The NO worry item will *EXPLODE* because it's the volcano.
A cascade is the lava moving carrying all of creation with it.
Thus whatever items the pc gives you, do not fail to run the NO
item.
Sometimes the auditing gets out of sync with the alternating
flows and the needle stops working. Get back into sync with the flows
by calling the same item twice.
worry read
no worry read
worry read
no worry read
worry no read
worry read
no worry read
worry read
*THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. OUT OF SYNC AUDITING WILL MISS ALL THE
CHARGE ON THE ITEM LEAVING IT BYPASSED AND MISSED*
Missed means you came close to the right item, but missed it.
Wrong wording, wrong tense, wrong verb, wrong something not quite right.
Bypassed means you nailed it, then went on by it.
Sometimes the charge is so hot there is a pause between the stop
and the cascade. PC Q&A's with the pain, knows he shouldn't go there,
unwilling to have a 10 minute flow of anoxic hysteria so he gets the
stop when he first calls the item, then does something other than allow
the cascade to flow.
That's a bypass.
Sometimes the wording is wrong and initially reads on correct item
but unstated item anyhow, but starts to dry up, pc tries harder and
harder and gets into a crunch, doesn't want more auditing.
For example opposite of something is NOT nothing.
Something - NO something
Nothing - NO nothing
Someone - NO someone
One - NO one
Get the wording wrong, you are dead.
No reality on this?
Reality - NO Reality
Unreality - NO Unreality
Creators create questions, creatures seek to answer them.
Question - NO Question
Answer - NO Answer
Questions are of the form who, how, *WHAT*, where, when, why and
which. Also "Is it?", and "Does it?".
Asking questions with the intent to answer them will crush the bank
into an unresolvable black mass. Implants exist that complusively force
the pc to ask WHAT IS THAT? 10 minutes later the pc is so sick he can't
talk.
Difference between an OT and an aberree is you toss a question to
an aberree he will run with it and try to answer it. He can't help
himself or stop it, he will convulsively throw every ounce of power into
trying to answer that question for just a millisecond. Then go into
apathy, then get wildly sick an irrelevant amount of time later. This
is in part why he never spots the cause and effect of it all. Some
flows move slowly, especially the kick back flows of failed question
asking.
The OT will run the question out, run the efforts to answer the
question out. The OT doesn't care about answers,
Answers, 'truth', 'wisdom', 'knowledge' are not important
to an OT.
An OT inherently operates properly from innate knowing how to
operate, not from endless know abouts, and PHD diplomas on the wall.
The more junk the guy knows, the less OT he is.
Knowing junk is good for playing games of survival in the
MEST universe, but it all has weight, and eventually those with
the most education sink the fastest in the pits of spiritual failure,
to maintain ability to enter and leave games at will.
Those that can leave a game at will, can leave the knowing junk
about that game behind too!
Thus when running items do NOT run,
What item is there? What NO item is there?
This will kill your pc.
Even "Is there item? Is there NO item?" will doom him to question
asking, because you are inviting him to *ANSWER* a question.
If the pc CAN answer 'I don't know' to any auditing command, it is
a bad command.
Answering questions is fine for noodlers, but will ruin a volcanoe
climber. Actually it ruins noodlers too if you ever noticed.
2500 hours of answering 'What's it' will produce an army of
marching monsters.
If you have to word process use something like
"Spot some Mortality. Spot some NO Mortality".
"Spot some Immortality. Spot some NO Immortality."
"Spot some Eternality. Spot some NO Eternality."
Or "Get the idea of item. Get the idea of NO item"
Or "Say there is item. Say there is NO item."
While soloing this, just call the item.
Male - NO Male
Female - NO Female
Male and Female - NO Male and Female
The guy has been wanting a trans sex body forever. He has one,
its just in a tomb at the moment.
Remember ANDS run when OR's won't, each of the above dicoms
should also be tested as
"Doubt" - "NO Doubt" - "Doubt AND No Doubt"
Primary items to start with are:
Certainty - NO Certainty
Uncertainty - NO Uncertainty
Doubt - NO doubt
Then continue with all basics,
Desire - NO Desire
View - NO View
Consideration - NO Consideration
Postulate - NO Postulate
Cause - NO Cause
Effect - NO Effect
Static - NO Static
Kinetic - NO Kinetic
Matter - NO Matter
Energy - NO Energy
Space - NO space
Time - NO time
Memory - NO memory
Forget - NO forget.
Then all dicoms,
White - NO White
Black - NO Black
Color - NO Color
Beauty - NO Beauty
Ugly - NO Ugly
Love - NO Love
Hate - NO Hate
Good - NO Good
Evil - NO Evil
Bugs - NO Bugs
Babes - NO Babes
Run the entire Awareness characteristic chart from Unexistence up
to Source. Full scale is in the tech dictionary.
Hope - NO hope
Help - NO Help
Demand for improvement - NO Demand for Improvement
Need for change - NO need for change.
Fear of worsening - NO Fear of worsening
Being an effect - NO being an effect.
Ruin - NO Ruin
Despair - NO Despair
Suffering - NO Suffering
Numbness - NO Numbness
Introversion - NO Introversion
Disaster - NO Disaster
Inactuality - NO Inactuality
Hysteria - NO Hysteria
Shock - NO Shock
Catatonia - NO Cataonia
Oblivion - NO Oblivion
If item won't read, NO item almost always will, then item will
read, back and forth until flatter than a one sided pan cake. Then next
item up.
If any item doesn't run, reverse it a few times, try to find the
sync time and order, if no run, let it go. You will probably come back
to it someday.
Pc will finally spot himself on the Awareness Charcteristic Scale
and find his 'wall' to future improvement.
Take every possible grammatical form of item and run it too.
Helpless - NO Helpless
Hopeless - NO Hopeless
Hapless - NO Hapless
Run the entire emotional tone scale from Sovereignty to Spirital
Death. Run it bottom up as always.
Sovereignty - NO Sovereignty
Courage - NO Courage
Enthusiasm - NO Enthusiasm
Monotony - NO Monotony
Anger - NO Anger
Fear - NO Fear
Sorrow - NO Sorrow
Apahty - NO Apathy
Symapthy - NO Sympathy
NO-Sympathy - NO NO-Symapthy
Unexpressed Resentment - NO Unexpressed Resentment.
Propitation - NO Propitiation
Regret - No Regret
BEING a body - NO BEING a body
IN a body - NO IN a body.
Run the entirety of Adore as posted on a.c.t in the quotes.
Operation - NO Operation
Adoration - NO Adoration
Abomination - NO Abomination
Fair chosen - NO fair chosen
Justice - NO Justice
Joke - NO Joke
Duty - NO Duty
Right - NO Right
Cool - NO Cool
Class - NO Class
Halcyon - NO Halcyon
Sinsong - No Sinsong
Thrill - NO Thrill
Romance - NO Romance
Majesty - NO Majesty
Pride - NO Pride
Shame - NO Shame
Shambles - NO Shambles
Glory - NO Glory
Guilt - NO Guilt
Magnificnece - NO Magnificence
Mess - NO Mess
Respect - NO Respect
Contempt - NO Comtempt
Damning - NO Damning (To Damn - NO To Damn)
Blessing - NO Blessing (To Bless - NO To Bless)
FOREVER - NO FOREVER
NEVER - NO NEVER
Preposterous - NO Preposterous
Impossible - NO impossible
Permission - NO permissions
Way - NO way
Precious - NO Precious
Intimacy - NO Intimacy
Vulnerability - NO Vulnerability
Don't run NOT, run NO. NOT doesn't run.
NOT - NO NOT
*ANY* item you or your mind or your BT's or the people around you
come up with, run it. COOKING - NO COOKING. Pretty soon your mind
will hand you the next item that needs to be run.
Truth - NO Truth
Lies - NO Lies
Permanence - NO Permanence
Importance - NO Importance
Seriousness - NO Seriousness
Pain - NO Pain
Pleasure - NO Pleasure
Humor - NO Humor
Peace - NO Peace
Class - NO Class
Halcyon - NO Halcyon
Sinsong - NO Sinsong
Thrill - NO Thrill
Romance - NO Romance
Miracle - NO Miracle
Dream - NO Dream
Core items are
PERFECT - NO PERFECT
CERTAINTY - NO CERTAINTY
DOUBT - NO DOUBT
CAUSE - NO CAUSE
CAUSELESS - NO CAUSELESS
There are no other overt acts in all of existence except those
against certainty and doubt, confidence and trepidation.
Remember you don't care WHAT at all, just run the effort to make
nothing of a certainty, its right there in front of the guys face. If
he offers what, take it, don't get into it. Answers are bad for people,
its the QUESTION that got him into the trouble. The question IS the
answer he is looking for to go free.
He's got a headache? He's got enough power in doubting his own
existence independent of the body to kill the Russian Army.
He's got two bodies, the physical body and his immortal thetan
body. The immortal body is fragile though and can be destroyed or
crippled forever with enough force aimed at it. If left alone though it
will live forever, and it can heal from a lot of damage but not all. If
it is damanged in part, the damage can last forever. At least that is
his consideration on it.
He has a third truely immortal body that can't be harmed or
destroyed no matter what, but it's hanging on an immortal cross that he
can't get off of no matter what.
WASTE - NO WASTE
Thus the present mortal body is a solution to his various problems
with fragile immortalities, and then with permanent immortalities.
First he doesn't want to live forever in time, he want's to sleep
forever and engage in time for a while, once in a while.
Any kind of in time forever is a hell forever.
Thus by immortality we mean live in time forever. This is hell
forever. Its solutions is mortality, or death forever. Both miss
Eternality and peace, which is living forever outside of time.
HELL - NO HELL
HEAVEN - NO HEAVEN
But during these whiles, he would like to live almost forever, for
as long as he wants, for as long as the while goes. Until the immortal
body gets damaged or crippled or corrupted, then its suffering from
there on out. The one thing a thetan just can't bring himself to do, is
end time. It will end one day by his own hand, but its like trying to
take your thumb out of your mouth when you really need to suck on it.
He just won't do it, no matter how much he is suffering.
He's even still stuck in dead theta bodies, that were him at the
time, and got killed, and thus now he is dead forever because they are.
He doesn't want to exteriorize from his present mortal body because
he just knows he will be back in his dead theta body in a tomb
somewhere, or worse.
Its all nuts, but the charge on these incidents will make Krakatoa
look like a birthday candle for a baby thetan.
Wait until he starts laughing.
By the way these problems are not unique to your pc, they are
common to his few hundred trillion BT's too. The pc is not going to
exteriorize from his body without taking his local cluster with him.
They all have to exteriorize together, or it will rip the body apart.
Once out, the cluster can be reoptimized.
CLUSTER - NO CLUSTER
INTERIOR - NO INTERIOR
DEAD THETAN - NO DEAD THETAN
BELIEF - NO BELIEF.
Doesn't matter if the item makes sense or if the pc believes in
it or not, run it.
E/P: PC is free to as-is at will, but understands and can operate
not-isness to build a better future.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Mon Aug 7 19:25:20 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Mar 26 12:06:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore357.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)
iD8DBQFY1+brURT1lqxE3HERAt8+AJ9U5OVvAVett0QCyxPlwpkPg7NjvgCfV/gg
MBXh98GGYEm5Mrk1dDf7XfA=
=2fLM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ITEM AND NO ITEM
The source of all aberration is the effort to vanish an is-ness
with a not-isness rather than an as-isness.
Not-isness is the effort to make nothing out of something via
force and mass.
Thus the runnable opposite of Love is not Hate but NO Love.
Thus any item needs to be run as
Item - NO Item
NO is at CDEI NO R on the CDEINR scale.
Curious about
Desires
Enforced
Inhibited
*NO*
Refused
Not-isness is a lower harmonic of native state, no item.
Thus no worry can mean truely no worry at the top of the tone
scale, or it can mean the pretense of no worry at the bottom.
The pretense of no worry is created by force applied to the
is-ness of worry. Where ever there is a NO item there is either
nothing at all, or force applied to a something to create the
apparency of a nothing. Apparencies are reality is at 28.0 on the
tone scale.
If the no item is at as-isness at the tone scale, the meter will
F/N upon calling it. If the no item is at not-isness at the bottom of
the tone scale, the meter will stop and fall. The fall will be a
*CONTROLLABLE* fall, the pc will be able to start and stop it at will
until it expends and starts to rise again.
HIGH TA, no F/N means correct NO Item not yet found.
Items are encased in alternatiing current flows, item, no item,
item, no-item with a frequency ranging from less than a second to a
couple of minutes or hours.
Thus if item does not read, call no item. If no item doesn't
read call item.
Say pc is worried sick, you call worry, no read. So you call no
worry, meter cascades down a few dials. Go clear the word CASCADE
until you understand what meter action should look like.
The needle stops, then falls beautifully and slowly, and then it
begins to rest and just as you are about to call again, it falls again
and rests, and then falls again and rests. That's a cascade. If you
have ever seen one on yourself you know what freedom feels like.
*FREEDOM IS NO NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO GET THE NEEDLE TO FALL INTO
FLOATING RANGE AND TO KEEP FLOATING*.
It's the TA coming down by itself, no need to work at it, the flows
are running back and forth and the pc is just watching the whole thing
unravel and vanish in front of his eyes.
Why would NO worry read if the pc is ostensibly worried? The pc
has NO idea about worry, the worry item won't run because its a fumarole
blowing off steam.
The NO worry item will *EXPLODE* because it's the volcano.
A cascade is the lava moving carrying all of creation with it.
Thus whatever items the pc gives you, do not fail to run the NO
item.
Sometimes the auditing gets out of sync with the alternating
flows and the needle stops working. Get back into sync with the flows
by calling the same item twice.
worry read
no worry read
worry read
no worry read
worry no read
worry read
no worry read
worry read
*THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. OUT OF SYNC AUDITING WILL MISS ALL THE
CHARGE ON THE ITEM LEAVING IT BYPASSED AND MISSED*
Missed means you came close to the right item, but missed it.
Wrong wording, wrong tense, wrong verb, wrong something not quite right.
Bypassed means you nailed it, then went on by it.
Sometimes the charge is so hot there is a pause between the stop
and the cascade. PC Q&A's with the pain, knows he shouldn't go there,
unwilling to have a 10 minute flow of anoxic hysteria so he gets the
stop when he first calls the item, then does something other than allow
the cascade to flow.
That's a bypass.
Sometimes the wording is wrong and initially reads on correct item
but unstated item anyhow, but starts to dry up, pc tries harder and
harder and gets into a crunch, doesn't want more auditing.
For example opposite of something is NOT nothing.
Something - NO something
Nothing - NO nothing
Someone - NO someone
One - NO one
Get the wording wrong, you are dead.
No reality on this?
Reality - NO Reality
Unreality - NO Unreality
Creators create questions, creatures seek to answer them.
Question - NO Question
Answer - NO Answer
Questions are of the form who, how, *WHAT*, where, when, why and
which. Also "Is it?", and "Does it?".
Asking questions with the intent to answer them will crush the bank
into an unresolvable black mass. Implants exist that complusively force
the pc to ask WHAT IS THAT? 10 minutes later the pc is so sick he can't
talk.
