-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
CHANNELING
X. wrote:
>I don't believe in channeling; I believe in insanity and gullibility. And if
>I *did* believe in channeling, I certainly wouldn't assume that any being that
>wanted to channel here had it any more together than the inmates.
LaMMie once wrote to me that when a song comes to him, it comes
as single point that suddenly expands into a linear whole. He made it
quite clear he was merely picking up on these things and manifesting
them in the physical universe. He would be the last one to say 'he
wrote it', he didn't, he contacted the music of the spheres and put
one of them to form.
I too have similar experiences with my own composing.
So too it is with writing. When a phrase or a set of words come
to me, I can feel the entire posting there under the surface, I *HAVE*
to write to spill it all out before it gets fucked up forever and
never gets written. This is in part why I kill people who interrupt
me when I am typing, because if they interrupt the flow, they can
destroy the whole posting and the poetry of expression.
I am at best a scribe.
When a good posting is done, I feel I have manifested a diamond
that was covered by the ground, I didn't create it, I dug it up and
polished it off and put it on show.
That's channeling. Whether I am channeling BT's, or the
masterpiece plane of consciousness I have no idea, I don't have little
beings talking to me in my head. Only demons flying me around in my
dreams and they don't speak, they just show me things.
When musical ditty's come to me, they come to me as a whole, when
ideational ditty's come to me, they come to me as a whole.
No difference. One ends up as a song on paper, the other ends up
as a posting on clear-l.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Aug 30 12:00:03 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore9.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)
iD8DBQFdaUgEURT1lqxE3HERAiQyAJ4lSl/mlzv+e55xMoaMsMYbNhkDbQCeIjC6
Hsl+pzlDlCJLjhrj6yEF10M=
=eiO8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, August 30, 2019
ADORE643 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PHYSICAL SIGNIFICANCE II
OK tonight we are going to go further into the subject of physical
significance and specifically how special relativity threw a monkey
wrench into man's cherised ideas of how space and time work.
Einstein and Godel were good friends, and working together in their
afternoon walks, eating icecream every day at Princeton after the war,
they did a lot of damage to our common sense view of the world.
In fact special relativity is relatively special in the theories of
man as it was the first theory to utterly dumbfound his efforts to
integrate the evidence into a coherent physical significance of the
world.
Just say the words 'Michelson - Morely' to scientists of the day in
1905, and you would see them turn pale just considering the fate of
their feces, I mean theses.
To this day, when you ask people who know about these things,
"Why?" they just smile and say "Why ask why?"
Most have given up trying to understand the physical significance
of space and time, and are content to know how to work with it using the
math alone.
So let's go back and do some simple experiments like we did with
the clock and the cube.
Special relativistic effects really only come into play at high
speeds. General relativity deals with WHERE your viewpoint is and how
that affects your perceptions of space and time, but special relativity
deals only with how fast your viewpoint is moving relative to something
else.
The problem with relative motion, is that it is relative.
You can't say he is moving and I am not! Because he is going to
say you are moving and he is not! Which is right?
Both views are look likes that then need to be integrated into an
is like.
The is like is NOT that he is motionless and you are moving nor
visa versa, but how fast you two are moving relative to each other.
If A and B are moving past each other in space and are separating
at 10 miles per hour, there are many ways a 3rd observer can look at
this.
One can say A is still and B is moving to the right at 10.
One can say A is moving to the left at -10 and B is still.
One can say that A is moving to the left at -5 and B is moving to
the right at 5. Or A is moving at -3 and B at -7 etc.
One can even say that A is moving to the right at 10 and B is
moving to the right at 20!
There are an infinite number of viewpoints moving relative to A and
B that will give different answers as to how fast A and B are 'moving'
relative to the observer, and these form the 'look likes' of the
observer of the situation.
But no matter how fast the observer is moving relative to A and B,
and thus no matter how fast the observer says A is moving and B is
moving relative to the observer, ALL observers will agree that A and B
are moving at 10 miles per hour relative to EACH OTHER.
This then becomes the IS LIKE of the situation.
The is like is an observer free description of the 'what is'.
When you integrate over all of the look likes of a situation taken
from many different viewpoints by many different observers, the OBSERVER
DROPS OUT OF THE FINAL ANSWER and what you have left is the IS LIKE
describing the OBSERVED situation as if there were no observers at all.
Thus it is very important to remember that when you are reporting
what an observer saw you are reporting a look like, and when you are
reporting how things actually are, you are reporting an is like and the
observers are all gone and might as well never have been.
Going back to our Rubik's cube for a moment, the three pictures
taken by the cameras are the observer's report and thus are look likes.
The pictures not only show the cube but also the implied viewpoint,
WHERE THE CUBE WAS LOOKED AT FROM. Thus the observer's report always
contains data about BOTH the observed and the observer!
When we integrate the three images to form an idea of what the cube
is like, the final description is about the cube from all possible
angles and viewpoints, and no longer contains any data about which
viewpoints where actually used to take the pictures.
That's really important, read it again until you get it.
So integration of evidence taken from many viewpoints about a
viewed object, leaves only data about the object and not about where the
object was viewed from, nor that it was ever viewed at all.
A look like says:
"This is how the cube looks to me now."
An is like says:
"The cube is this way and not that way" even if no one ever
observed it at all.
Thus many different sets of observers can take many different
snapshots from many different viewpoints, and end up with an absolutely
identical common description of what was observed, with no hint of where
it was observed from or who observed it, or how many, left in the
description.
Technically speaking the integration of observations produces an
INVARIANT, that single description of actuality that can be deduced from
the many realities of the observers reporting in about the object under
observation.
Thus we have the following equalities:
Reality = look like = implied viewpoint = variable
Actuality = is like = no implied viewpoint = invariant.
In the case of A and B moving relative to EACH OTHER at 10 miles an
hour, that is an invariant because all observers agree on it no matter
how fast the observers themselves are moving when they view A and B.
It is that invariant that forms the common ground of the universe
that is the same for all observers and allows them to play together.
If there is NO invariant between observations, then each observer
is in their own Private Idaho, playing with their own private
hallucinations of the world.
When the world changes COMPLETELY with viewpoint, what common world
is there left to agree on?
It is the invariant that allows us all to sync with each other so
that our many private worlds can be treated as one common one at least
as far as the invariant is concerned.
We have to comment here that just because a set of observers are
able to extract an invariant out of their combined observations, doesn't
mean they can easily build a physical significance of how the world
actually works.
As we shall see, special relativity definitely leaves us with an
invariant, but for most people our concepts of a workable sensible
physical significance to how space and time pulls it all off is left in
shambles.
Goober: "What the hell is this stuff called spacetime anyhow and
how does it work?"
Professor Harumphsalot: "Don't know, don't care, its not important,
let's just play the game and hit the ball already."
So let's go back to the subject of simple physical significance
before we tackle the prime time.
HORSE AND TRAIN.
Say A is at a train station back in the old days, and at a specific
moment of time, he reports that he sees a train down the track moving
away from the station at 10 miles per hour. At the same time A sees a
cowboy on a horse racing neck and neck with the caboose of the train
waving to the passengers inside.
The horse and train are running in parallel, the train on the
tracks and the horse on the dirt road right next to the tracks.
That is A's look like.
Say that B is in the caboose of the train, and at the same moment
of time he looks out the back of the caboose and he feels himself to be
still but sees the station moving away from him at 10 miles an hour, and
looking out the window of the caboose he sees the cowboy on the horse
not moving at all relative to the caboose. He can even hand the cowboy
a cup of coffee and chat calmly with the cowboy while both he and the
train move down the tracks together.
In the first report, A feels himself to be still, and both B and
the train and the horse are moving away from the station at 10 miles an
hour.
In the second report, B feels himself to be still, and so is the
horse, but the station is moving away from both of them in the opposite
direction at 10 miles an hour.
Which one is 'right?'
What is the physical significance of these two different reports
(look-likes)?
In other words let's integrate these two reports and distill an
invariant out of them that both observers will agree on.
That's pretty simple, the train and the station are moving at 10
miles an hour away from each other, and so are the horse and the
station. Further the horse and the train are not moving away from each
other at all.
Since both A and B would agree to that interpretation of the
evidence (integration of viewpoints), and since neither A nor B, as
observers, are mentioned at all in the final description, we have an
invariant that properly describes the actuality of the situation
independent of any observer.
So that was simple, straight forward and made every day common
sense.
But, now let's say something else is reported by B.
At the same moment of time as before, A reports the same thing,
both horse and train are moving away at 10 miles an hour from the
station and are already a ways down the track. Further A asserts the
train left the station at the same time as the horse.
B also reports that the station is moving back away from the train
at 10 miles an hour, but that the horse is moving 10 miles an hour ahead
of the train!
In fact when B tries to hand the cowboy a cup of coffee he can't
because the horse is way down the tracks from the train having been
pulling further ahead of the train from the moment both left the
station. B claims the horse left the station AFTER the train did, then
caught up with the train, then passed it and is now way down the road
ahead of the train.
A rejects B's data as hallucinatory and integrates over his own one
and only view and says that the horse and train are moving away from the
station at 10 miles an hour. A also concludes that B should see the
horse stationary to the train, and the station receeding from both the
train and the horse at 10 miles an hour.
B rejects A's data as hallucinatory, and integrates over his own
one and only view and says that the train is moving away from the
station at 10 miles per hour, but that the horse is moving ahead of the
train at another 10 miles an hour, and thus the horse is moving head of
the station at 20 miles an hour, and in fact left the station AFTER the
train did!
At the exact moment of observation, where A sees the horse and
train running neck and neck with each other, B sees the horse way up the
track.
Holy Michalson - Morely Batman, how can this be?
Two completely different look likes compute back to two completely
different is likes.
Like the old lady said in the Burger King hamburger commercial
"Where's the invariant?"
Are A and B in their own private Idaho? Or is there someway we can
salvage this situation and maintain some sensibility in the nature of
things?
OK, let's consider one really truly implausible possibility that
might account for the discrepancy.
This one is so far out in left field we aren't even sure it's in
the same ball park any more.
Let's say that somehow, under some circumstances, A can see into
the past.
When A sees into the past A thinks he is seeing present time, but
if A could see a clock in the object he is viewing, the clock would read
a few minutes ago!
So here are the rules to seeing into the past, I am not saying
anyone can do this, I am just saying that if these rules applied we
might be able to salvage the two minority reports and produce an
invariant out of them.
A can only see into the past if an object is moving away from A,
and the faster the object is moving away from A, the further into that
object's past A can see.
Now the first thing we need to notice is that the speed of light is
finite, about 1 foot per nanosecond. So even when things are still
relative to A, the further they are away from him, the more into the
past A will be seeing them, because of the delay of the light coming
from the object back to A.
