-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE CYCLE OF A THETAN
The cycle of a thetan goes like this.
1.) A CHASE B
He creates a universe with postulate A that contains conditions and
limitations on chasing B. B may or may not be well defined, and may
validly change over time, but the REASON WHY he creates A is IN ORDER TO
CHASE B, there would be no other reason to have A.
In fact without the chase, he wouldn't be able to keep A around for
long.
Oh no, its not true that this universe is here for no reason, and
the being just came along to meddle in it.
This universe exists explicitly so he can stub his toe chasing his
girl up Mount Everest.
A game with some aesthetics to it, win or lose.
Passion, talent and honed skill.
This isn't about winning, this is about playing.
A GodSoul that only plays games that he thinks he will win is a
spaghetti noodle indeed.
So the passion has to be in the playing, not the winning. Once the
passion moves over to winning, he's gone, as he will bypass playing to
win directly via corruption, temptation and seduction.
Cheating, deceit and treason.
Run,
The beauty of winning.
The beauty of losing.
The beauty of having at least tried.
2.) POSTULATE AND QUESTION
As a natural matter of course in universe A, a universe of
conditions and limitations and RANDOMITY, the being will encounter a
postulate of failure.
The failure IS the postulate.
At this point he chooses to ask 2 questions:
a.) Why did this happen?
b.) What should I DO about it?
These take him further away in time from the postulate of failure,
and thus more into the solidity of that postulate.
3.) ANDS
Since he is now seeking a wrong answer to those questions, as ANY
answer is a wrong answer, he feels miserable, desperately seeking an
answer he is terrified of finding out.
This creates his first AND:
To NOT KNOW and TO KNOW at the same time.
He is reaching for the truth with all his might, and daring not to
find it.
AUDITING
The correct way to deal with the postulate of failure is NOT to
move forward in time and ask questions about what MORE he can create or
do to fix or rememdy the failure.
The correct way to deal with the postulate of failure is to be in
the postulate of failure until it vanishes on its own accord.
God's can do that.
After a life time of asking questions however, one needs to run out
the question asking first.
One runs out a question by asking the question with no intent to
answer it.
Its like a door that is stuck closed because it needs to be pushed
closed again to open it.
The door has been slammed shut, and now he is trying with all his
effort to pull it open.
That's like trying to answer a question.
No, we want him to simply put his hand on the door, and pull gently
noticing with complete calm that it won't open, then push calmly to
close it again, until it opens.
That's like asking the question without trying to answer it.
It's the choice to NOT KNOW the answer that then springs the answer
into view.
The effort to ask a question, and the effort to answer it are two
completely different efforts.
One is a simple communication, the second is a hurried search for,
looking for, trying to find, seeking etc, which is pulling desperately
on a door to open it, when it only needs to be pushed closed again
lightly to obtain the result.
Pushing the door closed is not knowing the answer to the question.
The effort to ask a question is a SUCCESS.
The effort to answer the quesiton is a FAILURE.
THE SIZE OF THE BEING.
Beings like to consider themselves somehow fundamentally smaller
than the universe A that they find themselves in.
This protects them from waking up and having A vanish.
But the purpose of creating A is to chase B, and so one might
expect that the power invested in not having and chasing B is the same
order of magnitude as the power invested in creating A in the first
place.
Thus the being when he tries to self audit, 'seeking' his basic
goals, still considers himself and his goals smaller than the universe
or his presence in it.
Thus he misses his goals and the true enormity of power with which
he flowed himself into engagement with universe A, and thus he goes
reeling off into the end of time where a garbage pail awaits him.
Thus successful auditing recognizes that A and B are of comparable
magnitude.
How big is the universe you are in?
Just so, then, are your goals, your desire to chase them, and the
things that oppose them.
Hubbard used to call B GPMS.
GPMS are not IN the universe, the universe is apparently made of
them.
BIG AND SMALL
The being considers that the universe A is big, and he is small.
This is a necesssary deceit at some point to keep some game or
another going.
He likes being small facing some unconceivable (big) odds.
What's the glory in it otherwise?
But to a being who can create in the mere conception of things, if
it is unconceivable, then it is uncreatable, and if it is uncreatable it
is unvanishable, so he gets stuck with unconceivable odds, because he
can't or won't conceive them.
Glory is minimal payment for losing that game.
So now he is in a dwindling spiral of getting smaller in a universe
that is getting bigger, and believe me universe A consists of a lot more
than just the physical universe that the men in white lab coats harp
about all the time.
One way to run this is:
How big a goal can you conceive?
How big an opposition can you conceive?
How small a goal can you conceive?
How small an opposition can you conceive?
OR:
Spot a big goal.
Spot a big opposition.
Spot a small goal.
Spot a small opposition.
Find failure postulates, questions, wrong answer seeking, and ands.
Spot the garbage pail awaiting him at the end of time, head down,
if he continues with this nonsense.
Spot the few pennies of glory he was paid for playing, in his
pocket.
NO garbage pail.
SOME garbage pail.
NO glory.
SOME glory.
Use NO and SOME as needed, it won't run on just SOME, most of our
history is in NO or REFUSED.
When it goes SOME for real, you will know it!
TNT, TOTALLY NONEVALUATIVE TECHNOLOGY
It is well known that the auditor should not evaluate for the
preclear about his case in session.
To evaluate means to determine the truth or importance value of an
idea, event, or something that is real to the preclear.
However the preclear is never allowed to C/S himself, to determine
his own auditing program, although it can be pretty much the same for
everyone most of the time.
So SOMEONE has to evaluate for the preclear where he is on the
bridge and what his session program in general ought to be.
There are common GENERAL things that need to be handled in every
preclear, but the handling of them will involve SPECIFIC occurances of
them that only the preclear will know.
The general things are A chase B, pre postulates, self answering
questions seeking wrong answers, and NO, SOME and ANDS.
The preclear expects the auditor to know the general items and
demands that the auditor evaluate properly what to audit and how to
audit them.
However the preclear expects the auditor to NOT KNOW the specific
occurances, and thus the auditor must never pretend that he does or try
to guess and indicate.
HOW TO AUDIT
In order to audit properly, one must never ask questions the
preclear can not answer, and one must never do something that indicates
that something is true when it isn't.
Thus "Has a withhold been missed?" can be problematic, remember the
bank is MADE of questions involving death and demise, and every question
the preclear asks of himself or is asked, restimulates his entire bank
in one swoop.
You want to make the volcano shudder?
Ask it a question.
Thus canonical form should be something like tell me about, or
spot, or best of all get the idea of.
For example do not run,
Locate a time someone caused you to be angry.
Run instead,
Spot a time someone caused you to be angry.
Spot NO ANGER - Spot SOME ANGER.
But best of all is probably simply:
Get the idea of someone causing you to be angry.
Get the idea of not being angry.
A being gets as he conceives, and conception is simply getting the
idea of something and thus having it.
Thus we want to run the preclear as close to creative conception
and unconception as possible.
Get the idea of being sad.
Unget the idea of being sad.
Strange English but remarkable results.
Get the idea of asking a question.
Get the idea of NOT asking a question.
Get the idea of NO answer.
Get the idea of SOME answer.
Get the idea that getting the idea of something creates it in the
conception of it.
Unget the idea that getting the idea of something creates it in the
conception of it.
Get the idea that ungetting an idea uncreates it.
Unget the idea that ungetting an idea uncreates it.
Wham, native state. See?
BASIC ANDS
Ands form the basic structure of the bank and the series of masses
the preclear considers to be himself, and which he is in self opposition
with and to.
He WANTS something *AND* he doesn't WANT it at the same time.
Nuts?
Yes.
An indecision is an OR, a waffling between should I go left or
right with engines at idle.
An AND is a DECISION to go BOTH left and right at the same time
with engines at full roar.
An AND has so much power in it, that when the being is doing it, he
feels there is nothing there but frustration.
He doesn't even have the power left to create the frustration!
Mostly he feels like dying 'for no reason'.
Basic ands then have to do with BE DO and HAVE.
BE AND NOT BE at the same time.
DO AND NOT DO at the same time.
HAVE AND NOT HAVE at the same time.
KNOW AND NOT KNOW at the same time.
Then there are basic body ANDS in the sex, death and eating range
on the know to mystery scale.
TO FRACK AND NOT TO FRACK at the same time.
TO DIE AND NOT DIE at the same time.
TO LIVE AND NOT LIVE at the same time.
TO DIE AND TO LIVE at the same time.
TO EAT AND NOT EAT AT THE SAME TIME.
The entire know to mystery scale is there.
TO THINK AND NOT THINK at the same time.
TO EFFORT AND NOT EFFORT at the same time.
You will find your preclear asking where his ability to create
force and effort went.
Its tied up in to create effort and not to create effort at the
same time.
TO FEEL AND NOT FEEL at the same time.
TO LOVE AND HATE at the same time.
TO FEEL NO SYMPATHY FOR AND SYMPATHY FOR at the same time.
TO REMEMBER AND TO FORGET at the same time.
TO GO AND NOT GO at the same time.
Any dicom can and has been turned into an AND by someone in their
effort to persist through time, in other words to live forever until
dead.
Ands are endless and rich, they make up the fabric of the being's
insane involvement in the physical universe.
"I don't want to live forever AND I don't want to die forever."
No ands, no nut cases.
How happy can a guy be who is trying to be both happy and sad at
the same time?
How sad can a guy be who is tring to be both sad and happy at the
same time?
Wanna be happy, be happy.
Wanna be sad, be sad.
The dicom is wide and oceanic at both ends.
Absence of feeling is not neither happy nor sad, it is BOTH happy
and sad, too much of both at the same time makes nothing there.
Take all the incidents on your track and stir them up into one even
mix, what color would it be?
Close your eyes, what do you see? Do you understand?
The most divine shining white AND flourescent black at the same
time, make dismal eternal grey.
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
Sat May 12 16:13:26 EDT 2012
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 28 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore900.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)
iD8DBQFaluATURT1lqxE3HERAh7eAKChZBRyzIwEOZHwgP7zgi8mRBJEaQCfYYND
F705OZcQlXvCw5EDitOTFYU=
=67o+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
ADORE917 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
POLITICALLY CORRECT SPEECH.
Subject: YouTube blocks access to controversial video | EFFector
25.26
The ultimate issue is, if I say something and you don't like it
because it forces you to look in the mirror, and YOU riot, and then YOU
get everyone to claim *I* incited you to riot, you can then ultimately
silence anything, anyone says that you don't like.
Notice that's: You did it, but I CAUSED you to do it by cursing
your stupid God or something.
Negative responsibility in otherwords.
Pretty soon, one can not only not criticize our own government, but
all other foreign governments as well.
Truth is, America is terrified of the Muslims, and is willing to
propitiate their kamikaze ways to maintain our own safety.
Thus we can not speak our minds nor our hearts, lest some Muslim
riot causing untold damage.
This 'you incited me to riot' crap, acts like the spoiled brat
approach to putting a deep freeze over freedom of commentary,
caricature, humor, even sharp witted sarcasm or down right expression of
justifiable hatred and contempt.
Thus, the irresponsibilty of the rioters and faithlessness of
America, acts to make America more like them and less like America.
As I remember guys like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Pol Pot did the
same thing to their populace, "You speak - You die."
At least they didn't blame it on the rioters that responded to our
speech.
Expressed contempt for a Nazi is fine, but expressed contempt for a
Muslim, Christian or Jew is not?
Do you have any idea how bigoted these assholes are?
They think everyone is going to hell forever except them.
They say one thing to your face, and another thing over grace.
Patriotism is love for the constitution, not for the nut jobs in
power or the particular wars they are pushing to line their own pockets.
"The greatest right of all is the freedom from terrorism." - Newt
Gingrich
At what cost dear Sir, a life in a prison cell working hard to pay
the guards to keep you safe from terrorism in your prison cell?
Whatever happened to EARNING respect the old fashioned way?
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Feb 27 13:23:58 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore917.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)
iD8DBQFalaI+URT1lqxE3HERAtqhAKDOR61a/k5gD19SHv3yGqMwzO4eGQCggjCR
/gQfOsCO0IBfPcMFgMwXBss=
=y3WU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
POLITICALLY CORRECT SPEECH.
Subject: YouTube blocks access to controversial video | EFFector
25.26
The ultimate issue is, if I say something and you don't like it
because it forces you to look in the mirror, and YOU riot, and then YOU
get everyone to claim *I* incited you to riot, you can then ultimately
silence anything, anyone says that you don't like.
Notice that's: You did it, but I CAUSED you to do it by cursing
your stupid God or something.
Negative responsibility in otherwords.
Pretty soon, one can not only not criticize our own government, but
all other foreign governments as well.
Truth is, America is terrified of the Muslims, and is willing to
propitiate their kamikaze ways to maintain our own safety.
Thus we can not speak our minds nor our hearts, lest some Muslim
riot causing untold damage.
This 'you incited me to riot' crap, acts like the spoiled brat
approach to putting a deep freeze over freedom of commentary,
caricature, humor, even sharp witted sarcasm or down right expression of
justifiable hatred and contempt.
Thus, the irresponsibilty of the rioters and faithlessness of
America, acts to make America more like them and less like America.
As I remember guys like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Pol Pot did the
same thing to their populace, "You speak - You die."
At least they didn't blame it on the rioters that responded to our
speech.
Expressed contempt for a Nazi is fine, but expressed contempt for a
Muslim, Christian or Jew is not?
Do you have any idea how bigoted these assholes are?
They think everyone is going to hell forever except them.
They say one thing to your face, and another thing over grace.
Patriotism is love for the constitution, not for the nut jobs in
power or the particular wars they are pushing to line their own pockets.
"The greatest right of all is the freedom from terrorism." - Newt
Gingrich
At what cost dear Sir, a life in a prison cell working hard to pay
the guards to keep you safe from terrorism in your prison cell?
Whatever happened to EARNING respect the old fashioned way?
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Feb 27 13:23:58 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore917.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)
iD8DBQFalaI+URT1lqxE3HERAtqhAKDOR61a/k5gD19SHv3yGqMwzO4eGQCggjCR
/gQfOsCO0IBfPcMFgMwXBss=
=y3WU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, February 26, 2018
ADORE737 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE SELF SYMBOLIZING EVENT
Now we know in the physical universe (PU), the only way to see a
radiator (anything that radiates) is to receive and be affected by its
radiation.
In the absence of radiation it is impossible to see the radiator.
In the presence of 'seeing', all we can see is the radiation, no
matter how close we are to the radiator.
We also know that radiation is a second different object from the
radiator itself, thus if the radiator is the original referent, then its
radiation or its future effects, become the radiator's symbols of final
authority, anyone of which can be chosen to learn from about the
original referent radiator.
Thus we learn about the radiator by interacting with the radiation
which produces theoretical learning about the radiator.
The radiation as symbol is evidence for the radiator as referent,
and the radiator as referent is a model for the radiation as symbol,
(for how the radiation could be and got there in the first place.)
Evidence and model make up theory.
Thus learning by being an effect, by being a symbol of a causal
referent, never produces perfect certainty of the alleged causal
referent, but only theory made of model and evidence.
