-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
YOU 5
Manifesting temporal life (in time) exists in cycles.
Create, survive, destroy.
This is the world if Sabe (Sa-bay).
That's why, in the world of Sabe, all eventually is lost, never to
be, or live again exactly as it was.
Everything is precious, unique, and fragile, and never will pass
this way again.
There will always be new creates and new destroys, new first hellos
and new last goodbyes,
In the end the main thing that doesn't persist forever is persistence
itself, survival in time.
Persistence in time is Sabe, because persistence exists only for a
while. Time is only for a while. When the while ends, EVERYTHING that
exists in that while ends too. Forever.
Whatever was, will never be quite that way again even in future
cycles of time and whiles.
It could be, but it won't.
The GodSoul never visits the same place twice (except to vanish it
through as-isness. That's how you end a while, duplicate the beginning.)
Dura is what is eternal and stands forever outside of time.
Eternality is beingness, not becomingness.
Divine Magnificence resting in the folds of Eternal Omni Awesome
Peace.
Mortality is becomingness, different every moment.
Sabe gives us momentary windows into the world of Dura where things
are different than they are here.
In those windows are the things we love, eternal loves.
A favorite cat in Sabe, is a window into Dura.
That cat you love and cry for so much, even while alive, is a
symbol for a cat in Dura, never to know loss or fear or self reproach.
We are all this way in time, living but passing symbols for the
beauty of the immutable.
As the windows in Sabe pass us by, the preciousness and sorrow we
feel is for the apparent loss of Dura.
To have had forever, then to never have again.
Or so we believe. That belief is necessary and desirable to remain
in Sabe.
The small little cat we cry for is a finite representation of that
bigger loss.
The cat in Dura, with a dance in its step and a twinkle in its eye
and smile that can never end, CHOOSES to symbolize itself, it's own
eternal beauty, via temporal ephemerality in Sabe.
Thus the eternal cat is self incarnating.
It can do this over and over again, each time manifesting in time
close to its true nature, but always different and short of the mark.
Look at the love.
There are no tears in Dura.
Sometimes when you see someone crying their eyes out, you can't
help but crack up laughing.
Their love is just so great.
Their sorrow, their loss, reminds you of the love that is real, of
the beauty that is yourself, of the eternal peace that is our home.
It reminds us of the greatness and care free warm humor of *US*.
Somehow the one in sorrow doesn't see it, but their loss helps you
get a momentary glimpse of the perfect.
Their descension experience becomes your ascension experience.
Thus their sorrow becomes their gift from them to you.
They say that dried eyed sorrow never heals.
This is true, suppressed sorrow is suppressed love.
No sorrow is no love.
No love is death.
People are pretending to be in Dura (no sorrow), when in fact they
are sinking below the bottom of Sabe.
They also say that excess of sorrow laughs, and excess of joy
weeps.
This is why.
The sorrow reminds us of love, and love reminds us of the
Majestic humor of the eternal.
But the eternal reminds us we live in Sabe, and in Sabe life is loss.
*ALL* first hellos are matched by last goodbyes.
Everything you find here that you love, you can watch it rust as you
hold it in your hand.
Sometimes if we allow ourselves to really feel to the bottom of the
well of our own sorrow, savored as a fine wine, or divine gift, we find
that same laughter, love and golden beauty ourselves.
If we dare to feel the enormity of our sorrow all the way to
the bottom we surprise ourselves by the enromity of our love, our eternal
love.
And it cracks us up into gales of laughter.
When you find a person who is alternating between laughter and
crying, laughter and crying, you know they are plugged into existence half
way between Sabe and Dura.
The message or laughter may not be clear, but it says that the sorrow
is ludicrous, there is too much love for the sorrow to be true in the end.
Temporal sorrow can not win over eternal love.
We think that all that exists is stuff in time, we can not
conceive of something that exists outside of time. Well where the hell
do you think time came from.
ALL temporal whiles must end one day, there is no such thing as an
infinite while, and when the whiles are over, what do you think remains?
Eternal good humor and peace.
So much love and beauty and warmth and peace and SAFETY, it becomes
hysterical we should have ever thought otherwise. It escapes us how we
did it, how we ever fell for Sabe.
But without a context in which to understand how eternal love
became mortal sorrow, the being just turns away from the moment of
higher vision, feeling but non comprehension, and suppresses both the
sorrow and the laughter, and sinks further into Sabe wondering why.
Surely no *HUMAN* would engage in this temporal rape of love.
True, but a GodSoul would.
The God is their Dura half, and the Soul is their Sabe half.
And the purpose and fundamental action of the GodSoul is to
manifest back and forth between Dura and Sabe.
To enter time, to leave time, to enter time, to leave time.
Something is going on here, but NOBODY is talking about it.
Handling it alone is almost impossible.
Some dream to be the first to understand, but most don't have the
balls.
Are you ready to be OK?
Are you ready to be the first to be OK?
Are you ready to be the ONLY ONE to be OK for a while?
Can OK laugh? Can OK cry?
Temporal life is a process of fair exchange of these gifts of NOT
OKness and OKness, between GodSoul's lost together in Sabe.
It's hard to audit people crying their eyes out, the beauty is just
so shocking, the depth of their love so oceanic.
I mean who could possibly ever care for a cat that much!?
It's just a cat.
It is almost impossible for the auditor to not crack up witnessing
the love light singing through the preclear's sorrow.
This is why auditing, and true co-relating, work.
To bring us closer to Dura, while yet operating in Sabe, until
others can operate in Dura too.
To relate means to share what is important, precious, unique and
fragile to you with others and have them reciprocate in like kind.
Without relating there is no feeling, no love, because its all
hidden behind the GodSoul's poker face. They don't want anyone else to
know, lest their eternal love and distress be ridiculed or abhored.
One foot in heaven and one foot in hell.
Hanging on to God with one hand, and hanging on to a lost Soul
(your friend) with the other.
The problem is there is no one in Dura to help, the GodSoul is the
High US.
All of Sabe is Dura in carnation.
The dinner places are set in Heaven, but there is no one there to
eat.
Thus the disconnected GodSoul in Sabe, needs to be come a
reconnected GodSoul in Dura, become a conscious eye/I of the universe,
rather than a conscious eye/I in the universe.
He realizes that he is not made of the universe, the universe is
made of him.