So if A is looking at something 30 feet away, what he is seeing now
is light that left that object 30 nanoseconds ago.
And if A is looking at the train when it is a mile away, the image
A sees now is of the train 5280 nanoseconds ago because there are 5280
feet per mile.
We are NOT talking about this delay here when we are talking about
seeing into the past.
For that train one mile up ahead we are talking about seeing an
image that comes from MORE than 5280 nanoseconds ago. We are seeing
truly into the oject's *PAST*.
This means that if two objects are moving away from you, like the
horse and the train, but the horse is moving faster than the train, at
the exact moment that the horse and the train are neck and neck, you
will be seeing MORE into the horse's past than the train's, thus the
horse will look like it is behind the train still trying to catch up!
Let's also say that the further AWAY from A a moving object is from
A, the more A can see into its past as long as it is still moving.
Ridiculous right?
But let's see if it works.
Both horse and train are moving away from A, thus whatever A sees
of horse and train, A is not seeing their true present position along
the tracks, but their position a small time in the past.
The further the horse and train get away from A, the greater the
discrepancy between their true position in present time, and the
position that A sees them in which actually happened some time before.
Notice also that the horse is moving faster than the train, as from
B's viewpoint the horse is racing out ahead of the train.
So from A's point of view, A's perception of the horse is always
MORE into the horse's past than the train's past because the horse is
running faster than the train.
So in general A has a deeper view of the horse's past both because
the horse is moving faster than the train from A, and because the horse
is further away than the train (after the horse passes the train.)
We then consider that where ever the train has been on the track,
the horse has been there a short while before.
Say the train is 1 mile down the track and the horse is 1.5 miles
down the track. At some earlier time in the horse's past it was also at
1 mile down the track.
It is apparent that at some point in time A might actually see both
the horse and the train at the 1 mile mark at the same time, even though
the horse was 'really' at the 1.5 mile mark because A's view of the
horse's past is deeper than A's view of the train's past.
Thus A's report that they are in the same place contradicts B's
report that the horse is ahead of the train, because each is looking
into a different part of the moving object's past.
And a moment later, A WILL see the horse ahead of the train, but B
will be seeing the horse much further head, because A still has a deeper
view of the horse's past than B does, due to the horse's greater speed
and distance from A.
But how can you look into an object's past?
And if you can look into an object's past, can you look into it's
future too?
To be continued...
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 Feb 8 00:37:53 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 29 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore643.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)
iD8DBQFdZ/aFURT1lqxE3HERAiyDAJ9WX77KG6uUFppfdkY9nKd1TS+eaACePFC4
LOIJfBHwX0iLSMriQHdsUQY=
=jvaD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PHYSICAL SIGNIFICANCE II
OK tonight we are going to go further into the subject of physical
significance and specifically how special relativity threw a monkey
wrench into man's cherised ideas of how space and time work.
Einstein and Godel were good friends, and working together in their
afternoon walks, eating icecream every day at Princeton after the war,
they did a lot of damage to our common sense view of the world.
In fact special relativity is relatively special in the theories of
man as it was the first theory to utterly dumbfound his efforts to
integrate the evidence into a coherent physical significance of the
world.
Just say the words 'Michelson - Morely' to scientists of the day in
1905, and you would see them turn pale just considering the fate of
their feces, I mean theses.
To this day, when you ask people who know about these things,
"Why?" they just smile and say "Why ask why?"
Most have given up trying to understand the physical significance
of space and time, and are content to know how to work with it using the
math alone.
So let's go back and do some simple experiments like we did with
the clock and the cube.
Special relativistic effects really only come into play at high
speeds. General relativity deals with WHERE your viewpoint is and how
that affects your perceptions of space and time, but special relativity
deals only with how fast your viewpoint is moving relative to something
else.
The problem with relative motion, is that it is relative.
You can't say he is moving and I am not! Because he is going to
say you are moving and he is not! Which is right?
Both views are look likes that then need to be integrated into an
is like.
The is like is NOT that he is motionless and you are moving nor
visa versa, but how fast you two are moving relative to each other.
If A and B are moving past each other in space and are separating
at 10 miles per hour, there are many ways a 3rd observer can look at
this.
One can say A is still and B is moving to the right at 10.
One can say A is moving to the left at -10 and B is still.
One can say that A is moving to the left at -5 and B is moving to
the right at 5. Or A is moving at -3 and B at -7 etc.
One can even say that A is moving to the right at 10 and B is
moving to the right at 20!
There are an infinite number of viewpoints moving relative to A and
B that will give different answers as to how fast A and B are 'moving'
relative to the observer, and these form the 'look likes' of the
observer of the situation.
But no matter how fast the observer is moving relative to A and B,
and thus no matter how fast the observer says A is moving and B is
moving relative to the observer, ALL observers will agree that A and B
are moving at 10 miles per hour relative to EACH OTHER.
This then becomes the IS LIKE of the situation.
The is like is an observer free description of the 'what is'.
When you integrate over all of the look likes of a situation taken
from many different viewpoints by many different observers, the OBSERVER
DROPS OUT OF THE FINAL ANSWER and what you have left is the IS LIKE
describing the OBSERVED situation as if there were no observers at all.
Thus it is very important to remember that when you are reporting
what an observer saw you are reporting a look like, and when you are
reporting how things actually are, you are reporting an is like and the
observers are all gone and might as well never have been.
Going back to our Rubik's cube for a moment, the three pictures
taken by the cameras are the observer's report and thus are look likes.
The pictures not only show the cube but also the implied viewpoint,
WHERE THE CUBE WAS LOOKED AT FROM. Thus the observer's report always
contains data about BOTH the observed and the observer!
When we integrate the three images to form an idea of what the cube
is like, the final description is about the cube from all possible
angles and viewpoints, and no longer contains any data about which
viewpoints where actually used to take the pictures.
That's really important, read it again until you get it.
So integration of evidence taken from many viewpoints about a
viewed object, leaves only data about the object and not about where the
object was viewed from, nor that it was ever viewed at all.
A look like says:
"This is how the cube looks to me now."
An is like says:
"The cube is this way and not that way" even if no one ever
observed it at all.
Thus many different sets of observers can take many different
snapshots from many different viewpoints, and end up with an absolutely
identical common description of what was observed, with no hint of where
it was observed from or who observed it, or how many, left in the
description.
Technically speaking the integration of observations produces an
INVARIANT, that single description of actuality that can be deduced from
the many realities of the observers reporting in about the object under
observation.
Thus we have the following equalities:
Reality = look like = implied viewpoint = variable
Actuality = is like = no implied viewpoint = invariant.
In the case of A and B moving relative to EACH OTHER at 10 miles an
hour, that is an invariant because all observers agree on it no matter
how fast the observers themselves are moving when they view A and B.
It is that invariant that forms the common ground of the universe
that is the same for all observers and allows them to play together.
If there is NO invariant between observations, then each observer
is in their own Private Idaho, playing with their own private
hallucinations of the world.
When the world changes COMPLETELY with viewpoint, what common world
is there left to agree on?
It is the invariant that allows us all to sync with each other so
that our many private worlds can be treated as one common one at least
as far as the invariant is concerned.
We have to comment here that just because a set of observers are
able to extract an invariant out of their combined observations, doesn't
mean they can easily build a physical significance of how the world
actually works.
As we shall see, special relativity definitely leaves us with an
invariant, but for most people our concepts of a workable sensible
physical significance to how space and time pulls it all off is left in
shambles.
Goober: "What the hell is this stuff called spacetime anyhow and
how does it work?"
Professor Harumphsalot: "Don't know, don't care, its not important,
let's just play the game and hit the ball already."
So let's go back to the subject of simple physical significance
before we tackle the prime time.
HORSE AND TRAIN.
Say A is at a train station back in the old days, and at a specific
moment of time, he reports that he sees a train down the track moving
away from the station at 10 miles per hour. At the same time A sees a
cowboy on a horse racing neck and neck with the caboose of the train
waving to the passengers inside.
The horse and train are running in parallel, the train on the
tracks and the horse on the dirt road right next to the tracks.
That is A's look like.
Say that B is in the caboose of the train, and at the same moment
of time he looks out the back of the caboose and he feels himself to be
still but sees the station moving away from him at 10 miles an hour, and
looking out the window of the caboose he sees the cowboy on the horse
not moving at all relative to the caboose. He can even hand the cowboy
a cup of coffee and chat calmly with the cowboy while both he and the
train move down the tracks together.
In the first report, A feels himself to be still, and both B and
the train and the horse are moving away from the station at 10 miles an
hour.
In the second report, B feels himself to be still, and so is the
horse, but the station is moving away from both of them in the opposite
direction at 10 miles an hour.
Which one is 'right?'
What is the physical significance of these two different reports
(look-likes)?
In other words let's integrate these two reports and distill an
invariant out of them that both observers will agree on.
That's pretty simple, the train and the station are moving at 10
miles an hour away from each other, and so are the horse and the
station. Further the horse and the train are not moving away from each
other at all.
Since both A and B would agree to that interpretation of the
evidence (integration of viewpoints), and since neither A nor B, as
observers, are mentioned at all in the final description, we have an
invariant that properly describes the actuality of the situation
independent of any observer.
So that was simple, straight forward and made every day common
sense.
But, now let's say something else is reported by B.
At the same moment of time as before, A reports the same thing,
both horse and train are moving away at 10 miles an hour from the
station and are already a ways down the track. Further A asserts the
train left the station at the same time as the horse.
B also reports that the station is moving back away from the train
at 10 miles an hour, but that the horse is moving 10 miles an hour ahead
of the train!
In fact when B tries to hand the cowboy a cup of coffee he can't
because the horse is way down the tracks from the train having been
pulling further ahead of the train from the moment both left the
station. B claims the horse left the station AFTER the train did, then
caught up with the train, then passed it and is now way down the road
ahead of the train.
A rejects B's data as hallucinatory and integrates over his own one
and only view and says that the horse and train are moving away from the
station at 10 miles an hour. A also concludes that B should see the
horse stationary to the train, and the station receeding from both the
train and the horse at 10 miles an hour.
B rejects A's data as hallucinatory, and integrates over his own
one and only view and says that the train is moving away from the
station at 10 miles per hour, but that the horse is moving ahead of the
train at another 10 miles an hour, and thus the horse is moving head of
the station at 20 miles an hour, and in fact left the station AFTER the
train did!
At the exact moment of observation, where A sees the horse and
train running neck and neck with each other, B sees the horse way up the
track.
Holy Michalson - Morely Batman, how can this be?
Two completely different look likes compute back to two completely
different is likes.
Like the old lady said in the Burger King hamburger commercial
"Where's the invariant?"
