-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
OBSERVATION AND THEORY
Observation takes precedence over theory.
In the end, if you have no observations, your theories are
meaningless.
If you have an observation which contradicts your theory, then
your theory is false.
And if you have an observation that supports your theory, then
your theory is no better off than it was, its still just a theory.
The moral of the story is never let a theory get in the way
of a perfect certainty.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun Feb 12 19:08:53 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Apr 30 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore317.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)
iD8DBQFZBgoDURT1lqxE3HERAqEwAJ0bCpmC877KXOmSxPWBgsL3HOVmbACghanM
OisvqsCZxM5auOr0ghP+25w=
=C1Qm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, April 30, 2017
ADORE76 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE PROFESSIONAL VICTIM
The professional victim is one who makes his living by being a victim,
he makes his way through life BY being a victim, he feels that if he
weren't a victim he wouldn't survive.
Professional victims are the single most dangerous people in the
world, because if you don't demonstrate that you are a professional victim
also, they will devote their entire lives to victimizing you and your
friends until you all become professional victims too.
This can whittle any OT down to size who isn't able to create, make,
mockup, cast, and take responsibility over and for professional victims
forever for free.
There is an important item in the ARC triangle called Accord.
Is there accord between what you want and what you consider is?
For most people who are honest, they would say no.
Most people would prefer to be dreamballs than meatballs, if they have
any honesty they will admit that. Most however run into the wall of
preposterousness when they consider the possibility of being dreamballs,
and so they have a hard time giving it any credence and thus any study.
They feel they are wasting their time, talking about it, looking into it,
studying it, hypothesizing about it etc.
Some however take so much affrontage that you might be wasting your
time considering the patently preposterous, that they will devote their
whole lives to making sure you don't.
It's an overt on them that you are wasting your time, don't you see?
They have declared a covert war against their own desires and the
possibility that they might have what they really want.
Watch out for them, for they will kill to be right.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Apr 29 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore76.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)
iD8DBQFZBLiDURT1lqxE3HERAkISAKCP0akQ99Y86CSi0IPTH1FsVlSbOQCfZ72n
xjPdzsUbyOFe/5/TLQjLFog=
=Nn5D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE PROFESSIONAL VICTIM
The professional victim is one who makes his living by being a victim,
he makes his way through life BY being a victim, he feels that if he
weren't a victim he wouldn't survive.
Professional victims are the single most dangerous people in the
world, because if you don't demonstrate that you are a professional victim
also, they will devote their entire lives to victimizing you and your
friends until you all become professional victims too.
This can whittle any OT down to size who isn't able to create, make,
mockup, cast, and take responsibility over and for professional victims
forever for free.
There is an important item in the ARC triangle called Accord.
Is there accord between what you want and what you consider is?
For most people who are honest, they would say no.
Most people would prefer to be dreamballs than meatballs, if they have
any honesty they will admit that. Most however run into the wall of
preposterousness when they consider the possibility of being dreamballs,
and so they have a hard time giving it any credence and thus any study.
They feel they are wasting their time, talking about it, looking into it,
studying it, hypothesizing about it etc.
Some however take so much affrontage that you might be wasting your
time considering the patently preposterous, that they will devote their
whole lives to making sure you don't.
It's an overt on them that you are wasting your time, don't you see?
They have declared a covert war against their own desires and the
possibility that they might have what they really want.
Watch out for them, for they will kill to be right.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Apr 29 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore76.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)
iD8DBQFZBLiDURT1lqxE3HERAkISAKCP0akQ99Y86CSi0IPTH1FsVlSbOQCfZ72n
xjPdzsUbyOFe/5/TLQjLFog=
=Nn5D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, April 28, 2017
ADORE733 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE NONSENSE OF BUDDHISM
Curiosus <curiosus@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> For example the Tibetan Buddhist nun and princess Ani Patchen: leading
> 600 fighters on horseback against Chinese tanks in 1959, captured by
> the Chinese army, beaten, hung by her wrists for a week, a year in leg
> irons, nine months in solitary confinement with no light, in prison
> for 21 years, then walking for 25 days in the snow from Tibet to Nepal
> to escape another arrest, fighting until her death in 2002 to demand
> human rights for Tibetans. Low toned?
Happiness is in the chase.
If she had wanted serenity for ever above time she could have had
it, but she CHOSE to enter time and suffer.
Why do you contradict me?
Do the people in time not have any responsibility for their
condition?
Fair chosen is fair chosen.
That people 'seek' happiness is nonsense.
People HAVE happiness. They have exactly what they want as it is.
How do you think it came to be?
By accident? By mistake? By fault? By flaw?
Justice is you get what you postulate.
Therefore you have what you want at all times.
It's ok to change your mind, but you can't get rid of something
until you admit having wanted it in the first place.
People are God, God does not make mistakes, God only makes
masterpieces.
People WANT to have things they don't want, so they can pursue the
game of chase of making things better. Once they win the game, they
lose the chase, gotta have more things they don't want, so they can fight them,
otherwise they might as well go back to sleep, because no detested
realities means no chase means no game.
Thus detested realities are adorable.
Every single piece of anything that someone doesn't want, is
actually havingness to them, something they want to have to not want.
It can only be as-ised by spotting the wanting to have it!
Buddhism says that suffering comes from attachment, desiring things
that we want. This is nonsense, suffering comes from attachment to
SUFFERING, having things we don't want. Gotta have suffering if you
gonna spend the rest of time chasing peace and its attendant short lived
glories.
Attachment isn't a bad thing, its the way things work. Its the how
and why we can create games of chase and take them seriously.
THAT IS HAPPINESS.
A good deadly serious game of chase.
Those that SEEK enlightenment in order to escape unenlightenment
are doing so in order to NOT find enlightenment, because the last time
they had it, they created unenlightenment so they could enjoy a good
row. But in order to keep unenlightenment around, in order to enjoy their
games of chase, they have to hate unenlightenment and seek enlightenment
which forever puts it out of reach.
Whatever the person wants on the surface level he doesn't want, and
whatever he doesn't want he wants.
The alteris creates persistence, time and game.
Picture the game won and over, time ending, and everyone saying
good bye to the playing field, and you will know what sorrow really is.
Maybe some laughter too.
You figure out your upset on death yet?
Take whatever you think on the matter, write it down on
a piece of paper, and then reverse each item 180 degrees.
Homer
>
>
> Curiosus
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Mar 26 22:25:44 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Apr 28 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore733.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)
iD8DBQFZA2cDURT1lqxE3HERAtwUAJ4hDsoYyBJ1dD2Rp8JEO1Rmt0TUgACfW9P1
6i+CqPbAIuZ9uYXKukTWOxs=
=sf0W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE NONSENSE OF BUDDHISM
Curiosus <curiosus@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> For example the Tibetan Buddhist nun and princess Ani Patchen: leading
> 600 fighters on horseback against Chinese tanks in 1959, captured by
> the Chinese army, beaten, hung by her wrists for a week, a year in leg
> irons, nine months in solitary confinement with no light, in prison
> for 21 years, then walking for 25 days in the snow from Tibet to Nepal
> to escape another arrest, fighting until her death in 2002 to demand
> human rights for Tibetans. Low toned?
Happiness is in the chase.
If she had wanted serenity for ever above time she could have had
it, but she CHOSE to enter time and suffer.
Why do you contradict me?
Do the people in time not have any responsibility for their
condition?
Fair chosen is fair chosen.
That people 'seek' happiness is nonsense.
People HAVE happiness. They have exactly what they want as it is.
How do you think it came to be?
By accident? By mistake? By fault? By flaw?
Justice is you get what you postulate.
Therefore you have what you want at all times.
It's ok to change your mind, but you can't get rid of something
until you admit having wanted it in the first place.
People are God, God does not make mistakes, God only makes
masterpieces.
People WANT to have things they don't want, so they can pursue the
game of chase of making things better. Once they win the game, they
lose the chase, gotta have more things they don't want, so they can fight them,
otherwise they might as well go back to sleep, because no detested
realities means no chase means no game.
Thus detested realities are adorable.
Every single piece of anything that someone doesn't want, is
actually havingness to them, something they want to have to not want.
It can only be as-ised by spotting the wanting to have it!
Buddhism says that suffering comes from attachment, desiring things
that we want. This is nonsense, suffering comes from attachment to
SUFFERING, having things we don't want. Gotta have suffering if you
gonna spend the rest of time chasing peace and its attendant short lived
glories.
Attachment isn't a bad thing, its the way things work. Its the how
and why we can create games of chase and take them seriously.
THAT IS HAPPINESS.
A good deadly serious game of chase.
Those that SEEK enlightenment in order to escape unenlightenment
are doing so in order to NOT find enlightenment, because the last time
they had it, they created unenlightenment so they could enjoy a good
row. But in order to keep unenlightenment around, in order to enjoy their
games of chase, they have to hate unenlightenment and seek enlightenment
which forever puts it out of reach.
Whatever the person wants on the surface level he doesn't want, and
whatever he doesn't want he wants.
The alteris creates persistence, time and game.
Picture the game won and over, time ending, and everyone saying
good bye to the playing field, and you will know what sorrow really is.
Maybe some laughter too.
You figure out your upset on death yet?
Take whatever you think on the matter, write it down on
a piece of paper, and then reverse each item 180 degrees.
Homer
>
>
> Curiosus
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Mar 26 22:25:44 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Apr 28 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore733.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)
iD8DBQFZA2cDURT1lqxE3HERAtwUAJ4hDsoYyBJ1dD2Rp8JEO1Rmt0TUgACfW9P1
6i+CqPbAIuZ9uYXKukTWOxs=
=sf0W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
THE PROOF FOR THIRD GRADERS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE PROOF FOR THIRD GRADERS
04/28/17 Friday 4:35pm EST
If you can SEE something,
then
it can not be OUT THERE.
because
if it were OUT THERE,
then
you wouldn't be able to SEE it.
This involves three concepts.
IS - means to BE or to EXIST.
TO SEE - means to see or experience conscious renditions of, color,
sounds, feelings etc.
OUT THERE - means not here now, in either space or time.
These three concepts then form a triangle called The Proof.
IS
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ THE \
/ PROOF \
/ \
/ \
----------------
TO SEE OUT THERE
The proof says take two, only two can be true the same time.
If it IS and you SEE it, then it is not OUT THERE.
If it IS and it is OUT THERE, then you can not SEE it.
If you SEE it and it is OUT THERE, then it ISN'T. :)
Notice the above implies the following.
Time and space are symetrical with regards to SEEING.
You can not see across a distance in either space or time.
Just as you can only see conscious renditions in the now,
you can only see conscious renditions in the here.
Thus consciousness is scalar.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Apr 28 16:36:14 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/third
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)
iD8DBQFZA6e+URT1lqxE3HERAjZ+AJ49isAKywbPOV9DKq6ZKgPB40iggACgilzv
LlsmoW113fkBkB31r/5rLsU=
=Seax
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE PROOF FOR THIRD GRADERS
04/28/17 Friday 4:35pm EST
If you can SEE something,
then
it can not be OUT THERE.
because
if it were OUT THERE,
then
you wouldn't be able to SEE it.
This involves three concepts.
IS - means to BE or to EXIST.
TO SEE - means to see or experience conscious renditions of, color,
sounds, feelings etc.
OUT THERE - means not here now, in either space or time.
These three concepts then form a triangle called The Proof.
IS
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ THE \
/ PROOF \
/ \
/ \
----------------
TO SEE OUT THERE
The proof says take two, only two can be true the same time.
If it IS and you SEE it, then it is not OUT THERE.
If it IS and it is OUT THERE, then you can not SEE it.
If you SEE it and it is OUT THERE, then it ISN'T. :)
Notice the above implies the following.
Time and space are symetrical with regards to SEEING.
You can not see across a distance in either space or time.
Just as you can only see conscious renditions in the now,
you can only see conscious renditions in the here.
Thus consciousness is scalar.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Apr 28 16:36:14 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/third
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)
iD8DBQFZA6e+URT1lqxE3HERAjZ+AJ49isAKywbPOV9DKq6ZKgPB40iggACgilzv
LlsmoW113fkBkB31r/5rLsU=
=Seax
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, April 27, 2017
ACT27 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WAS L. RON HUBBARD SIR ISAAC NEWTON?
ACT - 27
13 November 1993
Editor's Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
ISACC NEWTON
From a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
Copyright (C) Stephen Hawking 1988 and Bantam Books
All Rights reserved
Isaac Newton was not a pleasant man. His relations with other
academics were notorious, with most of his later life spent embroiled in
heated disputes. Following publication of Principia Mathematica, surely
the most influential book ever written in physics, Newton had risen
rapidly into public prominence. He was appointed president of the Royal
Society and became the first scientist ever to be knighted.
Newton soon clashed with the Astronomer Royal, John Flamsteed, who
had earlier provided Newton with much needed data for Principia, but was
now withholding information that Newton wanted. Newton would not take
no for an answer; he had himself appointed to the governing body of the
Royal Observatory and then tried to force immediate publication of the
data. Eventually he arranged for Flamsteed's work to be seized and
prepared for publication by Flamsteed's mortal enemy, Edmond Halley.
But Flamsteed took the case to court and, in the nick of time, won a
court order preventing distribution of the stolen work. Newton was
incensed and sought his revenge by systematically deleting all
references to Flamsteed in later editions of Principia.
A more serious dispute arose with the German philosopher Gottfried
Leibniz. Both Leibniz and Newton had independently developed a branch
of mathematics called calculus, which underlies most of modern physics.
Although we now know that Newton discovered calculus years before
Leibniz, he published his work much later. A major row ensued over who
had been first, with scientists vigorously defending both contenders.
It is remarkable, however, that most of the articles appearing in
defense of Newton were originally written by his own hand and only
published in the name of friends! As the row grew, Leibniz made the
mistake of appealing to the Royal Society to resolve the dispute.
Newton, as president, appointed an "impartial" committee to investigate,
coincidentally consisting entirely of Newton's friends! But that was
not all: Newton then wrote the committee's report himself and had the
Royal Society publish it, officially accusing Leibniz of plagiarism.
Still unsatisfied, he then wrote an anonymous review of the report in
the Royal Society's own periodical. Following the death of Leibniz,
Newton is reported to have declared that he had taken great satisfaction
in "breaking Leibniz's heart".
During the period of these two disputes, Newton had already left
Cambridge and academe. He had been active in anti-Catholic politics at
Cambridge, and later in Parliament, and was rewarded eventually with the
lucrative post of Warden of the Royal Mint. Here he used his talents
for deviousness and vitriol in a more socially acceptable way,
successfully conducting a major campaign against counterfeiting, even
sending several men to their death on the gallows.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Apr 27 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act27.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)
iD8DBQFZAhWCURT1lqxE3HERAq/zAJ9cWW6QQkAWGTdkobjuFjh64SJPXgCcCXln
5FEnQRbfwtORaqvQrvXnvKo=
=dSmc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WAS L. RON HUBBARD SIR ISAAC NEWTON?
ACT - 27
13 November 1993
Editor's Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
ISACC NEWTON
From a Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking
Copyright (C) Stephen Hawking 1988 and Bantam Books
All Rights reserved
Isaac Newton was not a pleasant man. His relations with other
academics were notorious, with most of his later life spent embroiled in
heated disputes. Following publication of Principia Mathematica, surely
the most influential book ever written in physics, Newton had risen
rapidly into public prominence. He was appointed president of the Royal
Society and became the first scientist ever to be knighted.
Newton soon clashed with the Astronomer Royal, John Flamsteed, who
had earlier provided Newton with much needed data for Principia, but was
now withholding information that Newton wanted. Newton would not take
no for an answer; he had himself appointed to the governing body of the
Royal Observatory and then tried to force immediate publication of the
data. Eventually he arranged for Flamsteed's work to be seized and
prepared for publication by Flamsteed's mortal enemy, Edmond Halley.
But Flamsteed took the case to court and, in the nick of time, won a
court order preventing distribution of the stolen work. Newton was
incensed and sought his revenge by systematically deleting all
references to Flamsteed in later editions of Principia.
A more serious dispute arose with the German philosopher Gottfried
Leibniz. Both Leibniz and Newton had independently developed a branch
of mathematics called calculus, which underlies most of modern physics.
Although we now know that Newton discovered calculus years before
Leibniz, he published his work much later. A major row ensued over who
had been first, with scientists vigorously defending both contenders.
It is remarkable, however, that most of the articles appearing in
defense of Newton were originally written by his own hand and only
published in the name of friends! As the row grew, Leibniz made the
mistake of appealing to the Royal Society to resolve the dispute.
Newton, as president, appointed an "impartial" committee to investigate,
coincidentally consisting entirely of Newton's friends! But that was
not all: Newton then wrote the committee's report himself and had the
Royal Society publish it, officially accusing Leibniz of plagiarism.
Still unsatisfied, he then wrote an anonymous review of the report in
the Royal Society's own periodical. Following the death of Leibniz,
Newton is reported to have declared that he had taken great satisfaction
in "breaking Leibniz's heart".
During the period of these two disputes, Newton had already left
Cambridge and academe. He had been active in anti-Catholic politics at
Cambridge, and later in Parliament, and was rewarded eventually with the
lucrative post of Warden of the Royal Mint. Here he used his talents
for deviousness and vitriol in a more socially acceptable way,
successfully conducting a major campaign against counterfeiting, even
sending several men to their death on the gallows.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Apr 27 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act27.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)
iD8DBQFZAhWCURT1lqxE3HERAq/zAJ9cWW6QQkAWGTdkobjuFjh64SJPXgCcCXln
5FEnQRbfwtORaqvQrvXnvKo=
=dSmc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
SANDR (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SEPARATION AND RESISTANCE
The good guy tries to change the bad guy but does not want to be the
bad guy. Thus the good guy separates off from being the bad guy into
being only the good guy.
The bad guy wants to harm the good guy but not harm himself, so he
separates off from the good guy into being only the bad guy.
The OT is able to set up both a good guy and a bad guy and let them
go at it with each other, all the while being both.
In being both there is no pain, as pain comes from separation and
resistence.
This is a miraculous state, way beyond most people at this time.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 E-mail, FTP, Shell Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com info@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Apr 25 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sandr
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)
iD8DBQFY/3KDURT1lqxE3HERAs9AAJ96wz+Xj0P0Mk7BSEXhhS01oaRNMwCeK3bX
hTokHTGnm93zqDrbJ6RiGAU=
=paBb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SEPARATION AND RESISTANCE
The good guy tries to change the bad guy but does not want to be the
bad guy. Thus the good guy separates off from being the bad guy into
being only the good guy.
The bad guy wants to harm the good guy but not harm himself, so he
separates off from the good guy into being only the bad guy.
The OT is able to set up both a good guy and a bad guy and let them
go at it with each other, all the while being both.
