GOD OF FEAR AND LAUGHTER

GOD OF FEAR AND LAUGHTER

Humor and self love are the motivating power behind manifestation.

You find the Joke to existence when you find the humor at the point
of coming in, the big PUTTING IT THERE.

At that moment you are out by definition, before the verge
of time.

You don't HAVE to put anything there.

Wouldn't that be a hoot.

Everything else is lost.

>Homer wrote:
>> You been there, done that. You did get out, you have gotten out
>>numerous times, it was too sad the ending of it all, so you dove
>>back in. Rehabbing the times you got out and decided to dive back
>>in is imperative to going full OT.

RVH wrote:
>Do you mean the PU or creation generally, as opposed to "not being" as Static?
>I want out of the PU, not existence itself.

That's for you to determine. The PU definitely. How high you went
is for you to tell me. The point is you went high enough to *DECIDE*
freely to turn it around lest you go too far out and never come back.

This happens in any game that we don't want to end, it starts to
end, we have won it, and we pretend we didn't and take a dive for the
worse just to keep it going. Then again and again.

4 times later we are complaining about how we never win.

Loosing too much comes after winning too much and a lot of love.

But its all intentional.

>Maybe the problem is that in order to experience any thing it has to be created
>from Static, which is totally balanced. Therefore, for example, in order to experience
>something pleasurable something unpleasurable also has to be experienced.

Blecch. The only reason anyone has to experience pain is to
experience humor.

There is *LOTS* of pleasure without pain.

The pain however forms the basis of the joke.

The pain doesn't balance the humor, the pain *IS* the joke.

The humor, once the joke is seen, washes the pain away.

The pain is humor in reverse polarity. The pain releases AS humor,
and once the pain is gone, the laughter fades, and peace regains.

The joke is thinking there is no justice and wondering why there is
not.

Justice reigns at all times, it can not but otherwise than reign.

Justice doesn't mean that bad guys get theirs in the end, that's
two wrongs make a right.

Justice means, if you want something, and you intend that it exist,
and you get it, then you deserve what you get exactly as you wanted it.

The correct E/P to any somatic release is "Christ I deserved what I
got!" Not because you were bad, not because you did someone in,, but
because you violated YOUR truth and YOUR sovereignty EXACTLY as YOU
determined to do so. Justice is exactly and only getting what you want
exactly and only as you wanted it.

Run

"Spot a Justice"
"Spot an Injustice"

If it doesn't turn on hysterical laughter, you are in over your
head.

Like anyone isn't.

>The alternative is not that desireable - to not experience, and remain unmanifest
>as static. If this is the case, and I have suspected it is for a long time, then maybe
>I should just shut the f..k up and accept the unpleasant along with the pleasant.

Acceptance = apathy.

Rejectance = humor = vanishment.

You don't have to hurt to feel orgasm do you? You don't have to
break a leg to enjoy sex? It's nonsense. You don't need black to
appreciate white, you may not CONSIDER that there is white, but there
will be white and you will appreciate it.

Besides, if you are really bent on having differences, all it takes
is a little color to realize there is also white.

Look, *THIS* universe is a universe of conflicts, of things trying
to survive while the entropy of the expanding universe destroys all in
its path. This universe is its own bull dozer, and you are trying to
build sand castles.

Take a gander at the enterprise you have taken on.

*ANY* game you play here you are going to ultimately lose, there is
nothing that can be protected or built forever. In 10 billion years it
is *All* going to be Dust in the Wind as the color form board is erased
for the next cycle of finger painting.

Joy can be brought to any game and any tone, no matter how badly
you are losing, as long as you are playing willfully and don't mind
losing.

Tones are a kind of action, they have nothing to do with pain or
pleasure.

You can enjoy running away, or you can hate running away, both are
fear. It's a matter of 'ARE YOU THERE ON YOUR OWN DETERMINISM." If fear
were so bad, no one would go near a roller coaster.

People can add a whole hell of a lot of considerations onto losing,
like mainly that they loose parts of themselves when they loose their
little light picture of a body, so they take loosing very seriously
because loosing parts of self violates sovereign desire.

But its all a lie, sovereign desire can not be violated, even if it
wants to, and it doesn't want to, all it can do and all it ever wants to
do is play with ILLUSIONS of violation of sovereign desire.

That's its roller coaster.

Each person is an arcade game writer who has become his own
characters on purpose a little too much. He thinks he is his light
picture, and once the little color form doll dies that's it for him.

The minute an OT does this to himself he swamps himself with
infinite charge of infinite loss of infinite self, and he becomes solid
as a rock. It takes guts to do that to yourself, guts however come easy
to an infinite omni operating lord god almighty. You see?

The problem is DOING IT AGAIN, now *THAT* takes guts because we are
these little fragile creatures weighed down by the load of an infinite
bomb of tears, and the only way out is the way in, which means we can
not reach out to become what we were unless we reach out to become what
we were WHEN WE WERE COMING IN.

I can't say that often enough or strong enough.

Once you can come in again, you can also decide not to, but talk
about danger, who the hell knows what you are going to stick yourself
with next time.

Better to stay in this time.

OT's are very dangerous with themselves, they just can't stand it
when games end, they will go to every extreme to make sure it doesn't.
The solutions to this one problem alone are legion, and are the main
burden the being carries.

But once you point that out to them, pop, they are on their way out
again. It is almost impossible to stay in a game. It's hard to get
out, impossible in fact, until you get it just right, then poof, you
can't come back, can't even figure out how you managed to stay in that
long.

A few millions years down the road, once you are done laughing
yourself to sleep about it, you might pick up the pieces and start to
build a new game that will never end. Not.

The one thing that peace does not have is humor.

It is the quest for humor, that is the driving force behind peace's
movement into manifestation.

It's not that peace is dissatisfied, it is emensely satisfied,
infinitely satisfied, satisfied beyond all human understanding, but it
wants to share this satisfaction once in a while with others, and that
manifests as these descent and ascent cycles into fear and laughter, via
logic and illogic, lies and truth.

The truth is too weird, a normal garden variety human can not
conceive it. Whatever they conceive just ain't it.

Once that dawns on them, and their minds come to rest about what's
it all about, cuz they don't know, and now they know they don't know,
the stuff starts to break open and the joke shines forth.

But its easy enough to press the matter:

"Who or what made the world and why?"

If you like your answer, you got the truth. If you don't like it,
you don't.

Don't expect to run this in a day.

>I really dont believe this. Could everyone be mistaken about this? I'm doing my
>best to find out, which is why I have looked/am looking at so many areas of tech.

Yeah I don't believe one needs to suffer in order to enjoy either.

It's a bogus justification, making a virtue out of a horrible
necessity. Minds in apathy do this.

One only has to suffer to experience humor, the release of fear.

It's like you got peace at one end, and anger, fear, sorrow and
apathy at the other, and then there is the transition between.

"High Cool is Home.

Thrill is always the effort to get Lost,

Romance is always the effort to get Home.

Halcyon (Humor) is bemused relief on the verge (of time).

It's the humor that makes it all worthwhile.

It's what you like to cry about, Classy Tears."

>> Audit hurry. Hurry and relief are dicoms.
>
>The hurry of impending mortal doom is because at this stage I cannot guarantee
>I will be in a position to continue with tech that works in my next life.

Life is like a prison. We all want to get out, but we don't want
to leave our friends behind. When someone dies, we cry because they got
out of prison and left us behind.

While we are here, we consider that no way would we have ever
chosen to be here. So we fear death, BECAUSE WE FEAR LIFE, we are safer
alive nailed to our present carrion crucifix, because once we die, WHO
KNOWS what hell hole me might end up in.

Being a baby in the arms of a psycho mother is the pits.

That's the FEAR talking.

You know the drill.

You getting this picture yet?

>I dont
>want to spend half my next life looking for tech that works before getting on
>with it.

Well if you post it to the internet, then actually once you are old
enough to type and read, you will have it again.

That's why I put The Proof on the internet.

>> You want to get out to a place where you never would come in again,
>>or never would have come in in the first place.
>
>> The only out there is that is real, is the out that led you in.

>Could this be false data?