Are A and B in their own private Idaho? Or is there someway we can
salvage this situation and maintain some sensibility in the nature of
things?
OK, let's consider one really truly implausible possibility that
might account for the discrepancy.
This one is so far out in left field we aren't even sure it's in
the same ball park any more.
Let's say that somehow, under some circumstances, A can see into
the past.
When A sees into the past A thinks he is seeing present time, but
if A could see a clock in the object he is viewing, the clock would read
a few minutes ago!
So here are the rules to seeing into the past, I am not saying
anyone can do this, I am just saying that if these rules applied we
might be able to salvage the two minority reports and produce an
invariant out of them.
A can only see into the past if an object is moving away from A,
and the faster the object is moving away from A, the further into that
object's past A can see.
Now the first thing we need to notice is that the speed of light is
finite, about 1 foot per nanosecond. So even when things are still
relative to A, the further they are away from him, the more into the
past A will be seeing them, because of the delay of the light coming
from the object back to A.
So if A is looking at something 30 feet away, what he is seeing now
is light that left that object 30 nanoseconds ago.
And if A is looking at the train when it is a mile away, the image
A sees now is of the train 5280 nanoseconds ago because there are 5280
feet per mile.
We are NOT talking about this delay here when we are talking about
seeing into the past.
For that train one mile up ahead we are talking about seeing an
image that comes from MORE than 5280 nanoseconds ago. We are seeing
truly into the oject's *PAST*.
This means that if two objects are moving away from you, like the
horse and the train, but the horse is moving faster than the train, at
the exact moment that the horse and the train are neck and neck, you
will be seeing MORE into the horse's past than the train's, thus the
horse will look like it is behind the train still trying to catch up!
Let's also say that the further AWAY from A a moving object is from
A, the more A can see into its past as long as it is still moving.
Ridiculous right?
But let's see if it works.
Both horse and train are moving away from A, thus whatever A sees
of horse and train, A is not seeing their true present position along
the tracks, but their position a small time in the past.
The further the horse and train get away from A, the greater the
discrepancy between their true position in present time, and the
position that A sees them in which actually happened some time before.
Notice also that the horse is moving faster than the train, as from
B's viewpoint the horse is racing out ahead of the train.
So from A's point of view, A's perception of the horse is always
MORE into the horse's past than the train's past because the horse is
running faster than the train.
So in general A has a deeper view of the horse's past both because
the horse is moving faster than the train from A, and because the horse
is further away than the train (after the horse passes the train.)
We then consider that where ever the train has been on the track,
the horse has been there a short while before.
Say the train is 1 mile down the track and the horse is 1.5 miles
down the track. At some earlier time in the horse's past it was also at
1 mile down the track.
It is apparent that at some point in time A might actually see both
the horse and the train at the 1 mile mark at the same time, even though
the horse was 'really' at the 1.5 mile mark because A's view of the
horse's past is deeper than A's view of the train's past.
Thus A's report that they are in the same place contradicts B's
report that the horse is ahead of the train, because each is looking
into a different part of the moving object's past.
And a moment later, A WILL see the horse ahead of the train, but B
will be seeing the horse much further head, because A still has a deeper
view of the horse's past than B does, due to the horse's greater speed
and distance from A.
But how can you look into an object's past?
And if you can look into an object's past, can you look into it's
future too?
To be continued...
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 Feb 8 00:37:53 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 29 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore643.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)
iD8DBQFdZ/aFURT1lqxE3HERAiyDAJ9WX77KG6uUFppfdkY9nKd1TS+eaACePFC4
LOIJfBHwX0iLSMriQHdsUQY=
=jvaD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
mct (fwd)
DREAM OR AWAKE?
The Machine (Un)Certainty Theorem revisisted.
So lets say I see a light 20 feet away. I take my light meter and
I go up to the light and I measure its output, and the meter reads etc.
I touch the light and feel the heat, I throw the switch and it turns off
and back on again etc.
Then I wake up.
Then I see an identical light 20 feet away and I do the same
experiments on it with the same results.
So how am I to know which one is the dream (virtual reality) and
which one is actual?
MY EXPERIENCE OF BOTH ARE IDENTICAL.
Is there any instrument in the dream scene which would tell me it
was a dream and not actual?
Is there any instrument in the waking scene that could measure the
light in the dream scene?
Where would it find that light? 10 feet away or 'inside my head
somewhere?'
Konchok has the idea that an object must have non zero dimension to
be actual.
This is an arbitrary, there is no philosophical or even scientific
reason to assert this.
He says 'show me something that is zero dimensional!'
Well everything you are looking at, because all of it is zero
dimensional.
He says but it LOOKS like it is dimensional!
Yes it does.
Things that LOOK like what they are not are called illusions.
He says well prove it they aren't dimensional.
So I say prove they are.
The idea that things have dimension just because they LOOK like
they have dimension is the exceptional idea, so those that promulgate
such nonsense must show evidence! :)
Prove you aren't dreaming right now.
You can't, because it can't be done.
There IS no difference between the dream and waking states, and
thus both must be considered either dreams or waking.
I meet a girl while awake and have a wonderful time, I cry when it
ends.
I meet a girl in a dream and have a wonderful time, I cry when
the dream ends.
What's the difference? Who is to say one girl is actual and the
other merely real?
If one can admit that dreams are illusions of dimension in our
mind's eye, then we should be able to admit that the waking state might
be the same thing. Hubbard called it 'space is a viewpoint of dimension'.
The mathematics of space time isn't anywhere near as interesting
as the *PHILOSOPHY* of spacetime.
Since both space and time are illusions in consciousness, there can
be no way that consciousness is made of space or time or anything in it.
The Proof proves that the conscious Looker and the Looked AT are
one and the same because of the perfect certainty between them, so there
is no space/time distance between the I that is aware and the color
forms that the I is aware of.
If A and B are not separated by an actual space/time distance, then
they are on the same 'point'.
That point could be a 3 dimensional point with measurement {0x0x0}
or it could be a zero dimensional point with measurement {}.
Is there any difference?
Which is more likely?
How much *ACTUAL* space/time distance is there between that which
sees red and that which is seen to be red?
It is an important question, because it leads directly to the
notion that consciousness is completely and utterly non Newtonian in
nature.
Consciousness doesn't work via space/time laws of cause and effect,
it CANT because if it did, it could never be certain of what it was
seeing or perceiving.
There is no time between the exitence of the red and
the perception of the red, they are one and the same event.
Where ever you have space/time objects learning about each other,
they can only do so by being the effect of each other.
If A has qualities about it that do not affect how it affects B,
then B can never learn about those qualities in A.
In space time mechanics, the ONLY qualities B can learn about A
are those qualities that have to do with how A affects B, namely A's
causal qualities over B.
B learns about A by changing state in response to cause coming from
A. All B knows is its own change in state.
That's called learning by being an effect.
B's change in state IS its learning about A.
If you are learning by being an effect, you can ONLY learn about
cause.
But the joke is, receiving an effect does not absolutely imply
cause because correlation does not imply causation, so learning by being
an effect at best gives you a theory about cause, never a certainty about
cause.
Any real scientist will tell you this. A machine that learns
merely by being an effect of causes can never even prove there ARE
causes because it can't prove from effects that every effect is caused!
(An effect is any change in state in the machine).
The idea that cause exists at all is an anthropomorization placed
on the physical space time universe from observations we have made
from our own consciousness!
Consciousness is certain of cause within itself just because it is
spaceless and timeless and there is neither space nor time between
conscious cause and conscious effects.
When a conscious unit does something, it KNOWS it is agent and it
can verify instantly that what it wanted and intended, it got.
After the conscious unit has caused a looked at to appear, the
conscious Looker can then be certain about cause between the Looked AT,
and itself which allows itself to know that the Looked AT matches
what it wanted to create in the first place.
Thus the Looker can not be learning about the Looked AT by being an
effect of the Looked AT. If it were, the Looker could never be certain
of the Looked AT. It would never even SEE the looked at, it could 'see'
only the effects the alleged looked at incurred in the looker.
That's physical think:
"I changed state here, so there must be something out there."
No, the Looker can SEE its looked-ats out there, directly.
The looker is learning by looking at CAUSE, not by looking at
EFFECT.
That's conscious think.
Learning by looking at cause can't happen across a space/time
dimension, thus the looker/looked-at system we call a conscious unit
doesn't have any space/time dimension.
It's scalar, meaning zero dimensional, with no dimensions
in which to have any extension including zero extension.
You have to have a dimension to have an extension of zero length.
Thus if you have no dimensions at all, you can't have
any extensions (size) of zero or not zero length.
Since consciousness is scalar, and all the evidence it ever had of
external dimensionality were looked-at *EXPERIENCES* that were in fact
scalar themselves, there really is no evidence at all that there exists
anything that is dimensional. We can suppose it, but how would you
prove it? All the evidence you will ever have comes through your
looker/looked-at unit, which is scalar!
Looking through a scalar TV will never give you evidence that a non
scalar world exists out there even though pretty holoraphic images of
non scalar objects are written all over the scalar TV screen.
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 ====================
Tue Aug 27 00:06:02 EDT 2019
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/mct/mct
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.comSend 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.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
The Machine (Un)Certainty Theorem revisisted.
So lets say I see a light 20 feet away. I take my light meter and
I go up to the light and I measure its output, and the meter reads etc.
I touch the light and feel the heat, I throw the switch and it turns off
and back on again etc.
Then I wake up.
Then I see an identical light 20 feet away and I do the same
experiments on it with the same results.
So how am I to know which one is the dream (virtual reality) and
which one is actual?
MY EXPERIENCE OF BOTH ARE IDENTICAL.
Is there any instrument in the dream scene which would tell me it
was a dream and not actual?
Is there any instrument in the waking scene that could measure the
light in the dream scene?
Where would it find that light? 10 feet away or 'inside my head
somewhere?'
Konchok has the idea that an object must have non zero dimension to
be actual.
This is an arbitrary, there is no philosophical or even scientific
reason to assert this.
He says 'show me something that is zero dimensional!'
Well everything you are looking at, because all of it is zero
dimensional.
He says but it LOOKS like it is dimensional!
Yes it does.
Things that LOOK like what they are not are called illusions.
He says well prove it they aren't dimensional.
So I say prove they are.
The idea that things have dimension just because they LOOK like
they have dimension is the exceptional idea, so those that promulgate
such nonsense must show evidence! :)
Prove you aren't dreaming right now.
You can't, because it can't be done.
There IS no difference between the dream and waking states, and
thus both must be considered either dreams or waking.
I meet a girl while awake and have a wonderful time, I cry when it
ends.
I meet a girl in a dream and have a wonderful time, I cry when
the dream ends.