Once that reconnection takes place, then YOU become the bridge from
Dura to Sabe that leads the lost ones home to do and become the same.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Dec 25 22:06:28 EST 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore595.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)
iD8DBQFaQby1URT1lqxE3HERAtXhAJ9gwE4nFYjMSewM1uay9kRcF1G7PQCgi8lO
L0Gbd8Hqn73LXWsoqwk6sio=
=u7R8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 25, 2017
Thursday, December 7, 2017
CODES (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TO TALK OR NOT TO TALK
((That said, it is possible for someone to die after being tasked
to think of certain things. Meatballs for example are ultra highly
charged on the subject of death because they have spent their entire
lives NOT THINKING ABOUT death as much as possible. So you start
talking about before birth and after death and it all hits them in the
face like a ton of bricks. Next morning they are quite dead.))
Lyn Keller (lynmore@pacbell.net) wrote:
> If there is fighting on this list - then what would be the winning
> factor and what would be the losing factor?
I think the fighting is caused by Code conflict, once everyone here
as their codes they will stop acting like monkeys bouncing around in a
cage.
You know not only do people not know their own Codes, they
certainly do not know other's codes, yet they continuously try to figure
out what they are, and respond therefrom, so it acts as a massive
continuous ongoing implied wrong indication they are making to everyone
around them.
So people get enraged by the presumptions that are put on them by
others.
This is in part, part of the problem of people not talking about
their Codes. Once someone knows your Codes for real, then they can
start figuring out where you are coming from without emmanating lots of
wrong indications. Not only do they make sense to themselves, since
they know their own Codes, but YOU begin to make sense to them as well.
Thus I would guess it is imperative for people to discuss their
Codes with each other, individually and as a group. Although it is
presently popular to claim that pre Codees should not hear the Codes of
Codees, on the face of it this isn't going to work in an open forum, so
it *HAS* to be wrong, as right as it might seem.
The only other solution is to have an elite super private group
with high security etc, that watches its every word, and who it talks
to, and we all know where that leads, right into the toilet on many
levels. You also get into a massive problem of people claiming they
have their Codes, when they don't, just so they can be part of the
group. How do you know if someone has their Codes? Really? So how are
you going to know who is safe to talk to?
If Codees carry the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval stamped on
their asses because they have passed some Code Authority and gotten
their license to talk, you still don't know if its real or not, unless
you trust the Authority explicitly, and that's just another route of
control down and even bigger toilet.
The only other alternative is to have everyone consider that Codes
aren't important to talk about, and so they start talking *AROUND* them.
That's the kind of hypocrisy and social facade that drives straight
talking into talking *ABOUT*.
Certain things are inexorable, all considerations to the contrary.
Once Codes are known, they are *THE* most important thing to talk
about and get to know in another person.
Has to be.
Homer
> Lyn
Mon Jun 22 16:10:03 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 5 12:00:02 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/codes.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)
iD8DBQFaJtCSURT1lqxE3HERAu4UAJ9ZW/vxmDe7nKj4zL2I5hVhu1t8mACgm6JP
DNGhcQJ8/otnPvv1A4tHBug=
=8gXp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TO TALK OR NOT TO TALK
((That said, it is possible for someone to die after being tasked
to think of certain things. Meatballs for example are ultra highly
charged on the subject of death because they have spent their entire
lives NOT THINKING ABOUT death as much as possible. So you start
talking about before birth and after death and it all hits them in the
face like a ton of bricks. Next morning they are quite dead.))
Lyn Keller (lynmore@pacbell.net) wrote:
> If there is fighting on this list - then what would be the winning
> factor and what would be the losing factor?
I think the fighting is caused by Code conflict, once everyone here
as their codes they will stop acting like monkeys bouncing around in a
cage.
You know not only do people not know their own Codes, they
certainly do not know other's codes, yet they continuously try to figure
out what they are, and respond therefrom, so it acts as a massive
continuous ongoing implied wrong indication they are making to everyone
around them.
So people get enraged by the presumptions that are put on them by
others.
This is in part, part of the problem of people not talking about
their Codes. Once someone knows your Codes for real, then they can
start figuring out where you are coming from without emmanating lots of
wrong indications. Not only do they make sense to themselves, since
they know their own Codes, but YOU begin to make sense to them as well.
Thus I would guess it is imperative for people to discuss their
Codes with each other, individually and as a group. Although it is
presently popular to claim that pre Codees should not hear the Codes of
Codees, on the face of it this isn't going to work in an open forum, so
it *HAS* to be wrong, as right as it might seem.
The only other solution is to have an elite super private group
with high security etc, that watches its every word, and who it talks
to, and we all know where that leads, right into the toilet on many
levels. You also get into a massive problem of people claiming they
have their Codes, when they don't, just so they can be part of the
group. How do you know if someone has their Codes? Really? So how are
you going to know who is safe to talk to?
If Codees carry the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval stamped on
their asses because they have passed some Code Authority and gotten
their license to talk, you still don't know if its real or not, unless
you trust the Authority explicitly, and that's just another route of
control down and even bigger toilet.
The only other alternative is to have everyone consider that Codes
aren't important to talk about, and so they start talking *AROUND* them.
That's the kind of hypocrisy and social facade that drives straight
talking into talking *ABOUT*.
Certain things are inexorable, all considerations to the contrary.
Once Codes are known, they are *THE* most important thing to talk
about and get to know in another person.
Has to be.
Homer
> Lyn
Mon Jun 22 16:10:03 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 5 12:00:02 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/codes.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)
iD8DBQFaJtCSURT1lqxE3HERAu4UAJ9ZW/vxmDe7nKj4zL2I5hVhu1t8mACgm6JP
DNGhcQJ8/otnPvv1A4tHBug=
=8gXp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
HOM33 (fwd)
MEN AND WOMEN
The main thing women hate men for is men never train women to become
men in their next lives.
Men don't consider that women CAN become men, ever, and women hide
their resentment by pretending they don't want to be come men.
"If I were a man, I would get a sex change operation!"
Son's are expected to become men so they receive the full training by
men to become men. Daughters are considered to be unable to become men,
and so do not receive the training they crave and need to survive even as
a woman. Part of being a complete woman is to be in training on how to
become a man.
Daughter's are not able to become men in this life, but they are able
to become men in their next lives, and they need just as much if not more
training in this life to become men in their next lives as sons need to
become men in this life.
That's the truth.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 7 12:00:03 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom33.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)
iD8DBQFaKXOTURT1lqxE3HERAqMcAJoC4IAaGbdcGir6GeENyEYg49idsgCfboJp
6etpcCsXevtJqRjUDmWI3/0=
=8yXc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
The main thing women hate men for is men never train women to become
men in their next lives.
Men don't consider that women CAN become men, ever, and women hide
their resentment by pretending they don't want to be come men.
"If I were a man, I would get a sex change operation!"
Son's are expected to become men so they receive the full training by
men to become men. Daughters are considered to be unable to become men,
and so do not receive the training they crave and need to survive even as
a woman. Part of being a complete woman is to be in training on how to
become a man.