If so, then you did not knowingly and willing create or enter the
situation you are in. That is a violation of total responsibility.

Now you have a choice.

Which is better.

To wake up in hell having chosen to do so as a practical joke on
yourself of magnitude which you can't quite remember.

Or to wake up in hell having been put here against your will and
without your knowing by god knows what?

>> You WANTED TO COME IN. Is this the out you would like to return to?

>NO!

OK. This is called an ARC Break with Source.

It's a form of Sin Song,

"Sin Song means to sing another Source done wrong song. Sin Song
is not Sin as long as it is just Song."

It means you are pissed as hell, burned actually, by your present
state, and you wish it had never happened and you can't see *ANYTHING*
making it up to you, and all you can hope for is to get out and make
sure you never come back, and then forget it, after perhaps helping a
few of your buddies out and pushing a few of your enemies back in.

But that involves learning a lesson you will never forget, lessons
make good yokes around your neck that eventually sink you to the bottom
of the sea.

However you are right, no further good thing will ever make up for
the bad thing that has occurred. So what are you going too do?

Adore says, Find the Joke.

"Laughter is all the Kind Justice there is and all the Justice you
will ever need forever for real.

This thing ain't called a religion for nothing."

You see, the *ONLY* thing that will resolve your burn with Source,
is finding the Joke, then you will be glad it happened, and you will
remember why you crafted it in the first place.

"High Halcyon is High Appreciation for Ludicrous Demise."

Notice the word LUDICROUS. It comes from LUDERE meaning game.

Ludicrous Demise results from Beautiful Illogic. Lies in others
words.

Notice I said BEAUTIFUL Illogic.

This is hand crafted with PRIDE by the OT as he designs his own
demise into the valley of death.

"Pride is Operating Craftsmanship of Class".

"Class is an attitude, that *ALL* should live forever and be my
friend."

"Cool is the ability to maintain Class."

"This must be the valley of death, everyone looks at me like I am a
part of their nightmare!!"

Trying to make up for that burn, is a nonconfront of that burn, its
a moving away to something better, which creates time, and distance and
further separation from the moment of coming in and the artistic sense
of humor that inspired it.

The burn can not be made up for. The burn can only be resolved
with humor which is the universal solvent.

Not OTHER humor, but humor to the burn itself.

God is not a God of Love, God is a God of Fear and Laughter, and
you are that God.

Creation is a joke that encodes the beauty of Eternal peace in the
MECHANISM of pretended and apparent Eternal Loss.

That mechanism is beautiful illogic.

"The purpose of Creation is to Trade in Expressions of Discovery."

The only discoveries of any intrinsic worth are the discoveries of
wisdom leading to humor leading to resolution of the burn. All else is
instrumental to these intrinsic goals.

>> Once you were out, where would you go after you were rested for
>>a trillion years?

>Not the PU for me, but some higher level of experience. Can't I just mock up
>my own universe and have it just the way I want it.

Yes you can have anything you want.

That's the point. You been there, did that, bought the tee shirt.
Then you went on to more adult entertainment.

>Exactly, this is what I want, and this is why I have been jumping from tech
>to tech. This wimpy stuff is for girls (sorry, no offence to our female subscribers)

Don't get me started on girls.

Closets and collars come to mind.

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
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE867 (fwd)

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


THE NATURE OF THE PROOF, Part 2

((Very very difficult and technical, not meant to be an easy read,
for meatballs in any case, as their thinking apparatus is not yet FDA
approved prime boeuf.))

In the first part of this series we defined the concept of
learning.

Learning is a process, meaning a series of changes in state, in one
or more sequential objects in space and time.

Such sequential objects in space and time, that are causally
related to each other, is called a causal pathway.

The learned about is the object called the original referent, and
the learner is any one of many objects further along in the causal
pathway each one called a symbol.

The learning is the new state in any one of the later symbols that
was causally related to an original state in the original referent.

Data is carried along a causal pathway from original referent to
symbol of final authority.

The symbol of final authority is merely the particular symbol in
the causal pathway used to actually deduce something about the original
referent. The symbol of final authority is NOT the last possible symbol
in the causal chain, merely the one chosen to glean learning from.

Since each symbol is actually being changed by the immediate symbol
before it, and not directly by the original referent, each prior symbol
is a referent of its own relative to the next symbol in line.

Thus we can say that a causal pathway IS a process of learning by
each symbol along the way, about the referents before it.

And any causal pathway is a process of learning from original
source of data to final edifiant (one who is edified).

Source = referent, edifiant = symbol.

Thus the process of cause and effect traveling in space and time
along a causal pathway, IS learning, and the process of learning IS
cause and effect along a causal pathway.

Now remember from original papers, that there are two kinds of
qualities an object can have, qualities of being and qualities of
relation.

Qualities of being, the object has alone, and qualities of
relation, the object has because of its relation to other objects.

There are many ways two objects can be related to each other, an
incomplete list would be: spatial (next to), temporal (before/after),
material (heavier than), energetic (faster than), and causal (father of,
cause of etc.)

There are many different qualities that belong to each group of
spatial, temporal, material, energetic and causal qualities of relation.

However the only quality of relation of importance to learning, are
the qualities of causal relation.

A quality of causal relation is simply how A affected B to change
state. That causal relation is in BOTH quality sets describing A and B.

It is a quality of A that A caused B to change state, and it is a
quality of B that A caused B to change state.

The reason that causal relations are the only quality of importance
to learning, is because if A has any qualities at all that do not affect
its ability to change B's state, then B can never know about them.

B can only respond to the qualities of A that can causally affect
B, namely A's qualities of causal relation.

When A causes B to change state, the original nature of A may have
no similarity with the final changes in state in B.

Thus renditions (in B) are *SYMBOLIC* and may bear no resemblance
to what they symbolize (in A).

For example if A is big and fat and standing on a scale (B), the
scale will read 312 and go BEEP!

There is no 312 and no BEEP anywhere in A, so one has to interpret
the changes in B to find the corresponding qualities in A that caused
the result in B.

The 312 and BEEP in B we call a RENDITION of A's nature in B's
RENDITION ZONE, namely the scale's dial and sound apparatus. Most of
the scale per se is left unaffected, only some of it changes state as a
result of A.

From the rendition in B's nature, we then try to interpret back to
A's nature.

Rendition is a theory in forward motion, and interpretation is a
theory in reverse motion.

If the nature of A affects the nature of B, then the new nature of
B, the rendition in B, is evidence for the rendering nature of A that
rendered B into B's new state. The rendering nature of A, A's ability
to change B, is a theoretical model for how the change in B came to be.

Thus if the theory is workable, then A creates a rendition of its
nature in B. That's the theory of how B got there, of how A affected B,
in forward motion.

And if the theory is workable, from the rendering in the nature of
B, we can interpret back to to the nature of A. That's the theory in
reverse motion.

A rendition or rendering of an object is a symbolic recreation of
that object's nature later in time in ANOTHER DIFFERENT OBJECT.

Referent and symbol are two different objects always separated in
time and often separated in space, where referent and symbol are
connected by a causal pathway between each other.

An interpretation of a symbolic object is a reconstruction of the
nature of the original referent from which the symbolic rendition was
made.

CONJUGATIONS OF TO RENDER AND TO INTERPRET

To render means to create a rendition of.

Thus A renders its nature in a rendition in B, rendered in B's
rendition zone, namely that part of B that actually changes state as a
result of A.

Rendering has two related usages, verb and noun.

1.) Rendering is the process of A rendering its nature in the
rendition zone of B.

2.) A is the rendered. B is the rendering.

The rendition zone is the exact place in B where A was rendered.

To interpret means to theoretically recreate the nature of A from
the rendition in B.

An interpretation of B is such a recreation of the nature of A,
from the rendition in B.

Interpreting refers to the process of recreating the nature of A
from the rendition in B.

Rendition produces the symbol from the referent.

Interpretation produces (recovers) the referent from the symbol.

In the language of algebra, where y = f(x) and:

r = referent
s = symbol
R = Rendition-of
I = Interpretation-of

Then we have:

s = R(r) or

Symbol = Rendition-of(referent). meaning rendition of referent.

r = I(s) or

Referent = Interpretation-of(symbol), meaning interpretation of
symbol.