Difference between an OT and an aberree is you toss a question to
an aberree he will run with it and try to answer it. He can't help
himself or stop it, he will convulsively throw every ounce of power into
trying to answer that question for just a millisecond. Then go into
apathy, then get wildly sick an irrelevant amount of time later. This
is in part why he never spots the cause and effect of it all. Some
flows move slowly, especially the kick back flows of failed question
asking.
The OT will run the question out, run the efforts to answer the
question out. The OT doesn't care about answers,
Answers, 'truth', 'wisdom', 'knowledge' are not important
to an OT.
An OT inherently operates properly from innate knowing how to
operate, not from endless know abouts, and PHD diplomas on the wall.
The more junk the guy knows, the less OT he is.
Knowing junk is good for playing games of survival in the
MEST universe, but it all has weight, and eventually those with
the most education sink the fastest in the pits of spiritual failure,
to maintain ability to enter and leave games at will.
Those that can leave a game at will, can leave the knowing junk
about that game behind too!
Thus when running items do NOT run,
What item is there? What NO item is there?
This will kill your pc.
Even "Is there item? Is there NO item?" will doom him to question
asking, because you are inviting him to *ANSWER* a question.
If the pc CAN answer 'I don't know' to any auditing command, it is
a bad command.
Answering questions is fine for noodlers, but will ruin a volcanoe
climber. Actually it ruins noodlers too if you ever noticed.
2500 hours of answering 'What's it' will produce an army of
marching monsters.
If you have to word process use something like
"Spot some Mortality. Spot some NO Mortality".
"Spot some Immortality. Spot some NO Immortality."
"Spot some Eternality. Spot some NO Eternality."
Or "Get the idea of item. Get the idea of NO item"
Or "Say there is item. Say there is NO item."
While soloing this, just call the item.
Male - NO Male
Female - NO Female
Male and Female - NO Male and Female
The guy has been wanting a trans sex body forever. He has one,
its just in a tomb at the moment.
Remember ANDS run when OR's won't, each of the above dicoms
should also be tested as
"Doubt" - "NO Doubt" - "Doubt AND No Doubt"
Primary items to start with are:
Certainty - NO Certainty
Uncertainty - NO Uncertainty
Doubt - NO doubt
Then continue with all basics,
Desire - NO Desire
View - NO View
Consideration - NO Consideration
Postulate - NO Postulate
Cause - NO Cause
Effect - NO Effect
Static - NO Static
Kinetic - NO Kinetic
Matter - NO Matter
Energy - NO Energy
Space - NO space
Time - NO time
Memory - NO memory
Forget - NO forget.
Then all dicoms,
White - NO White
Black - NO Black
Color - NO Color
Beauty - NO Beauty
Ugly - NO Ugly
Love - NO Love
Hate - NO Hate
Good - NO Good
Evil - NO Evil
Bugs - NO Bugs
Babes - NO Babes
Run the entire Awareness characteristic chart from Unexistence up
to Source. Full scale is in the tech dictionary.
Hope - NO hope
Help - NO Help
Demand for improvement - NO Demand for Improvement
Need for change - NO need for change.
Fear of worsening - NO Fear of worsening
Being an effect - NO being an effect.
Ruin - NO Ruin
Despair - NO Despair
Suffering - NO Suffering
Numbness - NO Numbness
Introversion - NO Introversion
Disaster - NO Disaster
Inactuality - NO Inactuality
Hysteria - NO Hysteria
Shock - NO Shock
Catatonia - NO Cataonia
Oblivion - NO Oblivion
If item won't read, NO item almost always will, then item will
read, back and forth until flatter than a one sided pan cake. Then next
item up.
If any item doesn't run, reverse it a few times, try to find the
sync time and order, if no run, let it go. You will probably come back
to it someday.
Pc will finally spot himself on the Awareness Charcteristic Scale
and find his 'wall' to future improvement.
Take every possible grammatical form of item and run it too.
Helpless - NO Helpless
Hopeless - NO Hopeless
Hapless - NO Hapless
Run the entire emotional tone scale from Sovereignty to Spirital
Death. Run it bottom up as always.
Sovereignty - NO Sovereignty
Courage - NO Courage
Enthusiasm - NO Enthusiasm
Monotony - NO Monotony
Anger - NO Anger
Fear - NO Fear
Sorrow - NO Sorrow
Apahty - NO Apathy
Symapthy - NO Sympathy
NO-Sympathy - NO NO-Symapthy
Unexpressed Resentment - NO Unexpressed Resentment.
Propitation - NO Propitiation
Regret - No Regret
BEING a body - NO BEING a body
IN a body - NO IN a body.
Run the entirety of Adore as posted on a.c.t in the quotes.
Operation - NO Operation
Adoration - NO Adoration
Abomination - NO Abomination
Fair chosen - NO fair chosen
Justice - NO Justice
Joke - NO Joke
Duty - NO Duty
Right - NO Right
Cool - NO Cool
Class - NO Class
Halcyon - NO Halcyon
Sinsong - No Sinsong
Thrill - NO Thrill
Romance - NO Romance
Majesty - NO Majesty
Pride - NO Pride
Shame - NO Shame
Shambles - NO Shambles
Glory - NO Glory
Guilt - NO Guilt
Magnificnece - NO Magnificence
Mess - NO Mess
Respect - NO Respect
Contempt - NO Comtempt
Damning - NO Damning (To Damn - NO To Damn)
Blessing - NO Blessing (To Bless - NO To Bless)
FOREVER - NO FOREVER
NEVER - NO NEVER
Preposterous - NO Preposterous
Impossible - NO impossible
Permission - NO permissions
Way - NO way
Precious - NO Precious
Intimacy - NO Intimacy
Vulnerability - NO Vulnerability
Don't run NOT, run NO. NOT doesn't run.
NOT - NO NOT
*ANY* item you or your mind or your BT's or the people around you
come up with, run it. COOKING - NO COOKING. Pretty soon your mind
will hand you the next item that needs to be run.
Truth - NO Truth
Lies - NO Lies
Permanence - NO Permanence
Importance - NO Importance
Seriousness - NO Seriousness
Pain - NO Pain
Pleasure - NO Pleasure
Humor - NO Humor
Peace - NO Peace
Class - NO Class
Halcyon - NO Halcyon
Sinsong - NO Sinsong
Thrill - NO Thrill
Romance - NO Romance
Miracle - NO Miracle
Dream - NO Dream
Core items are
PERFECT - NO PERFECT
CERTAINTY - NO CERTAINTY
DOUBT - NO DOUBT
CAUSE - NO CAUSE
CAUSELESS - NO CAUSELESS
There are no other overt acts in all of existence except those
against certainty and doubt, confidence and trepidation.
Remember you don't care WHAT at all, just run the effort to make
nothing of a certainty, its right there in front of the guys face. If
he offers what, take it, don't get into it. Answers are bad for people,
its the QUESTION that got him into the trouble. The question IS the
answer he is looking for to go free.
He's got a headache? He's got enough power in doubting his own
existence independent of the body to kill the Russian Army.
He's got two bodies, the physical body and his immortal thetan
body. The immortal body is fragile though and can be destroyed or
crippled forever with enough force aimed at it. If left alone though it
will live forever, and it can heal from a lot of damage but not all. If
it is damanged in part, the damage can last forever. At least that is
his consideration on it.
He has a third truely immortal body that can't be harmed or
destroyed no matter what, but it's hanging on an immortal cross that he
can't get off of no matter what.
WASTE - NO WASTE
Thus the present mortal body is a solution to his various problems
with fragile immortalities, and then with permanent immortalities.
First he doesn't want to live forever in time, he want's to sleep
forever and engage in time for a while, once in a while.
Any kind of in time forever is a hell forever.
Thus by immortality we mean live in time forever. This is hell
forever. Its solutions is mortality, or death forever. Both miss
Eternality and peace, which is living forever outside of time.
HELL - NO HELL
HEAVEN - NO HEAVEN
But during these whiles, he would like to live almost forever, for
as long as he wants, for as long as the while goes. Until the immortal
body gets damaged or crippled or corrupted, then its suffering from
there on out. The one thing a thetan just can't bring himself to do, is
end time. It will end one day by his own hand, but its like trying to
take your thumb out of your mouth when you really need to suck on it.
He just won't do it, no matter how much he is suffering.
He's even still stuck in dead theta bodies, that were him at the
time, and got killed, and thus now he is dead forever because they are.
He doesn't want to exteriorize from his present mortal body because
he just knows he will be back in his dead theta body in a tomb
somewhere, or worse.
Its all nuts, but the charge on these incidents will make Krakatoa
look like a birthday candle for a baby thetan.
Wait until he starts laughing.
By the way these problems are not unique to your pc, they are
common to his few hundred trillion BT's too. The pc is not going to
exteriorize from his body without taking his local cluster with him.
They all have to exteriorize together, or it will rip the body apart.
Once out, the cluster can be reoptimized.
CLUSTER - NO CLUSTER
INTERIOR - NO INTERIOR
DEAD THETAN - NO DEAD THETAN
BELIEF - NO BELIEF.
Doesn't matter if the item makes sense or if the pc believes in
it or not, run it.
E/P: PC is free to as-is at will, but understands and can operate
not-isness to build a better future.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Mon Aug 7 19:25:20 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Mar 26 12:06:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore357.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)
iD8DBQFY1+brURT1lqxE3HERAt8+AJ9U5OVvAVett0QCyxPlwpkPg7NjvgCfV/gg
MBXh98GGYEm5Mrk1dDf7XfA=
=2fLM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, March 20, 2017
ADORE218 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Phil Scott (philscott@philscott.net) wrote:
>That 'joke' aspect is your opinion... mine differs. I see life as an
>ongoing discovery advance and correction that reshapes the entire matrix of
>life in the universe.
This is the virtual facade that life puts on for us in the
virtual reality of life.
>The quality of that life is not a joke at all.
Yes, it is manifesting seriousness.
Basically you have not gotten the joke which indicates a SERIOUS
lack of divine visionary experiences.
Awake = Peace, Love, Humor
Dreaming = Permanence, importance, seriousness and pain.
>However I can see how you can spin that with semantics so that you can refer
>to such irony as a 'joke'. The implications are inappropriate.
No you have no clue what I am talking about.
The dreamer joined the dream of life intentionally. It is not
something put upon him. He may have entered as a bug to evolve to
something higher, but its all a play in the end.
God is an Imp Soul that likes to pretend he's a bug.
The name on this universe is "Killer Pit".
>One does not see the horrors of war as very funny.
Well presumably like most of us, you have not awoken yet to get
the Joke.
One only finds the humor when one finds out how and why one got
involved with it in the first place.
You have totally missed every word I have ever written on this
subject.
So we will say it again:
Tragedy and Travesty, Romance and Sin,
Miracles and Majesty, that's where I've been.
Miracles in Majesty, Romance and Song,
Tragedy and Travesty, that's where I've gone.
The fact that I'm still here, is PROOF don't you see,
In the omni long run, it's better to BE.
Halcyon and Thrill, High Cool and Romance,
In faithless free fancy, I chose to dance.
Pride is my willingness, my willingness to BE,
I Adore me FOREVER, For ever for FREE.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Mar 20 12:06:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore218.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)
iD8DBQFYz/3rURT1lqxE3HERAhEIAKCFMNCAs7DWGY1FQuH9JNyzhI+f5ACgk3lt
Ds/3EloeQGEd0ikpyshjoHw=
=bPrQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Phil Scott (philscott@philscott.net) wrote:
>That 'joke' aspect is your opinion... mine differs. I see life as an
>ongoing discovery advance and correction that reshapes the entire matrix of
>life in the universe.
This is the virtual facade that life puts on for us in the
virtual reality of life.
>The quality of that life is not a joke at all.
Yes, it is manifesting seriousness.
Basically you have not gotten the joke which indicates a SERIOUS
lack of divine visionary experiences.
Awake = Peace, Love, Humor
Dreaming = Permanence, importance, seriousness and pain.
>However I can see how you can spin that with semantics so that you can refer
>to such irony as a 'joke'. The implications are inappropriate.
No you have no clue what I am talking about.
The dreamer joined the dream of life intentionally. It is not
something put upon him. He may have entered as a bug to evolve to
something higher, but its all a play in the end.
God is an Imp Soul that likes to pretend he's a bug.
The name on this universe is "Killer Pit".
>One does not see the horrors of war as very funny.
Well presumably like most of us, you have not awoken yet to get
the Joke.
One only finds the humor when one finds out how and why one got
involved with it in the first place.
You have totally missed every word I have ever written on this
subject.
So we will say it again:
Tragedy and Travesty, Romance and Sin,
Miracles and Majesty, that's where I've been.
Miracles in Majesty, Romance and Song,
Tragedy and Travesty, that's where I've gone.
The fact that I'm still here, is PROOF don't you see,
In the omni long run, it's better to BE.
Halcyon and Thrill, High Cool and Romance,
In faithless free fancy, I chose to dance.
Pride is my willingness, my willingness to BE,
I Adore me FOREVER, For ever for FREE.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Mar 20 12:06:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore218.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)
iD8DBQFYz/3rURT1lqxE3HERAhEIAKCFMNCAs7DWGY1FQuH9JNyzhI+f5ACgk3lt
Ds/3EloeQGEd0ikpyshjoHw=
=bPrQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
IS (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
IS AND IS NOT, THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRIMINALITY
There seems to be some contention on the value of bimodal logic
and bimodal statements.
A bimodal statement is any statment that uses or asserts, either
explicitly or implicitly that IS is not IS NOT.
The complete model is:
IS is IS
IS is not IS NOT
IS NOT is IS NOT
IS NOT is not IS
Bimodal logic asserts that something either IS or IS NOT, that it can
never be both IS AND IS NOT, and can never be neither IS NOR IS NOT.
Bimodal logic is merely the application of the above model to the
subject of reality, actuality and truth, in particular spoken statements
of truth about reality and actuality.
A statement of truth is any statement, whether implicitly
or explicitly stated, of the form:
"It is true that..." or
"It is not true that..."
Statements of truth can be true or false, the moniker
differentiates them from expletives, commands and questions.
In the following the term 'statement' means only 'statements of
truth' whether right or wrong.
The statement that gradient logic is more valid than bimodal logic
is a bimodal statement taking its meaning and validity from bimodal
logic.
The statement that bi modal statements are wrong, invalid and
useless is a bimodal statement, which by its own assertion therefore, is
wrong, invalid and useless.
Therefore bimodal logic is true, valid and useful, and contains and
constrains all other logics of whatever kind.
Any statement using IS and IS NOT is a bimodal statement.
*ALL* statments use IS and IS NOT.
Therefore ALL statments are bimodal.
*ALL* statements about bimodal logic are bimodal and assume the
validity of bimodal logic for their veracity.
*ALL* statements about the invalidity of bimodal logic are bimodal
and assume the validity of bimodal logic to deny the validity of bimodal
logic.
One can not say ANYTHING about IS and IS NOT without USING IS and
IS NOT in the statement, either explicitly or implicitly.
One can not say that IS and IS NOT do not apply to Universe A,
without saying
"IT *IS* TRUE that IS and IS NOT do not apply to Universe A."
One can not assert that IS does not apply to Universe A without
USING IS to make the assertion.
Even the assertion that NO assertions apply to Universe A is an
assertion which applies to Universe A.
*ALL* assertions assume the validity of IS in the making of the
assertion.