Daughter's are not able to become men in this life, but they are able
to become men in their next lives, and they need just as much if not more
training in this life to become men in their next lives as sons need to
become men in this life.
That's the truth.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 7 12:00:03 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom33.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)
iD8DBQFaKXOTURT1lqxE3HERAqMcAJoC4IAaGbdcGir6GeENyEYg49idsgCfboJp
6etpcCsXevtJqRjUDmWI3/0=
=8yXc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE102 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ETERNAL DOOM
How can one find peace whilst others are marching to hell forever not
of their own knowing willing doing?
Or worse, of their own knowing willing doing?
The mere existence of peace proves without a shadow of a doubt that
ultimately all is well and OK with the world and that beings may play with
whatever illusions of Eternal Doom they fancy, for a while.
For that was the purpose of space and time, to give the momentary dream
of Eternal Doom.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 6 12:00:03 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore102.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)
iD8DBQFaKCIUURT1lqxE3HERAhmVAKDDDEWUJaS6P+HHKucMkmZsswujPACePSLL
8icelRWVz9OE/yJ2Y3EhipU=
=2L6R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ETERNAL DOOM
How can one find peace whilst others are marching to hell forever not
of their own knowing willing doing?
Or worse, of their own knowing willing doing?
The mere existence of peace proves without a shadow of a doubt that
ultimately all is well and OK with the world and that beings may play with
whatever illusions of Eternal Doom they fancy, for a while.
For that was the purpose of space and time, to give the momentary dream
of Eternal Doom.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 6 12:00:03 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore102.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)
iD8DBQFaKCIUURT1lqxE3HERAhmVAKDDDEWUJaS6P+HHKucMkmZsswujPACePSLL
8icelRWVz9OE/yJ2Y3EhipU=
=2L6R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
PROOF31 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS II
One way to tell that the symbol and referent are two different
objects, is if the symbol has qualities that the referent doesn't have.
For example you are in a car on a road at an intersection, looking
at a map of the area. You see the intersection on the map labeled with
the names of the roads, and you know where you are.
In this case the map is the symbol and the actual roadways are the
referent.
The symbolic map is made of paper with color and ink denoting the
roadways, the referent roads themselves are made of tar and asphalt.
Clearly in this case no one could ever mistake the map for the
territory, or the symbol for the referent.
However let's take a subtler example.
Find yourself a small coffee table and a red plastic ball like the
ones kids like to play with in pools.
First check the ball out all over, push it, poke it, bite into it,
blecch, yep made of plastic all right, then put the ball on the table
and sit down facing it.
Now the first thing one might think is that one is looking at a red
plastic ball. But that's a confusion between symbol and referent. The
two have been smushed together into one object.
So let's notice something.
If you close your eyes, the red ball disappears from your field
of view, but the plastic ball is still out there on the table right?
"If A and B are objects, and A changes and B doesn't, then A is
not B, i.e. A and B are two *DIFFERENT* objects."
So immediately we can conclude that the 'red ball' and the
'plastic ball' are two different objects.
The 'red ball' that we see is a conscious color form projected in our
consciousness. It is much like the picture of the Empire State Building
projected on the plasma display of the cockpit. The "plastic ball" that
remains even after the 'red ball' is gone, is a whole nother object out
there on the table which exists whether we see it or not.
So its pretty clear here that the 'red ball' which we see in our
consciousness when our eyes are open is its own object that is different
from the 'plastic ball' out on the table, which exists whether we see it
or not.
TWO different objects, both actual.
The red ball is in fact being used as a symbol for the plastic ball
on the table. We can change the symbol, make it come and go, by opening
and closing our eyes, or looking away, but the plastic ball remains
unchanged. Thus the symbol and the referent are not the same object. We
have two different objects, one used to represent the other.
Notice also that the red ball is RED. Now we tend to associate
redness in consciousness with a certain frequency of light, but clearly
there is nothing about light that is 'red'.
Redness in consciousness is a symbol for the external referent of
light of a particular frequency.
Light has qualities such as energy, speed, direction, amplitude and
frequency, which do not apply to conscious color forms.
Conscious color forms have qualities like redness and an implied
viewpoint which do not apply to light. An implied viewpoint means the
symbol includes in it where it is being viewed from.
So we have two different objects, red color form, and light, which
have very different qualities from each other, almost none of which
overlap except that they both exist, yet one can be used very effectively
as a symbol for the other with little confusion.
So from this we can conclude that symbols don't have to be all that
similar in nature to what they symbolize in order to be useful as symbols.
Words are a perfect example, the word 'ball' is VERY different than a
ball, yet we do just fine using one to symbolize the other.
Another thing we need to notice is that the symbols we use to refer
to referents can pretty well be chosen arbitrarily. For example the word
'blog' could just as easily be used to refer to ball, as long as we all
agree to the relationship. Since its an arbitrary assignment between
symbol and referent, its just a matter of agreement between people to use
symbols and referents the way they do.
As another example of this, there is clearly nothing RED about light
of any frequency. Thus we could just as easily see green or blue where we
now see red, and we would never know the difference.
In fact what I see when looking at the ball may be what you would
call green and what you see may be what I would call blue, but we both
call it red by agreement.
As long as we see the same color in ourselves when we see the same
frequency, and as long as we both call it the same word when we talk to
each other about it, it doesn't matter if you or I see the same color when
looking at the same frequency!
There is no way to know if someone else sees the same color that we
do, because no one can see into anyone else's consciousness than their
own.
OK, so now let's do this same experiment in a sleep dream.
We are sound asleep and lo and behold we find a red plastic ball on
the floor next to a small coffee table.
Again we pick it up, push it, poke it, bite it, blecch sure tastes
like plastic to me, and put it on the table.
Then we sit down and we look at it.
Now having done this experiment while wake, we study the red ball on
the table for any differences between what we see now and what we saw when
we were awake.
And there are none. Looks just like the other red ball down to the
last detail.
But what of the plastic ball?
In the waking state we say there is a red ball acting as a symbol for
a plastic ball acting as the referent.
But in the dream, is there a plastic ball?
No of course not, if there were, when we woke up, the plastic ball
would go poof and that would violate the laws of conservation of energy
and momentum.
You see red conscious color forms can come and go at the will of the
conscious unit, but plastic can't.
Besides there is no plastic in sleep dreams, because there is no
ANYTHING in sleep dreams except the symbols in conscious color form
pretending that there is.
The symbols are actual in the dream, but the implied referents
aren't. They just aren't there in the dream. In the dream the plasma
display shows the city in complete detail, but there is no city down
below.
So the non lucid dreamer doesn't realize he is dreaming and he
worries about the plastic ball implied by the red ball in his conscious
picture.