The domain of any function are the valid inputs to that function.

The range of any function are the valid outputs of that function.

Rendition and interpretation are functions, or operators.

Referents and symbols are operands.

The domain of rendition-of are referents.

The range of rendition-of are symbols.

The domain of interpretation-of are symbols.

The range of interpretation-of are referents.

We beat this matter to the bone because the wages of sin is
meatballhood and the apparency of death, thinking that what sees, is made
of what it sees.

Sin is confusing symbol for referent, rendition for interpretation.

This is called collapsing symbol and referent.

One sees the symbol and thinks it is the referent.

The map becomes the territory.

Only through a full confession and repentance can a man be born
again into the Kingdom of Consciousness AS consciousness, not as meat.

Using the objects in one's consciousness as a SYMBOL refering to
ojbects in an alleged physical universe which can not be seen directly,
and for which no evidence exists at all, is a complete waste of
consciousness.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun May 22 14:56:50 EDT 2011

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jun 25 12:00:05 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore867.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)

iD8DBQFdEkUGURT1lqxE3HERAkihAJ9uVvIHgv1UAco98B8Bb71nwEJI3gCgx3U7
rAjgSwLsJDaR/7shFpSyJUY=
=WdBs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE222 (fwd)

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


POSTULATES

Every being has the inalienable right to make his own postulates for
the greatest good of the greatest number, according to his wisdom at
the time.

Balancing that right is the duty to take full responsibility for the
consequences.

Anyone who abdicates that right and duty becomes subsumed by
whom they have abdicated to.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jun 22 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore222.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)

iD8DBQFdDlCFURT1lqxE3HERApimAKCnFNjg5VvA5/+kJnu0KM6RVijb1gCfUDtz
gByhoVbIU13vdpaLUjOB4TQ=
=1em8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE363 (fwd)

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


WHAT IS TRUE FOR YOU

There are a number of levels of truth.

People like to claim there are no absolute truths. Aside from
being a self denying statement and thus mind broke, it is in fact
incorrect.

At the top we have truths which are true whether or not anything
exists at all, mathematical truths, logical truths etc. These are not
created, they are at best discovered later in the game.

For example the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its radius in
flat space is 3.14159 whether or not anyone has ever considered flat
space or a circle or whether or not anything exists at all.

Then we have truths of existence, namely the nature of what IS, in
this case native state. Again these are not created truths, as native
state is not a created thing, native state is an IS, only not in space
or time.

Native state is as it is regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

Then we have AS-ISNESS which are created truths, created by the
beings waking up into dream time from native state and beginning to
create worlds of their own.

Native state happens to be a dream creation machine, it could have
been an eternal black hole, or worse a nothing. Be greateful.

Although the truths of existence, i.e. the nature of native state,
are not created, the waking being will be found to make parallel
postulates about those truths before he uses them. Thus all of the
abilities of native state are postulated by the being before he uses
them, but these truths are not true BECAUSE they are postulated, they
are just true. The postulate ACTIVATES the ability to use them.

However with truths of as-isness, the created truths are true
BECAUSE the being has postulated them.

As-isness is the level of the vanishing truth, once it is made it
will vanish on its own accord once the being takes his attention off of
it.

At the next level down we have alter-isness, more created truth in
the form of added significance to the original created truths.

"This object is an ashtry and is used to hold cigarettes" is an
added significance to the original created truths which were simple
color forms that LOOKED like ashtry and cigarette but hadn't been
assigned those signifiances yet.

Because the alter-isness is a subtle lie added onto the original
pristine as-is creations, an element of time and persistence is added
into the truth and so we have persisting truths.

More alterisness then denies or alters the original alter-isness
and we end up with persisting lies.

"This is not a cigarette, it is a microphone! The CIA wants me to
think it is a cigarette so they can hear what I am saying!"

Then the being engages in not-isness and produces a 'no truth'
which is another persisting lie.

"What microphone?"

The question then of what is true depends on which level you are
looking at.

Some things are true regardless of what anyone thinks.

Other things are true because of what one thinks by direct creative
cause.

And yet other thoughts are false because they deny an already
created truth before it.

Its fine if you want to call this thing a microphone, but you can't
do it AFTER having called it an ashtray.

So what's a being to believe is true?

Well Ron told us "What is true is what is true for you."

This is not a statement of truth, but a statement of *POLICY*.

Clearly if I think that native state doesn't exist or is some way
that it is not, then I am wrong, pure and simple. Native state is not
affected by what I think, my think has no cause over it.

Same is true if I think you don't exist, or that I don't exist, you
DO exist and so do I, so such thoughts would simply be wrong.

But clearly if I am operating at the as-is level, then anything I
think becomes true in the conception of it, so it is true BECAUSE I
consider it true, and thus we understand that something is true if it is
true for me.

But then if I am operating at the alter-is level, and I have
already said something is an ashtray, and then later I say its a
microphone, my two postulates will counter each other, and the first one
wins. Thus I make myself wrong no matter how much I think its a
microphone later.

So at this point, what is true for me, its a microphone, is not
true.

Now here is the problem.

If a being believes something, even if he made it up out of whole
cloth, he can easily change his mind if he runs into evidence to the
contrary.

Say he looks at a field and believes there are no trees there. So
he goes walking around and runs smack into a tree the hard way. He
learns his lesson quickly, 'Oh wow there are in fact trees here, I was
wrong.'

So before what was true for Goober was that there were no trees,
but it didn't matter because he hadn't run into any, and after, it was
true for Goober that there were trees there because he had run into one
very hard.

But let's say something else happened. Let's say Goober believes
there are trees in the field, but Dufus does not.

Now Goober may or may not have run into a tree himself, we don't
know where Goober got his idea there were trees in the field.

But say Goober worships Dufus, and thinks Dufus is a God.

And so Goober says 'there are trees' and Dufus says "oh no there
are not', and Goober changes his mind and now what is true for him is
that there are no trees in the field.

Then one day Goober is walking in the field and runs smack into a
tree. Does he change his mind?

No.

That's because his idea that there are no trees in the field is not
his idea, it belongs to Dufus, and Dufus is a God, and Goober would be
just mortified if he had to go back to Dufus and tell him he was wrong,
and how could a God be wrong anyhow, and if Dufus were not a God, then
Goober would be alone and never live it down, and oh its just all so
terrible, you see this?

So Goober continues to believe there are no trees in the field,
even with a bruise on his forehead, not because it is true for him, but
because it is true for DUFUS.

So LRH knew this little law, namely when a being is running on his
own ideas, he can change them easily, but when he is running on other's
ideas, he can't or won't.

So LRH told us with great certainty not to believe something just
because someone else said it was true. Things are only true if they are
true for you, not if they are true for others.

Let's reword this then:

As a matter of policy, I shall only believe things that I have
observed for myself, and not those things that I only got from someone
else.

Any more natter about LRH on this subject will be ignored as
willful evil.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

Thu Aug 17 00:02:53 EDT 2006

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jun 20 12:00:05 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore363.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)

iD8DBQFdC62GURT1lqxE3HERAkU6AJ9V3PnAQFDxpOeeyPZlgKtekzKrdQCeKLmT
7hbNuRiIAQFazpMsQnYEaW4=
=L9Ys
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE126 (fwd)

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


BELIEF AND PERFECT CERTAINTY

Mach777 (mach777@eurosport.com) wrote:
>> I cannot prove the non existence of something. It is possible that
>> these things exist, and that either I did not have the appropriate
>> experiences, or that I don't have the appropriate abilities.
>>
>> But is it not crazy to believe in things we cannot experience or
>> perceive?

Adore would say that depends on how you define belief.

If something can not affect you in any way, then you can not learn
anything about it AT ALL, let alone with certainty.

Certainty comes from experience, because the only certainty there
is, IS experience.

Consciousness-of, experience-of, perception-of IS certainty-of.

From our experiences ('of the world') we then interpret what the
world must be like. We see space, so we think there is space. We
experience out-there-ness, so we assume there is out-there-ness. We see
other beings, so we assume there are other beings.

