ECO (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


What Ed says about intelligent buyers making informed an
ethical decisions is true.

However this does not equate to buying locally.

In a closed system, such as an isolated local economy such as Ithaca,
where everyone buys and sells locally, local products tend to become
inbred.

One can buy globally with intelligence too, sometimes more so, as one
has a wider arena from which to chose ethical and earth conscious
producers.

Those who feel their livelihoods depend on local buyers, probably
would do well to buy locally themselves too.

Those who feel their livelihoods depend on global buyers, probably
would do well to buy globally themselves.

Basically you should buy from whom buys from you.

This maintains the fair exchange and keeps the money within whatever
arena you are active in.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 E-mail, FTP, Shell Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com info@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Mar 30 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco
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)

iD8DBQFavl8CURT1lqxE3HERAj9FAKCzj7Of0N2NJo/EzQ3NuM6wGeZ5KQCgivVl
Kr6TSB4319MZpxqR9DpOzyg=
=8GX0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

DESIRE (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


DESIRE

One can not adjust desire to what one considers to be reality.

It is this effort to adjust desire to what one considers to be reality
that produces a non clear.

It is the effort to not want what one can not have, or to want
what one must have.

A non clear is someone who is no longer able or willing to know
what he wants.

A clear knows what he wants.

An OT can have what he wants.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 SunOS 4.1.4 Sparc 20 Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com info@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 29 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/desire.script
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFavQ2DURT1lqxE3HERAjjLAJ4leRY1SlyENsxWdS5LMFIVeaekIwCdHKbD
2f3TbIWnNJYDonWlJCf/QHg=
=VTmw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE732 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


EX CATHEDRA AND IN CATHEDRA

> In alt.clearing.technology Dennis L Erlich <informer@informer.org> wrote:
>> And wrt my own beliefs, I see everything in this universe as a part of
>> God ... God's Being and God's life. We are inside God and God's life
>> is inside us.

You see, I am a philozofer, and when you do philozofy enough you
notice there is a little alarm that goes off inside that is very subtle,
but it tells you when you are on the wrong track however slightly off
course it might be.

Anytime people start talking about something creating something
else, the little alarm goes off.

Even in the physical universe, nothing gets created nor destroyed,
energy only changes form, and macro things get rearranged because they
are made of parts.

ARRANGEMENTS AND STATES of stuff come and go, but the stuff itself
remains eternally there.

Thus the ultimate stuff of things is conserved.

We call this the conservation of something.

So when people starting about God, which is not physical, creating
the physical, the philozofy alarm goes off loudly, and then when they
further talk about making conscious units out of rearrangements of
physical parts the alarm smokes and blows up, cuz the proof says that
ain't possible.

Arrangements of parts just can't be certain of anything, period.

Now Occam sez follow the simplest theory that explains all the
facts. Yeah I know, who has all the facts, but in fact the simplest
theory is NOT that God made the physical, and then rearranged the
physical into consciousness.

If God himself were conscious, it wouldn't be a physical process
based consciousness anyhow now would it, and thus anything that was a
physical based 'consciousness' or mechanical analogue of such, would
have to be very different indeed from the true consciousness of God.

Worse the proof sez that since God-the-non-physical and the
physical are two different objects, and two different KINDS of objects,
God can never know whether his physical creation exists or not with
perfect certainty, nor can God and his physical souls ever know about
each other either.

So since there is no evidence whatsoever for the physical universe,
it makes a lot more sense to just say there is God.

God can't create anything, so God is conserved and being the only
something there is, something is also conserved. That makes the
physicists and the 'zofers happy.

But this God can change state, God is a kind of glow in the dark
dream being. He can 'create' conscious dreams, pictures, scenes,
sensations etc, by causing his own substrate to change polarization from
off to on. Nothing created in actuality, but a change in state in what
was already eternally there.

Then he can stick his consciousness into one of these dreams so he
thinks he IS the dreamer. And he can do this many countless of
independent times, creating many dreamers dreaming many dreams. Again
nothing actual created, but changes in state in the One God to make it
look like TO HIMSELF there are many dreamers.

Thus God does not create the Soul, but turns himself into the Soul,
to view the many panoramas he is displaying in his multi colored glow in
the dark body.

And when the soul wakes from the dream, he 'becomes one' with God
again, because he always was God in carnation anyhow.

And thus God and Soul can be certain of each other, because they
ARE each other.

If God and Soul are two different materials, Ex Temporal or In
Temporal, then God and soul are two different objects, and thus the Soul
can never become one with God, nor even know if God exists with
certainty.

Two different objects is a bitch.

Normal meatballs consider the physical universe to be a Cathedral
of sorts, and Souls are the beings inside the edifice of existence.
These souls like to pretend that God is also inside the edifice as 'God
permeates everything,' but then God is also outside of the edifice
because he made it, whereas the Souls are not and can not be outside the
edifice because they ARE MADE of the edifice material.

Thus we say that God is Ex Cathedra, and the Souls are In Cathedra.

However Occam would say it is simpler to believe that God itself is
the Cathedral, not the physical universe which instead is dreams of
pretty stained glass through out the living Cathedral walls, and God
likes to play at being Soul inside the Cathedral looking out through the
stained glass at what else he has wrought.

In other words God is looking out at what he made over there, by
BEING what he made over here.

But both over there and over here are but tattoos on the body of God
glowing in the dark of the void.

Nothing created, nothing destroyed, just a chameleon changing the
colors of his being.

It is as simple as that.

Believe it or not the above passes muster with the philozofical
alarms, they just stay quiet as you please, because nothing isn't coming
from something, and two different objects aren't being certain of each
other.

Of course being in an incarnated state, God is pretty stupid at the
moment, albeit by exquisite design, and will reject everything said
above, which is as it should be, lest the soul wake up too fast to 'who
or what is cause around here and why is it such an AssSoul?'

Homer
Tue Mar 23 20:46:48 EDT 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Mar 28 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore732.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)

iD8DBQFau7wDURT1lqxE3HERAsFeAJ0dnGpKr4KeSGdcdIqEs9CzDBHvzgCgpZ2c
/HDFI022SzfwVUO+imFBCPE=
=XblM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

MODEL SESSION II, read this one

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


MODEL SESSION II

03/27/18 Tuesday 10:51pm EST Revised

Model session II is a squirrel adaptation of standard tech model
session as originally published by LRH to make it easier to deal with
dog auditors auditing dog pcs.

Woof!

Historically the auditor takes full responsibility for the session
so that he can return full responsibility to the preclear.

The preclear comes into session being controlled by everything and
anything other than himself. He is a spew machine.

The auditor takes CONTROL over the preclear in order to return
control over the preclear back to himself, leaving the spew machine out
of it.

Model session II simply returns responsibility back to the preclear
earlier than might be expected.

Rather than the auditor going 'Row!, Row!, Row!' and the preclear
going 'Nope!, Nah!, Forget it!', in model session II the auditor goes
"Row!", then the preclear goes "OK!, then the auditor goes "Thank you,
Row!", the preclear goes "OK!" until both are handing the session back
and forth to each other with out either one going out of session.

Out of session means not in session.

In session for the auditor is being interested in the preclear's
case, willing to audit the preclear and follow the auditor's code.

In session for the preclear is being interested in his own case,
willing to talk to the auditor and follow the preclear's code.

The auditor's code is pretty well laid out in standard tech, the
preclear's code not so much.

Notice handing control back and forth between auditor and preclear
is NOT the same thing as the auditor trying to put the pc in session,
then the pc turning it around and trying to put the auditor in session!

That's a high crime on the part of both auditor and preclear.

Auditor: "Tell me about mother!"
Preclear: "Yak yak yak, OK, now tell me about your mother!"
Auditor: "Oh yes well she is kind of like your mother!"

Auditors or preclears that allow that to happen should both be
shown the garbage pail out back.

In model session II the auditor is going "Ok here is the command"
and the preclear is goes 'Yak yak yak, OK give me the next command".

That's very different than the preclear going "OK, here is the next
command" back to the auditor.

Get it?