THE THIRD PARTY LAW
The third party law intervenes here, if A causes B to change state,
then by looking at B, we don't know if B changed state truly because of
A, or because of a third party C causally above A and B, that made B
change state AS IF A had caused B to change state.
The third party is the great hidden orchestrator.
The photon on your film plate may have come from a star, or it may
have been made by God mid flight to look like it had come from a star,
or it may be been an accidental spontaneous quantum flux that marked
that area of the film plate exposed when nothing had hit it at all.
Taking more film plates that all agree decreases the probability that
the spot is an accident, but does not reduce the probability to an
absolute perfect certainty, and if God is messing with you then all bets
are off.
Although Occam's Razor tells us to ignore third parties until
absolutely necessary, when one is trying to understand the nature of a
virtual universe, the third party rule becomes tantamount, because the
virtual universe IS a simulation or projection created in the 3rd party
actual universe.
Usually what is virtualized in a virtual universe are not only the
existence of the objects in the virtual universe, but the existence of
any cause between them. If the objects themselves do not actually exist
as represented, then surely actual cause between them is also absent.
THE SELF SYMBOLIZING EVENT
The idea of a self symbolizing event is almost impossible to
conceive of until one actually takes a look at one. One couldn't just
imagine such a thing up out of whole cloth. What would it be like?
But the easiest way to understand it is very simple, any 3rd grader
can get this.
You can't see the cube on the table directly, so you have to look
at the light rays reflected off it.
But you can't see the light rays directly, so you have to look at
your retina which has an image of the cube on it.
But you can't see your retina directly, so you have to look at the
resultant spread of data in the brain's visual cortex.
But you can't see your brain activity directly, so you have to look
at your conscious experience (rendition) of the cube.
But NOW YOU CAN SEE YOUR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE directly, there is no
further symbol to chase, because you aren't seeing your conscious
experience by looking AT SOMETHING ELSE.
Thus that last symbol, your conscious experience, then gets looked
at directly, as if it WERE the next symbol in line, but the next symbol
in line IS ITSELF.
Thus we call a conscious event a self symbolizing event.
Notice there is a cube rendered on your retina, just as there is a
cube rendered in your conscious experience.
Does the retina KNOW it is seeing a cube?
No the retina is merely being in a state, it isn't knowing
anything.
But your conscious experience is both being in a state and knowing
it is in that state.
Knowing about being is what we call self luminousness, or self
awareness.
Further there is no TIME between the state your consciousness is
being in, and the knowing it is in that state.
Any machine can be in a state, and then via causal pathways enter
another state that represents that it is in the first state. But the
two states of being and knowing about being are always separated by a
causal pathway and TIME.
Thus the state that the machine knows it is being, is a PRIOR
state, never the same state that the knowing about being is.
Thus a machine can only 'know' about itself in the past. NOW can
only know about THEN, and those are two different objects and thus can
not produce certainty and the causal pathway between them can neither be
perceived or verified.
The conscious being however can BE and KNOW IT IS BEING at the same
time because the whole process is timeless.
Yes there is still a causal pathway between the conscious state of
BEING and the causally related state of KNOWING BEING, but since the
referent IS the symbol, there is no time between cause and effect, and
thus the conscious unit can only be self aware of itself as it is NOW.
A conscious unit CAN NEVER BE AWARE OF HOW IT WAS IN THE PAST,
except through the mechanical trick of memory, which is fundamentally
uncertain.
Thus self awareness for a machine is theoretical indirect awareness
of how it was.
Self awareness for a conscious being is perfectly certain direct
awareness of how it is NOW.
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE
The entire PU is simply casual wave after casual wave rippling
through space and time from originating referent to symbol. Each symbol
in turn becomes its own referent and passes the causal wave onto the
next symbol in line.
Everything is a symbol to some earlier referent, and everything is
a referent to some later symbol.
Everything this is the effect of something prior, and everything is
the cause of something later.
Anything that is neither referent nor symbol, well just isn't
partaking in cause and effect.
We call these causal waves causal pathways. The sun emits a
photon, which hits an atom, which absorbs it, which starts to vibrate,
which emits another energy, which is picked up by a sensor, which rings
a bell, which is heard by a technician, who comes in and turns on a
light switch to see what all the hubbub is about, who writes down a
report, which is read by his supervisor who talks about it to a large
audience of scientists, who go home and do their own experiments with
their own photons and sensors.... etc
It just goes on and on forever. Causal waves probably never stop,
they just bounce around forever growing colder and colder as time goes
on.
Each moment of spacetime is called an event or an object, same
thing.
An event or object is simply a moment of spacetime in one state or
another. Even a totally empty moment of space time is an event or
object.
Every object in a causal pathway through spacetime has imprinted on
it a change in state that causally relates back to the nature of the
prior objects in the pathway. We call this a data imprint.
The data imprint happens in the rendition zone of the symbol
object, and is a rendering of the nature of the many prior referents
that were involved in the causal chain up to that point.
Remember that objects have quality sets which describe everything
there is to know about that object, including its position in space and
time, AND its relationships to other objects in the universe.
When an object has a datum about a prior object imprinted on it,
only part of its quality set is changed. That subset of the quality set
that gets changed is the rendition zone, the area that is changed. The
new set of qualities in that rendition zone forming the data imprint
itself is the rendition, in other words the rendering of the nature of
the prior causal object.
Take a video camera attached to a computer, and the video camera is
aimed at a rubic's cube lit by the sun. The computer scans the video
image and turns it into a graphics display list.
A display list is a long list of the vertices of triangles, which
represent the image gleaned from the cube. The computer then sends the
display list to a rendering program which rerenders the data onto a high
resolution graphics screen, and voila, there is the 3D cube in 2D
projection.
Turning the data coming from the original cube into a display list
is an act of rendering in and of itself, and the display list is a
rendition in symbol form.
But then turning the display list back into a graphics image on a
CRT monitor is yet another act of rendering, and the image on the
monitor is the rendition, again in symbol form.
The cube is the original referent.
The display list is a later symbol. The display list has high data
content but almost nonexistent geometricity, or geometrical similarity
to the original referent.
The graphics image on the monitor is yet a later symbol. The image
also has high data content but with very high geometricity, as it looks
like the original cube.
Notice the monitor then becomes the symbol whose state is changed
by the data imprint imposed upon it by the computer.
It is NOT true that the whole monitor changes, most of the monitor
in fact is left quite alone, it is still quite recognizable as a monitor
for example. Its base and power cords, and what it is made of, and all
of its circuitry, remain as they were, although there are changes in
state in much of that also going on.
But the real change in state takes place on the glass surface of
the monitor where the image is finally rendered.
Thus that glass surface is the rendition zone, because it is that
subset of the monitor that actually gets changed when the causal wave
emanated by the computer gets done with the monitor and eventually
passes through and becomes heat going off into space.
Take another simpler example, there is a small refrigerator magnet
lying on a table.
It too has a quality set, including where it is, and what time it
is.
As time passes, let's pretend this object does not change much
except to move forward in time as all objects are doing. So it is
sitting there, going pocketa pocketa pocketa (LRH) in time and no other
change is taking place except moving along in time.
Then with your hand you take another magnet and move it near the
magnet on the table causing it to move towards you and then follow you a
bit, then stop moving once you remove your magnet far enough away again.
So the magnet was sitting there, doing nothing but keeping time,
and the suddenly it starts to change state, and it moves in an arc as it
follows your hand and ends up in a different place than where it
started.
Well that magnet is still a magnet, not much about it has changed,
but the small subset of its quality set that describes where the magnet
was and is, has certainly changed. THAT part of the magnet, and THAT
subset of its quality set, is the rendition zone of the event, and the
new state it is in, IS the data imprint about the object that caused it
to move.
In fact by studying its new position, and the course it took from
its old position to the new one, one could probably theorize quite a bit
about the nature of what had moved it. Thus the data imprint becomes
symbolic knowledge, knowledge encoded in symbol form, that can be used
to interpret back to the possible theoretical nature of the original
referent, the magnet that moved it.
One can ask an important question here with a subtle answer.
Once the magnet on the table is moved, and becomes imprinted with
data due to the nature of the causal referent, does that magnet actually
know anything about the causal referent.
Does the magnet KNOW, just because it IS?
Take a simpler example, it is very easy to imprint data or symbol
form knowledge on an object. Say we are in a class room with 20 other
kids and one's name is Julie. So I write on a piece of paper (the
symbol) the words 'This class contains a girl named Julie.'
Now clearly the words I write on the paper are symbols representing
the nature of the class, and clearly they got there because I saw Julie
walk in, so the causal pathway from Julie's presence to the words on the
paper is obvious, and the paper itself is the object with the imprint,
so it too has now become a symbol to the whole event.
Further we can say that the rendition zone is the area of the paper
where the words are written, and the words themselves are the rendering
or rendition on the paper of Julie's presence in the class.
Remember renditions do not have to LOOK like the original referent,
only be causally connected to the original referent.
Lastly someone can look at the symbol paper and read the symbol
words, and interpret them back to the nature of the referent they are
referring to.
So all the parts of a complete learning event are in place.
So here is the 64 dollar question.
DOES THE PAPER KNOW THAT JULIE IS IN THE ROOM?
Just because something has become or IS symbolic knowledge about
something prior, does it mean that same something KNOWS anything at all?
We are going to leave a deeper analysis of this question for later,
but the difference between BEING knowledge and KNOWING knowledge are two
very different things. Surely knowing knowledge would also imply being
knowledge, but any imprinted piece of paper can BE knowledge with out
knowing anything.
We say the paper has been imprinted with data or knowledge in
symbol form. The paper is the symbol substrate which suffers the change
in state representing the symbolic knowledge imprinted on it.
The change of state, the new state plus what is left of the the old
state, IS the data imprint, it is data about how the prior object caused
the present object to change state.
Alright let's continue.
By studying any particular object and its present state, we can
theorize about the causal nature of prior objects in the chain going
back to the beginning of time.
Notice that by studying the changes in state that such prior causes
can effect, all one can ever learn about past objects by looking at the
present state are causal qualities in the preceeding events. If the
preceeding events have qualities that do not causally partake in the
proceedings, you will never know about them by looking only at the
effects and changes in later objects.
THUS THE ONLY QUALITIES OF A REFERENT THAT YOU CAN LEARN BY BEING
AN EFFECT (SYMBOL) OF THAT REFERENT ARE CAUSAL QUALITIES OF RELATION.
between the referent and the symbol.
ORIGINAL REFERENT AND SYMBOL OF FINAL AUTHORITY.
The prior object in the causal chain you are trying to learn about
is called the original referent.
The later object in the chain you are trying to learn from is
called the symbol of final authority.
We call it a symbol because it's state is a causal function of the
prior referent.
We call it a symbol of authority, because it has authoritative data
imprinted on it via direct cause about the prior referent or chain of
referents. That is as close as close comes to authoritative veracity in
the physical universe.
We call it a symbol of FINAL authority, because no later symbol is
being inspected to glean the imprinted data about the prior referent.
We COULD use an earlier or later symbol to glean our knowledge of the
original referent, but then whatever symbol we use becomes the symbol of
final authority for that particular learning event.
The symbol of final authority can be ANY symbol after the referent,
it is merely the one you choose to study in order to learn about the
referent.
The symbol of final authority happens to be you in case you hadn't
notice. If you don't insert yourself into the chain of causal events,
take a reading WITH YOUR OWN HAND so to speak, by being an effect of
what is going on, you won't even know the chain is taking place as it
passes you by.
Thus for YOU to learn anything, YOU must become a symbol of final
authority for the referent you are trying to learn about.
In the case of a direct conscious experience which is a self
symbolizing event, the referent experience itself becomes the symbol.
That's how consciousness learns about itself.
You do not look at some later other experience to know about the
frist original earlier experience, you see it directly.
LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT
Where there is no effect, there is no learning.
Where there is learning there is always an effect, and the effect
IS the learning.
No effect = no learning.
Learning = theory, because effect does not prove cause.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Radiation does not prove radiator.
Thus nowhere in the PU is there a perfect certainty.
Why exactly is this?
Because you are always trying to learn about event A earlier by
looking at event B later.
B is always separated from A by a finite amount of spacetime no
matter how small. And worse, B just simply isn't A, B is some OTHER
object that was either emanated by A, or was hit by A's radiation or
causal emanation, and which then caused B to change state.
Since learning by being an effect can only produce evidence, model
and theory, there can be no learning with perfect certainty anywhere in
the physical universe as long a you are trying to learn about A by
looking at B.
Notice the correct way to say that is 'trying to learn about A by
BEING B.'
If you and your consciousness aren't personally being the symbol of
final authority, you aren't learning anything period.
In any given causal chain, *YOU* have to be the symbol of final
authority, or YOU won't ever learn anything at all about that chain.
THE REFERENT AND SYMBOL CONTINUUM
In general all events that happen in the PU, pass on causal waves
through them, to the next event in line.
Thus each prior referent event immediately creates a different
later symbol event imprinted with the causal nature of the referent on
it. That symbol then becomes a referent event in its own right, as IT
passes on the causal wave to yet another symbol down the line.
This is the referent and symbol continuum. Each causal wave is a
continuum of events, each one of which is a symbol to prior events, and
a referent to later events.
Each event in the causal chain is a symbol to events PRIOR to it
and therefore distant in spacetime no matter how small.
Each event in the causal chain is a referent to events LATER to it
and therefore also distant in spacetime, no matter how small.
Thus referent and symbol are ALWAYS two different objects, and thus
perfect certainty between them is impossible as learning between them is
limited to interpretation of evidence into theory and model at best.
Alright let's take a break, get some coffee and a donut.
Homer
Sun Mar 28 23:21:54 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Feb 26 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore737.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)
iD8DBQFalD0TURT1lqxE3HERAoGgAKDJdkv43iWdNpUWKswmRErGJRN7xACfTe9C
kxAHvoIke6UnVBObvoLxuAc=
=DkvH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE SELF SYMBOLIZING EVENT
Now we know in the physical universe (PU), the only way to see a
radiator (anything that radiates) is to receive and be affected by its
radiation.
In the absence of radiation it is impossible to see the radiator.
In the presence of 'seeing', all we can see is the radiation, no
matter how close we are to the radiator.
We also know that radiation is a second different object from the
radiator itself, thus if the radiator is the original referent, then its
radiation or its future effects, become the radiator's symbols of final
authority, anyone of which can be chosen to learn from about the
original referent radiator.
Thus we learn about the radiator by interacting with the radiation
which produces theoretical learning about the radiator.
The radiation as symbol is evidence for the radiator as referent,
and the radiator as referent is a model for the radiation as symbol,
(for how the radiation could be and got there in the first place.)
Evidence and model make up theory.
Thus learning by being an effect, by being a symbol of a causal
referent, never produces perfect certainty of the alleged causal
referent, but only theory made of model and evidence.
THE THIRD PARTY LAW
The third party law intervenes here, if A causes B to change state,
then by looking at B, we don't know if B changed state truly because of
A, or because of a third party C causally above A and B, that made B
change state AS IF A had caused B to change state.