What's the difference? Who is to say one girl is actual and the
other merely real?
If one can admit that dreams are illusions of dimension in our
mind's eye, then we should be able to admit that the waking state might
be the same thing. Hubbard called it 'space is a viewpoint of dimension'.
The mathematics of space time isn't anywhere near as interesting
as the *PHILOSOPHY* of spacetime.
Since both space and time are illusions in consciousness, there can
be no way that consciousness is made of space or time or anything in it.
The Proof proves that the conscious Looker and the Looked AT are
one and the same because of the perfect certainty between them, so there
is no space/time distance between the I that is aware and the color
forms that the I is aware of.
If A and B are not separated by an actual space/time distance, then
they are on the same 'point'.
That point could be a 3 dimensional point with measurement {0x0x0}
or it could be a zero dimensional point with measurement {}.
Is there any difference?
Which is more likely?
How much *ACTUAL* space/time distance is there between that which
sees red and that which is seen to be red?
It is an important question, because it leads directly to the
notion that consciousness is completely and utterly non Newtonian in
nature.
Consciousness doesn't work via space/time laws of cause and effect,
it CANT because if it did, it could never be certain of what it was
seeing or perceiving.
There is no time between the exitence of the red and
the perception of the red, they are one and the same event.
Where ever you have space/time objects learning about each other,
they can only do so by being the effect of each other.
If A has qualities about it that do not affect how it affects B,
then B can never learn about those qualities in A.
In space time mechanics, the ONLY qualities B can learn about A
are those qualities that have to do with how A affects B, namely A's
causal qualities over B.
B learns about A by changing state in response to cause coming from
A. All B knows is its own change in state.
That's called learning by being an effect.
B's change in state IS its learning about A.
If you are learning by being an effect, you can ONLY learn about
cause.
But the joke is, receiving an effect does not absolutely imply
cause because correlation does not imply causation, so learning by being
an effect at best gives you a theory about cause, never a certainty about
cause.
Any real scientist will tell you this. A machine that learns
merely by being an effect of causes can never even prove there ARE
causes because it can't prove from effects that every effect is caused!
(An effect is any change in state in the machine).
The idea that cause exists at all is an anthropomorization placed
on the physical space time universe from observations we have made
from our own consciousness!
Consciousness is certain of cause within itself just because it is
spaceless and timeless and there is neither space nor time between
conscious cause and conscious effects.
When a conscious unit does something, it KNOWS it is agent and it
can verify instantly that what it wanted and intended, it got.
After the conscious unit has caused a looked at to appear, the
conscious Looker can then be certain about cause between the Looked AT,
and itself which allows itself to know that the Looked AT matches
what it wanted to create in the first place.
Thus the Looker can not be learning about the Looked AT by being an
effect of the Looked AT. If it were, the Looker could never be certain
of the Looked AT. It would never even SEE the looked at, it could 'see'
only the effects the alleged looked at incurred in the looker.
That's physical think:
"I changed state here, so there must be something out there."
No, the Looker can SEE its looked-ats out there, directly.
The looker is learning by looking at CAUSE, not by looking at
EFFECT.
That's conscious think.
Learning by looking at cause can't happen across a space/time
dimension, thus the looker/looked-at system we call a conscious unit
doesn't have any space/time dimension.
It's scalar, meaning zero dimensional, with no dimensions
in which to have any extension including zero extension.
You have to have a dimension to have an extension of zero length.
Thus if you have no dimensions at all, you can't have
any extensions (size) of zero or not zero length.
Since consciousness is scalar, and all the evidence it ever had of
external dimensionality were looked-at *EXPERIENCES* that were in fact
scalar themselves, there really is no evidence at all that there exists
anything that is dimensional. We can suppose it, but how would you
prove it? All the evidence you will ever have comes through your
looker/looked-at unit, which is scalar!
Looking through a scalar TV will never give you evidence that a non
scalar world exists out there even though pretty holoraphic images of
non scalar objects are written all over the scalar TV screen.
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 ====================
Tue Aug 27 00:06:02 EDT 2019
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/mct/mct
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.comSend 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.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, August 16, 2019
ADORE897B (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SUICIDE AND KAMIKAZE v2.0 ADDENDUM
HOW TO RUN THE DIVINITY RUNDOWN
Oh, hell, and here's a rundown for the silly minded.
Run to taste around and around,
"What does Good NOT do?"
"What does Good do?"
"What does Evil NOT do?"
"What does Evil do?"
"What does Divinity NOT do?"
"What does Divinity do?"
"Get the idea of NO Seriousness."
"Get the idea of SOME Seriousness."
"Get the idea of NO Humor."
"Get the idea of SOME Humor."
"Get the idea of NO Peace."
"Get the idea of SOME Peace."
Don't get frustrated, this might take you a life time.
E/P: Not there.
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
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Aug 16 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore897b.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)
iD8DBQFdVtMFURT1lqxE3HERAjISAKCbHcKUcF1wwIxFUSCZKZaeq/1ahgCgmNdk
lGnojREu8i45WS5abWc2XZg=
=8Kb1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SUICIDE AND KAMIKAZE v2.0 ADDENDUM
HOW TO RUN THE DIVINITY RUNDOWN
Oh, hell, and here's a rundown for the silly minded.
Run to taste around and around,
"What does Good NOT do?"
"What does Good do?"
"What does Evil NOT do?"
"What does Evil do?"
"What does Divinity NOT do?"
"What does Divinity do?"
"Get the idea of NO Seriousness."
"Get the idea of SOME Seriousness."
"Get the idea of NO Humor."
"Get the idea of SOME Humor."
"Get the idea of NO Peace."
"Get the idea of SOME Peace."
Don't get frustrated, this might take you a life time.
E/P: Not there.
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
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Aug 16 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore897b.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)
iD8DBQFdVtMFURT1lqxE3HERAjISAKCbHcKUcF1wwIxFUSCZKZaeq/1ahgCgmNdk
lGnojREu8i45WS5abWc2XZg=
=8Kb1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
ADORE503
TATTOOS ON THE BODY OF GOD
You know people can get really low tone.
You talk to some person and he is not certain he exists, he thinks
maybe he is someone else's hallucination.
That he is also your boss at work doesn't make life any easier for
you. He may be able to do his job, but who or what is it that is doing
that job?
So you bring him up tone a bit and suddenly he realizes, "You know,
I AM!", he's got perfect certainty of his own existence.
The fact that he can doubt he exists, is now proof to him that he
does exist.
Certainty of doubt is the first perfect certainty.
And then he looks around him and sees all those different colors
out there, and he's got certainty of difference.
Certainty of difference is certainty of existence because
difference implies existence. You can't BE different without BEING.
Then he realizes he also has desires, and knowledge, and agency, I
AM, I WANT, I KNOW and I DO, and now he's got perfect certainty on the
whole enchilada, himself.
But now he thinks maybe you are HIS hallucination.
That's rather high tone for a meatball and things should remain
that way as long as people are trying to verify each other's existence
via space time mechanics, bodies, words, actions, out thereness etc.
Certainty across a distance is impossible.
Certainty across a separation is impossible.
Certainty across a dimension is impossible.
Certainty across space time is impossible.
Certainty across a difference is impossible.
Certainty across two different objects is impossible.
Certainty by being an effect is impossible.
Certainty by changing state is impossible.
But at least the guy has attained perfect certainty of himself.
That's WAY up there.
Don't expect a meatball to have it, expect a meatball to ARGUE
about it.
"Heh, have you ever been certain of something and been wrong?"
"Maybe you just think you are certain you exist, but you are really
a wrong robot that has been mis programmed to say it is certain when it
can't be, because no machine can ever be certain of anything!"
You might answer "Well yes, but maybe you are a wrong conscious
unit that has been mis brainwashed into thinking you are a wrong robot
machine when it isn't."
He might ask "OK, well how would I know the difference?"
You might say "Are you CERTAIN you don't already know the
difference?"
He might say "No, I doubt EVERYTHING?"
You might say "Are you certain that you doubt everything?"
And he might say "Of course I doubt that I doubt! At least I am
being consistent."
And could say "Are you sure?" but that would be cruel, and you
probably won't get anywhere, need of doubt is strong, and some service
facsimile computations are impenetrable until the being deals.
You might want to notice that this guy has a bed rock computation
to the effect that being consistently illogical is better than possibly
being wrong once in a while.
Consistency of lies does not imply truth.
Consistency of inconsistency means the guy is consistently
inconsistent, not consistently consistent.
People who are consistenty inconsistent do not survive very long,
so their shouldn't be too many of them around, except for maybe women
who have jelly fish for brains and are taken care of and protected from
themselves.
People can be found in strange states of despair.
So the guy being perfectly certain of his own existence is now very
alone as he is not perfectly certain of anyone else's existence.
He looks at you forlornly. He is certain HE exists, but now you
have made him almost certain he is alone as he can't find certainty of
anyone else.
So the guy says to you, "I want to find God."
You say to him, well if God is perfect, then looking upon anything
perfect might be looking upon a part of God would it not?
That would include any perfect certainty and that which is capable
of perfect certainty.
So you tell him to go out and look at everything around him.
He comes back and says he saw a tree but didn't see any God.
You see, to him, God is not a tree, God may have MADE the tree, but
God is different than the tree. How can God be anything that he made?
Looking at what God made, is not the same as seeing God.
He believes however that God may permeate the tree, as God is
everywhere,
So he goes out again and tries to see God by sort of looking in and
around and through the tree, but never sees anything but more tree.
So where is God?
The tree is a tattoo on the body of God.
A self luminous *LIGHT* tattoo.
All of space and time and everything in it is a tattoo on the body
of God.
Self luminous tattoos are the way that God shows himself.
Tattoos are the way every member of the High US shows themselves to
every other member.
All of material existence is tattoo on the body of God, the High
US.
Tattos are called avatars, kinetic symbols for the static creator
behind each avatar, that the static creators use to represent themselves
to other static creators.
Now go out and take another look.
What you see out there is YOU in the conscious mirror.
"Christ you mean I am a tree?"
Well yes, its your avatar that you see in the mirror.
People may think they are only their body as an avatar, but really
the body is continuous with the entire projected universe of space time
and everything in it, so your avatar is the whole universe looking back
at itself from your viewpoint.
Others have their own complete independent rendition of the kinetic
universe, but they have localized themselves to a different particular
part of that universe as their personal avatar, so when they are talking
to your avatar in their universe, they know they are talking to you
instead of to them!
But really, as long as we understand that each being has its own
complete rendition of the universe as its avatar, we can say that
everyone at the global level has equivalent 'avatars', which is the
entire universe projection, but at the local level each has limited
their concept of them selves to a very small portion of the entire
projection, allowing others to 'own' and 'control' other local parts of
the universe projection as avatars for themselves.