The auditor is always free to NOT give the next command if he
thinks the preclear has more to see or say on the present command. But
if the preclear does say more, there has to be another OK! on the part
of the preclear before the auditor can continue with the next command.

When the preclear is out of session or trying to put the auditor in
session he is reaching to create an outflow to the auditor to give the
auditor the command.

When the preclear is in session he is reaching to create an inflow
from the auditor of the next command.

The preclear keeps HIMSELF in session by being forced IN EVERY
COMMAND to put the auditor there along with the process and the purpose
of being in session. All the preclear has to do is say "OK" before the
auditor gives the next command. Then you have model session II.

By saying OK the preclear is requesting, even demanding of the
auditor to give him the next command, if the auditor fails to do so or
does something else, the session will go to hell.

The preclear is asking for the next command even if he knows what
it is, because two way comm is important, as is the impingement of the
auditor on the preclear and his composite existence.

There are 4 basic differences between standard model session and
model session II.

1.) TWO WAY CONTROL OF THE SESSION WITH OK

The preclear acknowledges he is done with each command and wishes
the next command to be given by saying "OK". The auditor does not speak
until the preclear says OK, except to give basic session TR's.

This in no way obviates the auditor's responsibilities to handle
the session with standard TR's (Training Routines) so if the auditor
sees something going on with the preclear the auditor is allowed, if not
required, to use standard TR's to query and handle it until he gets the
OK from the preclear to go on with session.

When a command is given to a preclear he naturally introverts for a
moment while executing the command or looking for an answer. Then as
charge comes off, he yaks, cognites and starts to extrovert. When the
auditor sees the extroversion he is supposed to give the next command.

But sometimes a preclear is so introverted anyhow, that it is hard
for the auditor to tell when a preclear is truly ready for the next
command, or the preclear will suddenly start talking again just as the
auditor gives the next command and thus gets this comm chopped to no
one's benefit.

In model session I (one), this problem is rampant, the auditor
waits too long in fear of the preclear not being done yet, or not long
enough etc.

After a few runs with model session II, this problem pretty much
goes away, and if the preclears says OK, and changes his mind suddenly
afterwards, that's ok, he can take full responsibility for the chop, as
he chopped the auditor, and he won't build up charge on the auditor or
the session.

It becomes 'his fault' that his comm was chopped not the auditor's.

This does wonders to maintain easy ARC in the session even when the
session material itself is rough as sin.

One thing some preclears may do is figure that since they are
paying for the session time, they should get as many commands in as
possible for the session. Thus they will chop their own comm and cogs
by saying OK before they are really ready.

The auditor with a good e-meter has to watch out for this, he can
tell the preclear is doing it as the meter will stop reading as the
session goes out of sync for tick tocking too fast in relation to the
preclear's item

TICK TOCK
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore721.memo

The preclear fails to see that the quiet time during a command is
actually charge releasing time, and that case gain is the result not of
how many commands are run but how deep each command runs.

The speed of session is determined ahead of time by the natural
rhythm of the tick-tock of the material and charge being audited, any
effort to change that speed will result in the auditor going out of sync
with the preclear's bank, and no material coming forward and no charge
being released. Needle activity will be a dirty rise or stuck, and
certainly no more TA.

Sessions can be slowed down by auditor going in and out of sync
with the preclear and recovering forward momentum again and again, but
sessions can't run faster than their natural rhythm.

2.) COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRECLEAR IS NOT REQUIRED

The preclear does not have to SAY anything in response to the
command. Thus auditing with questions or 'Tell me' that demand a
response will not work. Auditing with "Get the idea of" or "Spot" are
fine.

Model session II will not work with any auditing that REQUIRES two
way communication from the preclear.

Auditor: "Tell me about mother"
Preclear: "OK"
Auditor: "Thankyou, Tell me about mother"
Preclear: "OK"

Well that's a flunk because the preclear didn't actually execute
the command as given, and the auditor allowed him to get away with it
without proper TRing the non repsonse.

Auditor: "Get the idea of a mother"
Preclear: "OK"
Auditor: "Thank you, Get the idea of a mother"
Preclear: "OK"

Or even "Get the idea of something you could say about mother."

Notice the preclear doesn't have to SAY it!

This works well and doesn't force the preclear to come up with
something to say about mother that doesn't interest him at the moment.
Constantly having to manufacture something to say causes huge amounts of
charge and later session dread.

2WC is useful and it does help if the preclear is willing to speak
or move his throat but it is not necessary and, on rough cases, knowing
that you have to SPEAK will kill the session out of the gate.

When the preclear gets to something that is making real TA, not
just small reads, he will speak, I assure you.

Notice not having to speak means the preclear does not have to give
up withholds, nor even say that he has withholds.

Remember total reponsibility is the ABILITY TO WITHHOLD.

That's a relief isn't it.

Auditing over a withhold slows things down, the preclear will know
this, but auditing over a dangerous auditor will stop things cold. This
has little to do with the auditor's ability to make a safe space, but
has everything to do with the preclear's considerations about the
auditor, whether the auditor is God in carnation or not.

In the beginning the preclear will see the auditor through the
preclear's fears.

The auditor can run "Who am I?" on the preclear until the cows come
home, on many to some avail, but on others to no avail at all.

The preclear will see his Nemesis One in everything that originates
attention. He will wonder, he will be nervous and he will dread every
withhold he has or knows everyone else has too.

That is in part why Dianetics ran motivators flow 1 only, the
withhold problem was just too much for the broad general public to
stomach.

Model session II requires all flows be run plus some, but the
preclear is left with the option to not say what the withhold is even if
while running earlier similars on it!

Notice preclears will be able to withhold on all flows, even what
was done to him!

Let him, just get the OK out of him and continue until needle is
clean or floats. The withhold does not have to be revealed to get a
clean needle, the preclear does have to take full responsibility for
having the withhold and withholding it, and having an auditor that is
not totally safe to talk to yet, and all this has to be totally OK with
the preclear

So he says "OK!". You see?

That might seem really strange to a standard techie, they will look
at it for a LONG time, but try it, you will like it.

You can always go back to being a standard tech nazi.

"You vill answer me!"

Getting every question answered is nuts as long as charge is not
bypassed into an ARC break due to non communication.

What are you going to do with some military guy with top
secret clearance? They need auditing too you know.

Auditor's are always asking questions of preclears that the
preclear has no clue what the answer is and the bank is not talking
either!

I mean who or what answers these questions anyhow? Most auditor's
haven't a clue on that matter.

It's also OK for the preclear to say he HAS a withhold, but that he
intends to not talk about it. That way no pretense is created that
there are no withholds when there are.

One might think that the core of the preclear's case is right there
in what he is unwilling to speak about, but that just isn't true. Once
he does find his core, he will speak fully and he will dump all the
other stuff too, if there is any charge left on it.

And if the auditor pukes, gasps and dies with a 'Well I never!",
the preclear will jump for joy over the auditor's dead body and throw a
champagne party for the auditor that night.

All preclears come into session embroiled with blame, shame and
regret, sometimes for things they are doing wrong INTENTIONALLY, just to
cause themselves trouble, so there will be lots to not speak about.

We can't let all that get in the way of auditing taking place, even
on withholds he is mostly willing to talk about.

The problem is NOT not speaking, the problem is not knowing due to
fear of find out, the preclear finding out about himself.

It is beyond ludicrous to claim that the preclear can't find out
about himself without the auditor finding out about it too.

Or a preclear can give up all their withholds, have a change of
auditor, and all the charge comes right back and he has to do it all
over again with someone new that he doesn't know and trust.

Lack of trust will undo all case gain and the preclear will be
starting all over just to test the new auditor.

Finding an auditor you trust absolutely as if they were you
is probably almost impossible, at least at the beginning.

PRECLEARS HATE THIS

Preclears dread that this WILL happen, so they protect against it
by just not talking about something they are unwilling to talk about
again to another. Its just too dangerous.

Sometimes a preclear faces a new auditor with an assumption of
trust, and that the auditor has thoroughly read his preclear files
including all divulged withholds, but usually this isn't true.

But in any case this assumed trust is not at all the same thing as
ESTABLISHED trust built up over years of experience with a particular
auditor.