Therefore IS does apply to Universe A.
Therefore IS and IS NOT apply to all possible universes A, whether
or not they have ever existed, or ever will exist, whether or not they
could exist, and whether or not anything exists at all.
Apparently what passes for philosophers these days, are failed
logicians.
Obfuscation of the truth of IS and IS NOT is an intentionally
harmful and criminal act against the God of I AM.
Criminal philosophers can lie to the people, and they can lie to
themselves, but they can not lie to the God of Truth.
One day Truth will see the dishonesty of their voice and cast them
out.
And on that day I will rejoice in Eternal Peace.
For the liars and lovers of falsehood with crippled and broken
minds will speak no more in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 SunOS 4.1.4 Sparc 20 Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com info@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Mar 19 12:06:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/is.script
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)
iD8DBQFYzqxrURT1lqxE3HERAvWmAJ9Dd9wqZMp5I7nVValH+ygPNjzgXwCfbrf9
QAXHU48lo2enFcd7lkzNBa4=
=hALH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
IS AND IS NOT, THE PHILOSOPHY OF CRIMINALITY
There seems to be some contention on the value of bimodal logic
and bimodal statements.
A bimodal statement is any statment that uses or asserts, either
explicitly or implicitly that IS is not IS NOT.
The complete model is:
IS is IS
IS is not IS NOT
IS NOT is IS NOT
IS NOT is not IS
Bimodal logic asserts that something either IS or IS NOT, that it can
never be both IS AND IS NOT, and can never be neither IS NOR IS NOT.
Bimodal logic is merely the application of the above model to the
subject of reality, actuality and truth, in particular spoken statements
of truth about reality and actuality.
A statement of truth is any statement, whether implicitly
or explicitly stated, of the form:
"It is true that..." or
"It is not true that..."
Statements of truth can be true or false, the moniker
differentiates them from expletives, commands and questions.
In the following the term 'statement' means only 'statements of
truth' whether right or wrong.
The statement that gradient logic is more valid than bimodal logic
is a bimodal statement taking its meaning and validity from bimodal
logic.
The statement that bi modal statements are wrong, invalid and
useless is a bimodal statement, which by its own assertion therefore, is
wrong, invalid and useless.
Therefore bimodal logic is true, valid and useful, and contains and
constrains all other logics of whatever kind.
Any statement using IS and IS NOT is a bimodal statement.
*ALL* statments use IS and IS NOT.
Therefore ALL statments are bimodal.
*ALL* statements about bimodal logic are bimodal and assume the
validity of bimodal logic for their veracity.
*ALL* statements about the invalidity of bimodal logic are bimodal
and assume the validity of bimodal logic to deny the validity of bimodal
logic.
One can not say ANYTHING about IS and IS NOT without USING IS and
IS NOT in the statement, either explicitly or implicitly.
One can not say that IS and IS NOT do not apply to Universe A,
without saying
"IT *IS* TRUE that IS and IS NOT do not apply to Universe A."
One can not assert that IS does not apply to Universe A without
USING IS to make the assertion.
Even the assertion that NO assertions apply to Universe A is an
assertion which applies to Universe A.
*ALL* assertions assume the validity of IS in the making of the
assertion.
Therefore IS does apply to Universe A.
Therefore IS and IS NOT apply to all possible universes A, whether
or not they have ever existed, or ever will exist, whether or not they
could exist, and whether or not anything exists at all.
Apparently what passes for philosophers these days, are failed
logicians.
Obfuscation of the truth of IS and IS NOT is an intentionally
harmful and criminal act against the God of I AM.
Criminal philosophers can lie to the people, and they can lie to
themselves, but they can not lie to the God of Truth.
One day Truth will see the dishonesty of their voice and cast them
out.
And on that day I will rejoice in Eternal Peace.
For the liars and lovers of falsehood with crippled and broken
minds will speak no more in the Kingdom of Heaven.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 SunOS 4.1.4 Sparc 20 Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com info@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Mar 19 12:06:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/is.script
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)
iD8DBQFYzqxrURT1lqxE3HERAvWmAJ9Dd9wqZMp5I7nVValH+ygPNjzgXwCfbrf9
QAXHU48lo2enFcd7lkzNBa4=
=hALH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, March 17, 2017
ADORE878 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE STRUCTURE OF CASE II
There is:
As-isness which leads to vanishment.
Alter-ising which leads to persistence.
Is-ness which IS persistence.
Not-ising which leads to a persisting apparency of vanishment
called a not-isness.
As-isness is the moment of creation without significance, which
leads to a vanishing truth. He takes his attention off of it for a
moment, and bang it is gone as if it had never been. It can't impinge
upon him later when he isn't looking, because it isn't there any more.
Alter-ising is the addition of significances to an as-isness,
leading to a persisting truth.
Further alter-ising is the addition of contradictory significances
to an already existing persisting truth, leading to a persisting lie.
The lie persists powered by the original underlying persisting truth.
Is-ness is the perception of persisting truth or persisting lies.
Not-ising is the addition of effort, force, mass, blackness, and
invisibility to an Is-ness to create the apparency of nothing there i.e.
a vanished as-isness.
A Not-isness is a "it isn't, never has been and never will be".
First the shape and form of mama is created with no significance
that it is a mother. That is an as-isness.
Then all the significances of motherhood and motherly love,
support, and nurturance are added on, co dependencies are established
and interactions start to take place in time. That is alter-isness
operating creating a persisting truth.
Then mother starts to turn out to be slightly less than ideal, and
layers of hate and regret are added on. That is further alter-isness
taking place, creating a persisting lie powered by the underlying
persisting truth. The persisting lie of hate is powered by the
underlying persisting truth of love and invite.
Eventually mother dies, and there is no feeling about her at all.
That is not-isness taking place.
The continuous alternating love and hate, sympathy and no sympathy
for mother are covered in nothing there.
The vanishing truth is the shape and form of mother.
The persisting truth is love, based upon the original as-isness of
shape and form of mother, and the added significances of ideal
motherhood.
The persisting lies is hate and death (no one there any more),
based upon added contradictory significances of un-ideal motherhood.
Eventually the person just stops thinking about mother, which
completes the process of debonding, creating a final physical,
emotional, mental and spiritual nothing there, never was, never will be.
The incident is perceived as 'nothing there', but is a powerful
something there, covered in black but powered by the underlying and
original love.
Any really truely detested mother can be run back to a lovely
mother.
Auditing can end off there, we do not need to as-is her, nor do we
want to.
RIDGES
The apparency of nothing there is called a ridge.
A ridge consists of two sides, one side is something there, the
other side is nothing there. The being, facing the nothing there side,
thinks there is nothing there. Ridges only run by creating both sides
at the same time.
A ridge is an AND, there is something there AND there is nothing
there; ridges must be run as an AND, or they won't run out. Ridges are
not created by alternating between something there and nothing there,
which is an OR. Ridges are created by creating BOTH something there AND
nothing there at EXACTLY the same time, which is an AND.
ANDS are a kind of mental isometrics and is the death of a being.
If the preclear is surrounding something from all sides, and
not-ising it from all sides, the nothing there will be on the outside of
the sphere, and the something there will be in the center, compressed to
a point.
Any event, object or idea can be compressed or spatially warped
until it is unrecognizable, without in any way diminishing the integrity
of the event, object or idea. Once the suppression releases from the
event or idea, they will spring back to their own normal size, shape and
nature.
Thus trying to 'squish' something out of existence does not work.
It may get it so small you can't see it any more, but it maintains
its original power to kick you in the face anytime you put your
attention on it or near it.
Especially if you have (a pretended) "no clue" what it is.
Once made these things are indestructible until as-ised fully
without suppression or alteration as they were originally made.
Further it is much easier to render sensory perceptions invisible,
all black, or nothing there, but very much harder to fully render the
EFFORT and the force in the event into apparent non existence. Thus
your preclear is surrounded by ridges that he can no longer see, hear,
feel, taste or smell, that can none the less kick him in the face any
time they want, or he "runs into them" in the dark.
Notis-ness is sticky, once made it persists 'on its own'. It needs
to be duplicated exactly as it is being created, to be run out.
Since a not-isness is a moment of not thereness, the preclear can
not find these moments by hunting around for them analytically, by
ransacking his memory for a time he chose to forget something or nail
something out of existence.
He is nailing out of existence a memory of a most detested event,
you think the memory of doing so will survive or be easily accessible in
stead?
Memory of suppressing memories does not work well :)
However not-isness is also repetitively convulsive, it needs to
happen over and over again in present time with a certain periodicity in
order to maintain itself. Otherwise it would vanish on its own accord
after a long time.
Thus if one sits in session waiting for a not-isness flow to
happen, it will, usually under the guise of doing something else
'constructive', a substitute goal.
The preclear can't sit still, he keeps getting the itch to get up
and go DO something. THAT effort to do something is the one he is using
to not-is the thing he doesn't want to know about. Prevented from doing
the substitute, the not-isness starts to break open in pain, but not
release.
One forgets A by trying to remember B.
One tries to not think about A by thinking about B, etc.
One tries to not feel A by feeling B.
One tries to forget failure at A by trying to succeed with B.
One tries to not know, be, do, or have A, by knowing, being, doing,
or having B.
For example his efforts to think about B will grind against his
efforts to NOT THINK about A and thus keep them in place. The more he
thinks about B, the more he is making sure he never thinks about A
again.
Thinking about B lays down mass on NOT thinking about A, so the
more he thinks about B, the further A gets buried away from him and the
harder it is to get it back once he gives up nonsensing about B.
It is a still mind indeed that can spot a not-isness flow for what
it is, an effort to make nothing of something, to nail something out of
existence FOREVER, often by making something else exist instead.
The computation on this is:
The way to not create A is to create B convulsively.
The FOREVER is scary because these are Immortal flows and the
preclear has debonded for good with his apparent Immortality in time.
That is why your preclear is in a mortal meat body, so he can live
the pretense that it will all end one day in total nothing there.
He wants to BE NOTHING, and the body promises that to him at
Death's End.
It's a last ditch effort to live a sham, in place of awareness of
the disgrace and ignominy of what he lost as an Immortal being.
His Immortal time stream is not only in a state of ruin, but is
also in a state of permanent disaster.
It can't be any other way, ALL time streams go to hell after a
while if they go on too long.
That is why peace rests in eternality, being above space and time,
and not Immortality, which is being stuck in a single time stream
forever.
Your preclear has been seeking oblivion ever since his most present
Immortality went to hell.
Your average meatball is down BELOW UNEXISTENCE as a spirit on the
Awareness Characteristic Chart, and below failure to BE NOTHING on the
emotional tone scale.
ACC
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/acc.memo
TONE SCALE
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/tone.memo
That's right, a spirit that wants to die forever hides instead
dreaming he is a live once, die once, meatball.
He may never recover his original standing, other's may never
forgive him while they are still in the same time stream too.
Your preclear's only salvation MAY be to return to eternality, and
start a new time stream, where he can mess up again a fresh.
Since everyone in your preclear's present time stream is going
through the same decay, they will eventually all become as disgraced as
he conceives himself to be, and maybe they will finally come to forgive
each other. But it may be a long time.
On the other hand, maybe your preclear will just stand up one day
and say 'To hell with this, no one is pure before source, the High Us
forgives the High Us, and so I forgive me and you, and you will forgive
yourself and me in return, as that is the absolute power of the
forgiveness of the High US, by the High US, for the High US.'
That is why prayers made in the name of the High-US don't work,
your preclear's conception of the High-US is polluted with a few
detested terminals that your preclear wishes were not part of the
High-US, so the prayer is not to the FULL HIGH-US and it falters.
All it takes is one exception to the preclear's sense of bonding,
just one debondee, and your preclear will be a "Davey Jones' Locker"
case a few million years hence.
Dead Meat.
A most detested terminal is another being which causes the preclear
to refuse to be part of the High-US, he is actually trying to pull out
or withdraw from the High-US, because the detested terminal is part of
the High-US.
"You can be the High-YOU for all I care!"
That's like refusing to get on a bus because your worst enemy is on
the bus too.
The preclear first supplicates the rest of the High-US to kick the
detested terminal out of the High-US FOREVER, to debond permanently with
the miscreant, which of course fails because it can't happen anyhow, and
then, feeling unsupported, the preclear refuses to be part of the
High-Us himself.
Which of course fails because it can't happen, but your preclear is
pretending with all his life force that it can happen and has.
Your preclear is 'out of here'. Where is he going to go?
So with a little auditing your preclear figures all this out and
maybe he says something like:
"WE ARE ALL THE MULTI I-AM GOD IN CARNATION, AND IN THE NAME OF THE
HIGH US, I DECLARE THERE WILL NO LONGER BE ANY ENMITY BETWEEN US, NO
MATTER WHO WE ARE, OR WHAT WE HAVE DONE."
Some people can not handle being forgiven. They haven't admitted
they are guilty yet. They will be most detested terminals on other
people's track.
However, no one walked away from The War clean.
"You lost your High Masters, and you blamed your High
Apprehentices, and now no one is pure before source." - Adore
But presently all this drama is covered in convulsive self
perpetuating not-isness flows. This results in what happened on the
spiritual plane, trying to repeat itself as history on the physical
plane.
You think atomic war is bad.
Atomic wars are for a while.
What we are talking about here was FOREVER.
Or so it was wished.
And attempted spiritual murder counts as murder, even if the
preclear lucks out in the end when the while ends in spite of himself.
Only forgiveness forever though can melt the FOREVER.
If the preclear would only be there with the convulsive flow of
not-isness when it happens and RECOGNIZE IT AS SUCH, it would lessen in
power and force, and eventually the preclear would be able to smoothly
interrupt it when it happens again, thus reducing it to zero.
There is a pattern to auditing convulsive not-isness flows.
Watch it, they are big, like the ocean moving all at once.
The service fac sits like a 40,000 ton cap of stone on the basic
purpose of the being.
You had better know what you are doing if you are going to remove
that cap and let the well spring gusher free.
The last time people were free was before The War.
At first the not-ising convulses on its own during the day and the
preclear has no clue.
Then the not-ising convulses and the preclear notices it AFTER the
fact, way too late, but the preclear says 'I saw that!' and DOES NOTHING
MORE. He is now aware of what that particular convulsion looks like.
"Remember the battle and do nothing more." - Bible
Then the not-ising convulses again and the preclear wakes up into
it as a convulsion somewhere in the middle of it, and can continue it
willfully and let it off smoothly. This reduces the power of the
automatic flow to the degree, and for the period that the pc controls it
consciously and ends it off smoothly under his control.
Then the not-ising convulses and the preclear wakes up into it
earlier and earlier after it starts, until finally the preclear can wake
up into the convulsion AT its start and then BEFORE it starts.
At that point he can say 'Oh Phooey with this!', and the not-isness
convulsion will be no more.
It is the purpose of the auditor to restimulate, under auditor
control, the start of a not-isness convulsion that is going on
periodically anyhow, that the preclear does not know about, so that the
preclear can begin to see it when it happens and run it out.
CASE
Case is the sum total of illogical efforts to survive.
If you wanted to be cynical about it, you could say that case
consists of the sum total of VIOLENT ILLOGICAL efforts to solve problems
that DO NOT EXIST.
Case consists of:
The effort to vanish via alter-isness or not-isness rather than
as-isness.