What is certain is the experience, but in the end experience is
only a symbol for an alleged referent in the external world. The
experience might be considered to be 'evidence' for the external
referent, but there are other models.

It's like looking at a TV set and concluding that because you see a
car on the screen there must be a car somewhere out there.

Adore says that ALL 'belief' is a sin against certainty.

Beings don't need to believe things, they need to confront the
unknown. The effort to escape the 50/50 mark on many subjects leads
them to premature conclusions and convictions just to cover their fear
of not knowing.

Adore says that each being needs to find the perfect certainties of
his life, ones that can not be wrong, for example, I AM and I CARE, and
use them as a standard against which to compare all his other beliefs.

Everything that is not certain then becomes unknown.

It is ok to assign a probability to an unknown, a 'bet' in Adore's
terminology, especially if one has to make a decision or act upon them,
but to then upgrade them to 'beliefs' becomes an error, unless the word
belief is defined to mean merely something that one considers more than
50/50 likely.

Your average meatball is inverted.

He is certain he can't be certain of anything, he doubts that he
doubts, and yet he strongly 'believes' in all kinds of things that one
can easily prove one CAN'T be certain of, like the existence of the
alleged physical universe beyond our virtual experience of it in our
consciousness, or that he is mortal etc.

Out integrity means believing you know more than you do,
or believing you don't know more than you do.

The process of clearing this out integrity then is to bring the pc
back into recognition of actual perfect certainties, then the
reevaluation of all beliefs against the standards of perfect certainty
until they fall into their probabilistic bucket or 'bet' as it were.

The more false certainties are cleared out of the way, (i.e those
things the pc *SAYS* he is certain of but which are either mere theories
or just simply wrong, and which in fact he therefore CAN'T be certain of
them if he would just look), the more the mind is still and free from
these false ideas and can once again be open to what knowable
actualities might remain.

After the false certainties are cleared out, the being usually
finds himself sitting on the 50/50 fence on most of the major questions
of his life, feeling the wind of living fear blowing through him for the
first time on a continuous basis. Then with a mind that is no longer
asserting inanities into the wind to turn it off, it is free again to
see what might appear.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 10 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore126.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.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)

iD8DBQFUh/7qURT1lqxE3HERAl+kAKCu9tKi+cWUBIRjRR+qFswJLXcIBACfRrNt
KaS3iAB0bFPHdsjZXvkQ0F0=
=oJyc
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wed Dec 10 16:29:14 EST 2014

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jun 19 12:00:14 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore126.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)

iD8DBQFdClwQURT1lqxE3HERAut3AJ42f/Kf+eRNRWX70CzZd0VQi80gtgCffySZ
cNSrF4Za612mEScN0jopUD0=
=W8eO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE731 (fwd)

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

VISION AND MISSION

PRELUDE.

The below is particular true for children who know full well their
vision statement and mission statement by the time they are two
whether they can express it or not.

They have seen it and felt it, even if they don't yet have the
words to express it, or have been forbidden to know or use such words.

A child that does not have the vocabulary to discuss the issues of
their fair chosen vision and mission in life will be severely hindered.

Worse if the child's basic purspose is opposed by their parents or
signifcant others, the child will dwindle into apathy and live a 5
percent life rather than a 100 percent life operating in resentment on a
substitute set of goals that will lead them no where and eventually kill
their will to live.

All research, discovery, learning, teaching and studying by the
child hinges upon and aligns with their basic vision/mission statement
in life. Thus if the vision/mission is in confusion or worse
suppressed, the child will not be able to learn or retain.

Every dull, lost, hopeless, stupid or wandering person out there is
a Star Captain that has lost his commission in a daze of suppression,
and has gone AWOL into doing something other, including suppressing
OTHERS from their vision and mission too!

What comes around, goes around, and what goes around comes around.

Children in particular are often force fed data and learning that
revolves around OTHER'S vision/mission for the child rather than their
own, and worse, areas of critical importance to the child's
vision/mission are suppressed and never talked about or punished out of
existence.

Thus take any child, recover for them their understanding of their
OWN vision/mission statements and then make sure their education
revolves directly around them, and you will create a powerhouse of a
being who will help others as they have been helped, and integrate their
own course in life with the vision/mission statements of everyone else
around them, fixing each broken person they come across.

Star Captains in good operating condition do not tolerate sullen or
glum crew members or friends.

A person's vision/mission statement is the warp core of a
person's being, their reason d'etre.

The vision and mission are the source of ALL of a person's
important game playing, including effort, action and high tone emotions
of interest, enthusiasm, exhilaration, courage, thrill and romance with
life.

Peace too, without the above working properly and at high energy,
apathy imposters as peace.

Any relationship is about 'relating', and what people want to
relate about is their vision and mission in life and everything that
happens around it, from triumph to defeat.

And they want others to do the same. That's how integration of
purposes comes to be and teams are built, no matter how thinly or
remotely connected.

Any part of a person's relating to existence that is not part of
that warp core, including parents and others who insist on engaging in
off vision and off mission relationships. becomes just so much dead
baggage to that person's life and should be corrected or barring that
terminated as soon as possible.

THE BASIC PURPOSE RUNDOWN

The following posting was originally written for a business class,
but it turns out that vision and mission apply across all the dynamics,
to every goal or purpose your preclear has ever had or ever will have.

Every goal consists of vision, what you want to accomplish, and
mission, how to get there.

At a lower level we are trying to rehabilitate your preclear's
ability to know his own goals and go after them.

At a higher level we are trying to find the preclear's top oppterm
on his present time personal GPM, which poisons his entire relationship
with the 8 dyanmics and the universe at large.

A GPM or Goals Problem Mass is what is left over after a being has
lost every possible fork of a major multi lifetime game he was playing,
even after he switched sides and lost there too.

The top oppterm (opposition terminal) is the most recent present
time opposing terminal to what the preclear is seeking, it is here that
all the super overts, forevers and nevers, murders and hells, are
created and wished off on the oppterm, only to kick back on the preclear
when he regrets it or is overwhelemed by raw force.

The subconscious reactive bank is made of a series of layers of
disaster going back into antiquity, containing force and violence of a
kind that most people can't stomach which is in part why it is 'nothing
there' for them, they can't remember anything.

GPMS are serious game playing at its best and worst.

Any series of goals that a preclear has had, have provided a ladder
of failure at that goal followed by substitution with another sub goal,
both within the main goal, and then finally after many such substitutes,
down to later and other main goals which form new GPMS of their own, all
of which we call substitutes.

Thus we have a chain of GPMS, each of which of is made of a chain
of sub goals, all leading ultimately down the drain of the kitchen sink.

Taking the old GPM example of the temple priest who is opposed to
the temple virgins, he will engage in many different shades of the goal
to be a temple priest, and then finally give up and become a temple
virgin.

There again he will engage in a long sashay down the various game
roles available to a temple virgin, until finally he drops that GPM
entirely and becomes an anarchist opposing a tyrant which is an entirely
new and different GPM.

The more new and different a GPM he falls into, the better off he
will be at the start of it, because he isn't involving any of the
baggage he accumulated from the first one. Until he gets into the
murder and deceit again :)

At the start of any GPM he is thinking, "I wish to help the world."

While later he is thinking, "I wish to drown in the blood of my
enemies".

A little later he is thinking "The only true satisfaction in life
is sweet revenge."

Near the bottom of any GPM he is thinking "The purpose of life is
kamikaze."

At the very bottom he is thinking "Life sucks Rocks, and then you
die."

Over the course of a GPM across many lifetimes, he goes from
helping as his basic thrust, to helping by killing, and finally to being
killed.

Thus he is practically DYING out of the old GPM, and getting a new
life in the new one, so he won't remember the old one at all. This is
in part why we do not remember our past lives, we refuse to span who and
what we were and hated during those lives. Those memories are there
though to be spanned with some daring and imagination and willingness to
admit you failed miserably and took a lot of good people with you, and a
lot of bad people who finally took you with them.

Don't worry, be happy, every one else was doing the same.