So the preclear is always looking at what they are giving up,
asking themselves if I give up this withhold now, will I have to give it
up all over again if I get a change of auditor?

How safe is this auditor?

How safe will the NEXT one be?

If the preclear is down at the bottom of the self degradation
ladder he KNOWS that every word out of his mouth will sorely test the
auditor's confront and acceptance levels.

"You ate what?!"

An auditor looks like a mine field to a preclear, the preclear does
want to talk freely, but doesn't really expect to find a truly perfect
safe space, so he has to tread carefully when going into the less
creditable subjects of his life. Worrying about having to give up
withholds will stop a session cold as he will try to audit around them.

The best way to handle it is for the preclear to say, 'Gotta
withhold, its off limits, let's continue, OK.'

Auditor writes it down, the preclear is no longer withholding that
he is withholding, and the session can proceed smoothly.

The more often the preclear says he is withholding something, the
better off he will be, and the auditor can query once in a while if the
preclear wants to get anything off on withholds already noted, or if new
ones are in the queue.

And for the record the more to basic withholds are taken in
session the less the preclear will give a damn who knows about it
later. But more auditor's are not that good.

If a withhold is *ERASED* well then yeah, the preclear won't
remember it at all, its as if it never happened.

But if a withhold is only keyed out, watch out, its still there and
mean as hell on people with no confront probing to find out what it is.

Note do not expect the preclear to finally divulge all on
everything, it isn't necessary, it may be better off for everyone if he
doesn't, and much of it will be unimportant once Nemesis One is
identified, contacted approached and eradicated.

If the sessions are going directly towards Nemesis One,
then the auditor will be socketed in the preclears worries AS
Nemesis One.

Once a preclear finds his Nemesis One, he won't care who knows what
he did or happened, he just won't, too much power to care about what
other's think.

The preclear will WANT to get those withholds off, as he took great
satisfaction in committing them the first time, and would do it again.

Withholds are GPM based, and once a GPM is blown there ARE no more
withholds on that GPM even if they were never discussed at all.

Forcing the preclear to find OTHER withholds will only cause him to
jump GPMS into a chain that is not ready to be run. or into GPMS that
are not his, which seriously lowered his self esteem and willingness to
let others know.

Have the preclear get the idea of someone saying 'You did WHAT?!'

It's unauditable except maybe even as an overt, the preclear doing it to
others. :)

If the preclear worries about the auditor having such a reaction to
something he reveals, he is REALLY WITH THE WRONG AUDITOR whom the
preclear has pegged as his own Nemesis One.

AND THE AUDITOR ISN'T, WHICH IS WHY ITS SUCH A CRUSH ON THE
PRECLEAR TO AUDIT IT.

His real Nemesis One would never take such a tactic, which is why
the whole shame chain is unauditable.

It's a wrong item.

Remember the preclear's true Nemesis One is a worthy opponent, if
the auditor is coming across to the preclear as feeling the preclear is
an unworthy preclear, the AUDITOR needs to go to cramming to learn how
to find a correct why, item, terminal, goal or chain.

The motto of both the auditor and the preclear should always be,

"Present Time Truncated GPM or bust!"

Most everything else is really bad auditing.

Thus during later sessions, the auditor is NOT prodding the
preclear to clear up all these noted but incomplete reveals, just
reminding him he has an opporunity to do so if he has changed his mind
through later auditing.

This comes through good auditing (on item auditing rather than off
item auditing) where the preclear's trust in the auditor, AND THE
AUDITOR'S TRUST IN THE QUALITY OF THE BEING OF THE PERCLEAR, is
established and the preclear is more aligned with his true Nemesis One
item, because the preclear is PROUD of his overts against this monster.

Auditing shame is a waste of time as it audits the preclear at
dispicable effect where no one could ever live it down.

What he tried to do to the monster was noble, he fell into shame
when he started feeling sorry for the beast, the poor dear.

There are many things the preclear WANTS to reveal he doesn't feel
safe about, so later in auditing he will suddenly be itching to clean up
these things, sometimes en masse.

Sometimes just to get his final revenge and enjoy watching the
auditor puke.

Sometimes the preclear may begin to feel that these withholds that
he is indicating to be left unrevealed, are beginning to weigh him down
and stop case gain.

This is caused by another phenomenon wherein the preclear feels he
is not approaching his Nemesis One properly or at all, and begins to
think the auditor is incapable of get him to do so because the auditor
himself has not handled his own Nemesis One.

The preclear fears that the auditor fears that the preclear is the
auditor's Nemesis One or otherwise so beneath contempt as a being, that
the auditor will hate himself for wasting his time trying to help this
particular preclear.

The preclear fears the auditor's barf reaction, or pin headed
naivete.

He is tired off sending the auditor into shock, and having to coax
the auditor back into auditing him again.

"I promise I will be less blunt next time!"

And the auditor knows he can't confront anything either and is
terrified the preclear will finally bring up something that makes the
auditor burn up from the inside out.

This is going to be rampant with newbie duals, but assessing for
'insuffcient approach to Nemesis One' or something similar will start to
clean it up between the two of them.

Because once the true travail is known, both preclear and
auditor will be proud of what the other did to destroy the monsters.

And funny as hell, as ludicrosity seems to power the game.

Dual auditors have to KNOW that they both scare the hell out of
each other but that both have equal courage levels to drive each other
home to where they need to be to go free of self terror.

That should be sufficient for dual auditing to take place, for
trust to become established, without anyone knowing what GPMS or
terminals are involved for the time being.

Hey life is an XXX rated game, you want spoilers already?

The auditor tells the preclear up front the rules of Model Session
II, one of which is if the preclear feels uncomfortable talking about
something, he can either simply not talk about it with no further
indication to the auditor, or he can indicate there is something he
doesn't want to talk about and leave it at that.

The auditor must promise not to coax either overtly or covertly,
preclear doesn't want to talk about it, that's the end of it, auditor
isn't interested in it any more.

Responsibility is the ABILITY TO WITHHOLD.

The auditor needs to take the win, something the nazi
technician will never know.

If the needle is dirty the auditor is allowed to ask is there
something MORE to what you are not telling me until the preclear has a
clear idea of what he is withholding, but he doesn't have to reveal any
of it. The needle however has to be clean.

The needle will go clean on responsibly withholding.

The auditor can even indicate it.

"I would like to indicate you are responsibly withholding on
this subject.

BEING ABLE TO withhold is one sign of taking responsibility for
one's own condition and being forced to give up withholds destroys the
preclear's havingness.

That's why you run havingness on a preclear who has been put the
nazi wringer of auditing withholds. Some of the best havingness
processes are

"Get the idea of something you would be willing to NOT withhold."
"Get the idea of something you would be willing to withhold."

These rules will make the preclear very willing to talk about
everything else forthwith, but may end up in a stop later when the only
thing left to talk about are the secrets of pride slides, failure, death
pity, accountability, shame, blame and regret

At that point the preclear should know enough about the auditor to
determine if the auditor is a safe space or not, and if the preclear
really decides no, it is probably time for auditor and preclear to part
ways.

A safe space does not mean simply that the auditor doesn't say
things about what the preclear has said or done, or hides his reactions
and revulsion successfully, it means the auditor has no thoughts or
feelings on the matter at all.

Nothing there.

Except maybe awe and admiration and high appreciation for ludicrous
demise.

If the auditor pukes, that's a flunk.

If the auditor can't stop laughing, well...

The difference between blame and responsibility is subtle,
responsibility is putting it there with no added significance, blame is
having put something there but shouldn't have ...

An auditor stifling "You did WHAT?!" is not a safe space.

Auditing serial killers can be hard.

"Well I understand murdering the girl, but did you really have
to...?"

AUDIT CAUSAL CONCEPTION ONLY

3.) Auditing processes are ALWAYS commands and never questions.

The standard process is "Get the idea of" or maybe "Spot ..." or
"Locate..." if the preclear prefers it.

Questions kill. Higher level cases can handle them, lower levels
will say "I don't know" and take a loss on the command.