The lucid dreamer, realizes that the red ball in his conscious
picture is all there is, and there is no plastic ball at all in the dream.
The lucid dreamer realizes that the symbols in his conscious pictures
are more important than the implied referents because the implied
referents don't exist at all! They never did.
Notice this has nothing to do with other dreamers being in the dream
with him. Any number of conscious dream units can get together and share
a co dream, a shared virtualization, a panoply of symbols with non
existent referents.
For these co dreamers the symbol IS the referent, the symbol is used
to symbolize itself! The symbol is what is important.
The map hasn't become confused with the territory, the map IS the
territory for real as there IS no other territory!
Now some non lucid dreamer still fixated on non existent referents
like the plastic ball, could come along in the dream and say "Well what
difference does it make whether this is a dream or not, I still have to go
to school, eat, sleep, fight war, die etc."
Why?
Well he thinks he has to do all these things because he still
believes in the referents that don't exist. The kind of referents he is
worried about are external physical universe objects that he didn't ask
for, didn't make, can't get rid of, and certainly can't control.
They in fact control him, in fact he is MADE OF THEM, if he thinks he
is a body!
Talk about inverted. The conscious unit that perceives the conscious
symbol thinks it is made of the referent! That's like the pilot looking
at the plasma display and thinking HE IS THE CITY!
So you try to wake him up a bit, you don't want him to leave the
dream, but you do want him to know it IS a dream, namely a world of
symbols with non existing referents.
Then he can stop worrying about all those dangerous referents and
perhaps try his hand at casting some symbols around by force of will
alone, rearrange the dream to suit his needs, instead of it rearranging
him.
Pretty soon illegally pretty girls are popping out of the walls and
falling all over him, each vying for his attention, "touch me! touch me!"
You see, the world is a better place for being lucid.
So this material is important, as the 'waking' state is a dream
state also.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec 3 12:00:03 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof31.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)
iD8DBQFaJC2TURT1lqxE3HERAtLHAKCfLqjCzxEXxhEVZbTdM9HU2Io0SwCgk4e6
JOAfHDT/8cZatmRpPsEr7K4=
=Sqe0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS II
One way to tell that the symbol and referent are two different
objects, is if the symbol has qualities that the referent doesn't have.
For example you are in a car on a road at an intersection, looking
at a map of the area. You see the intersection on the map labeled with
the names of the roads, and you know where you are.
In this case the map is the symbol and the actual roadways are the
referent.
The symbolic map is made of paper with color and ink denoting the
roadways, the referent roads themselves are made of tar and asphalt.
Clearly in this case no one could ever mistake the map for the
territory, or the symbol for the referent.
However let's take a subtler example.
Find yourself a small coffee table and a red plastic ball like the
ones kids like to play with in pools.
First check the ball out all over, push it, poke it, bite into it,
blecch, yep made of plastic all right, then put the ball on the table
and sit down facing it.
Now the first thing one might think is that one is looking at a red
plastic ball. But that's a confusion between symbol and referent. The
two have been smushed together into one object.
So let's notice something.
If you close your eyes, the red ball disappears from your field
of view, but the plastic ball is still out there on the table right?
"If A and B are objects, and A changes and B doesn't, then A is
not B, i.e. A and B are two *DIFFERENT* objects."
So immediately we can conclude that the 'red ball' and the
'plastic ball' are two different objects.
The 'red ball' that we see is a conscious color form projected in our
consciousness. It is much like the picture of the Empire State Building
projected on the plasma display of the cockpit. The "plastic ball" that
remains even after the 'red ball' is gone, is a whole nother object out
there on the table which exists whether we see it or not.
So its pretty clear here that the 'red ball' which we see in our
consciousness when our eyes are open is its own object that is different
from the 'plastic ball' out on the table, which exists whether we see it
or not.
TWO different objects, both actual.
The red ball is in fact being used as a symbol for the plastic ball
on the table. We can change the symbol, make it come and go, by opening
and closing our eyes, or looking away, but the plastic ball remains
unchanged. Thus the symbol and the referent are not the same object. We
have two different objects, one used to represent the other.
Notice also that the red ball is RED. Now we tend to associate
redness in consciousness with a certain frequency of light, but clearly
there is nothing about light that is 'red'.
Redness in consciousness is a symbol for the external referent of
light of a particular frequency.
Light has qualities such as energy, speed, direction, amplitude and
frequency, which do not apply to conscious color forms.
Conscious color forms have qualities like redness and an implied
viewpoint which do not apply to light. An implied viewpoint means the
symbol includes in it where it is being viewed from.
So we have two different objects, red color form, and light, which
have very different qualities from each other, almost none of which
overlap except that they both exist, yet one can be used very effectively
as a symbol for the other with little confusion.
So from this we can conclude that symbols don't have to be all that
similar in nature to what they symbolize in order to be useful as symbols.
Words are a perfect example, the word 'ball' is VERY different than a
ball, yet we do just fine using one to symbolize the other.
Another thing we need to notice is that the symbols we use to refer
to referents can pretty well be chosen arbitrarily. For example the word
'blog' could just as easily be used to refer to ball, as long as we all
agree to the relationship. Since its an arbitrary assignment between
symbol and referent, its just a matter of agreement between people to use
symbols and referents the way they do.
As another example of this, there is clearly nothing RED about light
of any frequency. Thus we could just as easily see green or blue where we
now see red, and we would never know the difference.
In fact what I see when looking at the ball may be what you would
call green and what you see may be what I would call blue, but we both
call it red by agreement.
As long as we see the same color in ourselves when we see the same
frequency, and as long as we both call it the same word when we talk to
each other about it, it doesn't matter if you or I see the same color when
looking at the same frequency!
There is no way to know if someone else sees the same color that we
do, because no one can see into anyone else's consciousness than their
own.
OK, so now let's do this same experiment in a sleep dream.
We are sound asleep and lo and behold we find a red plastic ball on
the floor next to a small coffee table.
Again we pick it up, push it, poke it, bite it, blecch sure tastes
like plastic to me, and put it on the table.
Then we sit down and we look at it.
Now having done this experiment while wake, we study the red ball on
the table for any differences between what we see now and what we saw when
we were awake.
And there are none. Looks just like the other red ball down to the
last detail.
But what of the plastic ball?
In the waking state we say there is a red ball acting as a symbol for
a plastic ball acting as the referent.
But in the dream, is there a plastic ball?
No of course not, if there were, when we woke up, the plastic ball
would go poof and that would violate the laws of conservation of energy
and momentum.
You see red conscious color forms can come and go at the will of the
conscious unit, but plastic can't.