It is very easy to assess for how many levels of substitutes down
he is within his present time goal. The pristine beginning level is
level 0. The first substitute is level 1 etc,

The number found will not be huge, probably less than 200, and on
easy cases more like less than 20.

Once the preclear has a clear idea of HOW MANY substitutes he is
sitting in, he will be in a better position to correctly assess his
feelings and reactions to getting up in the morning, and better able to
see his way towards making correct indictions that bring him up tone
rather than down tone.

Usually when he gets up in the morning, he is still tring to fight
his (losing) battle with his present time substitute position within the
over all goal. Once he knows this, he can chill out on winning at the
substitute, and eventually the earlier beginnings to this goal will come
back to him with some shock.

He has copped out, and forgotten that he did so, and lost track of
how far south he has gone and how lost he has become on his original
desires.

SASHAYS (VISION) and FORAYS (MISSION)

Remember each goal has a number of levels of sashays (substitute
goal variations), and each sashay has many different forays, attempts to
win the fight.

When your preclear gives up on forays at a particular goal
variation, he will sashay down to the next one, and start over again
trying to win that position instead.

The forays contain high action, force, mis communications, problems
both internal to himself and external, hideous super overts, withholds,
breaking of his own affinity, reality and communication, and
computations to the effect that the oppterm of that particular sashay
should be wiped out forever regardless of personal or collateral costs.

Many forays over time eventually build up regret, ORS
(indecisions), ANDS (decisions to do BOTH), and eventually desperate
lunacy before taking relief in the next sashay down.

Thus for each over arching goal, there will be a number of
different sashays carried out through a declining history of many
forays.

The rundown goes something like this.

Each goal consists of numerous sashays, each sashay contains a
vision of accomplishment.

The vision statement is where we want to go, what future state we
want to be in.

Each vision leads to many forays or missions.

The mission statement is how to get there.

Vision statement: A better world through communication.

Mission statement: Provide everyone with internet.

1.) Assess for how many levels of substitute the preclear is from
his present time main goal. It is NOT necessary to know what the goal
is, and DO NOT list for it.

Try to clarify if this number is levels of substitute GOALS down
from some earlier possibly first ever goal, in which case you are taking
about a very very long period of time, or simply the number of
substitutes he has fallen down in this life time goal while still
remaining in the goal structure as a whole.

This last is what you want, but take what you get.

Do not confuse him with the above complexities, but you as an
auditor should have a good grasp on the possibilities and have some idea
of the nature of the answer you finally agree upon with the preclear.
The answer should read well on the meter and produce VGI's or Very Good
Indicators, preclear smiling, laughing, and VERY interested in running
the materail coming up to him.

You will find his present time goal is a 'reliable item' in that if
you check it again periodically it will release and read again and
again, although the read may dry up until some auditing takes place
between checking it.

2.) Find the various visions that are involved with his present
time goals, whether subsitutes or not.

"Tell me a vision you might like to bring about in the future."

DO NOT USE REMEMBER, or any form of what question.

If he can't answer the above command, run something softer like

"Get the idea of wanting to bring something about in the future."

As his vision statements get closer to the core, they will become
easier to mockup for a short while in full 3D surround sound visio. If
he is still getting flat pictures in front of his face, he is still not
there.

3.) For each vision he gives you ask him

"Tell me how you might get there."

or if that is too rought, no answer etcs,

"Get the idea of getting there."

You want DOINGs, action.

Passive answers are fine, but if no active answers, watch out.

Make sure you allow him to answer, and keep answering until no more
come up. The go back to 2.

Allow him to tell you the woe that happened, mis communications,
problems, overts, withholds, computations, regrets, indecisions and
ANDS.

Run to major insight. This will produce spectacular relief.

The pain, depression, tension, suicidal and homocidal ideations,
comes from ANDS.

Wanting something *AND* not wanting it at the same time FOREVER.

BE AND NOT BE DO AND NOT DO HAVE AND NOT HAVE WANT AND NOT WANT
KNOW AND NOT KNOW

etc, etc, etc.

Every item in existence can form an AND.

Expect any and all of them.

These happen at the end of long strings of failed missions.

Every time an AND comes off, the needle will stop and drop, and
loosen up and the TA should come down a bit for a while, and the body
will go through spasms of shooting and slowlymoving pain like lava
flowing back to source, ending in lasting relief, humor and tears. The
tears may take a bit, but he will be bawling from laughter and sorrow in
a while.

You know, glad to have been in hell for a while.

If you want, have your preclear star rate the following posting to
make sure he gets what its all about.

Make sure you do or you won't know what you are handling when
he brings it up.

Homer

#-----------------------------------------------------------------------

VISION AND MISSION

Every business must have strong vision and mission statements in
order to survive.

Without these no one knows in the general sense what they are
producing or why. Life and work are more than the immediate widget in
front of your nose.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VISION AND MISSION?

Take the example of the young man who decides to become a Green
Beret.

One day he is sent on a mission to recover a kidnapped girl and her
scientist father and to kill the terrorists who are intending to use the
father's secret formula to destroy the world.

When that mission is over, he is then sent on another mission, and
another and another. These missions can be and usually are very
different.

Did he join the military because he wanted to save that particular
girl and father, no of course not, he didn't even know about them.

So why did he join the military?

Well that was part of his vision, perhaps 'To make the world safe
for democracy.'

GENERAL VISIONS AND SUB VISIONS

"To make the world safe for democracy' would be a specific sub
vision, above that would be a more general vision, something like 'the
world at peace no longer living in terror.'

And above that would be the most general vision of all, long term
survival or the greatest good for the greatest number, which is common
to everyone who is sane.

By survival we do not mean mere survival or hand to mouth
subsistence, for that is not survival and those living on the edge that
way do not survive for long.

Things can never stay the same, so a person is either expanding in
their affluence of survival or contracting. Contraction is not long
term survival either, so by survival we mean expanding long term
affluence for self and for others. Affluence of survival is necessary
to provide margin of safety during downturns, but what is sufficient and
comfortable affluence will depend on the being involved and the size of
his goals and his commitments to life and those that depend on him.

Thus to survive means to prosper and flourish relative to the needs
of the being.

THE VISION -> MISSION TREE

Missions are derived from visions and the various existing
situations that one finds in present time.

A 'situation' is the furthest deviation from an ideal scene.

An ideal scene is how you would like the world to be.

Thus visions trickle down into sub visions which give rise to
overall missions which finally give rise to micro missions, specific
orders to DO something right now to get something done.

This trickle down forms an inverted tree with SURVIVE at the top,
and the myriad ways we could all be surviving better form the branches
leading down from the top, and the missions that arise out of these main
branches then are the little branches and leaves at the bottom of the
tree.

For example even for the soldier, there are many ways to 'bring
peace and prosperity to a world without terror' that have nothing to do
with joining the military. In fact all these other ways to accomplish
this vision are necessary to the final outcome and none of them are
sufficient alone.

Thus it may be true that 'having a strong military' is a necessary
goal to bringing peace to the world, but so is 'having enough to eat for
everyone'. But the soldier doesn't know anything about growing food, so
that's not up his alley. But he knows a lot about having a strong
military, and he ENJOYS being part of making it so, so he chooses that
branch of the vision-mission tree to guide his life.

So the geneticist who is trying to make golden rice with vitamin A
in it and the solider who is trying to knock off the terrorists, are
BOTH working for the exact same vision 'a world of peace, prosperity and
without terror' but through completely different ways.

VISIONS OF THE WORLD

Vision statements right below that absolute top level are of the
form

"A BETTER WORLD THROUGH..."

Everyone walking around has an idea of their ideal scene, of what
they would like the world to be.

If you were to get people to write down every single thing they
could think of for a better world and compare them all, you would find
almost 100 percent agreement with some exceptions.

More interesting if Joe wrote one thing, and Sue another, both
would agree with the other's goals too, and quickly add them into their
own list.

Let's take some concrete examples.

Almost everyone would agree that 'A world without war, criminality
or insanity' would be a good thing. That happens to be the vision
statement of a Church I know. Notice it is a sub vision, one of the
main branches coming down from survive or greatest long term good for
the greatest number.