In being both there is no pain, as pain comes from separation and
resistence.
This is a miraculous state, way beyond most people at this time.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 E-mail, FTP, Shell Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com info@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Apr 25 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sandr
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)
iD8DBQFY/3KDURT1lqxE3HERAs9AAJ96wz+Xj0P0Mk7BSEXhhS01oaRNMwCeK3bX
hTokHTGnm93zqDrbJ6RiGAU=
=paBb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, April 24, 2017
ADORE579 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CLEAR AND OT
A Operating Thetan is a conscious unit.
Clear is a spiritual state free from aberration.
Aberrations are self installed but otherwise other determined
thoughts, emotions, and efforts that result from pain and
unconsciousness stored in the being's time track, which are not
appropriate to present time, and are damaging to the life of the
preclear.
There can be acute aberrations, moments of insanity born of anger,
hate, and no sympathy or even regret, and chronic aberrations which
persist through the whole life of the being, including physical somatics
(pains), crippling conditions, and other disabilities on the spiritual,
mental, emotional and physical planes, including chronic illness of many
kinds.
The time track is erased by first removing all the force, pain and
unconsciousness from the recordings by direct viewing of detested
moments along with his intent to use them, and then when the time track
is fully clear, it can be erased in its entirety leaving the person with
no recorded memory of his history. Memory then results from direct
pervasion of the past.
OT
People tend to think that clear is a gradient on the way to
becoming OT.
In fact CLEAR and OT are two completely different subjects.
There is no BECOMING OT, everyone is an OT at all times.
OT's have two operating modes called Creator and Creature, Author
and Character, or Game Creator and Game Player.
The basic purpose of an OT is to create games of limitation, of
freedoms, barriers and purposes, and then to jump into them and play
them for fun, either with or without awareness of having created the
game (or bought it from another), or of self incarnating as the player.
Like an arcade game writer or Author, they create characters with
abilities and limitations, give them goals to strive for and barriers to
attainment, and then they don, take on, these creations and play them as
if they were actual.
Happiness is the overcoming of not unknowable barriers towards
known goals.
Happiness is in the chase. The chase creates time and persistence
for the dreamtime apparancies of matter, energy, space and time.
When games are no longer fun, it is time to become the
Creator/Author again, and redesign a new game for yourself.
This is a lot easier than trying to continue the existing game by
acquiring super natural powers so you can break the game rules and win
by cheating against an overwhelming enemy.
Games become no longer fun mostly when the chances of either
winning or losing are too high. It's the not know on the matter that
generates thrill.
Remember a game that is won is lost, you need a new game.
A game that is lost, is also lost, again you need a new game.
Happy havingness then is having a game to play, that still needs or
demands playing, usually with full awareness of who created the game and
who chose to engage it. But sometimes not, some games are more fun if
one simply wakes up into them one day in the middle of the enemy coming
over the hill (mother), and having to hit the floor running. One can
then spend quiet times musing about 'What's it all about?'
In otherwords, where am I, how did I get here, and where am I
going? You see he KNOWS the answers to all these questions, but
sometimes the game is such that it would ruin the game to know.
OT's in creator mode are often expected to have supernatural powers
like telekenesis, but a being who can create a space and time, put a
table in it with a marble on top, is very unlikely to be interested in
proving that he did so afterwards, let alone move the marble in
violation of game rules as a game player.
If you can put the marble there with your will, you can move the
marble with your will.
Further the OT would be putting the "Prove it!" case there to harp
at him. Prove it cases are just another marble on the table to the OT.
If game rules allow for telekenesis, then the marble will move when
it is time, but breaking game rules wakes everyone up from game player
mode into game creator mode ahead of schedule, kind of like calling
'Portal!' on the Enterprise's holodeck.
Other game players HATE that.
Yes, life is a holodeck dreaming that it is not.
Consciousness exists, physical universe is pure hallucination
including the brain. All physical objects are symbols for something
actual going on in the spiritual world. Cause is thus in the spiritual
world, and not the physical world which is a dream rendition.
The 'why' exceeds most people's imagination, mainly because creator
mode is somewhat alien to creature mode, and what is virtue for the
creator is not necessarily virtue for the creature and visa versa.
A 'good' Author will create 'good' stories consisting of good and
bad people. A story with only good people in it, would be boring to the
point of self termination.
Yet if a character were caught creating bad people, he would be
drawn and quartered. Kind of the way most people feel about God.
It's not OK for someone to have done this thing to someone else,
but it is OK to have done it to yourself.
Thus goodness in an Author and goodness in a character are not the
same thing.
Characters in fact fear authors for just that reason, they worry
about being part of a 'good' story, sometimes the good die young.
But the good also live forever, and in the end, because no one
judges anyone but one's self, only the good end up in hell for a while,
because only the good feel guilty.
So its an interesting world out there, much more interesting than
our parents taught us.
CLEAR
Clearing has to do with aberration.
The primary source of aberration is carrying around a time track,
which is a spiritual facsimile recording of everything that one has
done, and experienced.
The problem with the time track is it records the FORCE which
impinged on the being at the time of the recording and the pain and
unconsciousness. Thus when the being reactivates a recorded incident on
the time track, the recorded incident can FORCE the being along, with
pain and unconsciousness to do, think, feel or say something.
The time track itself is a fair chosen creation, it had its
purposes at the time, perhaps to control the being during times of
extreme danger when the analytical mind could not think clearly.
But the utter idiocy of the thinking that takes place when the time
track is commanding the being is far worse, and has ended everyone up in
the soup they presently find themselves in today.
It's all fair chosen with the twinkling of an eye, but its a long
slippery slope getting here, so you won't find a single moment of
responsibility for the entire mess, but many of them.
A time track is a recording of everything that has happened to one,
particularly moments of pain and unconsciousness.
The moments can restimulate during similar dangers in present time,
and when they do, they offer to the being 'solutions' to his present
predicament. These solutions are taken from the winning valence in the
past incidents that are in restimulation.
Somewhere in the past you are bugging someone, and they hit you
over the head with a stone and kill you. They are the winning valence
in the recording.
Sometime in the future, someone is bugging you, and the past
incident comes over you and almost MAKES you pick up a baseball bat and
knock the brains out of the other. There is a moment of choice in there
though, when the present being thinks 'well this looks like a good
idea', WHAPP!
More often in civilized society these things happen at the level of
words and emotions, which similar results.
Maybe words can't kill, but they can kill a relationship.
Regret however CAN kill.
Such events are often regretted, and thus the being loses faith in
his own ability to deal and stay cool, and he doesn't understand anymore
that he is getting long ago solicited 'help' from his time track,
because his time track is buried in unconsciousness and pain which only
reaches out to 'help' him determine what to do under moments of extreme
stress and danger.
At some point in the child's life, the continuous stress of living
around other aberrated people will result in the child CHOOSING an
incident in which he lost or was hurt, and begin to 'wear' that incident
full time.
Such incidents usually have a golden ally then them, someone who
defended the being during the original recording, against the contra
survival forces doing the child in.
So you get the hero, villan, victim triangle, where the being was a
victim, the golden ally was the hero, and the villan was the bad guy.
Father is beating up on child for spilling milk, mother is trying
to fend him off...
Mother is sticking knitting needle through fetus to abort it, and
aunt rushes in to stop her.
Psychiatrists are giving mother electric shock treatment while
unknowingly pregnant with early fetus. Spirits move in to protect the
fetus from the waves of electricity.
Sometimes a person can be his own golden ally from a past life.
Pregnant mother is trying to commit suicide by hanging, her father
rushes in and stops her. She has baby, father dies of old age on same
day, he comes back and takes over new baby body. Baby grows up haunted
that he will never find his one true friend that he has been looking for
all his life. It's him from his immediate past life.
Normally when such a sympathy incident comes into play, the present
time being will choose the valence of the winning villan, but if that
doesn't work well, he will choose his OWN valence of being a chronic
victim in order to entice others to become the golden ally again in
present time.
His computation is if he could just be the way he was when he was
last defended by the ally, the ally will materialize and come to defend
him again, or he might get someone else of similar sensitivity to
surrogate for the original ally.
At first it works, then it doesn't, then the guy is stuck with the
incident in chronic restim, because he has failed to confess the ploy.
And since the incident contains numbness and unconsciousness, he
won't remember either the incident when it first occurred, or the choice
to use it, let alone the choice to forget about it later.
Thus you have your work cut out for you when trying to clear a
human being.
Being unclear says nothing about whether one is an OT or not, all
uncleared beings have a time track, and that time track will 'help' them
whether the OT is in creator mode or creature mode.
An aberrated creator mode being can be a real liability to have
around, for he starts to write BAD stories, rather than GOOD stories.
However enough lift up into the top layers of creator mode will
raise the being above his time track where he can work with it directly
unaffected by it.
Word clear the above until you understand the difference:
Good story, bad story
Good character, bad character.
When clearing a being you need to get at the first moment of
murderous intention, anger and no sympathy, That's his worst valence,
and its source will be found to be in his most detested part of his time
track, the part that most never happened. If he is aware of it, it
ain't it.
If he keeps his NO INCIDENT in place in present time he will
feel fine but tend to dramatize murdering things once in a while.
If he begins to wonder what's up with the blood trail, and
starts into SOME INCIDENT, somatics will turn on that will murder him.
He is in a moment of BEING murdered, so when he flips back into
valence he feels like he is dying.
Run "Who or what are you still trying to murder, kill or destroy."
Or get him back to creating NO INCIDENT.
That will chill out the somatics real fast without knowing anything
about the incident.
He lost his class during that one, no more Mr. Nice guy, no more
friends with the universe, no more you are my brother, nope, your skin
will wear nicely draped on my wife's back.
But mixed in with all that murderous intention is regret, sometimes
he murders the wrong guy, some times the sad eyes of his victim really
get to him, you can feel sorry for anyone if they are doing bad enough,
and eventually he forms a murderous intention towards himself and his
own murderous intentions.
Then you got an unauditable ball of mental mass, the guy is at odds
with himself.
To BE or not to BE?
To KILL or not to KILL?
To KILL *AND* not to KILL?
As long as he is stuck in an indecision on these matters, he will
be spiraling downward in life.
This state kind of parks him as an OT in the creature mode, because
he dares not have any power that could be used to harm anything or write
further bad stories.
Thus it is generally considered that a person needs to be cleared
first before one can work on getting them back into Author mode again in
order to better design their life's game.
Of course there is so much bad that comes from the aberrations of
being unclear, that just getting cleared will improve all but the most
crazy OT's life.
But crazy or not, once cleared, any OT can start rewriting better
stories for himself and his game mates, even stories in the wild beyond,
the undreamed dream come true.
So charge the guy at least $100/hour to get him out of his ball of
mass, BUT GET HIM OUT OF IT. Don't pansy around with this stuff, or he
will one day start to target you.
The greatest danger of auditing a murderer or worse someone who has
been murdered, is getting murdered, and that's everyone.
No one has a track free of murder, and everyone has wished murder
off on so many others during this and other lifetimes he can't remember
it any more, and attempted murder counts as murder.
So we all have some clearing to do.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Thu Apr 17 20:11:38 EDT 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Apr 24 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore579.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)
iD8DBQFY/iEDURT1lqxE3HERAuvnAJ4hxRsgCkscDBlvRaZxRW5sV910kQCfQYIt
AD09PcCK8CSNyhLjIQ817E0=
=vyxA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CLEAR AND OT
A Operating Thetan is a conscious unit.
Clear is a spiritual state free from aberration.
Aberrations are self installed but otherwise other determined
thoughts, emotions, and efforts that result from pain and
unconsciousness stored in the being's time track, which are not
appropriate to present time, and are damaging to the life of the
preclear.
There can be acute aberrations, moments of insanity born of anger,
hate, and no sympathy or even regret, and chronic aberrations which
persist through the whole life of the being, including physical somatics
(pains), crippling conditions, and other disabilities on the spiritual,
mental, emotional and physical planes, including chronic illness of many
kinds.
The time track is erased by first removing all the force, pain and
unconsciousness from the recordings by direct viewing of detested
moments along with his intent to use them, and then when the time track
is fully clear, it can be erased in its entirety leaving the person with
no recorded memory of his history. Memory then results from direct
pervasion of the past.
OT
People tend to think that clear is a gradient on the way to
becoming OT.
In fact CLEAR and OT are two completely different subjects.
There is no BECOMING OT, everyone is an OT at all times.
OT's have two operating modes called Creator and Creature, Author
and Character, or Game Creator and Game Player.
The basic purpose of an OT is to create games of limitation, of
freedoms, barriers and purposes, and then to jump into them and play
them for fun, either with or without awareness of having created the
game (or bought it from another), or of self incarnating as the player.
Like an arcade game writer or Author, they create characters with
abilities and limitations, give them goals to strive for and barriers to
attainment, and then they don, take on, these creations and play them as
if they were actual.
Happiness is the overcoming of not unknowable barriers towards
known goals.
Happiness is in the chase. The chase creates time and persistence
for the dreamtime apparancies of matter, energy, space and time.
When games are no longer fun, it is time to become the
Creator/Author again, and redesign a new game for yourself.
This is a lot easier than trying to continue the existing game by
acquiring super natural powers so you can break the game rules and win
by cheating against an overwhelming enemy.
Games become no longer fun mostly when the chances of either
winning or losing are too high. It's the not know on the matter that
generates thrill.
Remember a game that is won is lost, you need a new game.
A game that is lost, is also lost, again you need a new game.
Happy havingness then is having a game to play, that still needs or
demands playing, usually with full awareness of who created the game and
who chose to engage it. But sometimes not, some games are more fun if
one simply wakes up into them one day in the middle of the enemy coming
over the hill (mother), and having to hit the floor running. One can
then spend quiet times musing about 'What's it all about?'
In otherwords, where am I, how did I get here, and where am I
going? You see he KNOWS the answers to all these questions, but
sometimes the game is such that it would ruin the game to know.
OT's in creator mode are often expected to have supernatural powers
like telekenesis, but a being who can create a space and time, put a
table in it with a marble on top, is very unlikely to be interested in
proving that he did so afterwards, let alone move the marble in
violation of game rules as a game player.
If you can put the marble there with your will, you can move the
marble with your will.
Further the OT would be putting the "Prove it!" case there to harp
at him. Prove it cases are just another marble on the table to the OT.
If game rules allow for telekenesis, then the marble will move when
it is time, but breaking game rules wakes everyone up from game player
mode into game creator mode ahead of schedule, kind of like calling
'Portal!' on the Enterprise's holodeck.
Other game players HATE that.
Yes, life is a holodeck dreaming that it is not.
Consciousness exists, physical universe is pure hallucination
including the brain. All physical objects are symbols for something
actual going on in the spiritual world. Cause is thus in the spiritual
world, and not the physical world which is a dream rendition.
The 'why' exceeds most people's imagination, mainly because creator
mode is somewhat alien to creature mode, and what is virtue for the
creator is not necessarily virtue for the creature and visa versa.
A 'good' Author will create 'good' stories consisting of good and
bad people. A story with only good people in it, would be boring to the
point of self termination.
Yet if a character were caught creating bad people, he would be
drawn and quartered. Kind of the way most people feel about God.
It's not OK for someone to have done this thing to someone else,
but it is OK to have done it to yourself.
Thus goodness in an Author and goodness in a character are not the
same thing.
Characters in fact fear authors for just that reason, they worry
about being part of a 'good' story, sometimes the good die young.
But the good also live forever, and in the end, because no one
judges anyone but one's self, only the good end up in hell for a while,
because only the good feel guilty.
So its an interesting world out there, much more interesting than
our parents taught us.
CLEAR
Clearing has to do with aberration.
The primary source of aberration is carrying around a time track,
which is a spiritual facsimile recording of everything that one has
done, and experienced.
The problem with the time track is it records the FORCE which
impinged on the being at the time of the recording and the pain and
unconsciousness. Thus when the being reactivates a recorded incident on
the time track, the recorded incident can FORCE the being along, with
pain and unconsciousness to do, think, feel or say something.
The time track itself is a fair chosen creation, it had its
purposes at the time, perhaps to control the being during times of
extreme danger when the analytical mind could not think clearly.
But the utter idiocy of the thinking that takes place when the time
track is commanding the being is far worse, and has ended everyone up in
the soup they presently find themselves in today.
It's all fair chosen with the twinkling of an eye, but its a long
slippery slope getting here, so you won't find a single moment of
responsibility for the entire mess, but many of them.
A time track is a recording of everything that has happened to one,
particularly moments of pain and unconsciousness.
The moments can restimulate during similar dangers in present time,
and when they do, they offer to the being 'solutions' to his present
predicament. These solutions are taken from the winning valence in the
past incidents that are in restimulation.
Somewhere in the past you are bugging someone, and they hit you
over the head with a stone and kill you. They are the winning valence
in the recording.
Sometime in the future, someone is bugging you, and the past
incident comes over you and almost MAKES you pick up a baseball bat and
knock the brains out of the other. There is a moment of choice in there
though, when the present being thinks 'well this looks like a good
idea', WHAPP!
More often in civilized society these things happen at the level of
words and emotions, which similar results.
Maybe words can't kill, but they can kill a relationship.
Regret however CAN kill.
Such events are often regretted, and thus the being loses faith in
his own ability to deal and stay cool, and he doesn't understand anymore
that he is getting long ago solicited 'help' from his time track,
because his time track is buried in unconsciousness and pain which only
reaches out to 'help' him determine what to do under moments of extreme
stress and danger.
At some point in the child's life, the continuous stress of living
around other aberrated people will result in the child CHOOSING an
incident in which he lost or was hurt, and begin to 'wear' that incident
full time.
Such incidents usually have a golden ally then them, someone who
defended the being during the original recording, against the contra
survival forces doing the child in.
So you get the hero, villan, victim triangle, where the being was a
victim, the golden ally was the hero, and the villan was the bad guy.
Father is beating up on child for spilling milk, mother is trying
to fend him off...
Mother is sticking knitting needle through fetus to abort it, and
aunt rushes in to stop her.
Psychiatrists are giving mother electric shock treatment while
unknowingly pregnant with early fetus. Spirits move in to protect the
fetus from the waves of electricity.
Sometimes a person can be his own golden ally from a past life.
Pregnant mother is trying to commit suicide by hanging, her father
rushes in and stops her. She has baby, father dies of old age on same
day, he comes back and takes over new baby body. Baby grows up haunted
that he will never find his one true friend that he has been looking for
all his life. It's him from his immediate past life.
Normally when such a sympathy incident comes into play, the present
time being will choose the valence of the winning villan, but if that
doesn't work well, he will choose his OWN valence of being a chronic
victim in order to entice others to become the golden ally again in
present time.