In dementia cases we showed that asking the preclear for a direct
memory did not work, because access to the memory was not there.

Auditor: "Remember your childhood dog."
Preclear: "Never had one..."

But when using creative processing (causal conception) with "Get
the idea of a dog", the dementia case can do that all day long, describe
it in detail and his own dogs will show up with great certainty.

Memory is always there, accessibility is not.

So the way into an inaccessible memory is get the preclear to
mockup similar items creatively until memories start to turn on.

They will have full 3D surround sound experiences of their dog turn
on, down to the color of the collar and the sound of its bark, and every
kid it ever bit or chased.

But grab it while you can, because when the accessibility closes up
again, the preclear will be back to being a "What dog?" case.

4.) ALWAYS RUN THE DICOM PER THE DICOM PROCESS.

THE DICOM PROCESS
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/ador1010.memo

Sometimes processes have to be converted into a model session II
process.

Consider the following process.

"What condition is there?"
"What purpose does it serve?"
"What are you trying to do about it?"

So we convert it first to standard command format:

"Get the idea of having a condition."
"Get the idea it might serve a purpose."
"Get the idea of trying to do something about it."

Notice the command does not ask for an existing condition or even a
condition the preclear has at all.

This is pure creative processing at its best.

Then we put in the dicom:

"Get the idea of not having a condition."
"Get the idea it not serving a purpose."
"Get the idea of not trying to do something about it."

You may have to spend some time with the preclear adjusting the
commands to his taste.

He will start running his central core condition mighty quick.

If the auditor can stomach it.

The preclear always knows when the auditor is about to barf,
probably from subtle changes in the color of his face, like turning
green or black :)

ADDENDUM TO MODEL SESSION II
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/ador1013.memo

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Mar 27 22:52:05 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1011.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)

iD8DBQFauwNWURT1lqxE3HERAk8gAKCODH5lEQYI920V1XfKPPnJybqNhgCfa9Xb
hUs4KxjOZ66us/HLNMNLNso=
=P/KL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

SCI33 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


KAREN HORNEY, REFERENCES

SCI - 33

Copyright (C) 1992 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

Here are references for Karen Horney (1885 - 1952). Ms. Horney was
a world class psychotherapist after the tradition of Freud. I was very
impressed by her work because it actually managed to accomplish
something. Like Janov and Hubbard, she assumed that the source of
neurosis was buried memories in the past and the substitute beingnesses
that people assumed to solve those problems. Part of those substitute
beingnesses were the psychosomatic conditions that her patients
complained of, and the split and multi valent personalities that they
demonstrated.

She worked with severely neurotic patients, taking each one back to
the seminal incident in their childhood effecting recovery. The
revivification of child hood incidents was central to her therapy along
with the catharsis of emotion and violent effort that went with it.

Her work is entertaining and easy to read, and filled with case
histories from her sessions, and of course the obligatory other
references.

Neurotic Personality of Our Time (1937)
New Ways in Psycho Analysis (1939)
Self Analysis (1942)
Our Inner Conflicts (1945)
Are You Considering Psycho Analysis? (1946)
Neurosis and Human Growth (1950)
Feminine Psychology (1967)
Adolescent Diaries of Karen Horney (1980)
Final Lectures (1987)

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Mar 27 18:58:37 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sci33.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)

iD8DBQFausyeURT1lqxE3HERAqcbAKC8Fv9zSHKmpi9En4S7jgFbmZEl0wCeInu8
js9+O6P6OGf4U60BqTBNhLo=
=4aFZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE814 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

SUPER POWERS

In alt.clearing.technology Kat <ladyasrai@comcast.net> wrote:
> There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
> Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

> While I know this to be truth, to brag of super powers and say "neener
> neener neener you are jealous of me cause I have powers and you
> don't!" is the mark of a large child who will look for any reason to
> be special.

> My comment was directed at the people who brag of having something in
> an attempt to feel superior to others.

0.) Well if they have special powers then clearly they are superior
to others. Rubbing it into the nay-sayers faces though is probably not
a good idea.

1.) Your comment was directed to me as you commented on my posting.

2.) If someone had special powers they WOULD be more than human
leaving mortal man a genetic defect at best, unless those mortal men
were in fact God's playing at being abominations at the bottom of the
spiritual sea.

3.) If you found that someone else had special powers, I assure you
that YOUR jealously and shame would reach almost infinite levels before
you were able to deal with them.

> A large part of the OT
> stuporpower mentality is the boosting of fragile egos.. the haves and
> have nots.. the concept that their enlightenment through scientology
> makes them MORE than human. Fear, jealousy... so many negative
> emotions that cloud logic are the result of fragile egos and that need
> to sate them.

Well if someone has attained Buddhic enlightenment, or the ability
to move the marble, and he brags about it, yes he would deserve what he
gets, although his friends and family wouldn't, but for those demanding
proof, perhaps a little flaunting in their stupid faces would be in
order first.

"Prove to me you can fry my pineal gland, I bet you can't!"

Basically the mortal shit can't confront not knowing if he has/had
special powers or not and why other's might have them if he doesn't, and
if he can get them, or if he is doomed forever to be genetic detritus in
this sargasso sea of a universe.

And as for those that can't provide a sane prime directive, their
sole interest is to destroy those that have power, or enslave them to
their own ends, NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY.

Anyone interested in having such powers or allowing others to have
such powers (almost more important) will be able to discuss a prime
directive intgelligently and with imperative force, to protect
THEMSELVES, their loved ones, and those others on the path.

Submit your prime directive resumes if you wish to be taken
seriously.

The joke is, that the proper completion and submission of a correct
and workable prime directive would probably start the rebirth of those
very powers which are desired but held in doubt.

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
Mon Nov 8 00:03:18 EST 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Mar 23 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore814.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)

iD8DBQFatSSDURT1lqxE3HERApJAAJ47oKUXiIKa/qJ7r+AhlBKYXqAi3gCfaPFT
zllO1Kd3bTJLq2QyiUNFi4k=
=BXC+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADOR1024 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


TRANSPARENCY AND PRIVACY

Either the government provides transparency for itself and privacy for
the people, or the people WILL provide it for them.

Allowing a government to claim total privacy from the people, and
total transparency of the people will create a one world totalitarianism
like has never been seen before on Earth.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Oct 21 17:17:23 EDT 2016

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 22 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1024.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)

iD8DBQFas9MDURT1lqxE3HERAvChAJ4pP46qDUezxCgumdVGVmLkcwUfHACgrzP4
GI+fKubGP9gheELkn7dsZj4=
=JWFF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADOR1043 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


ORIENTATION POINTS AND SYMBOLS AGAIN

"How do I know? It's what I want!" - Homer

BASIC INDOCTRINATION

Q1: The static can create spaces and times and locate objects in
them and the forces between them.

These can be real spaces and times, or facsimiles of them.

Both are apparencies in the consciousness of the static.

A static itself has no space nor time, nor dimension, nor motion,
nor frequency nor wavelength, but can nonetheless create apparencies of
each in its own substrate. These apparencies are called kinetics and
exist in apparency only.

A Q1 is any such system of things so created.

Kinetics are the created mechanical conditions of existence
mentioned in the Phoenix Lectures.

The static creates the apparency of kinetics via postulates and
considerations.

Let there be space, let there be time, let there be ... etc

The kinetic operates within itself solely via force acting upon
matter and energy, through space and time.

The postulates and considerations are true cause creating virtual
space and time, and force is virtual cause inside of that space and
time.

Q comes from QED, which stands for Quod Erat Demonstratum, latin
for 'what which was to be demonstrated.'

QED is usually put at the end of proofs, where the final line is
'that which was to be demonstrated', but in this case Q1 comes at the
beginning of the logical argument from which all other things follow,
rather than at the end of it where QED is usually written.

TWO MODES

The static works in two modes.

The static as creator works in orientation point mode.

The static as creature works in symbol mode.

It is called an orientation point, because the static in native
state has not yet created any space or time or dimension of any size or
kind, and thus is a zero dimensional actuality called a scalar.

The normal being tends to judge 'where it is' by where it is
relative to its main orientation points in life such as the sun, his
city, or home.

