-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
HOW TO AUDIT THE NIT WIT
People often use the word forever to mean forever in time, a
temporal immortality.
In this post, forever means forever ouside of time, an extemporal
eternality instead.
'Forever' means 'forever' inside of time, an infinite amount
of time.
Eternality is like unimpingable dreamless sleep for as long as you
want, followed by forays into space and time game streams at will.
People who still want to be dead 'forever' at the end of this life
are running away from a hell 'forever' born of being stuck in a temporal
immortality.
It has nothing to do with GOD per se, except that all beings are
God incarnation.
It simply has to do with the being has gotten himself stuck in an
immortal, in time, chinese finger trap of magnitude, and thus wants to
die 'forever', even if it is a pretense that has to be recreated
everytime he does die in a body.
The being is seeking the relief of believing he WILL die 'forever'
one day, never to be seen again, just as the Christians are seeking the
relief of believing they WILL live 'forever' in time if they make the
grade.
Nothing lives 'forever' in time period. Time exists only in finite
whiles, so all whiles must end one day.
There can be an infinite number of sequential whiles though, but
nothing is left of 'prior' whiles once they end completely.
A while is a single instantiation in eternity of
START - CHANGE - STOP
CREATE - SURVIVE FOR A WHILE - DESTROY
Each while will contain many many sub whiles, and each sub shile
will continue more sub whiles, before the top level while plays out and
ends it all.
Until that is another top level while starts the manifestation
process all over again.
Many unrelated and different top level whiles can be going on at
the same time, but they can never know about each other.
Inside a while,
The mortal meatball is doing a
START - CHANGE - STOP - STOP - STOP - STOP - STOP ...
CREATE - SURVIVE - DESTROY - DESTROY - DESTROY - DESTROY ...
He is unwilling to start because the last time he started look
where it got him.
He is afraid of starting because all he wants now is to stop.
He forgets that the way to stop is to start again and let go before
changing it. Because he is unwilling to start the hell he is in, he can
never stop it except by pretense and self deceit it it WILL stop.
Thus he has a future he can look forward to of having no more
future.
The immortal snowball in hell is doing a
START - CHANGE - CHANGE - CHANGE - CHANGE - CHANGE ...
CREATE - SURVIVE - SURVIVE - SURVIVE - SURVIVE - SURVIVE ...
He is unwilling to stop, because he thinks it is 'forever', never
to create again. So he holds on to what he has, never allowing it to
stop.
He forgets that the only way to create again IS to allow what has
already been created to stop, for when everything is stopped, that's
when he has the most potential to create anew.
That includes relationships.
He doesn't want to die 'forever', but now he no longer wants to
live 'forever' either, for his life has become a hell 'forever' by
holding onto garbage that should have been dumped long ago. He
eventually becomes a meatball to give himself the illusion that he WILL
die, even though he never does.
So the answer to both the mortal meatballs, and the immortal
snowballs in hell is to help them recover their awareness of
*ETERNALITY* which then frees them from being stuck in any while made of
time in either a mortal dead 'forever' or immortal hell 'forever' state.
Stuck in a hell? Start it, then let it go. Then start some
heavens anew.
Any while can be ended by creating it again, from outside of time
as it originally was, create, survive, destroy, and then letting go of
the whole while, rather than than jumping into the while and getting
involved with it.
Mortality is the apparency of enforced manifestation forever.
Immortality is apparency of enforced manifestation forever.
Eternality is freedom to manifest and unmanifest at will, in an
infinite number of cycles of finite amounts of time called whiles.
Mortality forces a one way trip to the grave.
Immortality forces a one way trip to the ovens.
Only Eternality allows free cycling between unmanifest and manifest
across an infinite number of finite time streams or whiles.
HOW TO PROCESS
Run with another:
"Get the idea of being dead forever. Mortal
"Get the idea of being alive forever. Immortal
"Get the idea of manifesting and unmanifesting forever." Eternal
E/P: No longer a nit wit.
Homer
Tue Dec 30 00:15:03 EST 2014
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jul 30 02:17:48 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore959.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFZfXoMURT1lqxE3HERAhR5AKC/3tVq3dFOFh3c/wxqCBJJuBQMdgCgsmw4
akt7vt2ayZ18YRHH3RoRAII=
=2esb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Thursday, July 27, 2017
HOM10 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
RUIN AND ENHANCE
Robert Ducharme (VoltR@ctinet.net) wrote:
>Some of them are out-of-ARC processes (like from where could God make you
>wrong). How do your reconcile that?
I think attention on in and out of ARC processes is bull shit.
One runs wins and one runs losses, back and forth in and out of
ARC.
I think part of the problem some people have with processes that I
post is I post them in standard format and they try to run them in
standard format, but they don't realize that what *I* was actually doing
with the process might be very different than rote auditing procedure.
For example, I never actually ran
From where could you ruin a future?
From where could you enhance a future?
Seemed boring to me. But the more I think about them, and the more
people natter about them, the more they start to click in. What comes
up are places and times I can be or could be, places I wish I could be,
that I regret I can't be etc where I would be in a position to enhance a
future.
Also places I could be and have been where I did or could have or
might have ruined a future, which thus have become very dangerous to me.
Before I might have tried to run "Where could you be" to no avail
because there was no purpose or problem there.
By adding in enhance/ruin into the scene, now there is a reason to
be there or not be there which makes the location alive again with
purpose.
So between trying to get into places and 'not being able to' and
worrying about getting into places that are too easy to get into or that
I might get into without realizing it, there is a lot of conflict going
on.
As a concrete example, as pilot of an ISP in absolute control over
the e-mail, web pages and communication lines of 1300 customers, there
is startling potential to enchance and ruin futures, both intentionally
and totally out of the blue.
This position leads to a kind of sitting in the corner shivering in
awe and fear lest something happen that is out of control.
As the day goes by, things come to me, places to be, positions to
attain and to hold, positions to get the hell out of, and now my mind
immediately goes to the enhancement/ruin potential of the position and
can judge quickly whether I want anything to do with it or not.
Before I was kind of just reacting to unseen and mostly unfelt
tendencies to get near or far from things, now I can see it as
enhance/ruin flows and I can analytically take it apart very fast, its
almost automatic, don't even have to think about it. Where before it
was a reactive push and pull to who knows what, now its an instant
analysis and decision.
The *WHY* is clear to me what was pushing and pulling me before.
So am I running FWC I enhance/ruin a future? Surely. Am I running
it in any standard sense of the word? No. Am I F/Ning the process?
Hardly. But each instantiation of the process, each time it gets forked
on a new thing or subject area, tends to get more handled than not as it
was before.
Same thing for the whole subject of children, having and being.
So I think this whole yap and natter about out of ARC processes
indicates a serious inability to use one's sailing through the winds of
life *AS* a solo process, while both the negative and positive come to
the surface.
Loss is aberative. Running "What have you won?" until the guy
falls into a loss is a useful thing to know, but its still running the
loss which is an out of ARC moment. In fact you need to run the out of
ARC moment to recover the lost ARC entombed in it.
You can not clear someone by running pleasure moments unless they
fall into the unpleasure moments and you run them.
It might be more fruitful to stir up the unpleasure moments by
running the plesaure moments, than by going for the losses directly.
This is a matter of technique and approach. It probably has its
justification in that the pleasure moments give the person more theta to
face the unpleasure moments. But really pleasure moments are just the
earlier part of the emotional curve, and as such they lead into loss
moments and act as earlier beginings and that may be the only reason
they work.
It's hard to run losses without running WHAT was lost, eh?
Alan's process, running the negative by running the positive, works
along these lines. For example I go back to the night I asked my father
where I came from. Being a meatball his answer was the standard daddy
sticks his willy into mommy's wendy, and away we go, dwindling spiral
into hell.
Now there are a million things he could have said that would have
changed the entire course of my history and probably theirs too.
"Well little Homie, I have no idea where we came from, but I think
probably we have lived before and will live again, but I'll be damned if
I can remember any of it, how about you?"
Perhaps my mommy wouldn't have ended up dying in a ditch.
So one can go back to that moment and relive it many different
ways, not to cover or sweep under the rug what really happened, but to
ferret out what really happened by running what could have happened
instead, which then brings forward the magnitude of the loss.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jul 27 22:06:33 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom10.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFZepwpURT1lqxE3HERAllwAJ9gentS8ztAFXtmJ2NrISEMEJtcBQCfRdVt
fxsXzF1Wh/lDLfIQY/enjWI=
=vdqX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
RUIN AND ENHANCE
Robert Ducharme (VoltR@ctinet.net) wrote:
>Some of them are out-of-ARC processes (like from where could God make you
>wrong). How do your reconcile that?
I think attention on in and out of ARC processes is bull shit.
One runs wins and one runs losses, back and forth in and out of
ARC.
I think part of the problem some people have with processes that I
post is I post them in standard format and they try to run them in
standard format, but they don't realize that what *I* was actually doing
with the process might be very different than rote auditing procedure.
For example, I never actually ran
From where could you ruin a future?
From where could you enhance a future?
Seemed boring to me. But the more I think about them, and the more
people natter about them, the more they start to click in. What comes
up are places and times I can be or could be, places I wish I could be,
that I regret I can't be etc where I would be in a position to enhance a
future.
Also places I could be and have been where I did or could have or
might have ruined a future, which thus have become very dangerous to me.
Before I might have tried to run "Where could you be" to no avail
because there was no purpose or problem there.
By adding in enhance/ruin into the scene, now there is a reason to
be there or not be there which makes the location alive again with
purpose.
So between trying to get into places and 'not being able to' and
worrying about getting into places that are too easy to get into or that
I might get into without realizing it, there is a lot of conflict going
on.
As a concrete example, as pilot of an ISP in absolute control over
the e-mail, web pages and communication lines of 1300 customers, there
is startling potential to enchance and ruin futures, both intentionally
and totally out of the blue.
This position leads to a kind of sitting in the corner shivering in
awe and fear lest something happen that is out of control.
As the day goes by, things come to me, places to be, positions to
attain and to hold, positions to get the hell out of, and now my mind
immediately goes to the enhancement/ruin potential of the position and
can judge quickly whether I want anything to do with it or not.
Before I was kind of just reacting to unseen and mostly unfelt
tendencies to get near or far from things, now I can see it as
enhance/ruin flows and I can analytically take it apart very fast, its
almost automatic, don't even have to think about it. Where before it
was a reactive push and pull to who knows what, now its an instant
analysis and decision.
The *WHY* is clear to me what was pushing and pulling me before.
So am I running FWC I enhance/ruin a future? Surely. Am I running
it in any standard sense of the word? No. Am I F/Ning the process?
Hardly. But each instantiation of the process, each time it gets forked
on a new thing or subject area, tends to get more handled than not as it
was before.
Same thing for the whole subject of children, having and being.
So I think this whole yap and natter about out of ARC processes
indicates a serious inability to use one's sailing through the winds of
life *AS* a solo process, while both the negative and positive come to
the surface.
Loss is aberative. Running "What have you won?" until the guy
falls into a loss is a useful thing to know, but its still running the
loss which is an out of ARC moment. In fact you need to run the out of
ARC moment to recover the lost ARC entombed in it.
You can not clear someone by running pleasure moments unless they
fall into the unpleasure moments and you run them.
It might be more fruitful to stir up the unpleasure moments by
running the plesaure moments, than by going for the losses directly.
This is a matter of technique and approach. It probably has its
justification in that the pleasure moments give the person more theta to
face the unpleasure moments. But really pleasure moments are just the
earlier part of the emotional curve, and as such they lead into loss
moments and act as earlier beginings and that may be the only reason
they work.
It's hard to run losses without running WHAT was lost, eh?
Alan's process, running the negative by running the positive, works
along these lines. For example I go back to the night I asked my father
where I came from. Being a meatball his answer was the standard daddy
sticks his willy into mommy's wendy, and away we go, dwindling spiral
into hell.
Now there are a million things he could have said that would have
changed the entire course of my history and probably theirs too.
"Well little Homie, I have no idea where we came from, but I think
probably we have lived before and will live again, but I'll be damned if
I can remember any of it, how about you?"
Perhaps my mommy wouldn't have ended up dying in a ditch.
So one can go back to that moment and relive it many different
ways, not to cover or sweep under the rug what really happened, but to
ferret out what really happened by running what could have happened
instead, which then brings forward the magnitude of the loss.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jul 27 22:06:33 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom10.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFZepwpURT1lqxE3HERAllwAJ9gentS8ztAFXtmJ2NrISEMEJtcBQCfRdVt
fxsXzF1Wh/lDLfIQY/enjWI=
=vdqX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
MCT0 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
OJBECTS, QUALITIES, AND CLASSES
MCT - 0
1 August 1993
Originally posted as ACT - 12
Revised and Expanded 12/06/93
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
In article <1993Jul18.165558.3457@fuug.fi> an19788@anon.penet.fi writes:
>Just so there's no misunderstanding, could you tell me if you
>use special definitions of: "Reason", "Rationality", and "Logic".
I have very primitive and simple definitions for these words that
derive from my experience that I definitely AM and definitely am not AM
NOT.
I looked up reason, rational, and logic in my CDROM dictionary, (Am
Heritage) and what I would boil out of the definitions was that all
three words refer to 'sound logic'.
For me sound logic is a very simple thing that can be summarized by
the following statements.
IS is IS
IS is not IS NOT
IS NOT is IS NOT
IS NOT is not IS
Or more simply
For all X, X is either A or not A.
For all X, X is not both A and not A.
For all X, X implies X, and X implies not not X.
These simple rules give me a framework in which to reject certain
statements as unsound or unworthy of further consideration.
'Well from a higher state you can see that the world neither is nor
is not. Logic doesn't hold'.
'Logic is illogical' (By what logic?)
'You can't prove anything' (Prove it.)
'There is no such thing as Perfect Certainty. (Are you perfectly
certain?'
'There are no absolutes.' (That IS an absolute)
'All truth is relative...' (...except for that truth which is
absolute!)
'All generalities are false.'
I am sure you get the drift.
Logic has for me two forms, deductive and inductive.
Deductive:
If all humans have brains, and Chris is a human, then Chris has a
brain.
Inductive:
Every time I see a human it has a brain, therefore there may be
some rule that says 'All humans have brains.'
Reason therefore for me is the ability to make sure that a group of
statements is self consistent which means that things which "IS", aren't
"ISN'T".
Further it is the ability to induce out of experience, rules of
occurrence ('Every time I let go of an apple it will fall') and then
apply those rules deductively to specific situations.
The problem therefore is not whether reason is king, because in its
own field it is. The problem is rather where to we get our statements
from to put through the reasoning mill?
For me, they are DEFINITION, OBSERVATION, INTUITION and LOGICAL
TAUTOLOGY. THEN once you have something to grind, you can put your data
through the reasoning mill.
The subject of data is a big one, probably bigger than I can span,
but here follows my analysis of data that I have formed from 30 years of
thinking about it.
My present thought system admits to 3 kinds of data entities:
1.) Objects
2.) Qualities
3.) Classes
Objects have zero or more Qualities.
Objects with zero qualities are called nothings.
Objects with more than zero qualities are called somethings.
Objects have associated with them an Object Quality Set (OQS) which
is the set of all qualities that describe that object.
A nothing has an empty object quality set.
A something has a non empty object quality set.
Qualities come in two kinds, Qualities of Being and Qualities of
Relation.
Qualities of being are those qualities that an object has alone.
'Exists', 'has volume', 'is made of matter', are qualities of being.
Qualities of relation are those qualities that an object has by
virtue of its unaloneness, in other words its relation to other objects.
There are Spatial, Temporal, Material, and Causal qualities of relation.
'Bigger than', 'earlier than', 'hotter than', 'father of' etc. are
examples of each of these various kinds of qualities of relation.
Qualities of relation can not be expressed without the mention of
at least two or more objects. "The DOG is BIGGER THAN the CAT"
Qualities of being can always be expressed with mention of just one
object. "The DOG is BROWN."
There can be IMPLIED others in a statement. "I am SURROUNDED."
Surrounded is a quality of relation, not a quality of being.
Being alone is a quality of being.
You don't have to have anything else exist to be alone.
Being unalone is a quality of relation.
You can't be unalone unless something else exists.
The sum totality of those things which exist, form a collection of
objects called THE UNIVERSE, which as a whole, is alone.
'THE' universe is considered different from 'A' universe which may
be any sub universe within the grand totality of all universes which we
call THE universe.
As such, THE UNIVERSE includes all possible existing universes,
past, present and future, and outside of which there is nothing.
Qualities of relation can not exist except in the presence of
qualities of being. You have to at least exist as something (beingness)
before you can be in relation to something else.