His computation is if he could just be the way he was when he was
last defended by the ally, the ally will materialize and come to defend
him again, or he might get someone else of similar sensitivity to
surrogate for the original ally.
At first it works, then it doesn't, then the guy is stuck with the
incident in chronic restim, because he has failed to confess the ploy.
And since the incident contains numbness and unconsciousness, he
won't remember either the incident when it first occurred, or the choice
to use it, let alone the choice to forget about it later.
Thus you have your work cut out for you when trying to clear a
human being.
Being unclear says nothing about whether one is an OT or not, all
uncleared beings have a time track, and that time track will 'help' them
whether the OT is in creator mode or creature mode.
An aberrated creator mode being can be a real liability to have
around, for he starts to write BAD stories, rather than GOOD stories.
However enough lift up into the top layers of creator mode will
raise the being above his time track where he can work with it directly
unaffected by it.
Word clear the above until you understand the difference:
Good story, bad story
Good character, bad character.
When clearing a being you need to get at the first moment of
murderous intention, anger and no sympathy, That's his worst valence,
and its source will be found to be in his most detested part of his time
track, the part that most never happened. If he is aware of it, it
ain't it.
If he keeps his NO INCIDENT in place in present time he will
feel fine but tend to dramatize murdering things once in a while.
If he begins to wonder what's up with the blood trail, and
starts into SOME INCIDENT, somatics will turn on that will murder him.
He is in a moment of BEING murdered, so when he flips back into
valence he feels like he is dying.
Run "Who or what are you still trying to murder, kill or destroy."
Or get him back to creating NO INCIDENT.
That will chill out the somatics real fast without knowing anything
about the incident.
He lost his class during that one, no more Mr. Nice guy, no more
friends with the universe, no more you are my brother, nope, your skin
will wear nicely draped on my wife's back.
But mixed in with all that murderous intention is regret, sometimes
he murders the wrong guy, some times the sad eyes of his victim really
get to him, you can feel sorry for anyone if they are doing bad enough,
and eventually he forms a murderous intention towards himself and his
own murderous intentions.
Then you got an unauditable ball of mental mass, the guy is at odds
with himself.
To BE or not to BE?
To KILL or not to KILL?
To KILL *AND* not to KILL?
As long as he is stuck in an indecision on these matters, he will
be spiraling downward in life.
This state kind of parks him as an OT in the creature mode, because
he dares not have any power that could be used to harm anything or write
further bad stories.
Thus it is generally considered that a person needs to be cleared
first before one can work on getting them back into Author mode again in
order to better design their life's game.
Of course there is so much bad that comes from the aberrations of
being unclear, that just getting cleared will improve all but the most
crazy OT's life.
But crazy or not, once cleared, any OT can start rewriting better
stories for himself and his game mates, even stories in the wild beyond,
the undreamed dream come true.
So charge the guy at least $100/hour to get him out of his ball of
mass, BUT GET HIM OUT OF IT. Don't pansy around with this stuff, or he
will one day start to target you.
The greatest danger of auditing a murderer or worse someone who has
been murdered, is getting murdered, and that's everyone.
No one has a track free of murder, and everyone has wished murder
off on so many others during this and other lifetimes he can't remember
it any more, and attempted murder counts as murder.
So we all have some clearing to do.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Thu Apr 17 20:11:38 EDT 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Apr 24 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore579.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)
iD8DBQFY/iEDURT1lqxE3HERAuvnAJ4hxRsgCkscDBlvRaZxRW5sV910kQCfQYIt
AD09PcCK8CSNyhLjIQ817E0=
=vyxA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE606 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ELECTRA AND ME
Black Mamba <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Homer:
>
> Very interesting essay on "Thetans Of The Universe".
>
> I feel this information is slighty bit above most readers heads. Of
> course I know what you are going to think perhaps, which is "Well, if anyone
> has a misunderstood word on this, why, then well just go and look it up!".
Although I did not write the piece, I tend to not condescend to the
lowest bug on the totem pole. Electra wrote for real people who wanted
to go real OT.
I had quite enough of the Church 'protecting' me for my own good by
keeping things secret while I was in it.
The Church is an interesting dicom, 'ability to communicate with
anyone on any subject', and totally forbidden to discuss anything of
importance, the higher bridge, with anyone not at their own level.
Thus the higher someone was, the more you could get only small talk
out of them.
With very few exceptions I speak (reveal) the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. If you die from it, or get sick or blow, well
that's probably a good thing as long as it was the truth that killed
you.
Can the truth kill? Dunno, partial lies sure as hell can, so
probably a good thing to make sure you understand what you read. And if
it makes you sick, try to spot how you could reunderstand what you are
reading to make you feel better.
Whether Electra's material is to be 'believed', I leave it up to
the reader to decide. Certainly if the world is made of matter energy
space and time as the physics boys say, and consciousness is merely a
process in chemistry bubbling away at 98.6, then all of whole track is
bogus.
But if MEST is a process in consciousness, which existed prior to
and is cause of the creation of the phyiscal universe, then Electra's
writings are at least a plausible interpolation of what certainly could
have happened to explain our present state of amnesia.
> Well what if some people don't believe in study tech as L. Ron
> Hubbard wrote it, being that there is a so called effects from going
> past words one does not fully understand in anything one is
> undertaking to study?
Me I don't care, I talk to the top of the barrel, not the bottom.
I communicate to the able folks, and frankly I don't give a damn what
happens to the rest of the more retarded woggies who might get sick from
a MU. I certainly wouldn't want them in my church no matter how much
money they had.
You see the effort to reg RICH people is at odds with the intent to
reg ABLE people. Thus the church becomes filled with rich idiots that
will throw you into ethics the moment you say anything real or that
violates their fragile conception of the cosmic all.
I don't know if an MU can kill either, although there are lot's of
MU's on this board, and I post in part presently to clean up a few of
them.
> That should be easy to answer Homer. Why are the local orgs so empty?
> Could be people have a misunderstood word on Scientology OR could be they
> don't!
People are not ready to confront that their faith in death forever
was a solution to their faith in hell forever.
They don't believe in getting better any more, as they have missed
the eternality between the immortality and the mortality.
Hell forever Peace Death Forever
Immortality Eternality Mortality
People play see-saw on the wings of the dicom rather than living in
the center, the eternal eye of the storm.
Probably only 10,000 people planet wide will go full OT this life
time, other's will go clear or clearish on many subjects but be happy to
not know what it's store for their future.
"Knows he or she won't get worse" is a broad and vague win during
the beginning of the bridge, even though the being has no clue how bad
its been (hell forever), and how hard it will be to deal with the in
between lives area again next time around. The temptation towards the
pretense of death by becoming something that can die is almost tidal in
power.
Most everyone else will simply go to their graves believing or
fearing what they will, suffer the inbetween lives with no ability to
deal, and get swept back into a body or worse next time around.
For these, the inbetween lives area is like an infinite dark room
filled with vicious unimaginable things grabbing and picking at you from
all directions. The being will do ANYTHING to get back into a body
where it can see a dream again where it can die for good one day.
As to whether present Church or Freezone tech can save anyone from
this fate is uncertain, but if so, probably only in spite of itself.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Jul 30 19:30:58 EDT 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Apr 23 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore606.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)
iD8DBQFY/M+DURT1lqxE3HERAp2gAJ9zfZI8tgxWy9fysBV2+BkHeIH/1gCeIvXI
gZGrfLGY1PCApJBerj8liuk=
=cytA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ELECTRA AND ME
Black Mamba <xxxxxxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Homer:
>
> Very interesting essay on "Thetans Of The Universe".
>
> I feel this information is slighty bit above most readers heads. Of
> course I know what you are going to think perhaps, which is "Well, if anyone
> has a misunderstood word on this, why, then well just go and look it up!".
Although I did not write the piece, I tend to not condescend to the
lowest bug on the totem pole. Electra wrote for real people who wanted
to go real OT.
I had quite enough of the Church 'protecting' me for my own good by
keeping things secret while I was in it.
The Church is an interesting dicom, 'ability to communicate with
anyone on any subject', and totally forbidden to discuss anything of
importance, the higher bridge, with anyone not at their own level.
Thus the higher someone was, the more you could get only small talk
out of them.
With very few exceptions I speak (reveal) the whole truth and
nothing but the truth. If you die from it, or get sick or blow, well
that's probably a good thing as long as it was the truth that killed
you.
Can the truth kill? Dunno, partial lies sure as hell can, so
probably a good thing to make sure you understand what you read. And if
it makes you sick, try to spot how you could reunderstand what you are
reading to make you feel better.
Whether Electra's material is to be 'believed', I leave it up to
the reader to decide. Certainly if the world is made of matter energy
space and time as the physics boys say, and consciousness is merely a
process in chemistry bubbling away at 98.6, then all of whole track is
bogus.
But if MEST is a process in consciousness, which existed prior to
and is cause of the creation of the phyiscal universe, then Electra's
writings are at least a plausible interpolation of what certainly could
have happened to explain our present state of amnesia.
> Well what if some people don't believe in study tech as L. Ron
> Hubbard wrote it, being that there is a so called effects from going
> past words one does not fully understand in anything one is
> undertaking to study?
Me I don't care, I talk to the top of the barrel, not the bottom.
I communicate to the able folks, and frankly I don't give a damn what
happens to the rest of the more retarded woggies who might get sick from
a MU. I certainly wouldn't want them in my church no matter how much
money they had.
You see the effort to reg RICH people is at odds with the intent to
reg ABLE people. Thus the church becomes filled with rich idiots that
will throw you into ethics the moment you say anything real or that
violates their fragile conception of the cosmic all.
I don't know if an MU can kill either, although there are lot's of
MU's on this board, and I post in part presently to clean up a few of
them.
> That should be easy to answer Homer. Why are the local orgs so empty?
> Could be people have a misunderstood word on Scientology OR could be they
> don't!
People are not ready to confront that their faith in death forever
was a solution to their faith in hell forever.
They don't believe in getting better any more, as they have missed
the eternality between the immortality and the mortality.
Hell forever Peace Death Forever
Immortality Eternality Mortality
People play see-saw on the wings of the dicom rather than living in
the center, the eternal eye of the storm.
Probably only 10,000 people planet wide will go full OT this life
time, other's will go clear or clearish on many subjects but be happy to
not know what it's store for their future.
"Knows he or she won't get worse" is a broad and vague win during
the beginning of the bridge, even though the being has no clue how bad
its been (hell forever), and how hard it will be to deal with the in
between lives area again next time around. The temptation towards the
pretense of death by becoming something that can die is almost tidal in
power.
Most everyone else will simply go to their graves believing or
fearing what they will, suffer the inbetween lives with no ability to
deal, and get swept back into a body or worse next time around.
For these, the inbetween lives area is like an infinite dark room
filled with vicious unimaginable things grabbing and picking at you from
all directions. The being will do ANYTHING to get back into a body
where it can see a dream again where it can die for good one day.
As to whether present Church or Freezone tech can save anyone from
this fate is uncertain, but if so, probably only in spite of itself.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Jul 30 19:30:58 EDT 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Apr 23 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore606.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)
iD8DBQFY/M+DURT1lqxE3HERAp2gAJ9zfZI8tgxWy9fysBV2+BkHeIH/1gCeIvXI
gZGrfLGY1PCApJBerj8liuk=
=cytA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, April 22, 2017
ADOR1000 (fwd)
THE DANGEROUS AUDITOR RUNDOWN.
> What do you think was wrong with church auditing?
The auditor and C/S in front of me.
Just normal good humans, not stardrive OT's however.
They did not dare run:
Get the idea of something too dangerous to audit.
Get the idea of nothing too dangerous to audit.
Since I couldn't tell them The Proof because, 1.) they wouldn't have
gotten it, and 2.) if they had they would have crashed like me with no
hope of recovery, it acted as a massive unintentional withold, I was
hoping to make case gain inspite of the proof, but the proof was a
beginning item on too dangerous to audit.
Near the end of my Flag Auditing, I finally wrote a short note to
the C/S hoping it would open his eyes as what we were trying to handle.
It said simply:
Learning with certainty across a distance is impossible.
Never heard back, no change in C/S, communication totally bypassed.
I have no idea who my C/S, probably some no name, I thought it was Mayo
but he claims he wasn't at Flag during the time I was there.
I had no clue in 1976 how much power was buried by not knowing the
proof and then coming across it during a few months in 1973. Also it took
me YEARS to get the proof into critical mass form where even I could
understand it without dying from the power of its charge.
LRH talks about the dangerous auditor, someone who is terrifed to
death of finding out.
You could call this the first process on the DANGEROUS AUDITOR RUNDOWN.
Get the idea of no fear of knowing.
Get the idea of some fear of knowing.
Get the idea of no fear of not knowing.
Get the idea of some fear of not knowing.
Run on being, wanting, knowing, doing, having, perfect certainty, and
any other item you can find reading or not.
The meter will fold up in terror and get stuck high TA when getting
close to the item, however once you find the correct item to run this on,
its too late to protect yourself. Pray and prepare to meet your maker,
YOU. If your body can't handle fear of fear feed back loops its all over
for you mate.
But this rudown will get the dangerous auditor running.
See HCOB's on dangerous auditors and C/Ses.
If it doesn't bite, get back to me, I love producing dead auditors.
It is not as simple as I make it out to be, I been soloing for 40 years
and only in the past 3 or 4 have I really started to toss the lightning
out of the back of my head, and come to near death a few times doing it,
heart pounding, can't breath, lightning like pains in body, unspeakable
spinning and vertigo dizziness, not only can't you stand up, you can't lie
flat on the floor either, back of spine melting from fear of fear etc.
Awareness that there is something too dangerous to be aware of, is too
dangerous to be aware of, as the process of becoming aware of it will have
already started it unraveling, and its too late to stop it again.
So yeah, consider this a top secret memo. :)
The answer of course is attitude: zero flinch, zero cringe, zero
determination, omni sovereignty, just calm observant equipose in the face
of the fear, and it turns into pleasure waves.
Afraid of the pool of black tar? Dive in.
Way better than MDMA.
Homer
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
> What do you think was wrong with church auditing?
The auditor and C/S in front of me.
Just normal good humans, not stardrive OT's however.
They did not dare run:
Get the idea of something too dangerous to audit.
Get the idea of nothing too dangerous to audit.
Since I couldn't tell them The Proof because, 1.) they wouldn't have
gotten it, and 2.) if they had they would have crashed like me with no
hope of recovery, it acted as a massive unintentional withold, I was
hoping to make case gain inspite of the proof, but the proof was a
beginning item on too dangerous to audit.
Near the end of my Flag Auditing, I finally wrote a short note to
the C/S hoping it would open his eyes as what we were trying to handle.
It said simply:
Learning with certainty across a distance is impossible.
Never heard back, no change in C/S, communication totally bypassed.
I have no idea who my C/S, probably some no name, I thought it was Mayo
but he claims he wasn't at Flag during the time I was there.
I had no clue in 1976 how much power was buried by not knowing the
proof and then coming across it during a few months in 1973. Also it took
me YEARS to get the proof into critical mass form where even I could
understand it without dying from the power of its charge.
LRH talks about the dangerous auditor, someone who is terrifed to
death of finding out.
You could call this the first process on the DANGEROUS AUDITOR RUNDOWN.
Get the idea of no fear of knowing.
Get the idea of some fear of knowing.
Get the idea of no fear of not knowing.
Get the idea of some fear of not knowing.
Run on being, wanting, knowing, doing, having, perfect certainty, and
any other item you can find reading or not.
The meter will fold up in terror and get stuck high TA when getting
close to the item, however once you find the correct item to run this on,
its too late to protect yourself. Pray and prepare to meet your maker,
YOU. If your body can't handle fear of fear feed back loops its all over
for you mate.
But this rudown will get the dangerous auditor running.
See HCOB's on dangerous auditors and C/Ses.
If it doesn't bite, get back to me, I love producing dead auditors.
It is not as simple as I make it out to be, I been soloing for 40 years
and only in the past 3 or 4 have I really started to toss the lightning
out of the back of my head, and come to near death a few times doing it,
heart pounding, can't breath, lightning like pains in body, unspeakable
spinning and vertigo dizziness, not only can't you stand up, you can't lie
flat on the floor either, back of spine melting from fear of fear etc.
Awareness that there is something too dangerous to be aware of, is too
dangerous to be aware of, as the process of becoming aware of it will have
already started it unraveling, and its too late to stop it again.
So yeah, consider this a top secret memo. :)
The answer of course is attitude: zero flinch, zero cringe, zero
determination, omni sovereignty, just calm observant equipose in the face
of the fear, and it turns into pleasure waves.
Afraid of the pool of black tar? Dive in.
Way better than MDMA.
Homer
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, April 20, 2017
SESSION2 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Run,
"Who or what do you *ADORE* opposing."
Run against Church if interested.
L&N items in Church to find whos and what's, run represents
on them until you have your most adored oppose Nemesis One item.
Say the who is David Miscavige. run,
"What does David Miscavige represent to you?" until
you find the blow down beingness.
Ok, so all the OT's on the planet get together every day at the same
time, and do a mass projection of intention on David that the next day he
will be this item and do the most horrible, evil, monstrous, suppressive
act of his career. Make sure he does it. Next day when the news reports
this, give your self the win of projected intention.
Then next day, meet again all over the planet, and project another
intention into David that he will do some horrid suppressive terrible
crime against mankind, and make sure he does it, and notice the next day
he has, and give yourself the win.
Continue this day after day, until EVERY bad thing that David
does is explicitly and intentionally projected onto him the day
before by the group of OI's.
Then when you have his evil intentions completely and totally under
your own intentional control, I mean you got this guy doing things he
could NEVER do on his own, fail to meet one day, and continue to fail to
meet thereafter.
No more David doing bad things.
You can't get rid of, what you can't put there.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Apr 20 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/session2.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)
iD8DBQFY+NsCURT1lqxE3HERApH1AKDZ6sgZJKMA2DYBRBnqo/MbssdamgCfYLK0
b0bke+D7gJCyXlaSz5P2PSg=
=maCz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Run,
"Who or what do you *ADORE* opposing."
Run against Church if interested.
L&N items in Church to find whos and what's, run represents
on them until you have your most adored oppose Nemesis One item.
Say the who is David Miscavige. run,
"What does David Miscavige represent to you?" until
you find the blow down beingness.
Ok, so all the OT's on the planet get together every day at the same
time, and do a mass projection of intention on David that the next day he
will be this item and do the most horrible, evil, monstrous, suppressive
act of his career. Make sure he does it. Next day when the news reports
this, give your self the win of projected intention.
Then next day, meet again all over the planet, and project another
intention into David that he will do some horrid suppressive terrible
crime against mankind, and make sure he does it, and notice the next day
he has, and give yourself the win.
Continue this day after day, until EVERY bad thing that David
does is explicitly and intentionally projected onto him the day
before by the group of OI's.