Besides there is no plastic in sleep dreams, because there is no
ANYTHING in sleep dreams except the symbols in conscious color form
pretending that there is.
The symbols are actual in the dream, but the implied referents
aren't. They just aren't there in the dream. In the dream the plasma
display shows the city in complete detail, but there is no city down
below.
So the non lucid dreamer doesn't realize he is dreaming and he
worries about the plastic ball implied by the red ball in his conscious
picture.
The lucid dreamer, realizes that the red ball in his conscious
picture is all there is, and there is no plastic ball at all in the dream.
The lucid dreamer realizes that the symbols in his conscious pictures
are more important than the implied referents because the implied
referents don't exist at all! They never did.
Notice this has nothing to do with other dreamers being in the dream
with him. Any number of conscious dream units can get together and share
a co dream, a shared virtualization, a panoply of symbols with non
existent referents.
For these co dreamers the symbol IS the referent, the symbol is used
to symbolize itself! The symbol is what is important.
The map hasn't become confused with the territory, the map IS the
territory for real as there IS no other territory!
Now some non lucid dreamer still fixated on non existent referents
like the plastic ball, could come along in the dream and say "Well what
difference does it make whether this is a dream or not, I still have to go
to school, eat, sleep, fight war, die etc."
Why?
Well he thinks he has to do all these things because he still
believes in the referents that don't exist. The kind of referents he is
worried about are external physical universe objects that he didn't ask
for, didn't make, can't get rid of, and certainly can't control.
They in fact control him, in fact he is MADE OF THEM, if he thinks he
is a body!
Talk about inverted. The conscious unit that perceives the conscious
symbol thinks it is made of the referent! That's like the pilot looking
at the plasma display and thinking HE IS THE CITY!
So you try to wake him up a bit, you don't want him to leave the
dream, but you do want him to know it IS a dream, namely a world of
symbols with non existing referents.
Then he can stop worrying about all those dangerous referents and
perhaps try his hand at casting some symbols around by force of will
alone, rearrange the dream to suit his needs, instead of it rearranging
him.
Pretty soon illegally pretty girls are popping out of the walls and
falling all over him, each vying for his attention, "touch me! touch me!"
You see, the world is a better place for being lucid.
So this material is important, as the 'waking' state is a dream
state also.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec 3 12:00:03 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof31.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)
iD8DBQFaJC2TURT1lqxE3HERAtLHAKCfLqjCzxEXxhEVZbTdM9HU2Io0SwCgk4e6
JOAfHDT/8cZatmRpPsEr7K4=
=Sqe0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE985 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE MECHANISMS OF LEARNING
> 1- There is me. I just know it.
No, we LEARN by looking. We see and we conclude.
We can also continuously reverify over and over again.
The problem is in the mechanism of that learning.
In the physical universe we are learning by looking at effects of
distant causes. We never see the cause, only the messenger of the
cause.
We never see the King, and can't see the King, only the messenger,
and the King that originated the message is long gone by the time the
messenger reaches us.
In the conscious universe we are learning by looking directly at
the cause, we can SEE the cause causing us to learn that something is
there.
The experiences of red and green and blue are AGENT and we know
that because we can SEE THEIR AGENCY directly. There is no messenger
between them and us, and we can see that too.
For certain.
We can only be certain of the King when there is no messenger at
all, zero mission visuals.
Does cause exsit at all?
How do we know. Observe the process of learning the answer to that
question. See what you come up with.
A machine can not see cause nor prove there is any.
> 2- I am bombarded by signals telling me that there is a whole lot of other
> stuff.
>
> I am certain about # 1. I do not see a way to get certainty about # 2.
Again be clear, the stuff we actually see is certain, but these
experiences of color form are being used to REPRESENT the existence of
something external to us which we can not see directly. That is a
choice of OURS to use them that way.
In a dream we know there is no external actuality, in the waking
state we CHOOSE to assume there is.
Put two pieces of red and blue paper in front of you, and observe
the conscious experience of red and blue which is certain.
But how do we know THE PAPER is out there in the physical universe?
We don't and can't.
There may or may not be external referents to the conscious
renditions we can see, but there is a game to be played with these
experiences which is survival.
That game pressures us into playing the game with pain and
pleasure, and pressures us to try to explain WHY pain and pleasure are
caused by the things that do, but its a virtaul world we live in, the
external actuality just simply isn't there at all, and thus our waking
state becomes just another dream.
It has causal rules that even if arbitrary are momentarily binding
while we are in the dream, particularly if we do not understand it is a
dream (non lucid), but it opens the possibility that we can understand
how the dream was created BY CONSCIOUSNESS and what hand OUR
consciousness may have had in creating it and joining it.
> Any reasoning that tries to prove that there can be only one explanation for
> our mutually perceived universe may be logically sound, but does not
> resonate with me; it may be a valid intellectual construct, but simply not
> pertinent.
We can't prove, we can only support with evidence.
One trip out of wer body and it becomes clear that at a minimum
each person lives in their own private idaho virtualization that seems
to co resonate with other's similar dreams.
There is no evidence for the external physical universe at all.
> The construct, by the way, is cool, and I am proud of you. Really. But I
> believe (believe?!) that the nature of reality is different, unknown and
> perhaps not amenable to analysis that can be put into words. In other words,
> as Bill might say, the answer is wordless. And thoughtless.
The answer to what question?
The question before the court is a simple and exact question:
Does actual space and time exist as it is represented to us in our
conscious renditions of it, or are we dreaming of space and time where
there is none?
If there is no space or time out there just conscious experiences
of them, then who or what is cause if cause is not out there, and if we
are not made of outthere, a physical body.
And if there WERE external space and time, how could we ever prove
it? Or even support it?
And if we can prove that we can never prove it, why surmise it?
Quantum Mechanics long ago gave up surmising about things that
can't be measured.
Clearly something exists other than us, the question is what is its
true nature, matter, energy, space and time, or consciousness?
> What I hope for is that there we are more than just coal, water and air,
> that there is indeed a mystery, and that we will one "day" know it.
OK, the second question before the court, simple as pie is as
follow:
We DEFINE a machine as any system of parts interacting with each
other via cause and effect across a spacetime distance.
Qustion: Can this machine learn with perfect certainty anything?
That it exits? That matter, energy, space or time exist?
That it is receiving two different frequencies of light, that we
might call red and green or blue but it calls 700nm?
Simple question, any information theory professional will tell you
conclusively, no.
A machine can't verify any causal pathway or any parqt of
itself no matter how many video cameras it has trained on itself.
A can say 'I exist!' and be right, but it can't LEARN that it
exists with perfect certainties, and thus verify or KNOW that it is right.