The third party is the great hidden orchestrator.
The photon on your film plate may have come from a star, or it may
have been made by God mid flight to look like it had come from a star,
or it may be been an accidental spontaneous quantum flux that marked
that area of the film plate exposed when nothing had hit it at all.
Taking more film plates that all agree decreases the probability that
the spot is an accident, but does not reduce the probability to an
absolute perfect certainty, and if God is messing with you then all bets
are off.
Although Occam's Razor tells us to ignore third parties until
absolutely necessary, when one is trying to understand the nature of a
virtual universe, the third party rule becomes tantamount, because the
virtual universe IS a simulation or projection created in the 3rd party
actual universe.
Usually what is virtualized in a virtual universe are not only the
existence of the objects in the virtual universe, but the existence of
any cause between them. If the objects themselves do not actually exist
as represented, then surely actual cause between them is also absent.
THE SELF SYMBOLIZING EVENT
The idea of a self symbolizing event is almost impossible to
conceive of until one actually takes a look at one. One couldn't just
imagine such a thing up out of whole cloth. What would it be like?
But the easiest way to understand it is very simple, any 3rd grader
can get this.
You can't see the cube on the table directly, so you have to look
at the light rays reflected off it.
But you can't see the light rays directly, so you have to look at
your retina which has an image of the cube on it.
But you can't see your retina directly, so you have to look at the
resultant spread of data in the brain's visual cortex.
But you can't see your brain activity directly, so you have to look
at your conscious experience (rendition) of the cube.
But NOW YOU CAN SEE YOUR CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCE directly, there is no
further symbol to chase, because you aren't seeing your conscious
experience by looking AT SOMETHING ELSE.
Thus that last symbol, your conscious experience, then gets looked
at directly, as if it WERE the next symbol in line, but the next symbol
in line IS ITSELF.
Thus we call a conscious event a self symbolizing event.
Notice there is a cube rendered on your retina, just as there is a
cube rendered in your conscious experience.
Does the retina KNOW it is seeing a cube?
No the retina is merely being in a state, it isn't knowing
anything.
But your conscious experience is both being in a state and knowing
it is in that state.
Knowing about being is what we call self luminousness, or self
awareness.
Further there is no TIME between the state your consciousness is
being in, and the knowing it is in that state.
Any machine can be in a state, and then via causal pathways enter
another state that represents that it is in the first state. But the
two states of being and knowing about being are always separated by a
causal pathway and TIME.
Thus the state that the machine knows it is being, is a PRIOR
state, never the same state that the knowing about being is.
Thus a machine can only 'know' about itself in the past. NOW can
only know about THEN, and those are two different objects and thus can
not produce certainty and the causal pathway between them can neither be
perceived or verified.
The conscious being however can BE and KNOW IT IS BEING at the same
time because the whole process is timeless.
Yes there is still a causal pathway between the conscious state of
BEING and the causally related state of KNOWING BEING, but since the
referent IS the symbol, there is no time between cause and effect, and
thus the conscious unit can only be self aware of itself as it is NOW.
A conscious unit CAN NEVER BE AWARE OF HOW IT WAS IN THE PAST,
except through the mechanical trick of memory, which is fundamentally
uncertain.
Thus self awareness for a machine is theoretical indirect awareness
of how it was.
Self awareness for a conscious being is perfectly certain direct
awareness of how it is NOW.
THE PHYSICAL UNIVERSE
The entire PU is simply casual wave after casual wave rippling
through space and time from originating referent to symbol. Each symbol
in turn becomes its own referent and passes the causal wave onto the
next symbol in line.
Everything is a symbol to some earlier referent, and everything is
a referent to some later symbol.
Everything this is the effect of something prior, and everything is
the cause of something later.
Anything that is neither referent nor symbol, well just isn't
partaking in cause and effect.
We call these causal waves causal pathways. The sun emits a
photon, which hits an atom, which absorbs it, which starts to vibrate,
which emits another energy, which is picked up by a sensor, which rings
a bell, which is heard by a technician, who comes in and turns on a
light switch to see what all the hubbub is about, who writes down a
report, which is read by his supervisor who talks about it to a large
audience of scientists, who go home and do their own experiments with
their own photons and sensors.... etc
It just goes on and on forever. Causal waves probably never stop,
they just bounce around forever growing colder and colder as time goes
on.
Each moment of spacetime is called an event or an object, same
thing.
An event or object is simply a moment of spacetime in one state or
another. Even a totally empty moment of space time is an event or
object.
Every object in a causal pathway through spacetime has imprinted on
it a change in state that causally relates back to the nature of the
prior objects in the pathway. We call this a data imprint.
The data imprint happens in the rendition zone of the symbol
object, and is a rendering of the nature of the many prior referents
that were involved in the causal chain up to that point.
Remember that objects have quality sets which describe everything
there is to know about that object, including its position in space and
time, AND its relationships to other objects in the universe.
When an object has a datum about a prior object imprinted on it,
only part of its quality set is changed. That subset of the quality set
that gets changed is the rendition zone, the area that is changed. The
new set of qualities in that rendition zone forming the data imprint
itself is the rendition, in other words the rendering of the nature of
the prior causal object.
Take a video camera attached to a computer, and the video camera is
aimed at a rubic's cube lit by the sun. The computer scans the video
image and turns it into a graphics display list.
A display list is a long list of the vertices of triangles, which
represent the image gleaned from the cube. The computer then sends the
display list to a rendering program which rerenders the data onto a high
resolution graphics screen, and voila, there is the 3D cube in 2D
projection.
Turning the data coming from the original cube into a display list
is an act of rendering in and of itself, and the display list is a
rendition in symbol form.
But then turning the display list back into a graphics image on a
CRT monitor is yet another act of rendering, and the image on the
monitor is the rendition, again in symbol form.
The cube is the original referent.
The display list is a later symbol. The display list has high data
content but almost nonexistent geometricity, or geometrical similarity
to the original referent.
The graphics image on the monitor is yet a later symbol. The image
also has high data content but with very high geometricity, as it looks
like the original cube.
Notice the monitor then becomes the symbol whose state is changed
by the data imprint imposed upon it by the computer.
It is NOT true that the whole monitor changes, most of the monitor
in fact is left quite alone, it is still quite recognizable as a monitor
for example. Its base and power cords, and what it is made of, and all
of its circuitry, remain as they were, although there are changes in
state in much of that also going on.
But the real change in state takes place on the glass surface of
the monitor where the image is finally rendered.
Thus that glass surface is the rendition zone, because it is that
subset of the monitor that actually gets changed when the causal wave
emanated by the computer gets done with the monitor and eventually
passes through and becomes heat going off into space.
Take another simpler example, there is a small refrigerator magnet
lying on a table.
It too has a quality set, including where it is, and what time it
is.
As time passes, let's pretend this object does not change much
except to move forward in time as all objects are doing. So it is
sitting there, going pocketa pocketa pocketa (LRH) in time and no other
change is taking place except moving along in time.
Then with your hand you take another magnet and move it near the
magnet on the table causing it to move towards you and then follow you a
bit, then stop moving once you remove your magnet far enough away again.
So the magnet was sitting there, doing nothing but keeping time,
and the suddenly it starts to change state, and it moves in an arc as it
follows your hand and ends up in a different place than where it
started.
Well that magnet is still a magnet, not much about it has changed,
but the small subset of its quality set that describes where the magnet
was and is, has certainly changed. THAT part of the magnet, and THAT
subset of its quality set, is the rendition zone of the event, and the
new state it is in, IS the data imprint about the object that caused it
to move.
In fact by studying its new position, and the course it took from
its old position to the new one, one could probably theorize quite a bit
about the nature of what had moved it. Thus the data imprint becomes
symbolic knowledge, knowledge encoded in symbol form, that can be used
to interpret back to the possible theoretical nature of the original
referent, the magnet that moved it.
One can ask an important question here with a subtle answer.
Once the magnet on the table is moved, and becomes imprinted with
data due to the nature of the causal referent, does that magnet actually
know anything about the causal referent.
Does the magnet KNOW, just because it IS?
Take a simpler example, it is very easy to imprint data or symbol
form knowledge on an object. Say we are in a class room with 20 other
kids and one's name is Julie. So I write on a piece of paper (the
symbol) the words 'This class contains a girl named Julie.'
Now clearly the words I write on the paper are symbols representing
the nature of the class, and clearly they got there because I saw Julie
walk in, so the causal pathway from Julie's presence to the words on the
paper is obvious, and the paper itself is the object with the imprint,
so it too has now become a symbol to the whole event.
Further we can say that the rendition zone is the area of the paper
where the words are written, and the words themselves are the rendering
or rendition on the paper of Julie's presence in the class.
Remember renditions do not have to LOOK like the original referent,
only be causally connected to the original referent.
Lastly someone can look at the symbol paper and read the symbol
words, and interpret them back to the nature of the referent they are
referring to.
So all the parts of a complete learning event are in place.
So here is the 64 dollar question.
DOES THE PAPER KNOW THAT JULIE IS IN THE ROOM?
Just because something has become or IS symbolic knowledge about
something prior, does it mean that same something KNOWS anything at all?
We are going to leave a deeper analysis of this question for later,
but the difference between BEING knowledge and KNOWING knowledge are two
very different things. Surely knowing knowledge would also imply being
knowledge, but any imprinted piece of paper can BE knowledge with out
knowing anything.
We say the paper has been imprinted with data or knowledge in
symbol form. The paper is the symbol substrate which suffers the change
in state representing the symbolic knowledge imprinted on it.
The change of state, the new state plus what is left of the the old
state, IS the data imprint, it is data about how the prior object caused
the present object to change state.
Alright let's continue.
By studying any particular object and its present state, we can
theorize about the causal nature of prior objects in the chain going
back to the beginning of time.
Notice that by studying the changes in state that such prior causes
can effect, all one can ever learn about past objects by looking at the
present state are causal qualities in the preceeding events. If the
preceeding events have qualities that do not causally partake in the
proceedings, you will never know about them by looking only at the
effects and changes in later objects.
THUS THE ONLY QUALITIES OF A REFERENT THAT YOU CAN LEARN BY BEING
AN EFFECT (SYMBOL) OF THAT REFERENT ARE CAUSAL QUALITIES OF RELATION.
between the referent and the symbol.
ORIGINAL REFERENT AND SYMBOL OF FINAL AUTHORITY.
The prior object in the causal chain you are trying to learn about
is called the original referent.
The later object in the chain you are trying to learn from is
called the symbol of final authority.
We call it a symbol because it's state is a causal function of the
prior referent.
We call it a symbol of authority, because it has authoritative data
imprinted on it via direct cause about the prior referent or chain of
referents. That is as close as close comes to authoritative veracity in
the physical universe.
We call it a symbol of FINAL authority, because no later symbol is
being inspected to glean the imprinted data about the prior referent.
We COULD use an earlier or later symbol to glean our knowledge of the
original referent, but then whatever symbol we use becomes the symbol of
final authority for that particular learning event.
The symbol of final authority can be ANY symbol after the referent,
it is merely the one you choose to study in order to learn about the
referent.
The symbol of final authority happens to be you in case you hadn't
notice. If you don't insert yourself into the chain of causal events,
take a reading WITH YOUR OWN HAND so to speak, by being an effect of
what is going on, you won't even know the chain is taking place as it
passes you by.
Thus for YOU to learn anything, YOU must become a symbol of final
authority for the referent you are trying to learn about.
In the case of a direct conscious experience which is a self
symbolizing event, the referent experience itself becomes the symbol.
That's how consciousness learns about itself.
You do not look at some later other experience to know about the
frist original earlier experience, you see it directly.
LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT
Where there is no effect, there is no learning.
Where there is learning there is always an effect, and the effect
IS the learning.
No effect = no learning.
Learning = theory, because effect does not prove cause.
Correlation does not prove causation.
Radiation does not prove radiator.
Thus nowhere in the PU is there a perfect certainty.
Why exactly is this?
Because you are always trying to learn about event A earlier by
looking at event B later.
B is always separated from A by a finite amount of spacetime no
matter how small. And worse, B just simply isn't A, B is some OTHER
object that was either emanated by A, or was hit by A's radiation or
causal emanation, and which then caused B to change state.
Since learning by being an effect can only produce evidence, model
and theory, there can be no learning with perfect certainty anywhere in
the physical universe as long a you are trying to learn about A by
looking at B.
Notice the correct way to say that is 'trying to learn about A by
BEING B.'
If you and your consciousness aren't personally being the symbol of
final authority, you aren't learning anything period.
In any given causal chain, *YOU* have to be the symbol of final
authority, or YOU won't ever learn anything at all about that chain.
THE REFERENT AND SYMBOL CONTINUUM
In general all events that happen in the PU, pass on causal waves
through them, to the next event in line.
Thus each prior referent event immediately creates a different
later symbol event imprinted with the causal nature of the referent on
it. That symbol then becomes a referent event in its own right, as IT
passes on the causal wave to yet another symbol down the line.
This is the referent and symbol continuum. Each causal wave is a
continuum of events, each one of which is a symbol to prior events, and
a referent to later events.
Each event in the causal chain is a symbol to events PRIOR to it
and therefore distant in spacetime no matter how small.
Each event in the causal chain is a referent to events LATER to it
and therefore also distant in spacetime, no matter how small.
Thus referent and symbol are ALWAYS two different objects, and thus
perfect certainty between them is impossible as learning between them is
limited to interpretation of evidence into theory and model at best.
Alright let's take a break, get some coffee and a donut.
Homer
Sun Mar 28 23:21:54 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Feb 26 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore737.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)
iD8DBQFalD0TURT1lqxE3HERAoGgAKDJdkv43iWdNpUWKswmRErGJRN7xACfTe9C
kxAHvoIke6UnVBObvoLxuAc=
=DkvH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, February 25, 2018
ADORE404 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
HOW TO AUDIT
11/25/06 Saturday 02:23am EST
05/30/10 Sunday 2:56pm EST
02/25/18 Sunday 11:01pm EST
How you technically approach a pc depends on where they are on
the awareness characteristic chart.
The awareness characteristic chart is the most amazing thing
ever written in the works of man.
For example running 'What's it?' on a NOTISNESS case (below
INACTUALITY) won't work.
He will just drop down to SADISM and take it out on you.
On the other hand auditing a sub oblivion case demands that one
run both NO ITEM AND ITEM.
Take your average pc at SADISM on the ACC, he's on the meter and
he's got a needle rising smoothly like molasses out of the arm of a
statue.
You assess for SADISM and you get nothing.
Zero, zip, zilch, nada, squat, rein.
You assess for NO SADISM and you have to send your e-meter in for
repairs.
So what and how you audit depends entirely on where your pc is in
the scheme of things.
Sadism by the way is the make break point between an easy and a
rough pc. The primary lock down on a pc that keeps him low tone is the
sadism/masochism meatball.
Sadism is the evil we love to fear, something that enjoys hurting
others for pleasure's sake. At the top of sadism we find the cackling
demon, and at the bottom of sadism is unimaginable cruelty and hideous
joy, ending in a death bed of infinite cold heartedness.