Therefore qualities of relation imply qualities of being.
Qualities of being however do not imply qualities of relation.
Many qualities that are considered to be qualities of being are
actually qualities of relation. Weight is an example, we say 'it is
heavy', but weight is a relationship between an object and a
gravitational field of another object. An object can not have weight
when it is alone.
Or we say 'It is red'. But in the physical universe, 'redness' is
actually a causal relation between the object and the photons that
bounce off of it.
In a conscious picture though, redness is a quality of being, as
there are no photons or similar mechanisms involved in the perception of
self luminous conscious pictures.
In the assumed physical universe, the only way one object can learn
about another object is by being the effect of the other object's cause.
This is called Learning by Being an Effect.
In other words the only way A can learn about B is for B to be
cause and effect A. B causes a change in state in A. The change in
state in A IS the learning that A does about B.
If B causes nothing to A, then A can never learn anything about B
no matter how much A might cause things to B.
Since the only contact A has with B is via causal connection, the
only thing that A can learn about B are causal relations, namely how B
causes effects in A.
However since a change in state HERE alone does not imply the
existence of cause THERE, A can never be certain of anything about B
even if B IS causing things in A. All A has are its own changes in
state from which it can deduce back to the existence of B, IF A assumes
that all effects or changes in state are caused.
It is impossible to prove that a change in state is caused, solely
by changing state in response to a cause. In other words, changing
state in response to a cause, is not sufficient to prove that the change
in state was CAUSED.
Changes in state do not, in and of themselves, prove the existence
of CAUSE.
Therefore if A is limited to Learning by Being an Effect, A can
never be certain there is anything causing those effects.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Effect does not prove cause.
If you learn only by being an effect, by looking at the effects or
changes in state in yourself of those causes, you can never be certain
of cause.
Since the human soul is capable of certainty of cause, both of its
own personal causal agency, and of the causal agency of its conscious
color form, it follows that the soul is not learning about this
causation by Learning by Being an Effect.
However since the ONLY way anything can learn across an actual
space or time would be Learning by Being an Effect, it follows that when
the soul is learning about cause it is not learning across a space or
time. Thus the soul is not a space time machine.
Thus any causation of which the soul is certain can not be
separated from the soul by any extension in space or time. Thus the
claim that the certainty of certainty unit is a zero dimensional
operating actuality.
Further it should be noted that there is no time delay between
cause and direct perception of cause, as there is between cause and
perception of effect.
Learning by Looking at Effect can not produce certainty of Cause,
where as Learning by Looking at Cause can.
The actual mechanism by which a soul learns about cause is unstated
at this time, but it is not modelable by known space time processes,
which are all learning by being and looking at effect.
We will however give it a name, Learning by Looking at Cause, to
distinguish it from Learning by Looking at Effect.
Qualities of relation can not be destroyed except by transformation
into other qualities of relation, EXCEPT if you destroy one or more of
the qualities of being that were in relation.
If two objects are NEXT TO each other (quality of relation) you can
not destroy the 'next to' relation except by transforming it into some
other relation like ON TOP OF, unless you destroy some or all of the
qualities of being of the objects whose qualities of being were in
relation.
In other words the only way that qualities of relation come and go
is by coming from some other quality of relation and going into some
other quality of relation.
It is this fact that gives people the impression that they are
mortal and will die one day. They conceive themselves to be a
multiplicity of parts in relation to each other. They feel also that
their personal life depends on those parts being in a certain narrowly
defined sets of relations, called a living body. It's no good to have
your parts spread out all over the known universe. The parts are all
there, the relations are all there, but not THE relations necessary for
a person to consider that he exists.
This of course has to do with functionality. Any system of things
in relation have some measure of functionality that is a function of
their relation. If you change the relation you change the
functionality. The functionality of being 'alive' is more desirable
than the functionality of being dead. Both are functional, but the
being considers that only alive can he be conscious and enjoy himself.
However the conscious unit is not a multiplicity of parts, it is a
single zero dimensional operating actuality, therefore its own internal
relations, if indeed it has any, can not change. Thus it can not die.
It however is occupying very convincingly an apparent illusion of a
multiple dimensional operating reality called a body, which is a
multiplicity of apparent parts.
As long as the conscious unit thinks it IS a body, it will continue
to think it will die when the body dies, or seek strange goals like
making the body immortal. A Fragile Immortality at best.
Actually though when the body dies, you don't die with it, you wake
up. Usually with quite a jolt. You were wrong after all, and you were
quite an asshole about it too.
Objects which have a subset of qualities common and unique to them
can be grouped into classes. The subset of qualities that defines a
class is called the Pertinent Quality Set of that class.
Every object implies an object quality set.
Every class implies a pertinent quality set.
Pertinent qualities are those qualities that are both common and
unique to the objects in that class.
Commonness means that every object in that class has the pertinent
quality set as a subset of its object quality set.
Uniqueness means that every object that has the pertinent quality
set is in the class.
Words can be object-labels, quality-labels and class-labels.
Black is a quality label.
Dog is a Class label.
Joey, my black dog, is an object label.
Objects are classified as dogs because of a common and unique set
of qualities that all dogs share and only dogs share, which is what
makes a dog a dog, and is the pertinent quality set of the class of
dogs.
Joey my dog, and dogs in general have many other qualities besides
those that make them a dog. But if its a dog, then it must have the
base set of qualities that make it a dog, and everything that has those
base qualities is also a dog.
Any object quality set or pertinent quality set can contain the
quality that it does NOT have some other quality.
One might chose for political reasons to define a 'human being' as
someone who has all the usual characteristics and who also does NOT
indulge in child molestation, cannabalism, or serial murder.
Christians, who are enjoined to love their neighbor, routinely
define neighbor as someone who is not a Jew.
Any object quality set or pertinent quality set can contain
qualities of being or qualities of relation.
Since an object can't have a quality of relation if it is alone, it
follows that somethings are defined only by their relation to other
things. A 'My Mate' is such an object that can exist as a mate only by
virtue of its relation to another, or in other words, its unaloneness.
The words object, quality and class are all class labels.
Statements of fact are statements of the form,
Quality belongs to Object, (Object statement)
Object belongs to Class. (Class statement)
Truth is a quality of relation between a statement of fact and a
given specified actuality.
In this usage here the word FACT does NOT imply truth. A statement
of fact may be either true or false depending on the given specified
actuality. The term 'statement' and the phrase 'statement of fact' are
equivalent and interchangeable.
There are 4 kinds of statements
1.) Definitional statements
"A nothing is not a something".
Definitional statements are those statements whose truth must be
determined by looking at the definitions of the words and not by
observation, logic or intuition.
2.) Observational statements
"This house is red."
Observational statements are those statements whose truth must be
determined by actual observation of a given specified actuality and not
by definition, logic or intuition.
2.) Logical statements (Tautology)
"Either I exist or I don't exist."
Logical statements are those statements whose truth or falsity can
be determined by address to logic alone, and not by address to
definition, observation, or intuition.
3.) Intuitional statements
"Something can't come from nothing."
Intuitional statements are those statements whose truth or falsity
can only be determined by intuition and not by address to definitions,
observation or logic.
From these four kinds of statements I would proffer that all
possible thinking and reasoning may proceed.
For example.
1.) Something can't come from nothing (intuition statement)
2.) Something exists now (observation statement)
QED 3.) Something has always existed (logical deduction
from 1 and 2.)
Another example,
1.) There is only one nothing, all nothings are the same nothing,
and all nothings are identical. (Definitional statement) QED 2.) If A
is a nothing and B is a nothing, then A is identical to B. QED 3.) If
A and B are different, then one or both are not nothings.
Another example,
If A changes and B doesn't, then A is not B.
(We leave the derivation up the reader.)
Another example,
If A changes, then A either was or is a something.
Reason is therefore what you DO with your statements once you have
them. So of course reason is king once it has some meat to grind.
To say that reason is not king, is to say that IS means ISN'T, in
which case your statement that reason IS NOT king means the same as
reason IS king, so why talk?
If IS and ISN'T don't mean different things, then they must mean
the same thing, in which case if reason isn't king, then reason is king,
so of course reason is king no matter how your work it.
Reason is a tool with which we draw inferences and make
conclusions. As such it is absolute and inviolable.
But reason is not sufficient to tell us what IS. We need
definitions, observation, logic AND intuition to get what is. Then with
that in hand, we can use reason to determine what else is or might be.
Reason is the meat grinder. Reason is not the meat.
They have no evidence that the physical universe exists.
It's not even a good model for what has been observed to exist.
Namely CERTAINTY OF CAUSE.
>How would you evaluate the following assertion?
>"If you want to know something, don't think about it, pervade it."
Thinking is usually number crunching on your facsimiles taken from
prior observation.
Pervasion is a form of observation. It's finding out about
something by BEING it. OT's can do this literally, us humans can do it
to some degree in our mind.
Thinking is applying reason to the meat.
Pervasion and other forms of looking are what provide the meat.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 26 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct0.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)
iD8DBQFZeLyDURT1lqxE3HERAgOeAJ0VPnOfHbasSOIN7+XDDB2S2st4QgCgvc2k
gOWVW1SHoIK8ftaSOn6boFU=
=XJOH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
OJBECTS, QUALITIES, AND CLASSES
MCT - 0
1 August 1993
Originally posted as ACT - 12
Revised and Expanded 12/06/93
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
In article <1993Jul18.165558.3457@fuug.fi> an19788@anon.penet.fi writes:
>Just so there's no misunderstanding, could you tell me if you
>use special definitions of: "Reason", "Rationality", and "Logic".
I have very primitive and simple definitions for these words that
derive from my experience that I definitely AM and definitely am not AM
NOT.
I looked up reason, rational, and logic in my CDROM dictionary, (Am
Heritage) and what I would boil out of the definitions was that all
three words refer to 'sound logic'.
For me sound logic is a very simple thing that can be summarized by
the following statements.
IS is IS
IS is not IS NOT
IS NOT is IS NOT
IS NOT is not IS
Or more simply
For all X, X is either A or not A.
For all X, X is not both A and not A.
For all X, X implies X, and X implies not not X.
These simple rules give me a framework in which to reject certain
statements as unsound or unworthy of further consideration.
'Well from a higher state you can see that the world neither is nor
is not. Logic doesn't hold'.
'Logic is illogical' (By what logic?)
'You can't prove anything' (Prove it.)
'There is no such thing as Perfect Certainty. (Are you perfectly
certain?'
'There are no absolutes.' (That IS an absolute)
'All truth is relative...' (...except for that truth which is
absolute!)
'All generalities are false.'
I am sure you get the drift.
Logic has for me two forms, deductive and inductive.
Deductive:
If all humans have brains, and Chris is a human, then Chris has a
brain.
Inductive:
Every time I see a human it has a brain, therefore there may be
some rule that says 'All humans have brains.'
Reason therefore for me is the ability to make sure that a group of
statements is self consistent which means that things which "IS", aren't
"ISN'T".
Further it is the ability to induce out of experience, rules of
occurrence ('Every time I let go of an apple it will fall') and then
apply those rules deductively to specific situations.
The problem therefore is not whether reason is king, because in its
own field it is. The problem is rather where to we get our statements
from to put through the reasoning mill?
For me, they are DEFINITION, OBSERVATION, INTUITION and LOGICAL
TAUTOLOGY. THEN once you have something to grind, you can put your data
through the reasoning mill.
The subject of data is a big one, probably bigger than I can span,
but here follows my analysis of data that I have formed from 30 years of
thinking about it.
My present thought system admits to 3 kinds of data entities:
1.) Objects
2.) Qualities
3.) Classes
Objects have zero or more Qualities.
Objects with zero qualities are called nothings.
Objects with more than zero qualities are called somethings.
Objects have associated with them an Object Quality Set (OQS) which
is the set of all qualities that describe that object.
A nothing has an empty object quality set.
A something has a non empty object quality set.
Qualities come in two kinds, Qualities of Being and Qualities of
Relation.
Qualities of being are those qualities that an object has alone.
'Exists', 'has volume', 'is made of matter', are qualities of being.
Qualities of relation are those qualities that an object has by
virtue of its unaloneness, in other words its relation to other objects.
There are Spatial, Temporal, Material, and Causal qualities of relation.
'Bigger than', 'earlier than', 'hotter than', 'father of' etc. are
examples of each of these various kinds of qualities of relation.
Qualities of relation can not be expressed without the mention of
at least two or more objects. "The DOG is BIGGER THAN the CAT"
Qualities of being can always be expressed with mention of just one
object. "The DOG is BROWN."
There can be IMPLIED others in a statement. "I am SURROUNDED."
Surrounded is a quality of relation, not a quality of being.
Being alone is a quality of being.
You don't have to have anything else exist to be alone.
Being unalone is a quality of relation.
You can't be unalone unless something else exists.
The sum totality of those things which exist, form a collection of
objects called THE UNIVERSE, which as a whole, is alone.
'THE' universe is considered different from 'A' universe which may
be any sub universe within the grand totality of all universes which we
call THE universe.
As such, THE UNIVERSE includes all possible existing universes,
past, present and future, and outside of which there is nothing.
Qualities of relation can not exist except in the presence of
qualities of being. You have to at least exist as something (beingness)
before you can be in relation to something else.
Therefore qualities of relation imply qualities of being.
Qualities of being however do not imply qualities of relation.
Many qualities that are considered to be qualities of being are
actually qualities of relation. Weight is an example, we say 'it is
heavy', but weight is a relationship between an object and a
gravitational field of another object. An object can not have weight
when it is alone.
Or we say 'It is red'. But in the physical universe, 'redness' is
actually a causal relation between the object and the photons that
bounce off of it.
In a conscious picture though, redness is a quality of being, as
there are no photons or similar mechanisms involved in the perception of
self luminous conscious pictures.
In the assumed physical universe, the only way one object can learn
about another object is by being the effect of the other object's cause.
This is called Learning by Being an Effect.
In other words the only way A can learn about B is for B to be
cause and effect A. B causes a change in state in A. The change in
state in A IS the learning that A does about B.
If B causes nothing to A, then A can never learn anything about B
no matter how much A might cause things to B.
Since the only contact A has with B is via causal connection, the
only thing that A can learn about B are causal relations, namely how B
causes effects in A.
However since a change in state HERE alone does not imply the
existence of cause THERE, A can never be certain of anything about B
even if B IS causing things in A. All A has are its own changes in
state from which it can deduce back to the existence of B, IF A assumes
that all effects or changes in state are caused.
It is impossible to prove that a change in state is caused, solely
by changing state in response to a cause. In other words, changing
state in response to a cause, is not sufficient to prove that the change
in state was CAUSED.
Changes in state do not, in and of themselves, prove the existence
of CAUSE.
Therefore if A is limited to Learning by Being an Effect, A can
never be certain there is anything causing those effects.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Effect does not prove cause.
If you learn only by being an effect, by looking at the effects or
changes in state in yourself of those causes, you can never be certain
of cause.
Since the human soul is capable of certainty of cause, both of its
own personal causal agency, and of the causal agency of its conscious
color form, it follows that the soul is not learning about this
causation by Learning by Being an Effect.
However since the ONLY way anything can learn across an actual
space or time would be Learning by Being an Effect, it follows that when
the soul is learning about cause it is not learning across a space or
time. Thus the soul is not a space time machine.
Thus any causation of which the soul is certain can not be
separated from the soul by any extension in space or time. Thus the
claim that the certainty of certainty unit is a zero dimensional
operating actuality.
Further it should be noted that there is no time delay between
cause and direct perception of cause, as there is between cause and
perception of effect.
Learning by Looking at Effect can not produce certainty of Cause,
where as Learning by Looking at Cause can.
The actual mechanism by which a soul learns about cause is unstated
at this time, but it is not modelable by known space time processes,
which are all learning by being and looking at effect.
We will however give it a name, Learning by Looking at Cause, to
distinguish it from Learning by Looking at Effect.
Qualities of relation can not be destroyed except by transformation
into other qualities of relation, EXCEPT if you destroy one or more of
the qualities of being that were in relation.
If two objects are NEXT TO each other (quality of relation) you can
not destroy the 'next to' relation except by transforming it into some
other relation like ON TOP OF, unless you destroy some or all of the
qualities of being of the objects whose qualities of being were in
relation.
In other words the only way that qualities of relation come and go
is by coming from some other quality of relation and going into some
other quality of relation.
It is this fact that gives people the impression that they are
mortal and will die one day. They conceive themselves to be a
multiplicity of parts in relation to each other. They feel also that
their personal life depends on those parts being in a certain narrowly
defined sets of relations, called a living body. It's no good to have
your parts spread out all over the known universe. The parts are all
there, the relations are all there, but not THE relations necessary for
a person to consider that he exists.