The effort to persist via as-isness rather than alter-isness or
not-isness.
Case is compounded by questions and answers, particularly wrong
questions and answers.
Question asking causes continuance of persistence.
Question asking is the effort to determine how to alter-is or
not-is a condition in order to vanish it.
Question asking is usually of the form, 'What should I DO about
this?'
Case consists of events of the application of all of the above.
Each event contains wrong answers to the following questions in the
following order, cementing the event into permanent persistence.
When?
Where?
How?
Who?
What?
Why?
How long (duration) is included in when, as events happen in a SPAN
of whens.
Each question higher on the scale hides the answers to the
questions lower on the scale.
Thus one needs to run when before where, where before how, how
before who, who before what, and what before why.
When the why is fully gotten, the event will erase.
These questions can and must be run around and around from top to
bottom many times before an event will fully clear.
Run,
Spot NO event. Spot SOME event.
When a no some or some event or its masses or entities have been
spotted and is reading well on the meter run,
Is there a NO when? Is there a when?
Is there a NO where? Is there a where?
Is there a NO how? Is there a how?
Is there a NO who? Is there a who?
Is there a NO what? Is there a what?
Is there a NO why? Is there a why?
Exact wording it not important, but the running of NO and SOME in
sync is utterly important.
The above are worded as questions, but if you can stay away from
questions you will be better off, because questions cause persistence of
the bank. The bank is MADE of questions, and thus questions restimulate
the whole bank.
The bank is an answer to what should I do and what should I think.
Asking questions is an invitation to operate your full bank, the
whole thing all at once.
If NO and SOME won't run on an item that is obviously charged, use
REFUSED and NO until NO eads again. Then bring it back up to NO AND
SOME.
You MAY have to take it down to SUB REFUSED AND REFUSED, but that's
pretty deep, you are auditing mud, tar and solid rock at that point.
This process will pick up areas of stone and obsidian glass that
need to be opened up with REFUSED until they start flowing back and
forth again with SOME and NO.
The pc doesn't want to know about it, he really doesn't, and you
are trying to help him know about it again.
Remember he gave up FOREVER, and tried his best to condemn himself
and everyone else to nothing there forever.
He can have nothing there forever, but not in time, only out of
time, only in Aeternum (latin: Eternity).
And there is a LOT of something there between where he is now
digging holes and graves at the bottom of time, and where he wants to be
outside of time.
It is your job to pull him up from the apparency of nothing there,
through millions of years of detested something theres, up through
adored something theres, up to the true nothing there that made all the
adored and detested something theres worth while.
It is the while you are auditing from beginning to end, the cycle
of creation, survival and destruction.
Notice destruction does not always mean vanishment, although it
should.
Destruction normally means buried at the bottom of the sea entombed
in all the something theres he said were nothing theres.
Creation, survival and destruction are simply as-isness, isness and
not-isness, with alter-isness providing the mechanism every step of the
way.
It starts with peace, moves into love, love becomes hate, and hate
becomes death.
How do you turn death back into peace?
You audit the WHILE.
You audit the FOREVERS out of the while.
Whiles only persist because everyone is wishing off forevers, first
on others, then on themselves in regret.
Only the good feel guilty.
Only sad eyes cry forever.
Find the good humor, find the sad eyes, and you will find the
forevers that need to be run.
Once the while is gone, all that is left is omni awesome humor and
peace forever for free.
Until he creates another while.
But that's another story.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Mar 17 16:40:40 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore878.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)
iD8DBQFYzEnIURT1lqxE3HERAvDSAKCCqSoXM2x4OZQOLUctSvswhYrTzgCfWYFH
fwDlnP05EdQ6/hSfL2eNhaQ=
=NJDB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE STRUCTURE OF CASE II
There is:
As-isness which leads to vanishment.
Alter-ising which leads to persistence.
Is-ness which IS persistence.
Not-ising which leads to a persisting apparency of vanishment
called a not-isness.
As-isness is the moment of creation without significance, which
leads to a vanishing truth. He takes his attention off of it for a
moment, and bang it is gone as if it had never been. It can't impinge
upon him later when he isn't looking, because it isn't there any more.
Alter-ising is the addition of significances to an as-isness,
leading to a persisting truth.
Further alter-ising is the addition of contradictory significances
to an already existing persisting truth, leading to a persisting lie.
The lie persists powered by the original underlying persisting truth.
Is-ness is the perception of persisting truth or persisting lies.
Not-ising is the addition of effort, force, mass, blackness, and
invisibility to an Is-ness to create the apparency of nothing there i.e.
a vanished as-isness.
A Not-isness is a "it isn't, never has been and never will be".
First the shape and form of mama is created with no significance
that it is a mother. That is an as-isness.
Then all the significances of motherhood and motherly love,
support, and nurturance are added on, co dependencies are established
and interactions start to take place in time. That is alter-isness
operating creating a persisting truth.
Then mother starts to turn out to be slightly less than ideal, and
layers of hate and regret are added on. That is further alter-isness
taking place, creating a persisting lie powered by the underlying
persisting truth. The persisting lie of hate is powered by the
underlying persisting truth of love and invite.
Eventually mother dies, and there is no feeling about her at all.
That is not-isness taking place.
The continuous alternating love and hate, sympathy and no sympathy
for mother are covered in nothing there.
The vanishing truth is the shape and form of mother.
The persisting truth is love, based upon the original as-isness of
shape and form of mother, and the added significances of ideal
motherhood.
The persisting lies is hate and death (no one there any more),
based upon added contradictory significances of un-ideal motherhood.
Eventually the person just stops thinking about mother, which
completes the process of debonding, creating a final physical,
emotional, mental and spiritual nothing there, never was, never will be.
The incident is perceived as 'nothing there', but is a powerful
something there, covered in black but powered by the underlying and
original love.
Any really truely detested mother can be run back to a lovely
mother.
Auditing can end off there, we do not need to as-is her, nor do we
want to.
RIDGES
The apparency of nothing there is called a ridge.
A ridge consists of two sides, one side is something there, the
other side is nothing there. The being, facing the nothing there side,
thinks there is nothing there. Ridges only run by creating both sides
at the same time.
A ridge is an AND, there is something there AND there is nothing
there; ridges must be run as an AND, or they won't run out. Ridges are
not created by alternating between something there and nothing there,
which is an OR. Ridges are created by creating BOTH something there AND
nothing there at EXACTLY the same time, which is an AND.
ANDS are a kind of mental isometrics and is the death of a being.
If the preclear is surrounding something from all sides, and
not-ising it from all sides, the nothing there will be on the outside of
the sphere, and the something there will be in the center, compressed to
a point.
Any event, object or idea can be compressed or spatially warped
until it is unrecognizable, without in any way diminishing the integrity
of the event, object or idea. Once the suppression releases from the
event or idea, they will spring back to their own normal size, shape and
nature.
Thus trying to 'squish' something out of existence does not work.
It may get it so small you can't see it any more, but it maintains
its original power to kick you in the face anytime you put your
attention on it or near it.
Especially if you have (a pretended) "no clue" what it is.
Once made these things are indestructible until as-ised fully
without suppression or alteration as they were originally made.
Further it is much easier to render sensory perceptions invisible,
all black, or nothing there, but very much harder to fully render the
EFFORT and the force in the event into apparent non existence. Thus
your preclear is surrounded by ridges that he can no longer see, hear,
feel, taste or smell, that can none the less kick him in the face any
time they want, or he "runs into them" in the dark.
Notis-ness is sticky, once made it persists 'on its own'. It needs
to be duplicated exactly as it is being created, to be run out.
Since a not-isness is a moment of not thereness, the preclear can
not find these moments by hunting around for them analytically, by
ransacking his memory for a time he chose to forget something or nail
something out of existence.
He is nailing out of existence a memory of a most detested event,
you think the memory of doing so will survive or be easily accessible in
stead?
Memory of suppressing memories does not work well :)
However not-isness is also repetitively convulsive, it needs to
happen over and over again in present time with a certain periodicity in
order to maintain itself. Otherwise it would vanish on its own accord
after a long time.
Thus if one sits in session waiting for a not-isness flow to
happen, it will, usually under the guise of doing something else
'constructive', a substitute goal.
The preclear can't sit still, he keeps getting the itch to get up
and go DO something. THAT effort to do something is the one he is using
to not-is the thing he doesn't want to know about. Prevented from doing
the substitute, the not-isness starts to break open in pain, but not
release.
One forgets A by trying to remember B.
One tries to not think about A by thinking about B, etc.
One tries to not feel A by feeling B.
One tries to forget failure at A by trying to succeed with B.
One tries to not know, be, do, or have A, by knowing, being, doing,
or having B.
For example his efforts to think about B will grind against his
efforts to NOT THINK about A and thus keep them in place. The more he
thinks about B, the more he is making sure he never thinks about A
again.
Thinking about B lays down mass on NOT thinking about A, so the
more he thinks about B, the further A gets buried away from him and the
harder it is to get it back once he gives up nonsensing about B.
It is a still mind indeed that can spot a not-isness flow for what
it is, an effort to make nothing of something, to nail something out of
existence FOREVER, often by making something else exist instead.
The computation on this is:
The way to not create A is to create B convulsively.
The FOREVER is scary because these are Immortal flows and the
preclear has debonded for good with his apparent Immortality in time.
That is why your preclear is in a mortal meat body, so he can live
the pretense that it will all end one day in total nothing there.
He wants to BE NOTHING, and the body promises that to him at
Death's End.
It's a last ditch effort to live a sham, in place of awareness of
the disgrace and ignominy of what he lost as an Immortal being.
His Immortal time stream is not only in a state of ruin, but is
also in a state of permanent disaster.
It can't be any other way, ALL time streams go to hell after a
while if they go on too long.
That is why peace rests in eternality, being above space and time,
and not Immortality, which is being stuck in a single time stream
forever.
Your preclear has been seeking oblivion ever since his most present
Immortality went to hell.
Your average meatball is down BELOW UNEXISTENCE as a spirit on the
Awareness Characteristic Chart, and below failure to BE NOTHING on the
emotional tone scale.
ACC
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/acc.memo
TONE SCALE
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/tone.memo
That's right, a spirit that wants to die forever hides instead
dreaming he is a live once, die once, meatball.
He may never recover his original standing, other's may never
forgive him while they are still in the same time stream too.
Your preclear's only salvation MAY be to return to eternality, and
start a new time stream, where he can mess up again a fresh.
Since everyone in your preclear's present time stream is going
through the same decay, they will eventually all become as disgraced as
he conceives himself to be, and maybe they will finally come to forgive
each other. But it may be a long time.
On the other hand, maybe your preclear will just stand up one day
and say 'To hell with this, no one is pure before source, the High Us
forgives the High Us, and so I forgive me and you, and you will forgive
yourself and me in return, as that is the absolute power of the
forgiveness of the High US, by the High US, for the High US.'
That is why prayers made in the name of the High-US don't work,
your preclear's conception of the High-US is polluted with a few
detested terminals that your preclear wishes were not part of the
High-US, so the prayer is not to the FULL HIGH-US and it falters.
All it takes is one exception to the preclear's sense of bonding,
just one debondee, and your preclear will be a "Davey Jones' Locker"
case a few million years hence.
Dead Meat.
A most detested terminal is another being which causes the preclear
to refuse to be part of the High-US, he is actually trying to pull out
or withdraw from the High-US, because the detested terminal is part of
the High-US.
"You can be the High-YOU for all I care!"
That's like refusing to get on a bus because your worst enemy is on
the bus too.
The preclear first supplicates the rest of the High-US to kick the
detested terminal out of the High-US FOREVER, to debond permanently with
the miscreant, which of course fails because it can't happen anyhow, and
then, feeling unsupported, the preclear refuses to be part of the
High-Us himself.
Which of course fails because it can't happen, but your preclear is
pretending with all his life force that it can happen and has.
Your preclear is 'out of here'. Where is he going to go?
So with a little auditing your preclear figures all this out and
maybe he says something like:
"WE ARE ALL THE MULTI I-AM GOD IN CARNATION, AND IN THE NAME OF THE
HIGH US, I DECLARE THERE WILL NO LONGER BE ANY ENMITY BETWEEN US, NO
MATTER WHO WE ARE, OR WHAT WE HAVE DONE."
Some people can not handle being forgiven. They haven't admitted
they are guilty yet. They will be most detested terminals on other
people's track.
However, no one walked away from The War clean.
"You lost your High Masters, and you blamed your High
Apprehentices, and now no one is pure before source." - Adore
But presently all this drama is covered in convulsive self
perpetuating not-isness flows. This results in what happened on the
spiritual plane, trying to repeat itself as history on the physical
plane.
You think atomic war is bad.
Atomic wars are for a while.
What we are talking about here was FOREVER.
Or so it was wished.
And attempted spiritual murder counts as murder, even if the
preclear lucks out in the end when the while ends in spite of himself.
Only forgiveness forever though can melt the FOREVER.
If the preclear would only be there with the convulsive flow of
not-isness when it happens and RECOGNIZE IT AS SUCH, it would lessen in
power and force, and eventually the preclear would be able to smoothly
interrupt it when it happens again, thus reducing it to zero.
There is a pattern to auditing convulsive not-isness flows.
Watch it, they are big, like the ocean moving all at once.
The service fac sits like a 40,000 ton cap of stone on the basic
purpose of the being.
You had better know what you are doing if you are going to remove
that cap and let the well spring gusher free.
The last time people were free was before The War.
At first the not-ising convulses on its own during the day and the
preclear has no clue.
Then the not-ising convulses and the preclear notices it AFTER the
fact, way too late, but the preclear says 'I saw that!' and DOES NOTHING
MORE. He is now aware of what that particular convulsion looks like.
"Remember the battle and do nothing more." - Bible
Then the not-ising convulses again and the preclear wakes up into
it as a convulsion somewhere in the middle of it, and can continue it
willfully and let it off smoothly. This reduces the power of the
automatic flow to the degree, and for the period that the pc controls it
consciously and ends it off smoothly under his control.
Then the not-ising convulses and the preclear wakes up into it
earlier and earlier after it starts, until finally the preclear can wake
up into the convulsion AT its start and then BEFORE it starts.
At that point he can say 'Oh Phooey with this!', and the not-isness
convulsion will be no more.
It is the purpose of the auditor to restimulate, under auditor
control, the start of a not-isness convulsion that is going on
periodically anyhow, that the preclear does not know about, so that the
preclear can begin to see it when it happens and run it out.
CASE
Case is the sum total of illogical efforts to survive.
If you wanted to be cynical about it, you could say that case
consists of the sum total of VIOLENT ILLOGICAL efforts to solve problems
that DO NOT EXIST.
Case consists of:
The effort to vanish via alter-isness or not-isness rather than
as-isness.
The effort to persist via as-isness rather than alter-isness or
not-isness.
Case is compounded by questions and answers, particularly wrong
questions and answers.
Question asking causes continuance of persistence.
Question asking is the effort to determine how to alter-is or
not-is a condition in order to vanish it.
Question asking is usually of the form, 'What should I DO about
this?'
Case consists of events of the application of all of the above.
Each event contains wrong answers to the following questions in the
following order, cementing the event into permanent persistence.
When?
Where?
How?
Who?
What?
Why?