Then when you have his evil intentions completely and totally under
your own intentional control, I mean you got this guy doing things he
could NEVER do on his own, fail to meet one day, and continue to fail to
meet thereafter.
No more David doing bad things.
You can't get rid of, what you can't put there.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Apr 20 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/session2.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)
iD8DBQFY+NsCURT1lqxE3HERApH1AKDZ6sgZJKMA2DYBRBnqo/MbssdamgCfYLK0
b0bke+D7gJCyXlaSz5P2PSg=
=maCz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
LOGIC20 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LOGIC IS ILLOGICAL!
Is means is.
Is does not mean is-not.
When you use the word IS,
Joey IS a Dog,
you are asserting that it is false that
Joey IS NOT a Dog.
*ANY* use of IS implies the opposite use of IS-NOT and visa versa.
IS and IS-NOT are mutually exclusive.
Thus we have the Ayn Randing laws of Logic.
A is A If A is true, then A is true.
A is-not not A If A is true, then not A is false
Either A or not A Either A is true or A is false
Not both A and not A Never the case that A is true and A is false.
These are all ways to same the same thing, that once something IS, it
ain't IS NOT and visa versa. This is the exclusive sense of the words IS
and IS-NOT, they exclude each other. Once A IS, A ain't IS-NOT.
There is nothing arbitrary about this, it is an *OBSERVED DESCRIPTION*
of the quality of IS, as observed from objects that ARE. Go find an
object that IS, and notice how it isn't IS NOT.
To say
A is not A
Neither A nor not A
Both A and not A
is to say nothing.
Perhaps it *IS* true of the void, but it is not true of anything that
can be objectified and described with qualities.
To objectify means to separate out from the AllThatIs, give it
a name, and assign it observed qualities.
All objects have an Object Quality Set (OQS) which lists its
qualities.
A Nothing is an object with the empty quality set. Notice there can
be only one nothing. If two objects were different, they couldn't both
have empty quality sets.
A Something is an object with a non empty quality set.
If object A and object B differ, then one or both are not nothings.
If object A changes and object B doesn't, then A is not B.
The above is a consistent word matrix to talk about the objects
in the world.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Apr 18 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic20.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)
iD8DBQFY9jgCURT1lqxE3HERAuviAKDXGMcZEyMleeG15WskMF8Ss3ZJNACglr/A
03AeNtgZxpAXrkGYjjzFleQ=
=B0nS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
LOGIC IS ILLOGICAL!
Is means is.
Is does not mean is-not.
When you use the word IS,
Joey IS a Dog,
you are asserting that it is false that
Joey IS NOT a Dog.
*ANY* use of IS implies the opposite use of IS-NOT and visa versa.
IS and IS-NOT are mutually exclusive.
Thus we have the Ayn Randing laws of Logic.
A is A If A is true, then A is true.
A is-not not A If A is true, then not A is false
Either A or not A Either A is true or A is false
Not both A and not A Never the case that A is true and A is false.
These are all ways to same the same thing, that once something IS, it
ain't IS NOT and visa versa. This is the exclusive sense of the words IS
and IS-NOT, they exclude each other. Once A IS, A ain't IS-NOT.
There is nothing arbitrary about this, it is an *OBSERVED DESCRIPTION*
of the quality of IS, as observed from objects that ARE. Go find an
object that IS, and notice how it isn't IS NOT.
To say
A is not A
Neither A nor not A
Both A and not A
is to say nothing.
Perhaps it *IS* true of the void, but it is not true of anything that
can be objectified and described with qualities.
To objectify means to separate out from the AllThatIs, give it
a name, and assign it observed qualities.
All objects have an Object Quality Set (OQS) which lists its
qualities.
A Nothing is an object with the empty quality set. Notice there can
be only one nothing. If two objects were different, they couldn't both
have empty quality sets.
A Something is an object with a non empty quality set.
If object A and object B differ, then one or both are not nothings.
If object A changes and object B doesn't, then A is not B.
The above is a consistent word matrix to talk about the objects
in the world.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Apr 18 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic20.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)
iD8DBQFY9jgCURT1lqxE3HERAuviAKDXGMcZEyMleeG15WskMF8Ss3ZJNACglr/A
03AeNtgZxpAXrkGYjjzFleQ=
=B0nS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ACT44 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHAT IS OUT ETHICS?
ACT - 44
4 February 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
> I am still chewing on the ETHICS? query and it would appear that
>ETHICS may be the most misunderstood or not understood area in what
>was the Church of Scientology. AUTHORITARIANISM IS NOT ETHICS. I
>will attempt to summarize something on this this weekend. How would
>you define ETHICS?
You know its a hell of a lot easier to give specific examples of
things that might be out ethics, than it is to give an extraction of WHY
they are out ethics.
Any specific action, like murder, theft, lying, etc do NOT define
out ethics because all are good in the right circumstances.
In part ethics has to do with playing games by the rules, and out
ethics may have to do with winning by cheating. When the penalties of
losing hurt more than the penalties of getting caught for cheating then
people will choose to cheat. The penalties of losing are horrendous in
life, starving to death etc, so there is much corruption, temptation and
seduction, which may also have to do with out ethics.
Corruption is the crack in the armor of total responsibility. It
is blaming others, a feeling of non Sovereignty in the choice of the
game, a feeling I had nothing to do with this so I can justify doing
things I would not otherwise do.
Temptation is the light shining through the cracks in the armor,
the light that says if you do these things you will live better etc.
even if you are doing in your friends or eating away at your long term
assets for the sake of short term gains.
Seduction is giving in to temptation and doing what ever it is that
you hope to win by.
People tend to define ethics in moral codes, never break an
agreement, never desert a comrade in need, never withdraw your
allegiance once granted, etc. Most seem to be self serving to the
person handing you the moral code.
The primary moral code handed to one by others is hand over
everything you own and let us suck your blood.
Lying to oneself about cause and effect might be unethical, it
sticks one in motivators to justify PRIOR overts. What you did to me
today justifies what I did to you yesterday, etc. You CAUSED me to do
what I did to you yesterday by doing to me what you did to me today.
Wanting to cause death forever or hell forever to anyone for any
reason seems to be unethical because it diminishes one's own divine love
for everyone and the ability and desire to salvage other's from ruin.
As LRH says, who would ruin when they could salvage?
There is classy anger which aims to teach a lesson to someone who
will remain your friend afterwards, and unclassy anger which attempts to
hurt the other person beyond any possible repair of the friendship
later. It's called Breaking the Chalice.
I am not sure that any of these things could be said to be WRONG in
some absolute sense, because if a thetan is Sovereign, then any of them
and the situations they appear in were created and planned for by the
thetan in the Divine Pan Determined state, so how can they be really
'wrong'.
However within the context of a game that is already defined with
rules and agreements, then perhaps unethical behavior or postulates
might make sense. But again if they are even possible within a created
game, the Sovereign Units which made up the game rules,must have left it
open to be able to do these things, so that unethics becomes merely
another part of the game.
In the end a thetan can't really break the rules of a game, because
it has to be part of the rules that he can break the rules.
In some sense each game defines a set of rules which determine what
a win is and what a loss is, and what the correct rules are for playing,
and ALSO WHAT CHEATING IS. So cheating is a well defined part of the
game. You can win by cheating but only if you don't get caught.
The more important and earlier question is why play a game at all
that has such terrible consequences to losing? What moral high ground
can an umpire hold about what rules are right and what rules are wrong,
when the losers end up dying crucified to a cross for miles around for
having played BY the rules?
People play by the rules all the time and lose big time. Is there
out ethics, just because one loses? What good is ethics if it doesn't
help you win? What good is ethics if it helps you lose?
So maybe there is a higher level of asking whether the game ITSELF
is unethical. For example games where some one winning means another is
losing opens the door to cheating, so in itself might be considered an
unethical game. Such competition type games however seem to be a
ubiquitous part of life, so its hard to condemn all of them. Besides we
don't seem to have much choice about playing them, you have to eat, and
eating involves making something else lose in some sense, and if you
don't win you die horribly.
Perhaps games where the penalties of losing are worse than the
penalties of cheating could be called unethical games.
But that just makes people build very dire penalties into cheating
to make losing and playing on the up and up more attractive. It hardly
makes the game any more DECENT.
And in any case, some games are so bad that people think if they
lose them, they won't ever get to play another game ever again. Thus
the very playing of games for all the rest of time is tied to winning
this game here and now.
Therefore the penalties of losing are ultimate. You find many
people in this kind of game with their own Immortality and Sovereignty
on the line. They consider they don't have Immortality or Sovereignty,
never had it and still don't, BUT if they win at the game of life,
auditing, proper behavior etc, they will win Immortality and Sovereignty
forever more.
This is so horrible to them that they make a virtue out of it,
'Well its the ACCOMPLISHMENT that counts, if this game of life and death
weren't REAL it wouldn't be fun or worth playing.'
Facts are though that any being has an ARC break on BEING CREATED.
They may not be able to confront it in session, and if they really
believe it is true they will make a virtue out of it. If they think it
might be false, many years later when they wake up a bit, they will want
to audit it first thing, and they had better have an auditor who can
stomach the charge.
I would say that putting one's Immortality and Sovereignty on the
line in a game, or pretending that it is on the line, might be
considered an unethical game. But why I don't know.
If we are Sovereign, then any possible condition was planned and
accounted for with approval by all those playing, including any 'out
ethics' that might send someone to Hell.
I think we have an even higher subject which is that of Permanent
Loss.
To a Sovereign Being, there is no Permanent Loss, only the
apparency of it if he chooses to indulge in the veil.
But if we weren't Sovereign, then clearly real things are at risk,
even if we can attain such Immortality and Sovereignty. We might NOT
attain those things and thus die forever, or even end up in hell
forever. Thus things become very serious. Clearly in this case, if
there are rules which invariably lead to Immortality and Sovereignty,
then we must follow them rigorously and eschew other avenues as 'out
ethics'.
Even if we are Sovereign clearly we can think we are not Sovereign.
This may be the game to end all games.
Adore talks about the Doubt Effect. If you doubt something good,
that will make you feel so bad you will be sure that the good thing
could not possibly be true. It works on out-indications also, if
someone has a headache, they might say well the reason I have this
headache is because of such and such, and BEING WRONG, their head ache
of course immediately aches a little more so they hold their head go and
Ohhh! I must be right, ouch.
Doubt about Sovereignty leads to (a false) Certainty of No
Sovereignty. Apparently it is here that Targs enter your space and feed
off the horror. You see if you believe you are not Sovereign, then
clearly there must be OTHER CAUSE, and the Targs are only too happy to
fill the role.
Any psychosomatic condition is a pocket of apparent and acting Non
Sovereignty. It says you didn't do it and you don't know who or what
did, and you will NEVER get rid of it.
Spotting the Non Sovereignty pocket to any psychosomatic, over and
over, will often break up some of the tougher ones. Watch it though,
the source of the pain is rarely where the pain is, unlike in real
injuries. So with a psychosomatic you have to look elsewhere in your
space to find the (numb) source of the pain that is out of place.
Anyhow the moment you have entered the realm of apparent non
sovereignty, the ARC break with Source is so strong there is little
incentive left to be nice or decent, one merely wants to kill everything
in sight until its all gone.
"Mock up something so horrible it makes you want to make nothing
out of everything."
One has to ask why a Sovereign Being would indulge in the Doubt
Effect and enter the realm of Non Sovereignty, since it is going to burn
him into a ball of hate and he knows it.
"What are the aesthetics of Sovereignty?"
"What are the aesthetics of Non Sovereignty?"
"What are the aesthetics of wanting to die and being able to die?"
"What are the aesthetics of wanting to die but not being able to
die?"
"What are the aesthetics of not wanting to die but having to die?"
"What are the aesthetics of not wanting to die and not being able
to die?"
I think in the end, without any connotations of good or bad, the
world works on Logic which is Soveriegn above all else. Things IS, and
that means they ain't ISN'T and that is true for all universes, and all
times and all people and could not be any other way. There is no
changing that.
It is possible that persistence itself is caused by the application
of illogic to an AS-ISness. It is unclear why you can't just get
something to persist merely by willing it to persist. Why indulge in an
alteris-ness?
Perhaps Sovereign Units POSTULATED that persistence would only
happen if there was an alterisness, but then why did THAT postulate
stick? It is cute to suggest that maybe they alterised it, but the
postulate that alterisness causes persistence had to be in force BEFORE
any alterisness could have caused a persistence!
So what is causing the persistence of the postulate that
alterisness causes persistence?
Your Targs all twisted up in knots yet?
In any case the application of illogic seems to be a key way that
thetans create games and problems and situations for themselves.
If a game is merely any problem that needs to be solved, and if
problems only persist due to illogic, then the way to win any game is to
apply logic. Thus one could be considered out ethics if one tried to
win the game of solving a problem by applying MORE illogic!
Thus LRH says Ethics is REASON. He never quite came down to saying
Ethics was Logic.
The fact is I have no idea of what out ethics is.
What I do know is I am in a game I wish to win MUCH more than I
wish to play.
I WANT TO WIN MORE THAN I WANT TO PLAY.
If I were to win tomorrow I would be out of here, there would be no
regrets about how easy it was or how short the game was.
If someone offered me a cheating way out of here, that got me out
and left everyone else in smoke and flames, I wouldn't think twice about
taking it. There is a sucker born every minute and here is where they
die.
Friends, noble causes, worthwhile purposes, grand ideals are not
worth one second's risk dying on a Cross for, nor spending an Eternity
in Hell.
"Hey you, Mr. Devil there, how many friends will it cost me to buy
my way out of here for GOOD with no strings attached?
That many you say?
No problem, that's cheap, I have been saving up friends a long time
for just such an emergency."
Ethics Smethics. Ethics is what gets you out of here.
Since the being wants to win more than he wants to play, he won't
PLAY the game, he will try to get others to play it for him, to take all
the risks and give him all the rewards. I don't claim this is wrong,
but it is common to those who are more bent on winning than on the
quality of play. But that could just as easily be a valid game move in
even a less serious game.
So maybe ethics has to do with games, not with behavior within the
game. Maybe it is any game that drives the being into being unwilling
to play it, yet sticks him into having to play it. This causes chaos in
the sportsmanship arena.
However if he CHOSE such a game from a Sovereign point of view,
then even such games can not be considered bad.
So you know I don't know what out ethics is.
My final conclusion is that ethics is reason applied to conditions
to get what one wants to accomplish.
Source, existence, *CONDITIONS*
Conditions impose logic upon how to succeed.
If you have to do A in order to get to B, then you damn well
better do A to get to B.
Out Ethics would then simply be doing something other than A
to get to B after having recognized that A is required to get to B.
Your move.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Apr 16 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act44.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)
iD8DBQFY85UDURT1lqxE3HERAh/wAKCwP3CQX5Y/5bvVPgO5uVj4KVna9ACgj2mG
iXPnXQdwNkOP1Uh6oYkLlzM=
=Ev4U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WHAT IS OUT ETHICS?
ACT - 44
4 February 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
> I am still chewing on the ETHICS? query and it would appear that
>ETHICS may be the most misunderstood or not understood area in what
>was the Church of Scientology. AUTHORITARIANISM IS NOT ETHICS. I
>will attempt to summarize something on this this weekend. How would
>you define ETHICS?
You know its a hell of a lot easier to give specific examples of
things that might be out ethics, than it is to give an extraction of WHY
they are out ethics.
Any specific action, like murder, theft, lying, etc do NOT define
out ethics because all are good in the right circumstances.
In part ethics has to do with playing games by the rules, and out
ethics may have to do with winning by cheating. When the penalties of
losing hurt more than the penalties of getting caught for cheating then
people will choose to cheat. The penalties of losing are horrendous in
life, starving to death etc, so there is much corruption, temptation and
seduction, which may also have to do with out ethics.
Corruption is the crack in the armor of total responsibility. It
is blaming others, a feeling of non Sovereignty in the choice of the
game, a feeling I had nothing to do with this so I can justify doing
things I would not otherwise do.
Temptation is the light shining through the cracks in the armor,
the light that says if you do these things you will live better etc.
even if you are doing in your friends or eating away at your long term
assets for the sake of short term gains.
Seduction is giving in to temptation and doing what ever it is that
you hope to win by.
People tend to define ethics in moral codes, never break an
agreement, never desert a comrade in need, never withdraw your
allegiance once granted, etc. Most seem to be self serving to the
person handing you the moral code.
The primary moral code handed to one by others is hand over
everything you own and let us suck your blood.
Lying to oneself about cause and effect might be unethical, it
sticks one in motivators to justify PRIOR overts. What you did to me
today justifies what I did to you yesterday, etc. You CAUSED me to do
what I did to you yesterday by doing to me what you did to me today.
Wanting to cause death forever or hell forever to anyone for any
reason seems to be unethical because it diminishes one's own divine love
for everyone and the ability and desire to salvage other's from ruin.
As LRH says, who would ruin when they could salvage?
There is classy anger which aims to teach a lesson to someone who
will remain your friend afterwards, and unclassy anger which attempts to
hurt the other person beyond any possible repair of the friendship
later. It's called Breaking the Chalice.
I am not sure that any of these things could be said to be WRONG in
some absolute sense, because if a thetan is Sovereign, then any of them
and the situations they appear in were created and planned for by the
thetan in the Divine Pan Determined state, so how can they be really
'wrong'.
However within the context of a game that is already defined with
rules and agreements, then perhaps unethical behavior or postulates
might make sense. But again if they are even possible within a created
game, the Sovereign Units which made up the game rules,must have left it
open to be able to do these things, so that unethics becomes merely
another part of the game.
In the end a thetan can't really break the rules of a game, because
it has to be part of the rules that he can break the rules.
In some sense each game defines a set of rules which determine what
a win is and what a loss is, and what the correct rules are for playing,
and ALSO WHAT CHEATING IS. So cheating is a well defined part of the
game. You can win by cheating but only if you don't get caught.
The more important and earlier question is why play a game at all
that has such terrible consequences to losing? What moral high ground
can an umpire hold about what rules are right and what rules are wrong,
when the losers end up dying crucified to a cross for miles around for
having played BY the rules?
People play by the rules all the time and lose big time. Is there
out ethics, just because one loses? What good is ethics if it doesn't
help you win? What good is ethics if it helps you lose?
So maybe there is a higher level of asking whether the game ITSELF
is unethical. For example games where some one winning means another is
losing opens the door to cheating, so in itself might be considered an
unethical game. Such competition type games however seem to be a
ubiquitous part of life, so its hard to condemn all of them. Besides we
don't seem to have much choice about playing them, you have to eat, and
eating involves making something else lose in some sense, and if you
don't win you die horribly.
Perhaps games where the penalties of losing are worse than the
penalties of cheating could be called unethical games.