This of course has to do with functionality. Any system of things
in relation have some measure of functionality that is a function of
their relation. If you change the relation you change the
functionality. The functionality of being 'alive' is more desirable
than the functionality of being dead. Both are functional, but the
being considers that only alive can he be conscious and enjoy himself.
However the conscious unit is not a multiplicity of parts, it is a
single zero dimensional operating actuality, therefore its own internal
relations, if indeed it has any, can not change. Thus it can not die.
It however is occupying very convincingly an apparent illusion of a
multiple dimensional operating reality called a body, which is a
multiplicity of apparent parts.
As long as the conscious unit thinks it IS a body, it will continue
to think it will die when the body dies, or seek strange goals like
making the body immortal. A Fragile Immortality at best.
Actually though when the body dies, you don't die with it, you wake
up. Usually with quite a jolt. You were wrong after all, and you were
quite an asshole about it too.
Objects which have a subset of qualities common and unique to them
can be grouped into classes. The subset of qualities that defines a
class is called the Pertinent Quality Set of that class.
Every object implies an object quality set.
Every class implies a pertinent quality set.
Pertinent qualities are those qualities that are both common and
unique to the objects in that class.
Commonness means that every object in that class has the pertinent
quality set as a subset of its object quality set.
Uniqueness means that every object that has the pertinent quality
set is in the class.
Words can be object-labels, quality-labels and class-labels.
Black is a quality label.
Dog is a Class label.
Joey, my black dog, is an object label.
Objects are classified as dogs because of a common and unique set
of qualities that all dogs share and only dogs share, which is what
makes a dog a dog, and is the pertinent quality set of the class of
dogs.
Joey my dog, and dogs in general have many other qualities besides
those that make them a dog. But if its a dog, then it must have the
base set of qualities that make it a dog, and everything that has those
base qualities is also a dog.
Any object quality set or pertinent quality set can contain the
quality that it does NOT have some other quality.
One might chose for political reasons to define a 'human being' as
someone who has all the usual characteristics and who also does NOT
indulge in child molestation, cannabalism, or serial murder.
Christians, who are enjoined to love their neighbor, routinely
define neighbor as someone who is not a Jew.
Any object quality set or pertinent quality set can contain
qualities of being or qualities of relation.
Since an object can't have a quality of relation if it is alone, it
follows that somethings are defined only by their relation to other
things. A 'My Mate' is such an object that can exist as a mate only by
virtue of its relation to another, or in other words, its unaloneness.
The words object, quality and class are all class labels.
Statements of fact are statements of the form,
Quality belongs to Object, (Object statement)
Object belongs to Class. (Class statement)
Truth is a quality of relation between a statement of fact and a
given specified actuality.
In this usage here the word FACT does NOT imply truth. A statement
of fact may be either true or false depending on the given specified
actuality. The term 'statement' and the phrase 'statement of fact' are
equivalent and interchangeable.
There are 4 kinds of statements
1.) Definitional statements
"A nothing is not a something".
Definitional statements are those statements whose truth must be
determined by looking at the definitions of the words and not by
observation, logic or intuition.
2.) Observational statements
"This house is red."
Observational statements are those statements whose truth must be
determined by actual observation of a given specified actuality and not
by definition, logic or intuition.
2.) Logical statements (Tautology)
"Either I exist or I don't exist."
Logical statements are those statements whose truth or falsity can
be determined by address to logic alone, and not by address to
definition, observation, or intuition.
3.) Intuitional statements
"Something can't come from nothing."
Intuitional statements are those statements whose truth or falsity
can only be determined by intuition and not by address to definitions,
observation or logic.
From these four kinds of statements I would proffer that all
possible thinking and reasoning may proceed.
For example.
1.) Something can't come from nothing (intuition statement)
2.) Something exists now (observation statement)
QED 3.) Something has always existed (logical deduction
from 1 and 2.)
Another example,
1.) There is only one nothing, all nothings are the same nothing,
and all nothings are identical. (Definitional statement) QED 2.) If A
is a nothing and B is a nothing, then A is identical to B. QED 3.) If
A and B are different, then one or both are not nothings.
Another example,
If A changes and B doesn't, then A is not B.
(We leave the derivation up the reader.)
Another example,
If A changes, then A either was or is a something.
Reason is therefore what you DO with your statements once you have
them. So of course reason is king once it has some meat to grind.
To say that reason is not king, is to say that IS means ISN'T, in
which case your statement that reason IS NOT king means the same as
reason IS king, so why talk?
If IS and ISN'T don't mean different things, then they must mean
the same thing, in which case if reason isn't king, then reason is king,
so of course reason is king no matter how your work it.
Reason is a tool with which we draw inferences and make
conclusions. As such it is absolute and inviolable.
But reason is not sufficient to tell us what IS. We need
definitions, observation, logic AND intuition to get what is. Then with
that in hand, we can use reason to determine what else is or might be.
Reason is the meat grinder. Reason is not the meat.
They have no evidence that the physical universe exists.
It's not even a good model for what has been observed to exist.
Namely CERTAINTY OF CAUSE.
>How would you evaluate the following assertion?
>"If you want to know something, don't think about it, pervade it."
Thinking is usually number crunching on your facsimiles taken from
prior observation.
Pervasion is a form of observation. It's finding out about
something by BEING it. OT's can do this literally, us humans can do it
to some degree in our mind.
Thinking is applying reason to the meat.
Pervasion and other forms of looking are what provide the meat.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 26 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct0.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)
iD8DBQFZeLyDURT1lqxE3HERAgOeAJ0VPnOfHbasSOIN7+XDDB2S2st4QgCgvc2k
gOWVW1SHoIK8ftaSOn6boFU=
=XJOH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
HOM39 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
RESPONSIBILITY DUMP
On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Christine wrote:
>> Men become exactly and only what women operate them as
>
> Responsibility dump.
You can have an effect on others.
That is part of the warp and woof of the postulates in this universe.
It's easy to dismiss the Adorian point of view by saying
'responsibility dump' because it looks like the man blaming the woman.
But the other side of the coin is woman taking responsibility for how
men turn out because they can and do have an effect, much larger than they
know, admit or want. For women to say they don't have an effect over how
men turn out is a much bigger responsibility dump, its the responsibility
dump of a creator rather than of a creature.
Eventually the man must take responsibility for being the
effect of the woman, but Adore holds the mother as responsible
over her children, it is she that is expected to be pan determined
over her creation, not just plop and drop and run from the consequences,
and it is the woman who is supposed to teach the man about being
a man and taking responsibility over being a man.
Your position that Adore is a 'responsibility dump' is true
to the point of being nonsense.
All teachers/auditors/creators must take full responsibility for the
outcome of their efforts. It's fine to say 'responsibility dump!' when
the pc blames the auditor for a failed session, but its also a
'responsibility dump' when the auditor says "Hey its the pcs fault, I had
nothing to do with it."
Adore says that we are all totally responsibile for everything, not
just in wish but in truth. How that could be is beyond most people at
this time, but nonetheless that is Adore's stance.
LRH says that when someone says its your fault, and you don't accept
responsibility for it, whether or not you 'did it', its a low tone denial
of pan determinism. - Advanced Procedure and Axioms.
The Adorian viewpoint is not wrong and is more useful than the
prevailing viewpoint of most women that they had nothing to do with it.
That's the auditor/creator blaming the pc.
The blame cycles between mother and son are an early and fruitful
point of case entrance. Children learn by mimickry.
Child Mimickry
Woman Harmony
Man Counterpoint
God New Beat
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 25 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom39.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)
iD8DBQFZd2sDURT1lqxE3HERAmrfAJ9KSRyEv+n/wqRTv1lPzsNbO/LTqACfQmJW
3h9ZksvSsSUMD4l25RUij/4=
=4D3S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
RESPONSIBILITY DUMP
On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Christine wrote:
>> Men become exactly and only what women operate them as
>
> Responsibility dump.
You can have an effect on others.
That is part of the warp and woof of the postulates in this universe.
It's easy to dismiss the Adorian point of view by saying
'responsibility dump' because it looks like the man blaming the woman.
But the other side of the coin is woman taking responsibility for how
men turn out because they can and do have an effect, much larger than they
know, admit or want. For women to say they don't have an effect over how
men turn out is a much bigger responsibility dump, its the responsibility
dump of a creator rather than of a creature.
Eventually the man must take responsibility for being the
effect of the woman, but Adore holds the mother as responsible
over her children, it is she that is expected to be pan determined
over her creation, not just plop and drop and run from the consequences,
and it is the woman who is supposed to teach the man about being
a man and taking responsibility over being a man.
Your position that Adore is a 'responsibility dump' is true
to the point of being nonsense.
All teachers/auditors/creators must take full responsibility for the
outcome of their efforts. It's fine to say 'responsibility dump!' when
the pc blames the auditor for a failed session, but its also a
'responsibility dump' when the auditor says "Hey its the pcs fault, I had
nothing to do with it."
Adore says that we are all totally responsibile for everything, not
just in wish but in truth. How that could be is beyond most people at
this time, but nonetheless that is Adore's stance.
LRH says that when someone says its your fault, and you don't accept
responsibility for it, whether or not you 'did it', its a low tone denial
of pan determinism. - Advanced Procedure and Axioms.
The Adorian viewpoint is not wrong and is more useful than the
prevailing viewpoint of most women that they had nothing to do with it.
That's the auditor/creator blaming the pc.
The blame cycles between mother and son are an early and fruitful
point of case entrance. Children learn by mimickry.
Child Mimickry
Woman Harmony
Man Counterpoint
God New Beat
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 25 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom39.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)
iD8DBQFZd2sDURT1lqxE3HERAmrfAJ9KSRyEv+n/wqRTv1lPzsNbO/LTqACfQmJW
3h9ZksvSsSUMD4l25RUij/4=
=4D3S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, July 25, 2017
ADORE268 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BRICK OR DREAM OF BRICK?
Rogers. D.Scn. (The_Bindu@NOSPAMmsn.com) wrote:
>You mean, like if somebody was to say, "The entire universe can be viewed AS
>IF it were a dream?"
You got it.
Only in this case the entire universe IS a dream.
It can be viewed AS IF it were actual.
God was never able to make brick.
God was at best only able to polarize parts of HIMSELF to LOOK like
brick.
Look like != IS.
The static was never able to create space or time or cause outside
of itself.
It was at best only able to polarize parts of itself to look like
space and time and cause outside of itself.
You see its very simple.
Thetan says 'There is a wall', and an experience of a wall appears.
That's actual.
Thetan is cause of creating experience of wall.
The thetan is actual, the mockup of the wall in his conscious
experience is actual, and the cause between the thetan and the wall,
continuing its creation, is actual.
Thetan says "There is a ball", and an experience of a ball appears.
That's actual.
Thetan is cause of creating the experience of the ball.
The thetan is actual, the mockup of the ball in his conscious
experience is actual, and the cause between the thetan and the ball,
continuing its creation, is actual.
Now thetan lies, and says "The wall is cause over the ball and
won't let the ball pass through it".
Whaddya know, the ball bounces off the wall.
The thetan is still cause of the wall, and still cause of the ball,
and still cause of the ball bouncing off the wall, but he is PRETENDING
the wall is cause of the ball bouncing off the wall. He has created a
virtual reality in which he can have a game.
The virtual reality consists of three components, two of which are
actual and one of which is illusory (real only).
Actual is what is true, real is what he thinks is true.
The wall and the ball are actual, and the cause between them is
illusory.
The thetan is the actual cause of the ball bouncing off the wall,
no change has been made to the wall or the ball to make this happen,
they are still the original experiences of wall and ball as originally
created, but the thetan continues to lie about who or what is cause of
the bounce and thus the bouncing continues. The thetan now has a
persisting dream made of an intricate hook together of postulates that
he is denying he is making and are active.
The thetan blames the wall for the bounce. The wall is a light
picture in consciousness, so is the ball. No way can they affect each
other any more than a TV picture or movie of a ball and wall can affect
each other.
>:-)
If you were as smart as you pretend to be, Mr. Doctor of
Scientology, you would actually be able to hold an intelligent
conversation about the subject and vital importance of the difference
between reality and actuality, rather than invalidate it.
Separating symbol from referent and reality from actuality is the
ONLY way to produce a real OT who can create and destroy illusions at
will, even ones that other's can see.
The OT knows where cause really is at all times, between the thetan
and his mockups, never between mockups.
Cause between mockups is how a thetan pretends to give away his
cause and becomes trapped in walls made of conscious light picture.
Homer
>Les.
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Jul 25 00:01:06 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore268.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFZdsKDURT1lqxE3HERArkAAJ9MdcQNlXSztugReBzyUjWWfO3UVgCgwoTP
re7hpvo3nuOGZFSoAZOo75c=
=4013
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
BRICK OR DREAM OF BRICK?
Rogers. D.Scn. (The_Bindu@NOSPAMmsn.com) wrote:
>You mean, like if somebody was to say, "The entire universe can be viewed AS
>IF it were a dream?"
You got it.
Only in this case the entire universe IS a dream.
It can be viewed AS IF it were actual.
God was never able to make brick.
God was at best only able to polarize parts of HIMSELF to LOOK like
brick.
Look like != IS.
The static was never able to create space or time or cause outside
of itself.
It was at best only able to polarize parts of itself to look like
space and time and cause outside of itself.
You see its very simple.
Thetan says 'There is a wall', and an experience of a wall appears.
That's actual.
Thetan is cause of creating experience of wall.
The thetan is actual, the mockup of the wall in his conscious
experience is actual, and the cause between the thetan and the wall,
continuing its creation, is actual.
Thetan says "There is a ball", and an experience of a ball appears.
That's actual.
Thetan is cause of creating the experience of the ball.
The thetan is actual, the mockup of the ball in his conscious
experience is actual, and the cause between the thetan and the ball,
continuing its creation, is actual.
Now thetan lies, and says "The wall is cause over the ball and
won't let the ball pass through it".
Whaddya know, the ball bounces off the wall.
The thetan is still cause of the wall, and still cause of the ball,
and still cause of the ball bouncing off the wall, but he is PRETENDING
the wall is cause of the ball bouncing off the wall. He has created a
virtual reality in which he can have a game.
The virtual reality consists of three components, two of which are
actual and one of which is illusory (real only).
Actual is what is true, real is what he thinks is true.
The wall and the ball are actual, and the cause between them is
illusory.
The thetan is the actual cause of the ball bouncing off the wall,
no change has been made to the wall or the ball to make this happen,
they are still the original experiences of wall and ball as originally
created, but the thetan continues to lie about who or what is cause of
the bounce and thus the bouncing continues. The thetan now has a
persisting dream made of an intricate hook together of postulates that
he is denying he is making and are active.
The thetan blames the wall for the bounce. The wall is a light
picture in consciousness, so is the ball. No way can they affect each
other any more than a TV picture or movie of a ball and wall can affect
each other.
>:-)
If you were as smart as you pretend to be, Mr. Doctor of
Scientology, you would actually be able to hold an intelligent
conversation about the subject and vital importance of the difference
between reality and actuality, rather than invalidate it.
Separating symbol from referent and reality from actuality is the
ONLY way to produce a real OT who can create and destroy illusions at
will, even ones that other's can see.
The OT knows where cause really is at all times, between the thetan
and his mockups, never between mockups.
Cause between mockups is how a thetan pretends to give away his
cause and becomes trapped in walls made of conscious light picture.
Homer
>Les.
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Jul 25 00:01:06 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore268.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFZdsKDURT1lqxE3HERArkAAJ9MdcQNlXSztugReBzyUjWWfO3UVgCgwoTP
re7hpvo3nuOGZFSoAZOo75c=
=4013
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, July 23, 2017
HOM23 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WINNING
> And how do you win???
I presume you mean at the game of 'going free'.
Well all games lead to ludicrous demise because of the very nature
of their postulates. You can never get rid of what you fight, and all
games are a fighting of some kind, so eventually of course you lose
crucified to what you fought.
The pc comes in and he hates games, and he wants to play the game
getting out of games, but he doesn't want it to be a game, he just wants
out. But he doesn't understand anything but games, he thinks maybe he
will win, maybe he won't, but he's sure going to be *DETERMINED* about
it etc, and of course he fails. Notice he is operating the wrong
definition of To Determine, which rightly means to CAUSE, not TO TRY
HARD.
To be determined about something means just that, to be the effect
of other cause.
Pc's who are determined to determine something are really messed
up.