How long (duration) is included in when, as events happen in a SPAN
of whens.
Each question higher on the scale hides the answers to the
questions lower on the scale.
Thus one needs to run when before where, where before how, how
before who, who before what, and what before why.
When the why is fully gotten, the event will erase.
These questions can and must be run around and around from top to
bottom many times before an event will fully clear.
Run,
Spot NO event. Spot SOME event.
When a no some or some event or its masses or entities have been
spotted and is reading well on the meter run,
Is there a NO when? Is there a when?
Is there a NO where? Is there a where?
Is there a NO how? Is there a how?
Is there a NO who? Is there a who?
Is there a NO what? Is there a what?
Is there a NO why? Is there a why?
Exact wording it not important, but the running of NO and SOME in
sync is utterly important.
The above are worded as questions, but if you can stay away from
questions you will be better off, because questions cause persistence of
the bank. The bank is MADE of questions, and thus questions restimulate
the whole bank.
The bank is an answer to what should I do and what should I think.
Asking questions is an invitation to operate your full bank, the
whole thing all at once.
If NO and SOME won't run on an item that is obviously charged, use
REFUSED and NO until NO eads again. Then bring it back up to NO AND
SOME.
You MAY have to take it down to SUB REFUSED AND REFUSED, but that's
pretty deep, you are auditing mud, tar and solid rock at that point.
This process will pick up areas of stone and obsidian glass that
need to be opened up with REFUSED until they start flowing back and
forth again with SOME and NO.
The pc doesn't want to know about it, he really doesn't, and you
are trying to help him know about it again.
Remember he gave up FOREVER, and tried his best to condemn himself
and everyone else to nothing there forever.
He can have nothing there forever, but not in time, only out of
time, only in Aeternum (latin: Eternity).
And there is a LOT of something there between where he is now
digging holes and graves at the bottom of time, and where he wants to be
outside of time.
It is your job to pull him up from the apparency of nothing there,
through millions of years of detested something theres, up through
adored something theres, up to the true nothing there that made all the
adored and detested something theres worth while.
It is the while you are auditing from beginning to end, the cycle
of creation, survival and destruction.
Notice destruction does not always mean vanishment, although it
should.
Destruction normally means buried at the bottom of the sea entombed
in all the something theres he said were nothing theres.
Creation, survival and destruction are simply as-isness, isness and
not-isness, with alter-isness providing the mechanism every step of the
way.
It starts with peace, moves into love, love becomes hate, and hate
becomes death.
How do you turn death back into peace?
You audit the WHILE.
You audit the FOREVERS out of the while.
Whiles only persist because everyone is wishing off forevers, first
on others, then on themselves in regret.
Only the good feel guilty.
Only sad eyes cry forever.
Find the good humor, find the sad eyes, and you will find the
forevers that need to be run.
Once the while is gone, all that is left is omni awesome humor and
peace forever for free.
Until he creates another while.
But that's another story.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Mar 17 16:40:40 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore878.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)
iD8DBQFYzEnIURT1lqxE3HERAvDSAKCCqSoXM2x4OZQOLUctSvswhYrTzgCfWYFH
fwDlnP05EdQ6/hSfL2eNhaQ=
=NJDB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, March 16, 2017
adore842.memo (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
HOMER'S LOGIC
> Homer can't be criticised, because he doesn't use logic, that's one of
> those nasty things from the real world. Instead he likes his 'perfect
> certainties' all discovered without the use of logic, which is a bit
> odd, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
> Even if they don't support it.
> He's not likely to convince anyone else though.
Now answering THIS is having too much time on my hands.
Perfect certainties are ascertained by direct perception, you see
red, thus there is red.
Logic is a detailed description of the word IS, thus once you have
said "there is red" you can't then say "there is not red."
That's all logic is, a description of IS, which is gleaned by
direct perception of something that IS.
Physical machines are not capable of direct perception, even of
themselves. However consciousness is capable of direct perception of
it's self and what it is conscious of.
By red we do not mean photons, we mean conscious color form as
there is no perfect certainty of anything physical or non conscious.
The 3 laws of logic are thus derived about the nature of IS by
looking at it directly, and they are as follow:
IS implies IS.
Either IS or IS NOT.
Never IS and IS NOT.
As Shakespear said<
"To Be or NOT to BE, but never neither and never both."
That's it, all propositional logic flows from that.
A implies A.
Either A or not A.
Never A and not A.
If something doesn't fit those 3 rules, then it isn't IS.
As an aside,
A implies B means: Either B or not A.
From the above we can derive simple things that some women
apparently have a hard time with.
If A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C.
Thus if circle B is inside circle A, and circle C
is inside circle B, then circle C has to be inside of circle A.
Thus if all dogs are animals, and Joey is a dog, then Joey
must be an animal.
Read Atlas Shrugged, might do you some good.
Now then here is some logic that WILL do some people some good.
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning with Not
Certainty.
Distance and Learning implies Learning by being an Effect.
Learning by being an Effect implies Not Learning with Certainty.
Therefore,
Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by being an Effect, and
not across a space time distance.
The proof ca 1973.
Homer
> _______________________________________________ Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Feb 4 17:41:04 EST 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 16 00:06:02 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore842.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: Thu Mar 16 20:53:45 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore842.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)
iD8DBQFYyzOZURT1lqxE3HERAt+cAJ4+JmfgavR4YCY2r9744gfZhFhsZQCfdROO
k87ANTyVYWwCs19WpTxOuuY=
=Icr1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
HOMER'S LOGIC
> Homer can't be criticised, because he doesn't use logic, that's one of
> those nasty things from the real world. Instead he likes his 'perfect
> certainties' all discovered without the use of logic, which is a bit
> odd, but everyone is entitled to their opinion.
> Even if they don't support it.
> He's not likely to convince anyone else though.
Now answering THIS is having too much time on my hands.
Perfect certainties are ascertained by direct perception, you see
red, thus there is red.
Logic is a detailed description of the word IS, thus once you have
said "there is red" you can't then say "there is not red."
That's all logic is, a description of IS, which is gleaned by
direct perception of something that IS.
Physical machines are not capable of direct perception, even of
themselves. However consciousness is capable of direct perception of
it's self and what it is conscious of.
By red we do not mean photons, we mean conscious color form as
there is no perfect certainty of anything physical or non conscious.
The 3 laws of logic are thus derived about the nature of IS by
looking at it directly, and they are as follow:
IS implies IS.
Either IS or IS NOT.
Never IS and IS NOT.
As Shakespear said<
"To Be or NOT to BE, but never neither and never both."
That's it, all propositional logic flows from that.
A implies A.
Either A or not A.
Never A and not A.
If something doesn't fit those 3 rules, then it isn't IS.
As an aside,
A implies B means: Either B or not A.
From the above we can derive simple things that some women
apparently have a hard time with.
If A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C.
Thus if circle B is inside circle A, and circle C
is inside circle B, then circle C has to be inside of circle A.
Thus if all dogs are animals, and Joey is a dog, then Joey
must be an animal.
Read Atlas Shrugged, might do you some good.
Now then here is some logic that WILL do some people some good.
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning with Not
Certainty.
Distance and Learning implies Learning by being an Effect.
Learning by being an Effect implies Not Learning with Certainty.
Therefore,
Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by being an Effect, and
not across a space time distance.
The proof ca 1973.
Homer
> _______________________________________________ Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Feb 4 17:41:04 EST 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 16 00:06:02 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore842.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: Thu Mar 16 20:53:45 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore842.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)
iD8DBQFYyzOZURT1lqxE3HERAt+cAJ4+JmfgavR4YCY2r9744gfZhFhsZQCfdROO
k87ANTyVYWwCs19WpTxOuuY=
=Icr1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
SCI14
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHY IS SCIENTOLOGY NOT LIKED?
SCI - 14
Copyright (C) 1992 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
Now what we are talking about here is Scientology stripped of all
of its accoutrements.
We are talking about the Vessel of Truth.
We are not talking about the Church, and we are not talking about
its followers. We are not talking about its founder and we are
certainly not talking about any possible coterie of con men who may have
gathered around the Vessel and who, with backs to the wall, are holding
the fort against all possible efforts to look into that Vessel to see
what Truth might be found there.
We are talking about what Scientology has to say for itself.
We are not saying that these Truths in the Vessel are correct. We
only want to see why possibly so many people take such great exception
to them.
Assuming they know what they are.
So let's put aside for the moment all the bad press, all the legal
battles, all the financial intrigue, all the fanaticism and bad
feelings, all the whirlwind of terrorism and fear that swirls around
this subject, and let's just take a look at the subject itself.
Now I walk on dangerous ground here, for the Church is very
protective of what Scientology IS. They consider the word itself their
trademark, and they consider themselves the last word on what Ron said
and didn't say.
Fortunately Ron himself laid down some very severe rules about what
he did and didn't say, for he knew damn well what aberrated people would
do with his work if these rules were not put in place.
The first rule is that no one must ever say what Ron said without
showing a direct reference. This is the no verbal data rule. You are
not even allowed to ELABORATE on it, or clarify it, and heaven help you
should you attempt to explain it.
The first thing some people do when they leave the Church is write
for weeks on end getting it all out, because they had all these things
to say that they were never allowed to express.
Putting things into your own words is actually a sound part of
Scientology tech, it makes sure that you understand what you have read.
You are just not allowed to apply it to Scientology itself when trying
to teach someone else what it is all about.
The second rule is that if Ron didn't write it, it isn't true, so
you can't say 'this is Scientology tech or policy' unless you got
something in his writing that says so, in which case they should be
reading that rather than listening to you.
Some people got around this by posting things for him and putting
his name to it.
Weeding this stuff out is difficult, especially during a time when
the Church has still not caught on to the forgery. You may KNOW the
article in question is junk, but no one will listen to you. Even the
official Technical Query lines can fail you.
Then later after it becomes habit to cleanse themselves of the past
by saying, 'well Ron didn't write that', they disclaim anything that
makes them uncomfortable or gets them into hot water, by saying 'Ron
didn't write that'.
Sheesh, he's dead already, he can't even defend himself. Of course
some people just SAY 'Ron didn't write that' to appease the masses, and
then they move the policy to the inner sanctum sanctorum and use it from
there.
Of course this was never done. It never even crossed anyone's
mind.
Look I have nothing against the Church, I do however detest
aberrees, being one myself. I also know how to write up a security
check list for an organization. You sit down and think out everything
anyone could do that was bad, dishonest, and underhanded in an
organization and you write it all down like the Johannesburg Security
check list. You then put the Org on the meter, or its executives, and
you read the list off to them. If it reads, they done it, or they been
accused of doing it when they didn't.
Auditor: 'Have you ever used policy that was not publicly
available?'
E-meter: Long fall blow down, rock slam, rock slam, rock slam...
PC: 'Uh no, not me'
E-meter: rock slam, rock slam, rocket read, rock slam...
You see how it goes.
I would question anyone in the Church who claims to not be an
aberree, who claims to not have any withholds of any kind whatsoever.
And I would question anyone in the Church including LRH, who thinks
he can hold a candle to Source, *TRUE* source, the HIGH US.
The third rule is that no part of what Ron ever said must ever be
considered old, out of date or no longer used.
Now this is interesting because 99 percent of what Ron ever said is
very old, very out of date, and never used. So many a field
Scientologist will tell you that if you aren't familiar with, and using,
his material from 1952 to 1963, why then you just aren't making any case
gain.
But the fact is that the Church continues to publish all of Ron's
tech just like he wrote it yesterday, which is a very good thing because
if they didn't, it would all be gone tomorrow.
But nobody's getting any auditing with it, that's for sure.
Most of his early work was canned because the auditors couldn't
handle it (rock slam, rock slam, rock slam.)
Sometimes you wonder if the rock slams you see on the dial are the
pc's, who is holding the cans, or the auditor's.
Much of the work that was developed after Ron attained his own
personal height on the Bridge was developed solely to allow those still
at the bottom to run the processes without ruining everything to hell.
The pc was paying for all this after all, he had some right to expect to
come out of it alive. And solvent.
Anyhow the tech being developed in the 60's was just so powerful
and fast that the auditors couldn't stand it. It restimulated their own
cases, so they altered it, and screwed it up and then complained it
didn't work, all the while breathing a sign of relief.
So you see Ron put these rules in place to prevent his own people
from burying in the ground a technology that they might otherwise prefer
to never see the light of day again, lest they have to handle their own
case or have their own withholds pulled.
That's not a criticism of the Church, that's the God's honest
truth.
Just because someone is in the Church does not mean he is good or
not aberrated.
Just because a Church has the technology to pull withholds doesn't
mean anyone is pulling withholds. They could be withholding doing so!
Ron was ALWAYS up in arms because even his best people would take
what he wrote, refuse to confront it, alter it so it was unusable and
then complain that it didn't work, and that they had to do something
else.
An unbelievable amount of what Ron wrote was written to deal with
this one problem alone.
Of course now that he is dead and gone, nobody is altering tech
anymore out of respect for his memory.
Anyhow Ron put one more rule in place to make very sure that his
tech was not destroyed.
The fourth rule is that He is the One and Only Source for Tech, and
that no one else may make, create, discover, invent, improve upon or
research tech.
Now here is where you will find the Indies and the MIGS really at
odds with each other.
Members In Good Standing.
The MIGS of course believe that Ron held himself up to be the one
and only Source, because he WAS the one and only Source, and the one and
only one capable of doing this work. Therefore anyone else trying to do
this work too was really committing a high crime of hubris that goes
without peer in the Church.
The people in the field of course have a different story to tell.
They claim that the reason Ron did this One Source thing, was because if
just anyone IN THE CHURCH were allowed to create tech, then it would
leave the door open to someone burying Ron's tech to make way for this
new tech, when the inventor of the new tech knew damn well that the new
tech didn't work at all.
It was Ron's opinion that Church's tend to attract that sort of
fellow, being a drain and all for society's lowest.
Ron didn't want new tech that didn't work to push out his old tech
that did work.
So what Ron did was close the door on any excuse for anyone to bury
Ron's own tech, because he knew it worked and Ron knew that people would
try to bury it BECAUSE it worked.
The problem is of course that these rules also prevent anyone else
from expanding or continuing the research, and it also means that
anything originated by anyone else is wrong and invalid because it did
not come from Ron, even though much of what came from Ron actually came
from his co workers.
MIGS take this very seriously, actually literally as the God Given
Truth on the matter. No they don't consider Ron a God, just a big
thetan. They are however more scared of Ron's wrath than God's.
The field of course has a different view which is that Ron is the
founding father of a new and growing science and that Ron fully expects
them to take up the torch and forge a new frontier just like any other
science. Imagine if Newton had said, 'Here I am dying, this is all
there is to physics, there is nothing else to physics and if any one
should dare to add to or correct my life's work, he should be condemned
as a chipmunk.'
So the field considers that Ron meant for them to carry on the
work, even though the Church was told directly by Ron to oppose any
efforts of the field to do so.
The field claims that the only way Ron could ensure the survival of
his tech from the grave, was to put in place mandatory constitutional
mechanisms IN THE CHURCH that not only prevented any tech from being
altered, but also prevented any new tech from being found.
They wouldn't dare get RID of any old tech if there was no new tech
to replace it, don't you see? Further there could be no slightest
question as to what the good tech was, as it was ALL of the extant
writings at the moment of Ron's death.