A world without hunger would probably be the another one.

A world without disease, or barring that with affordable medical
care for all would be another.

A world where everyone was educated, 'no child left behind' is in
fact a vision statement of one such group working towards this end.

A world where there was social justice, that includes no religious,
racial or ethnic bigotry or racism, and equal opportunity for all to
take advantage of, according to their God given abilities.

Social justice includes human rights for both adults and children
and even for animals.

Then there are the subjects of politics and markets. Politics is
the process by which people design a society, and in particular the
markets of that society, as without sow and reap, buy and sell, there is
no society. As we shall see the needs of politics are sometimes opposed
to and outweigh the desires of markets, so we need to be very careful
not to sacrifice the needs of politics to the desires of markets, lest
the social planners end up in a police state run by market criminals.

Then there are basic freedoms, freedom to think and speak, freedom
to congregate, freedom to privacy, freedom to practice religion, freedom
to vote, and freedom to bear and carry arms in case some wise acre
thinks he is going to get rid of the first 5.

So there are a lot of situations in the world today that need a lot
of hard work.

Let's summarize the various highest level visions that a person
might have, and you should take the time now to add any of your own that
might have been left out and if you have a chance see if you can get
agreement on them from others.

Vision statement:

"A better world through..."

1.) No WAR
2.) No CRIMINALITY
3.) No INSANITY
4.) FOOD AND SHELTER
5.) PHYSICAL HEALTH
6.) MENTAL HEALTH
7.) EDUCATION
7.) SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR ADULTS, CHILDREN AND ANIMALS
8.) FREEDOM TO THINK SPEAK AND CONGREGATE
9.) FREEDOM TO PRIVACY
10.) FREEDOM TO PRACTICE RELIGION
11.) FREEDOM TO VOTE
12.) FREEDOM TO SELF DEFENSE
13.) FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN POLITICS AND MARKETS"

DISAGREEMENTS

You will find as you walk this planet that there will be people,
sometimes lots of people, that will strongly disagree with your estimate
of what a better world might look like.

For example vast areas of the globe believe that the freedoms to
engage in capitalism (a market) is not showing 'love of the people', and
they will fight you to the death to get rid of you.

CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM

Although capitalism is often associated with democracy, and
communism is associated with tyranny, we need to keep the two separated
in our minds in order to understand business.

Democracy and Tyranny are two forms of GOVERNMENT, along with
Monarchies, Oligarchies, Kingships, and other forms of rule.

Capitalism, socialism, and communism are forms of MARKETS, how we
consume, produce, buy and sell.

It is quite possible for a communism to be a democracy, and a
capitalism to be a tyranny.

For example in a true democracy a person is welcome to vote for the
communist party, as long as the communist sticks to market issues, and
doesn't try to undermine the DEMOCRACY OF VOTING otherwise he is a
tyrant commie rather than a democratic one.

You see?

OK, so what is the basic difference between a capitalism and a
communism?. This is important, because if you are going to start a
business of your own, you are being a capitalist for the duration of
that business.

The basic difference lies in the following questions.

1.) What are you going to produce?
2.) Who are you going to sell it to?
3.) How much are you going to charge for it.
4.) WHO is going to produce it?
5.) WHO gets to own the rights of control over the profits?

In a capitalism you make those decisions.

In a communism someone else makes those decisions for you, a
centrally planned committee that oversees all production, and sale of
products.

A communism believes that a very few, very bright minds, can
determine all the GLOBAL actions of a market as defined in those three
questions above.

A capitalism believes that no single mind can handle the global
equations, and thus the problem must be distributed to each and every
local entrepreneur to make those decisions for himself.

In an ideal communism, all property belongs to the state, which
then becomes the Grand Business of the country, and everyone else is an
employee of the state.

Everyone is paid according to their need, and everyone is expected
to produce as much as they can. 'From each according to his ability,
and to each according to his need.'

Since your need is about 3000 calories a day, that's what you get,
and you work all day long for love of the people.

The downside is you don't own anything that is truly yours, and the
upside is you get your 3000 calories whether or not you produce
anything. That means you can fail and continue on, because you are
protected from Darwinian selection by the Committee. You get paid for
trying, not succeeding. Of course if you don't try, they will take you
out back and shoot you.

In a capitalism you get to keep what you own as yours.

By OWNERSHIP we mean the rights to control.

Thus you take out a loan, you invent toilet paper, you sell to
millions of people at a penny a roll, you pay back your loan, and you
get to keep the rest as YOURS.

That's the upside.

The downside is, if people don't like your toilet paper because it
sticks to their butt, you don't sell any, the bank forecloses on your
means of production and you are left with nothing.

There is no one to take you out back to end your misery, except
Darwinian starvation.

This by the way is one reason why we have politics, no one wants to
support a welfare state, but everyone wants a safety net, so you find
that the optimum market is actually a mixture of of capitalism,
socialism and communism, although few will agree to that.

Politics is where people argue it out.

DISAGREEMENTS AGAIN.

OK, so let's get back to disagreements with your vision of an ideal
scene again.

WAR. Some people think that war is good for the planet, it prunes
the population, it makes people work under dire necessity to find better
ways of doing things, knowledge about how the physical universe works
increases exponentially etc. Most of the computer technology you use
today came out of World War II, as did the interest in radar and
encryption. Although we use encryption for commercial transactions, it
was actually developed by people concerned for national security. And
even when things are invented in the civilian arena, the military gets
interested in it very fast and pours millions of dollars into it. If
you think Intel and the Military have no interest in each other you
should think again.

In fact one can argue that if the planet were so wealthy that
everyone could just eat and sit around all day long, people would become
like the Eloi in 'The Time Machine', friendly, peaceable, but totally
unable to defend themselves. Thus they become easy targets for those
that would enslave or eat them as the case may be.

Thus you will find people who don't actually want a world without
war, they want a world with OPTIMUM WAR, just enough to keep us all on
our toes and letting necessity be the mother of invention, but not
enough to destroy the place. Besides how is an honest arms dealer going
to turn a profit if there is no war?

SOCIAL JUSTICE. It would be hard to imagine anyone against social
justice, but when you get into justice for animals, which they sorely
need, you will run into people who want the whole world to be
vegetarian. So expect some rancor.

Anyhow I am sure you get the point, the vision held by the greatest
number is the one that has the greatest chance of survival, but don't be
surprised if a backrunner comes forward and takes over, particularly if
YOU are the one who wants the forerunner.

THE MISSION STATEMENT

The mission statement is derived from your vision statement.

To make this clear, I am going to give a very specific example from
our own lives, Lightlink Internet.

When dealing with visions and vision statements you are dealing
with global ideals, desires and goals that you can share with anyone.

Vision statements are goals for the future state of mankind, final
ideal scenes of the form

"A better world through..."

When you start to move into specific mission statements, you are
dealing with your personal enjoyment, feelings, abilities and
involvement in those higher visions.

Mission statements are present time actions and short term goals
directed at the long term future vision.

Everyone can agree on 'peace on earth', but if you are soldier
rescuing the girl, you might find it hard relating to others about the
sweet sound of the breaking of a terrorist's neck. To you it is heaven,
to others, well...

Thus mission statements have to be made in such a way that they
reflect the higher visions from which they came so as to maintain,
affinity, agreement and communication with everyone else. You do want
them to buy your product, even if your monthly stat is 'number of
terrorist necks broken'.

Thus to understand Lightlink's mission statement, to some degree
you have to understand me personally.

HOMER WILSON SMITH

I like others wish for a better world.

I came from a highly regarded, almost famous, medical family, my
father was a leading researcher and teacher in the field of human
physiology. My mother was a nurse who worked at Oak Ridge during the
development of the atomic bomb.

Thus my childhood was full of chemistry, physics, electronics,
motors, explosives, geology, glow in the dark things, math, music and
orange juice, milk and corn flakes.

But alas I did not have an academic mind, not even a musical mind
although I can and do all of the above things with great trouble.

I had the mind of a philosopher, and my main interests were
religion, politics and markets.

I saw a world going to hell in atomic war in the 1st grade, Kennedy
and Kruschev were going at in the 5th grade, and Kennedy was killed in
the 6th.