But while the being is in orientation mode creating a Q1 of space
and time, it is its own orientation point, the eternal here and now,
forever still and unmovable, as there is nowhere else to be, and there
is no space or time to move in.

POINTS, SCALARS and MANIFOLDS

Calling a scalar object a point is a bad misnomer because a point
is usually considered to be a small part of a dimensional space or time,
whereas a scalar is not a part of anything.

The opposite of scalar is a manifold, meaning many fold, or more
than zero dimensions. A manifold of course can have many points in it,
and is often considered to be made of points. But each point has a size
and a dimension, even if the size is 0x0x0 for a 3 dimensional point.

A scalar does not have dimensions and so of course it has no size
either, as size is merely the measure of the length of each dimension
called the extension of that dimension.

Thus a 2x4x5 bar of gold is a 3 dimensional object with extensions
of 2, 4 and 5 along each dimension. 2,4,5 is the size of the object,
and indicates it has 3 dimensions and thus 3 extensions with a total
volume of 40 cubic units of gold.

Any Q1 is an apparent manifold of space, time and the objects in
them, and the forces between them that change their motion.

Thus the static scalar creates kinetic manifolds called Q1's.

As the static creates space and times, it is still exterior to
them, and can orient them any way it wishes relative to its own
viewpoint, and it can orient the objects relative to each other, inside
the space and time.

Any object inside a space time is called a symbol, and has
mass/energy, meaning and motion.

THE FLIP FLOP

The static can flip flop between orientation mode and symbol mode
at will.

In orientation mode the static is creating Q1's of symbols, and in
symbol mode the static has become one or more of those symbols fighting
against other symbols.

If one is being a symbol inside a Q1, one way to become the
orientation point again is to BE the orientation mode becoming the
symbol mode.

One can't become the symbol without first BEING the orientation
point.

One becomes trapped into being a symbol and unable to become an
orientation point again, by not wanting to be the symbol which renders
one unable to become the orientation point, because orientation points
like to become symbols.

One way to get out of being a detested symbol is to become some
other symbol instead, because this momentarily operates one's self as
the orientation point in order to create, put there, and become the new
symbol.

It is the willingness to come in that puts one out. One does not
have to come in, in order to be out, but one does have to be out in
order to come in.

The orientation point is the manifestation of willingness to
manifest.

The symbol is the manifestation of unwillingness to manifest.

Any symbol that is claiming how happy it is that it's a symbol, is
whistling past its own grave yard, for all symbols are incipient carrion
and dust in the wind one day.

WHERE IS THE STATIC?

The actual position of the static relative to the Q1 it is making
during orientation mode is not 'outside' the Q1, nor is it on the
surface of the Q1, nor is it inside either, its pretty ineffable.

The static is self aware, and as such can appear to itself as a
static scalar which is its true nature, or as a kinetic manifold which
is it's dreamtime nature.

Thus the static feels it IS the Q1, which makes it easy for the
static to withdraw further INTO the Q1 and become only a part of it,
namely a symbol inside it.

During symbol mode the static is definitely being some symbol with
an exact location in the space and time of the Q1.

It has lost contact with its source location from where it put the
Q1 there in the first place.

Thus the symbol comes to believe that the Q1 is itself the
orientation point, and the symbol judges its position relative to where
it is inside the Q1.

CASE

The static is able to create a symbol that it would NEVER want to
be after it has created and become it.

That is a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.

Thus the static as orientation point is alien to itself as symbol.
particularly with regard to desire and motivation.

When people talk about the 'fear of God', they are refering to this
fear of the symbol for the orientation point.

It's called Cosmic Trepidation.

The motivations of the static scalar are not the motivations of the
kinetic symbol.

The motivations of the symbol are to win the game of survival.

The motivations of the static are to invent a game of survival.

Since the static, as eternal spaceless, timeless scalar, can't do
anything BUT survive (outside of time), this creating itself as a
kinetic symbol scurrying around trying to survive in an eat or be eaten
game, is a bit of a joke that the scalar likes to play on itself.

This is not an error or a mistake, this is what the Cosmic All
DOES.

Thus movement in space and time away from the first moment of
creation is a joke.

The static wants to be a symbol, but no symbol would ever want to
be either a symbol or a static!

You might think that being a static would be great, but statics
like to become symbols, so that places kind of a cloud over the whole
thing.

This alieness is felt by the symbol as Cosmic Ominous-ness, or Omni
Awesome Omni Numinous-ness as Adore likes to call it. - Adore.com

Fear of God indeed.

Being created without one's consent is the ultimate rape, matched
only by being uncreated without one's consent too!

A well done symbol state has no awareness of its creative
orientation point state, and so the symbol always has this small bone to
chew with God.

"You made me!"

That is called Separation of God and Soul.

It is a faux apparency but makes the Cosmic All go.

here

There would be no reason to run around in space and time if you
weren't a little pissed at your Creator.

This separation thus alloys the affinities of the symbol for all of
existence including itself and its creator with divine trepidation.

The love of the symbol is tainted with fear.

So much for your 'happy' mortal meatball.

This traps the symbol in the Q1 that it is unwilling to have made
himself or put in by anyone.

Symbols are inherently not friendly towards anything that can truly
put things there.

Because only orientation points can put things there, and the
symbol can't put orientations points there!

Ah if the symbol could only create God, it wouldn't mind so much if
it were then created by that God in return.

ELSEWHERENESS

The symbol tries to escape from its predicament with existence to
points deeper inside the Q1, called elsewhereness, but it takes its
created existingness with it and thus its predicament.

No matter where the symbol goes, it will always be a made being.

People hate being made to do things, being made to exist is the
basic on the chain.

The tone scale is the story of the symbol trying and failing each
step along the way to run away from its own enforced existingness.

The symbol eventually invents death forever, but its a belief and a
deceit that only provides temporary relief for a while until the symbol
dies and it doesn't work, the being is still there craving being another
symbol.

Only a crazy God could call death a relief anyhow, we call these
beings 'had time enough for love' cases.

The symbol doesn't want to escape the Q1 by putting it there again,
and becoming the orientation point, because it is worried about what it
might again create afterwards.

"Who or what would create a human?"
"Who or what would choose to BECOME a human?"

If that ain't creep one, the symbol doesn't know what would be.

The willingness of the symbol to be able to choose freely is
sundered by this ARC break between the motivations of the symbol and the
motivations of the orientation point.

"Just what is God up to anyhow?"

As ARC depends upon REALITY or AGREEMENT to bolster affinity, the
absence of reality and agreement between symbol and orientation point
causes an alloying of the natural affinity of the sovereign static with
debasing non sovereign anger, fear, and sorrow.

Enthusiasm of the symbol in action is a kind of social facade based
on the carrier wave of horror and sorrow.

"The world sucks but mayber I can DO something about it."

By becoming the symbol the static has turned itself against itself.

The static as the symbol no longer trusts its own intentions or
good sense as the orientation point.

It sets about to learn a lesson to never do THAT again.

The symbol finally finds the break in affinity between itself and
whatever created it so bad, that the symbol gives up forever more any
sense of responsibility for having created itself as a symbol.

THE SYMBOL ISN'T BE WILLING TO CREATE ITSELF AS A SYMBOL, THERE
FORE THE SYMBOL CAN'T BE WHAT CREATED IT!

At that point the symbol is damned forever by its own hand inside
of time.

The primary must never happen again is being an orientation point
choosing to become a symbol.

*CHOICE* gets a bad name.

The primary identity of the symbol is the sum total of all the
things in the cosmic all that the symbol is just sure he didn't choose.

This defines the beingness or becomingness of the symbol, what it
is, is what it didn't choose, didn't put there.

The symbol defines itself as a bundle of righteous protest.

The sailor is not the guy who put the ocean and boats there, it's
the guy who DIDN'T put the sharks and storms there!

The symbol is someone or something who wouldn't, couldn't,
shouldn't and DIDN'T choose THAT!

This alienness between orientation point and symbol, is not a
mistake.

It is a necessary function of the Cosmic All.

Therre is no peace for a symbol.