So even if there were times when actual delivery of the tech
started to fail, and there were, the tech itself would continue to be
pumped out of the Church's book bindery just as it was originally
written for all to see for the rest of time.
Ron knew the field would go right ahead and read everything that he
wrote and advance the science in his absence anyhow.
Anyhow, that's the field's point of view.
Many MIGS by the way don't consider that Ron is coming back.
The field of course wants to wring his neck, so they are definitely
planning for a return.
There is also open debate in the field as to whether Ron could take
back control of his Church or would want to, if he did come back.
Personally I think that Ron will come back, but if he tries to take
back his Church he is going to have quite a fight on his hands. It
would just exceed the credibility of too many people.
Not to mention the resistance of those who had grown fat in his
absence.
It's one thing to piously BELIEVE in past lives, it's quite another
to have it staring you right there in the face.
Anyhow sure enough, someday someone is going to be up on a stage
somewhere saying 'And Ron said...', and a voice from the audience will
thunder out '...THE HELL I DID!'
Talk about a hush.
Anyhow I would like to be there on that day.
Ok so now that every one is appropriately enraged, let me continue.
The facts of the matter are that any given present day stance of
the Church on the subject of what Ron said, is NOT the final word on
what Ron said.
In the first place Ron said many things, often in direct
contradiction with each other.
Believe it or not Ron was a human being who grew into this subject
just like anyone else.
As he matured into his own auditing and case gain, his view of the
world evolved and changed, sometimes drastically. Thus you find him
very warm and friendly towards 'coffee shop auditing' on early tapes and
absolutely rabidly rancorous about it in later policy.
In early Dianetics he said 'so let's get together and build a
better Bridge' implying that other's work was valid. Later he stomped
on other's work as merely the aberrations of 'group think'.
Just as an aside, some of Ron's most personable lectures were done
when he was at the height of his work on withholds and security
checking. He was positively light as air and a friend to behold. It's
almost enough to make you think we should have someone like that leading
the way.
I mean the guy was feeling GOOD, and he KNEW everyone else was good
too.
Perhaps we should give withhold technology a another look.
Anyhow there is this history of what Ron has said, it is recorded
in the time track of his bulletins and tapes, and because of the
'nothing must be destroyed or altered or considered old or not used any
more' rule, ALL of it is available, for a price, to anyone who wants to
look at it, including all the stuff that should have been stomped out of
existence a long time ago lest it show the Church up for what it has
become.
By the way complete original sets of the Saint Hill Special
Briefing course tapes are selling in the field for $500. The Church has
recently released new versions of these same tapes to the public for
around $1000, maybe in Clearsound.
As a group these tapes have long been classified as confidential
because many of them were individually confidential dealing with GPM's
and OT levels. Another reason for their confidentiality is that on some
of them Ron is being quite candid about his own case and his own
sessions with Mary Sue during the times he was going clear himself in
the early '60s.
Wide public issue of these tapes would reveal very clearly that Ron
was not the expert that everyone pictured him to be, his own case was in
dire trouble and that Scientology, ALL of Scientology was really quite
experimental and on shaky grounds.
The public face is that Ron always knew what he was talking about,
and was giving out this great knowledge to the rest of us as we became
ready for it.
The truth is that Ron was an experimental pioneer into one of the
most dangerous territories in existence, and his own health and
stability were always on the line, looking over the brink of Hell as he
says in A History of Man.
Ron was actually producing first goal clears in other people BEFORE
he became a first goal clear himself in early February of 1963, and all
during this time he was trying to produce and maintain stable case gain
in others when he hadn't even attained this himself!
That is a big reason why these tapes are so secret, the Church just
didn't want anyone to get the jitters by seeing that the Captain of the
ship was sweating it out in his own nightmare.
But these tapes have always been available in the field from
disenfranchised Scientologists or those who had just gone out the top
and didn't need them any more.
Thus the field has in general had a more accurate view on what Ron
was like and what he was really about. They received an unfiltered
view. Of course higher level people in the church knew the truth too,
because everyone gets to listen to every tape on the SHSBC.
I can't imagine why anyone would sell their collection of LRH
materials for any price, but many do.
These tapes were the notorious wall of tapes, about 400 of them,
numbered from 1 to whatever, that detailed just about everything that
Ron ever said in time order. This allowed his students on the SHSBC to
gain a clear understanding of the track of Scientology up to present
time.
The Saint Hill Special Briefing Course was the 'super' course of
Scientology, the one you finally got to do once you decided to get
serious about it.
The Church of course holds that what ever Ron said last was the
truth, or at least the enforceable truth, but you have got to realize
that people mature into Scientology the exact same way that Ron did.
Thus new people who first come to this subject resent like hell
being told they may not contribute to it, as every newborn wants to
contribute.
That's their Dianetic stage. 'Let US build a better bridge.'
"Contribute to" is very high on the Scientology Havingness Scale.
Telling people they couldn't be there, sent them lower.
((Havingness Scale: Create, Responsible for (willing to control),
Contribute to, Confront, Have, Waste, Substitute, Waste substitute, Had,
Must be confronted, Must be contributed to, Created.
You will notice that as Scientologists are not allowed to
'Contribute to', they fall down into 'Must be contributed to' which is
what you usually find them dramatizing. This can be read two ways,
either the low tone scientologist insists that HE be contributed to, or
he considers the HE must contribute to the group, which is what he
originally wanted to contribute to but no longer wants to.))
After the Dianetic stage, people want to get into solo auditing of
electronic implants and things talked about in 8-80 and other books.
That's their 'let's go off and solve this thing by ourselves' stage.
Eventually they may come around to seeing things the Church's way.
Perhaps as they grow into the subject themselves, they decide they
would be better off leaving the tech to Ron, and so they become more
aligned with present Church policy. If they don't, they go off and
become Independents.
Unfortunately for the newcomer the only way to find out what Ron
said is to listen to what the Church says Ron said. Usually via
convenient excerpts from Ron's writings that the Church wants him to
see.
But those who have devoted their lives to this subject, who have
read every book five times over, who have listened to every one of a
1000 tapes, who have spent 1000's of hours auditing pcs of every kind,
will tell you in a flash that what 'Ron said' is a subject as wide as
the sky, and only poorly, if at all, represented by what the Church now
says Ron said.
In fact many a time, while listening to tapes, I couldn't believe
what I was hearing, I mean I was just totally dumbfounded, I couldn't
believe that the Church was letting this material out in the open, that
it was PUSHING this stuff on its public. It was just totally damning.
There was Ron laying out the entire anatomy of evil and the
dwindling spiral, and the later day Church following it to the letter
all the way down the line.
Completely hysterical.
In fact the best analysis of later Church behavior one could ever
hope to find is completely contained in Ron's early tapes on withholds
and aberration.
It's all there.
Check out tape 6101C24 (1/24/61), Withholds and In-Session-ness
(Essentials of Auditing Series). You'll find out what Ron REALLY thinks
about Coffee Shop Auditing (a form of chipmunking) and you will
understand the entire anatomy of the dark side of the organization, any
organization including world governments. He also says very clearly
what the fate of these people will be if they continue in their ways.
Certainly publishing this stuff broadly could not do the Church any
good, what with its corporate terrorism, its illegal conspiracies, its
extortion and blackmail, its dirty tricks departments and its lie
factories.
Why sell tapes that point out all your flaws?
The Church's usual response when someone points out its flaws is to
sue them for libel and slander.
Sometimes I mused that if the Church knew what it was publishing in
these tapes it would sue itself.
But you see that is exactly the self protective mechanism that Ron
built into the fabric of the Church. While they were busily destroying
freedom and communication on a world wide basis, they were at the same
time putting out not only a complete confession of their own operation,
but also a complete analysis of the auditing techniques necessary to
handle it, and they HAD TO DO THIS BY RON'S MANDATE!
No matter how strong the aberration, fear of Ron was stronger.
And the beauty of this was they were charging people good money for
the knowledge.
I always thought this was brilliant of Ron, that a corrupt and
rotten organization should be surviving by selling the very plans
necessary to rescue its butt from the mire.
Totally bloody brilliant.
Would that anyone was there to hear.
Or maybe there was, the present day Church claims to have cleaned
up its act. Perhaps it has taken up reading Ron?
So here is the point. In trying to explain my views on the subject
of why Scientology is not liked, I am going to have to trespass a bit
and express my views on what Scientology IS.
Of course anything stated about Scientology that does not jive
exactly and to the letter with the Church's present day policy could and
probably would be considered libelous slander by the Church lawyers.
And if what I did say were to be correct in every detail they would
consider it a copyright violation that I dared to post it to the net
without permission or payment due.
In other words there is just no freedom to speak around here any
more, and that from a subject that taught us a man is as free as he can
communicate.
Oh well, Ron's Whole Message was that aberration consisted of an
unwillingness to communicate, within oneself and with others, so one
figures that an organization manned by aberrees would have a hard time
communicating and allowing others to communicate.
So here goes, bombs away...
Why is Scientology not liked?
Scientology is an APPROACH to a problem, man's suffering in the
world, specifically what do DO about it.
Scientology also presents an ANATOMY of that problem, how
it arose and what it is made of.
Scientology as a science of anatomy and approach to a problem can
thus be considered a 'technology' to deal with that problem.
Scientology as a technology and as a philosophy is very unpopular
with the victim crowd. Past lives are very scary to someone who is a
victim because they have to ask how they came to be a victim in the
first place and what possible hand they may have had in it.
Scientology does NOT teach various forms of KARMA, things like if
you do bad you will get bad, and everything that happens to you in this
life happened because of something bad that you did in a past life.
However Scientology DOES teach that you have lived before and will
live again, and have committed harmful acts in your past lives, just as
you have had harmful acts committed against you in this life.
The basic theory here is that every one has a time track that
records everything that he has done, both good and bad, and also
everything that has happened to him, also good and bad.
Your time track is mechanical aspect of your memory.
If a thetan begins to rue some part of his time track he will go
back to that time in his memory and try to nail it out of existence.
This is called not-ising. The problem of course is that he can never
successfully not-is something that he actually did or actually did
happen to him, so he has to STAY there at that moment of time on his
time track forever making SURE that it STAYS 'out of existence'.
Thus he can not remember much of this life, little of his babyhood,
and none of his assumption of the body, in between lives, past lives,
nor times before having bodies at all.
When trying to take these moments apart in session, when trying to
unstick a preclear from his time track, you will often find that the pc
is stuck in moments of great fury and turmoil to him, moments of supreme
injustice perpetrated on him by his parents and the other significant
figures of this life.
These purveyors of injustice can also be things like God, the
Devil, other entities, and even the universe itself, space, time etc.
You will also find he has committed misdeeds of his own in this
life, sometimes accidentally, sometimes out of pure cussedness, but most
often in an effort to deal with those who were harming him.
Pcs often regret what they do to others even if those others fully
'deserved' it at the time, so the auditor has his work cut out for him.
However, often you will find that no matter how much you get a pc
to look at and reoperate a moment of despair and shut-out on his time
track it just will not alleviate. It was this fact that led Ron to get
his pcs to go 'earlier similar' which meant to find earlier and earlier
material of a similar nature. Pretty soon pcs were reporting that they
were before birth and then before conception and then plunk in a past
life or even a past universe.
The horrible thing was, that there in that past life, they were
doing to THEIR children what they were so upset about their parents
doing to them in this life.
However once returned to the 'scene of the crime' in a past life,
the auditor could then help the pc confront and erase the charge of his
own overt acts as a parent against his own children.
In relieving this charge of regret over what they had done in a
past life, the present life abuse was then willing to erase and the pc
was like new again.
This means no more not-isness and full recall, at least on that
incident.
This is called the OVERT-MOTIVATOR sequence in Scientology.
This means that motivators in this life are often locked in place
by the overt of an earlier life. It is the pc's effort to nail out of
existence both incidents together that causes the lock up.
He really wishes that neither happened.
I would again stress that there is no implication here that the
motivator in this life happened BECAUSE of the overt in a past life,
only that when a motivator happens in this life that has a similar overt
in a past life you get this double lock up situation and both must be
audited for either to clear.
Sometimes it works the other way around. Say you are a little girl
in a past life and your father is sexually abusing you, but there is no
earlier similar incident of this kind at all on your time track and you
yourself have never done it to another in an earlier life.
You grow up and die, and then you take on a male body in this life.
In this life the memory of being abused as a girl by a father gets
restimulated when you have a daughter, and then AS a father in this life
you dramatize it on her by abusing her.
In Scientology that is called going out of valence, or doing to
others what others did to you.
When the perpetrator gets into session in this life, his overts of
abusing his daughter in this life just refuse to erase and the impulse
to abuse does not go away. It is this phenomenon that has lead many to
surmise that some people just can not be rehabilitated.
However if the auditor gets the perpetrator to dig around for the
lifetime when he was a little girl being herself abused by a father then
the two incidents together erase and the problem is gone.
This is called the MOTIVATOR-OVERT sequence.
Now needless to say this theory of life is very unpopular,
especially in these climes when being an innocent victim is fashionable,
and incarcerating people for criminal behavior is big business.
Actually there are innocent victims, it happens every day, but they
are easier to audit. No matter how many times some one has been done
in, no matter how bad it was, if it is not locking up on an earlier
misdeed of their own, then the pain will erase using standard Dianetic
reverie. The patient will recover full access to the memory of the
incident, and little or no address will have to be made to past lives,
except maybe to chase down earlier times they were an innocent victim.
But if you get a pc who has had the slightest thing done to him in
this life, who is also guilty of serious harm to others in a past life,
the stuff in this life won't reduce or release no matter how often you
audit him on it or how long. Get him to contact what HE did though in
that past life and the whole thing clears up.
Now these are just the facts reported by pcs and auditors alike.
You can reject them or accept them as you like. It doesn't even matter
if past lives are REAL, if you refuse to allow a pc to go past track and
refuse to let him run out past life incidents as if they were real, he
will often not get better and the present life trauma will not lift.
By the way don't ever tell your pc that his past life memories are
a delusion, you will lose him as a pc. He just won't come back.
So there is nothing special in any of this except the surmise that
we have lived before and have found life rough enough to rue, and have
engaged in not-isness in order to make our lives more sufferable.
Who among you considers Truth so beautiful that you were willing to
know it all?
Abused children often forget their abuse only to remember it years
later. Well, if you keep going earlier similar, memories of your past
lives and your misadventures there may also start showing up, unless of
course you have some sort of strong preexisting bias against allowing
for the existence of such things.
That's a sure sign though, you know.
However, given the existence of past lives, it is reasonable to
assume that we have done bad things there, and have had bad things done
to us.
It is also reasonable to assume that some of those bad things that
we did there, were similar to bad things that happened to us in this
life, especially between parent and child, and man and woman.
It is also reasonable to assume that some of those bad things that
were done to use in past lives, were similar to bad things we did to
others in this life, again between parent and child and man and woman.
And most especially between the archetypal protagonists and
antagonists of our primary trans lifetime basic purposes (GPMS).
All that Scientology is adding to this is that when bad things in
this life time lock up with bad things in past life times, you get an
unrelievable mess unless you audit both of them to completion.
That is the sum totality of what Scientology has added to a very
old and respected subject.
And it is kind of obvious, isn't it?