And that's how we share a dream.
I dream a body for myself, and I dream another body for you, and I
say through the static backplane "Hey you, that body I am dreaming for
you is for you to talk to me through!" And now you can talk to me
through the kinetic virtual universe via MY projection of YOUR body.
My projection of your body in my dream is not the same avatar you
are projecting for yourself in your own dream.
But they in sync, so if I make my projection talk in my dream,
your projection of MY body will talk to you in your dream.
But like all multi player games, all the apparent causality going
on between game avatars is really being orchestrated from the static
backplace that conects us all, not through the kinetic dream but through
the static where we are all connected so we can share (co resonate) a
dream in the first place.
Homer
Wed May 23 00:02:24 EDT 2007
Tue Apr 7 14:09:05 EDT 2015
08/13/19 Tuesday 3:53pm EST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
You know people can get really low tone.
You talk to some person and he is not certain he exists, he thinks
maybe he is someone else's hallucination.
That he is also your boss at work doesn't make life any easier for
you. He may be able to do his job, but who or what is it that is doing
that job?
So you bring him up tone a bit and suddenly he realizes, "You know,
I AM!", he's got perfect certainty of his own existence.
The fact that he can doubt he exists, is now proof to him that he
does exist.
Certainty of doubt is the first perfect certainty.
And then he looks around him and sees all those different colors
out there, and he's got certainty of difference.
Certainty of difference is certainty of existence because
difference implies existence. You can't BE different without BEING.
Then he realizes he also has desires, and knowledge, and agency, I
AM, I WANT, I KNOW and I DO, and now he's got perfect certainty on the
whole enchilada, himself.
But now he thinks maybe you are HIS hallucination.
That's rather high tone for a meatball and things should remain
that way as long as people are trying to verify each other's existence
via space time mechanics, bodies, words, actions, out thereness etc.
Certainty across a distance is impossible.
Certainty across a separation is impossible.
Certainty across a dimension is impossible.
Certainty across space time is impossible.
Certainty across a difference is impossible.
Certainty across two different objects is impossible.
Certainty by being an effect is impossible.
Certainty by changing state is impossible.
But at least the guy has attained perfect certainty of himself.
That's WAY up there.
Don't expect a meatball to have it, expect a meatball to ARGUE
about it.
"Heh, have you ever been certain of something and been wrong?"
"Maybe you just think you are certain you exist, but you are really
a wrong robot that has been mis programmed to say it is certain when it
can't be, because no machine can ever be certain of anything!"
You might answer "Well yes, but maybe you are a wrong conscious
unit that has been mis brainwashed into thinking you are a wrong robot
machine when it isn't."
He might ask "OK, well how would I know the difference?"
You might say "Are you CERTAIN you don't already know the
difference?"
He might say "No, I doubt EVERYTHING?"
You might say "Are you certain that you doubt everything?"
And he might say "Of course I doubt that I doubt! At least I am
being consistent."
And could say "Are you sure?" but that would be cruel, and you
probably won't get anywhere, need of doubt is strong, and some service
facsimile computations are impenetrable until the being deals.
You might want to notice that this guy has a bed rock computation
to the effect that being consistently illogical is better than possibly
being wrong once in a while.
Consistency of lies does not imply truth.
Consistency of inconsistency means the guy is consistently
inconsistent, not consistently consistent.
People who are consistenty inconsistent do not survive very long,
so their shouldn't be too many of them around, except for maybe women
who have jelly fish for brains and are taken care of and protected from
themselves.
People can be found in strange states of despair.
So the guy being perfectly certain of his own existence is now very
alone as he is not perfectly certain of anyone else's existence.
He looks at you forlornly. He is certain HE exists, but now you
have made him almost certain he is alone as he can't find certainty of
anyone else.
So the guy says to you, "I want to find God."
You say to him, well if God is perfect, then looking upon anything
perfect might be looking upon a part of God would it not?
That would include any perfect certainty and that which is capable
of perfect certainty.
So you tell him to go out and look at everything around him.
He comes back and says he saw a tree but didn't see any God.
You see, to him, God is not a tree, God may have MADE the tree, but
God is different than the tree. How can God be anything that he made?
Looking at what God made, is not the same as seeing God.
He believes however that God may permeate the tree, as God is
everywhere,
So he goes out again and tries to see God by sort of looking in and
around and through the tree, but never sees anything but more tree.
So where is God?
The tree is a tattoo on the body of God.
A self luminous *LIGHT* tattoo.
All of space and time and everything in it is a tattoo on the body
of God.
Self luminous tattoos are the way that God shows himself.
Tattoos are the way every member of the High US shows themselves to
every other member.
All of material existence is tattoo on the body of God, the High
US.
Tattos are called avatars, kinetic symbols for the static creator
behind each avatar, that the static creators use to represent themselves
to other static creators.
Now go out and take another look.
What you see out there is YOU in the conscious mirror.
"Christ you mean I am a tree?"
Well yes, its your avatar that you see in the mirror.
People may think they are only their body as an avatar, but really
the body is continuous with the entire projected universe of space time
and everything in it, so your avatar is the whole universe looking back
at itself from your viewpoint.
Others have their own complete independent rendition of the kinetic
universe, but they have localized themselves to a different particular
part of that universe as their personal avatar, so when they are talking
to your avatar in their universe, they know they are talking to you
instead of to them!
But really, as long as we understand that each being has its own
complete rendition of the universe as its avatar, we can say that
everyone at the global level has equivalent 'avatars', which is the
entire universe projection, but at the local level each has limited
their concept of them selves to a very small portion of the entire
projection, allowing others to 'own' and 'control' other local parts of
the universe projection as avatars for themselves.
And that's how we share a dream.
I dream a body for myself, and I dream another body for you, and I
say through the static backplane "Hey you, that body I am dreaming for
you is for you to talk to me through!" And now you can talk to me
through the kinetic virtual universe via MY projection of YOUR body.
My projection of your body in my dream is not the same avatar you
are projecting for yourself in your own dream.
But they in sync, so if I make my projection talk in my dream,
your projection of MY body will talk to you in your dream.
But like all multi player games, all the apparent causality going
on between game avatars is really being orchestrated from the static
backplace that conects us all, not through the kinetic dream but through
the static where we are all connected so we can share (co resonate) a
dream in the first place.
Homer
Wed May 23 00:02:24 EDT 2007
Tue Apr 7 14:09:05 EDT 2015
08/13/19 Tuesday 3:53pm EST
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Sunday, August 11, 2019
ADORE339 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
AD HOMINEM AND THE CLEAR-L CHARTER
I have wanted to place an item in the clear-l/a.c.t charter on the
subject of ad hominem for a long time, but have hesitated due to the
difficulty of getting a clear definition of it.
Many people for example confuse ad hominem with descriptive name
calling. As much as some may not like being called names such as
dilletante, name calling has nothing at all to do with ad hominem.
Ad Hominem is the specific effort to belittle the truth of an
assertion by pointing out generally negative *IRRELEVANT* qualities of
the being making the assertion.
For example I say "I have discovered that water freezes at 32
degress Farenheit" and Phil says, "No way, Homer is a drug addict and
child molester, looks at kiddie porn all day long on the net."
You see its just not relevant.
Saying that Carol is wrong BECAUSE she is a dilletante in the
subject is ad hominem for sure, but saying Carol is a dilletante because
she is unstudied and thus might be wrong in the subject is not.
Now let's take Phil for instance. Almost the totality of his
postings on this group depend on ad hominem in one way or another, when
he can't get agreement about how wrong the tech is on a technical basis,
he starts bringing up supposed character flaws in the originator of the
tech, as if they had anything to do with the truth of the matter.
Worse he lies and fabricates about what the originator said, for
example by repeatedly bringing up the little fat boy with a bugle being
blown out of a volcano. Hubbard never said such a thing and Phil knows
it, but he has already lost the argument using forthright reason, so he
reverts to ad hominem and then outright lying by trying to make Hubbard
look so ridiculous and pathetic that no one would believe a word he
said.
*NO ONE* is as bad as Phil tries to make Hubbard out to be.
Now sometimes things like excessive drug, alcohol or medicine use
can be relevant to the results of a man's work, so when we are told
Hubbard was doing drugs of one sort or another while doing OT III on
himself, it becomes relevant. NOT AS A WAY TO TOTALLY DISCOUNT THE
INCIDENT THOUGH. But like all incidents run under drugs, they need to
be re run straight to make sure all charge is gone, and various parts of
the story or date/locate might change.
If you take a look at the Pilot's work on Incident's I and II, and
El Kin's work on the I, II and III, you will see a very different
approach to the matter than Phil's which is brazenly disgraceful.
Phil talks much about personal integrity and decency, but delivers
little himself.
Now you see that statement is not ad hominem, it is my opinion
about Phil.
When I managed the ADORE-L list, we had one rule, called the 50/50
rule. 50 percent flame must be matched by 50 percent content.
Flame was anything that was not content which included name
calling, ad hominem and even praise.
For example if I say someone is a great thinker, or I say someone
is a stupid idiot, what's the difference. Neither says anything of
importance. Both are hype, pure flame, one is positive flame and one is
negative flame.
When Carol says,
"All that comes from God is good,
Man came from God,
Man is not all good."
and I call Carol an illogical nitwit, you see that is not ad
hominem, that is descriptive name calling.
When she says 'syllogisms never did much for me', and I say no
wonder you engage in 'female logic' all the time, again its descriptive
name calling.
We have a right to call the insane insane, and to call a meatball a
meatball. Meatball's don't like being called meatballs because they
know its right.
What we don't have a right to do, is claim that Roland's
exteriorization was false because he plays with his pud twice a day.
Its just not relevant to the facts under question.
Roland by the way keeps screaming for proof because he missed proof
in the exteriorization he had. He already has his proof but can't quite
contact it due to the bad auditing and his own lousy awareness of
things.
As to what we can do about ad hominem exactly, is we can ban it,
and those guilty of it will simply be retro modded out of existence on
clear-l and our news server. That's the way we got rid of KP, we retro
modded his postings out of existence on lightlink's news server and he
stopped posting here.
The banned poster will continue to be able to post, but their
postings will not last on our news server and will not be archived by
the archiving bots, and anyone using our news server to read a.c.t won't
find the postings there if there has been enough time between the
posting and the retro mod action, about once an hour.
I too consider ad hominem to be vile, it has no earthly purpose or
use except to disgrace oneself to everyone else. But I will not get
into a polite forum where there is no name calling and no freedom to
call a nitwit a nitwit.
By the way another very subtle form of ad hominem is to claim that
someone asserts something merely because they were taught it by Hubbard.