But that just makes people build very dire penalties into cheating
to make losing and playing on the up and up more attractive. It hardly
makes the game any more DECENT.
And in any case, some games are so bad that people think if they
lose them, they won't ever get to play another game ever again. Thus
the very playing of games for all the rest of time is tied to winning
this game here and now.
Therefore the penalties of losing are ultimate. You find many
people in this kind of game with their own Immortality and Sovereignty
on the line. They consider they don't have Immortality or Sovereignty,
never had it and still don't, BUT if they win at the game of life,
auditing, proper behavior etc, they will win Immortality and Sovereignty
forever more.
This is so horrible to them that they make a virtue out of it,
'Well its the ACCOMPLISHMENT that counts, if this game of life and death
weren't REAL it wouldn't be fun or worth playing.'
Facts are though that any being has an ARC break on BEING CREATED.
They may not be able to confront it in session, and if they really
believe it is true they will make a virtue out of it. If they think it
might be false, many years later when they wake up a bit, they will want
to audit it first thing, and they had better have an auditor who can
stomach the charge.
I would say that putting one's Immortality and Sovereignty on the
line in a game, or pretending that it is on the line, might be
considered an unethical game. But why I don't know.
If we are Sovereign, then any possible condition was planned and
accounted for with approval by all those playing, including any 'out
ethics' that might send someone to Hell.
I think we have an even higher subject which is that of Permanent
Loss.
To a Sovereign Being, there is no Permanent Loss, only the
apparency of it if he chooses to indulge in the veil.
But if we weren't Sovereign, then clearly real things are at risk,
even if we can attain such Immortality and Sovereignty. We might NOT
attain those things and thus die forever, or even end up in hell
forever. Thus things become very serious. Clearly in this case, if
there are rules which invariably lead to Immortality and Sovereignty,
then we must follow them rigorously and eschew other avenues as 'out
ethics'.
Even if we are Sovereign clearly we can think we are not Sovereign.
This may be the game to end all games.
Adore talks about the Doubt Effect. If you doubt something good,
that will make you feel so bad you will be sure that the good thing
could not possibly be true. It works on out-indications also, if
someone has a headache, they might say well the reason I have this
headache is because of such and such, and BEING WRONG, their head ache
of course immediately aches a little more so they hold their head go and
Ohhh! I must be right, ouch.
Doubt about Sovereignty leads to (a false) Certainty of No
Sovereignty. Apparently it is here that Targs enter your space and feed
off the horror. You see if you believe you are not Sovereign, then
clearly there must be OTHER CAUSE, and the Targs are only too happy to
fill the role.
Any psychosomatic condition is a pocket of apparent and acting Non
Sovereignty. It says you didn't do it and you don't know who or what
did, and you will NEVER get rid of it.
Spotting the Non Sovereignty pocket to any psychosomatic, over and
over, will often break up some of the tougher ones. Watch it though,
the source of the pain is rarely where the pain is, unlike in real
injuries. So with a psychosomatic you have to look elsewhere in your
space to find the (numb) source of the pain that is out of place.
Anyhow the moment you have entered the realm of apparent non
sovereignty, the ARC break with Source is so strong there is little
incentive left to be nice or decent, one merely wants to kill everything
in sight until its all gone.
"Mock up something so horrible it makes you want to make nothing
out of everything."
One has to ask why a Sovereign Being would indulge in the Doubt
Effect and enter the realm of Non Sovereignty, since it is going to burn
him into a ball of hate and he knows it.
"What are the aesthetics of Sovereignty?"
"What are the aesthetics of Non Sovereignty?"
"What are the aesthetics of wanting to die and being able to die?"
"What are the aesthetics of wanting to die but not being able to
die?"
"What are the aesthetics of not wanting to die but having to die?"
"What are the aesthetics of not wanting to die and not being able
to die?"
I think in the end, without any connotations of good or bad, the
world works on Logic which is Soveriegn above all else. Things IS, and
that means they ain't ISN'T and that is true for all universes, and all
times and all people and could not be any other way. There is no
changing that.
It is possible that persistence itself is caused by the application
of illogic to an AS-ISness. It is unclear why you can't just get
something to persist merely by willing it to persist. Why indulge in an
alteris-ness?
Perhaps Sovereign Units POSTULATED that persistence would only
happen if there was an alterisness, but then why did THAT postulate
stick? It is cute to suggest that maybe they alterised it, but the
postulate that alterisness causes persistence had to be in force BEFORE
any alterisness could have caused a persistence!
So what is causing the persistence of the postulate that
alterisness causes persistence?
Your Targs all twisted up in knots yet?
In any case the application of illogic seems to be a key way that
thetans create games and problems and situations for themselves.
If a game is merely any problem that needs to be solved, and if
problems only persist due to illogic, then the way to win any game is to
apply logic. Thus one could be considered out ethics if one tried to
win the game of solving a problem by applying MORE illogic!
Thus LRH says Ethics is REASON. He never quite came down to saying
Ethics was Logic.
The fact is I have no idea of what out ethics is.
What I do know is I am in a game I wish to win MUCH more than I
wish to play.
I WANT TO WIN MORE THAN I WANT TO PLAY.
If I were to win tomorrow I would be out of here, there would be no
regrets about how easy it was or how short the game was.
If someone offered me a cheating way out of here, that got me out
and left everyone else in smoke and flames, I wouldn't think twice about
taking it. There is a sucker born every minute and here is where they
die.
Friends, noble causes, worthwhile purposes, grand ideals are not
worth one second's risk dying on a Cross for, nor spending an Eternity
in Hell.
"Hey you, Mr. Devil there, how many friends will it cost me to buy
my way out of here for GOOD with no strings attached?
That many you say?
No problem, that's cheap, I have been saving up friends a long time
for just such an emergency."
Ethics Smethics. Ethics is what gets you out of here.
Since the being wants to win more than he wants to play, he won't
PLAY the game, he will try to get others to play it for him, to take all
the risks and give him all the rewards. I don't claim this is wrong,
but it is common to those who are more bent on winning than on the
quality of play. But that could just as easily be a valid game move in
even a less serious game.
So maybe ethics has to do with games, not with behavior within the
game. Maybe it is any game that drives the being into being unwilling
to play it, yet sticks him into having to play it. This causes chaos in
the sportsmanship arena.
However if he CHOSE such a game from a Sovereign point of view,
then even such games can not be considered bad.
So you know I don't know what out ethics is.
My final conclusion is that ethics is reason applied to conditions
to get what one wants to accomplish.
Source, existence, *CONDITIONS*
Conditions impose logic upon how to succeed.
If you have to do A in order to get to B, then you damn well
better do A to get to B.
Out Ethics would then simply be doing something other than A
to get to B after having recognized that A is required to get to B.
Your move.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Apr 16 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act44.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)
iD8DBQFY85UDURT1lqxE3HERAh/wAKCwP3CQX5Y/5bvVPgO5uVj4KVna9ACgj2mG
iXPnXQdwNkOP1Uh6oYkLlzM=
=Ev4U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE115 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHERE DID THE PROOF COME FROM?
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
>> Now I knew I could not prove I was not dreaming (sleep dreaming)
>>at any single moment of time, but it didn't seem reasonable that the
>>world it self was a dream, until I saw that *SPACE* was an illusion.
>>Once I saw that, then it all made sense and shortly thereafter, along
>>with a lot of visionary experiences, The Proof came forward.
>How did it occur to you that space is an illusion, what do you mean by
>that, what else can you say about this?
Well I had had lots of dreams where I thought I was awake, only to
find out I was dreaming when I woke up. Then I woke up again. Then
again. I did that 7 levels once.
When I am in dreams, I often think "hey is this a dream?" and
conclude no. Then I 'wake up' and go "OH Christ it was a dream what a
dupe, thank God I am awake now." Then I wake up again.
Other times I know I am dreaming cuz I can remember what the waking
state is like. But I have a number of waking states that all seem valid
when I am in them, even though they are very different, and if I get
into one of those, I conclude I am wake even though I am still sleeping.
Since I lucid dream almost every night, these kinds of shenanigans
go on all the time. After a while the whole idea of 'is this the real
waking state' becomes meaningless, as what is going on in front of me is
just as real as any other state, girls are warm and sexy, bugs bite,
demons are impossible to fend off (without NOTS), you name it.
So it became clear to me that conscious pictures of space, time,
matter and energy were not in themselves evidence of an external
material universe.
Just because we SEE space, doesn't there IS space, as the seeing of
space itself does not take up any space, because it did you wouldn't
be able to see it! :)
The fact that you can see your conscious renditions of space and
color form around you means there is no distance between seer and seen.
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
So anyhow,
I mean I have a dream of a piano, and I sit down and play it, then
poof I wake up, what happened to the piano in my dream?
The goofballs, er I mean meatballs would claim it was just a mental
image picture, a referent to nothing actual. Just as we can mockup a
piano while we are awake, there is no MATERIAL creation during such a
mockup, it is 'in our minds eye only'.
You see to the meatball, conscious experiences are NOTHING,
and implied matter, energy, space and time are SOMETHING.
I can see all the pianos I want 'out there' in my minds eye, but no
scientific instrument would ever pick up actual matter in the physical
universe out there, because the image in my mind's eye is not the same
as a real piano out there and can not create such, in their view.
The Scientists know this, they know we only see our own conscious
color forms and we then use them as a symbol to refer to the implied
external universe which we can never see directly. They know that the
external universe is only a theory to explain the consistency and
existence of our conscious experiences.
But I saw I had no evidence of the 'actual' piano even when I was
awake, and that in fact I couldn't actually prove to myself I was awake
and not in a sleep dream.
The theory I was playing with was that mental mockups were being
projected into space even while awake and thus the world was a dream
state just like dreaming, except there were other co dreamers also
projecting into the same space I was.
But I still considered the SPACE real, because I couldn't concieve
of a zero dimensional actuality. So existence had to have at least 3 or
more dimensions, so space had to be actual even if the pictures of MEST
projected into it were 'mere' mental mockups.
When I finally saw that actuality was zero dimensional and that
space was a holographic projection also, then it all became possible to
me.
Then I saw that all beings were on the same 'spot', each looking
'outward' into their own version of virtual reality, but since we were
all connected 'inside between us', we could create links amongst us so
that when I moved my version of the ball, your version moved also.
That way we could create the illusion of space between us and that
there was in fact only one real ball that we were both looking at from
different viewpoints.
Hubbard said somewhere long since erased from his writings
"People think they are looking at the same object from different
viewpoints, when in fact they are looking at different objects from the
same viewpoint."
Its like a bunch of players sitting at their play stations playing
star trek over the net. The Enterprise you see and the one I see are
two different projections on two different screens, yours and mine, but
the central computer (Source) that links the two of us allows us to
pretend that we are both looking at the same space ship. When it blows
up, it blows up for both of us. That's called a link, more technically
a resonant link, because our two dreams are resonating with each other
to a point where they are locked on to each other, a change in one
becomes instantly a change in the other.
The difference with the real world is that all the players are
facets of the One Great Multi I AM being called the AllThatIs, which
exists in a zero dimensional scalar non space/time so there is no
dimensional separation between players at all. The dimensional
separation that exists, exists only in their virtual view screens that
look into the virtual world of holographic projected dimensional
space/time.
Life is a Holodeck.
Then I spent a long time studying all the 'evidence' and reasons
why I had bought into the idea that the alleged external universe was
actual. I saw one by one that all my reasons were false, false
'certainties' so to speak, they were more convictions based on terror,
impact, and emotional preposterousness that the world was a dream. Why
would God create me in a dream state and not let me know about it? It
was just too cruel etc.
Finally I came across perfect certainties, those that can't be
wrong. From this I saw all other things as mere 'bets', not certainties
but probabilities, and most of them pretty poor. Once I had gathered
together all my perfect certainties, and threw out all the bets no
matter how much I liked them, I was left at the perfect 50/50 mark of
not knowing if the world was a dream or not.
I Knew I existed, and I knew my dream existed. That was it.
I AM.
I WANT.
I KNOW.
I DO.
I GIVE A DAMN.
Doing = Wanting + Knowing
One computes what to do from what one wants and what one knows
about how to get what one wants.
When one is Sovereign at the top of the tone scale, Wanting IS
getting.
Lower down one must DO in order to get, according to the rules laid
out.
From there my mind was open enough to start having lots of
visionary dream experiences both awake and asleep that made it more and
more unlikely that the physical universe existed and I was made of it.
I became very sure that the world was a spiritual place, that we
exist before after and all around our present time, that divinity is
quite real and quite different than human.
The reason that Divinity is Omni Numinous is because every time it
talks to you it sends an Angel AND a Devil, it can't do just one, and
that this whole 'I am a machine made of ball bearings' is quite absurd.
Machine: Any system of parts interacting via cause and effect
across a space/time distance.
While studying the mathematics of machines I came across two rather
important theorems.
The first is the Media Independence theorem which states that any
machine 'function' can be implemented in any machine media. Thus you
have clocks for example that can be made of wheels and springs, or
spinning stars, batteries and circuits, chemicals, or even sub atomics.
A clock has an energy source, an escapement mechanism and a display
that shows the accumulated escapements (time going by). The Media
Independence theorem then says that it doesn't matter what media you
implement these three things in, the clock will do its function.
There may be *PRACTICAL* limits to what one can do, but not
theoretical limits.
Thus one could build an electric circuit that matched the function
of a neuron. One could even do it with roller balls and springs if one
wanted to, it would be big and slow and clunky, but it would work.
Once you built such an neuron analogue you could hook them all
togther in the same way the brain was hooked together, and get a working
brain.
*IF* consciousness and pain were MERELY brain function in motion,
then the created entity of electric circuits would also have
consciousness, and feel pain and be self aware etc, even if very slowly
and clunkily :).
But here came the rub, conscious units are capable of PERFECT
certainty, not only of themselves but also of their conscious color
forms.
In particular they can also be perfectly certain of the contained
agency in their own will and in the color forms that gave rise to
perception. This takes a bit to get across to people, but its quite eye
opening once the being sees for sure that it can see cause.
The CONSCIOUS UNIT CAN KNOW SELF AGENCY WITH PERFECT CERTAINTY.
So the second theorem that came out of the study of machines was
the Machine Certainty Theorem, commonly known as The Proof.
It states quite simply that a machine can't be certain of anything.
Because effects do not imply cause with certainty, a machine that
can only learn by looking at effects in itself of alleged external
causes, can never know with certainty if those causes exist or not, let
alone what the nature of those causes might be.
In other words a machine can only look at and 'sense' effects, it
can't ever see cause, particularly across a space/time distance.
The only way to know about a cause over there is to receive an
effect here and compute back that there must be a cause out there.
That is not direct perception of cause.
This is learning about A (cause) by looking at B (effect).
That is learning about cause via implication from effect.
But any number of third parties can hook up the effects to make it
look like a cause is out there, and so mathematically it can be proven
that no series of effects can ever result in a perfect certainty about
any particular cause.
The REASON that a machine is limited to learning about external
causes by looking at effects is because of the nature of space/time.
Actual distance between B and A means that the only way B can learn
about A is if A causes effects in B. If A causes no effects in B, then
B will never know that A exists. The only learning that B can do about
A is about the effects B receives allgedly from A. The existence of A
is mere theoretical 'compute back' on the part of B, and not a perfect
certainty born of direct perception.
Indirect perception means B is learning about A by looking at
effects in B. This provides evidence theory and model.
The effects in B are evidence, the existence A is model, and the
idea that A is affecting B is the theory binding evidence and model
together.
Direct perception means B is learning about A by looking directly
at A. This results in a perfect certainty of the cause in A that is
affecting B. No third party can interfere in this.
Direct perception can not happen across a space/time distance, for
reasons best left to the web page mentioned above.
Thus consciousness, which is self aware with perfect certainty can
not be a process happening across a space/time distance within itself.
Thus consciousness is zero dimensional.
Thus external cause always remains a theory to a machine learning
solely by looking at effects across a space/time distance.
The machine can't even prove that cause exists at all from merely
looking at effects, for an effect doesn't contain the data in it, that
it was caused!
Only by looking directly at cause can one be certain of cause, but
across a distance one is limited to looking at effects, so one can not
learn with perfect certainty about cause across a distance!
And if you can't learn with certainty about CAUSE across a
distance, you can't learn about ANYTHING across a distance, for without
cause there is no learning.
Since all learning is the result of cause, certainty of learning
would imply certainty of cause.
Thus no certainty of cause implies no certainy of learning.
Thus we have 'Learning with certainty across a distance is
impossible.'
Since the conscious unit can see various causes directly within
itself, not only its own agency in creating efforts (outgoing cause),
but in its own color forms as they result in perfectly certain
perception of them (incoming cause), the conscious unit can not be
learning ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR THINGS by looking at effects.
This completely violates the premise that the ONLY way one can
learn across a distance is BY looking at effects here, about causes out
there, and thus the conscious unit is not learning about itself across a
distance.
Thus the CU is zero dimensional.
That's all very complex, but one can do a simple experiment.
Put your arm on the table and pick it up with the other hand and
force it to move. Did it move because it hurt, or was it forced to
move?
Then have someone threaten the arm with a hot needle, and notice
that you move the arm, again by force. But what moved you to move the
arm?
Then compare the desire/pain thing that moved you, and the force
that you used to move the arm until you see that the relationship
between will and pain is similar to but not identical with the
relationship between force and mass.
Pain 'moves' the will.
Force moves the mass.
Although desire and pleasure and pain 'move' or motivate the will
much as force moves an electron, motivation is more than mere push and
pull.
One can try to simulate motivation with push and pull, but it is
quite obvious by direct comparison that motivation is not reduceable to
mere push and pull.
Thus if we build a machine only out of parts that can push and
pull, it becomes impossible to create a machine that can motivate, with
desire and pain.
Thus "love and pain can not of force and mass be made".
I saw clearly that if the physical universe did exist, there would
be no way to prove it, because at all times I am perceiving the PU
through the via of my conscious color forms. Looking at effects (my
color forms) does not prove cause, so without the ability to look at the
PU directly, it was just a theory.
I could be certain of my effects, because consciousness is
self aware, self luminous, but I could be certain of implied
causes out in the external world.
A poor machine can't even be certain of the effects in itself!
So a machine is doubly damned.
That left me with the possiblity that there was a hybrid theory,
that both the conscious unit and the physical universe were actual but
interacting.
Occam's Razor told me to at least temporarily nuke that idea as 1.)
unprovable and 2.) too complex.
So that left me with the conscious universe only theory, but that
presented the enormous mental task of separating out the difference
between a zero dimensional (scalar) space time, and a 0x0x0 three
dimensional point in which nothing could fit.