Also notice that To Determine means TO KNOW BY LOOKING which is a
basic aberration, and is opposed to To Determine meaning to LOOK BY
KNOWING, or to create knowledge and then look at it.
Run the cause and effect meanings of To Determine, determination,
determinism, determined etc until you get this utterly clearly.
When one has becomed determined to win a game, one has fallen away
from determining the game, you see?
The first address is to the problem of games, the pc's charge on
games, considerations on games, help as a game, etc. The first thing he
absolutely needs to do is to stop treating getting better as a game, he
needs to cognite his way out of being determined and into determining.
His games situation sucks, so he had better not make a game out of
improving his game situation, you see this?
But even if his game situation didn't suck, it would still be
disasterous to make a game out of improving, having or optimzing
desirable games. That's just something you DO, not something you TRY to
do.
This is Adore's "The way in is the way out." It gets him figuring
how he could come in. He has to be out to do that, and out is where he
wants to be. As long as he is figuring how to get out, he's in. Get
him figuring how to come in, and he's out.
"The creature can become the creator at will.
The creature becomes the creator by BEING the creator becoming the
creature."
So he has this life and it isn't going well, meaning he doesn't
like his present game situation. He TRIES to get better by auditing but
makes a game out of it. So the auditing has to disabuse him of doing
that. This is done by auditing games, until the pc sees for absolute
sure that all games will end in defeat one day, and that getting better
is not a game, its a dance.
Getting better games is not a game, and if you make it a game you
surely will have a game that will last forever and you will never win.
The primary dance of getting better is to dance WITH the games one
is playing, sort of follow them in real time step by step, rather than
getting lost in them and taking them seriously.
It doesn't matter at all if we build a better civilization, it
matters quite a bit that we not become interiorized into our failure and
call it life in the aftermath.
Its like my effort processing, if I DO the efforts for real I get
worse, but if I run the efforts before doing them, I can ratchet them
out, then I can watch them better as I do them for real and not do them
quite as hard when I have to do them for real, and so they don't crunch
as hard, and I can run them out even more afterwards.
Like in the morning I run what I will do, then I do those efforts
all day, then at night I run what I did do. Get it wrong and it will
kill you dead like a bolt of lightning, so watch it. It can leave your
heart a toasty critter.
So winning at the 'game of having better games' is the same thing,
run the games before you play them, run them as best as you can while
you play them by tracking how wrong what you are doing is but do it
anyway, and then run them after you are done playing them. This
recovers mass and energy for you from out of your ridges built up by
playing games seriously.
Thus one has a game aspect and a non game aspect to every action.
The game aspect is the space time dramatization, trying to be rich, have
a good job, help people, build a new civilization etc, the non game
aspect is running this nonsense out before, as and after you are doing
it.
Chasing a better chase isn't going to work because it
prepostulates the possibility of failure.
Auditing is merely help in doing this: often after you have done
something, it tries to run it out, "let's go over the efforts of that".
But really a good session will deal with what you did yesterday,
what you are doing now, and what you will try to do tomorrow.
First you run all the stupid things you did yesterday, then you run
all the stupid things you are doing today and right now in session, and
then you run all the stupid things you can't wait to do tomorrow.
Then when tomorrow comes, and you do all those stupid things, it
won't be so solid in the end, you won't be quite as low at the end of
the day, and you will be able to loosen it all up again real easy and
end up higher than you were at the same time the day before.
A good effort session will return tremendous quanties of energy to
you, even if you haven't the foggiest notion how you got into the mess
you are in. Once you see it work, you won't lose it again for long.
In the end auditing is a way of living and playing games by
unplaying them before as and after at the same time, and an auditing
session is just a more concentrated running of game efforts either solo
or with someone else.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jul 23 22:20:15 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom23.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFZdVlgURT1lqxE3HERAu7QAJ9405tlaATDaTSbplcMKQ06RN9ODwCgiAyp
q4x5FcOBR3tcu9ldJdZ9bWc=
=rRzt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WINNING
> And how do you win???
I presume you mean at the game of 'going free'.
Well all games lead to ludicrous demise because of the very nature
of their postulates. You can never get rid of what you fight, and all
games are a fighting of some kind, so eventually of course you lose
crucified to what you fought.
The pc comes in and he hates games, and he wants to play the game
getting out of games, but he doesn't want it to be a game, he just wants
out. But he doesn't understand anything but games, he thinks maybe he
will win, maybe he won't, but he's sure going to be *DETERMINED* about
it etc, and of course he fails. Notice he is operating the wrong
definition of To Determine, which rightly means to CAUSE, not TO TRY
HARD.
To be determined about something means just that, to be the effect
of other cause.
Pc's who are determined to determine something are really messed
up.
Also notice that To Determine means TO KNOW BY LOOKING which is a
basic aberration, and is opposed to To Determine meaning to LOOK BY
KNOWING, or to create knowledge and then look at it.
Run the cause and effect meanings of To Determine, determination,
determinism, determined etc until you get this utterly clearly.
When one has becomed determined to win a game, one has fallen away
from determining the game, you see?
The first address is to the problem of games, the pc's charge on
games, considerations on games, help as a game, etc. The first thing he
absolutely needs to do is to stop treating getting better as a game, he
needs to cognite his way out of being determined and into determining.
His games situation sucks, so he had better not make a game out of
improving his game situation, you see this?
But even if his game situation didn't suck, it would still be
disasterous to make a game out of improving, having or optimzing
desirable games. That's just something you DO, not something you TRY to
do.
This is Adore's "The way in is the way out." It gets him figuring
how he could come in. He has to be out to do that, and out is where he
wants to be. As long as he is figuring how to get out, he's in. Get
him figuring how to come in, and he's out.
"The creature can become the creator at will.
The creature becomes the creator by BEING the creator becoming the
creature."
So he has this life and it isn't going well, meaning he doesn't
like his present game situation. He TRIES to get better by auditing but
makes a game out of it. So the auditing has to disabuse him of doing
that. This is done by auditing games, until the pc sees for absolute
sure that all games will end in defeat one day, and that getting better
is not a game, its a dance.
Getting better games is not a game, and if you make it a game you
surely will have a game that will last forever and you will never win.
The primary dance of getting better is to dance WITH the games one
is playing, sort of follow them in real time step by step, rather than
getting lost in them and taking them seriously.
It doesn't matter at all if we build a better civilization, it
matters quite a bit that we not become interiorized into our failure and
call it life in the aftermath.
Its like my effort processing, if I DO the efforts for real I get
worse, but if I run the efforts before doing them, I can ratchet them
out, then I can watch them better as I do them for real and not do them
quite as hard when I have to do them for real, and so they don't crunch
as hard, and I can run them out even more afterwards.
Like in the morning I run what I will do, then I do those efforts
all day, then at night I run what I did do. Get it wrong and it will
kill you dead like a bolt of lightning, so watch it. It can leave your
heart a toasty critter.
So winning at the 'game of having better games' is the same thing,
run the games before you play them, run them as best as you can while
you play them by tracking how wrong what you are doing is but do it
anyway, and then run them after you are done playing them. This
recovers mass and energy for you from out of your ridges built up by
playing games seriously.
Thus one has a game aspect and a non game aspect to every action.
The game aspect is the space time dramatization, trying to be rich, have
a good job, help people, build a new civilization etc, the non game
aspect is running this nonsense out before, as and after you are doing
it.
Chasing a better chase isn't going to work because it
prepostulates the possibility of failure.
Auditing is merely help in doing this: often after you have done
something, it tries to run it out, "let's go over the efforts of that".
But really a good session will deal with what you did yesterday,
what you are doing now, and what you will try to do tomorrow.
First you run all the stupid things you did yesterday, then you run
all the stupid things you are doing today and right now in session, and
then you run all the stupid things you can't wait to do tomorrow.
Then when tomorrow comes, and you do all those stupid things, it
won't be so solid in the end, you won't be quite as low at the end of
the day, and you will be able to loosen it all up again real easy and
end up higher than you were at the same time the day before.
A good effort session will return tremendous quanties of energy to
you, even if you haven't the foggiest notion how you got into the mess
you are in. Once you see it work, you won't lose it again for long.
In the end auditing is a way of living and playing games by
unplaying them before as and after at the same time, and an auditing
session is just a more concentrated running of game efforts either solo
or with someone else.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Jul 23 22:20:15 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom23.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFZdVlgURT1lqxE3HERAu7QAJ9405tlaATDaTSbplcMKQ06RN9ODwCgiAyp
q4x5FcOBR3tcu9ldJdZ9bWc=
=rRzt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, July 22, 2017
ADORE984
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TEACHING THE PROOF
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, dunbarx@aol.com wrote:
> You have done this? If not, then go to the physics department.
> Find someone who looks at it all from above, rather than from within.
> There are surely some there who do. It would be interesting to see what
> they think.
I have been at Cornell here for 40 years, thousands of
conversations etc.
I talk to everyone I meet, try to take them to their frontiers of
thought. Most have a hard ceiling above which they will not go.
Many are religious, they think there is some mystery to it etc, but
they freak if I start talking too close to scalar and fair chosen choice
to forget a fair chosen choice.
They have lost sight of their eternality and they fear immortality
more than mortality, they fear hell forever more than death forever, so
they choose the pretense of death forever in a (virtual) meatbody rather
than face the monsters of hell they left behind them and had become.
The whole proof is on the net and has been for years.
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
Some of Adore is on the net too: http://www.adore.com
I had a single page of the proof pinned up in the math student
lounge for YEARS and got not one single comment.
They considered me the local weirdo and intellectual trouble maker.
The few I managed to take it up with, giggled nervously and quickly
changed the subject, probably as too ludicrous or galling to consider.
I ran it as an ad in the Cornell Daily Sun for YEARS requesting
interested parties to contact me about it. Not one call.
I have shown it to a few friends like Jane, Bunny and Patty Perrin
who simply got it, but most others like Crackers just freaked out about
it and finally started ordering me to not talk about it. I have had
math professors do the same, and even high level Scientologists who
ought to know better.
I mostly get nutcackes, "I doubt everything! I even doubt that I
doubt everything! At least I am being consistent, I think."
You know Wind Between The Ears kinds of people who belong in Godel
Jail for life.
Respectable world reknown quantum mechanics experts tell me 'Oh we
know we can't be certain of anything!' 'Besides what is existence
anyhow, no one can define it.'
Since I AM and I KNOW it, I just wonder what their PhD's are about
except a long sojourn in Academentia.
I will be making youtube videos in the near future going over the
whole thing in detail, but its 40 years of work to organize.
Lot's of people on the net are very close to the subject, they know
the world is a dream, google for the holographic universe, and the scifi
Dead Forever triology.
But they don't have a clue what perfect certainty is and the
problems with it, and they have never gotten a single finger on EXACTLY
what it is with consciousness that makes it consciousness.
Consciousness IS the facility of perfect certainty.
How can there be perfect certainty?
Zero Emission Visuals, ZEV, flies right over their heads.
Artificial Intelligence assholes think that because a circuit says
'Ow!' it must feel pain, they claim that obfuscation through more
complexity will somehow make the pain actual, and they never ask how
will they PROVE with perfect certainty that their circuit actually feels
pain. Just because it says so?
So I am not alone, but I no longer am interested in making
idiotized people wrong, especially those with PhD's to prove their
idioticy.
They need their mysteries and total irresponsibility for condition
etc. A few buddhists and scientologists to the contrary.
If someone reaches to me and asks about it, I will work with them
until they are terrified out of their wits, and lay off before they
start to die of it.
There is a reason the bible says don't throw pigs before pearls.
In the first place pigs are heavy, but in the second place they
bite.
But in teaching these things, there is a point of no going back.
You can talk about the world being a dream in the mind of God, and
that the physical universe is God's conscious imaginings, and each soul
is a drop or spark of God that goes back into the great pool when they
die. Anything so they can look forward to total oblivion forever for
free when they die.
But once you get close to the concept of a GodSoul as
Creator/Creature fully responsible for its own condition via choice and
choice to not know a choice, let alone that this GodSoul is a FULL
instantiation of the infinite, not a fucking drop of the ocean but the
whole ocean in multi in carnations at once, they don't want to know any
more. "I *KNOW* I was made by God, and I live for HIS purposes, what
they are God knows..."
Most never come back to talk to me again, they know I know and that
bothers them no end. They wonder what else I might know.
One night last November we were invited to dinner by some closish
friends of Jane. Both husband and wife were non religious meatballs,
but very much into academentia and erudition.
So I start to take the guy to task about some very simple issues
like forgotten choices to forget choices to be born etc, and we went on
for hours. We talked about the absolute lack of evidence for anything
behond this life in his entire life experience.
And he kept asking why in would anyone CHOOSE to be born?
He finally said he couldn't wrap his wits around any of it, and
admitted he hadn't ever even thought about having lived before or living
again.
That's shallower than a dry river bed.
The next morning he woke up dead, er didn't wake up because he WAS
dead.
During the middle of the night, he took a too hard look at the
possibility of having chosen to not know, and it killed him dead.
Coincidence?
Remember the Richard Kitchen comic book that had the story of this
poor guy on the back in about 31 frames. From birth to death the guy
was struggling through life with a big question mark above his head.
Then he dies in the 30th frame. Then in the 31st frame he
momentarily wakes up with a huge exclamation mark over his head, then
dies again.
Been dealing with the widow ever since.
The material over 40 years has made me so sick I might as well be
living in a morgue and might make it there yet.
"Send my mail to the end of the trail...", the morgue or some house
of dementia.
Imagine making a whole auditorium start puking or exteriorizing or
keeling over by simply talking about the process of perfect certainty
through a self luminous scalar? Something that was a non temporal non
space process, where causation of perception could be seen directly?
What is the color of agency anyhow?
You can see the red and the green sitting out there next to each
other, but can you see the existence of the CAUSE between the red and
your ability to SEE the red and the green and know they are different
That's incoming cause during simple perception of color form.
No machine can do that, because it can never see what it is looking
at, only a messenger wave it received from it, who knows where the
messenger wave came from.
The messenger you may trust exists, but the King who sent him is
always a theory.
And how do you see the messenger? With light waves.
Light waves are the messenger reporting on the messenger.
The messenger is a theory too!
If you put out a mockup of color in front of you can you see the
outgoing cause you are generating as your self conscious self to put the
red mockup there?
That's out going cause.
Machines can't do that either, they can't see cause, cause is a
theory to them only.
You can't see cause in the physical universe, but you sure can see
cause in your own consiousness.
Machines can only learn about objects in the presence of emissions
from the objects they want to learn about.
Emissions that affect the machine a distance away, no matter how
short.
Red and Green conscious experiences are Zero Emmission phenomenon,
and therefore timeless and spaceless to boot.
There is always time in the physical universe between the King and
the arrival of the messenger emission, and by the time the messenger
arrives THE KING IS LONG GONE, at least the one that issued the message.
In a zero emission process, one is looking at the cause directly,
one SEES THE KING, not some messenger, and the existence of the King IS
the seeing of the King, and so there is no time in the process of
perception, and you can see this and verify it and know it is true with
perfect certainty.
If there is any space or time between the looker and the looked-at
the looked-at would not be seeable.
Looking directly at cause is called direct perception.
Looking at messenger effects is called indirect perception.
The physical universe runs on indirect perception at all times.
The conscious universe runs on direct perception at all times.
Thus the facility of perfect certainty is also the facility of
direct perception of cause, not indirect perception of cause by looking
at effects.
Ron Hubbard thought that some things shouldn't be talked about
because they can kill some people. I have come to think he is right.
Most people can't conceive of something so dangerous that to even
think about it could make them permanently ill or kill them dead through
a racing heart or blown up brain.
But neither can they consider the choice to forget a choice to be
born as a human and how much anger there is around that subject.
WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD CHOOSE TO BE A HUMAN WHO THOUGHT THEY
LIVED ONLY ONCE AND DIED ONLY ONCE?
So we are left with the possibility that between lives, spirits who
are seeking incarnation are COMPLETELY SCREAMING INSANE, wanting to die
and not being able to, except to pretend they WILL die someday by
pretending they ARE something that can and will die for sure, the body.
Pull up the murderous rage surrounding these subjects on some
people and they just explode all their fuses all at once trying to keep
it under control and act it out at the same time.
They don't know who to kill, but they will die trying to find out!
People are so mad at their own view of the world, I don't care what
it is, God or Mammon, they have chernobyled it in so much emotional
concrete that there is nothing there any more, just "Hi how are you?
Fine, thank you."
Not.
That's two stupid Earthlings lying to each other desperately trying
to avoid having a near life experience.
And now I going to wake them up to their real feelings, which is
wanting to drown in the blood of their enemies?