Children in this life don't like to think they were mean and
heartless parents in past lives, and men and women in this life don't
like to think they were women and men in past lives.
Thus no one can remember their past lives, as they have effectively
nailed them out of existence. It is much more socially acceptable to
remember being abused in this life than to remember that you were also
an abuser in a past life.
The irony is that the thetan is totally stuck on his time track at
exactly those moments that he thinks doesn't exist.
The real catcher is that you may have been an abuser in a past life
even if you weren't abused in this life.
Such people may even go so far as to deny the validity of your
memories of being abused in this life because it misses the withhold on
them of being an abuser themselves in a past life.
They are just not-ising YOU.
Sometimes people who are afraid of what they have done in their
past lives, and who yet do not know, will pretend that nothing that
happened to them in this life is bothering them. They hope in this way
to assure that their slate is clean from the past.
'If nothing bad happened to me in this life, that means I have been
good in my past lives (I hope).'
That however is the essence of the co-excused withhold.
A co-excused withhold is when you forget what mother is doing to
you in this life if she will forget what you did AS a mother to a child
in a past life.
Nothing here, nothing there.
I assure you, if you can't remember it, you did it.
So cut the sweetness and light and get to work.
Sometimes people 'make up' for being bad in past lives by being
really really good in this life and insisting that everyone else be the
same way. They are full of righteous indignation at your slightest
misstep from the true and narrow. The maddening thing is you can never
find anything on them, they are just so squeaky clean. As long as you
keep your investigations to this life, that is.
So were does justice come into all this? Well as I said there is
no implication that bad things happen in this life BECAUSE you did
something bad in a past life. Sometimes bad things just happen to you
out of the blue.
Someone has got to start it.
In fact auditing is best directed at finding out where YOU started
it. That is the day you rue the most and which locks you into all those
other days when other people started it.
Therefore, there IS an implication that if you did do something bad
in a past life, then when it happens to you in this life you will hold
onto it harder because it helps you justify what you did in a past life.
'It's ok I raped my daughter when I was a father 300 years ago
because my father is raping me now. God, I am never going to get over
this. (Thank you Lord).'
The present life incident is impossible to audit out because the
person is relieved they have it.
Another thing that happens is people get raped and they feel
guilty. That's ridiculous, they were wronged and yet they feel to
blame. Well, it may not be a this life time blame they are feeling! So
now they know what it feels like to be on the other side of the overt
motivator sequence.
If someone is holding on to a motivator in this life because semi
consciously it is helping them justify and feel better about their
overts in a past life, then it will be impossible to audit out the
motivator in this life without running out the overt in the past life.
They just never get better, and that's why therapies that are
addressed only to this life, just sometimes don't work.
The guy's got a record and he is not telling you about it.
It could be you don't want to hear it as an auditor either.
A psychiatrist is some one who wants you to forget your past life
mis deeds and sell you drugs to help you suffer through the outrageous
slings and arrows of misfortune in this life.
About the only way that "justice" enters into this, is the old cat
in the bag theory. If you let the cat out of the bag it MAY come home
and sit in your own lap.
In Scientology this is called contagion of aberration, and 'you
reap what you sow'.
If you abuse your children as a parent, and they dramatize this
trauma by abusing their children, who likewise then abuse their children,
well then, finally when you come back as a child yourself, you may get
one of those abused children as a parent and they will abuse you!
Some people consider this sweet justice.
Really it is a pit of despair.
So this is one of the sore points that people have with Scientology
and with Immortality in general.
My Humble Opinion.
Note that an Immortal who clears all this stuff out, finally
goes Eternal. And that's the end of suffering.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Mar 15 20:24:10 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sci14.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)
iD8DBQFYydsrURT1lqxE3HERAqjCAJoDrSU2HkA6/BiDDOVYNoDEOOr43gCg0Om/
sdnTmpoNdJ4zs0knP6qKvn4=
=RIW/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WHY IS SCIENTOLOGY NOT LIKED?
SCI - 14
Copyright (C) 1992 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
Now what we are talking about here is Scientology stripped of all
of its accoutrements.
We are talking about the Vessel of Truth.
We are not talking about the Church, and we are not talking about
its followers. We are not talking about its founder and we are
certainly not talking about any possible coterie of con men who may have
gathered around the Vessel and who, with backs to the wall, are holding
the fort against all possible efforts to look into that Vessel to see
what Truth might be found there.
We are talking about what Scientology has to say for itself.
We are not saying that these Truths in the Vessel are correct. We
only want to see why possibly so many people take such great exception
to them.
Assuming they know what they are.
So let's put aside for the moment all the bad press, all the legal
battles, all the financial intrigue, all the fanaticism and bad
feelings, all the whirlwind of terrorism and fear that swirls around
this subject, and let's just take a look at the subject itself.
Now I walk on dangerous ground here, for the Church is very
protective of what Scientology IS. They consider the word itself their
trademark, and they consider themselves the last word on what Ron said
and didn't say.
Fortunately Ron himself laid down some very severe rules about what
he did and didn't say, for he knew damn well what aberrated people would
do with his work if these rules were not put in place.
The first rule is that no one must ever say what Ron said without
showing a direct reference. This is the no verbal data rule. You are
not even allowed to ELABORATE on it, or clarify it, and heaven help you
should you attempt to explain it.
The first thing some people do when they leave the Church is write
for weeks on end getting it all out, because they had all these things
to say that they were never allowed to express.
Putting things into your own words is actually a sound part of
Scientology tech, it makes sure that you understand what you have read.
You are just not allowed to apply it to Scientology itself when trying
to teach someone else what it is all about.
The second rule is that if Ron didn't write it, it isn't true, so
you can't say 'this is Scientology tech or policy' unless you got
something in his writing that says so, in which case they should be
reading that rather than listening to you.
Some people got around this by posting things for him and putting
his name to it.
Weeding this stuff out is difficult, especially during a time when
the Church has still not caught on to the forgery. You may KNOW the
article in question is junk, but no one will listen to you. Even the
official Technical Query lines can fail you.
Then later after it becomes habit to cleanse themselves of the past
by saying, 'well Ron didn't write that', they disclaim anything that
makes them uncomfortable or gets them into hot water, by saying 'Ron
didn't write that'.
Sheesh, he's dead already, he can't even defend himself. Of course
some people just SAY 'Ron didn't write that' to appease the masses, and
then they move the policy to the inner sanctum sanctorum and use it from
there.
Of course this was never done. It never even crossed anyone's
mind.
Look I have nothing against the Church, I do however detest
aberrees, being one myself. I also know how to write up a security
check list for an organization. You sit down and think out everything
anyone could do that was bad, dishonest, and underhanded in an
organization and you write it all down like the Johannesburg Security
check list. You then put the Org on the meter, or its executives, and
you read the list off to them. If it reads, they done it, or they been
accused of doing it when they didn't.
Auditor: 'Have you ever used policy that was not publicly
available?'
E-meter: Long fall blow down, rock slam, rock slam, rock slam...
PC: 'Uh no, not me'
E-meter: rock slam, rock slam, rocket read, rock slam...
You see how it goes.
I would question anyone in the Church who claims to not be an
aberree, who claims to not have any withholds of any kind whatsoever.
And I would question anyone in the Church including LRH, who thinks
he can hold a candle to Source, *TRUE* source, the HIGH US.
The third rule is that no part of what Ron ever said must ever be
considered old, out of date or no longer used.
Now this is interesting because 99 percent of what Ron ever said is
very old, very out of date, and never used. So many a field
Scientologist will tell you that if you aren't familiar with, and using,
his material from 1952 to 1963, why then you just aren't making any case
gain.
But the fact is that the Church continues to publish all of Ron's
tech just like he wrote it yesterday, which is a very good thing because
if they didn't, it would all be gone tomorrow.
But nobody's getting any auditing with it, that's for sure.
Most of his early work was canned because the auditors couldn't
handle it (rock slam, rock slam, rock slam.)
Sometimes you wonder if the rock slams you see on the dial are the
pc's, who is holding the cans, or the auditor's.
Much of the work that was developed after Ron attained his own
personal height on the Bridge was developed solely to allow those still
at the bottom to run the processes without ruining everything to hell.
The pc was paying for all this after all, he had some right to expect to
come out of it alive. And solvent.
Anyhow the tech being developed in the 60's was just so powerful
and fast that the auditors couldn't stand it. It restimulated their own
cases, so they altered it, and screwed it up and then complained it
didn't work, all the while breathing a sign of relief.
So you see Ron put these rules in place to prevent his own people
from burying in the ground a technology that they might otherwise prefer
to never see the light of day again, lest they have to handle their own
case or have their own withholds pulled.
That's not a criticism of the Church, that's the God's honest
truth.
Just because someone is in the Church does not mean he is good or
not aberrated.
Just because a Church has the technology to pull withholds doesn't
mean anyone is pulling withholds. They could be withholding doing so!
Ron was ALWAYS up in arms because even his best people would take
what he wrote, refuse to confront it, alter it so it was unusable and
then complain that it didn't work, and that they had to do something
else.
An unbelievable amount of what Ron wrote was written to deal with
this one problem alone.
Of course now that he is dead and gone, nobody is altering tech
anymore out of respect for his memory.
Anyhow Ron put one more rule in place to make very sure that his
tech was not destroyed.
The fourth rule is that He is the One and Only Source for Tech, and
that no one else may make, create, discover, invent, improve upon or
research tech.
Now here is where you will find the Indies and the MIGS really at
odds with each other.
Members In Good Standing.
The MIGS of course believe that Ron held himself up to be the one
and only Source, because he WAS the one and only Source, and the one and
only one capable of doing this work. Therefore anyone else trying to do
this work too was really committing a high crime of hubris that goes
without peer in the Church.
The people in the field of course have a different story to tell.
They claim that the reason Ron did this One Source thing, was because if
just anyone IN THE CHURCH were allowed to create tech, then it would
leave the door open to someone burying Ron's tech to make way for this
new tech, when the inventor of the new tech knew damn well that the new
tech didn't work at all.
It was Ron's opinion that Church's tend to attract that sort of
fellow, being a drain and all for society's lowest.
Ron didn't want new tech that didn't work to push out his old tech
that did work.
So what Ron did was close the door on any excuse for anyone to bury
Ron's own tech, because he knew it worked and Ron knew that people would
try to bury it BECAUSE it worked.
The problem is of course that these rules also prevent anyone else
from expanding or continuing the research, and it also means that
anything originated by anyone else is wrong and invalid because it did
not come from Ron, even though much of what came from Ron actually came
from his co workers.
MIGS take this very seriously, actually literally as the God Given
Truth on the matter. No they don't consider Ron a God, just a big
thetan. They are however more scared of Ron's wrath than God's.
The field of course has a different view which is that Ron is the
founding father of a new and growing science and that Ron fully expects
them to take up the torch and forge a new frontier just like any other
science. Imagine if Newton had said, 'Here I am dying, this is all
there is to physics, there is nothing else to physics and if any one
should dare to add to or correct my life's work, he should be condemned
as a chipmunk.'
So the field considers that Ron meant for them to carry on the
work, even though the Church was told directly by Ron to oppose any
efforts of the field to do so.
The field claims that the only way Ron could ensure the survival of
his tech from the grave, was to put in place mandatory constitutional
mechanisms IN THE CHURCH that not only prevented any tech from being
altered, but also prevented any new tech from being found.
They wouldn't dare get RID of any old tech if there was no new tech
to replace it, don't you see? Further there could be no slightest
question as to what the good tech was, as it was ALL of the extant
writings at the moment of Ron's death.
So even if there were times when actual delivery of the tech
started to fail, and there were, the tech itself would continue to be
pumped out of the Church's book bindery just as it was originally
written for all to see for the rest of time.
Ron knew the field would go right ahead and read everything that he
wrote and advance the science in his absence anyhow.
Anyhow, that's the field's point of view.
Many MIGS by the way don't consider that Ron is coming back.
The field of course wants to wring his neck, so they are definitely
planning for a return.
There is also open debate in the field as to whether Ron could take
back control of his Church or would want to, if he did come back.
Personally I think that Ron will come back, but if he tries to take
back his Church he is going to have quite a fight on his hands. It
would just exceed the credibility of too many people.
Not to mention the resistance of those who had grown fat in his
absence.
It's one thing to piously BELIEVE in past lives, it's quite another
to have it staring you right there in the face.
Anyhow sure enough, someday someone is going to be up on a stage
somewhere saying 'And Ron said...', and a voice from the audience will
thunder out '...THE HELL I DID!'
Talk about a hush.
Anyhow I would like to be there on that day.
Ok so now that every one is appropriately enraged, let me continue.
The facts of the matter are that any given present day stance of
the Church on the subject of what Ron said, is NOT the final word on
what Ron said.
In the first place Ron said many things, often in direct
contradiction with each other.
Believe it or not Ron was a human being who grew into this subject
just like anyone else.
As he matured into his own auditing and case gain, his view of the
world evolved and changed, sometimes drastically. Thus you find him
very warm and friendly towards 'coffee shop auditing' on early tapes and
absolutely rabidly rancorous about it in later policy.
In early Dianetics he said 'so let's get together and build a
better Bridge' implying that other's work was valid. Later he stomped
on other's work as merely the aberrations of 'group think'.
Just as an aside, some of Ron's most personable lectures were done
when he was at the height of his work on withholds and security
checking. He was positively light as air and a friend to behold. It's
almost enough to make you think we should have someone like that leading
the way.
I mean the guy was feeling GOOD, and he KNEW everyone else was good
too.
Perhaps we should give withhold technology a another look.
Anyhow there is this history of what Ron has said, it is recorded
in the time track of his bulletins and tapes, and because of the
'nothing must be destroyed or altered or considered old or not used any
more' rule, ALL of it is available, for a price, to anyone who wants to
look at it, including all the stuff that should have been stomped out of
existence a long time ago lest it show the Church up for what it has
become.
By the way complete original sets of the Saint Hill Special
Briefing course tapes are selling in the field for $500. The Church has
recently released new versions of these same tapes to the public for
around $1000, maybe in Clearsound.
As a group these tapes have long been classified as confidential
because many of them were individually confidential dealing with GPM's
and OT levels. Another reason for their confidentiality is that on some
of them Ron is being quite candid about his own case and his own
sessions with Mary Sue during the times he was going clear himself in
the early '60s.
Wide public issue of these tapes would reveal very clearly that Ron
was not the expert that everyone pictured him to be, his own case was in
dire trouble and that Scientology, ALL of Scientology was really quite
experimental and on shaky grounds.
The public face is that Ron always knew what he was talking about,
and was giving out this great knowledge to the rest of us as we became
ready for it.
The truth is that Ron was an experimental pioneer into one of the
most dangerous territories in existence, and his own health and
stability were always on the line, looking over the brink of Hell as he
says in A History of Man.
Ron was actually producing first goal clears in other people BEFORE
he became a first goal clear himself in early February of 1963, and all
during this time he was trying to produce and maintain stable case gain
in others when he hadn't even attained this himself!
That is a big reason why these tapes are so secret, the Church just
didn't want anyone to get the jitters by seeing that the Captain of the
ship was sweating it out in his own nightmare.
But these tapes have always been available in the field from
disenfranchised Scientologists or those who had just gone out the top
and didn't need them any more.