Masochism is just sadism towards self. Mockup too much of this
stuff for others, and you end up falling into it yourself.
Above sadism the being is like a sinking balloon, if you let him
sink, he's gone, he won't kick himself up tone, but you can pretty
easily move him up tone, if you are moved to. "Hey YO, let's word clear
DISASTER AND INACTUALITY shall we?"
Immediate interest.
Below sadism/masochism the being is permanently locked down in a
self installed prison to make sure no one will ever let him out.
The lock down starts at fixidity and goes from there on down.
He threw a fit to end all fits.
Above fixidity the being still has all his power, below fixidity,
most of his power forms a steel cage to keep him still.
He may get out, but not because you did anything.
Pray for the prime postulate.
You can cause one if you dare, it is above "projection of
intention," at "casting of cause."
The Awareness Characteristic Chart goes down in octaves, so like
catatonia and fixidity are hamronics of each other, so are hysteria and
glee. The rest can be lined up in this way, for example uncausing and
being an effect.
At the bottom you have criminality.
The last effort of a being trying to give is to take.
However there is little remaining power at criminality, the being
has sunk too far below fixidity, erosion and dispersal to be able to
throw any wattage and the chair he is sitting on is uncausing.
But he can command those that still can throw some wattage.
Thus you will often find the criminal overlord surrounded by those
up at sadism who are merely looking for a licence to harm and to kill.
They are the one's with the power, and THIS is the overt track you need
to run out of the criminal case if you are going to ever bring them back
up to Oblivion.
That's why putting the criminal mastermind in jail doesn't do any
good, he is already in jail. As long as he can give orders, to those on
the outside, he can still function. Criminals LIKE jail, it protects
them and feeds them, something they find hard to do themselves.
PURPOSE OF AUDITING
Now the first thing you need to do is define very clearly for
yourself what the purpose of auditing is.
The purpose of auditing is not to make a being better, Lord God no,
he might get killed if he got better.
Nor is the purpose of auditing to free a being, boring, he's been
there, done that, bought the t-shirt, "Native State or Bust!".
The purpose of auditing is to optimize randomity for the preclear,
to enhance his enjoyment of the chase, of games.
That means if he is too powerful and wins too easily, you seek his
incidents and computations on being unable that prevent him from being
more unable.
Unable to be unable is a game killer and very not OT.
If your pc is losing every game in sight and wants nothing more to
do with games, and he's got all his future games connected to winning
THIS game or else he loses everything forever for free, well then you
audit being able to be more able.
Unable to be able is also a game killer and very not OT.
An OT is able to be able, and able to be unable.
An OT is able to craft his own operating facility.
That's 1/3 the way there to creating a good game: abilities,
barriers and purposes.
The next thing you have to define very clearly for yourself, is
what does existence consist of?
Existence consists of a static pretending to be a kinetic.
Lies in other words, persisting in space and time.
All persistence in space and time and dimensionality of any kind is
persistence of lies and loss of static.
Existence consists of fair chosen limitation.
Static is unlimited, kinetic is limited. Its fine to be a boy, but
then you can't be a girl, not this round in any case, you see?
All of existence is being this and not that.
So all manifesting existence is limitation and thus loss.
But this manifestation as loss has a purpose that makes up for it
FOR A WHILE. Let's say for the moment, this purpose is to share self
love, to have fun playing games, engaging in the chase.
Now during that process of game playing the being has and will bog
down in non optimum randomity, too many games, to few games etc.
Too much of something, too little of something.
Too much of nothing, too little of nothing.
He suffers from can't get anything to persist, all the way down to
he can't get anything to vanish of unpersist.
Auditing at the beginning of a manifestion cycle consists of
helping a being muck it up more, they won't pay you for failing that.
Auditing at the end of a manifestation cycle consists of helping a
being un muck it up more, they won't pay you for failing that either.
So its an issue in posulates, knowledge and skill with as-isness
and alter-isness.
Muckup and Un-muckup.
For a being who is having a hard time keeping games around, you
want to bone him up on alter-isness, particularly the ability to
alter-is while being unaware he is doing so.
For the other kind that can't get out of tar, well then he needs to
know about as-isness. The joke is that an as-isness of alter-isness is
MAKING MORE alter-isness as it is, but with awareness that one is doing
it, so the alter-isness fails to persist and the being goes higher into
as-isness and then native state.
So how do we approach the pc?
Here is some very advanced tech from 2018, you will just have to
wait a while to learn about it.
The being is going around asking him self, two basic questions full
time and with full power.
They are "WHY am I suffering?" and "HOW am I bringing this
suffering about?"
He is trying to make bad things vanish by taking responsibility for
them, but is failing because he is doing it wrong.
One takes responsibility by first admitting he wanted it, then he
can stop wanting it and let it go.
But only AFTER he has succeeded putting the WANTING IT there
for a while however short.
You never get rid of something by DOING something more, you simply
stop putting it there, which is DOING SOMETHING LESS.
So he gets into session and he is just convinced that all these
wrong things that are his suffering is caused by him doing something
WRONG.
"What am I doing wrong?"
You can audit that question until the being is dead, he won't pay
you for sure.
So instead you audit,
"What am I doing right?"
Here's the catcher, right and wrong are relative to what you want
to accomplish.
If you WANT a persistence, which is based on wrongnesses, then the
thing he is doing right to create that persistence is to continually ask
"What am I doing wrong?"
That will make any persistence persist forever.
Persistences of 'wrong things' are not WRONG! They are right!
Thus it becomes a self answering question, what he is doing wrong
is asking what he is doing wrong and thus the persistences persist.
However if he wants to vanish all his bad conditions he needs to
ask "What am I doing right to get all this stuff to persist", which is
in fact asking "What am I doing wrong!"
So if he wants persistence to persist, its wrong to ask what am I
doing right, its right to ask what am I doing wrong, because that is the
right way to make a persistence last.
If he wants vanishment, then he needs to ask what he is doing right
to create all this persistence, which is to endlessly ask what he is
doing wrong!
Once he sees that the right way to create a persistence is to ask
what am I doing wrong to create this persistence, and the right way to
create a vanishment is to ask what am I doing right to create this
persistence, he will stop being crossed eyed on the subject of
persistences and vanishments, and become facile with creating both
persistences and uanishments.
There is a calness to that no matter what is vanishing or
persisting because he knows how to adjust the balance to his liking.
So you audit him on what he is doing right until he congnites that
what he is doing right to create all these persistences to persist is to
plaque them "what am I doing wrong!"
Asking what he is doing wrong worked you see to make those
persistences persist which is exactly what he wanted. So persistences
persist because he is doing the right thing to make persistences happen
which is asking continually what he is doing wrong to make them happen.
So s final word, never run questions, always run causal conception.
"Get the idea of doing something wrong."
"Get the idea of doing something right."
E/P Calmness.
Or expand it out:
"Get the idea of (doing, being, having, knowing, wanting) something
wrong."
"Get the idea of (doing, being, having, knowing, wanting) something
right."
He will eventually see what the right way to create a persistence
is (ask what is wrong), and what the wrong way to create a persistence
is (to ask what is right).
Now Hubbard had a couple of one shot clear processes.
They were all clearly in the direction of boning up on
alter-isness.
The first was "Invent a game".
You see scarcity of games, either because the being was too
powerful or too weak, was to be remedied by creating some games.
The second was "Invent a lie".
Get the being to invent lies, and he will start to see what lies he
has been inventing, clear them out, replace them with new more optimum
lies, and he's off and away.
The third one was "Op Pro by Dup".
Now this was very interesting, because Hubbard explained how it
worked. You got this pc all stuck down in a layer cake of is's.
1.) As-isness
2.) Alter-isness
3.) Is-ness
4.) Not-isness
And you tell him "you look at that wall!" and he goes "What wall?"
OK, that's the not-isness case.
But the point is by doing this, you forced the pc to reoperate the
entire layer cake from top to bottom very fast. He had to be native
state, not looking, then fire up the looking aparatus, put an as-isness
there, then quickly alter it and not is it in order to end up with "What
wall?"
At the top he has a NO WLLl by virtue of native state, at the
bottom he has the APPARENCY OF NO WALL by virtue of Not-isness.
There is a subtle difference, at the top he has a "What's a wall?"
but at the bottom he has a "What wall?"
By doing this repeatedly, you get the pc to EXERCISE all four of
the is's, including AS-ISNESS, and pretty soons he comes up tone to
"What wall?" and then to "What's a wall?" for real.
The wall is gone for him AND NEVER WAS.
So this is a direct application of the axiom that 'The way in is
the way out'. Like Hanzel and Gretle, they left a trail of bread crumbs
as they entered the forest, so they could find their way out. What
better way out than the way you came in? You certaintly don't want to
try to take some OTHER way out.
You see in this case there isn't any other way out.
Thus the pc is convulsively creating an isness layercake, and you
get him to do it intentionally and with forthought and pretty soon the
whole thing starts to come apart as he sees what he is doing.
That's an as-isness at its best.
He just can't keep the self duplicity around any more.
So when a pc is stuck in lies, it might seem odd to ask him to
invent more lies, but asking him for the truth just won't work, as the
operating truth IS lies!
'The True *LIES* will free you, to operate as you kind' - Adore.
He has cork screwed himself in so tight, there is no way he can
just be out. You gotta get him to cork screw himself in again over and
over until he sees where it starts from, then he is out.
But it starts from the TRUTH, not the LIES. So per the 2018 tech
above, you need to run both sides until each side sees how it is
supporting the other.
"Get the idea of a Lie."
"Get the idea of a Truth."
Have you ever found a screw in so tight you couldn't get it out,
until you tried to screw it in tighter, then it freed up to come out
easily? No? Jesus, go buy a screw driver and do something with your
life.
BY PRACTICING COMING IN, YOU PUT YOURSELF OUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO
BE OUT TO COME IN.
The very postulate that you want to come in puts you out.
The postulate you want to get out puts you in.
And that IS the one/two whammy the pc is operating that is keeping
him stuck in.
First he wanted to come in, so he invented all kinds of lies to
create a persistence, then he said I don't like this, and turned around
and tried to get out. That stuck him in. But that is what he wanted.
Without the double whammy and turn around of direction, he tends to
wake up at the first sneeze.
You can't want to get out without postulating you are in. The
preclear is always the effect of the PRE POSTULATE that he has the
problem, preceeded by the POST POSTULATE that he no longer wants it.
Now its quite ok to want to get out, but not after swearing off
ever coming in again, or every HAVING wanted to come in, or denying you
chose to come in, in the first place.
(The as-iness is ALWAYS THE CHOICE TO CREATE AND PERCEIVE.)
So you can't as-is anything except by getting ahold of the CHOICE
to make it in the first place and the choice to forget and deny the
choice!
That attitude "I wouldn't have every made this!" results in you
trying to get out by trying to get out, which sticks you in.
But if you try to get out, by trying to come in, THAT PUTS YOU OUT
where you want to be, and you can change your mind about coming in
again.
It's the unwillingness to come in that stops you from trying to
come in, because you "couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't come in, which then
makes you try to get out.
Without at least some willful motion IN, here can be no willful
motion out.
That's because moving towards getting out STARTS HERE where you
are, but you had to come in to get here!. So a total unwillingess to be
where you are in order to start getting out, means you can never
actually be where you are willingly, and thus can never start the walk to
get out.
"I AM IN, I WANT TO GET OUT." What's the reigning postulate?
Sovereign desire is getting him in, but not getting him out!
Clearly his mere desire to get him out, didn't get him out, so now
he is trying to get out with OTHER means.
"I AM OUT, I WANT TO GET IN". What's the reigning postulate?
He can want to come in, even though he is already in!
The duplication of coming in, also duplicates the originally being
out,
The willing and artistic intent to COME IN!
That's what the coming-in-package consists of, being out and coming
in,
And he can't touch the coming in part of the package without
touching the being out part too.
Natively the being can say "I am OUT, now I am IN here, I am IN
there, I am IN over here", and each IN vanishes automatically when he
puts his attention on the next IN. If he stops creating IN's, the last
one vanishes and he is OUT natively.
The absence of IN *IS* OUT.
But if he says "I am IN, OH NO I CANT STAND THIS, HOW THE HELL DID
I GET HERE, I WANT TO GET OUT," then he is damned forever because his
willingness and sense of responsibilty which is always self operating
whether he is aware of it or not, is gone.
Thus he tries to take his attention off his present IN, and he
can't because his attention is morbidly fixated on his present IN
because 'he didn't create it, and wouldn't have, shouldn't have,
couldn't have created it', and he is trying to go elsewhere while
REMAINING in the present IN in order to remind himself never to go there
again, and so of course he can't rid of it.
And he certainly is not going to go into a DEEPER IN, so
he is only going to try to reach to a further out IN, and that
sticks him where he is.
Even if he just turned around and faced deeper in, that would
be enough for him to start floating out. You see the joke?
Do you see how cruel it is?
Do you see how kind it is?
"Get the idea of cruel."
"Get the idea of kind."
E/P No longer lost.
If he didn't make it, OR he didn't make someone else making it,
then of course his sovereignty is out the tubes and that reversal of
affinity for his present IN is sufficient to keep it around and stuck to
him like glue forever.
He is keeping it around to PROTECT himself from it!
"Jesus, if this happened once, it could happen again, the price of
freedom is a permanent memorial to this IN, and eternal vigilence
against future ones so it never happens again.
And he becomes a Republican or some such.
The only thing that must never happen again is an IN.
And so there are IN's to become stuck in everywhere!
IN and OUT are effortlessly easy to a native state being as long as
awareness of willingness and fair chosen responsibility remains in
place.
It's all fair chosen. There is no other way to get stuck in except
by the above mechanism.
And he has to WANT to get stuck in, and then NOT WANT to be stuck
in but think he is anyhow, in order to get stuck in.
"Get the idea of being in."
"Get the idea of being out."
E/P Able to be where he is consideration free.
So if he is in facing out and screaming to get out, you gotta get
him to turn around again so he is facing in, and ask him to come in
again.
Every time he does this, he is out for a moment, comes in, then
convulsively turns around facing out again, screaming to get out.
Keep at it, and eventually the shit eating grin will develop and he
will be out having a hard time coming in.
"Whaddya know!"
And he will stop turning around and trying to get out because he
will see that is what is sticking him in, and he will take to simply
facing in, at which point he will be so out he won't be able to tell the
difference between in and out, because there is none.
The only difference between in and out is his considered
relationship to the same place that comprises both.
That's probably the best definition of native state I know, the big
shit eating grin in the sky.
Just before the Big Snooze.
So what to audit?
You have a static that WANTED but did not need to become a kinetic.
The kinetic is an illusion in consciousness, it has no actuality at all.
The ILLUSION is not an illusion, the illusion is actual, the dream
is actual, but it is only a dream.
But all the casted CAUSE out there between the kinetic objects
is not actual, it is virtual only.
The static is actual and at all times remains cause, no matter how
much the kinetic thinks the tennis ball bounced off the racket because
the racket hit it.