God is not a god of love, he is a god of love AND hate, beauty AND
ugly, adoration AND abomination, and the soul is that god in carnation
under its own choice.
The Soul can not confront what it has made of itself, nor what it
was when it made it self that way.
Two strikes and you are out.
Thus we are stuck in a universe, in a body, in being human, which
looks ok to a human until he wakes up one day and realizes that being
human is about as inhuman and unhuman as it comes.
NO *HUMAN* would ever choose to become a human.
He wouldn't wish it off on his worst enemy, this rat race of
precious, fragile and unique living by eating, death and sex.
So what then did chose such an abomination for itself?
What chose is scarier than what it chose to be, so people remain
what they chose to be, human, as the final safe solution to never being
again what they were when they WANTED to be human and choose to be so.
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
Mon Oct 26 19:23:18 EDT 2015
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Jul 22 01:54:13 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore984.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFZcuiGURT1lqxE3HERAotgAKC87+ir+P7FzP8PoSKAIovtZcazSwCfcwe2
X94Rq1qnnDMsj4IZVWcF5/Q=
=UqqT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TEACHING THE PROOF
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015, dunbarx@aol.com wrote:
> You have done this? If not, then go to the physics department.
> Find someone who looks at it all from above, rather than from within.
> There are surely some there who do. It would be interesting to see what
> they think.
I have been at Cornell here for 40 years, thousands of
conversations etc.
I talk to everyone I meet, try to take them to their frontiers of
thought. Most have a hard ceiling above which they will not go.
Many are religious, they think there is some mystery to it etc, but
they freak if I start talking too close to scalar and fair chosen choice
to forget a fair chosen choice.
They have lost sight of their eternality and they fear immortality
more than mortality, they fear hell forever more than death forever, so
they choose the pretense of death forever in a (virtual) meatbody rather
than face the monsters of hell they left behind them and had become.
The whole proof is on the net and has been for years.
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
Some of Adore is on the net too: http://www.adore.com
I had a single page of the proof pinned up in the math student
lounge for YEARS and got not one single comment.
They considered me the local weirdo and intellectual trouble maker.
The few I managed to take it up with, giggled nervously and quickly
changed the subject, probably as too ludicrous or galling to consider.
I ran it as an ad in the Cornell Daily Sun for YEARS requesting
interested parties to contact me about it. Not one call.
I have shown it to a few friends like Jane, Bunny and Patty Perrin
who simply got it, but most others like Crackers just freaked out about
it and finally started ordering me to not talk about it. I have had
math professors do the same, and even high level Scientologists who
ought to know better.
I mostly get nutcackes, "I doubt everything! I even doubt that I
doubt everything! At least I am being consistent, I think."
You know Wind Between The Ears kinds of people who belong in Godel
Jail for life.
Respectable world reknown quantum mechanics experts tell me 'Oh we
know we can't be certain of anything!' 'Besides what is existence
anyhow, no one can define it.'
Since I AM and I KNOW it, I just wonder what their PhD's are about
except a long sojourn in Academentia.
I will be making youtube videos in the near future going over the
whole thing in detail, but its 40 years of work to organize.
Lot's of people on the net are very close to the subject, they know
the world is a dream, google for the holographic universe, and the scifi
Dead Forever triology.
But they don't have a clue what perfect certainty is and the
problems with it, and they have never gotten a single finger on EXACTLY
what it is with consciousness that makes it consciousness.
Consciousness IS the facility of perfect certainty.
How can there be perfect certainty?
Zero Emission Visuals, ZEV, flies right over their heads.
Artificial Intelligence assholes think that because a circuit says
'Ow!' it must feel pain, they claim that obfuscation through more
complexity will somehow make the pain actual, and they never ask how
will they PROVE with perfect certainty that their circuit actually feels
pain. Just because it says so?
So I am not alone, but I no longer am interested in making
idiotized people wrong, especially those with PhD's to prove their
idioticy.
They need their mysteries and total irresponsibility for condition
etc. A few buddhists and scientologists to the contrary.
If someone reaches to me and asks about it, I will work with them
until they are terrified out of their wits, and lay off before they
start to die of it.
There is a reason the bible says don't throw pigs before pearls.
In the first place pigs are heavy, but in the second place they
bite.
But in teaching these things, there is a point of no going back.
You can talk about the world being a dream in the mind of God, and
that the physical universe is God's conscious imaginings, and each soul
is a drop or spark of God that goes back into the great pool when they
die. Anything so they can look forward to total oblivion forever for
free when they die.
But once you get close to the concept of a GodSoul as
Creator/Creature fully responsible for its own condition via choice and
choice to not know a choice, let alone that this GodSoul is a FULL
instantiation of the infinite, not a fucking drop of the ocean but the
whole ocean in multi in carnations at once, they don't want to know any
more. "I *KNOW* I was made by God, and I live for HIS purposes, what
they are God knows..."
Most never come back to talk to me again, they know I know and that
bothers them no end. They wonder what else I might know.
One night last November we were invited to dinner by some closish
friends of Jane. Both husband and wife were non religious meatballs,
but very much into academentia and erudition.
So I start to take the guy to task about some very simple issues
like forgotten choices to forget choices to be born etc, and we went on
for hours. We talked about the absolute lack of evidence for anything
behond this life in his entire life experience.
And he kept asking why in would anyone CHOOSE to be born?
He finally said he couldn't wrap his wits around any of it, and
admitted he hadn't ever even thought about having lived before or living
again.
That's shallower than a dry river bed.
The next morning he woke up dead, er didn't wake up because he WAS
dead.
During the middle of the night, he took a too hard look at the
possibility of having chosen to not know, and it killed him dead.
Coincidence?
Remember the Richard Kitchen comic book that had the story of this
poor guy on the back in about 31 frames. From birth to death the guy
was struggling through life with a big question mark above his head.
Then he dies in the 30th frame. Then in the 31st frame he
momentarily wakes up with a huge exclamation mark over his head, then
dies again.
Been dealing with the widow ever since.
The material over 40 years has made me so sick I might as well be
living in a morgue and might make it there yet.
"Send my mail to the end of the trail...", the morgue or some house
of dementia.
Imagine making a whole auditorium start puking or exteriorizing or
keeling over by simply talking about the process of perfect certainty
through a self luminous scalar? Something that was a non temporal non
space process, where causation of perception could be seen directly?
What is the color of agency anyhow?
You can see the red and the green sitting out there next to each
other, but can you see the existence of the CAUSE between the red and
your ability to SEE the red and the green and know they are different
That's incoming cause during simple perception of color form.
No machine can do that, because it can never see what it is looking
at, only a messenger wave it received from it, who knows where the
messenger wave came from.
The messenger you may trust exists, but the King who sent him is
always a theory.
And how do you see the messenger? With light waves.
Light waves are the messenger reporting on the messenger.
The messenger is a theory too!
If you put out a mockup of color in front of you can you see the
outgoing cause you are generating as your self conscious self to put the
red mockup there?
That's out going cause.
Machines can't do that either, they can't see cause, cause is a
theory to them only.
You can't see cause in the physical universe, but you sure can see
cause in your own consiousness.
Machines can only learn about objects in the presence of emissions
from the objects they want to learn about.
Emissions that affect the machine a distance away, no matter how
short.
Red and Green conscious experiences are Zero Emmission phenomenon,
and therefore timeless and spaceless to boot.
There is always time in the physical universe between the King and
the arrival of the messenger emission, and by the time the messenger
arrives THE KING IS LONG GONE, at least the one that issued the message.
In a zero emission process, one is looking at the cause directly,
one SEES THE KING, not some messenger, and the existence of the King IS
the seeing of the King, and so there is no time in the process of
perception, and you can see this and verify it and know it is true with
perfect certainty.
If there is any space or time between the looker and the looked-at
the looked-at would not be seeable.
Looking directly at cause is called direct perception.
Looking at messenger effects is called indirect perception.
The physical universe runs on indirect perception at all times.
The conscious universe runs on direct perception at all times.
Thus the facility of perfect certainty is also the facility of
direct perception of cause, not indirect perception of cause by looking
at effects.
Ron Hubbard thought that some things shouldn't be talked about
because they can kill some people. I have come to think he is right.
Most people can't conceive of something so dangerous that to even
think about it could make them permanently ill or kill them dead through
a racing heart or blown up brain.
But neither can they consider the choice to forget a choice to be
born as a human and how much anger there is around that subject.
WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD CHOOSE TO BE A HUMAN WHO THOUGHT THEY
LIVED ONLY ONCE AND DIED ONLY ONCE?
So we are left with the possibility that between lives, spirits who
are seeking incarnation are COMPLETELY SCREAMING INSANE, wanting to die
and not being able to, except to pretend they WILL die someday by
pretending they ARE something that can and will die for sure, the body.
Pull up the murderous rage surrounding these subjects on some
people and they just explode all their fuses all at once trying to keep
it under control and act it out at the same time.
They don't know who to kill, but they will die trying to find out!
People are so mad at their own view of the world, I don't care what
it is, God or Mammon, they have chernobyled it in so much emotional
concrete that there is nothing there any more, just "Hi how are you?
Fine, thank you."
Not.
That's two stupid Earthlings lying to each other desperately trying
to avoid having a near life experience.
And now I going to wake them up to their real feelings, which is
wanting to drown in the blood of their enemies?
God is not a god of love, he is a god of love AND hate, beauty AND
ugly, adoration AND abomination, and the soul is that god in carnation
under its own choice.
The Soul can not confront what it has made of itself, nor what it
was when it made it self that way.
Two strikes and you are out.
Thus we are stuck in a universe, in a body, in being human, which
looks ok to a human until he wakes up one day and realizes that being
human is about as inhuman and unhuman as it comes.
NO *HUMAN* would ever choose to become a human.
He wouldn't wish it off on his worst enemy, this rat race of
precious, fragile and unique living by eating, death and sex.
So what then did chose such an abomination for itself?
What chose is scarier than what it chose to be, so people remain
what they chose to be, human, as the final safe solution to never being
again what they were when they WANTED to be human and choose to be so.
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
Mon Oct 26 19:23:18 EDT 2015
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Jul 22 01:54:13 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore984.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFZcuiGURT1lqxE3HERAotgAKC87+ir+P7FzP8PoSKAIovtZcazSwCfcwe2
X94Rq1qnnDMsj4IZVWcF5/Q=
=UqqT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, July 20, 2017
ACT75 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TROM VI
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
MAJOR GPMS
ACT - 75
11 August 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The following GPMS mentioned in TROM are listed out here.
To Create, To Love, To Admire, to Enhance, To Help, To Feel, To
Control, To Own, To Have, To Protect, To Understand and To Tell.
Sessioning consists of word clearing and understanding each GPM of
4 Games, spotting and creating examples of all 4 Games in your past,
present and future until flat, and then running the 4 overts and 4
motivators for each GPM.
Order of GPMS is arbitrary, so run the ones that interest you, and
certainly come up with your own. You should know the pattern cold by
now, and be able to write these down from memory.
Remember,
FORCED TO can be run as PREVENTED FROM NOT.
FORCED TO NOT can be run as PREVENTED FROM.
FORCING TO can be run as PREVENTING FROM NOT.
FORCING TO NOT can be run as PREVENTING FROM.
Have fun.
Four Games Conditions on To Be Created and To Create
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Created (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Create (SD)
2.) To Be Not Created (SD) <-----> 3.) To Create (SD)
3.) To Create (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Created (SD)
4.) To Not Create (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Created (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Created 1.O Forcing to Create
2.M Forced to Be Created 2.O Forcing to Not Create
3.M Forced to Not Create 3.O Forcing to Be Created
4.M Forced to Create 4.O Forcing to Be Not Created
Four Games Conditions on To Be Loved and To Love
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Loved (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Love (SD)
2.) To Be Not Loved (SD) <-----> 3.) To Love (SD)
3.) To Love (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Loved (SD)
4.) To Not Love (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Loved (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Loved 1.O Forcing to Love
2.M Forced to Be Loved 2.O Forcing to Not Love
3.M Forced to Not Love 3.O Forcing to Be Loved
4.M Forced to Love 4.O Forcing to Be Not Loved
Four Games Conditions on To Be Admired and To Admire
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Admired (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Admire (SD)
2.) To Be Not Admired (SD) <-----> 3.) To Admire (SD)
3.) To Admire (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Admired (SD)
4.) To Not Admire (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Admired (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Admired 1.O Forcing to Admire
2.M Forced to Be Admired 2.O Forcing to Not Admire
3.M Forced to Not Admire 3.O Forcing to Be Admired
4.M Forced to Admire 4.O Forcing to Be Not Admired
Four Games Conditions on To Be Enhanced and To Enhance
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Enhanced (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Enhance (SD)
2.) To Be Not Enhanced (SD) <-----> 3.) To Enhance (SD)
3.) To Enhance (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Enhanced (SD)
4.) To Not Enhance (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Enhanced (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Enhanced 1.O Forcing to Enhance
2.M Forced to Be Enhanced 2.O Forcing to Not Enhance
3.M Forced to Not Enhance 3.O Forcing to Be Enhanced
4.M Forced to Enhance 4.O Forcing to Be Not Enhanced
Four Games Conditions on To Be Helped and To Help
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Helped (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Help (SD)
2.) To Be Not Helped (SD) <-----> 3.) To Help (SD)
3.) To Help (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Helped (SD)
4.) To Not Help (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Helped (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Helped 1.O Forcing to Help
2.M Forced to Be Helped 2.O Forcing to Not Help
3.M Forced to Not Help 3.O Forcing to Be Helped
4.M Forced to Help 4.O Forcing to Be Not Helped
Four Games Conditions on To Be Felt and To Feel
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Felt (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Feel (SD)
2.) To Be Not Felt (SD) <-----> 3.) To Feel (SD)
3.) To Feel (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Felt (SD)
4.) To Not Feel (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Felt (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Felt 1.O Forcing to Feel
2.M Forced to Be Felt 2.O Forcing to Not Feel
3.M Forced to Not Feel 3.O Forcing to Be Felt
4.M Forced to Feel 4.O Forcing to Be Not Felt
Four Games Conditions on To Be Controlled and To Control
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Controlled (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Control (SD)
2.) To Be Not Controlled (SD) <-----> 3.) To Control (SD)
3.) To Control (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Controlled (SD)
4.) To Not Control (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Controlled (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Controlled 1.O Forcing to Control
2.M Forced to Be Controlled 2.O Forcing to Not Control
3.M Forced to Not Control 3.O Forcing to Be Controlled
4.M Forced to Control 4.O Forcing to Be Not Controlled
Four Games Conditions on To Be Owned and To Own
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Owned (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Own (SD)
2.) To Be Not Owned (SD) <-----> 3.) To Own (SD)
3.) To Own (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Owned (SD)
4.) To Not Own (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Owned (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Owned 1.O Forcing to Own
2.M Forced to Be Owned 2.O Forcing to Not Own
3.M Forced to Not Own 3.O Forcing to Be Owned
4.M Forced to Own 4.O Forcing to Be Not Owned
Four Games Conditions on To Be Had and To Have
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Had (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Have (SD)
2.) To Be Not Had (SD) <-----> 3.) To Have (SD)
3.) To Have (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Had (SD)
4.) To Not Have (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Had (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Had 1.O Forcing to Have
2.M Forced to Be Had 2.O Forcing to Not Have
3.M Forced to Not Have 3.O Forcing to Be Had
4.M Forced to Have 4.O Forcing to Be Not Had
Four Games Conditions on To Be Protected and To Protect
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Protected (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Protect (SD)
2.) To Be Not Protected (SD) <-----> 3.) To Protect (SD)
3.) To Protect (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Protected (SD)
4.) To Not Protect (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Protected (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Protected 1.O Forcing to Protect
2.M Forced to Be Protected 2.O Forcing to Not Protect
3.M Forced to Not Protect 3.O Forcing to Be Protected
4.M Forced to Protect 4.O Forcing to Be Not Protected
Four Games Conditions on To Be Understood and To Understand
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Understood (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Understand (SD)
2.) To Be Not Understood (SD) <-----> 3.) To Understand (SD)
3.) To Understand (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Understood (SD)
4.) To Not Understand (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Understood (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Understood 1.O Forcing to Understand
2.M Forced to Be Understood 2.O Forcing to Not Understand
3.M Forced to Not Understand 3.O Forcing to Be Understood
4.M Forced to Understand 4.O Forcing to Be Not Understood
Four Games Conditions on To Be Told and To Tell
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Told (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Tell (SD)
2.) To Be Not Told (SD) <-----> 3.) To Tell (SD)
3.) To Tell (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Told (SD)
4.) To Not Tell (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Told (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Told 1.O Forcing to Tell
2.M Forced to Be Told 2.O Forcing to Not Tell
3.M Forced to Not Tell 3.O Forcing to Be Told
4.M Forced to Tell 4.O Forcing to Be Not Told
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jul 20 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act75.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)
iD8DBQFZcNODURT1lqxE3HERAuHOAJ9NAASaKitx5kYOA+mgT7OG7DhwYQCfZ47+
vgyGpQHhBBy4YXaAueHlaKE=
=0Ifj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TROM VI
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
MAJOR GPMS
ACT - 75
11 August 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The following GPMS mentioned in TROM are listed out here.
To Create, To Love, To Admire, to Enhance, To Help, To Feel, To
Control, To Own, To Have, To Protect, To Understand and To Tell.