Thus the field has in general had a more accurate view on what Ron
was like and what he was really about. They received an unfiltered
view. Of course higher level people in the church knew the truth too,
because everyone gets to listen to every tape on the SHSBC.
I can't imagine why anyone would sell their collection of LRH
materials for any price, but many do.
These tapes were the notorious wall of tapes, about 400 of them,
numbered from 1 to whatever, that detailed just about everything that
Ron ever said in time order. This allowed his students on the SHSBC to
gain a clear understanding of the track of Scientology up to present
time.
The Saint Hill Special Briefing Course was the 'super' course of
Scientology, the one you finally got to do once you decided to get
serious about it.
The Church of course holds that what ever Ron said last was the
truth, or at least the enforceable truth, but you have got to realize
that people mature into Scientology the exact same way that Ron did.
Thus new people who first come to this subject resent like hell
being told they may not contribute to it, as every newborn wants to
contribute.
That's their Dianetic stage. 'Let US build a better bridge.'
"Contribute to" is very high on the Scientology Havingness Scale.
Telling people they couldn't be there, sent them lower.
((Havingness Scale: Create, Responsible for (willing to control),
Contribute to, Confront, Have, Waste, Substitute, Waste substitute, Had,
Must be confronted, Must be contributed to, Created.
You will notice that as Scientologists are not allowed to
'Contribute to', they fall down into 'Must be contributed to' which is
what you usually find them dramatizing. This can be read two ways,
either the low tone scientologist insists that HE be contributed to, or
he considers the HE must contribute to the group, which is what he
originally wanted to contribute to but no longer wants to.))
After the Dianetic stage, people want to get into solo auditing of
electronic implants and things talked about in 8-80 and other books.
That's their 'let's go off and solve this thing by ourselves' stage.
Eventually they may come around to seeing things the Church's way.
Perhaps as they grow into the subject themselves, they decide they
would be better off leaving the tech to Ron, and so they become more
aligned with present Church policy. If they don't, they go off and
become Independents.
Unfortunately for the newcomer the only way to find out what Ron
said is to listen to what the Church says Ron said. Usually via
convenient excerpts from Ron's writings that the Church wants him to
see.
But those who have devoted their lives to this subject, who have
read every book five times over, who have listened to every one of a
1000 tapes, who have spent 1000's of hours auditing pcs of every kind,
will tell you in a flash that what 'Ron said' is a subject as wide as
the sky, and only poorly, if at all, represented by what the Church now
says Ron said.
In fact many a time, while listening to tapes, I couldn't believe
what I was hearing, I mean I was just totally dumbfounded, I couldn't
believe that the Church was letting this material out in the open, that
it was PUSHING this stuff on its public. It was just totally damning.
There was Ron laying out the entire anatomy of evil and the
dwindling spiral, and the later day Church following it to the letter
all the way down the line.
Completely hysterical.
In fact the best analysis of later Church behavior one could ever
hope to find is completely contained in Ron's early tapes on withholds
and aberration.
It's all there.
Check out tape 6101C24 (1/24/61), Withholds and In-Session-ness
(Essentials of Auditing Series). You'll find out what Ron REALLY thinks
about Coffee Shop Auditing (a form of chipmunking) and you will
understand the entire anatomy of the dark side of the organization, any
organization including world governments. He also says very clearly
what the fate of these people will be if they continue in their ways.
Certainly publishing this stuff broadly could not do the Church any
good, what with its corporate terrorism, its illegal conspiracies, its
extortion and blackmail, its dirty tricks departments and its lie
factories.
Why sell tapes that point out all your flaws?
The Church's usual response when someone points out its flaws is to
sue them for libel and slander.
Sometimes I mused that if the Church knew what it was publishing in
these tapes it would sue itself.
But you see that is exactly the self protective mechanism that Ron
built into the fabric of the Church. While they were busily destroying
freedom and communication on a world wide basis, they were at the same
time putting out not only a complete confession of their own operation,
but also a complete analysis of the auditing techniques necessary to
handle it, and they HAD TO DO THIS BY RON'S MANDATE!
No matter how strong the aberration, fear of Ron was stronger.
And the beauty of this was they were charging people good money for
the knowledge.
I always thought this was brilliant of Ron, that a corrupt and
rotten organization should be surviving by selling the very plans
necessary to rescue its butt from the mire.
Totally bloody brilliant.
Would that anyone was there to hear.
Or maybe there was, the present day Church claims to have cleaned
up its act. Perhaps it has taken up reading Ron?
So here is the point. In trying to explain my views on the subject
of why Scientology is not liked, I am going to have to trespass a bit
and express my views on what Scientology IS.
Of course anything stated about Scientology that does not jive
exactly and to the letter with the Church's present day policy could and
probably would be considered libelous slander by the Church lawyers.
And if what I did say were to be correct in every detail they would
consider it a copyright violation that I dared to post it to the net
without permission or payment due.
In other words there is just no freedom to speak around here any
more, and that from a subject that taught us a man is as free as he can
communicate.
Oh well, Ron's Whole Message was that aberration consisted of an
unwillingness to communicate, within oneself and with others, so one
figures that an organization manned by aberrees would have a hard time
communicating and allowing others to communicate.
So here goes, bombs away...
Why is Scientology not liked?
Scientology is an APPROACH to a problem, man's suffering in the
world, specifically what do DO about it.
Scientology also presents an ANATOMY of that problem, how
it arose and what it is made of.
Scientology as a science of anatomy and approach to a problem can
thus be considered a 'technology' to deal with that problem.
Scientology as a technology and as a philosophy is very unpopular
with the victim crowd. Past lives are very scary to someone who is a
victim because they have to ask how they came to be a victim in the
first place and what possible hand they may have had in it.
Scientology does NOT teach various forms of KARMA, things like if
you do bad you will get bad, and everything that happens to you in this
life happened because of something bad that you did in a past life.
However Scientology DOES teach that you have lived before and will
live again, and have committed harmful acts in your past lives, just as
you have had harmful acts committed against you in this life.
The basic theory here is that every one has a time track that
records everything that he has done, both good and bad, and also
everything that has happened to him, also good and bad.
Your time track is mechanical aspect of your memory.
If a thetan begins to rue some part of his time track he will go
back to that time in his memory and try to nail it out of existence.
This is called not-ising. The problem of course is that he can never
successfully not-is something that he actually did or actually did
happen to him, so he has to STAY there at that moment of time on his
time track forever making SURE that it STAYS 'out of existence'.
Thus he can not remember much of this life, little of his babyhood,
and none of his assumption of the body, in between lives, past lives,
nor times before having bodies at all.
When trying to take these moments apart in session, when trying to
unstick a preclear from his time track, you will often find that the pc
is stuck in moments of great fury and turmoil to him, moments of supreme
injustice perpetrated on him by his parents and the other significant
figures of this life.
These purveyors of injustice can also be things like God, the
Devil, other entities, and even the universe itself, space, time etc.
You will also find he has committed misdeeds of his own in this
life, sometimes accidentally, sometimes out of pure cussedness, but most
often in an effort to deal with those who were harming him.
Pcs often regret what they do to others even if those others fully
'deserved' it at the time, so the auditor has his work cut out for him.
However, often you will find that no matter how much you get a pc
to look at and reoperate a moment of despair and shut-out on his time
track it just will not alleviate. It was this fact that led Ron to get
his pcs to go 'earlier similar' which meant to find earlier and earlier
material of a similar nature. Pretty soon pcs were reporting that they
were before birth and then before conception and then plunk in a past
life or even a past universe.
The horrible thing was, that there in that past life, they were
doing to THEIR children what they were so upset about their parents
doing to them in this life.
However once returned to the 'scene of the crime' in a past life,
the auditor could then help the pc confront and erase the charge of his
own overt acts as a parent against his own children.
In relieving this charge of regret over what they had done in a
past life, the present life abuse was then willing to erase and the pc
was like new again.
This means no more not-isness and full recall, at least on that
incident.
This is called the OVERT-MOTIVATOR sequence in Scientology.
This means that motivators in this life are often locked in place
by the overt of an earlier life. It is the pc's effort to nail out of
existence both incidents together that causes the lock up.
He really wishes that neither happened.
I would again stress that there is no implication here that the
motivator in this life happened BECAUSE of the overt in a past life,
only that when a motivator happens in this life that has a similar overt
in a past life you get this double lock up situation and both must be
audited for either to clear.
Sometimes it works the other way around. Say you are a little girl
in a past life and your father is sexually abusing you, but there is no
earlier similar incident of this kind at all on your time track and you
yourself have never done it to another in an earlier life.
You grow up and die, and then you take on a male body in this life.
In this life the memory of being abused as a girl by a father gets
restimulated when you have a daughter, and then AS a father in this life
you dramatize it on her by abusing her.
In Scientology that is called going out of valence, or doing to
others what others did to you.
When the perpetrator gets into session in this life, his overts of
abusing his daughter in this life just refuse to erase and the impulse
to abuse does not go away. It is this phenomenon that has lead many to
surmise that some people just can not be rehabilitated.
However if the auditor gets the perpetrator to dig around for the
lifetime when he was a little girl being herself abused by a father then
the two incidents together erase and the problem is gone.
This is called the MOTIVATOR-OVERT sequence.
Now needless to say this theory of life is very unpopular,
especially in these climes when being an innocent victim is fashionable,
and incarcerating people for criminal behavior is big business.
Actually there are innocent victims, it happens every day, but they
are easier to audit. No matter how many times some one has been done
in, no matter how bad it was, if it is not locking up on an earlier
misdeed of their own, then the pain will erase using standard Dianetic
reverie. The patient will recover full access to the memory of the
incident, and little or no address will have to be made to past lives,
except maybe to chase down earlier times they were an innocent victim.
But if you get a pc who has had the slightest thing done to him in
this life, who is also guilty of serious harm to others in a past life,
the stuff in this life won't reduce or release no matter how often you
audit him on it or how long. Get him to contact what HE did though in
that past life and the whole thing clears up.
Now these are just the facts reported by pcs and auditors alike.
You can reject them or accept them as you like. It doesn't even matter
if past lives are REAL, if you refuse to allow a pc to go past track and
refuse to let him run out past life incidents as if they were real, he
will often not get better and the present life trauma will not lift.
By the way don't ever tell your pc that his past life memories are
a delusion, you will lose him as a pc. He just won't come back.
So there is nothing special in any of this except the surmise that
we have lived before and have found life rough enough to rue, and have
engaged in not-isness in order to make our lives more sufferable.
Who among you considers Truth so beautiful that you were willing to
know it all?
Abused children often forget their abuse only to remember it years
later. Well, if you keep going earlier similar, memories of your past
lives and your misadventures there may also start showing up, unless of
course you have some sort of strong preexisting bias against allowing
for the existence of such things.
That's a sure sign though, you know.
However, given the existence of past lives, it is reasonable to
assume that we have done bad things there, and have had bad things done
to us.
It is also reasonable to assume that some of those bad things that
we did there, were similar to bad things that happened to us in this
life, especially between parent and child, and man and woman.
It is also reasonable to assume that some of those bad things that
were done to use in past lives, were similar to bad things we did to
others in this life, again between parent and child and man and woman.
And most especially between the archetypal protagonists and
antagonists of our primary trans lifetime basic purposes (GPMS).
All that Scientology is adding to this is that when bad things in
this life time lock up with bad things in past life times, you get an
unrelievable mess unless you audit both of them to completion.
That is the sum totality of what Scientology has added to a very
old and respected subject.
And it is kind of obvious, isn't it?
Children in this life don't like to think they were mean and
heartless parents in past lives, and men and women in this life don't
like to think they were women and men in past lives.
Thus no one can remember their past lives, as they have effectively
nailed them out of existence. It is much more socially acceptable to
remember being abused in this life than to remember that you were also
an abuser in a past life.
The irony is that the thetan is totally stuck on his time track at
exactly those moments that he thinks doesn't exist.
The real catcher is that you may have been an abuser in a past life
even if you weren't abused in this life.
Such people may even go so far as to deny the validity of your
memories of being abused in this life because it misses the withhold on
them of being an abuser themselves in a past life.
They are just not-ising YOU.
Sometimes people who are afraid of what they have done in their
past lives, and who yet do not know, will pretend that nothing that
happened to them in this life is bothering them. They hope in this way
to assure that their slate is clean from the past.
'If nothing bad happened to me in this life, that means I have been
good in my past lives (I hope).'
That however is the essence of the co-excused withhold.
A co-excused withhold is when you forget what mother is doing to
you in this life if she will forget what you did AS a mother to a child
in a past life.
Nothing here, nothing there.
I assure you, if you can't remember it, you did it.
So cut the sweetness and light and get to work.
Sometimes people 'make up' for being bad in past lives by being
really really good in this life and insisting that everyone else be the
same way. They are full of righteous indignation at your slightest
misstep from the true and narrow. The maddening thing is you can never
find anything on them, they are just so squeaky clean. As long as you
keep your investigations to this life, that is.
So were does justice come into all this? Well as I said there is
no implication that bad things happen in this life BECAUSE you did
something bad in a past life. Sometimes bad things just happen to you
out of the blue.
Someone has got to start it.
In fact auditing is best directed at finding out where YOU started
it. That is the day you rue the most and which locks you into all those
other days when other people started it.
Therefore, there IS an implication that if you did do something bad
in a past life, then when it happens to you in this life you will hold
onto it harder because it helps you justify what you did in a past life.
'It's ok I raped my daughter when I was a father 300 years ago
because my father is raping me now. God, I am never going to get over
this. (Thank you Lord).'
The present life incident is impossible to audit out because the
person is relieved they have it.
Another thing that happens is people get raped and they feel
guilty. That's ridiculous, they were wronged and yet they feel to
blame. Well, it may not be a this life time blame they are feeling! So
now they know what it feels like to be on the other side of the overt
motivator sequence.
If someone is holding on to a motivator in this life because semi
consciously it is helping them justify and feel better about their
overts in a past life, then it will be impossible to audit out the
motivator in this life without running out the overt in the past life.
They just never get better, and that's why therapies that are
addressed only to this life, just sometimes don't work.
The guy's got a record and he is not telling you about it.
It could be you don't want to hear it as an auditor either.
A psychiatrist is some one who wants you to forget your past life
mis deeds and sell you drugs to help you suffer through the outrageous
slings and arrows of misfortune in this life.
About the only way that "justice" enters into this, is the old cat
in the bag theory. If you let the cat out of the bag it MAY come home
and sit in your own lap.
In Scientology this is called contagion of aberration, and 'you
reap what you sow'.
If you abuse your children as a parent, and they dramatize this
trauma by abusing their children, who likewise then abuse their children,
well then, finally when you come back as a child yourself, you may get
one of those abused children as a parent and they will abuse you!
Some people consider this sweet justice.
Really it is a pit of despair.
So this is one of the sore points that people have with Scientology
and with Immortality in general.
My Humble Opinion.
Note that an Immortal who clears all this stuff out, finally
goes Eternal. And that's the end of suffering.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Mar 15 20:24:10 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sci14.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)
iD8DBQFYydsrURT1lqxE3HERAqjCAJoDrSU2HkA6/BiDDOVYNoDEOOr43gCg0Om/
sdnTmpoNdJ4zs0knP6qKvn4=
=RIW/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)