The underlying actual substrate of the hologram has no dimensional
space or time, it instead has zero dimensional scalar 'space and time,'
its not linearly extended out into a dimension the way a road is, its
all one place with an 'infinite' amount of data in it. Everywhere and
everywhen is 'here/now'.
Its like, rather than make a 1000 by 1000 matrix with 1,000,000
little integers in each spot to represent what is going on there, create
a single scalar number with a 1,000,000 digits.
The first is 2 dimensional and contains 1,000,000 data points, the
second is zero dimensional with one data point, but also contains just
as much data.
However the Conscious Unit can also scan the zero dimensional
hologram in a linear fashion thus giving the illusion of a moving space
and time.
The CU can also stop doing that in theory and 'see it all at
once', which would be pure magic.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Apr 15 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore115.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)
iD8DBQFY8kOCURT1lqxE3HERAqouAKDDov/NOFG7PJSIPCn19hdlc2QAEwCguLYE
KbWgQcWb/OAI24IDwFcvGIg=
=KxDk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WHERE DID THE PROOF COME FROM?
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
>> Now I knew I could not prove I was not dreaming (sleep dreaming)
>>at any single moment of time, but it didn't seem reasonable that the
>>world it self was a dream, until I saw that *SPACE* was an illusion.
>>Once I saw that, then it all made sense and shortly thereafter, along
>>with a lot of visionary experiences, The Proof came forward.
>How did it occur to you that space is an illusion, what do you mean by
>that, what else can you say about this?
Well I had had lots of dreams where I thought I was awake, only to
find out I was dreaming when I woke up. Then I woke up again. Then
again. I did that 7 levels once.
When I am in dreams, I often think "hey is this a dream?" and
conclude no. Then I 'wake up' and go "OH Christ it was a dream what a
dupe, thank God I am awake now." Then I wake up again.
Other times I know I am dreaming cuz I can remember what the waking
state is like. But I have a number of waking states that all seem valid
when I am in them, even though they are very different, and if I get
into one of those, I conclude I am wake even though I am still sleeping.
Since I lucid dream almost every night, these kinds of shenanigans
go on all the time. After a while the whole idea of 'is this the real
waking state' becomes meaningless, as what is going on in front of me is
just as real as any other state, girls are warm and sexy, bugs bite,
demons are impossible to fend off (without NOTS), you name it.
So it became clear to me that conscious pictures of space, time,
matter and energy were not in themselves evidence of an external
material universe.
Just because we SEE space, doesn't there IS space, as the seeing of
space itself does not take up any space, because it did you wouldn't
be able to see it! :)
The fact that you can see your conscious renditions of space and
color form around you means there is no distance between seer and seen.
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
So anyhow,
I mean I have a dream of a piano, and I sit down and play it, then
poof I wake up, what happened to the piano in my dream?
The goofballs, er I mean meatballs would claim it was just a mental
image picture, a referent to nothing actual. Just as we can mockup a
piano while we are awake, there is no MATERIAL creation during such a
mockup, it is 'in our minds eye only'.
You see to the meatball, conscious experiences are NOTHING,
and implied matter, energy, space and time are SOMETHING.
I can see all the pianos I want 'out there' in my minds eye, but no
scientific instrument would ever pick up actual matter in the physical
universe out there, because the image in my mind's eye is not the same
as a real piano out there and can not create such, in their view.
The Scientists know this, they know we only see our own conscious
color forms and we then use them as a symbol to refer to the implied
external universe which we can never see directly. They know that the
external universe is only a theory to explain the consistency and
existence of our conscious experiences.
But I saw I had no evidence of the 'actual' piano even when I was
awake, and that in fact I couldn't actually prove to myself I was awake
and not in a sleep dream.
The theory I was playing with was that mental mockups were being
projected into space even while awake and thus the world was a dream
state just like dreaming, except there were other co dreamers also
projecting into the same space I was.
But I still considered the SPACE real, because I couldn't concieve
of a zero dimensional actuality. So existence had to have at least 3 or
more dimensions, so space had to be actual even if the pictures of MEST
projected into it were 'mere' mental mockups.
When I finally saw that actuality was zero dimensional and that
space was a holographic projection also, then it all became possible to
me.
Then I saw that all beings were on the same 'spot', each looking
'outward' into their own version of virtual reality, but since we were
all connected 'inside between us', we could create links amongst us so
that when I moved my version of the ball, your version moved also.
That way we could create the illusion of space between us and that
there was in fact only one real ball that we were both looking at from
different viewpoints.
Hubbard said somewhere long since erased from his writings
"People think they are looking at the same object from different
viewpoints, when in fact they are looking at different objects from the
same viewpoint."
Its like a bunch of players sitting at their play stations playing
star trek over the net. The Enterprise you see and the one I see are
two different projections on two different screens, yours and mine, but
the central computer (Source) that links the two of us allows us to
pretend that we are both looking at the same space ship. When it blows
up, it blows up for both of us. That's called a link, more technically
a resonant link, because our two dreams are resonating with each other
to a point where they are locked on to each other, a change in one
becomes instantly a change in the other.
The difference with the real world is that all the players are
facets of the One Great Multi I AM being called the AllThatIs, which
exists in a zero dimensional scalar non space/time so there is no
dimensional separation between players at all. The dimensional
separation that exists, exists only in their virtual view screens that
look into the virtual world of holographic projected dimensional
space/time.
Life is a Holodeck.
Then I spent a long time studying all the 'evidence' and reasons
why I had bought into the idea that the alleged external universe was
actual. I saw one by one that all my reasons were false, false
'certainties' so to speak, they were more convictions based on terror,
impact, and emotional preposterousness that the world was a dream. Why
would God create me in a dream state and not let me know about it? It
was just too cruel etc.
Finally I came across perfect certainties, those that can't be
wrong. From this I saw all other things as mere 'bets', not certainties
but probabilities, and most of them pretty poor. Once I had gathered
together all my perfect certainties, and threw out all the bets no
matter how much I liked them, I was left at the perfect 50/50 mark of
not knowing if the world was a dream or not.
I Knew I existed, and I knew my dream existed. That was it.
I AM.
I WANT.
I KNOW.
I DO.
I GIVE A DAMN.
Doing = Wanting + Knowing
One computes what to do from what one wants and what one knows
about how to get what one wants.
When one is Sovereign at the top of the tone scale, Wanting IS
getting.
Lower down one must DO in order to get, according to the rules laid
out.
From there my mind was open enough to start having lots of
visionary dream experiences both awake and asleep that made it more and
more unlikely that the physical universe existed and I was made of it.
I became very sure that the world was a spiritual place, that we
exist before after and all around our present time, that divinity is
quite real and quite different than human.
The reason that Divinity is Omni Numinous is because every time it
talks to you it sends an Angel AND a Devil, it can't do just one, and
that this whole 'I am a machine made of ball bearings' is quite absurd.
Machine: Any system of parts interacting via cause and effect
across a space/time distance.
While studying the mathematics of machines I came across two rather
important theorems.
The first is the Media Independence theorem which states that any
machine 'function' can be implemented in any machine media. Thus you
have clocks for example that can be made of wheels and springs, or
spinning stars, batteries and circuits, chemicals, or even sub atomics.
A clock has an energy source, an escapement mechanism and a display
that shows the accumulated escapements (time going by). The Media
Independence theorem then says that it doesn't matter what media you
implement these three things in, the clock will do its function.
There may be *PRACTICAL* limits to what one can do, but not
theoretical limits.
Thus one could build an electric circuit that matched the function
of a neuron. One could even do it with roller balls and springs if one
wanted to, it would be big and slow and clunky, but it would work.
Once you built such an neuron analogue you could hook them all
togther in the same way the brain was hooked together, and get a working
brain.
*IF* consciousness and pain were MERELY brain function in motion,
then the created entity of electric circuits would also have
consciousness, and feel pain and be self aware etc, even if very slowly
and clunkily :).
But here came the rub, conscious units are capable of PERFECT
certainty, not only of themselves but also of their conscious color
forms.
In particular they can also be perfectly certain of the contained
agency in their own will and in the color forms that gave rise to
perception. This takes a bit to get across to people, but its quite eye
opening once the being sees for sure that it can see cause.
The CONSCIOUS UNIT CAN KNOW SELF AGENCY WITH PERFECT CERTAINTY.
So the second theorem that came out of the study of machines was
the Machine Certainty Theorem, commonly known as The Proof.
It states quite simply that a machine can't be certain of anything.
Because effects do not imply cause with certainty, a machine that
can only learn by looking at effects in itself of alleged external
causes, can never know with certainty if those causes exist or not, let
alone what the nature of those causes might be.
In other words a machine can only look at and 'sense' effects, it
can't ever see cause, particularly across a space/time distance.
The only way to know about a cause over there is to receive an
effect here and compute back that there must be a cause out there.
That is not direct perception of cause.
This is learning about A (cause) by looking at B (effect).
That is learning about cause via implication from effect.
But any number of third parties can hook up the effects to make it
look like a cause is out there, and so mathematically it can be proven
that no series of effects can ever result in a perfect certainty about
any particular cause.
The REASON that a machine is limited to learning about external
causes by looking at effects is because of the nature of space/time.
Actual distance between B and A means that the only way B can learn
about A is if A causes effects in B. If A causes no effects in B, then
B will never know that A exists. The only learning that B can do about
A is about the effects B receives allgedly from A. The existence of A
is mere theoretical 'compute back' on the part of B, and not a perfect
certainty born of direct perception.
Indirect perception means B is learning about A by looking at
effects in B. This provides evidence theory and model.
The effects in B are evidence, the existence A is model, and the
idea that A is affecting B is the theory binding evidence and model
together.
Direct perception means B is learning about A by looking directly
at A. This results in a perfect certainty of the cause in A that is
affecting B. No third party can interfere in this.
Direct perception can not happen across a space/time distance, for
reasons best left to the web page mentioned above.
Thus consciousness, which is self aware with perfect certainty can
not be a process happening across a space/time distance within itself.
Thus consciousness is zero dimensional.
Thus external cause always remains a theory to a machine learning
solely by looking at effects across a space/time distance.
The machine can't even prove that cause exists at all from merely
looking at effects, for an effect doesn't contain the data in it, that
it was caused!
Only by looking directly at cause can one be certain of cause, but
across a distance one is limited to looking at effects, so one can not
learn with perfect certainty about cause across a distance!
And if you can't learn with certainty about CAUSE across a
distance, you can't learn about ANYTHING across a distance, for without
cause there is no learning.
Since all learning is the result of cause, certainty of learning
would imply certainty of cause.
Thus no certainty of cause implies no certainy of learning.
Thus we have 'Learning with certainty across a distance is
impossible.'
Since the conscious unit can see various causes directly within
itself, not only its own agency in creating efforts (outgoing cause),
but in its own color forms as they result in perfectly certain
perception of them (incoming cause), the conscious unit can not be
learning ABOUT THESE PARTICULAR THINGS by looking at effects.
This completely violates the premise that the ONLY way one can
learn across a distance is BY looking at effects here, about causes out
there, and thus the conscious unit is not learning about itself across a
distance.
Thus the CU is zero dimensional.
That's all very complex, but one can do a simple experiment.
Put your arm on the table and pick it up with the other hand and
force it to move. Did it move because it hurt, or was it forced to
move?
Then have someone threaten the arm with a hot needle, and notice
that you move the arm, again by force. But what moved you to move the
arm?
Then compare the desire/pain thing that moved you, and the force
that you used to move the arm until you see that the relationship
between will and pain is similar to but not identical with the
relationship between force and mass.
Pain 'moves' the will.
Force moves the mass.
Although desire and pleasure and pain 'move' or motivate the will
much as force moves an electron, motivation is more than mere push and
pull.
One can try to simulate motivation with push and pull, but it is
quite obvious by direct comparison that motivation is not reduceable to
mere push and pull.
Thus if we build a machine only out of parts that can push and
pull, it becomes impossible to create a machine that can motivate, with
desire and pain.
Thus "love and pain can not of force and mass be made".
I saw clearly that if the physical universe did exist, there would
be no way to prove it, because at all times I am perceiving the PU
through the via of my conscious color forms. Looking at effects (my
color forms) does not prove cause, so without the ability to look at the
PU directly, it was just a theory.
I could be certain of my effects, because consciousness is
self aware, self luminous, but I could be certain of implied
causes out in the external world.
A poor machine can't even be certain of the effects in itself!
So a machine is doubly damned.
That left me with the possiblity that there was a hybrid theory,
that both the conscious unit and the physical universe were actual but
interacting.
Occam's Razor told me to at least temporarily nuke that idea as 1.)
unprovable and 2.) too complex.
So that left me with the conscious universe only theory, but that
presented the enormous mental task of separating out the difference
between a zero dimensional (scalar) space time, and a 0x0x0 three
dimensional point in which nothing could fit.
The underlying actual substrate of the hologram has no dimensional
space or time, it instead has zero dimensional scalar 'space and time,'
its not linearly extended out into a dimension the way a road is, its
all one place with an 'infinite' amount of data in it. Everywhere and
everywhen is 'here/now'.
Its like, rather than make a 1000 by 1000 matrix with 1,000,000
little integers in each spot to represent what is going on there, create
a single scalar number with a 1,000,000 digits.
The first is 2 dimensional and contains 1,000,000 data points, the
second is zero dimensional with one data point, but also contains just
as much data.
However the Conscious Unit can also scan the zero dimensional
hologram in a linear fashion thus giving the illusion of a moving space
and time.
The CU can also stop doing that in theory and 'see it all at
once', which would be pure magic.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Apr 15 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore115.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)
iD8DBQFY8kOCURT1lqxE3HERAqouAKDDov/NOFG7PJSIPCn19hdlc2QAEwCguLYE
KbWgQcWb/OAI24IDwFcvGIg=
=KxDk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE918 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE FIRST OVERT
At tone 30.0 (postulates) each I-AM of the Multi Being Source is
100 percent responsible for his own creations but also those of everyone
else.
All are responsible for all.
This is a fair chosen connectedness between the beings of the
operational group as they descend from Native state at tone 400.
They act in unison by unanimous decree.
The being later may have the idea there are things he is creating
knowingly, and things he is creating unknowingly (other's creations),
but they are all his.
But at the top, each being replicates entirely the creation of any
other I-AM, including the idea 'I am causing this.' Since each being is
aware of the others, every creation then becomes a 'WE are creating
this', or a "US is creating this."
A little lower down it might look like, "You originated
me making it, but I am making it."
So it doesn't matter who originated something, to all the
others it remains their creation too.
To take responsibility FOR something means to own up to
having caused it, whether or not you originated it.
On *TAKES* the responsibility and thus control away from the
original creator.
By taking full responsibility FOR any creation at its moment of
appearance in his space, the being can thus own it and has 100 percent
control over it, just as he does over his 'own' creations, because even
other's creations are his own at this level.
Thus we have the KRC triangle, Knowledge, Responsibility and
Control, where Responsibility for equals Control over. What one can
take full responsibility for, one can control, and what one refuses
responsibility for, one can no longer control directly.
If you can't make it directly, you can't change it directly.
Thus by taking responsibility for anything that appears he
maintains complete control over it, meaning he can create it, or
uncreate it.
That is start, change or stop it.
So at tone 30.0, it doesn't matter who creates what, anyone can
start, change or stop it as if it is theirs, because it is, the multi
being has an US kind of attitude towards everything.
US created it, so US can change or stop it.
(The High US is merely the sum total infinity of all beings in the
multi being source whether they are in a fair chosen unison group or
not.)
You might think this would lead to wars of creation and
discreation, when one being wants it and another being doesn't, but if A
creates it and B decides to uncreate it, A, as one of the US, will
simply take responsibility for its UNCREATION, and may or may not put it
back.
In other words if B decides to uncreate something, A will ALSO
decide to uncreate it, as will everyone else, because a decision to
uncreate something is a creation, an act of causation, that is then
shared by all.
As far as A or B is concerned, each being is essentially playing a
multi being game of US solitaire with themselves, all of them.
As long as US put it there, US can change or stop it, it doesn't
matter which being of the multi being US does it, because they are not
thinking in those highly individuated terms at that level.
US includes ME and YOU, but at tone 30.0 it is US, not yet ME and
YOU without the US.
Now, one of the things the US can do is blame something that is
created (by anyone) on someone else.
It's fine for A to say B created this thing, no matter who did,
because of course it is true, B can take full responsibility for
anything created by anybody.
A saying that B created it does NOT imply that A did not also
create it. Thus full responsibility around the table continues to
obtain.
But it is not fine for A to say "B created this thing and I
didn't"!
Then A's operative postulate is not that B created it, but that A
didn't, so A has now elected himself an effect and has claimed by his
own creation that something can appear in his space that he had nothing
to do with, AND THUS CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT.
(A can pull a sly trick, trying to maintain the illusion of 'total
responsibility' after it is long gone, by saying that indeed A chose to
let B into A's space so that B could create things for A, but then B
went and made a mess, and A will say he 'didn't sign up for this', and
so he points the finger at B for creating it. That is not full
responsibility.
Blame is simply saying I did not create this, YOU did.)
Now you see we have a real ME and YOU, because YOU created it and
ME didn't.
Now B can say to A, "Yes I created it," and that would be the end
of it, because B could get rid of it. Notice A can't get rid of it any
more because A has denied creating it, by refusing to TAKE full
responsibility for it from the US as his own.
B however might just decide to not get rid of it, just to piss off
A for being irresponsible. It would serve A right for giving away all
his powers to deal with anything, just so he could point the finger at
B.
However as long as B takes full responsibility for A's
irresponsibility, B can uncreate A's irresponsibility and return A to a
fully responsible state!
As long as each being takes full responsibility for shunting off
responsibility from themselves to another, the full US continues or is
restored quickly and nothing much happens from it.
It's really hard to mess up the world without a unanimous decision
to do so.
This is true no matter who has done what to who, because since
anyone can end another's irresponsibility, because they as good as
CAUSED the other's irresponsibility, it is just the US playing the
beginnings of the game of NOT US, but still playing NOT US as the US
anyhow.
But if being A shunts responsibility over to B, and B says no way I
didn't create it, YOU did, and A says, well, er, ahem, now that you
mention it, yes I did create it, but I only created it because C caused
me to, then A can get into an infinite regression of shunting
responsibility for shunting responsibility.
A first shunts responsibility to B, who refuses it, but then A
shunts responsibility to C for having shunted to B.
If A shunts responsibility to B, but A takes full responsibility
for shunting to B, then nothing much happens, as A remains in total
control of what A is creating.
But if A shunts responsibility to B, and B doesn't accept that
responsibility and shunts it back to A, and A then shunts responsibility
to C for having for shunted responsibility to B, then A has started to
hand away all his responsibility for handing away all his
responsibility.
A can stop it any time by taking full responsibility for the last
shunt in the line of shunts, but if A makes an infinite progression out
of shunting shunting, then A no longer has control over his creations
made by others.