People do have their own ideas, sometimes before or after they hear it
from others.
Trying to make an idea wrong by claiming they got it from another
is a very poisonous form of ad hominem and often is a wrong indication
to boot.
Comments and suggestions welcome.
Homer
Mon Oct 27 12:14:36 EDT 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Aug 10 12:00:03 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore339.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)
iD8DBQFdTuoEURT1lqxE3HERAh0QAJsHe09rSyLdoiGFJE96PduQFBMLxgCfROti
5aJ6u1F0KtfQQS1czAN9f98=
=R1mq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
AD HOMINEM AND THE CLEAR-L CHARTER
I have wanted to place an item in the clear-l/a.c.t charter on the
subject of ad hominem for a long time, but have hesitated due to the
difficulty of getting a clear definition of it.
Many people for example confuse ad hominem with descriptive name
calling. As much as some may not like being called names such as
dilletante, name calling has nothing at all to do with ad hominem.
Ad Hominem is the specific effort to belittle the truth of an
assertion by pointing out generally negative *IRRELEVANT* qualities of
the being making the assertion.
For example I say "I have discovered that water freezes at 32
degress Farenheit" and Phil says, "No way, Homer is a drug addict and
child molester, looks at kiddie porn all day long on the net."
You see its just not relevant.
Saying that Carol is wrong BECAUSE she is a dilletante in the
subject is ad hominem for sure, but saying Carol is a dilletante because
she is unstudied and thus might be wrong in the subject is not.
Now let's take Phil for instance. Almost the totality of his
postings on this group depend on ad hominem in one way or another, when
he can't get agreement about how wrong the tech is on a technical basis,
he starts bringing up supposed character flaws in the originator of the
tech, as if they had anything to do with the truth of the matter.
Worse he lies and fabricates about what the originator said, for
example by repeatedly bringing up the little fat boy with a bugle being
blown out of a volcano. Hubbard never said such a thing and Phil knows
it, but he has already lost the argument using forthright reason, so he
reverts to ad hominem and then outright lying by trying to make Hubbard
look so ridiculous and pathetic that no one would believe a word he
said.
*NO ONE* is as bad as Phil tries to make Hubbard out to be.
Now sometimes things like excessive drug, alcohol or medicine use
can be relevant to the results of a man's work, so when we are told
Hubbard was doing drugs of one sort or another while doing OT III on
himself, it becomes relevant. NOT AS A WAY TO TOTALLY DISCOUNT THE
INCIDENT THOUGH. But like all incidents run under drugs, they need to
be re run straight to make sure all charge is gone, and various parts of
the story or date/locate might change.
If you take a look at the Pilot's work on Incident's I and II, and
El Kin's work on the I, II and III, you will see a very different
approach to the matter than Phil's which is brazenly disgraceful.
Phil talks much about personal integrity and decency, but delivers
little himself.
Now you see that statement is not ad hominem, it is my opinion
about Phil.
When I managed the ADORE-L list, we had one rule, called the 50/50
rule. 50 percent flame must be matched by 50 percent content.
Flame was anything that was not content which included name
calling, ad hominem and even praise.
For example if I say someone is a great thinker, or I say someone
is a stupid idiot, what's the difference. Neither says anything of
importance. Both are hype, pure flame, one is positive flame and one is
negative flame.
When Carol says,
"All that comes from God is good,
Man came from God,
Man is not all good."
and I call Carol an illogical nitwit, you see that is not ad
hominem, that is descriptive name calling.
When she says 'syllogisms never did much for me', and I say no
wonder you engage in 'female logic' all the time, again its descriptive
name calling.
We have a right to call the insane insane, and to call a meatball a
meatball. Meatball's don't like being called meatballs because they
know its right.
What we don't have a right to do, is claim that Roland's
exteriorization was false because he plays with his pud twice a day.
Its just not relevant to the facts under question.
Roland by the way keeps screaming for proof because he missed proof
in the exteriorization he had. He already has his proof but can't quite
contact it due to the bad auditing and his own lousy awareness of
things.
As to what we can do about ad hominem exactly, is we can ban it,
and those guilty of it will simply be retro modded out of existence on
clear-l and our news server. That's the way we got rid of KP, we retro
modded his postings out of existence on lightlink's news server and he
stopped posting here.
The banned poster will continue to be able to post, but their
postings will not last on our news server and will not be archived by
the archiving bots, and anyone using our news server to read a.c.t won't
find the postings there if there has been enough time between the
posting and the retro mod action, about once an hour.
I too consider ad hominem to be vile, it has no earthly purpose or
use except to disgrace oneself to everyone else. But I will not get
into a polite forum where there is no name calling and no freedom to
call a nitwit a nitwit.
By the way another very subtle form of ad hominem is to claim that
someone asserts something merely because they were taught it by Hubbard.
People do have their own ideas, sometimes before or after they hear it
from others.
Trying to make an idea wrong by claiming they got it from another
is a very poisonous form of ad hominem and often is a wrong indication
to boot.
Comments and suggestions welcome.
Homer
Mon Oct 27 12:14:36 EDT 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Aug 10 12:00:03 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore339.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)
iD8DBQFdTuoEURT1lqxE3HERAh0QAJsHe09rSyLdoiGFJE96PduQFBMLxgCfROti
5aJ6u1F0KtfQQS1czAN9f98=
=R1mq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, August 9, 2019
ADORE879 v2.0 read this one
THE STRUCTURE OF CASE III
STRUCTURE OF CASE the series.
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/structure.memo
PREAMBLE
We describe the true nothing-there at the top of the tone scale as
nothing there.
We describe the apparent 'nothing there' at the bottom of the tone
scale as 'nothing there'.
GOD IN CARNATION
A God can create himself as anything.
Your preclear longs for the days of walking in limitless undying
love.
He can do that.
But if he is is going to love again as a God, he will have to learn
how to hate and regret again like a God too.
And, in the end how to feel nothing at all, as only a God can.
Either as ultimate truth, or as ultimate lie.
This is the emotional curve that takes a being from the beginning
of time at the top of the tone scale, to the end of time at the bottom,
and which echos itself over and over in every loss, both large and
small, in between.
The cycle of feeling starts at native state with nothing there.
It then enters ecstatic love at first isness.
It then falls down through hate and no sympathy at second isness,
to regret.
From there it sinks out of sight, finally and permanently to
'nothing there' again, total and utter not-isness, at the bottom of the
tone scale.
A God can and would do that to himself.
For a while :)
Nothing there is the birth place of the Gods at the top, and
'nothing there' is the dying place of the Gods at the bottom.
The final burial ground.
So if you are walking in 'nothing there,' tread softly, for how
many souls are there, beneath your feet?
The only difference between the top and the bottom, is at the top
the God is free to put something there, and at the bottom he isn't.
The bottom is ENFORCED top.
All aberration is enforced native state.
The whole thing is held together by beauty, admiration and humor.
The humor of ludicrous demise.
The humor is hidden in the brilliance, simplicity and intelligence
of the mechanism of descent.
The mechanism of descent is not seen on the way down, except by
others high enough to see it, but is seen on the way back up.
Thus salvation from nothing there at the top or 'nothing there' at
the bottom is a matter of understandings.
Understandings about nothing there and something there, and the
apparencies of 'nothing there' born of black something there.
In particular the way to get rid of bottom scale 'nothing there' is
NOT to try to put something there, but to put 'nothing there' some more.
That's because the 'nothing there' at the bottom is an apparency of
nothing there, it is in actuality a lot of something there in the form
of force, effort, mass, blackness, and invisibility, not to mention the
many something theres that it is trying to cover.
The way to vanish any something there is to put it there some more,
until it's true as-isness appears, then let go of it and make something
else.
Thus the way to get rid of the apparency of 'nothing there' at the
bottom is to put more 'nothing there.'
As you audit the 'nothing there' in this way, your preclear becomes
aware it is very much something there, mega tons worth of it, and
eventually, as the 'nothing there' vanishes, the something there it was
designed to cover starts to surface.
At which point the surfacing something theres are handled the same
way, put more of them there, let the significances drain off until a
pristine as-isness is clear, then let it go.
TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE TONE SCALE
Your preclear has the top of the tone scale confused with the
bottom.
The top of the tone scale is truly nothing there.
The way to 'get rid' of native state nothing there, is to indeed
put something there (first isnesses).
But then your preclear has tried to get rid of those something
theres, first by putting more OTHER something theres (second isnesses),
then failing that, by putting 'nothing there' using bottom scale forms
of effort, force, mass, blackness and invisibility.
THEN, God forgive him, and Lord save him, he tries to get rid of
the bottom scale 'nothing theres' by putting more something there.
But he can't, he has 50 percent of his beingness putting the
original top scale something theres, then he's got the remaining 50
percent of this beingness trying to cover them with bottom scale
'nothing theres.'
With what energy now will he resist the bottom scale 'nothing
theres' by putting more something theres?
The way out of a top scale heaven nothing there is to put something
there.
The way out of a bottom scale hell 'nothing there,' is to put MORE
nothing there.
You don't solve a Black V case by forcing him to peer into the
darkness to see what is there, or to put something ELSE there anyhow.
You find out what he can see, even vaguely then you make sure he
can't see even that.
You turn a Black V case into a Black Infinity case, and then he
will suddenly see how it works, and become an infinity case that can see
anything.
A being can lose utterly.
This is how he does it.
This is the mechanism.
You think spirits have it bad, it's the same for animals.
There is nothing sadder than seeing a starving animal trying to
eat.
The spirit is using methods to handle top scale nothing theres, to
solve bottom scale 'nothing theres.'
By putting something more there.
That's it, that's all there is.
He is trying to put something there, instead of more 'nothing
there'.
If he can't CREATE what is killing him, he can't remove it and
become independent of it again.
One has to see it work both going down and going back up to
appreciate it.
High appreciation for ludicrous demise, powers the dance of
existence from top to bottom, via the dwindling spiral of creation,
survival and destruction at the bottom of the sea.
It can be turned around at any time.
It can and will be turned around for everyone at some point before
the end of the present while.
It shouldn't be turned around too early, people enjoy their games
of sinking ship.
Such games are havingness that distract from the terror of total
'nothing there' forever for free (avichi).
The mechanism of descent is the only mechanism there is, it is not
a mistake and, for a totally self responsible being, couldn't be any
other way.
It is born of a self locking conception loop, the conception
that conception is not causal, is causal, so then conception
becomes non causal as conceived.
He has to become facile with creating that loop in order
to stop putting it there.
Handling A by doing anything at all with B is a waste of time and a
spiritual death trap.
Descent can get out of control as understandings wane and darken,
and no one is left to audit or be audited.