Sessioning consists of word clearing and understanding each GPM of
4 Games, spotting and creating examples of all 4 Games in your past,
present and future until flat, and then running the 4 overts and 4
motivators for each GPM.
Order of GPMS is arbitrary, so run the ones that interest you, and
certainly come up with your own. You should know the pattern cold by
now, and be able to write these down from memory.
Remember,
FORCED TO can be run as PREVENTED FROM NOT.
FORCED TO NOT can be run as PREVENTED FROM.
FORCING TO can be run as PREVENTING FROM NOT.
FORCING TO NOT can be run as PREVENTING FROM.
Have fun.
Four Games Conditions on To Be Created and To Create
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Created (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Create (SD)
2.) To Be Not Created (SD) <-----> 3.) To Create (SD)
3.) To Create (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Created (SD)
4.) To Not Create (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Created (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Created 1.O Forcing to Create
2.M Forced to Be Created 2.O Forcing to Not Create
3.M Forced to Not Create 3.O Forcing to Be Created
4.M Forced to Create 4.O Forcing to Be Not Created
Four Games Conditions on To Be Loved and To Love
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Loved (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Love (SD)
2.) To Be Not Loved (SD) <-----> 3.) To Love (SD)
3.) To Love (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Loved (SD)
4.) To Not Love (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Loved (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Loved 1.O Forcing to Love
2.M Forced to Be Loved 2.O Forcing to Not Love
3.M Forced to Not Love 3.O Forcing to Be Loved
4.M Forced to Love 4.O Forcing to Be Not Loved
Four Games Conditions on To Be Admired and To Admire
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Admired (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Admire (SD)
2.) To Be Not Admired (SD) <-----> 3.) To Admire (SD)
3.) To Admire (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Admired (SD)
4.) To Not Admire (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Admired (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Admired 1.O Forcing to Admire
2.M Forced to Be Admired 2.O Forcing to Not Admire
3.M Forced to Not Admire 3.O Forcing to Be Admired
4.M Forced to Admire 4.O Forcing to Be Not Admired
Four Games Conditions on To Be Enhanced and To Enhance
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Enhanced (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Enhance (SD)
2.) To Be Not Enhanced (SD) <-----> 3.) To Enhance (SD)
3.) To Enhance (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Enhanced (SD)
4.) To Not Enhance (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Enhanced (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Enhanced 1.O Forcing to Enhance
2.M Forced to Be Enhanced 2.O Forcing to Not Enhance
3.M Forced to Not Enhance 3.O Forcing to Be Enhanced
4.M Forced to Enhance 4.O Forcing to Be Not Enhanced
Four Games Conditions on To Be Helped and To Help
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Helped (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Help (SD)
2.) To Be Not Helped (SD) <-----> 3.) To Help (SD)
3.) To Help (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Helped (SD)
4.) To Not Help (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Helped (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Helped 1.O Forcing to Help
2.M Forced to Be Helped 2.O Forcing to Not Help
3.M Forced to Not Help 3.O Forcing to Be Helped
4.M Forced to Help 4.O Forcing to Be Not Helped
Four Games Conditions on To Be Felt and To Feel
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Felt (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Feel (SD)
2.) To Be Not Felt (SD) <-----> 3.) To Feel (SD)
3.) To Feel (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Felt (SD)
4.) To Not Feel (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Felt (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Felt 1.O Forcing to Feel
2.M Forced to Be Felt 2.O Forcing to Not Feel
3.M Forced to Not Feel 3.O Forcing to Be Felt
4.M Forced to Feel 4.O Forcing to Be Not Felt
Four Games Conditions on To Be Controlled and To Control
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Controlled (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Control (SD)
2.) To Be Not Controlled (SD) <-----> 3.) To Control (SD)
3.) To Control (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Controlled (SD)
4.) To Not Control (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Controlled (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Controlled 1.O Forcing to Control
2.M Forced to Be Controlled 2.O Forcing to Not Control
3.M Forced to Not Control 3.O Forcing to Be Controlled
4.M Forced to Control 4.O Forcing to Be Not Controlled
Four Games Conditions on To Be Owned and To Own
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Owned (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Own (SD)
2.) To Be Not Owned (SD) <-----> 3.) To Own (SD)
3.) To Own (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Owned (SD)
4.) To Not Own (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Owned (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Owned 1.O Forcing to Own
2.M Forced to Be Owned 2.O Forcing to Not Own
3.M Forced to Not Own 3.O Forcing to Be Owned
4.M Forced to Own 4.O Forcing to Be Not Owned
Four Games Conditions on To Be Had and To Have
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Had (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Have (SD)
2.) To Be Not Had (SD) <-----> 3.) To Have (SD)
3.) To Have (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Had (SD)
4.) To Not Have (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Had (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Had 1.O Forcing to Have
2.M Forced to Be Had 2.O Forcing to Not Have
3.M Forced to Not Have 3.O Forcing to Be Had
4.M Forced to Have 4.O Forcing to Be Not Had
Four Games Conditions on To Be Protected and To Protect
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Protected (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Protect (SD)
2.) To Be Not Protected (SD) <-----> 3.) To Protect (SD)
3.) To Protect (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Protected (SD)
4.) To Not Protect (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Protected (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Protected 1.O Forcing to Protect
2.M Forced to Be Protected 2.O Forcing to Not Protect
3.M Forced to Not Protect 3.O Forcing to Be Protected
4.M Forced to Protect 4.O Forcing to Be Not Protected
Four Games Conditions on To Be Understood and To Understand
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Understood (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Understand (SD)
2.) To Be Not Understood (SD) <-----> 3.) To Understand (SD)
3.) To Understand (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Understood (SD)
4.) To Not Understand (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Understood (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Understood 1.O Forcing to Understand
2.M Forced to Be Understood 2.O Forcing to Not Understand
3.M Forced to Not Understand 3.O Forcing to Be Understood
4.M Forced to Understand 4.O Forcing to Be Not Understood
Four Games Conditions on To Be Told and To Tell
Being One Being Two
1.) To Be Told (SD) <-----> 4.) To Not Tell (SD)
2.) To Be Not Told (SD) <-----> 3.) To Tell (SD)
3.) To Tell (SD) <-----> 2.) To Be Not Told (SD)
4.) To Not Tell (SD) <-----> 1.) To Be Told (SD)
THE MOTIVATORS THE OVERTS
1.M Forced to Be Not Told 1.O Forcing to Tell
2.M Forced to Be Told 2.O Forcing to Not Tell
3.M Forced to Not Tell 3.O Forcing to Be Told
4.M Forced to Tell 4.O Forcing to Be Not Told
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jul 20 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act75.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)
iD8DBQFZcNODURT1lqxE3HERAuHOAJ9NAASaKitx5kYOA+mgT7OG7DhwYQCfZ47+
vgyGpQHhBBy4YXaAueHlaKE=
=0Ifj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
ADORE345 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Brady (gomorrhan@hotmail.com) wrote:
>There is no doubt, for me, that there ARE medical conditions that cause odd
>mental phenomena that could be misinterpreted as having their origins in the
>mind, rather than understanding their proper cause.
On the other hand being in a body is a psychotraumatic disorder
that preceeds any genetic, iatogenic, or other medical disorder.
The real question is then, after someone has injested some radium
and is dying of cancer, does he have enough free theta to audit the
assumption of the body in the first place, thus curing him of the
diseased body without having to suffer its death.
What is he doing IN a body, what is he doing believing he IS a
body?
Some guy gets on a horse, and starts to think he IS a horse.
That's nuts.
Some being gets on a body, and starts to think he IS a body, and
that is just as nuts.
Which is more nuts, an piece of meat that thinks he is spirit, or
a spirit that thinks he is a piece of meat?
>The problem isn't that the medical model is completely wrong, it's that it
>is not the whole story, and typically doesn't take account of the causal
>role of mentality. Most situations are a combination of some sort of
>physical/environmental agonist in feedback with the mind. Saying it's all
>mental, imo, is as much an error as saying it's all physical.
>Now Homer will call me a meatball, though.
Hardly. Here is the issue.
Either
1.) All that exists is matter, energy, space and time, and
consciousness is merely a process in the brain. When the brain dies,
the process dies, and thus consciousness is no more. All out of body
experiences, telepathy, telekinesis, past life recall etc, are most
likely hallucinations as there just isn't any possible causal pathway
for a consciousness to talk to other minds outside of the laws of
physics and the 4 fundamental forces. Now admitedly there may be
other laws we don't know about ..., but fact remains that if
consciousness is a process in the brain, then when brain dies,
consciousness dies with it, and that's it bub. There is no way around
this, if consciousness IS merely a complexity of parts in proper
arrangement, when the proper arrangment is destroyed, then the
consciousness function is destroyed with it.
In this model the TV set (consciousness unit) is dependent on the
circuitry inside the TV set, which it can see by pointing its video
cameras at its own internals and looking on its own screen for what
must be inside the TV.
2.) All that exists is consciousness, and matter energy space and
time are all hallucinations in outhereness, i.e, the world is
dreamtime, virtual reality. In this model there IS no brain, space,
time, except our dreams of such. Thus since consciousness existed
above and before anything projected in consciousness, once the brain
dies, the consciousness wakes up and continues on. In this model the
consciousness is like a TV set that has become convinced that its
existence depends on what it sees going on on its screen, but what is
on the screen is displaying a virtual reality that in the end is
illsory as far as cause goes. This theory allows easy access to any
paranormal power one might wish, as space/time and in fact all
external dimensionality are illusions in a scalar substrate, the
conscious unit, and all conscious units are actually connected at
source to the same zero dimensional 'spot', the AllThatIs.
3.) Some combination of the above two, both dimensional
(external) and scalar (consciousnss) actualities are interfaced and
can affect each other. In this scenario the existence of the
conscious unit is not dependant upon the brain for its existence, but
what is displayed IN the consciousness comes from the brain and its
relation to the physical universe. That would include sensory stuff,
but not will and personal agency which exist as part of the
consciousness itself.
Fact: There is no evidence whatsoever that the world is not a
dream or that apparent external matter energy space and time exist at
all. In fact there is no possible experiment that can be done that
will prove that the world is not a dream, that externality is actual
rather than merely virtual. THIS CAN BE PROVEN and has been endlessly
in the LCC series I have posted over the years.
Fact: There is lots of evidence for paranormal experiences that
can not be easily explained in the first and third models, but can
easily be explained in the second.
Fact: Conscious units love to play games, and create virtual
realities, and pretend they are actual.
Fact: space time machines, or anything made of space time
machines can not be certain of anything. Consciousness can be, thus
consciouss is not a space time machine, nor a process in a space time
machine, although it may conceivalby be interfaced with one, namely
the brain/body system.
Homer
>--
>Kevin G. Brady
>It's not about me.
>http://www.myspace.com/clear_objectives
>http://www.tir.org
>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
>http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/sands.htm
>http://www.futurepsychiatry.com
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Jul 17 19:52:57 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 19 12:00:04 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore345.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)
iD8DBQFZb4IEURT1lqxE3HERAkglAJ9wHvi+2p7IEKRBeRj9E5GNQJeMqQCfaaCs
Ankr+3jO/2p8LbIGFVOMnFA=
=D/0J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Kevin Brady (gomorrhan@hotmail.com) wrote:
>There is no doubt, for me, that there ARE medical conditions that cause odd
>mental phenomena that could be misinterpreted as having their origins in the
>mind, rather than understanding their proper cause.
On the other hand being in a body is a psychotraumatic disorder
that preceeds any genetic, iatogenic, or other medical disorder.
The real question is then, after someone has injested some radium
and is dying of cancer, does he have enough free theta to audit the
assumption of the body in the first place, thus curing him of the
diseased body without having to suffer its death.
What is he doing IN a body, what is he doing believing he IS a
body?
Some guy gets on a horse, and starts to think he IS a horse.
That's nuts.
Some being gets on a body, and starts to think he IS a body, and
that is just as nuts.
Which is more nuts, an piece of meat that thinks he is spirit, or
a spirit that thinks he is a piece of meat?
>The problem isn't that the medical model is completely wrong, it's that it
>is not the whole story, and typically doesn't take account of the causal
>role of mentality. Most situations are a combination of some sort of
>physical/environmental agonist in feedback with the mind. Saying it's all
>mental, imo, is as much an error as saying it's all physical.
>Now Homer will call me a meatball, though.
Hardly. Here is the issue.
Either
1.) All that exists is matter, energy, space and time, and
consciousness is merely a process in the brain. When the brain dies,
the process dies, and thus consciousness is no more. All out of body
experiences, telepathy, telekinesis, past life recall etc, are most
likely hallucinations as there just isn't any possible causal pathway
for a consciousness to talk to other minds outside of the laws of
physics and the 4 fundamental forces. Now admitedly there may be
other laws we don't know about ..., but fact remains that if
consciousness is a process in the brain, then when brain dies,
consciousness dies with it, and that's it bub. There is no way around
this, if consciousness IS merely a complexity of parts in proper
arrangement, when the proper arrangment is destroyed, then the
consciousness function is destroyed with it.
In this model the TV set (consciousness unit) is dependent on the
circuitry inside the TV set, which it can see by pointing its video
cameras at its own internals and looking on its own screen for what
must be inside the TV.
2.) All that exists is consciousness, and matter energy space and
time are all hallucinations in outhereness, i.e, the world is
dreamtime, virtual reality. In this model there IS no brain, space,
time, except our dreams of such. Thus since consciousness existed
above and before anything projected in consciousness, once the brain
dies, the consciousness wakes up and continues on. In this model the
consciousness is like a TV set that has become convinced that its
existence depends on what it sees going on on its screen, but what is
on the screen is displaying a virtual reality that in the end is
illsory as far as cause goes. This theory allows easy access to any
paranormal power one might wish, as space/time and in fact all
external dimensionality are illusions in a scalar substrate, the
conscious unit, and all conscious units are actually connected at
source to the same zero dimensional 'spot', the AllThatIs.
3.) Some combination of the above two, both dimensional
(external) and scalar (consciousnss) actualities are interfaced and
can affect each other. In this scenario the existence of the
conscious unit is not dependant upon the brain for its existence, but
what is displayed IN the consciousness comes from the brain and its
relation to the physical universe. That would include sensory stuff,
but not will and personal agency which exist as part of the
consciousness itself.
Fact: There is no evidence whatsoever that the world is not a
dream or that apparent external matter energy space and time exist at
all. In fact there is no possible experiment that can be done that
will prove that the world is not a dream, that externality is actual
rather than merely virtual. THIS CAN BE PROVEN and has been endlessly
in the LCC series I have posted over the years.
Fact: There is lots of evidence for paranormal experiences that
can not be easily explained in the first and third models, but can
easily be explained in the second.
Fact: Conscious units love to play games, and create virtual
realities, and pretend they are actual.
Fact: space time machines, or anything made of space time
machines can not be certain of anything. Consciousness can be, thus
consciouss is not a space time machine, nor a process in a space time
machine, although it may conceivalby be interfaced with one, namely
the brain/body system.
Homer
>--
>Kevin G. Brady
>It's not about me.
>http://www.myspace.com/clear_objectives
>http://www.tir.org
>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
>http://www.esgs.org/uk/art/sands.htm
>http://www.futurepsychiatry.com
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Jul 17 19:52:57 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 19 12:00:04 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore345.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)
iD8DBQFZb4IEURT1lqxE3HERAkglAJ9wHvi+2p7IEKRBeRj9E5GNQJeMqQCfaaCs
Ankr+3jO/2p8LbIGFVOMnFA=
=D/0J
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, July 17, 2017
RAPE (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PORN, RAPE and DUTY
14 August 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
> In February 1992, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that obscenity
> is to be defined by the harm it does to women's pursuit of
> equality. The Canadian Supreme Court says that a threat to
> women's equality is an acceptable ground for some limits on
> freedom of speech.