That's because a machine that learns only via causal pathways can't
use causal pathways to verify any of the causal pathways it is using to
learn with or about.
Since consciouness can SEE the causal pathway directly between
its experience of two different colors and its conclusion that
there are in fact two different colors there, and reverify with the
same answer until the cows come home, it is clear that a conscious
unit is not a machine using causal pathways to learn about itself.
Note, conscious learning IS a cauasl pathway, but the conscious
unit is not USING results of the causal pathway to learn with or
compuate back to cause from the final effect it sees.
In the machine, cause and effect are two different events,
at two different times, and the cause is gone by the time the
effect happens. Thus the machine computes back to the theoretical
nature of that cause from what it sees in the effect.
The machine is thus 'learning' about the cause by looking
at the effect.
In the conscious unit, cause and effect are one and the same even
in a single moment of time and space. There is no distance in time or
space between them. The conscious unit does see the effect and compute
back to the cause under trhe assumption if there is an effect there must
be a cause, the conscious unit looks at the CAUSE directly and sees IT
CAUSING the EFFECT, thus the conscious unit not only is certain of the
cause directly but also that the cause caused the effect the machine
also sees with perfect certainty.
This is self luminousness or zero emission learning.
Zero emission learning is messenger free learning.
Zero emission learning is not a space time process because there is
no space or time between cause and effect, if there were, the cause
would be gone by the time the effect got there, and the machine would
have only the effect to look at and a gone cause to surmise about.
Thus a machine is forever blind to cause, while a conscious unit,
well all a conscious unit ever sees is agent colorform.
This also comes back to the universal and existential statement
problem.
Any universal statement can be disproven but not proven.
Universal: All daisies are black.
This can never be shown to be true, but can be shown false, by
presenting one white daisy.
Existential: There exists at least one white daisey.
This can never be shown to be false, but can be shown to be true.
Again one white daisy will do it.
The statement "There exists an independent objective physical
universe independent of our conscious experience" is an existential
statement.
It is easy to prove.
Show me one.
Lastly remember we all have an addiction to mysteries, without them
people think life wouldn't be worth living, for the seeeking, searching,
trying to find, looking for and discovery function of the mind would
grind to a halt.
So its fine if there are mysteries and unknowables, we are not
dealing with them, we are dealing with perfect certainies, things we can
know and that's it.
Except for the one little problem of memory of past lives, if we
have CHOSEN for forget them intentionally, then there are many questions
that need to be answered, why, how, when, and what should we do about
it?
Do we have amnesia?
Is our amnesia benign?
Did we choose to forget, and choose to forget the choice to forget?
Motivation please...
An approach to undoing the choice to forget would also
be useful.
Thus these issues have astounding ramifications and are sloughed
off and "Oh Posh!"ed only by fools.
Homer
Sun Nov 8 19:32:31 EST 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 2 12:00:03 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore985.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)
iD8DBQFaItwTURT1lqxE3HERAga0AKDRWq5yu/RjCCaUt+NacA5pj0OHvgCgws+d
0Kg26j+XjxNbVdWhDaRQqE0=
=lN/w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE MECHANISMS OF LEARNING
> 1- There is me. I just know it.
No, we LEARN by looking. We see and we conclude.
We can also continuously reverify over and over again.
The problem is in the mechanism of that learning.
In the physical universe we are learning by looking at effects of
distant causes. We never see the cause, only the messenger of the
cause.
We never see the King, and can't see the King, only the messenger,
and the King that originated the message is long gone by the time the
messenger reaches us.
In the conscious universe we are learning by looking directly at
the cause, we can SEE the cause causing us to learn that something is
there.
The experiences of red and green and blue are AGENT and we know
that because we can SEE THEIR AGENCY directly. There is no messenger
between them and us, and we can see that too.
For certain.
We can only be certain of the King when there is no messenger at
all, zero mission visuals.
Does cause exsit at all?
How do we know. Observe the process of learning the answer to that
question. See what you come up with.
A machine can not see cause nor prove there is any.
> 2- I am bombarded by signals telling me that there is a whole lot of other
> stuff.
>
> I am certain about # 1. I do not see a way to get certainty about # 2.
Again be clear, the stuff we actually see is certain, but these
experiences of color form are being used to REPRESENT the existence of
something external to us which we can not see directly. That is a
choice of OURS to use them that way.
In a dream we know there is no external actuality, in the waking
state we CHOOSE to assume there is.
Put two pieces of red and blue paper in front of you, and observe
the conscious experience of red and blue which is certain.
But how do we know THE PAPER is out there in the physical universe?
We don't and can't.
There may or may not be external referents to the conscious
renditions we can see, but there is a game to be played with these
experiences which is survival.
That game pressures us into playing the game with pain and
pleasure, and pressures us to try to explain WHY pain and pleasure are
caused by the things that do, but its a virtaul world we live in, the
external actuality just simply isn't there at all, and thus our waking
state becomes just another dream.
It has causal rules that even if arbitrary are momentarily binding
while we are in the dream, particularly if we do not understand it is a
dream (non lucid), but it opens the possibility that we can understand
how the dream was created BY CONSCIOUSNESS and what hand OUR
consciousness may have had in creating it and joining it.
> Any reasoning that tries to prove that there can be only one explanation for
> our mutually perceived universe may be logically sound, but does not
> resonate with me; it may be a valid intellectual construct, but simply not
> pertinent.
We can't prove, we can only support with evidence.
One trip out of wer body and it becomes clear that at a minimum
each person lives in their own private idaho virtualization that seems
to co resonate with other's similar dreams.
There is no evidence for the external physical universe at all.
> The construct, by the way, is cool, and I am proud of you. Really. But I
> believe (believe?!) that the nature of reality is different, unknown and
> perhaps not amenable to analysis that can be put into words. In other words,
> as Bill might say, the answer is wordless. And thoughtless.
The answer to what question?
The question before the court is a simple and exact question:
Does actual space and time exist as it is represented to us in our
conscious renditions of it, or are we dreaming of space and time where
there is none?
If there is no space or time out there just conscious experiences
of them, then who or what is cause if cause is not out there, and if we
are not made of outthere, a physical body.
And if there WERE external space and time, how could we ever prove
it? Or even support it?
And if we can prove that we can never prove it, why surmise it?
Quantum Mechanics long ago gave up surmising about things that
can't be measured.
Clearly something exists other than us, the question is what is its
true nature, matter, energy, space and time, or consciousness?
> What I hope for is that there we are more than just coal, water and air,
> that there is indeed a mystery, and that we will one "day" know it.
OK, the second question before the court, simple as pie is as
follow:
We DEFINE a machine as any system of parts interacting with each
other via cause and effect across a spacetime distance.