There just is no cause at all between ball and racket, except the
projected apparency that there is by the static.
So the static rules at all times, and that is why justice rules at
all times.
Justice is you get what you postulate. If you ever didn't you
would be in big trouble, there would never be any recovering you, your
heart would be broken forever.
The pc THINKS he is in exactly that big trouble, but like all
things it is just a persisting lie, and a necessary one to keep
everything around. Without absolutely infinite unconfrontable
injustice, things would just turn to candy and be gone shortly
thereafter.
Just one thought of 'I didn't create this and I didn't create or
agree to anyone else creating this' however, and the whole thing turns
to solid concrete from fear of never being able to get rid of it.
He knows he can't get rid of anything he didn't create or could
would and should create.
Doubting sovereignty leads to non sovereignty.
Don't worry, be happy, it can only last for a while.
The idea of injustice, of I didn't create/agree to this, leads to
apparent violation of sovereign desire, which leads to resistence,
resentment, seriousness, importance, permanance and pain. Drama.
So what do you run?
You have only two choices, every process in existence is subsumed
under these two choices.
1.) Be/Conceive/Mockup a kinetic.
2.) Be/Conceive/Mockup a static.
Notice you have to BE a static in order ot mockup a kinetic, thus
for most pc's 1.) is the way to go. Getting them to mockup a kinetic,
puts them out at the static first!
Just like he can't come in without first being out, he can't mockup
a kinetic with out first operating from he static.
They will do enough of the second process on their own, probably to
their detriment.
But I would just run them alternately forever.
That would keep the being in eternal good humor.
E/P: Able. Able to be able, able to be unable.
"Problem? What's a problem? I can't imagine what a problem is."
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Feb 25 23:02:10 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore404.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)
iD8DBQFak4bCURT1lqxE3HERAps5AJ9FVihtt7oMVn55Xrocat2AoU0dIACfWjck
ZNS/0eyy8GvL3PvFGtlFW84=
=2DeX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
HOW TO AUDIT
11/25/06 Saturday 02:23am EST
05/30/10 Sunday 2:56pm EST
02/25/18 Sunday 11:01pm EST
How you technically approach a pc depends on where they are on
the awareness characteristic chart.
The awareness characteristic chart is the most amazing thing
ever written in the works of man.
For example running 'What's it?' on a NOTISNESS case (below
INACTUALITY) won't work.
He will just drop down to SADISM and take it out on you.
On the other hand auditing a sub oblivion case demands that one
run both NO ITEM AND ITEM.
Take your average pc at SADISM on the ACC, he's on the meter and
he's got a needle rising smoothly like molasses out of the arm of a
statue.
You assess for SADISM and you get nothing.
Zero, zip, zilch, nada, squat, rein.
You assess for NO SADISM and you have to send your e-meter in for
repairs.
So what and how you audit depends entirely on where your pc is in
the scheme of things.
Sadism by the way is the make break point between an easy and a
rough pc. The primary lock down on a pc that keeps him low tone is the
sadism/masochism meatball.
Sadism is the evil we love to fear, something that enjoys hurting
others for pleasure's sake. At the top of sadism we find the cackling
demon, and at the bottom of sadism is unimaginable cruelty and hideous
joy, ending in a death bed of infinite cold heartedness.
Masochism is just sadism towards self. Mockup too much of this
stuff for others, and you end up falling into it yourself.
Above sadism the being is like a sinking balloon, if you let him
sink, he's gone, he won't kick himself up tone, but you can pretty
easily move him up tone, if you are moved to. "Hey YO, let's word clear
DISASTER AND INACTUALITY shall we?"
Immediate interest.
Below sadism/masochism the being is permanently locked down in a
self installed prison to make sure no one will ever let him out.
The lock down starts at fixidity and goes from there on down.
He threw a fit to end all fits.
Above fixidity the being still has all his power, below fixidity,
most of his power forms a steel cage to keep him still.
He may get out, but not because you did anything.
Pray for the prime postulate.
You can cause one if you dare, it is above "projection of
intention," at "casting of cause."
The Awareness Characteristic Chart goes down in octaves, so like
catatonia and fixidity are hamronics of each other, so are hysteria and
glee. The rest can be lined up in this way, for example uncausing and
being an effect.
At the bottom you have criminality.
The last effort of a being trying to give is to take.
However there is little remaining power at criminality, the being
has sunk too far below fixidity, erosion and dispersal to be able to
throw any wattage and the chair he is sitting on is uncausing.
But he can command those that still can throw some wattage.
Thus you will often find the criminal overlord surrounded by those
up at sadism who are merely looking for a licence to harm and to kill.
They are the one's with the power, and THIS is the overt track you need
to run out of the criminal case if you are going to ever bring them back
up to Oblivion.
That's why putting the criminal mastermind in jail doesn't do any
good, he is already in jail. As long as he can give orders, to those on
the outside, he can still function. Criminals LIKE jail, it protects
them and feeds them, something they find hard to do themselves.
PURPOSE OF AUDITING
Now the first thing you need to do is define very clearly for
yourself what the purpose of auditing is.
The purpose of auditing is not to make a being better, Lord God no,
he might get killed if he got better.
Nor is the purpose of auditing to free a being, boring, he's been
there, done that, bought the t-shirt, "Native State or Bust!".
The purpose of auditing is to optimize randomity for the preclear,
to enhance his enjoyment of the chase, of games.
That means if he is too powerful and wins too easily, you seek his
incidents and computations on being unable that prevent him from being
more unable.
Unable to be unable is a game killer and very not OT.
If your pc is losing every game in sight and wants nothing more to
do with games, and he's got all his future games connected to winning
THIS game or else he loses everything forever for free, well then you
audit being able to be more able.
Unable to be able is also a game killer and very not OT.
An OT is able to be able, and able to be unable.
An OT is able to craft his own operating facility.
That's 1/3 the way there to creating a good game: abilities,
barriers and purposes.
The next thing you have to define very clearly for yourself, is
what does existence consist of?
Existence consists of a static pretending to be a kinetic.
Lies in other words, persisting in space and time.
All persistence in space and time and dimensionality of any kind is
persistence of lies and loss of static.
Existence consists of fair chosen limitation.
Static is unlimited, kinetic is limited. Its fine to be a boy, but
then you can't be a girl, not this round in any case, you see?
All of existence is being this and not that.
So all manifesting existence is limitation and thus loss.
But this manifestation as loss has a purpose that makes up for it
FOR A WHILE. Let's say for the moment, this purpose is to share self
love, to have fun playing games, engaging in the chase.
Now during that process of game playing the being has and will bog
down in non optimum randomity, too many games, to few games etc.
Too much of something, too little of something.
Too much of nothing, too little of nothing.
He suffers from can't get anything to persist, all the way down to
he can't get anything to vanish of unpersist.
Auditing at the beginning of a manifestion cycle consists of
helping a being muck it up more, they won't pay you for failing that.
Auditing at the end of a manifestation cycle consists of helping a
being un muck it up more, they won't pay you for failing that either.
So its an issue in posulates, knowledge and skill with as-isness
and alter-isness.
Muckup and Un-muckup.
For a being who is having a hard time keeping games around, you
want to bone him up on alter-isness, particularly the ability to
alter-is while being unaware he is doing so.
For the other kind that can't get out of tar, well then he needs to
know about as-isness. The joke is that an as-isness of alter-isness is
MAKING MORE alter-isness as it is, but with awareness that one is doing
it, so the alter-isness fails to persist and the being goes higher into
as-isness and then native state.
So how do we approach the pc?
Here is some very advanced tech from 2018, you will just have to
wait a while to learn about it.
The being is going around asking him self, two basic questions full
time and with full power.
They are "WHY am I suffering?" and "HOW am I bringing this
suffering about?"
He is trying to make bad things vanish by taking responsibility for
them, but is failing because he is doing it wrong.
One takes responsibility by first admitting he wanted it, then he
can stop wanting it and let it go.
But only AFTER he has succeeded putting the WANTING IT there
for a while however short.
You never get rid of something by DOING something more, you simply
stop putting it there, which is DOING SOMETHING LESS.
So he gets into session and he is just convinced that all these
wrong things that are his suffering is caused by him doing something
WRONG.
"What am I doing wrong?"
You can audit that question until the being is dead, he won't pay
you for sure.
So instead you audit,
"What am I doing right?"
Here's the catcher, right and wrong are relative to what you want
to accomplish.
If you WANT a persistence, which is based on wrongnesses, then the
thing he is doing right to create that persistence is to continually ask
"What am I doing wrong?"
That will make any persistence persist forever.
Persistences of 'wrong things' are not WRONG! They are right!
Thus it becomes a self answering question, what he is doing wrong
is asking what he is doing wrong and thus the persistences persist.
However if he wants to vanish all his bad conditions he needs to
ask "What am I doing right to get all this stuff to persist", which is
in fact asking "What am I doing wrong!"
So if he wants persistence to persist, its wrong to ask what am I
doing right, its right to ask what am I doing wrong, because that is the
right way to make a persistence last.
If he wants vanishment, then he needs to ask what he is doing right
to create all this persistence, which is to endlessly ask what he is
doing wrong!
Once he sees that the right way to create a persistence is to ask
what am I doing wrong to create this persistence, and the right way to
create a vanishment is to ask what am I doing right to create this
persistence, he will stop being crossed eyed on the subject of
persistences and vanishments, and become facile with creating both
persistences and uanishments.
There is a calness to that no matter what is vanishing or
persisting because he knows how to adjust the balance to his liking.
So you audit him on what he is doing right until he congnites that
what he is doing right to create all these persistences to persist is to
plaque them "what am I doing wrong!"
Asking what he is doing wrong worked you see to make those
persistences persist which is exactly what he wanted. So persistences
persist because he is doing the right thing to make persistences happen
which is asking continually what he is doing wrong to make them happen.
So s final word, never run questions, always run causal conception.
"Get the idea of doing something wrong."
"Get the idea of doing something right."
E/P Calmness.
Or expand it out:
"Get the idea of (doing, being, having, knowing, wanting) something
wrong."
"Get the idea of (doing, being, having, knowing, wanting) something
right."
He will eventually see what the right way to create a persistence
is (ask what is wrong), and what the wrong way to create a persistence
is (to ask what is right).
Now Hubbard had a couple of one shot clear processes.
They were all clearly in the direction of boning up on
alter-isness.
The first was "Invent a game".
You see scarcity of games, either because the being was too
powerful or too weak, was to be remedied by creating some games.
The second was "Invent a lie".
Get the being to invent lies, and he will start to see what lies he
has been inventing, clear them out, replace them with new more optimum
lies, and he's off and away.
The third one was "Op Pro by Dup".
Now this was very interesting, because Hubbard explained how it
worked. You got this pc all stuck down in a layer cake of is's.
1.) As-isness
2.) Alter-isness
3.) Is-ness
4.) Not-isness
And you tell him "you look at that wall!" and he goes "What wall?"
OK, that's the not-isness case.
But the point is by doing this, you forced the pc to reoperate the
entire layer cake from top to bottom very fast. He had to be native
state, not looking, then fire up the looking aparatus, put an as-isness
there, then quickly alter it and not is it in order to end up with "What
wall?"
At the top he has a NO WLLl by virtue of native state, at the
bottom he has the APPARENCY OF NO WALL by virtue of Not-isness.
There is a subtle difference, at the top he has a "What's a wall?"
but at the bottom he has a "What wall?"
By doing this repeatedly, you get the pc to EXERCISE all four of
the is's, including AS-ISNESS, and pretty soons he comes up tone to
"What wall?" and then to "What's a wall?" for real.
The wall is gone for him AND NEVER WAS.
So this is a direct application of the axiom that 'The way in is
the way out'. Like Hanzel and Gretle, they left a trail of bread crumbs
as they entered the forest, so they could find their way out. What
better way out than the way you came in? You certaintly don't want to
try to take some OTHER way out.
You see in this case there isn't any other way out.
Thus the pc is convulsively creating an isness layercake, and you
get him to do it intentionally and with forthought and pretty soon the
whole thing starts to come apart as he sees what he is doing.
That's an as-isness at its best.
He just can't keep the self duplicity around any more.
So when a pc is stuck in lies, it might seem odd to ask him to
invent more lies, but asking him for the truth just won't work, as the
operating truth IS lies!
'The True *LIES* will free you, to operate as you kind' - Adore.
He has cork screwed himself in so tight, there is no way he can
just be out. You gotta get him to cork screw himself in again over and
over until he sees where it starts from, then he is out.
But it starts from the TRUTH, not the LIES. So per the 2018 tech
above, you need to run both sides until each side sees how it is
supporting the other.
"Get the idea of a Lie."
"Get the idea of a Truth."
Have you ever found a screw in so tight you couldn't get it out,
until you tried to screw it in tighter, then it freed up to come out
easily? No? Jesus, go buy a screw driver and do something with your
life.
BY PRACTICING COMING IN, YOU PUT YOURSELF OUT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO
BE OUT TO COME IN.
The very postulate that you want to come in puts you out.
The postulate you want to get out puts you in.
And that IS the one/two whammy the pc is operating that is keeping
him stuck in.
First he wanted to come in, so he invented all kinds of lies to
create a persistence, then he said I don't like this, and turned around
and tried to get out. That stuck him in. But that is what he wanted.
Without the double whammy and turn around of direction, he tends to
wake up at the first sneeze.
You can't want to get out without postulating you are in. The
preclear is always the effect of the PRE POSTULATE that he has the
problem, preceeded by the POST POSTULATE that he no longer wants it.
Now its quite ok to want to get out, but not after swearing off
ever coming in again, or every HAVING wanted to come in, or denying you
chose to come in, in the first place.
(The as-iness is ALWAYS THE CHOICE TO CREATE AND PERCEIVE.)
So you can't as-is anything except by getting ahold of the CHOICE
to make it in the first place and the choice to forget and deny the
choice!
That attitude "I wouldn't have every made this!" results in you
trying to get out by trying to get out, which sticks you in.
But if you try to get out, by trying to come in, THAT PUTS YOU OUT
where you want to be, and you can change your mind about coming in
again.
It's the unwillingness to come in that stops you from trying to
come in, because you "couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't come in, which then
makes you try to get out.
Without at least some willful motion IN, here can be no willful
motion out.
That's because moving towards getting out STARTS HERE where you
are, but you had to come in to get here!. So a total unwillingess to be
where you are in order to start getting out, means you can never
actually be where you are willingly, and thus can never start the walk to
get out.
"I AM IN, I WANT TO GET OUT." What's the reigning postulate?
Sovereign desire is getting him in, but not getting him out!
Clearly his mere desire to get him out, didn't get him out, so now
he is trying to get out with OTHER means.
"I AM OUT, I WANT TO GET IN". What's the reigning postulate?
He can want to come in, even though he is already in!
The duplication of coming in, also duplicates the originally being
out,
The willing and artistic intent to COME IN!
That's what the coming-in-package consists of, being out and coming
in,
And he can't touch the coming in part of the package without
touching the being out part too.