It can become impossible, through those lack of understandings, to
turn any of it around for anyone, until understandings arise again,
through reading the words on their tombstone, or through prime
postulates in one or more beings who can help.
That's called the Messiah Postulate and it rings true through out
the while.
However God help you if you are the first or only one during such a
time of rebirth.
A prime postulate is a positive or negative postulate that is
issued by beings, independent of any thing going on before, in the
present or after.
Prime postulates therefore can help or harm equally well.
Prime postulates are like a major roll of the dice affecting how
the present turns into the future.
However that may be, the while WILL end one day, by our own efforts
to understand TRUTH, DESIRE and CAUSE, all significances will vaporize
into humor, all something theres will return to nothing there at native
state, and all will be free to create again.
Humor and peace are not a REWARD for those that make it go right or
are 'deserving', humor and peace are home to all.
The fewer that hang out worrying about those who are descending and
what to do about them, the easier it becomes for the descending to wake
up from their descent.
That's a big statement, don't go by it, lest you believe it without
knowing it.
We all know instinctively how it works.
OUR EXISTENCE IN FAIR CHOSEN IGNORANCE IS NOT A MISTAKE.
Our artful dodge is well arted.
Freedom comes from taking posession of your masterpiece.
These understandings get covered not only by the being's own fair
chosen not-isness, but by the postulates of everyone else to the effect
that others will 'never make it out', either as a worry or as a 'good
riddance.'
No one can confront the damned, so everyone not-ises them too,
which makes it worse for them.
They get stuck and have to swim in everyone else's darkness.
Between 'no one can help you' and 'you don't deserved to be helped'
the descent continues and solidifies.
Everyone dumping darkness into everyone else's future helps make it
so.
Think about it, its almost impossible for a being to stay stuck in
anything he alone created.
That is why we always bring other's along for the ride, so we can
ride the wave of THEIR postulates too.
It's our postulate to do so, but it works.
You can postulate for others too, so watch it, forevers kill.
HELP
Postulating or considering that someone else is or might be
unhelpable forever makes things worse for them.
But notice, considering that someone is unhelpable makes YOU
unhelpable.
Every abandoned unhelpable being is a blot on the face of God, and
you ARE that God in carnation.
Where do you think your pimples come from.
You are your brother's keeper, and I don't care WHO it is, that
person is your brother.
If you can't help your brother from ruin, that's YOUR RUIN!
NEED FOR CHANGE is trying to help someone else.
Guess what?
FEAR OF WORSENING IS you failed.
The helpee did a good job of messing you over eh?
There is no MANDATE to help someone, except if you issue a mandate
to be helped back.
That kind of help has to be a two way flow even if all you can do
after being helped is to pay it forward, by helping others as you have
been helped.
And yes, help is often given from a point of view of altitude and
greater skill, scope, span, depth and field, but you can always help
back those who helped you by flowing power uphill to whence power came,
and anyhow you would be surprised who can help who if they want to.
But in any case, sometimes the best way to help another is to go
clear and get the hell out of the postulate pool so your considerations
about how bad off others are doing don't crystalize down on them like a
ton of gold.
You don't have to be the one that helps them, you just have to know
that one day they will be helped and will come to help others.
Understand?
Wouldn't that be a hoot.
That forever worry about others, keeps the worrier in and
descending too, because they can't confront leaving the damned behind
forever, who are all laughing to the bottom of their grave anyhow.
Thus worry can be counter productive.
That can be a hard one to swallow, we want so much for people to
hurry up and help us, we can't allow ourselves to just be there in
peace.
But if we could do PEACE, we wouldn't NEED help anymore, would we?
Often the help we WANT, is help to help others we have loved.
It is not a matter of letting God take care of His own, but of
allowing the High US to take care of itself by whatever means, some of
it you.
So don't allow your worry about EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE drown out your
ability to help this one now in present time.
You can make up for your failure to help everyone everywhere by
helping this one here now spectacularly.
It is an untenable failure in self to be unable to help another, it
doesn't matter whether you love them or hate them.
A dog pc is someone who can't be helped.
A dog auditor is someone who can't help.
A dog auditor is someone who can't blow the final not-isness off a
case. and who can't deal with the revealed second isnesses of hate,
no-sympathy and regret.
A dog auditor is someone who handles second isnesses with
not-isness, and then handles not-isness with third isnesses.
What's a third isness?
I haven't a clue, but it ain't going up.
There may be no such thing as a dog pc, but the dog house is filled
with dog auditors.
Mostly all barking at each other.
Help powered by love and good humor is worthwhile, but help powered
by drama is a death trap for both, helper and helpee.
Remember the NEED FOR HELP was originally a fair chosen deceit to
mess you up.
It became solid and dramatic the day it wasn't confessed.
Drama means seriousness, PERMANENCE, importance and pain.
The lack of confession FOREVER thus leads to permanent demise, or
the apparency thereof.
And also remember that no one could have fallen for the deceit
unless they had tried the same deceit themselves whether it worked or
not.
Overt do not become overts because of success, overts become overts
because they were TRIED.
So you do not want to wait around for the end of the while (time)
before you turn yourself and your friends around.
The days of love and humor await your return *NOW*.
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 Oct 23 23:07:03 EDT 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Sep 23 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore879.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)
iD8DBQFWAs3pURT1lqxE3HERAtKPAJ4/NYKXiY4t0990Y53yYhgsBpg3LQCfaoAv
3OEg91d8bpNjPLYD1WjMn4o=
=/NSU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Mon Oct 19 23:39:02 EDT 2015
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
STRUCTURE OF CASE the series.
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/structure.memo
PREAMBLE
We describe the true nothing-there at the top of the tone scale as
nothing there.
We describe the apparent 'nothing there' at the bottom of the tone
scale as 'nothing there'.
GOD IN CARNATION
A God can create himself as anything.
Your preclear longs for the days of walking in limitless undying
love.
He can do that.
But if he is is going to love again as a God, he will have to learn
how to hate and regret again like a God too.
And, in the end how to feel nothing at all, as only a God can.
Either as ultimate truth, or as ultimate lie.
This is the emotional curve that takes a being from the beginning
of time at the top of the tone scale, to the end of time at the bottom,
and which echos itself over and over in every loss, both large and
small, in between.
The cycle of feeling starts at native state with nothing there.
It then enters ecstatic love at first isness.
It then falls down through hate and no sympathy at second isness,
to regret.
From there it sinks out of sight, finally and permanently to
'nothing there' again, total and utter not-isness, at the bottom of the
tone scale.
A God can and would do that to himself.
For a while :)
Nothing there is the birth place of the Gods at the top, and
'nothing there' is the dying place of the Gods at the bottom.
The final burial ground.
So if you are walking in 'nothing there,' tread softly, for how
many souls are there, beneath your feet?
The only difference between the top and the bottom, is at the top
the God is free to put something there, and at the bottom he isn't.
The bottom is ENFORCED top.
All aberration is enforced native state.
The whole thing is held together by beauty, admiration and humor.
The humor of ludicrous demise.
The humor is hidden in the brilliance, simplicity and intelligence
of the mechanism of descent.
The mechanism of descent is not seen on the way down, except by
others high enough to see it, but is seen on the way back up.
Thus salvation from nothing there at the top or 'nothing there' at
the bottom is a matter of understandings.
Understandings about nothing there and something there, and the
apparencies of 'nothing there' born of black something there.
In particular the way to get rid of bottom scale 'nothing there' is
NOT to try to put something there, but to put 'nothing there' some more.
That's because the 'nothing there' at the bottom is an apparency of
nothing there, it is in actuality a lot of something there in the form
of force, effort, mass, blackness, and invisibility, not to mention the
many something theres that it is trying to cover.
The way to vanish any something there is to put it there some more,
until it's true as-isness appears, then let go of it and make something
else.
Thus the way to get rid of the apparency of 'nothing there' at the
bottom is to put more 'nothing there.'
As you audit the 'nothing there' in this way, your preclear becomes
aware it is very much something there, mega tons worth of it, and
eventually, as the 'nothing there' vanishes, the something there it was
designed to cover starts to surface.
At which point the surfacing something theres are handled the same
way, put more of them there, let the significances drain off until a
pristine as-isness is clear, then let it go.
TOP AND BOTTOM OF THE TONE SCALE
Your preclear has the top of the tone scale confused with the
bottom.
The top of the tone scale is truly nothing there.
The way to 'get rid' of native state nothing there, is to indeed
put something there (first isnesses).
But then your preclear has tried to get rid of those something
theres, first by putting more OTHER something theres (second isnesses),
then failing that, by putting 'nothing there' using bottom scale forms
of effort, force, mass, blackness and invisibility.
THEN, God forgive him, and Lord save him, he tries to get rid of
the bottom scale 'nothing theres' by putting more something there.
But he can't, he has 50 percent of his beingness putting the
original top scale something theres, then he's got the remaining 50
percent of this beingness trying to cover them with bottom scale
'nothing theres.'
With what energy now will he resist the bottom scale 'nothing
theres' by putting more something theres?
The way out of a top scale heaven nothing there is to put something
there.
The way out of a bottom scale hell 'nothing there,' is to put MORE
nothing there.
You don't solve a Black V case by forcing him to peer into the
darkness to see what is there, or to put something ELSE there anyhow.
You find out what he can see, even vaguely then you make sure he
can't see even that.
You turn a Black V case into a Black Infinity case, and then he
will suddenly see how it works, and become an infinity case that can see
anything.
A being can lose utterly.
This is how he does it.
This is the mechanism.
You think spirits have it bad, it's the same for animals.
There is nothing sadder than seeing a starving animal trying to
eat.
The spirit is using methods to handle top scale nothing theres, to
solve bottom scale 'nothing theres.'
By putting something more there.
That's it, that's all there is.
He is trying to put something there, instead of more 'nothing
there'.
If he can't CREATE what is killing him, he can't remove it and
become independent of it again.
One has to see it work both going down and going back up to
appreciate it.
High appreciation for ludicrous demise, powers the dance of
existence from top to bottom, via the dwindling spiral of creation,
survival and destruction at the bottom of the sea.
It can be turned around at any time.
It can and will be turned around for everyone at some point before
the end of the present while.
It shouldn't be turned around too early, people enjoy their games
of sinking ship.
Such games are havingness that distract from the terror of total
'nothing there' forever for free (avichi).
The mechanism of descent is the only mechanism there is, it is not
a mistake and, for a totally self responsible being, couldn't be any
other way.
It is born of a self locking conception loop, the conception
that conception is not causal, is causal, so then conception
becomes non causal as conceived.
He has to become facile with creating that loop in order
to stop putting it there.
Handling A by doing anything at all with B is a waste of time and a
spiritual death trap.