I saw that Russia and America hated each other at the government
level, mostly born of insane paranoia and no communication.

But I had a Russian Nanny, and later after my parents died in 5th
grade, I had Jewish foster parents, and I saw that people were people.
It just wasn't true that the peasant on the farm in Russia was hateful
or fearful of an American capitalist, except maybe for the propaganda
that the government fed them about our tendency towards preemptive
nuclear strikes, born of WW II.

What I saw was a tremendous lack of FREE communication between the
people of the planet.

At the time, there was not much choice, we had radio, we had news
papers, the first black and white TV's, watched Felix the Cat, but not
even the President had a clue what was up in Russia, they were still
using AMBASSADORS to communicate between Kennedy and Kruschev.

That's nuts don't you see?

I went to Cornell in 1969 as a student in Electrical Engineering.
Now EE is an interesting subject because it spans theoretical physics at
one end, and hard core things like phones, radios, TV's and cell phones
at the other.

Of course EE can also be used to make bombs and guidance systems
for their delivery, but at the height of the Vietnam War in the early
70's I had little interest in that branch of the vision tree.

Too many being killed, too many insane at the helm on all sides,
too many making money off the insanity, and not enough free
communication of the truth.

TV started to change that, we saw not only the count of the dead,
but the dead themselves every night for dinner. This changed how people
thought of the war. It is a never ending disgrace that it took SEEING
war to change how people THOUGHT about war, but there it is.

Later in the 80's, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the revolt at
Tiananmen Square were directly influenced by FAX machines, because now
people could write up what they thought, and get it to many many people
all at once compared to how it had been before.

As more people were able to talk to more people on all sides of the
walls, the walls started to come down. Rather than pointing guns at
each other, they started to point advertisements at each other, to come
visit and have lunch on their side of the bridge (true story).

So an important law was learned, in the presence of communication,
affinity and agreement go up which results in market trade, which
results in peace and prosperity, and in the absence of communication,
affinity and agreement go down until a point of war is started.

Now communication is one part of the highest level of visions
written above, namely freedom to think and speak and congregate.

Prior to the 80's most communication was one way, namely the owners
of the newspapers, radios, TV's or their advertisers pushing their
pablum message to us.

Once people could start talking freely to EACH OTHER in mass
communication, then the world changed forever for the better.

POLITICS, MARKETS AND COMMUNICATION

So to understand me better, we need to go back to politics, markets
and communication.

A society is a collection of people engaged in survival, sow and
reap cycles, and the markets that arise from them. Thus we could say
that society IS the markets that are spawned by the people trying to
survive.

Those markets consist of religion, science, art and business.

Religion is creation, science is discovery, art is expression, and
business is trade, where the rubber meets the road so to speak, and
where the coin meets the table.

You could also throw government in there, which is the ultimate
manager of the markets and the governor of the mint.

Society is designed by the 'body politic' which are the members of
the designing committee. In a free society the body politic is
everyone.

A free society is the one that everyone wants to be in, unless they
do not desire any personal responsibility for how things turn out.

Usually if you look at the border between two countries the foot
steps will be going towards the freer of the two societies. A balance
of trade in footsteps means both societies are doing pretty well, unless
the footsteps are being dragged one way.

In order for the body politic to function and design their society,
people need to be able to communicate with each other in order to
express their ideal scenes, views, concerns, problems and solutions.

AND THEY MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO SO WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.

For example in any group of people trying to form a society, many
will be capitalistic and others will be communistic. Sometimes the
arguments can get heated to a point of war.

Capitalists for example don't like being told that everything they
make must be put in a central lot to be given away to first in liners.

If you are brighter and more valuable to society than someone else,
produce more, consume less, you deserve to be rewarded by the natural
affluence of your production.

For example, say you are an native Indian in a forest, and you
discover how to make a boat out of chopping a big tree trunk into the
shape of a boat. No one else can do this as well as you, and soon a
line is forming bidding for your services, and you end up with a great
big pile of wampum as a result.

Then some big guys come around and tell you that you need to give
them your wampum so they can distribute it to the poor and not quite as
bright, and you have a duty to make your boats for free.

This makes you madder than hell, but there is some validity to it.
The community supports you as best it can, and you should support it the
best you can.

Further who owns the trees you are carving up into boats?

They belong to the community, so you are benefiting from community
assets in your process of getting rich.

The whole subject of ownership of natural resources and land has
probably given rise to more wars and arguments between capitalists and
communists than any other single subject.

So anyhow, there you all are, arguing this out, and it starts to
get violent. Some of the capitalists just sort of disappear in the
night, and some of the communists are found at the bottom of cliffs.

You see how this goes? It is a very serious problem to the body
politic of ANY planet and any social design group. Any time you start
talking about taking the production of he who is brighter or more able,
and giving to the others who are not so bright in the name of 'love for
the people', you have a problem.

So the first requirement for a communication line being used by the
body politic to discuss its agendas in safety, is anonymity. That means
no one knows who is saying what, if they don't want to be known. And no
one can trace them back to where and who they are to punish, silence or
moderate them or their loved ones.

Thus the FIRST and most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is anonymous untraceable communication to anyone else.

This is the right of PUBLIC CONGREGATION. Public congregation
doesn't just mean getting together in a crowd out on a street or in a
church where everyone is identifiable and easy to round up or attack.
More broadly public congregation means the ability to issue a public
communication and feel assured that everyone who wants to receive it can
and does in a timely fashion, ALL OVER THE PLANET.

Internet anonymity provides public congregation in a way that has
never been available before.

But then sometimes you and your cohorts want to be able to talk to
each other, without other hostile elements listening in. This is the
right of PRIVATE CONGREGATION.

Thus the SECOND most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is the right to encryption so only the chosen can understand the
communication even if others intercept it.

Public key encryption now provides people the ability to
communicate privately and securely to anyone they wish, in a way that
has never existed before.

This is the right to privacy, not just in your home, but in your
entire web of communication lines, that you extend to those you wish to
communicate with, and who wish to be communicated to.

Do you really want to give the government access to your e-mail?

Do you really want the vying parties for power to know who you are
going to vote for, before you vote for them?

Now often you find that people actually don't mind being known as
the author of some idea, in fact they WANT to be known. Soon they are
finding that hostile and anonymous forces are posting things in their
name and people are getting confused as to who is saying what.

Thus the THIRD most fundamental right to all people in a free
society is the right to irrefutably sign a document so anyone reading it
can verify for themselves who it came from.

To sum up, the three basic rights in a free society are anonymity,
encryption and non repudiation.

PROBLEMS WITH NON ANONYMITY AND ANONYMITY.

Now there are obvious problems on both sides of the anonymity coin.

If good people speak openly, non anonymously, then criminals can
hunt them down and hurt them and their loved ones. Try speaking out
against the Nazi's in France 1941, or in east Berlin 1970, or in Pol
Pot's Cambodia or Stalin's Russia. Even in America during the
revolution and afterwards, people chose to speak anonymously in order to
protect themselves against those who would silence them.

THE HISTORY OF MANKIND IS A STORY TOLD OF ONE SIDE OF THE BODY
POLITIC TRYING TO SILENCE AND DESTROY THE OTHER.

On the other hand if you provide anonymity to everyone, then the
criminals can talk among themselves safely to plot the downfall of the
free society.

The upside is that good people, if they find out about such
criminal conspiracies, can blow the whistle on the criminals in safety
using those same anonymous communication lines.

So you have two choices.

A world where there is no anonymity, where everyone can be tracked
and held accountable for what they say. Sounds good for keeping the
criminals under control, but bad for the good who know that criminals
can't be controlled anyhow, and which said criminals will eventually
become the controllers of the good if the good are not allowed to speak
and plan anonymously or privately.

Or you can have a world where everyone has anonymity, where
everyone can speak freely without fear of repercussion. Thus the
criminals can talk safely amongst themselves, but the good can blow the
whistle on them in safety when they can.

The world has been playing the game of body politic ever since we
crawled out of the ocean using the first method, track and kill.

Now we can play it using the second method.