"I am not responsible for making it, and I am not responsible for
making myself not responsible, and I am not responsible for that
either," ad infinitum...
He is shunting shunting.
That then becomes an ongoing continuous irresponsibility for
continuous irresponsibility, otherwise known as continuous present time
overt acts.
It isn't WHAT is done that gets one in trouble, it is simply the
denial that one did it without invoking other cause to account for it.
Shunt, shunt, shunt, shunt...
20 trillion years later A is still going
... shunt, shunt, nope not responsible for that shunt either, shunt!
At any time A can simple take full responsibility for that last
shunt in line, which then presents him with the immediate prior shunt.
If A continues to take responsibility for each prior shunt as they show
up, A can unravel the whole thing back to Shunt One, at which point A
recovers his full responsibility and CONTROL of his own experience as is
his native right and state.
PUTTING IT THERE = FULL RESPONSIBLE CONTROL
If B puts something there, and A *TAKES* full responsibility for B
putting it there, by A putting it there too, then it becomes A's ALSO,
and so A can UNput it there if A doesn't like it.
That's responsibility equals control, you see?
But if A refuses to PUT IT THERE, and claims it is being forced
upon him by another, then A isn't operating responsibility for it, and thus
can't CEASE operating responsibility for it, and thus unput it there any
more. Instead he has to blame B and threaten B to get B to remove it
for A.
This creates a serious condition where A himself no longer believes
he is really an US, and A in fact believes himself to not be responsible
for his shunting control to B, that A HAD to shunt, or was made to shunt
by another such as C, or simply that calling it shunting was not valid,
that another, namely B, was in fact responsible for it and A wasn't.
You might think this would be worse if A had in fact originally
created the thing instead of B.
Truth is "I created it and you didn't!" is just as dangerous as
"You created it and I didn't."
Blaming others for one's own acts is clearly a no no, but at these
high levels, there is no "I created it and you didn't," so A blaming
ANYONE FOR ANYTHING no matter who created it starts the cycle of
postulating that A didn't create something and yet could be the effect
of someone else's creations.
Again it isn't a matter of what got created, or who
originally create it, it is a matter of "I didn't create this
but I have to experience it anyhow."
*THAT* creation works.
So the cycle starts with A and B co creating something, it doesn't
matter who 'started it'.
Then A blames B for the creation, "You did it and I didn't."
Then B makes another mistake, rather than taking full
responsibility for A's shunt over to him, he denies responsibility for
what A created and shunts it back to A.
Both B and A are now stuck with B and A's irresponsibility and the
creation neither wants.
A now feels at fault, for A's blame of B has failed, and this stirs
the emotion of guilt.
The guilt is a creation of *B* put onto A, and A has no choice but
to accept it, because A has already made the general postulate that B
can create something for A that A didn't create, EVEN IF B DENIED DOING
SO, and so A has to suffer it rather than just vanish it.
Fault is defined, by responsible multi beings, as not taking
responsibility for something you and everyone else is responsible for.
Fault is NOT a result of what was created, that is simply
responsibility. A says, "Yep I created that there holocaust" and
everyone agrees that A and everyone else created it too, and that's the
end of it.
If everyone else doesn't like A's holocaust, they simply uncreate
it and create A uncreating it too.
You see there is no fault in creating, NO MATTER WHAT IS CREATED,
as long as the creator takes full responsibility for creating it, and
also takes full responsibility for everyone else denying responsibility
for it, should that happen.
That's a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.
Others may try to make A guilty by refusing A's shunt by saying A
created it and they didn't, but if A takes full responsibility for the
creation, even if others created it too, AND if A takes full
responsibility for other's blame of A, then A is not at fault and there
is no guilt or consequence to A, as A can vanish anything he is putting
there with full responsibility, including everyone else's intended blame
and guilt.
If A is really good at it, this will include returning everyone
ELSE who is blaming him to a fully responsibility state.
These principles of what is or is not fault apply to any part of
the create, survive, destroy cycle.
*FAULT* doesn't have to do with WHAT is created, fault has to do
with failing to take responsibility for its creation, regardless of who
created it.
Yes the creation of blame and fault is a creation just like any
other creation, but if you take full responsibility for blaming then you
aren't at FAULT! You only end up at fault if you blame and mean it, by
blaming your blame on another also.
BLAME IS FAULT, FAULT IS BLAME, PERIOD.
If you blame B, *YOU* are at fault for blaming B!
Do you see now the difference between a human and a God?
Taking responsibility doesn't mean you claim you created it, it
means TAKING the act of creation as your own once it is created.
Taking responsibility means PUTTING IT THERE.
You can't change what you are not putting there, no matter who
'started' it.
Fault to a society of totally responsible beings lies only in
refusing to take total responsibility for anything.
Joke is you only get to FEEL the fault as guilt when OTHERS refuse
to take responsibility too and shunt it back to you. Your failed shunt
to another, then causes you to feel guilt and the other's do not. Now
we have a true ME (guilty) and YOU (not guilty).
Run the following.
Have your coach sit down opposite you at a table with a book in the
middle. Have the coach pick up the book, and the put it back on the
table and claim 'I am putting it there'.
Ask yourself 'Who is responsible for the book BEING THERE?'
Now you reach out to the book, pick it up, look at it, and then put
it right back exactly where it was.
Ask yourself 'Who is responsible for the book BEING THERE?'
Then one more time have the coach pick up the book, look at it and
put it back on the table exactly where it was.
Again ask yourself 'Who is responsible for the book BEING THERE?'
Then finally DO NOT PICK UP THE BOOK, but consider that you can and
that you have looked at it, and then put it back where it was.
Notice you didn't touch the book.
"Who is responsible for the book BEING THERE?'
Do you see what TAKING responsibility for PUTTING IT THERE means?
GOOBER AND DUFUS
So Goober and Dufus are part of the multi being community, and
Goober creates a big evil mess in the middle of the Cosmic ALL, the
AllThatIS.
There used to be a game between infinite multi beings of who among
them could mockup the worst evil.
It was great fun, and each took full responsibility for anyone's
presentation.
So of course everyone won the 'worst evil mockup' award every time.
But on this day, Goober creates this evil mess, and the police come
up to him and say, "Sir, you created this evil mess, we need to take you
to jail to punish you for this."
This is accountability on the tone scale. Notice the police didn't
deny that they also created it, so there is no blame yet.
Goober then makes a mistake (on purpose to create randomity) and he
says "Oh dear Sirs, you are quite right it is a horrible sight that only
the strong or the dead can behold, but it wasn't I who created it, it
was Dufus, I saw him do it."
This is blame on the tone scale.
The police then apologize profusely and proceed to create
decimation after holocaust after nuclear anihilation trying to track
Dufus down and bring him to justice. The collateral damage is
horrendous, the number of "fully responsible" beings (not) lying on the
ground belching smoke and debris, becomes uncountable.
Finally the police have Dufus corralled in some smoking corner of
what is left of civilization, and they are about to take him down, when
he says "But Sirs, I have been framed, it was Goober indeed who did this
evil thing, and here is proof..." as Dufus rolls out the video tape of
Goober doing his dastardly deed.
Well that's not absolute evidence, but it was good enough for a
jury, and the police go back to Goober and say "You lied to us, you are
AT FAULT for creating this evil thing".
Now Goober isn't at fault of creating the mess, but he is at fault
for trying to get someone else in trouble for it and denying full
responsibility for it.
People in assigning fault LOVE to confuse what was created with
the denial of responsibility for it.
Goober feels guilty and punish worthy. This is regret (guilt) on
the tone scale.
Goober knows he has been caught in a shunt trying to get another in
trouble for is own deeds.
He has poisoned his own awareness of the US by claiming he didn't
do it, and Dufus did, so that when it comes back to him, it comes back
to him as: he did it and Dufus didn't, as fault!
Goober in his guilt, misses that Dufus is now denying
responsibility for the mess just as Goober did, but Goober fails to
shunt it back making Dufus guilty too, and so it sticks to Goober.
What are these others doing blaming Goober?
Well Goober blamed Dufus for a mess, so Goober's general postulate
that others can do something that Goober didn't do, now comes back on
him exactly as he postulated, namely that others can do something to
Goober that Goober doesn't agree with or want, and GOOBER CAN NO LONGER
VANISH IT BECAUSE HE ISN'T PUTTING THERE, namely *TAKING* full
responsibility for it regardless of who created it.
He is no longer putting there what he did, that he later
blamed it on Dufus, nor that he refused the blame and shunted
it back to Goober.
Oy!
Three strikes and you are OUT.
Goober now feels GUILTY, not for the evil mess mind you, no one
cares about that, but for trying to blame it on Dufus when it was his
own doing (ALSO, it was everyone's doing in fact).
THAT was not forgivable, particularly to a community of multi
beings that long ago stopped being able to take responsibility for
anything.
Taking responsibility for evil messes was one thing, but taking
responsibility for shunting responsibility? Shudder the thought.
And that includes Goober, who, because of his unspotted and still
reigning PRIOR general postulates about being an uncausing effect of
others, now finds himself mysteriously unable to take full
responsibility for having shunted responsibility and the decimation,
holocaust and nuclear anihilation it caused while chasing down Dufus,
and so he is stuck with the guilt.
So the jury wants to take Goober out to crucify him, but Goober has
a bright idea. He has had this facsimile hanging around for a long time
of some really horrible thing that someone created that Goober had been
keeping as a souvenir of a good game.
Goober then wishes off the facsimile on the jurors hoping to stop
them in their tracks.
This is overt hate and murderous rage on the tone scale. Anything
to stop the jurors from acting against Goober.
This doesn't work however, as Goober no longer as the power to kill
with a wish or a glance, so instead Goober takes the facsimile on
himself.
Goober dons the facsimile and suddenly he looks all crumpled up,
and crippled, and cross eyed and incompetent, he can't think straight,
he is drooling out of both of eyes, and he walks into the jury and says
"See, I was incompetent due to this horrible abuse that was visited upon
me long ago, and I have suffered for years and years, please don't make
me suffer more, I apologize for the mess I made, please feel sorry for
me, and forgive me and let me go."
This is propitiation on the tone scale.
Well guess what, some of the jurors were the very people who
created the incident which Goober has a facsimile of, and they feel
sorry for Goober and let him go.
But notice Goober is now two deceits down, first he blamed Dufus
for his own doing (actually a co doing), and when he was caught with
that deceit, he blamed his facsimile for why he made the mess in the
first place, or why he blamed Dufus or for why he should be exonerated
anyhow.
One day a long time later, Goober meets one of the Jurors he
tricked, and he sees the Juror is really a good kind of guy and not
doing well, and Goober feels Sympathy for the Juror.
At that point Goober can no longer remember any part of this, and
becomes a human being in his next life being snide about auditing.
THE CYCLE OF BLAME AND BECOMING
So the cycle goes from Blame to Guilt (Failed shunt) to No Sympathy
(wishing off death or damnation on those that would punish him), to
covert hostility (covert effort to succumb with own facsimile in order
to get Sympathy or exoneration) to Sympathy for those who originally
wanted to crucify him but who then later fell for his sympathy stance or
ploy, to Spiritual Death as a sovereign being as that is the final
nature of the facsimile he is wearing, an evil to out mock all evils.
Spiritual Death is at -400.00 on the tone scale and can be measured
by the ratio between what you know for sure you are fully responsible
for, and everything else in the known Cosmic All.
One runs this cycle of BLAME - GUILT - NOSYMPATHY - COVERT
HOSTILITY - SYMPATHY - BECOMING DEAD on all dynamics by running out all
times the being KNOWINGLY shunted responsibility for *ANYTHING*,
regardless of "who created it," whether it came back to him or not.
Shunting means NOT PUTTING IT THERE.
Blame can come back as fault and guilt in two ways.
The first is called failed by force, that means mother was bigger
and stronger, and the child could not effect justice against mother's
selfish intent to rip the baby off of basic needs.
The child will first use reason against mother, then will try force
(overt hostility out of valence in murder engram, attempted murder, zap,
beam or whatever), then will use deceit (covert hostility in valence in
murder engram to make self sick and elicit mother's sympathy.)
It does not matter at all whether the child is right or wrong about
his sense of injustice being violated, mother's refusal of the blame
will make the child feel guilty anyhow, not because of anything anyone
did to anybody, but because the child refused to take full
responsibility for mother's perceived criminal intent and behavior.
Mother does wrong, and child feels guilty after blame doesn't work.
The worst mother gets out of it, is she feels smug, she avoided blame by
being bigger and stronger.
The second is called failed by reversal, the child blames mother
for throwing out his favorite toy in the garbage pail, and mother says
"Oh but dear I didn't do that, it fell there accidentally when YOU
bumped the table, I would never throw out your precious toys." The child
has blamed and punished the wrong person unfairly, and now deserves
punishment back for punishing an innocent party.
Again the child will pull in a murder engram, and sit squarely in
it, in valence, so as to get VERY sick so mother will forget he just
tried to kill her for messing with his toys, and she will forget, and
nurse him through the sickness until everyone has forgotten everything
about what happened, and all is forgiven.
Whenever blame comes back to him as fault and guilt, you must also
run out the fair chosen use of the Service Facsimile to gain sympathy
and exoneration for his irresponsibility.
It doesn't matter whether mother threw away the toy or not, the
CHILD blamed mother for the missing toy rather than PUT IT THERE (mother
and the missingness), and thus becomes liable to his own postulates that
he can be the unwanted effect of another.
Once the SPECIFIC irresponsibility is located, for mother and her
actions in the above, the preclear must then be taken back to the PRIOR
GENERAL irresponsibility for mothers and babies in general (I didn't
create or choose my mother or this baby body) and the dependency between
them and everything else involved in that incident and all earlier
similar incidents until such a thing could never happen again as the
preclear would be too fast to not take full responsibility for anything
any mother did to anybody before it could get to the guilt stage.
Here's another example.
Baby to Mother: I am starving to death, you failed to feed me this
morning (Blame, NO-Sympathy, shunted responsibility for needing food,
starving and mother's inattentive actions.)
Mother to Baby: Well you messed your pants and I had to change your
diapers, and the milk got over heated and burned so I had to throw it
away. (Fault and guilt on baby's part when mother refuses the shunted
responsibility and blames baby for messing pants. It's only reasonable
you know, if you are gonna mess your pants, you should expect to starve
to death.)
Baby (to mother): I wish you were dead. (Overt hostility, out of
valence use of death or near death engram against mother, wishing off
death or damnation on mother, intended and attempted murder which fails
as mother doesn't die so the baby is suddenly sitting IN valence in a
near or actual death experience.
If you conjure it up to wish on another, and the wish fails, well
there you are sitting in a time you were murdered and feeling like it.
Don't call up engrams to use on others, unless you intend to win. Don't
call up death or damnation on others, unless you get them to walk away
with it! Otherwise YOU get stuck in it, until you decide to let bygones
by bygones and let it go.)
Continuing to try to wish off an engram on another, that continues
to fail, leaves YOU continually sitting in the engram. Thus the only
way anyone can end up in death or hell forever is to continue and fail
to wish death and hell forever off on another. The second you give up
trying to USE the engram to harm another, you pop out of it. Thus no
hell can out last a true confession.)
Baby to Mother: See how near death I am, you should be ashamed of
yourself and feel sorry for me. (Baby now in own valence in near death
engram, uses it to make Mother feel Sympathy. Since near death engram
is Mother's attempted abortion against baby, or suicide attempts during
pregnancy, it works, and mother feels sorry for baby for a while.
But eventually it doesn't work any more.
Mother to Baby: "Oh you are always sick and dying, its all in your
head." Baby tries harder and harder and eventually becomes permanently
sick dead or dying.
Mother is stuck permanently in No-Sympathy (blame of baby), and
baby is stuck permanently in near death trying to make mother wrong and
guilty.
Baby grown up: "Auditing costs too much and doesn't work".
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
Tue Oct 16 12:09:11 EDT 2012
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Apr 14 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore918.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)
iD8DBQFY8PIDURT1lqxE3HERAjVrAKCvu0+4iWjBG/wsNg2cCOrZoaNSpQCfXgVN
PAvIqFRa/COMdMlbsHs3M4g=
=ObJE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE FIRST OVERT
At tone 30.0 (postulates) each I-AM of the Multi Being Source is
100 percent responsible for his own creations but also those of everyone
else.
All are responsible for all.
This is a fair chosen connectedness between the beings of the
operational group as they descend from Native state at tone 400.
They act in unison by unanimous decree.
The being later may have the idea there are things he is creating
knowingly, and things he is creating unknowingly (other's creations),
but they are all his.
But at the top, each being replicates entirely the creation of any
other I-AM, including the idea 'I am causing this.' Since each being is
aware of the others, every creation then becomes a 'WE are creating
this', or a "US is creating this."
A little lower down it might look like, "You originated
me making it, but I am making it."
So it doesn't matter who originated something, to all the
others it remains their creation too.
To take responsibility FOR something means to own up to
having caused it, whether or not you originated it.
On *TAKES* the responsibility and thus control away from the
original creator.
By taking full responsibility FOR any creation at its moment of
appearance in his space, the being can thus own it and has 100 percent
control over it, just as he does over his 'own' creations, because even
other's creations are his own at this level.
Thus we have the KRC triangle, Knowledge, Responsibility and
Control, where Responsibility for equals Control over. What one can
take full responsibility for, one can control, and what one refuses
responsibility for, one can no longer control directly.
If you can't make it directly, you can't change it directly.
Thus by taking responsibility for anything that appears he
maintains complete control over it, meaning he can create it, or
uncreate it.
That is start, change or stop it.
So at tone 30.0, it doesn't matter who creates what, anyone can
start, change or stop it as if it is theirs, because it is, the multi
being has an US kind of attitude towards everything.
US created it, so US can change or stop it.
(The High US is merely the sum total infinity of all beings in the
multi being source whether they are in a fair chosen unison group or
not.)
You might think this would lead to wars of creation and
discreation, when one being wants it and another being doesn't, but if A
creates it and B decides to uncreate it, A, as one of the US, will
simply take responsibility for its UNCREATION, and may or may not put it
back.
In other words if B decides to uncreate something, A will ALSO
decide to uncreate it, as will everyone else, because a decision to
uncreate something is a creation, an act of causation, that is then
shared by all.
As far as A or B is concerned, each being is essentially playing a
multi being game of US solitaire with themselves, all of them.
As long as US put it there, US can change or stop it, it doesn't
matter which being of the multi being US does it, because they are not
thinking in those highly individuated terms at that level.
US includes ME and YOU, but at tone 30.0 it is US, not yet ME and
YOU without the US.
Now, one of the things the US can do is blame something that is
created (by anyone) on someone else.