There is only peace for the orientation point.

It is inevitable for persistence to persist for a while because the
symbol resists becoming the orientation point again lest it chooses to
become another symbol worse than the one it is.

So the symbol feels more comfortable being a symbol even amidst
hell and high water.

Divinity means all powerful self responsible good.

Holy means care operating divinity. - Adore.com

GOOD AUTHOR AND GOOD CHARACTER

Remember that a good author (orientation point) is not the same
goodness as a good character (symbol), because good authors write good
stories filled with good and evil characters!

Someone in a dream asked me,

"When was the very first moment I became awake in this life?"

I asked him "What do you mean by awake?"

He said, "Aware of good and evil."

If stories had only good characters in them, no one would read
them.

If orientation points made only good symbols, no one would engage
the game.

So divinity is the orientation point author, and it behooves the
symbol to walk carefully and competently through the orientation point's
creation.

And so this rift between God and Soul, Author and Character,
Creator and Creature is a fundamental part of the makeup of the Cosmic
All.

Without this rift, space and time would not move forward,
and existence wouldn't persist beyond the next sneeze.

Time comes from the determination to DO something about the
intolerable.

Amidst the apparent almost infinite danger of being a symbol, this
rift is all that causes persistence of the being as a symbol.

Thus the being is actually as safe as he can be willing to put
himself there, as his own orientation point.

No persistence can persist beyond the letting go of putting it
there.

The orientation point has no problem with danger, its inherent
safety is absolute and unimpingable.

Thus its impulse to become a symbol in danger has no hesitation nor
restraint, as long as its only for a while, because in the end the
orientation can not be destroyed, and can not get lost as there is no
where to get lost in.

THE ORIENTATION POINT KNOWS ITS A DREAM. THE SYMBOL DOESN'T.

They symbol is below apparencies are actuality on the tone
scale.

And since ALL time is created in finite whiles, no symbol can last
forever, one day all symbols must attain the awakened state and return
to eternal unimpingable peace.

Thus although there are no heavens forever, there are no hells
forever either.

But the being can remanifest a new while of heavens and hells any
time he wishes, once the old whiles are done.

The only thing that lasts 'forever' is people and peace, and that's
an eternal forever outside of time, not a temporal forever where in
flowers grow, inside of time.

"The grass may die, and the flowers may wilteth away, but the Word
of God shall stand forever for free." - Bible.

WHO IS UPSET WITH WHO

Religion lies to us that the Soul needs to be reconciled to God.

That God finds sin so odious, that God can not countenance the soul
until it is cleansed of its sin.

The truth is God has no problem at all with the Soul.

God has no feeling that He will never live his creation of the Soul
down.

But God certainly needs to be reconciled to the Soul, or the soul
will not make case gain.

Until then the Soul is a 'Afraid to find out' case.

Humor results from the recognition of the recompleted GodSoul that
the Soul *IS* God incarnation by its own hand, it always has been,
always will be, and couldn't ever be any other way in any universe
anywhere.

That would be called INTEGRITY, awareness of wholeness on the part
of the GodSoul that it is both God and Soul co eternal.

Life Repair then should produce Awareness of Truth and the way to
personal Integrity and Freedom.

The truth is God and Soul are one, and integrity is being able to
operate both modes freely.

That is freedom.

This puts the being square on the rung of RECOGNITION on the
awarness characteristic scale.

Recognition that all of life is God in carnation.

Orientation point pretending to be symbol.

It is only this unwillingness of the symbol to be the symbol that
prevents the static from being able to be the orientation mode again.

Thus can't = won't.

The resistence is of the symbol against the orientation point, not
the resistence of the orientation point against the symbol.

The basic can't, is can't be an orientation point again.

The basic won't, is won't be an orientation point again.

Orientation mode is home, symbol mode is lost.

Thrill is always the effort to get lost.

Romance is always the effort to get home.

Halcyon is bemused relief on the verge of time.

The static goes from putting things there, to trying to find out
where he put it.

The static goes from "It's a..." to "What's it?"

From Answer to Question.

Hell is eternal question asking. For a while :)

The purpose of auditing is to flip the static as symbol back from
"What's it?" to "It's a!".

Lord save us from stupid auditors.

THE RUB

The static likes to engage in being symbols that it would NEVER
create as a symbol!

No human would create a human, oh no that would be playing God!

And boy do we hate God.

So we assign to God the atrocity of creating humans, and claim that
God works in mysterious ways, which stops all further inquiry into the
matter and frees God from any culpability for having done so.

We pretend we can't ever understand God, because we hope we never
will understand God, because doing so we fear would result in a
permanent nightmare of sleeping forever with a composite of evil and
criminality beyond our wildest dreams, as our bed partner.

"Who really wants to know the mind of God?"

PAN DETERMINISM

The static as orientation point is pan determined.

Especially one that came up with eating, death and sex.

SPACE TIME GAME STREAMS

Statics create playing fields made of space, time, matter/energy,
and force, and the rules of causation between them.

These are called Q1s or space time game streams.

Games are made of symbols in contentious co operation, for suvival.

Oh yeah, you can have pretty little game streams that just dance
along, but they never last long.

The difference between a dance and a game is, in the game you can
LOSE.

The seriousness of the consequences of losing determines the
seriousness of the game.

The static creates the playing field, the pieces, the game rules,
the players, the umpires, the vendors, the half time band, and the
spectators, and then jumps into the game as one or more of them, never
all.

So there is always opposition and contention.

The static also co creates a unanimous INVITE to his Q1, broadcast
to other statics who are interested in his game stream and who want to
play a part or help co-design it.

It's your dream, how did everyone else get into it?

And how did you get into theirs?

Thus auditing unanimous invite and its break down is productive.

Games decay down to unanimous UNinvite where all players are
fighting each trying to destroy each other and the game because they
can't extract them selves from the game and detest the players.

The only way to unextract oneself from an unwanted game is to put
the original unanimous invite there for and from everyone all around and
the admiration between all the players for themselves and each other.

Good games are made of worthy opponents.

REGENCY and SCOPE, SPAN, DEPTH AND FIELD

"Regency is universal acceptance by others, outside of one's own
normal operating jurisdictions, by virtue of needed, wanted, and
acknowledged superior operating know how.

In Excelsis Deo." - Adore.com

The regency of a particular static playing at being a symbol in
fair play, is measured by its scope, span, depth and field.

Scope is the size of the playing field the static can handle.

Span is the number of different symbols in that field that the
static can handle at the same time.

The Red Barron had no problem taking on three enemy airplanes at
the same time, but never four.

Depth is the amount of knowledge the static has about each symbol
it is handling.

Field is the static's reputation in the field amongst other statics
involved in the same Q1.

The static creates panoplies of symbols in order to become one or
more of them in order to engage in the game of self determinism vs other
determinism.

Thus games consist of freedoms (abilities), purposes (goals), and
barriers (oppositions).

BLACKNESS

To the degree that the symbol is unwilling to be the orientaton
point, the games he engages in become non optimum.

You can't play well when you don't want to play.

And you can't want to play, no matter what the game is, if you
think you didn't choose to play it.

A non optimum game is one that he wins too much or too little.

Thus action and play decline, and eventually the symbol starts to
rue the game he is in, and begins to do something other than play it by
the rules.

He falls for corruption, temptation and seduction, and starts to
play the game of getting others to play the game for him and give him
the winnings.

Corruption is the chink in the armor of his integrity through which
shines the light of temptation.

Seduction is giving into temptation.

Lower down he starts to run out of games completely, and finally
engages in the game of games, if he loses that one he won't have any
more games to play forever for free.

All games become unwilling games, because the symbol is unwilling
to be the symbol, and unwilling to have existence exist.

The symbol fails to put things there in order to remove them from
the game, and at no time is he putting the game there, not like he did
as the orientation point that created the Q1 wherein his game resides.

At first he will stiff upper lip it by saying 'Ain't life grand!",
and then he will sour grapes it by saying "Eh, I didn't want that
anyhow!" but then he will fall down to "Nope life sucks!" and start to
lay black curtains over the parts he no longer wants to know about or
forget FOREVER.