Natively the being can say "I am OUT, now I am IN here, I am IN
there, I am IN over here", and each IN vanishes automatically when he
puts his attention on the next IN. If he stops creating IN's, the last
one vanishes and he is OUT natively.
The absence of IN *IS* OUT.
But if he says "I am IN, OH NO I CANT STAND THIS, HOW THE HELL DID
I GET HERE, I WANT TO GET OUT," then he is damned forever because his
willingness and sense of responsibilty which is always self operating
whether he is aware of it or not, is gone.
Thus he tries to take his attention off his present IN, and he
can't because his attention is morbidly fixated on his present IN
because 'he didn't create it, and wouldn't have, shouldn't have,
couldn't have created it', and he is trying to go elsewhere while
REMAINING in the present IN in order to remind himself never to go there
again, and so of course he can't rid of it.
And he certainly is not going to go into a DEEPER IN, so
he is only going to try to reach to a further out IN, and that
sticks him where he is.
Even if he just turned around and faced deeper in, that would
be enough for him to start floating out. You see the joke?
Do you see how cruel it is?
Do you see how kind it is?
"Get the idea of cruel."
"Get the idea of kind."
E/P No longer lost.
If he didn't make it, OR he didn't make someone else making it,
then of course his sovereignty is out the tubes and that reversal of
affinity for his present IN is sufficient to keep it around and stuck to
him like glue forever.
He is keeping it around to PROTECT himself from it!
"Jesus, if this happened once, it could happen again, the price of
freedom is a permanent memorial to this IN, and eternal vigilence
against future ones so it never happens again.
And he becomes a Republican or some such.
The only thing that must never happen again is an IN.
And so there are IN's to become stuck in everywhere!
IN and OUT are effortlessly easy to a native state being as long as
awareness of willingness and fair chosen responsibility remains in
place.
It's all fair chosen. There is no other way to get stuck in except
by the above mechanism.
And he has to WANT to get stuck in, and then NOT WANT to be stuck
in but think he is anyhow, in order to get stuck in.
"Get the idea of being in."
"Get the idea of being out."
E/P Able to be where he is consideration free.
So if he is in facing out and screaming to get out, you gotta get
him to turn around again so he is facing in, and ask him to come in
again.
Every time he does this, he is out for a moment, comes in, then
convulsively turns around facing out again, screaming to get out.
Keep at it, and eventually the shit eating grin will develop and he
will be out having a hard time coming in.
"Whaddya know!"
And he will stop turning around and trying to get out because he
will see that is what is sticking him in, and he will take to simply
facing in, at which point he will be so out he won't be able to tell the
difference between in and out, because there is none.
The only difference between in and out is his considered
relationship to the same place that comprises both.
That's probably the best definition of native state I know, the big
shit eating grin in the sky.
Just before the Big Snooze.
So what to audit?
You have a static that WANTED but did not need to become a kinetic.
The kinetic is an illusion in consciousness, it has no actuality at all.
The ILLUSION is not an illusion, the illusion is actual, the dream
is actual, but it is only a dream.
But all the casted CAUSE out there between the kinetic objects
is not actual, it is virtual only.
The static is actual and at all times remains cause, no matter how
much the kinetic thinks the tennis ball bounced off the racket because
the racket hit it.
There just is no cause at all between ball and racket, except the
projected apparency that there is by the static.
So the static rules at all times, and that is why justice rules at
all times.
Justice is you get what you postulate. If you ever didn't you
would be in big trouble, there would never be any recovering you, your
heart would be broken forever.
The pc THINKS he is in exactly that big trouble, but like all
things it is just a persisting lie, and a necessary one to keep
everything around. Without absolutely infinite unconfrontable
injustice, things would just turn to candy and be gone shortly
thereafter.
Just one thought of 'I didn't create this and I didn't create or
agree to anyone else creating this' however, and the whole thing turns
to solid concrete from fear of never being able to get rid of it.
He knows he can't get rid of anything he didn't create or could
would and should create.
Doubting sovereignty leads to non sovereignty.
Don't worry, be happy, it can only last for a while.
The idea of injustice, of I didn't create/agree to this, leads to
apparent violation of sovereign desire, which leads to resistence,
resentment, seriousness, importance, permanance and pain. Drama.
So what do you run?
You have only two choices, every process in existence is subsumed
under these two choices.
1.) Be/Conceive/Mockup a kinetic.
2.) Be/Conceive/Mockup a static.
Notice you have to BE a static in order ot mockup a kinetic, thus
for most pc's 1.) is the way to go. Getting them to mockup a kinetic,
puts them out at the static first!
Just like he can't come in without first being out, he can't mockup
a kinetic with out first operating from he static.
They will do enough of the second process on their own, probably to
their detriment.
But I would just run them alternately forever.
That would keep the being in eternal good humor.
E/P: Able. Able to be able, able to be unable.
"Problem? What's a problem? I can't imagine what a problem is."
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Feb 25 23:02:10 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore404.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)
iD8DBQFak4bCURT1lqxE3HERAps5AJ9FVihtt7oMVn55Xrocat2AoU0dIACfWjck
ZNS/0eyy8GvL3PvFGtlFW84=
=2DeX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, February 24, 2018
ADORE688 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
HOMER AND SCIENTOLOGY
> I remember back around 1996 when
> this NG was HAPPENIN, from my pov/@least relatively. It's now pretty
> much dead/way too bad, too. I think the fz is way more important than
> the FZ, if you dig?
Yes true. Generic fz as opposed to FZ (tm). fz = freezone
For me I got talked out, core dump done, now everything
I post is new, but it can take weeks of going between
new gains, unless I get into discussion with various people
like you and a few others.
> I don't think so. I just wish scientology critics would get it
> streight and go from there. I imagine I sound like I'm working for
> OSA sometimes. I think the fz is still embryonic/in danger of staying
> that way, if it oesn't find an optimum solution to it's inherant
> problem, which is something like this: lrh said there are no hidden
> comm lines to him.
Uh I believe he lied about that one, surely.
> I also wish more scholar wogs could understand
> what makes lrh great/ write about such. I want scientology to be
> accepted w/out being declawed.
Yeah that goal is always there. Well I got 2 billions years
left on my sea org contract to make it happen.
However I have a problem with a central monolithic control structure
for clearing. I thought at one time that it was the way, but competition
is the only thing that keeps everyone straight.
That's my computation on life, so the one church way to clearing is no
longer of interest to me. Being an Only One and wanting to be an Only One
is nuts just as Hubbard said it was.
Different people take different routes, mine is very LRHish, and in
the basics is very closely aligned. But in the specific approach, its way
different, although it may not be that different if one wants to consider
LRH non standard tech across all the years.
But I am definitely looking for a route ALONE to OT, not to a well and
happy human being, like LRH said clears are a waste of time, we need OT's.
And OT's tend to be very independent until they form a group mind. And I
just don't see one group forming any more.
>> I used to be one of them until I understood the underlying view
>> of the cosmic all, universe arose out of consciousness, that allowed
>> all the new age crystal gazer nonsense to be possible.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised. Why is the trap so tough?
We made it that way because we got sick of figuring it out so easily.
The goal was to create a game that would never end. Impossible, but we
tried again :)
Technically it is tough because we continue to not-is earlier
levels of it, collapsing beginning and end with nothing in between.
Auditing itself is a form of higher level dramatization that
just sinks us 2 steps every time it frees us 3 steps.
That is why AUDITING needs to be run out.
Hidden levels of alter-is and not-is cause as-is to fail. One just
needs to keep on digging and enjoy as best as possible along the way.
The game is intentionally bigger than we know, so we fail in trying to
duplicate it.
Many in the beginning are trying to as-is the game to get rid of it,
but they haven't a clue what they would replace it with. A more mature
approach that leads to faster case gain is the goal to opimize the games
of life, so one isn't interested in auditing any more.
"Sorry I had too much fun today playing tennis to come into
tennis classes..."
>> Then I had a long series of ascension experiences that convinced me
>> there was something here that needed explaining very badly,
>
> via scientology?
Not sure what that means. My interest in scientology was an absolute
alignment between Hubbard and me on the world is a mockup in
consciousness, and we are totally responsible for our own condition and
everyone elses, as we all pre existed any existing condition.
In otherwords the world was created by unanimous agreement.
We also agreed on the importance of dicoms, and the 4 conditions
of existence, as-is, not-is, alter-is and isness.
From there it became a matter of approach to untangling the mess, and
there are lots of ways up the mountain although most go in circles on the
side. I had hope LRH's approach would work for me, but it didn't.
LRH was very concerned about hurting people, he wanted a gradient
scale, the end result is vast majority get stuck in trying to get their
grades or dianetics or drug rundown down and never talk to each other
about anything.
Jesus and Mary sweet mother of God, the way to do a comprehensive drug
rundown is to run down all your drugs and do them comprehensively. LRH
couldn't handle acid cases and he knew it.
The solution to any chronic condition is make more of it.
The monolithic agreement that comes about when people lower
on the tone scale are higher than you in the org crushes any hope
of lasting case gain really being made.
And the world needs good TECH FINDERS, to replace Hubbard and compete
with each other for the cheapest fastest betterest route. Tech finding is
a high crime in the Church so it is dead by its own hand. It will die as
a dinosaur while the rest of us go on around it at a much faster pace.
We may not be very clear, but we sure as hell will be more OT.
Me I don't give a damn about hurting people, I don't care if they go
down in fire and explode at the bottom of the abyss, as long as a real OT
arises from the ashes.
I also fell in love with the e-meter, a virtual dream machine that
could react to my own postulates of not-isness. So the electrical engineer
in me was hooked and still am. Those that pooh the meter are idiots.
And terrified of it.
A meter to an idiot is like a Tribble to a Klingon.
Meters are not necessary but they sure do help.
> I would like you to keep in comm, MR. Smith!
I ain't going anywhere.
I created a whole internet company just so I could write to usenet in
peace and check now and then for smoke coming out of the abyss.
Homer
Thu Dec 17 00:26:33 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Feb 24 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore688.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)
iD8DBQFakZoTURT1lqxE3HERAkHBAJwOjHg0qx49zE3uoQiyibbDMOqUXgCgoaTW
7y3j82Ny+UFU9KhreRoYUYI=
=W2uY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
HOMER AND SCIENTOLOGY
> I remember back around 1996 when
> this NG was HAPPENIN, from my pov/@least relatively. It's now pretty
> much dead/way too bad, too. I think the fz is way more important than
> the FZ, if you dig?
Yes true. Generic fz as opposed to FZ (tm). fz = freezone
For me I got talked out, core dump done, now everything
I post is new, but it can take weeks of going between
new gains, unless I get into discussion with various people
like you and a few others.
> I don't think so. I just wish scientology critics would get it
> streight and go from there. I imagine I sound like I'm working for
> OSA sometimes. I think the fz is still embryonic/in danger of staying
> that way, if it oesn't find an optimum solution to it's inherant
> problem, which is something like this: lrh said there are no hidden
> comm lines to him.
Uh I believe he lied about that one, surely.
> I also wish more scholar wogs could understand
> what makes lrh great/ write about such. I want scientology to be
> accepted w/out being declawed.
Yeah that goal is always there. Well I got 2 billions years
left on my sea org contract to make it happen.
However I have a problem with a central monolithic control structure
for clearing. I thought at one time that it was the way, but competition
is the only thing that keeps everyone straight.
That's my computation on life, so the one church way to clearing is no
longer of interest to me. Being an Only One and wanting to be an Only One
is nuts just as Hubbard said it was.
Different people take different routes, mine is very LRHish, and in
the basics is very closely aligned. But in the specific approach, its way
different, although it may not be that different if one wants to consider
LRH non standard tech across all the years.
But I am definitely looking for a route ALONE to OT, not to a well and
happy human being, like LRH said clears are a waste of time, we need OT's.
And OT's tend to be very independent until they form a group mind. And I
just don't see one group forming any more.
>> I used to be one of them until I understood the underlying view
>> of the cosmic all, universe arose out of consciousness, that allowed
>> all the new age crystal gazer nonsense to be possible.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised. Why is the trap so tough?
We made it that way because we got sick of figuring it out so easily.
The goal was to create a game that would never end. Impossible, but we
tried again :)
Technically it is tough because we continue to not-is earlier
levels of it, collapsing beginning and end with nothing in between.
Auditing itself is a form of higher level dramatization that
just sinks us 2 steps every time it frees us 3 steps.
That is why AUDITING needs to be run out.
Hidden levels of alter-is and not-is cause as-is to fail. One just
needs to keep on digging and enjoy as best as possible along the way.
The game is intentionally bigger than we know, so we fail in trying to
duplicate it.
Many in the beginning are trying to as-is the game to get rid of it,
but they haven't a clue what they would replace it with. A more mature
approach that leads to faster case gain is the goal to opimize the games
of life, so one isn't interested in auditing any more.
"Sorry I had too much fun today playing tennis to come into
tennis classes..."
>> Then I had a long series of ascension experiences that convinced me
>> there was something here that needed explaining very badly,
>
> via scientology?
Not sure what that means. My interest in scientology was an absolute
alignment between Hubbard and me on the world is a mockup in
consciousness, and we are totally responsible for our own condition and
everyone elses, as we all pre existed any existing condition.
In otherwords the world was created by unanimous agreement.
We also agreed on the importance of dicoms, and the 4 conditions
of existence, as-is, not-is, alter-is and isness.
From there it became a matter of approach to untangling the mess, and
there are lots of ways up the mountain although most go in circles on the
side. I had hope LRH's approach would work for me, but it didn't.
LRH was very concerned about hurting people, he wanted a gradient
scale, the end result is vast majority get stuck in trying to get their
grades or dianetics or drug rundown down and never talk to each other
about anything.
Jesus and Mary sweet mother of God, the way to do a comprehensive drug
rundown is to run down all your drugs and do them comprehensively. LRH
couldn't handle acid cases and he knew it.
The solution to any chronic condition is make more of it.
The monolithic agreement that comes about when people lower
on the tone scale are higher than you in the org crushes any hope
of lasting case gain really being made.
And the world needs good TECH FINDERS, to replace Hubbard and compete
with each other for the cheapest fastest betterest route. Tech finding is
a high crime in the Church so it is dead by its own hand. It will die as
a dinosaur while the rest of us go on around it at a much faster pace.
We may not be very clear, but we sure as hell will be more OT.
Me I don't give a damn about hurting people, I don't care if they go
down in fire and explode at the bottom of the abyss, as long as a real OT
arises from the ashes.
I also fell in love with the e-meter, a virtual dream machine that
could react to my own postulates of not-isness. So the electrical engineer
in me was hooked and still am. Those that pooh the meter are idiots.
And terrified of it.
A meter to an idiot is like a Tribble to a Klingon.
Meters are not necessary but they sure do help.
> I would like you to keep in comm, MR. Smith!
I ain't going anywhere.
I created a whole internet company just so I could write to usenet in
peace and check now and then for smoke coming out of the abyss.