For every Duty there is a Right.
For every Right there is a Duty.
You CHOOSE and are RESPONSIBLE for BOTH.
This has nothing to do with the government.
It has to do with YOU as a Sovereign Being.
Rights are fair chosen exchange for fair chosen duty.
Justice is a fair chosen operating balance of duties and rights.
You have a right to have duties, and you have a duty to have
rights.
Basic duty is HONOR. Honor is the ability to make, keep and trade
fair chosen promises.
Basic promise is to adore operation.
Basic right is DIGNITY. Dignity is being the sole operator of your
self.
Equal rights implies equal duties.
Equal duties deserve equal rights, nothing else does.
If you want equal rights, seek equal duties.
The reason that women do not have equal rights in this society is
because they are prevented from having equal duties.
This applies to everyone, be they women, children, gays or
minorities.
Sometimes people are forced to have equal duties but denied equal
rights. The point is that once they are denied equal duties too, there
is no chance of EVER getting back equal rights.
Therefore the FIRST step towards getting back equal rights, is to
guarantee for yourself equal duties.
One thing that comes to mind for women is the draft and
registration.
Either get rid of the draft and registration (preferably by
Constitutional Amendment) or make sure both sexes are registered and
drafted equally and then give them equal duties side by side in the
Armed forces.
I don't think pornography has much to do with women's position or
condition in this world. If women were fighting and dying along side
of men on the battle field, they would have all the respect they
needed to make significant inroads into guaranteeing equal rights for
themselves.
> In summary, I protest the printing of pornography in yyyyy
> because it contributes to the vast amount of pornography to
> which American males are exposed and which has been shown to
> contribute to violence against women as well as our treatment
> as second class citizens.
>
The way men treat women is a reflection of what they think of
their mothers. If you want to know why men abuse women, study the
mother/son relationship.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul 17 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/rape.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)
iD8DBQFZbN8DURT1lqxE3HERAsfOAJ43L/f2CKEGzOmOPZ316io2o8GJPwCfcWHt
o8QOvoNgyd088eRekbRrU/Y=
=ujQM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PORN, RAPE and DUTY
14 August 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
> In February 1992, Canada's Supreme Court ruled that obscenity
> is to be defined by the harm it does to women's pursuit of
> equality. The Canadian Supreme Court says that a threat to
> women's equality is an acceptable ground for some limits on
> freedom of speech.
For every Duty there is a Right.
For every Right there is a Duty.
You CHOOSE and are RESPONSIBLE for BOTH.
This has nothing to do with the government.
It has to do with YOU as a Sovereign Being.
Rights are fair chosen exchange for fair chosen duty.
Justice is a fair chosen operating balance of duties and rights.
You have a right to have duties, and you have a duty to have
rights.
Basic duty is HONOR. Honor is the ability to make, keep and trade
fair chosen promises.
Basic promise is to adore operation.
Basic right is DIGNITY. Dignity is being the sole operator of your
self.
Equal rights implies equal duties.
Equal duties deserve equal rights, nothing else does.
If you want equal rights, seek equal duties.
The reason that women do not have equal rights in this society is
because they are prevented from having equal duties.
This applies to everyone, be they women, children, gays or
minorities.
Sometimes people are forced to have equal duties but denied equal
rights. The point is that once they are denied equal duties too, there
is no chance of EVER getting back equal rights.
Therefore the FIRST step towards getting back equal rights, is to
guarantee for yourself equal duties.
One thing that comes to mind for women is the draft and
registration.
Either get rid of the draft and registration (preferably by
Constitutional Amendment) or make sure both sexes are registered and
drafted equally and then give them equal duties side by side in the
Armed forces.
I don't think pornography has much to do with women's position or
condition in this world. If women were fighting and dying along side
of men on the battle field, they would have all the respect they
needed to make significant inroads into guaranteeing equal rights for
themselves.
> In summary, I protest the printing of pornography in yyyyy
> because it contributes to the vast amount of pornography to
> which American males are exposed and which has been shown to
> contribute to violence against women as well as our treatment
> as second class citizens.
>
The way men treat women is a reflection of what they think of
their mothers. If you want to know why men abuse women, study the
mother/son relationship.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jul 17 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/rape.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)
iD8DBQFZbN8DURT1lqxE3HERAsfOAJ43L/f2CKEGzOmOPZ316io2o8GJPwCfcWHt
o8QOvoNgyd088eRekbRrU/Y=
=ujQM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE556 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ATTACHMENT
CB Willis <cbwillis@adore2.lightlink.com> wrote:
> Ego self, worldly self is where you run into attachment.
I disgree with this statement.
Attachments come from forevers riding on death, departure, reversal
and damnation. One can operate quite well here as a game player, as
long as one is more interested in playing than in winning or losing.
THAT STATMENT ALONE IS A BIG ONE.
Once one considers GAMES to be scarce and declining, then one
becomes attached to the game one is in, and begins to keep it around
with some seriousness. Then one is in for a fall.
I frankly think most religious mumbo jumbo is booby trapped with
lies to drive beings down town. Surely by the time any wisdom reaches
the broad public it has been watered down to be acceptable to the lowest
common denominator and thus you get people worshiping I AM NOT, as a
lower harmonic mockery of the Big Snooze.
Mortals are mortals because they wish they could die but can not.
Thus of course they will worship I AM NOT, or WILL NOT BE SOON :)
Being asleep at the top doesn't mean you are not.
It means you BECOME not.
BECOMING may be gone, but BEING remains.
> Scn's first dynamic is open regarding self. I'd interpret it as worldly
> self, body.
No, body is 5th dynamic. First dynamic is clear, free from being
anything but itself.
This "I am a body," crushes the 1st into a 5th and produces a
psychotic meatball.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Dec 8 00:06:18 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jul 16 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore556.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)
iD8DBQFZa42DURT1lqxE3HERAgJTAJwL2Vg2wKH5H+43DSIAB9LRu4pJXQCgj9yt
4nUiMU+98AMzgIydWpr9PIg=
=W8ef
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ATTACHMENT
CB Willis <cbwillis@adore2.lightlink.com> wrote:
> Ego self, worldly self is where you run into attachment.
I disgree with this statement.
Attachments come from forevers riding on death, departure, reversal
and damnation. One can operate quite well here as a game player, as
long as one is more interested in playing than in winning or losing.
THAT STATMENT ALONE IS A BIG ONE.
Once one considers GAMES to be scarce and declining, then one
becomes attached to the game one is in, and begins to keep it around
with some seriousness. Then one is in for a fall.
I frankly think most religious mumbo jumbo is booby trapped with
lies to drive beings down town. Surely by the time any wisdom reaches
the broad public it has been watered down to be acceptable to the lowest
common denominator and thus you get people worshiping I AM NOT, as a
lower harmonic mockery of the Big Snooze.
Mortals are mortals because they wish they could die but can not.
Thus of course they will worship I AM NOT, or WILL NOT BE SOON :)
Being asleep at the top doesn't mean you are not.
It means you BECOME not.
BECOMING may be gone, but BEING remains.
> Scn's first dynamic is open regarding self. I'd interpret it as worldly
> self, body.
No, body is 5th dynamic. First dynamic is clear, free from being
anything but itself.
This "I am a body," crushes the 1st into a 5th and produces a
psychotic meatball.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Dec 8 00:06:18 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jul 16 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore556.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)
iD8DBQFZa42DURT1lqxE3HERAgJTAJwL2Vg2wKH5H+43DSIAB9LRu4pJXQCgj9yt
4nUiMU+98AMzgIydWpr9PIg=
=W8ef
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE601 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
YOU 8
You are an operating system of dicoms.
A dicom is a DIchotomy of Comparable and Opposite Magnitude.
The primary dicom is NONE and SOME, or NO and SOME.
These arise from the top and bottom halves of the CDEINR scale.
Source Of
Know
Curious about
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit
NO
Refused
SOME refers to those items from Source OF down to Enforce.
NO refers to those items from Inhibit down to Refused.
The being is constantly riding both sides of any particular dicom,
love/hate, beauty/ugly, good/evil, etc.
One wants to run each item pair using NO and SOME until no more
change takes place.
One runs these things by spotting them in one's life, other's
lives and the universe at large.
Spot NO love. Spot SOME love.
Spot NO hate. Spot SOME hate.
If 'spot' doesn't work for you, use instead:
Get the idea of NO love.
Get the idea of SOME love.
Get the idea of NO hate.
Get the idea of SOME hate.
The choice of item pairs to call a dicom can be arbitrary, for
example the opposite of love isn't really hate, some people love to
hate!
So you can be creative in picking your dicom pairs.
Get the idea of NO Love
Get the idea of SOME Love
Get the idea of NO Sorrow
Get the idea of SOME Sorrow
Remember that NO SORROW can mean a true absence of sorrow, but it
also means the pretense of no sorrow. The being has come down through
curious about sorrow, desiring sorrow, enforcing sorrow, regretting
sorrow, inhibiting sorrow, NO sorrow, pretending it isn't there, and
refusing sorrow.
Same thing with LOVE. The NO LOVE item is a tar pit covering a
tremendous amount of love.
The following items are useful for running.
Remember that eternality is defined as existing forever outside of
time.
Immortality is defined as existing forever inside of time, which is
hell forever, whether good or bad.
Mortality is defined as existing for a while in time and then never
existing again at all forever more, which is death forever.
A identity is the embodiment of a goal. A child who wants to fight
crime as his goal might become a policeman as the identity.
Every goal has an identity and every identity has a goal. And
every goal/identity pair has an opposition goal and identity. The
opposition goal and identity to a cop might be a criminal whose goal is
to commit crime.
Some times the association between goal and identity, and between
goal/identity pairs and their oppositions may not be the obvious ones.
What the cop is up to may not be most fundamentally fighting crime.
He may be trying to provide a stable state, or trying to help the people
etc.
Identities, like being a cop or a criminal, are instantiated in
this or any life in a physical object called a terminal, usually a human
body.
BASIC ITEMS ON ALL CASES (NOT COMPLETE)
NO Eternality SOME Eternality
NO Immortality SOME Immortality
NO Mortality SOME Mortality
NO Hell forever SOME Hell forever
NO Death forever SOME Death forever
NO Forever SOME Forever
NO Never SOME Never
NO Immutability SOME Immutability
NO Duties SOME Duties
NO Rights SOME Rights
NO Justice SOME Justice
NO Indecision SOME Indecision
NO Decision SOME Decision
NO Honor SOME Honor
NO Dignity SOME Dignity
NO One SOME One
NO Many SOME Many
NO Separation SOME Separation
NO Together SOME Together
NO Departure SOME Departure
NO Arrival SOME Arrival
NO Reversal SOME Reversal
NO Credible SOME Credible
NO Incredible SOME Incredible
NO Surprise SOME Surprise
NO Time SOME Time
NO Timelessness SOME Timelessness
NO Space SOME Space
NO Force SOME Force
NO Matter SOME Matter
NO Energy SOME Energy
NO Cause SOME Cause
NO Determination SOME Determination
NO Hurry SOME Hurry
NO Worry SOME Worry
NO Past SOME Past
NO Present SOME Present
NO Future SOME Future
NO Start SOME Start
NO Change SOME Change
NO Stop SOME Stop
NO Goal SOME Goal
NO Opposition SOME Opposition
NO Terminal SOME Terminal
NO Identity SOME Identity
NO Body SOME Body
NO Purpose SOME Purpose
NO Unknowable SOME Unknowable
NO Unconscious SOME Unconscious
NO Desire SOME Desire
NO Chase SOME Chase
NO Monotony SOME Monotony
NO Anger SOME Anger
NO Regret SOME Regret
NO Fear SOME Fear
NO Sorrow SOME Sorrow
NO Laughter SOME Laughter
NO Humor SOME Humor
NO Peace SOME Peace
NO Mystery SOME Mystery
NO Hysteria SOME Hysteria
NO Shock SOME Shock
NO Catatonia SOME Catatonia
NO Oblivion SOME Oblivion
NO Criminality SOME Criminality
NO Source SOME Source
NO Adoration SOME Adoration
NO Fairchosen SOME Fairchosen
NO Majesty SOME Majesty
NO Pride SOME Pride
NO Shame SOME Shame
NO Guilt SOME Guilt
NO Cool SOME Cool
NO Class SOME Class
NO Halcyon SOME Halcyon
NO SinSong SOME SinSong
NO Thrill SOME Thrill
NO Romance SOME Romance
NO Question SOME Question
NO Answer SOME Answer
NO Wonder SOME Wonder
NO Miracle SOME Miracle
NO New SOME New
NO Old SOME Old
NO Preciousness SOME Preciousness
NO Uniqueness SOME Uniqueness
NO Fragility SOME Fragility
NO OKness SOME OKness
NO Trust SOME Trust
NO Belief SOME Belief
NO Faith SOME Faith
NO Kindness SOME Kindness
NO Coldheartedness SOME Coldheartedness
NO Warmheartedness SOME Warmheartedness
The above items are probably necessary but not sufficient to fully
running a case. The preclear should be run on the entire Scientology
tone scale and Scientology Awareness Characteristic Chart, including all
other Scientology scales such as Know to Mystery. Also all Adorian
items such as Cool, Class, Halcyon, Sin-Song, Thrill and Romance.
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm3.memo Tone Scale
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm6.memo ACC
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore.memo ADORE
Probably more fun to let a person find his own items in session,
but if you were to run just the above on people you could probably make
a living at it. Once your preclear catches on to how he works, he will
start running it all by himself while life progresses.
When your preclears don't come back to you for more auditing, you
have either succeeded beyond your wildest dreams with them or failed
utterly.
Spot:
NO Failure SOME Failure
NO Success SOME Success
Run any item that comes up as it comes up.
Feeling frustrated? Rather than getting into it just start
spotting
NO frustration SOME frustration.
Spot in yourself, in others whether carnate or not, in the past,
present and future, in this and other universes. Don't limit yourself
by 'what is real or reasonable', or by what others would approve of.
Spot
NO Approval SOME Approval
NO Disapproval SOME Disapproval
Back and forth, back and forth, try to get with the alternating
flow. The being has been dramatizing NO ITEM and SOME ITEM forever, and
each item found may run for a very long time.
An item may stop running because its time to go onto another item
for a while, but if so, don't be surprised if the first item comes alive
again later.
"What is right?"
"What is wrong?"
Remember that staying in sync with the flow is imperative to run
it. If the flow is going SOME approval, and you are spotting NO
approval, you will simply jam it up and make the process stop working.
If the process does stop working, it may have jammed up inspite of
your best efforts, so just poke around with NO approval, NO approval,
SOME approval, SOME approval, until it starts running again. Then
follow the flows closely. You can get this stuff running almost as fast
as you can say the items.
When no more items can be found, or items which 'should' be running
won't run, run the following
NO ITEM SOME ITEM
NO SOMETHING SOME SOMETHING
NO NOTHING SOME NOTHING
These are generic item names that will run the underlying forces of
the next available real items without you having to know what they are
yet. Eventually the next runnable item will surface.
You will find that as you run each item to a flat no change point,
or better yet to a clear laughter and cognition point, your life will
start to run into the next item that needs to be run.
You may get very involved with the item until you suddenly realize
its just an item and you can run it. Once you do, it will stop having a
hold on you and you will be free to run into the next item.
This isn't meant to be a way to run out everything so you don't
have to feel anything, but a way to free up being able to feel anything
leaving you in control of it, rather than it in control of you.
Love and sorrow are big ones, an inability to feel sorrow freely
will stop the ability to feel love and laughter freely also.
Spot NO humiliation - Spot SOME humiliation.
Sorrow is love in carnation where all must die and be separated
again one day for a while.
Preciousness, uniqueness and fragility.
Love and sorrow can be humiliating, because when we feel deeply we
go out of control with crying and laughter.
Poor dears.
Humiliation is born of a lack of humility.
Let love and sorrow go infinite then, until peace and humility are
attained.
Before running an item, someone tosses you a ball, you grab it, and
you run with it to the goal post without thinking. You can't stop
yourself from doing this day after day, item after item.
They throw you a ball, you run with it.
They can MAKE you run, by throwing you a ball, you see?
After running an item, someone tosses you a ball, and you can just
sit there and do what you want with it.
The basic theory is that if SOME frustration is controlling you,
then underlying it is the power of many years, even lifetimes of
pretending there is NO frustration when there was. The subterranean
charge of NO frustration adds to the surface charge of the known
frustration in present time to make it seem overwhelming.
The subterranean charge on NO ITEM probably WILL be overwhelming so
expect lots of forces, fireworks and wild physical and emotional
somatics (sorrows, pains, weird phenomenon) to turn on.