Qustion: Can this machine learn with perfect certainty anything?
That it exits? That matter, energy, space or time exist?
That it is receiving two different frequencies of light, that we
might call red and green or blue but it calls 700nm?
Simple question, any information theory professional will tell you
conclusively, no.
A machine can't verify any causal pathway or any parqt of
itself no matter how many video cameras it has trained on itself.
A can say 'I exist!' and be right, but it can't LEARN that it
exists with perfect certainties, and thus verify or KNOW that it is right.
That's because a machine that learns only via causal pathways can't
use causal pathways to verify any of the causal pathways it is using to
learn with or about.
Since consciouness can SEE the causal pathway directly between
its experience of two different colors and its conclusion that
there are in fact two different colors there, and reverify with the
same answer until the cows come home, it is clear that a conscious
unit is not a machine using causal pathways to learn about itself.
Note, conscious learning IS a cauasl pathway, but the conscious
unit is not USING results of the causal pathway to learn with or
compuate back to cause from the final effect it sees.
In the machine, cause and effect are two different events,
at two different times, and the cause is gone by the time the
effect happens. Thus the machine computes back to the theoretical
nature of that cause from what it sees in the effect.
The machine is thus 'learning' about the cause by looking
at the effect.
In the conscious unit, cause and effect are one and the same even
in a single moment of time and space. There is no distance in time or
space between them. The conscious unit does see the effect and compute
back to the cause under trhe assumption if there is an effect there must
be a cause, the conscious unit looks at the CAUSE directly and sees IT
CAUSING the EFFECT, thus the conscious unit not only is certain of the
cause directly but also that the cause caused the effect the machine
also sees with perfect certainty.
This is self luminousness or zero emission learning.
Zero emission learning is messenger free learning.
Zero emission learning is not a space time process because there is
no space or time between cause and effect, if there were, the cause
would be gone by the time the effect got there, and the machine would
have only the effect to look at and a gone cause to surmise about.
Thus a machine is forever blind to cause, while a conscious unit,
well all a conscious unit ever sees is agent colorform.
This also comes back to the universal and existential statement
problem.
Any universal statement can be disproven but not proven.
Universal: All daisies are black.
This can never be shown to be true, but can be shown false, by
presenting one white daisy.
Existential: There exists at least one white daisey.
This can never be shown to be false, but can be shown to be true.
Again one white daisy will do it.
The statement "There exists an independent objective physical
universe independent of our conscious experience" is an existential
statement.
It is easy to prove.
Show me one.
Lastly remember we all have an addiction to mysteries, without them
people think life wouldn't be worth living, for the seeeking, searching,
trying to find, looking for and discovery function of the mind would
grind to a halt.
So its fine if there are mysteries and unknowables, we are not
dealing with them, we are dealing with perfect certainies, things we can
know and that's it.
Except for the one little problem of memory of past lives, if we
have CHOSEN for forget them intentionally, then there are many questions
that need to be answered, why, how, when, and what should we do about
it?
Do we have amnesia?
Is our amnesia benign?
Did we choose to forget, and choose to forget the choice to forget?
Motivation please...
An approach to undoing the choice to forget would also
be useful.
Thus these issues have astounding ramifications and are sloughed
off and "Oh Posh!"ed only by fools.
Homer
Sun Nov 8 19:32:31 EST 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 2 12:00:03 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore985.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)
iD8DBQFaItwTURT1lqxE3HERAga0AKDRWq5yu/RjCCaUt+NacA5pj0OHvgCgws+d
0Kg26j+XjxNbVdWhDaRQqE0=
=lN/w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
HOM49 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
EXTERIOR AND THE SOVEREIGN STATE
This piece references a number written on a 3x5 card taped to the
back of the preclear's head every session. When he exteriorizes, he
should be able to tell the auditor what the number is.
This doesn't mean he can see next door, but it does mean he can see
the back of his own head as it actually is.
Homer
LR1467 (lr1467@aol.com) wrote:
>Ext from body is no guarantee of ext from mind. PC could take occlusions with
>him as well as consids that he needs eyes to see with. So not seeing the
>number wouldn't prove anything anyway.
Yes of course, but with the number there, you could catch those who
have full perceptics. Roland said he could see the back of his head, he
probably has more evidence than he is willing to admit, should run the
incident R3R.
Maybe a speck of dandruff on his back collar he saw, he could have
checked it out later when he stumbled home.
That would be a joke no? See the evidence, bypass it, then
complain forever afterwards that he needs Proof!
I have been auditing Interior-Exterior extensively.
There are many levels of interiorization. One can get out of body
and be in the physical universe, or one can get out of the physical
universe, or one can get out of UNIVERSES, etc.
This physical universe probably has a heavy track of suppression
about getting out of the body, as that gives one immense and dangerous
physical universe powers, to perceive into other people's business and
be invisible yourself etc. Forget moving the marble. No money in that.
Power lies in PERCEIVING. This universe, other universes, co
universes, higher universes, lower universes, other beings, melded
beings, spiritual teammates etc.
If you look out there and all you see is a wall, there is something
you are not perceiving.
Run,
"Get the idea of perceiving."
"Get the idea of not perceiving."
So the being exteriorizes from the body and suddenly is faced with
overwhelming fear, fear of finding out, fear of being found out, mustn't
perceive lest they come and do it to him again, etc.
The being has an ARC break about having been in a body and
believing he was mortal, but he's too scared of being out to find out
why he is in! So he tries to find out without getting out!
If he does get out, he takes a quick non look around so to speak
and jams back in again, usually on sympathy for the body etc, and then
can't be gotten out again.
That may be the next higher exteriorization kicking in and needing
to be run. He just got out of his body and it was too scary, so he went
back in and now he's trying to ext from the physical universe completely
while still inside his body.
Well that's workable, and may fool the THEY he is so scared of who
are outside the body just waiting for him to get out again, but he's
gotta spot that is what's going on, he's trying to get out of the
physical universe without getting out of the body first.
So each universe had a reason for interiorizing into the universe
within it, and finally into a body, and that's a lot of pressure to stay
in and not get out. But if you exteriorize to the Sovereign Universe
before universes, then its just peace and yourself and your desire to
engage space time for thrill and romance.
Its SAFE there, because no one is forcing you to come in, no one is
chasing you, no one is punishing you, executing you forever and ever,
burying you, entombing you etc. All there is, is you and a whole hell
of a lot of Class, universal friendliness.
Now you take this poor meatball and exteriorize him from his body,
and suddenly his whole world view changes, whaddya know the world is a
dream and I didn't know it!.
But he starts asking questions, questions can kill you, what am I
doing here, what did I *DO* to get here, what should I *DO* to get out,
you see querying cause, cause, cause...