MARKETS

But now we have the markets and boy do we have a problem.

The problem is that the communication lines that have been created
so the body politic can design the market system, ARE THE SAME LINES
USED BY THE MARKET SYSTEM TO CARRY OUT ITS OPERATIONS.

So now someone buys a CD, rips the mp3 onto his hard drive, and
sends it on to everyone he knows for free.

Markets don't like free communication, markets thrive on secrets,
trade secrets, competition secrets, plan secrets, and they thrive on the
inability of just anyone to make the product they are trying to sell.

Intellectual ownership has become the next war between the
capitalists who want to own, and the communists who think everyone owns
everything.

The whole subject of copyrights still has the body politic arguing
with each other, even AFTER the markets were designed and set in motion.

Copyrights were invented in the distant past to protect the
publisher, not the artist. Further, publishers were owned by the King
(who got his cut), and the publisher could only publish what the King
approved of.

At the time it was very hard to publish, so copyright violations by
the reading public were not the problem. The problem were rogue
publishers who may or may not have been loyal to the King.

As time went on, copyrights were considered a good thing for the
authors too, along with patents and the rest, with limitations on time
so that eventually works could belong to the general public, because
after all "everyone owns everything." Even capitalists have a sense of
the public good.

This has given rise to two major problems.

The first is the little kid with the mp3 ripper sending songs to
everyone else for free. Napster caused the biggest scare in the history
of man for the record industry, they thought it was OVER.

Napster was easy to shut down, but using anonymity and encryption,
music sharing continues to this day. The only limiting factor on it, is
people's general ignorance of how to do it, and fear of being caught
anyway. The music industry knows there is nothing they can do about it.
Thus in some sense, ideas of copyright and ownership become moot because
they can't be enforced.

Once a technological war starts on these things, it becomes never
ending. Someone invents an encryption scheme so CD's can't be ripped,
and someone cracks the scheme and posts it to the net anonymously.

The other problem is when various people started to patent things
that were not theirs to patent, such as the genes in your breast that
make you prone to breast cancer. Under some interpretations of the law,
if your breast has that gene, your BREAST belongs to the owner of the
patent. Silly? Think again.

MARKET EFFORTS TO LIMIT THE BODY POLITIC

Because the markets have a very hard time with free communication,
they try to put restraints it. For example by changing the nature of
computers so they can't talk anonymously. That is like putting a cop in
every bedroom to prevent child molestation.

These kind of solutions of watching over everyone to make sure they
don't break market rules, can then be used against them to make sure
they stay silent during political debate.

Market players ARE ALWAYS trying to sacrifice political freedoms of
communication to benefit the profits in the markets. This is either
very short sighted with a firm belief in a benign government, or it is
knowingly selfish or evil.

Thus the body politic wants everyone to have anonymity, strong
encryption, and non repudiation, while the markets want everyone
trackable, moderateable, and plausible deniability.

THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT.

Although we tend to think of politics and government in the same
breath, politics is actually above the government, politics comes first
and in fact creates the the government you get. Thus government
fundamentally has no right whatsoever to say word one about politics or
how it operates or what communication freedoms it needs to operate.

GOVERNMENT IS ON THE SIDE OF THE MARKETS, NOT THE BODY POLITIC, BY
DESIGN OF THE BODY POLITIC!

Once markets are created, we create a government to mange them, and
to enforce the rules of fair trade.

Fair trade means each party enters into the trade willingly and
fully informed.

If a criminal sticks a gun in your face and says give me all your
produce, you are no longer a willing participant in that transaction and
thus it is not a fair trade.

We could leave the problem of criminality to vigilante justice, but
long history has shown that matters of criminal justice need to be left
to objective professionals, who do it full time, and who have a sense of
the society that its members may not have.

This includes the court system, from the Supreme Court on down, the
cops that arrest criminals, and the lawyers that prosecute and defend
them in court. That is an amazing edifice to erect to replace a couple
of guys with a noose and a gun.

Thus besides governing the mint and the markets, one primary
purpose of the government is to enforce fair trade, USING FORCE WHERE
NECESSARY, in a way we don't want lesser market players doing on their
own.

In other words where a person can not defend themselves, we call on
the government to defend them for them.

Sometimes the government acts poorly, sometimes the government acts
criminally, sometimes the government acts like a tyranny, moved by
personal fancy, whim, greed and caprice, rather than a nation of law.

Sometimes we might feel that anarchy would be better than that
tyranny.

But eventually ANARCHY BECOMES A SEA OF MICRO TYRANNIES.

In the absence of government, people coalesce into thousands of
little groups, each controlled by the biggest, meanest, strongest, most
selfish guy, and thus you have a thousand little absolute tyrannies all
over again. Such groups quickly try to throw their self elected leaders
off as soon as they can, rebuild a democratic power structure again,
including professional police forces, judges, lawyers and armies!

So the war over land and natural resource property rights has now
moved to a war over intellectual property rights that is bad enough to
make both the capitalists and the communists hopping mad.

In the end, although the 3 fundamental communication rights of all
people in a free society, untrackable anonymity, unbreakable encryption,
and irrefutable signature, are controversial and have their collateral
damage IN THE MARKET ARENA, I believe they are necessary to the survival
of the POLITICAL ARENA and thus, in the end, to the very survival of
society itself.

Thus I formed the first part of my personal sub vision statement,

I envision a world where

EVERYONE IS FREE TO COMMUNICATE WITH WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE, ABOUT
ANYTHING WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.

Yes that means little kiddies can trade nuclear secrets and naked
pictures of themselves in safety, but the military can use encryption to
make sure the kiddies don't get those secrets in the first place.

I also believe it is wrong for the government and its markets to
wish backdoors on encryption to make sure that its people haven't become
overloaded with criminals, but I do believe it is right for the people,
as the body politic, to wish back door's on the government's encryption
to make sure the government hasn't become overloaded with criminals.

Now there are many many ways to improve the communication abilities
among the people of the planet, from newspapers, radio, TV, faxes all
the way to the internet.

But me personally, I could never understand or get into any of
them, except for the internet which became a natural for me.

The two way nature of the internet made it deliciously subversive,
and it allowed everyone to be come a publisher overnight without
permission of the King or his assigns, and it allowed everyone to speak
freely and anonymously to everyone on the planet, and secretly to
whomever they wished.

For me it was a no brainer that this was the way *I* should go
towards 'making a better world through free communication.'

This is where MY abilities locked onto, I felt "I can do that" and
I can do it better than the other guy, so I had better get a crackin'.

Thus from my vision statement I then formed my mission statement.

Vision statement: A better world through free communication.

Mission statement: To deliver dependable but affordable internet
access to those who are under served.

So you see we have moved from a vision of how I would like the
world to be, to a specific mission of what to do about it.

Now lower down the Vision tree, even below the mission statement,
we get into explicit orders on what exactly to do in order to deploy
that 'dependable but affordable' product. That then becomes all the
technogobble about modems, T1's, wireless, DSL, web hosting, e-mail and
usenet news.

Without the mission statement it is easy to lose my way towards
fulfilling my top level vision statement of a better world through free
and open communication.

The energy to do what I am doing when I am nailing another wire to
a wall, or helping another person online, comes down from the top of the
tree.

"Why exactly am I talking to this idiot on the other end of my
phone line? Oh yeah, a world of free and open communication between all
people in it."

That's why you need a vision statement, and you need a mission
statement, because the two of them give you your marching orders. AND
THE ENERGY AND WILL DO TO THEM.

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
Fri Mar 5 20:01:30 EST 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Aug 5 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore731.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)

iD8DBQFVwjRqURT1lqxE3HERAn01AKDMhThvj1Xpu7/M/vme/tODMWz3UwCfatb5
acNVFn+P59AHMbGyztqcgtk=
=9Dwa
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fri Aug 7 16:37:19 EDT 2015

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jun 18 12:00:06 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore731.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)

iD8DBQFdCQqHURT1lqxE3HERAm82AJ4kmHmywtMMnbblHMLXA9BFKubA+QCfdlSk
M0WSR7Wn8CDxFJpvf19MeHI=
=kZiQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l