Anything that can go wrong with a body or its parts will.
Spot:
NO Overwhelming SOME Overwhelming
Don't get stuck in them, feel and express them fully, let them be
and flow and run, and they will change to other things which will scare
the hell out of you even more.
You know you are running your case when you are just SURE you
should go to a doctor immediately!
Don't, forget doctors, just keep running the item.
Once major items run to sorrow/laughter -> peace, the physical
somatics will chill out and your body will be well again in that area.
Don't tell the medico's though, they will throw you in jail for
curing without a license to quack.
Spot:
NO Doctor SOME Doctor
NO Psych SOME Psych
NO Zombie SOME Zombie
If you keep running the items that come up, eventually the fear
will come up tone to pleasure waves and laughter. At that point that
item is released, and you can prepare for the next one to surface and
start ruining your life.
Again you will probably need to run many different items to a no
change point before any of them fully release to love, laughter and
peace, so expect to be running some items many different times over the
course of a life time.
Doctors depend on half run items never being completed for their
living. Half run items can kill you dead. Or make you kill yourself.
Or turn to drugs to help with the pain.
If SOME sorrow turns on, and you dramatize NO sorrow at it, what is
it going to benefit you?
Some drugs, in fact probably all drugs for a short while, actually
facilitate the running of the next item in line, which is WHY most
people do drugs, to facilitate case gain.
But most people balk and rabbit from the charge leaving them worse
off for having done the drug. Items that are turned on but not run out
will leave a person worse for the wear. Some drugs like LSD will turn
on items the person had NO CLUE were there. That's his immortality from
long ago coming back to him. Man he hasn't thought about them for a
LONG TIME.
At the same time he will think they feel like HOME.
Spot NO Deja Vu
Spot SOME Deja Vu
Spot NO Home
Spot SOME Home
Spot NO Lost
Spot SOME Lost
Spot NO Kindness
Spot SOME Kindness
Spot NO Cruelty
Spot SOME Cruelty
Because of this failure to properly be in session while doing a
drug, instead of actually running out what comes up, most drugs leave a
person in a 'thud zone' after they have come down from using the drug
where items won't run at all no matter what.
This is too many half run items begging for attention.
This leaves the person craving to do the drugs again which usually
then results in more thud zone, thus a psychologically addictive cycle
is created.
If a drug session is run smoothly and properly, usually the person
will come down feeling cleaner and less likely to do the drug again,
certainly no screaming need for it, at least until the next unrun item
demands attention.
Some drugs do have a physical addiction component independent of
the above. Drugs in the end are half poisons that bring one closer to
death while remaining alive, thus showing people various heavens and
hells that are available.
These are just items waiting to be run. Every heaven and hell are
half run items, desires standing in line for satisfaction, some thinking
they will never make it (hell), others looking forward to satisfaction
(heaven).
Spot NO Heaven.
Spot SOME Heaven.
Spot NO Hell.
Spot SOME Hell.
Fully run items lead to sorrow, fear, anger, laughter and then
peace.
They run from (pretended) NO DESIRE, through hell, through heaven,
to omni sovereignty on the matter.
NO DESIRE -> SOME DESIRE -> PEACE
Spot NO peace.
Spot SOME peace.
For most people , life tends to live on the hell side of SOME
DESIRE or in deep denial of NO DESIRE.
Your job as an auditor is to bring the person up to living in the
heaven side of SOME DESIRE engaged in winning chase, resting in peace
when needed, and able and willing to do the same for others, no matter
who they are.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Jul 12 21:48:24 EDT 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jul 15 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore601.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)
iD8DBQFZajwEURT1lqxE3HERAg53AJ4geI3NCGWkTyg+cL4N2wpfAyNh9gCgwWgD
12hfaaudaaj8m8kq0OyuD/o=
=ddaC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
YOU 8
You are an operating system of dicoms.
A dicom is a DIchotomy of Comparable and Opposite Magnitude.
The primary dicom is NONE and SOME, or NO and SOME.
These arise from the top and bottom halves of the CDEINR scale.
Source Of
Know
Curious about
Desire
Enforce
Inhibit
NO
Refused
SOME refers to those items from Source OF down to Enforce.
NO refers to those items from Inhibit down to Refused.
The being is constantly riding both sides of any particular dicom,
love/hate, beauty/ugly, good/evil, etc.
One wants to run each item pair using NO and SOME until no more
change takes place.
One runs these things by spotting them in one's life, other's
lives and the universe at large.
Spot NO love. Spot SOME love.
Spot NO hate. Spot SOME hate.
If 'spot' doesn't work for you, use instead:
Get the idea of NO love.
Get the idea of SOME love.
Get the idea of NO hate.
Get the idea of SOME hate.
The choice of item pairs to call a dicom can be arbitrary, for
example the opposite of love isn't really hate, some people love to
hate!
So you can be creative in picking your dicom pairs.
Get the idea of NO Love
Get the idea of SOME Love
Get the idea of NO Sorrow
Get the idea of SOME Sorrow
Remember that NO SORROW can mean a true absence of sorrow, but it
also means the pretense of no sorrow. The being has come down through
curious about sorrow, desiring sorrow, enforcing sorrow, regretting
sorrow, inhibiting sorrow, NO sorrow, pretending it isn't there, and
refusing sorrow.
Same thing with LOVE. The NO LOVE item is a tar pit covering a
tremendous amount of love.
The following items are useful for running.
Remember that eternality is defined as existing forever outside of
time.
Immortality is defined as existing forever inside of time, which is
hell forever, whether good or bad.
Mortality is defined as existing for a while in time and then never
existing again at all forever more, which is death forever.
A identity is the embodiment of a goal. A child who wants to fight
crime as his goal might become a policeman as the identity.
Every goal has an identity and every identity has a goal. And
every goal/identity pair has an opposition goal and identity. The
opposition goal and identity to a cop might be a criminal whose goal is
to commit crime.
Some times the association between goal and identity, and between
goal/identity pairs and their oppositions may not be the obvious ones.
What the cop is up to may not be most fundamentally fighting crime.
He may be trying to provide a stable state, or trying to help the people
etc.
Identities, like being a cop or a criminal, are instantiated in
this or any life in a physical object called a terminal, usually a human
body.
BASIC ITEMS ON ALL CASES (NOT COMPLETE)
NO Eternality SOME Eternality
NO Immortality SOME Immortality
NO Mortality SOME Mortality
NO Hell forever SOME Hell forever
NO Death forever SOME Death forever
NO Forever SOME Forever
NO Never SOME Never
NO Immutability SOME Immutability
NO Duties SOME Duties
NO Rights SOME Rights
NO Justice SOME Justice
NO Indecision SOME Indecision
NO Decision SOME Decision
NO Honor SOME Honor
NO Dignity SOME Dignity
NO One SOME One
NO Many SOME Many
NO Separation SOME Separation
NO Together SOME Together
NO Departure SOME Departure
NO Arrival SOME Arrival
NO Reversal SOME Reversal
NO Credible SOME Credible
NO Incredible SOME Incredible
NO Surprise SOME Surprise
NO Time SOME Time
NO Timelessness SOME Timelessness
NO Space SOME Space
NO Force SOME Force
NO Matter SOME Matter
NO Energy SOME Energy
NO Cause SOME Cause
NO Determination SOME Determination
NO Hurry SOME Hurry
NO Worry SOME Worry
NO Past SOME Past
NO Present SOME Present
NO Future SOME Future
NO Start SOME Start
NO Change SOME Change
NO Stop SOME Stop
NO Goal SOME Goal
NO Opposition SOME Opposition
NO Terminal SOME Terminal
NO Identity SOME Identity
NO Body SOME Body
NO Purpose SOME Purpose
NO Unknowable SOME Unknowable
NO Unconscious SOME Unconscious
NO Desire SOME Desire
NO Chase SOME Chase
NO Monotony SOME Monotony
NO Anger SOME Anger
NO Regret SOME Regret
NO Fear SOME Fear
NO Sorrow SOME Sorrow
NO Laughter SOME Laughter
NO Humor SOME Humor
NO Peace SOME Peace
NO Mystery SOME Mystery
NO Hysteria SOME Hysteria
NO Shock SOME Shock
NO Catatonia SOME Catatonia
NO Oblivion SOME Oblivion
NO Criminality SOME Criminality
NO Source SOME Source
NO Adoration SOME Adoration
NO Fairchosen SOME Fairchosen
NO Majesty SOME Majesty
NO Pride SOME Pride
NO Shame SOME Shame
NO Guilt SOME Guilt
NO Cool SOME Cool
NO Class SOME Class
NO Halcyon SOME Halcyon
NO SinSong SOME SinSong
NO Thrill SOME Thrill
NO Romance SOME Romance
NO Question SOME Question
NO Answer SOME Answer
NO Wonder SOME Wonder
NO Miracle SOME Miracle
NO New SOME New
NO Old SOME Old
NO Preciousness SOME Preciousness
NO Uniqueness SOME Uniqueness
NO Fragility SOME Fragility
NO OKness SOME OKness
NO Trust SOME Trust
NO Belief SOME Belief
NO Faith SOME Faith
NO Kindness SOME Kindness
NO Coldheartedness SOME Coldheartedness
NO Warmheartedness SOME Warmheartedness
The above items are probably necessary but not sufficient to fully
running a case. The preclear should be run on the entire Scientology
tone scale and Scientology Awareness Characteristic Chart, including all
other Scientology scales such as Know to Mystery. Also all Adorian
items such as Cool, Class, Halcyon, Sin-Song, Thrill and Romance.
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm3.memo Tone Scale
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm6.memo ACC
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore.memo ADORE
Probably more fun to let a person find his own items in session,
but if you were to run just the above on people you could probably make
a living at it. Once your preclear catches on to how he works, he will
start running it all by himself while life progresses.
When your preclears don't come back to you for more auditing, you
have either succeeded beyond your wildest dreams with them or failed
utterly.
Spot:
NO Failure SOME Failure
NO Success SOME Success
Run any item that comes up as it comes up.
Feeling frustrated? Rather than getting into it just start
spotting
NO frustration SOME frustration.
Spot in yourself, in others whether carnate or not, in the past,
present and future, in this and other universes. Don't limit yourself
by 'what is real or reasonable', or by what others would approve of.
Spot
NO Approval SOME Approval
NO Disapproval SOME Disapproval
Back and forth, back and forth, try to get with the alternating
flow. The being has been dramatizing NO ITEM and SOME ITEM forever, and
each item found may run for a very long time.
An item may stop running because its time to go onto another item
for a while, but if so, don't be surprised if the first item comes alive
again later.
"What is right?"
"What is wrong?"
Remember that staying in sync with the flow is imperative to run
it. If the flow is going SOME approval, and you are spotting NO
approval, you will simply jam it up and make the process stop working.
If the process does stop working, it may have jammed up inspite of
your best efforts, so just poke around with NO approval, NO approval,
SOME approval, SOME approval, until it starts running again. Then
follow the flows closely. You can get this stuff running almost as fast
as you can say the items.
When no more items can be found, or items which 'should' be running
won't run, run the following
NO ITEM SOME ITEM
NO SOMETHING SOME SOMETHING
NO NOTHING SOME NOTHING
These are generic item names that will run the underlying forces of
the next available real items without you having to know what they are
yet. Eventually the next runnable item will surface.
You will find that as you run each item to a flat no change point,
or better yet to a clear laughter and cognition point, your life will
start to run into the next item that needs to be run.
You may get very involved with the item until you suddenly realize
its just an item and you can run it. Once you do, it will stop having a
hold on you and you will be free to run into the next item.
This isn't meant to be a way to run out everything so you don't
have to feel anything, but a way to free up being able to feel anything
leaving you in control of it, rather than it in control of you.
Love and sorrow are big ones, an inability to feel sorrow freely
will stop the ability to feel love and laughter freely also.
Spot NO humiliation - Spot SOME humiliation.
Sorrow is love in carnation where all must die and be separated
again one day for a while.
Preciousness, uniqueness and fragility.
Love and sorrow can be humiliating, because when we feel deeply we
go out of control with crying and laughter.
Poor dears.
Humiliation is born of a lack of humility.
Let love and sorrow go infinite then, until peace and humility are
attained.
Before running an item, someone tosses you a ball, you grab it, and
you run with it to the goal post without thinking. You can't stop
yourself from doing this day after day, item after item.
They throw you a ball, you run with it.
They can MAKE you run, by throwing you a ball, you see?
After running an item, someone tosses you a ball, and you can just
sit there and do what you want with it.
The basic theory is that if SOME frustration is controlling you,
then underlying it is the power of many years, even lifetimes of
pretending there is NO frustration when there was. The subterranean
charge of NO frustration adds to the surface charge of the known
frustration in present time to make it seem overwhelming.
The subterranean charge on NO ITEM probably WILL be overwhelming so
expect lots of forces, fireworks and wild physical and emotional
somatics (sorrows, pains, weird phenomenon) to turn on.
Anything that can go wrong with a body or its parts will.
Spot:
NO Overwhelming SOME Overwhelming
Don't get stuck in them, feel and express them fully, let them be
and flow and run, and they will change to other things which will scare
the hell out of you even more.
You know you are running your case when you are just SURE you
should go to a doctor immediately!
Don't, forget doctors, just keep running the item.
Once major items run to sorrow/laughter -> peace, the physical
somatics will chill out and your body will be well again in that area.
Don't tell the medico's though, they will throw you in jail for
curing without a license to quack.
Spot:
NO Doctor SOME Doctor
NO Psych SOME Psych
NO Zombie SOME Zombie
If you keep running the items that come up, eventually the fear
will come up tone to pleasure waves and laughter. At that point that
item is released, and you can prepare for the next one to surface and
start ruining your life.
Again you will probably need to run many different items to a no
change point before any of them fully release to love, laughter and
peace, so expect to be running some items many different times over the
course of a life time.
Doctors depend on half run items never being completed for their
living. Half run items can kill you dead. Or make you kill yourself.
Or turn to drugs to help with the pain.
If SOME sorrow turns on, and you dramatize NO sorrow at it, what is
it going to benefit you?
Some drugs, in fact probably all drugs for a short while, actually
facilitate the running of the next item in line, which is WHY most
people do drugs, to facilitate case gain.
But most people balk and rabbit from the charge leaving them worse
off for having done the drug. Items that are turned on but not run out
will leave a person worse for the wear. Some drugs like LSD will turn
on items the person had NO CLUE were there. That's his immortality from
long ago coming back to him. Man he hasn't thought about them for a
LONG TIME.
At the same time he will think they feel like HOME.
Spot NO Deja Vu
Spot SOME Deja Vu
Spot NO Home
Spot SOME Home
Spot NO Lost
Spot SOME Lost
Spot NO Kindness
Spot SOME Kindness
Spot NO Cruelty
Spot SOME Cruelty
Because of this failure to properly be in session while doing a
drug, instead of actually running out what comes up, most drugs leave a
person in a 'thud zone' after they have come down from using the drug
where items won't run at all no matter what.
This is too many half run items begging for attention.
This leaves the person craving to do the drugs again which usually
then results in more thud zone, thus a psychologically addictive cycle
is created.
If a drug session is run smoothly and properly, usually the person
will come down feeling cleaner and less likely to do the drug again,
certainly no screaming need for it, at least until the next unrun item
demands attention.
Some drugs do have a physical addiction component independent of
the above. Drugs in the end are half poisons that bring one closer to
death while remaining alive, thus showing people various heavens and
hells that are available.
These are just items waiting to be run. Every heaven and hell are
half run items, desires standing in line for satisfaction, some thinking
they will never make it (hell), others looking forward to satisfaction
(heaven).
Spot NO Heaven.
Spot SOME Heaven.
Spot NO Hell.
Spot SOME Hell.
Fully run items lead to sorrow, fear, anger, laughter and then
peace.
They run from (pretended) NO DESIRE, through hell, through heaven,
to omni sovereignty on the matter.
NO DESIRE -> SOME DESIRE -> PEACE
Spot NO peace.
Spot SOME peace.
For most people , life tends to live on the hell side of SOME
DESIRE or in deep denial of NO DESIRE.
Your job as an auditor is to bring the person up to living in the
heaven side of SOME DESIRE engaged in winning chase, resting in peace
when needed, and able and willing to do the same for others, no matter
who they are.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Jul 12 21:48:24 EDT 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jul 15 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore601.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)
iD8DBQFZajwEURT1lqxE3HERAg53AJ4geI3NCGWkTyg+cL4N2wpfAyNh9gCgwWgD
12hfaaudaaj8m8kq0OyuD/o=
=ddaC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)