Along with who, how, what, where, when, why, which, and he also
runs into his ridge about perceiving the answers to the questions, very
deadly consequences to answering any of them, and so he is stuck
exterior wanting to know and not daring to know lest THEY pick up that
he has found out and knock him out again for another trillion years of
suffering thinking he is made of meat.
So he goes back in and won't come out again.
But that means he now needs to exteriorize at the next level up,
ext from the physical universe, the next dream up, where maybe the same
thing will happen, and then he exts the next dream up, until finally he
exts to his Sovereign state, at which point the *FEAR* goes away. He
still doesn't know, but he finds one safe place in all of existence,
namely himself, and that provides the infinite confidence to start
facing all the reasons he shouldn't be exterior lower down.
So later he is auditing again, and starts to get lose in his body,
and the fear turns on and he says "Oh to hell with this!, Come get me
you big over blown asswipes."
Joke is, when the fear ridge is gone, they can't grab him, he's
just a ghost to them!
So I would surmise that the process of ext with full perceptics,
involves ext from all known and unknown universes all the way back up to
Sovereign state, and then he has the confidence to come back down and
start getting out of each layer one by one.
You know Sovereign State doesn't have to be this huge super nova
explosion, you can just touch it for a second, total beauty, humor,
peace and healing etc, and suddenly you KNOW what you can do and how to
do it, even if you don't know who you are or where you are.
Probably many people have touched this state and bypassed it, it
needs to be rehabbed and recognized or else the rest will stick.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Dec 1 12:00:02 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom49.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)
iD8DBQFaIYqTURT1lqxE3HERArAiAKCiU0qSu/rVN7qN5fBaLo+9atWmgACfXaVM
4tmyYbaL8eJtzwyCrFPjNWE=
=oH16
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
EXTERIOR AND THE SOVEREIGN STATE
This piece references a number written on a 3x5 card taped to the
back of the preclear's head every session. When he exteriorizes, he
should be able to tell the auditor what the number is.
This doesn't mean he can see next door, but it does mean he can see
the back of his own head as it actually is.
Homer
LR1467 (lr1467@aol.com) wrote:
>Ext from body is no guarantee of ext from mind. PC could take occlusions with
>him as well as consids that he needs eyes to see with. So not seeing the
>number wouldn't prove anything anyway.
Yes of course, but with the number there, you could catch those who
have full perceptics. Roland said he could see the back of his head, he
probably has more evidence than he is willing to admit, should run the
incident R3R.
Maybe a speck of dandruff on his back collar he saw, he could have
checked it out later when he stumbled home.
That would be a joke no? See the evidence, bypass it, then
complain forever afterwards that he needs Proof!
I have been auditing Interior-Exterior extensively.
There are many levels of interiorization. One can get out of body
and be in the physical universe, or one can get out of the physical
universe, or one can get out of UNIVERSES, etc.
This physical universe probably has a heavy track of suppression
about getting out of the body, as that gives one immense and dangerous
physical universe powers, to perceive into other people's business and
be invisible yourself etc. Forget moving the marble. No money in that.
Power lies in PERCEIVING. This universe, other universes, co
universes, higher universes, lower universes, other beings, melded
beings, spiritual teammates etc.
If you look out there and all you see is a wall, there is something
you are not perceiving.
Run,
"Get the idea of perceiving."
"Get the idea of not perceiving."
So the being exteriorizes from the body and suddenly is faced with
overwhelming fear, fear of finding out, fear of being found out, mustn't
perceive lest they come and do it to him again, etc.
The being has an ARC break about having been in a body and
believing he was mortal, but he's too scared of being out to find out
why he is in! So he tries to find out without getting out!
If he does get out, he takes a quick non look around so to speak
and jams back in again, usually on sympathy for the body etc, and then
can't be gotten out again.
That may be the next higher exteriorization kicking in and needing
to be run. He just got out of his body and it was too scary, so he went
back in and now he's trying to ext from the physical universe completely
while still inside his body.
Well that's workable, and may fool the THEY he is so scared of who
are outside the body just waiting for him to get out again, but he's
gotta spot that is what's going on, he's trying to get out of the
physical universe without getting out of the body first.
So each universe had a reason for interiorizing into the universe
within it, and finally into a body, and that's a lot of pressure to stay
in and not get out. But if you exteriorize to the Sovereign Universe
before universes, then its just peace and yourself and your desire to
engage space time for thrill and romance.
Its SAFE there, because no one is forcing you to come in, no one is
chasing you, no one is punishing you, executing you forever and ever,
burying you, entombing you etc. All there is, is you and a whole hell
of a lot of Class, universal friendliness.
Now you take this poor meatball and exteriorize him from his body,
and suddenly his whole world view changes, whaddya know the world is a
dream and I didn't know it!.
But he starts asking questions, questions can kill you, what am I
doing here, what did I *DO* to get here, what should I *DO* to get out,
you see querying cause, cause, cause...
Along with who, how, what, where, when, why, which, and he also
runs into his ridge about perceiving the answers to the questions, very
deadly consequences to answering any of them, and so he is stuck
exterior wanting to know and not daring to know lest THEY pick up that
he has found out and knock him out again for another trillion years of
suffering thinking he is made of meat.
So he goes back in and won't come out again.
But that means he now needs to exteriorize at the next level up,
ext from the physical universe, the next dream up, where maybe the same
thing will happen, and then he exts the next dream up, until finally he
exts to his Sovereign state, at which point the *FEAR* goes away. He
still doesn't know, but he finds one safe place in all of existence,
namely himself, and that provides the infinite confidence to start
facing all the reasons he shouldn't be exterior lower down.
So later he is auditing again, and starts to get lose in his body,
and the fear turns on and he says "Oh to hell with this!, Come get me
you big over blown asswipes."
Joke is, when the fear ridge is gone, they can't grab him, he's
just a ghost to them!
So I would surmise that the process of ext with full perceptics,
involves ext from all known and unknown universes all the way back up to
Sovereign state, and then he has the confidence to come back down and
start getting out of each layer one by one.
You know Sovereign State doesn't have to be this huge super nova
explosion, you can just touch it for a second, total beauty, humor,
peace and healing etc, and suddenly you KNOW what you can do and how to
do it, even if you don't know who you are or where you are.
Probably many people have touched this state and bypassed it, it
needs to be rehabbed and recognized or else the rest will stick.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Dec 1 12:00:02 EST 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom49.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)
iD8DBQFaIYqTURT1lqxE3HERArAiAKCiU0qSu/rVN7qN5fBaLo+9atWmgACfXaVM
4tmyYbaL8eJtzwyCrFPjNWE=
=oH16
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)