Homer
Thu Dec 17 00:26:33 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Feb 24 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore688.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)
iD8DBQFakZoTURT1lqxE3HERAkHBAJwOjHg0qx49zE3uoQiyibbDMOqUXgCgoaTW
7y3j82Ny+UFU9KhreRoYUYI=
=W2uY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, February 23, 2018
ADORE397 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NO DESIRE AND DESIRE III
What powers a being is desire.
What stops a being, aside from view (postulates and
considerations) is mass.
(See DESIRE AND VIEW,
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore209.memo )
Thus what you want to audit is desire, what the being wants, in the
direction of removing mass. Then he can reevaluate his view that led
him down the road to failure and cemented him in the pit at the end of
it.
What you need to know is: what does a being want?
So you ask him, and he says well peace on earth, no more assholes,
all the young titty there is, and a mountain of chocolate!
So you say, "Ok! Well imagine you have all this in spades, what
then?"
He sits there a moment trying to wrap his wits around the idea that
he can feel like he has all this stuff whether he does or not, and then
he says "I want a challenge."
Now a challenge is not the same kind of havingness as a mountain of
chocolate.
You can HAVE a mountain of chocolate.
How can you HAVE a challenge?
A challenge is a desire for a chase, a desire for NOT having and
trying to get. So really as long as the guy is giving you haves for
what he wants rather than chases or, games, he is still off course.
HAVING is a waste of time, PLAYING isn't.
That might sound odd in a world of scarcity, but the being HAS in
native state.
Time is for trying to get. Of course things are scarce in time.
You don't HAVE in time, you CHASE in time.
Every time you win, every time you get what you want, you visit
native state eternality for a moment where you have anything you want
forever for free.
Except a chase.
So the winning of any game is loss of the chase.
So you run
"Spot a challenge."
on him for a while, and eventually he spots a challenge and he gets
that look in his eye as the thing tells him "Oh no you can't!" and he
thinks back "Oh yes I can!"
You will know it when you see it, he's like a hungry wild animal
that has spotted his prey, no attention for anything else.
So at that point you can take a win as an auditor, although you
will lose your pc because he will be out conquering black holes and
turning them into summer resorts or power plants for civilizations.
You won't be out of a job however, because you can bet that
whatever challenge he takes on will on average will be bigger than him,
or else it wouldn't be a real challenge, and he will eventually end up
frustrated buried in tar.
Mental mass.
So you put him back into session and unstick him from all his tar,
and he dusts him self off, says thank you, and maybe he goes for a
second tackle, or maybe he picks another challenge more his size.
But if he picks another challenge, he will be looking at the first
one with that same old look in his eye, and saying,
"I'll be back!"
No game lost is ever quit, your pc is too stupid for that, so they
build up mass and get forgotten, especially if your pc has lost his
class or self esteem playing them.
In the meanwhile he's playing "I'll be back" on every one of them
along his whole track.
"I'll be back" puts the mass in his future, because he has made an
appointment on his future time track with that game again.
Its right there in his appointment book you see,
"Black holes into power plants, someday soon..."
but he needs the mass in place so he can forget about it for a
while.
So now anything he does towards his future is through this mass
hiding that game from him! That makes other games hard to impossible.
So you need to audit this desire thing, this fountainhead of
source, gushering up into the air, in front of his face, which has
become crystalized in tar, obsidian glass and crazy glue, like a volcano
frozen in time.
The flow starts in the rump and goes right up the chakras out the
top.
This is his tower of power, but its all frozen in confusion, self
bewiderment, resentment and super controlled bitter hope.
"Pining is unsighable bitter noble melacholia, usually on the
subject of not operating divine operating religions." - Adore
There is no more flow any more, his tower of power has become just
an edifice to failure.
He's is spending his time playing penuckle championships on the
side of it, rather than getting on with one of its flows on some dynamic
or another.
He doesn't even think this thing is his any more, its someone
else's, at best maybe its his 'symptoms'. Fumaroles blowing off steam,
and he's going 'where the hell did this mountain come from? Hey anyone
want to play cards, its warm here!'
Some people are living near their fumaroles and they are warm all
the time. Others are very far away and they are cold all the time.
But everyone of them is playing cards all day long, on the mountain
side.
'There are many ways up the mountain, but most religions are going
around in circles on its sides" - Adore
So that's what you are auditing and that is ALL you are auditing
because that is all there is to audit.
Desire and view buried in mass.
View is mostly about origination and continuance (of failure).
View is hidden in a stack of resented self answering question
asking.
The mass is created by the wonder. Until he forgets it one day and
fails to come back to it. He can't come back to it, the mass has become too thick.
That's Q&A, a term that means Question and Answer, or changing the
question every time you get an answer even if it isn't right or
complete.
He started off towards A and ended up going somewhere else and no
longer knows about A even though it is still there.
Every time he reaches for anything, a piece of chocolate, his
desire starts off at source and goes towards A, gets deflected to a
whole mess of others failures and eventually ends up at the candy bowl
on his card table.
That's one hell of a circuitous route between source and candy.
He eats in sadness. Playing cards is a facade for disaster covered
in oblivion.
If you can keep it that simple you should be able to hit his core
pretty quickly and blow the whole thing up.
If you yourself aren't off being cold in your own tar pit that is.
Move near one of your own fumaroles where you are warm all the
time, you will be able to audit better.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Nov 8 01:28:59 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 23 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore397.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)
iD8DBQFakEiTURT1lqxE3HERAhCGAKCngHNVSV8TCxC0B0ACP4FgH6npHwCgvRRZ
fwTkyXWGRq8lcrrtlE4hPps=
=hl0q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
NO DESIRE AND DESIRE III
What powers a being is desire.
What stops a being, aside from view (postulates and
considerations) is mass.
(See DESIRE AND VIEW,
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore209.memo )
Thus what you want to audit is desire, what the being wants, in the
direction of removing mass. Then he can reevaluate his view that led
him down the road to failure and cemented him in the pit at the end of
it.
What you need to know is: what does a being want?
So you ask him, and he says well peace on earth, no more assholes,
all the young titty there is, and a mountain of chocolate!
So you say, "Ok! Well imagine you have all this in spades, what
then?"
He sits there a moment trying to wrap his wits around the idea that
he can feel like he has all this stuff whether he does or not, and then
he says "I want a challenge."
Now a challenge is not the same kind of havingness as a mountain of
chocolate.
You can HAVE a mountain of chocolate.
How can you HAVE a challenge?
A challenge is a desire for a chase, a desire for NOT having and
trying to get. So really as long as the guy is giving you haves for
what he wants rather than chases or, games, he is still off course.
HAVING is a waste of time, PLAYING isn't.
That might sound odd in a world of scarcity, but the being HAS in
native state.
Time is for trying to get. Of course things are scarce in time.
You don't HAVE in time, you CHASE in time.
Every time you win, every time you get what you want, you visit
native state eternality for a moment where you have anything you want
forever for free.
Except a chase.
So the winning of any game is loss of the chase.
So you run
"Spot a challenge."
on him for a while, and eventually he spots a challenge and he gets
that look in his eye as the thing tells him "Oh no you can't!" and he
thinks back "Oh yes I can!"
You will know it when you see it, he's like a hungry wild animal
that has spotted his prey, no attention for anything else.
So at that point you can take a win as an auditor, although you
will lose your pc because he will be out conquering black holes and
turning them into summer resorts or power plants for civilizations.
You won't be out of a job however, because you can bet that
whatever challenge he takes on will on average will be bigger than him,
or else it wouldn't be a real challenge, and he will eventually end up
frustrated buried in tar.
Mental mass.
So you put him back into session and unstick him from all his tar,
and he dusts him self off, says thank you, and maybe he goes for a
second tackle, or maybe he picks another challenge more his size.
But if he picks another challenge, he will be looking at the first
one with that same old look in his eye, and saying,
"I'll be back!"
No game lost is ever quit, your pc is too stupid for that, so they
build up mass and get forgotten, especially if your pc has lost his
class or self esteem playing them.
In the meanwhile he's playing "I'll be back" on every one of them
along his whole track.
"I'll be back" puts the mass in his future, because he has made an
appointment on his future time track with that game again.
Its right there in his appointment book you see,
"Black holes into power plants, someday soon..."
but he needs the mass in place so he can forget about it for a
while.
So now anything he does towards his future is through this mass
hiding that game from him! That makes other games hard to impossible.
So you need to audit this desire thing, this fountainhead of
source, gushering up into the air, in front of his face, which has
become crystalized in tar, obsidian glass and crazy glue, like a volcano
frozen in time.
The flow starts in the rump and goes right up the chakras out the
top.
This is his tower of power, but its all frozen in confusion, self
bewiderment, resentment and super controlled bitter hope.
"Pining is unsighable bitter noble melacholia, usually on the
subject of not operating divine operating religions." - Adore
There is no more flow any more, his tower of power has become just
an edifice to failure.
He's is spending his time playing penuckle championships on the
side of it, rather than getting on with one of its flows on some dynamic
or another.
He doesn't even think this thing is his any more, its someone
else's, at best maybe its his 'symptoms'. Fumaroles blowing off steam,
and he's going 'where the hell did this mountain come from? Hey anyone
want to play cards, its warm here!'
Some people are living near their fumaroles and they are warm all
the time. Others are very far away and they are cold all the time.
But everyone of them is playing cards all day long, on the mountain
side.
'There are many ways up the mountain, but most religions are going
around in circles on its sides" - Adore
So that's what you are auditing and that is ALL you are auditing
because that is all there is to audit.
Desire and view buried in mass.
View is mostly about origination and continuance (of failure).
View is hidden in a stack of resented self answering question
asking.
The mass is created by the wonder. Until he forgets it one day and
fails to come back to it. He can't come back to it, the mass has become too thick.
That's Q&A, a term that means Question and Answer, or changing the
question every time you get an answer even if it isn't right or
complete.
He started off towards A and ended up going somewhere else and no
longer knows about A even though it is still there.
Every time he reaches for anything, a piece of chocolate, his
desire starts off at source and goes towards A, gets deflected to a
whole mess of others failures and eventually ends up at the candy bowl
on his card table.
That's one hell of a circuitous route between source and candy.
He eats in sadness. Playing cards is a facade for disaster covered
in oblivion.
If you can keep it that simple you should be able to hit his core
pretty quickly and blow the whole thing up.
If you yourself aren't off being cold in your own tar pit that is.
Move near one of your own fumaroles where you are warm all the
time, you will be able to audit better.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Nov 8 01:28:59 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 23 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore397.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)
iD8DBQFakEiTURT1lqxE3HERAhCGAKCngHNVSV8TCxC0B0ACP4FgH6npHwCgvRRZ
fwTkyXWGRq8lcrrtlE4hPps=
=hl0q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, February 22, 2018
ADORE885 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHY MY CASE FAILED IN THE CHURCH
02/22/18 Thursday 7:27pm EST
Main reason was failure to run fear of finding out.
Homer
The correct answer as best I can give it in present time is, in no
particular order of importance:
1.) Charge too monsterous to view, body in danger from fear.
2.) Forbidden to run simple NOTS, 'You are a BT, what are you, who
are you, how many are you, you are real people!'
3.) Failure to run NO and SOME, on all assessments and all items
found or not found.
3a.) Failure to run NOTHING THERE, SOMETHING THERE properly.
4.) Failure to run ANDS instead of just ORs.
The effort to NOT BE *AND* to BE at the same time.
5.) Failure to run The Proof.
6.) Failure to run goals that competed with Scn or wished to expand
it and continue its tech finding.
7.) Failure to run emotion, particularly *FUTURE* loss, sorrow and
crying.
"How will it be on your last day with _____"
8.) Failure to get off cigarettes for auditing.
8a.) Failure to recognize being massively overly fumed from the
natural background air of cities. In part this came from smoking.
9.) Failure to run commands rather than questions.
"Whats It?" kills.
10.) Failure to run NOT KNOW.
"Not know something."
"Know something."
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
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, homer@lightlink.com wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> OK, so collapsed space = withhold, restraint and justification.
>
> Notis-ness of withhold leads to inactuality, which leads to delusion,
> hysteria, shock, catatonia, and oblivion.
>
> Now when I was in the church, back when they were still doing
> some real auditing, they ran me on withholds, and misssed withholds,
> for hours and hours and hours etc.
>
> But nothing ever came up. Green forms, red forms, yellow forms,
> even the dreaded black form, but no black core incident, no relief, no
> case gain.
>
> Just endless sad effect at the Examiners passing as an F/N.
>
> Why?
>
> Wrong process?
>
> Audited by black core beings?
>
> Source was a black core being?
>
> PC was surrounded by black core BT's?
>
> PC part of a black core cluster?
>
> PC selling black core licenses to mothers to breed out of season
> and for the wrong reason?
>
> PC unable to confront?
>
> PC unwilling to confront?
>
> PC intentionally wasting everyone's time and his own money?
>
> PC had a covert purpose to being audited?
>
> PC failed his A to Z, I mean J?
>
> 1000 hours later pc still hadn't given auditing enough time or
> the church enough money?
>
> Let us once again hear the crowds speak their wisdom, what is the
> exact correct why for my case failure?
>
> Do correct why's open the door?
>
> Homer
>
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
> homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
>
> Wed Sep 6 01:08:14 EDT 2006
>
> ================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
> Thu Dec 8 03:06:02 EST 2011
> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore385.memo
> Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFO4G/qURT1lqxE3HERAkU3AKClV6cT7pskBcsL9d5rufrdBYOi+wCgqToU
> +VZBcbGw1uDHU9o5caQcCH0=
> =nDQA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Homerwsmith-l mailing list
> Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
>
Thu Dec 8 23:18:55 EST 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 21 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore885.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)
iD8DBQFajaWTURT1lqxE3HERAskNAJ9TAOanpnxf3JVVC5saJ0QrMd5qAwCgrUPm
GiYvy1cbP7SOXVV6mEzSiDY=
=NBWn
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Feb 22 19:29:15 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore885.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)
iD8DBQFaj2BdURT1lqxE3HERAo5VAKCjeITwdWCcpIrM8hvuJsYAplWKCgCbBd5k
udLqQZDGArlHQTg3azYuln8=
=yxx+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WHY MY CASE FAILED IN THE CHURCH
02/22/18 Thursday 7:27pm EST
Main reason was failure to run fear of finding out.
Homer
The correct answer as best I can give it in present time is, in no
particular order of importance:
1.) Charge too monsterous to view, body in danger from fear.
2.) Forbidden to run simple NOTS, 'You are a BT, what are you, who
are you, how many are you, you are real people!'
3.) Failure to run NO and SOME, on all assessments and all items
found or not found.
3a.) Failure to run NOTHING THERE, SOMETHING THERE properly.
4.) Failure to run ANDS instead of just ORs.
The effort to NOT BE *AND* to BE at the same time.
5.) Failure to run The Proof.
6.) Failure to run goals that competed with Scn or wished to expand
it and continue its tech finding.
7.) Failure to run emotion, particularly *FUTURE* loss, sorrow and
crying.
"How will it be on your last day with _____"
8.) Failure to get off cigarettes for auditing.