THE FOUR CONDITIONS OF EXISTENCE

They are:

As-isness the original moment of putting it there.

Alter-isness the addition of significance and questions,
to what has been put there,
this causes time and persistence as an is-ness.

Is-ness the resulting persistence in time.

Not-isness the denial of an is-ness by covering it in
black, invisibility, mass and force.

There are thus 4 types of cases, corresponding to the predominant
use by the being of the 4 conditions of existence.

THE AS-ISNESS case

The as-isness case is mostly involved in putting things there, and
is aware he is doing so. Things 'last' as long as he continues to reput
them there and they vanish as soon as he takes his attention off of
them, they become as if never created.

This guy is 'ever new'.

For example, the being puts a spider there and continues to put the
spider there knowingly and willingly with full awareness of the
consequences of which there are none because he isn't putting any there.

The as-isness case is mostly involved in creating 'ever news'.

The as-isness case is the easiest to audit, because he can spot the
he is putting things there in real time, and cease doing so in real
time.

His main 'problem is getting things to persist' with out having to
put them there constantly himself.

He seeks impingment and other determinism to freely engage with.

(By other determinism we DO NOT mean that the being has fallen down
to being determined by others, it means the being is fully self
determined in a co acting group of other fully self determined beings.

The other determined being, that is being determined BY OTHERS, is
at the bottom of the tone scale.

He is in the valence of someone else whom he tried to other
determine earlier and failed/regretted it and so became it by doing a
life continuum on it.)

THE ALTER-ISNESS CASE

The alter-isness case is mostly involved in trying to get things to
persist through alteration.

In the first moment of time (as-is) the being puts a spider there.

In the second moment of time (alter-is) he questions

"Where the HELL did THAT come from!?

And what should I *DO* about it?"

In the second moment of time he is no longer in direct contact with
the first moment of time where it is clear to him that HE is putting the
spider there.

So in the second moment of time he becomes seriously worried about
his sovereignty and "who or what is cause around here and why is it such
an asshole!?"

He also becomes hell bent trying to determine (figure out by
question asking) what to DO about the spider, which is beginning to
agitate like its going to come after him and bite him, totally based on
the static's new found worry about spiders. :)

Notice 'to determine' above means to learn by looking which
is symbol mode operation.

In orientation mode "to determine" means to make it so
by putting it there.

This question asking about what to DO about the spider
PREPOSTULATES that the spider is there, and will not vanish on is own,
and thus by seeking what to do about the spider he unwittingly causes
its persistance.

And Lord save him, if he worries that the spider will come after
him and eat him, it will.

His postulate that it MIGHT guarantees that it WILL given enough
time.

The alter-is case is also relatively easy to audit, as he is only
one moment of time separated from the first moment of putting something
there.

The skilled auditor can get the being to take his attention off of
WHAT TO DO about the spider long enough to slip him back into the
original moment of putting it there, at which point the question "Where
the hell did that come from?" is answered, and "What should I DO about
it" is to stop putting it there.

The usual response of the preclear to this auditing will be
something like "Curses, woken up again!"

Notice that in the absence of auditing during the second moment of
time, the preclear will go into a FAILED WHY FINDING on "Where the hell
did that come from?" either through a NO WHY or a WRONG WHY, and start
to take up very seriously "What should I DO about it?"

Notice also that DOING something about something means PUTTING
SOMETHING MORE THERE.

So he has put a spider there, considers he can't just vanish it,
and thus goes on a rampage of putting MORE things there to stop the
spider from coming after him and eating him.

Walls, bombs, cages, armies, raid, whatever.

This results in mass and persistence galore surrounding the being,
and away we go into a games civilization.

A game is simply and only putting something MORE there to handle an
original as-isness he couldn't get rid of (by intent).

Look at all the trouble the guy goes through to get the football on
the other side of the goal post.

You want a touch down?

Why not just put it there?

Because CHASE and playing are more important than winning.

This results in an ISNESS case.

THE ISNESS CASE (DOING CASE).

The isness case has achieved optimum persistence for game play, and
its all very serious and important, and the glory is rich and rewarding.

Even though no isness game can ever be truly won forever.

Yeah you might be able to blow the spider up, but somewhere somehow
the bitch is in heat again.

A being can never win over or get rid of anything 'he isn't put
there' or is still wondering where it came from or who did put it there
because he wants to kill them forever.

It doesn't matter who put it there originally, only who is putting
there now, him.

Thus good can never win over evil, because good would never put
evil there to fight.

Yes, good might get up in the morning and be glad there is evil to
fight, but what good would ever say "Hey there isn't enough evil around
any more to fight, I think we will have to create some!"

Go'wan, Tell me I am wrong.

Isness cases are hard to audit if only because they are happy
chasing 'doomed'.

Chasing dooming others to avoid being doomed themselves.

They are particularly enamored of games where the winner is the
last one standing.

But they can start to get TOO doomed, they have lost awareness of
how to put and not put or unput games there, and so their games start to
decay into a non optimum game experience.

Game experience is measured by the amount of action and length of
the volley.

Some games are too easy to win, some are too hard to win.

In some the being ends off dead out of the gate, and others make
him suicidally bored.

Auditing at this level is hard because of the layers of
irresponsibility holding the failed games together, and the lust for
pride and glory based on winning over great odds.

He's not interested in getting out of games, he want to stop
winning or losing games!

He wants to PLAY forever!

Overtime, overtime, overtime...

The never ending volley.

The preclear has to learn how to turn the odds knob back up, and
difficulty knob back down, and become game writer again, and not just
game player.

Once the preclear feels he is in a game again that HE designed or
has control over, he becomes a formidable player because he WANTS the
game and he wants to play, consequences of winning or loosing be damned.

He will put those consequences there too, so they are HIS
consequeences.

He can do this all on a via, pay someone else to design the game
and its consequences for him, but its work for hire, he owns the game
completely.

And proudly he will show off how much he paid for it, and how good
he is at it, and recount his exploits of who doomed who, to the end of
time to anyone who will listen.

So auditing the ISNESS case is mostly auditing game theory, game
optimization and rehabbing high action games of chase and demise.

"Invent a game."

However in the absence of auditing, games become scarce.

There are just no good games to play, and pretty soon you find the
being STUCK in games he HAS to play but doesn't want to.

He is now trying to end the game rather than play it, and he will
try to win or lose the game by any means just to get rid of it forever
more.

That's called out ethics.

Why would you be in a game if you didn't want to play it, no good
will come of that.

The being falls down to comitting overts against the game and its
players, cheating, getting others to play for him, take the risks, and
give him the rewards, etc.

He becomes a mob member.

But this kicks back at him too, in one life he is an enforcer, in
the next he is the enforced.

Eventually he tries to die in the game, by covering it all in black
and taking on disabilities that make sure he CAN'T PLAY.

And in session he can't remember anything and is terrified of
living any of it down if he does.

And this is your NOT-ISNESS case, covered in blackness,
invisibility, mass and force.

THE NOT-ISNESS CASE

The not-isness case is the hardest to audit, he doesn't WANT to get
better or be more able , he wants to be better able to be unbetter and
NOT able.

The only safety left for him is to be as undangerous as possible to
his enemies and the environment closing in on him.

The very idea that he wants to fight his enemies will trigger their
radar, so he lives with that idea turned off.

However no fighting means no game.

Worse he is also mostly unaware of who he is, where he is, and when
he is, and certainly unaware of who is after him and what the nature of
his environment really is.

Eventually he becomes a meatball, and isn't even aware that he is a
he.

REMEDY OF BLACKNESS

Most auditing at higher levels is directed at remedying games, but
this guy has all his games covered in blackness and he is terrified the
blackness will go away.

He used his last ounce of free theta to lay down the last layer of
blackness, but was fortunate enough to blame it on something else so
that it would stick on its own.

But now he's got no theta left to make more blackness should his
existing blackness fail him.

Remember the precear has come a long ways down like so:

Putting it there
Lying about it
Putting something more there to handle the first
Lying about that too
etc.

So at any moment of time, the preclear IS engaging in more putting
something more there (as-isness), to cover up something earlier.