It's fine for A to say B created this thing, no matter who did,
because of course it is true, B can take full responsibility for
anything created by anybody.
A saying that B created it does NOT imply that A did not also
create it. Thus full responsibility around the table continues to
obtain.
But it is not fine for A to say "B created this thing and I
didn't"!
Then A's operative postulate is not that B created it, but that A
didn't, so A has now elected himself an effect and has claimed by his
own creation that something can appear in his space that he had nothing
to do with, AND THUS CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT.
(A can pull a sly trick, trying to maintain the illusion of 'total
responsibility' after it is long gone, by saying that indeed A chose to
let B into A's space so that B could create things for A, but then B
went and made a mess, and A will say he 'didn't sign up for this', and
so he points the finger at B for creating it. That is not full
responsibility.
Blame is simply saying I did not create this, YOU did.)
Now you see we have a real ME and YOU, because YOU created it and
ME didn't.
Now B can say to A, "Yes I created it," and that would be the end
of it, because B could get rid of it. Notice A can't get rid of it any
more because A has denied creating it, by refusing to TAKE full
responsibility for it from the US as his own.
B however might just decide to not get rid of it, just to piss off
A for being irresponsible. It would serve A right for giving away all
his powers to deal with anything, just so he could point the finger at
B.
However as long as B takes full responsibility for A's
irresponsibility, B can uncreate A's irresponsibility and return A to a
fully responsible state!
As long as each being takes full responsibility for shunting off
responsibility from themselves to another, the full US continues or is
restored quickly and nothing much happens from it.
It's really hard to mess up the world without a unanimous decision
to do so.
This is true no matter who has done what to who, because since
anyone can end another's irresponsibility, because they as good as
CAUSED the other's irresponsibility, it is just the US playing the
beginnings of the game of NOT US, but still playing NOT US as the US
anyhow.
But if being A shunts responsibility over to B, and B says no way I
didn't create it, YOU did, and A says, well, er, ahem, now that you
mention it, yes I did create it, but I only created it because C caused
me to, then A can get into an infinite regression of shunting
responsibility for shunting responsibility.
A first shunts responsibility to B, who refuses it, but then A
shunts responsibility to C for having shunted to B.
If A shunts responsibility to B, but A takes full responsibility
for shunting to B, then nothing much happens, as A remains in total
control of what A is creating.
But if A shunts responsibility to B, and B doesn't accept that
responsibility and shunts it back to A, and A then shunts responsibility
to C for having for shunted responsibility to B, then A has started to
hand away all his responsibility for handing away all his
responsibility.
A can stop it any time by taking full responsibility for the last
shunt in the line of shunts, but if A makes an infinite progression out
of shunting shunting, then A no longer has control over his creations
made by others.
"I am not responsible for making it, and I am not responsible for
making myself not responsible, and I am not responsible for that
either," ad infinitum...
He is shunting shunting.
That then becomes an ongoing continuous irresponsibility for
continuous irresponsibility, otherwise known as continuous present time
overt acts.
It isn't WHAT is done that gets one in trouble, it is simply the
denial that one did it without invoking other cause to account for it.
Shunt, shunt, shunt, shunt...
20 trillion years later A is still going
... shunt, shunt, nope not responsible for that shunt either, shunt!
At any time A can simple take full responsibility for that last
shunt in line, which then presents him with the immediate prior shunt.
If A continues to take responsibility for each prior shunt as they show
up, A can unravel the whole thing back to Shunt One, at which point A
recovers his full responsibility and CONTROL of his own experience as is
his native right and state.
PUTTING IT THERE = FULL RESPONSIBLE CONTROL
If B puts something there, and A *TAKES* full responsibility for B
putting it there, by A putting it there too, then it becomes A's ALSO,
and so A can UNput it there if A doesn't like it.
That's responsibility equals control, you see?
But if A refuses to PUT IT THERE, and claims it is being forced
upon him by another, then A isn't operating responsibility for it, and thus
can't CEASE operating responsibility for it, and thus unput it there any
more. Instead he has to blame B and threaten B to get B to remove it
for A.
This creates a serious condition where A himself no longer believes
he is really an US, and A in fact believes himself to not be responsible
for his shunting control to B, that A HAD to shunt, or was made to shunt
by another such as C, or simply that calling it shunting was not valid,
that another, namely B, was in fact responsible for it and A wasn't.
You might think this would be worse if A had in fact originally
created the thing instead of B.
Truth is "I created it and you didn't!" is just as dangerous as
"You created it and I didn't."
Blaming others for one's own acts is clearly a no no, but at these
high levels, there is no "I created it and you didn't," so A blaming
ANYONE FOR ANYTHING no matter who created it starts the cycle of
postulating that A didn't create something and yet could be the effect
of someone else's creations.
Again it isn't a matter of what got created, or who
originally create it, it is a matter of "I didn't create this
but I have to experience it anyhow."
*THAT* creation works.
So the cycle starts with A and B co creating something, it doesn't
matter who 'started it'.
Then A blames B for the creation, "You did it and I didn't."
Then B makes another mistake, rather than taking full
responsibility for A's shunt over to him, he denies responsibility for
what A created and shunts it back to A.
Both B and A are now stuck with B and A's irresponsibility and the
creation neither wants.
A now feels at fault, for A's blame of B has failed, and this stirs
the emotion of guilt.
The guilt is a creation of *B* put onto A, and A has no choice but
to accept it, because A has already made the general postulate that B
can create something for A that A didn't create, EVEN IF B DENIED DOING
SO, and so A has to suffer it rather than just vanish it.
Fault is defined, by responsible multi beings, as not taking
responsibility for something you and everyone else is responsible for.
Fault is NOT a result of what was created, that is simply
responsibility. A says, "Yep I created that there holocaust" and
everyone agrees that A and everyone else created it too, and that's the
end of it.
If everyone else doesn't like A's holocaust, they simply uncreate
it and create A uncreating it too.
You see there is no fault in creating, NO MATTER WHAT IS CREATED,
as long as the creator takes full responsibility for creating it, and
also takes full responsibility for everyone else denying responsibility
for it, should that happen.
That's a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.
Others may try to make A guilty by refusing A's shunt by saying A
created it and they didn't, but if A takes full responsibility for the
creation, even if others created it too, AND if A takes full
responsibility for other's blame of A, then A is not at fault and there
is no guilt or consequence to A, as A can vanish anything he is putting
there with full responsibility, including everyone else's intended blame
and guilt.
If A is really good at it, this will include returning everyone
ELSE who is blaming him to a fully responsibility state.
These principles of what is or is not fault apply to any part of
the create, survive, destroy cycle.
*FAULT* doesn't have to do with WHAT is created, fault has to do
with failing to take responsibility for its creation, regardless of who
created it.
Yes the creation of blame and fault is a creation just like any
other creation, but if you take full responsibility for blaming then you
aren't at FAULT! You only end up at fault if you blame and mean it, by
blaming your blame on another also.
BLAME IS FAULT, FAULT IS BLAME, PERIOD.
If you blame B, *YOU* are at fault for blaming B!
Do you see now the difference between a human and a God?
Taking responsibility doesn't mean you claim you created it, it
means TAKING the act of creation as your own once it is created.
Taking responsibility means PUTTING IT THERE.
You can't change what you are not putting there, no matter who
'started' it.
Fault to a society of totally responsible beings lies only in
refusing to take total responsibility for anything.
Joke is you only get to FEEL the fault as guilt when OTHERS refuse
to take responsibility too and shunt it back to you. Your failed shunt
to another, then causes you to feel guilt and the other's do not. Now
we have a true ME (guilty) and YOU (not guilty).
Run the following.
Have your coach sit down opposite you at a table with a book in the
middle. Have the coach pick up the book, and the put it back on the
table and claim 'I am putting it there'.
Ask yourself 'Who is responsible for the book BEING THERE?'
Now you reach out to the book, pick it up, look at it, and then put
it right back exactly where it was.
Ask yourself 'Who is responsible for the book BEING THERE?'
Then one more time have the coach pick up the book, look at it and
put it back on the table exactly where it was.
Again ask yourself 'Who is responsible for the book BEING THERE?'
Then finally DO NOT PICK UP THE BOOK, but consider that you can and
that you have looked at it, and then put it back where it was.
Notice you didn't touch the book.
"Who is responsible for the book BEING THERE?'
Do you see what TAKING responsibility for PUTTING IT THERE means?
GOOBER AND DUFUS
So Goober and Dufus are part of the multi being community, and
Goober creates a big evil mess in the middle of the Cosmic ALL, the
AllThatIS.
There used to be a game between infinite multi beings of who among
them could mockup the worst evil.
It was great fun, and each took full responsibility for anyone's
presentation.
So of course everyone won the 'worst evil mockup' award every time.
But on this day, Goober creates this evil mess, and the police come
up to him and say, "Sir, you created this evil mess, we need to take you
to jail to punish you for this."
This is accountability on the tone scale. Notice the police didn't
deny that they also created it, so there is no blame yet.
Goober then makes a mistake (on purpose to create randomity) and he
says "Oh dear Sirs, you are quite right it is a horrible sight that only
the strong or the dead can behold, but it wasn't I who created it, it
was Dufus, I saw him do it."
This is blame on the tone scale.
The police then apologize profusely and proceed to create
decimation after holocaust after nuclear anihilation trying to track
Dufus down and bring him to justice. The collateral damage is
horrendous, the number of "fully responsible" beings (not) lying on the
ground belching smoke and debris, becomes uncountable.
Finally the police have Dufus corralled in some smoking corner of
what is left of civilization, and they are about to take him down, when
he says "But Sirs, I have been framed, it was Goober indeed who did this
evil thing, and here is proof..." as Dufus rolls out the video tape of
Goober doing his dastardly deed.
Well that's not absolute evidence, but it was good enough for a
jury, and the police go back to Goober and say "You lied to us, you are
AT FAULT for creating this evil thing".
Now Goober isn't at fault of creating the mess, but he is at fault
for trying to get someone else in trouble for it and denying full
responsibility for it.
People in assigning fault LOVE to confuse what was created with
the denial of responsibility for it.
Goober feels guilty and punish worthy. This is regret (guilt) on
the tone scale.
Goober knows he has been caught in a shunt trying to get another in
trouble for is own deeds.
He has poisoned his own awareness of the US by claiming he didn't
do it, and Dufus did, so that when it comes back to him, it comes back
to him as: he did it and Dufus didn't, as fault!
Goober in his guilt, misses that Dufus is now denying
responsibility for the mess just as Goober did, but Goober fails to
shunt it back making Dufus guilty too, and so it sticks to Goober.
What are these others doing blaming Goober?
Well Goober blamed Dufus for a mess, so Goober's general postulate
that others can do something that Goober didn't do, now comes back on
him exactly as he postulated, namely that others can do something to
Goober that Goober doesn't agree with or want, and GOOBER CAN NO LONGER
VANISH IT BECAUSE HE ISN'T PUTTING THERE, namely *TAKING* full
responsibility for it regardless of who created it.
He is no longer putting there what he did, that he later
blamed it on Dufus, nor that he refused the blame and shunted
it back to Goober.
Oy!
Three strikes and you are OUT.
Goober now feels GUILTY, not for the evil mess mind you, no one
cares about that, but for trying to blame it on Dufus when it was his
own doing (ALSO, it was everyone's doing in fact).
THAT was not forgivable, particularly to a community of multi
beings that long ago stopped being able to take responsibility for
anything.
Taking responsibility for evil messes was one thing, but taking
responsibility for shunting responsibility? Shudder the thought.
And that includes Goober, who, because of his unspotted and still
reigning PRIOR general postulates about being an uncausing effect of
others, now finds himself mysteriously unable to take full
responsibility for having shunted responsibility and the decimation,
holocaust and nuclear anihilation it caused while chasing down Dufus,
and so he is stuck with the guilt.
So the jury wants to take Goober out to crucify him, but Goober has
a bright idea. He has had this facsimile hanging around for a long time
of some really horrible thing that someone created that Goober had been
keeping as a souvenir of a good game.
Goober then wishes off the facsimile on the jurors hoping to stop
them in their tracks.
This is overt hate and murderous rage on the tone scale. Anything
to stop the jurors from acting against Goober.
This doesn't work however, as Goober no longer as the power to kill
with a wish or a glance, so instead Goober takes the facsimile on
himself.
Goober dons the facsimile and suddenly he looks all crumpled up,
and crippled, and cross eyed and incompetent, he can't think straight,
he is drooling out of both of eyes, and he walks into the jury and says
"See, I was incompetent due to this horrible abuse that was visited upon
me long ago, and I have suffered for years and years, please don't make
me suffer more, I apologize for the mess I made, please feel sorry for
me, and forgive me and let me go."
This is propitiation on the tone scale.
Well guess what, some of the jurors were the very people who
created the incident which Goober has a facsimile of, and they feel
sorry for Goober and let him go.
But notice Goober is now two deceits down, first he blamed Dufus
for his own doing (actually a co doing), and when he was caught with
that deceit, he blamed his facsimile for why he made the mess in the
first place, or why he blamed Dufus or for why he should be exonerated
anyhow.
One day a long time later, Goober meets one of the Jurors he
tricked, and he sees the Juror is really a good kind of guy and not
doing well, and Goober feels Sympathy for the Juror.
At that point Goober can no longer remember any part of this, and
becomes a human being in his next life being snide about auditing.
THE CYCLE OF BLAME AND BECOMING
So the cycle goes from Blame to Guilt (Failed shunt) to No Sympathy
(wishing off death or damnation on those that would punish him), to
covert hostility (covert effort to succumb with own facsimile in order
to get Sympathy or exoneration) to Sympathy for those who originally
wanted to crucify him but who then later fell for his sympathy stance or
ploy, to Spiritual Death as a sovereign being as that is the final
nature of the facsimile he is wearing, an evil to out mock all evils.
Spiritual Death is at -400.00 on the tone scale and can be measured
by the ratio between what you know for sure you are fully responsible
for, and everything else in the known Cosmic All.
One runs this cycle of BLAME - GUILT - NOSYMPATHY - COVERT
HOSTILITY - SYMPATHY - BECOMING DEAD on all dynamics by running out all
times the being KNOWINGLY shunted responsibility for *ANYTHING*,
regardless of "who created it," whether it came back to him or not.
Shunting means NOT PUTTING IT THERE.
Blame can come back as fault and guilt in two ways.
The first is called failed by force, that means mother was bigger
and stronger, and the child could not effect justice against mother's
selfish intent to rip the baby off of basic needs.
The child will first use reason against mother, then will try force
(overt hostility out of valence in murder engram, attempted murder, zap,
beam or whatever), then will use deceit (covert hostility in valence in
murder engram to make self sick and elicit mother's sympathy.)
It does not matter at all whether the child is right or wrong about
his sense of injustice being violated, mother's refusal of the blame
will make the child feel guilty anyhow, not because of anything anyone
did to anybody, but because the child refused to take full
responsibility for mother's perceived criminal intent and behavior.
Mother does wrong, and child feels guilty after blame doesn't work.
The worst mother gets out of it, is she feels smug, she avoided blame by
being bigger and stronger.
The second is called failed by reversal, the child blames mother
for throwing out his favorite toy in the garbage pail, and mother says
"Oh but dear I didn't do that, it fell there accidentally when YOU
bumped the table, I would never throw out your precious toys." The child
has blamed and punished the wrong person unfairly, and now deserves
punishment back for punishing an innocent party.
Again the child will pull in a murder engram, and sit squarely in
it, in valence, so as to get VERY sick so mother will forget he just
tried to kill her for messing with his toys, and she will forget, and
nurse him through the sickness until everyone has forgotten everything
about what happened, and all is forgiven.
Whenever blame comes back to him as fault and guilt, you must also
run out the fair chosen use of the Service Facsimile to gain sympathy
and exoneration for his irresponsibility.
It doesn't matter whether mother threw away the toy or not, the
CHILD blamed mother for the missing toy rather than PUT IT THERE (mother
and the missingness), and thus becomes liable to his own postulates that
he can be the unwanted effect of another.
Once the SPECIFIC irresponsibility is located, for mother and her
actions in the above, the preclear must then be taken back to the PRIOR
GENERAL irresponsibility for mothers and babies in general (I didn't
create or choose my mother or this baby body) and the dependency between
them and everything else involved in that incident and all earlier
similar incidents until such a thing could never happen again as the
preclear would be too fast to not take full responsibility for anything
any mother did to anybody before it could get to the guilt stage.
Here's another example.
Baby to Mother: I am starving to death, you failed to feed me this
morning (Blame, NO-Sympathy, shunted responsibility for needing food,
starving and mother's inattentive actions.)
Mother to Baby: Well you messed your pants and I had to change your
diapers, and the milk got over heated and burned so I had to throw it
away. (Fault and guilt on baby's part when mother refuses the shunted
responsibility and blames baby for messing pants. It's only reasonable
you know, if you are gonna mess your pants, you should expect to starve
to death.)
Baby (to mother): I wish you were dead. (Overt hostility, out of
valence use of death or near death engram against mother, wishing off
death or damnation on mother, intended and attempted murder which fails
as mother doesn't die so the baby is suddenly sitting IN valence in a
near or actual death experience.
If you conjure it up to wish on another, and the wish fails, well
there you are sitting in a time you were murdered and feeling like it.
Don't call up engrams to use on others, unless you intend to win. Don't
call up death or damnation on others, unless you get them to walk away
with it! Otherwise YOU get stuck in it, until you decide to let bygones
by bygones and let it go.)
Continuing to try to wish off an engram on another, that continues
to fail, leaves YOU continually sitting in the engram. Thus the only
way anyone can end up in death or hell forever is to continue and fail
to wish death and hell forever off on another. The second you give up
trying to USE the engram to harm another, you pop out of it. Thus no
hell can out last a true confession.)
Baby to Mother: See how near death I am, you should be ashamed of
yourself and feel sorry for me. (Baby now in own valence in near death
engram, uses it to make Mother feel Sympathy. Since near death engram
is Mother's attempted abortion against baby, or suicide attempts during
pregnancy, it works, and mother feels sorry for baby for a while.
But eventually it doesn't work any more.
Mother to Baby: "Oh you are always sick and dying, its all in your
head." Baby tries harder and harder and eventually becomes permanently
sick dead or dying.
Mother is stuck permanently in No-Sympathy (blame of baby), and
baby is stuck permanently in near death trying to make mother wrong and
guilty.
Baby grown up: "Auditing costs too much and doesn't work".
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
Tue Oct 16 12:09:11 EDT 2012
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Apr 14 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore918.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)
iD8DBQFY8PIDURT1lqxE3HERAjVrAKCvu0+4iWjBG/wsNg2cCOrZoaNSpQCfXgVN
PAvIqFRa/COMdMlbsHs3M4g=
=ObJE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)