8a.) Failure to recognize being massively overly fumed from the
natural background air of cities. In part this came from smoking.
9.) Failure to run commands rather than questions.
"Whats It?" kills.
10.) Failure to run NOT KNOW.
"Not know something."
"Know something."
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
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011, homer@lightlink.com wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> OK, so collapsed space = withhold, restraint and justification.
>
> Notis-ness of withhold leads to inactuality, which leads to delusion,
> hysteria, shock, catatonia, and oblivion.
>
> Now when I was in the church, back when they were still doing
> some real auditing, they ran me on withholds, and misssed withholds,
> for hours and hours and hours etc.
>
> But nothing ever came up. Green forms, red forms, yellow forms,
> even the dreaded black form, but no black core incident, no relief, no
> case gain.
>
> Just endless sad effect at the Examiners passing as an F/N.
>
> Why?
>
> Wrong process?
>
> Audited by black core beings?
>
> Source was a black core being?
>
> PC was surrounded by black core BT's?
>
> PC part of a black core cluster?
>
> PC selling black core licenses to mothers to breed out of season
> and for the wrong reason?
>
> PC unable to confront?
>
> PC unwilling to confront?
>
> PC intentionally wasting everyone's time and his own money?
>
> PC had a covert purpose to being audited?
>
> PC failed his A to Z, I mean J?
>
> 1000 hours later pc still hadn't given auditing enough time or
> the church enough money?
>
> Let us once again hear the crowds speak their wisdom, what is the
> exact correct why for my case failure?
>
> Do correct why's open the door?
>
> Homer
>
> - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
> homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
>
> Wed Sep 6 01:08:14 EDT 2006
>
> ================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
> Thu Dec 8 03:06:02 EST 2011
> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore385.memo
> Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFO4G/qURT1lqxE3HERAkU3AKClV6cT7pskBcsL9d5rufrdBYOi+wCgqToU
> +VZBcbGw1uDHU9o5caQcCH0=
> =nDQA
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> _______________________________________________
> Homerwsmith-l mailing list
> Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
>
Thu Dec 8 23:18:55 EST 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 21 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore885.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)
iD8DBQFajaWTURT1lqxE3HERAskNAJ9TAOanpnxf3JVVC5saJ0QrMd5qAwCgrUPm
GiYvy1cbP7SOXVV6mEzSiDY=
=NBWn
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Feb 22 19:29:15 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore885.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)
iD8DBQFaj2BdURT1lqxE3HERAo5VAKCjeITwdWCcpIrM8hvuJsYAplWKCgCbBd5k
udLqQZDGArlHQTg3azYuln8=
=yxx+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, February 16, 2018
ADORE823 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE BEGINNING OF MAGIC
Basically in a best of all possible AllThatIs's, which this is,
Good is the eternal existence of what (fortunately) already exists, and
bad would be its non existence.
In other words good is accordance between desire and the WhatIs.
And evil is discordance between desire and the WhatIs.
But the purpose of this WhatIs seems to be the creation of
illusions that this perfect accordance does not exist, and illusions
that the being did not create his present state of illusion.
That's responsibility for irresponsibility.
Thus the goodness of the WhatIs includes the ability to believe for
a while that the WhatIs is bad.
Thus the intent to HAVE accordance between desire and the WhatIS,
includes the intent to NOT HAVE it for a while.
In other words good is having what you want, and bad is not having
what you want, but good seems to want not having what it wants, namely
bad, for a while. Adore defines that intent of good to have bad, to be
Majesty, as in Majestic practical joke.
What troubles me about this view, is that good then really does
have ontological precedence over bad, as bad is an illusion created by
good.
Why the hell would good create bad. That seems to be what good
enjoys creating most. Chase and failure after desired goods.
In otherwords Dura, the world of permanence, creates Sabe, the
world of loss.
However it does present an auditing route out, which is to recover
the goodness to the creation of the bad, at which point the being will
regain sovereignty over the creation of bad and will be able to vanish
it at will.
And that then would be the beginning of pure magic and super power.
Super power is, at the top, the ability and willingness to create a
state of non super power.
Homer
In article <4cf0a87c@news2.lightlink.com> you wrote:
> dapperdobbs <GeorgeCFL@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 1:24?pm, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
>>>
>>> ? ? ? GOOD AND BAD
>>>
>>
>> Very interesting, explanatory, and compelling logic, but ....
>>
>> Consider that God created Order, and that Order itself is good. Then
>> consider that disorder was introduced by Man.
>
> Ok, I will bite.
>
> 'God created order.'
>
> Was God not already a form of order before he created order? No
> problem...
>
> 'disorder was introduced by man.'
>
> Did not God create man or was man an indepdent agent that came in
> and interferred with God's plan?
>
>> So you get a big circle of AllThatIs, a big circle of what God
>> created, inside that a circle of what Man created. I don't see how you
>> can define what Man created as the same as what God created,
>
> Clearly you are missing your own point. If the man circle is
> inside the God circle, then everything made by man is made by God. Only
> if man's creations lie outside of the God's creation circle, can there
> be anything that man created that God did not.
>
> Then God and Man are co creators, each independent of each other.
>
> If so you might as well say that there are two kinds of Gods, one
> trying to create order, and the other trying to create dis order.
>
> And perhaps their circles overlap where they co create the same
> thing. Other wise their circles do not overlap.
>
> even
>> though what Man created falls within the circle of AllThatIs. I.e. The
>> principle of self-determinism does not determine whether what Man
>> creates is good or bad.
>>
>> In brief, when a gang with guns are standing there on your doorstep
>> threatening to kill you, rape your wife and kill her later, thus
>> wiping out your entire family with very substantial pain and
>> suffering, are you going to ponder the inherent encompassment of good
>> and bad, or are you going to shoot the gang, or shoot your wife, or
>> beg, offer money, run, or find just the right thing to say? The
>> question is, I think, "What is the right thing to say?"
>>
>> If one wants to get philosophical about it, then one must duplicate
>> what the gang is in order to effectively find the right thing to ssay.
>> Extending that, one must duplicate God's creation, then create the
>> right thing within it to be harmonious. Harmony, dis-harmony; both
>> imply order.
>>
>> If one considers nothing bad, and nothing good, but each equivalent
>> and just a matter of perspective or opinion, then what is the
>> reasoning for not doing anything one "damn well pleases?"
>
> Yes, exactly. But your decision that order is good might still be
> arbitrary.
>
> All you have said is when in Rome do as the Roman's do.
>
> No mention of who is right or who is wrong.
>
> Take the following example.
>
> As the universe expands, near the end, the fight is to maintain
> anti entropy, energy in useful forms, as the tendency to dissipate
> energy into entropy is relentless. If we don't DO something to maintain
> anti entropy, we won't survive on the good graces of the universe alone.
>
> But if the universe turns around and starts to collapse, near the
> end, the fight will be to maintain entropy, again energy in useful
> forms, because as the universe gets too tight, the tendency towards too
> much compression of energy will again be relentless, and we won't
> survive on the good graces of the universe alone.
>
> In other words we like 72 degrees. In an expanding universe the
> fight is to keep warm. In a collapsing universe, the fight is to stay
> cool.
>
> So in the first anti entropy is good, and those that help in that
> direction are good, and those that create entropy where it is not
> desired or which wastes hard earned anti entropy are the bad guys.
>
> But in the collapsing universe its the other way around.
>
> So in this sense survial is good as a top level generic, and
> everything else is consideration dependent upon how we have made
> survival dependent on the state of the universe.
>
> But one can imagine a higher god state where survival in space time
> is in fact no longer good, so one really wants the maintain facility in
> creation, survival and destruction, so a new game can be created.
>
> That then would be the highest good.
>
> Ability to manifest and not manifest at will.
>
> Evil would be the illusion that these do not obtain, and going into
> the valence of such a thing that seeks to make sure they do not obtain.
>
> But one of the things a GodSoul can manifest is the illusion
> that he can not manifest. As a fair chosen manifestation it is good,
> but as an apparency of inability to manifest it is bad.
>
> As long as the God can see his inabilities as fairchosen
> ABILITIES TO BE UNABLE, then he can continue to see the good
> to his suffering.
>
> But he can chose to not see that good, and thus to him
> things look bad. But that too is how he chose it so it
> remains good.
>
> If he wants to recover his awareness of responsibility
> for inability, then helping him do so would be good.
>
> But if he doesn't want to recover (just yet), then such
> help would be bad.
>
> In otherwords if he wants to persist more, then vanishment
> is bad, but if he wants to vanish, then persistence is bad.
>
> Depends on which part of the create, survive, destroy cycle
> he is on.
>
> 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 Nov 27 01:56:38 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 14 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore823.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)
iD8DBQFahGsSURT1lqxE3HERAiZxAJ9EDayLp6pFUjGJXTd/2wlpFrlx6QCfeiE+
8nTOA4feQu0DtZAfPwa3h84=
=N4Pf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE BEGINNING OF MAGIC
Basically in a best of all possible AllThatIs's, which this is,
Good is the eternal existence of what (fortunately) already exists, and
bad would be its non existence.
In other words good is accordance between desire and the WhatIs.
And evil is discordance between desire and the WhatIs.
But the purpose of this WhatIs seems to be the creation of
illusions that this perfect accordance does not exist, and illusions
that the being did not create his present state of illusion.
That's responsibility for irresponsibility.
Thus the goodness of the WhatIs includes the ability to believe for
a while that the WhatIs is bad.
Thus the intent to HAVE accordance between desire and the WhatIS,
includes the intent to NOT HAVE it for a while.
In other words good is having what you want, and bad is not having
what you want, but good seems to want not having what it wants, namely
bad, for a while. Adore defines that intent of good to have bad, to be
Majesty, as in Majestic practical joke.
What troubles me about this view, is that good then really does
have ontological precedence over bad, as bad is an illusion created by
good.
Why the hell would good create bad. That seems to be what good
enjoys creating most. Chase and failure after desired goods.
In otherwords Dura, the world of permanence, creates Sabe, the
world of loss.
However it does present an auditing route out, which is to recover
the goodness to the creation of the bad, at which point the being will
regain sovereignty over the creation of bad and will be able to vanish
it at will.
And that then would be the beginning of pure magic and super power.
Super power is, at the top, the ability and willingness to create a
state of non super power.
Homer
In article <4cf0a87c@news2.lightlink.com> you wrote:
> dapperdobbs <GeorgeCFL@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 1:24?pm, ho...@lightlink.com wrote:
>>>
>>> ? ? ? GOOD AND BAD
>>>
>>
>> Very interesting, explanatory, and compelling logic, but ....
>>
>> Consider that God created Order, and that Order itself is good. Then
>> consider that disorder was introduced by Man.
>
> Ok, I will bite.
>
> 'God created order.'
>
> Was God not already a form of order before he created order? No
> problem...
>
> 'disorder was introduced by man.'
>
> Did not God create man or was man an indepdent agent that came in
> and interferred with God's plan?
>
>> So you get a big circle of AllThatIs, a big circle of what God
>> created, inside that a circle of what Man created. I don't see how you
>> can define what Man created as the same as what God created,
>
> Clearly you are missing your own point. If the man circle is
> inside the God circle, then everything made by man is made by God. Only
> if man's creations lie outside of the God's creation circle, can there
> be anything that man created that God did not.
>
> Then God and Man are co creators, each independent of each other.
>
> If so you might as well say that there are two kinds of Gods, one
> trying to create order, and the other trying to create dis order.
>
> And perhaps their circles overlap where they co create the same
> thing. Other wise their circles do not overlap.
>
> even
>> though what Man created falls within the circle of AllThatIs. I.e. The
>> principle of self-determinism does not determine whether what Man
>> creates is good or bad.
>>
>> In brief, when a gang with guns are standing there on your doorstep
>> threatening to kill you, rape your wife and kill her later, thus
>> wiping out your entire family with very substantial pain and
>> suffering, are you going to ponder the inherent encompassment of good
>> and bad, or are you going to shoot the gang, or shoot your wife, or
>> beg, offer money, run, or find just the right thing to say? The
>> question is, I think, "What is the right thing to say?"
>>
>> If one wants to get philosophical about it, then one must duplicate
>> what the gang is in order to effectively find the right thing to ssay.
>> Extending that, one must duplicate God's creation, then create the
>> right thing within it to be harmonious. Harmony, dis-harmony; both
>> imply order.
>>
>> If one considers nothing bad, and nothing good, but each equivalent
>> and just a matter of perspective or opinion, then what is the
>> reasoning for not doing anything one "damn well pleases?"
>
> Yes, exactly. But your decision that order is good might still be
> arbitrary.
>
> All you have said is when in Rome do as the Roman's do.
>
> No mention of who is right or who is wrong.
>
> Take the following example.
>
> As the universe expands, near the end, the fight is to maintain
> anti entropy, energy in useful forms, as the tendency to dissipate
> energy into entropy is relentless. If we don't DO something to maintain
> anti entropy, we won't survive on the good graces of the universe alone.
>
> But if the universe turns around and starts to collapse, near the
> end, the fight will be to maintain entropy, again energy in useful
> forms, because as the universe gets too tight, the tendency towards too
> much compression of energy will again be relentless, and we won't
> survive on the good graces of the universe alone.
>
> In other words we like 72 degrees. In an expanding universe the
> fight is to keep warm. In a collapsing universe, the fight is to stay
> cool.
>
> So in the first anti entropy is good, and those that help in that
> direction are good, and those that create entropy where it is not
> desired or which wastes hard earned anti entropy are the bad guys.
>
> But in the collapsing universe its the other way around.
>
> So in this sense survial is good as a top level generic, and
> everything else is consideration dependent upon how we have made
> survival dependent on the state of the universe.
>
> But one can imagine a higher god state where survival in space time
> is in fact no longer good, so one really wants the maintain facility in
> creation, survival and destruction, so a new game can be created.
>
> That then would be the highest good.
>
> Ability to manifest and not manifest at will.
>
> Evil would be the illusion that these do not obtain, and going into
> the valence of such a thing that seeks to make sure they do not obtain.
>
> But one of the things a GodSoul can manifest is the illusion
> that he can not manifest. As a fair chosen manifestation it is good,
> but as an apparency of inability to manifest it is bad.
>
> As long as the God can see his inabilities as fairchosen
> ABILITIES TO BE UNABLE, then he can continue to see the good
> to his suffering.
>
> But he can chose to not see that good, and thus to him
> things look bad. But that too is how he chose it so it
> remains good.
>
> If he wants to recover his awareness of responsibility
> for inability, then helping him do so would be good.
>
> But if he doesn't want to recover (just yet), then such
> help would be bad.
>
> In otherwords if he wants to persist more, then vanishment
> is bad, but if he wants to vanish, then persistence is bad.
>
> Depends on which part of the create, survive, destroy cycle
> he is on.
>
> 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 Nov 27 01:56:38 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Feb 14 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore823.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)
iD8DBQFahGsSURT1lqxE3HERAiZxAJ9EDayLp6pFUjGJXTd/2wlpFrlx6QCfeiE+
8nTOA4feQu0DtZAfPwa3h84=
=N4Pf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)