This means if you can get the preclear to look IN PRESENT TIME at
the very latest incarnation of putting something there to deal with
something earlier, you can get him to let go of that last layer of
putting something there, and the prior layer will show up!

This is why when auditing a preclear on problems, you want to audit
his SOLUTIONS, not the problem!

To hell with the first time he had the problem, find the first time
he had the solution.

Once all the solutions are gone, the problem will revert to a
simple 'putting it there' which he can then not put there.

That's Grade I, ability to recognize the source of problems and
make them vanish.

But he is terrified of the last layer showing up, he is just sure
he doesn't have the power to cover it back up again, should he remember
WHAT he is trying to cover up.

So rather than remedy havingness on games, the auditor has to
rememdy havingness on covering up games and their travail forever more.

Now in the PDC's this preclear is called a Step V which is probably
generous for most of them, who are really VI's nd VII's pretending to be
V's.

They are also called Black V's, because all 5 senses are blocked
out on their time track and all they can see is blackness and
invisibility, and they can't make any real, solid, colorful, high
affinity mockups, and they can't move on their track.

They are HIDING IN their track in moments of blackness so they
don't have to see what is ahead of them on their track.

They are doing this in present time, but they are hiding from a
moment in the past on their time track by sticking themselves even
earlier in blackness.

What they fear is ahead of where they are on their track in
blackness, but its still an event in the past.

Should they move up to that event it will reviv as something going
on in present time.

That's when the auditor had better know what he is doing, because
THE AUDITOR will be placed in one of the valences in the incident, as
will anyone trying to help the preclear.

Thus help can be perceived as harm during the reviv.

In fact if no case gain is being made during routine auditing of a
black V, the auditor is probably a perfect match for someone in the
incident on the other side of a table, questioning the preclear.

If the auditor restimulates the preclear's Nemesis One in this
fashion, his most detested and feared enemy, no auditing will take
place, the preclear will audit ANYTHING but the incident he is sitting
in, BECAUSE the auditor as his Nemesis One is sitting in the room right
there in it too!

That's too close for comfort for the preclear, he might confront a
Nemesis One or two a few light years away and 2000 centuries in the
future, but not right across the table from him.

Attempts to solve this problem in early auditing with "Who am I?",
trying to get the preclear in present time with regard to the auditor,
if no one else, are met with gales of laughter from the Nemesis One
valences in the primary incident waiting to reviv.

So Ron said the only way to audit a Step V preclear was to remedy
havingness by remedying BLACKNESS. (Standard Operating Procedure SOP-1)

Have him mockup blackness until the preclear is comfortable that he
has enough for any situation.

COUNTER INTUITIVE TRUTHS

If you look at the entire gestalt and context of the preclear
across his entire existence a certain truth comes through.

If the preclear says he has too much of something, it means he has
too little of it.

He can't get rid of it, because he won't make more of it.

If he won't put it there, make more of it as it is, he can't vanish
it either, just by letting it go.

He is TERRIFIED of being better, of having exactly and only what he
wants.

Oh God, does ABLE mean DISASTER to him.

"Get the idea of being worse."
"Get the idea of being better."

If the preclear says he has too little of something, that means he
has too much of it.

But again he won't make more of it, because he's afraid he won't be
able to stop making too much of it.

He is on a must create, can't not create.

Of which he is not making more of by putting it here.

The solution to both problems is to make more of it, until the
preclear can make whatever it is forever for free, and then stop making
it.

Then he can put an optimum amount of it there and go his way.

The guy who mopes and whines about not having any girl friends,
Jesus Christ, just open up his track a little bit and he has had so many
girl friends, love and collateral damage he can't count that high.

The guy is in solitary confinement in this life to give him some
respite from unsolitary CONFINEMENT in the past, so many people he just
couldn't move through them to get to the bathroom.

He just couldn't get away from them all particularly the harems and
the kids, and the grandkids, just on and on.

The guy who is 'alone' in this life, take a look at how many beings
are trying to communicate to him telepathically but can't due to his
mind wrapped around in the wall of China, so no one can find him.

Just so, this applies to blackness.

The preclear SAYS he has too much blackness, but the truth is he
doesn't have enough.

He also feels he has no control over what blackness he has.

He is terrified the blackness will simply fall down and he will see
what's underneath it, with no ability to put it back up again.

Do you have any idea how long it took him to forget his most
detested incident?

Let alone bury or sell off on craig's list every part of himself
that was involved?

It took him FOREVER to build up the walls of blackness, NOTHING
THERE and DIDN'T HAPPEN that he presently has, he feels he just doesn't
have it in him to do it again.

Its like worrying about opening a door with a hurricane going on
the other side.

You only want to open it if you know you can close it immediately
if things are too bad.

So you get the preclear to creatively mockup blackness until he
KNOWS he has so much blackness NOTHING could be so bad he couldn't just
cover it up again forever for free instantly and be done with it.

The free bit is because we aren't talking about rehabbing the
ability to create something (blackness) with a HUGE EXPENSIVE EFFORT.

He needs to be able to create things with the faintest whiff of
consideration that it's there.

He doesn't make effort with effort, and if he is, he's WAY down the
track using counter efforts as his present time effort.

And even those he is activating with the faintest consideration of
desire.

No, we need an EFFORT FREE creation of what he wants, as much as he
wants, as much as everyone else wants too, until he doesn't need it any
more or feel a scarcity of it, or a crushing suffocating over abundance
of it.

HOW TO AUDIT THE NOT-ISNESS CASE

The primary mistake of the auditor is trying to get the preclear to
tell what is under the blackness.

It is a high crime to audit a not-isness case like an isness case.

This is why "What could you take responsibility for in that
incident?" does not work on a Black V and only makes him worse and hate
auditing.

For one, he doesn't WANT to know, he wants to better be able to NOT
KNOW, and survive well anyhow.

And he can do that for a while.

For two he doesn't know what the incident is and looking into the
blackness won't show it to him, because that's not the way the blackness
works.

Blackness doesn't COVER other things, he has MOVED away from the
detested things on the track to a place of calm peaceful BLACKNESS.

He can only see the other things really by moving out of the
blackness and back up the track to where the things he doesn't want to
see are reviv bright.

He is TERRIFIED of knowing, the fear can kill is body.

THEN maybe he might get around to knowing just a little bit later
on down the road.

He can do that for a while.

The guy who is in terror about something but has no idea what it
is, should never be audited on what it is, but audited on NO and SOME
FEAR until he is stable NOT KNOWING, and he knows nothing can MAKE him
know if he doesn't want to.

Ultimately its all false knowing anyhow being forced on him.

But you gotta go WAY up the pole to get a lasting reality on that.

He is protecting his body after all and all those dynamics that
depend on him to remain alive, like the rest of civilization, and he
won't allow anything to endanger his body just to get better.

Better to be alive and unable than able and dead.

Remember that collateral damage mentioned above?

Well he loved all those girls and kids but they all ended up dead
anyhow.

HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

He also knows that fear alone can kill his body, so auditing him on
sovereign control over making nothing of fear will go a long ways to
restoring his confidence that when his bank goes BOO! at him, he
doesn't jump out of his skin, leaving it dead on the floor.

And the bank is FILLED with such incidents, his and everyone else's
too.

Those sad eyes.

So don't forget the incredible chain, and don't forget the BOO!
chain.

Blackness is his shield, beef up his shield to near infinity and
get him facile with using it, and he WILL start looking again.

One audits this like one audits any item.

This will probably kill him but,

Get the idea of NO invisibility.
Get the idea of SOME invisibility.

Get the idea of NO blackness.
Get the idea of SOME blackness.

Get the idea of NO mass.
Get the idea of SOME mass.

Get the idea of NO force.
Get the idea of SOME force.

E/P unflapable and Master of Black.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Nov 24 17:01:16 EST 2017

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Mar 21 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1043.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)

iD8DBQFasoGDURT1lqxE3HERAsPHAJ90CoCjbIW/KUDywgkJa3i/6zcPegCgrA/1
uh5dfKZoWjQLPUrPUFMF9OA=
=DN9T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l