Descent can get out of control as understandings wane and darken,
and no one is left to audit or be audited.
It can become impossible, through those lack of understandings, to
turn any of it around for anyone, until understandings arise again,
through reading the words on their tombstone, or through prime
postulates in one or more beings who can help.
That's called the Messiah Postulate and it rings true through out
the while.
However God help you if you are the first or only one during such a
time of rebirth.
A prime postulate is a positive or negative postulate that is
issued by beings, independent of any thing going on before, in the
present or after.
Prime postulates therefore can help or harm equally well.
Prime postulates are like a major roll of the dice affecting how
the present turns into the future.
However that may be, the while WILL end one day, by our own efforts
to understand TRUTH, DESIRE and CAUSE, all significances will vaporize
into humor, all something theres will return to nothing there at native
state, and all will be free to create again.
Humor and peace are not a REWARD for those that make it go right or
are 'deserving', humor and peace are home to all.
The fewer that hang out worrying about those who are descending and
what to do about them, the easier it becomes for the descending to wake
up from their descent.
That's a big statement, don't go by it, lest you believe it without
knowing it.
We all know instinctively how it works.
OUR EXISTENCE IN FAIR CHOSEN IGNORANCE IS NOT A MISTAKE.
Our artful dodge is well arted.
Freedom comes from taking posession of your masterpiece.
These understandings get covered not only by the being's own fair
chosen not-isness, but by the postulates of everyone else to the effect
that others will 'never make it out', either as a worry or as a 'good
riddance.'
No one can confront the damned, so everyone not-ises them too,
which makes it worse for them.
They get stuck and have to swim in everyone else's darkness.
Between 'no one can help you' and 'you don't deserved to be helped'
the descent continues and solidifies.
Everyone dumping darkness into everyone else's future helps make it
so.
Think about it, its almost impossible for a being to stay stuck in
anything he alone created.
That is why we always bring other's along for the ride, so we can
ride the wave of THEIR postulates too.
It's our postulate to do so, but it works.
You can postulate for others too, so watch it, forevers kill.
HELP
Postulating or considering that someone else is or might be
unhelpable forever makes things worse for them.
But notice, considering that someone is unhelpable makes YOU
unhelpable.
Every abandoned unhelpable being is a blot on the face of God, and
you ARE that God in carnation.
Where do you think your pimples come from.
You are your brother's keeper, and I don't care WHO it is, that
person is your brother.
If you can't help your brother from ruin, that's YOUR RUIN!
NEED FOR CHANGE is trying to help someone else.
Guess what?
FEAR OF WORSENING IS you failed.
The helpee did a good job of messing you over eh?
There is no MANDATE to help someone, except if you issue a mandate
to be helped back.
That kind of help has to be a two way flow even if all you can do
after being helped is to pay it forward, by helping others as you have
been helped.
And yes, help is often given from a point of view of altitude and
greater skill, scope, span, depth and field, but you can always help
back those who helped you by flowing power uphill to whence power came,
and anyhow you would be surprised who can help who if they want to.
But in any case, sometimes the best way to help another is to go
clear and get the hell out of the postulate pool so your considerations
about how bad off others are doing don't crystalize down on them like a
ton of gold.
You don't have to be the one that helps them, you just have to know
that one day they will be helped and will come to help others.
Understand?
Wouldn't that be a hoot.
That forever worry about others, keeps the worrier in and
descending too, because they can't confront leaving the damned behind
forever, who are all laughing to the bottom of their grave anyhow.
Thus worry can be counter productive.
That can be a hard one to swallow, we want so much for people to
hurry up and help us, we can't allow ourselves to just be there in
peace.
But if we could do PEACE, we wouldn't NEED help anymore, would we?
Often the help we WANT, is help to help others we have loved.
It is not a matter of letting God take care of His own, but of
allowing the High US to take care of itself by whatever means, some of
it you.
So don't allow your worry about EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE drown out your
ability to help this one now in present time.
You can make up for your failure to help everyone everywhere by
helping this one here now spectacularly.
It is an untenable failure in self to be unable to help another, it
doesn't matter whether you love them or hate them.
A dog pc is someone who can't be helped.
A dog auditor is someone who can't help.
A dog auditor is someone who can't blow the final not-isness off a
case. and who can't deal with the revealed second isnesses of hate,
no-sympathy and regret.
A dog auditor is someone who handles second isnesses with
not-isness, and then handles not-isness with third isnesses.
What's a third isness?
I haven't a clue, but it ain't going up.
There may be no such thing as a dog pc, but the dog house is filled
with dog auditors.
Mostly all barking at each other.
Help powered by love and good humor is worthwhile, but help powered
by drama is a death trap for both, helper and helpee.
Remember the NEED FOR HELP was originally a fair chosen deceit to
mess you up.
It became solid and dramatic the day it wasn't confessed.
Drama means seriousness, PERMANENCE, importance and pain.
The lack of confession FOREVER thus leads to permanent demise, or
the apparency thereof.
And also remember that no one could have fallen for the deceit
unless they had tried the same deceit themselves whether it worked or
not.
Overt do not become overts because of success, overts become overts
because they were TRIED.
So you do not want to wait around for the end of the while (time)
before you turn yourself and your friends around.
The days of love and humor await your return *NOW*.
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 Oct 23 23:07:03 EDT 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Sep 23 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore879.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)
iD8DBQFWAs3pURT1lqxE3HERAtKPAJ4/NYKXiY4t0990Y53yYhgsBpg3LQCfaoAv
3OEg91d8bpNjPLYD1WjMn4o=
=/NSU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Mon Oct 19 23:39:02 EDT 2015
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, August 8, 2019
ADORE879 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE STRUCTURE OF CASE III
We describe the true nothing-there at the top of the tone scale as
nothing there.
We describe the apparent 'nothing there' at the bottom of the tone
scale as 'nothing there'.
GOD IN CARNATION
A God can create himself as anything.
Your preclear longs for the days of walking in limitless undying
love.
He can do that.
But if he is is going to love again as a God, he will have to learn
how to hate and regret again like a God too.
And, in the end how to feel nothing at all, as only a God can.
Either as ultimate truth, or as ultimate lie.
This is the emotional curve that takes a being from the beginning
of time at the top of the tone scale, to the end of time at the bottom,
and which echos itself over and over in every loss, both large and
small, in between.
The cycle of feeling starts at native state with nothing there.
It then enters ecstatic love at first isness.
It then falls down through hate and no sympathy at second isness,
to regret.
From there it sinks out of sight, finally and permanently to
'nothing there' again, total and utter not-isness, at the bottom of the
tone scale.
A God can and would do that to himself.
For a while :)
Nothing there is the birth place of the Gods at the top, and
'nothing there' is the dying place of the Gods at the bottom.
The final burial ground.
So if you are walking in 'nothing there,' tread softly, for how
many souls are there, beneath your feet?
The only difference between the top and the bottom, is at the top
the God is free to put something there, and at the bottom he isn't.
The bottom is ENFORCED top.
All aberration is enforced native state.
The whole thing is held together by beauty, admiration and humor.
The humor of ludicrous demise.
The humor is hidden in the brilliance, simplicity and intelligence
of the mechanism of descent.
The mechanism of descent is not seen on the way down, except by
others high enough to see it, but is seen on the way back up.
Thus salvation from nothing there at the top or 'nothing there' at
the bottom is a matter of understandings.
Understandings about nothing there and something there, and the
apparencies of 'nothing there' born of black something there.
In particular the way to get rid of bottom scale 'nothing there' is
NOT to try to put something there, but to put 'nothing there' some more.
That's because the 'nothing there' at the bottom is an apparency of
nothing there, it is in actuality a lot of something there in the form
of force, effort, mass, blackness, and invisibility, not to mention the
many something theres that it is trying to cover.
The way to vanish any something there is to put it there some more,
until it's true as-isness appears, then let go of it and make something
else.
Thus the way to get rid of the apparency of 'nothing there' at the
bottom is to put more 'nothing there.'
As you audit the 'nothing there' in this way, your preclear becomes
aware it is very much something there, mega tons worth of it, and
eventually, as the 'nothing there' vanishes, the something there it was
designed to cover starts to surface.
At which point the surfacing something theres are handled the same
way, put more of them there, let the significances drain off until a
pristine as-isness is clear, then let it go.
Your preclear has the top of the tone scale confused with the
bottom.
The top of the tone scale is truly nothing there.
The way to 'get rid' of native state nothing there, is to indeed
put something there (first isnesses).
But then your preclear has tried to get rid of those something
theres, first by putting more OTHER something theres (second isnesses),
then failing that, by putting 'nothing there' using bottom scale forms
of effort, force, mass, blackness and invisibility.
THEN, God forgive him, and Lord save him, he tries to get rid of
the bottom scale 'nothing theres' by putting something there.
But he can't, he has 50 percent of his beingness putting the
original top scale something theres, then he's got the remaining 50
percent of this beingness trying to cover them with bottom scale
'nothing theres.'
With what energy now will he resist the bottom scale 'nothing
theres' by putting more something theres?
The way out of a top scale heaven nothing there is to put something
there.
The way out of a bottom scale hell 'nothing there,' is to put MORE
nothing there.
You don't solve a Black V case by forcing him to peer into the
darkness to see what is there, or to put something ELSE there anyhow.
You find out what he can see, even vaguely then you make sure he
can't see even that.
You turn a Black V case into a Black Infinity case, and the he will
suddenly see how it works, and become an infinity case that can see
anything.
A being can lose utterly.
This is how he does it.
This is the mechanism.
You think spirits have it bad, it's the same for animals.
There is nothing sadder than seeing a starving animal trying to
eat.
The spirit is using methods to handle top scale nothing theres, to
solve bottom scale 'nothing theres.'
That's it, that's all there is.
He is trying to put something there, instead of more 'nothing
there'.
If he can't CREATE what is killing him, he can't remove it and
become independent of it again.
One has to see it work both going down and going back up to
appreciate it.
High appreciation for ludicrous demise, powers the dance of
existence from top to bottom, via the dwindling spiral of creation,
survival and destruction at the bottom of the sea.
It can be turned around at any time.
It can and will be turned around for everyone at some point before
the end of the present while.
It shouldn't be turned around too early, people enjoy their games,
of sinking ship. Such games are havingness that distract from the
terror of total 'nothing there' forever for free (avichi).
The mechanism of descent is the only mechanism there is, it is not
a mistake and, for a totally self responsible being, couldn't be any
other way.
But descent can get out of control as understandings wane and
darken, and no one is left to audit or be audited.
It can become impossible, through those lack of understandings, to
turn any of it around for anyone, until understandings arise again,
through prime postulates, or reading the words on their tombstone, in
one or more beings who can help.
God help you if you are the only one during such a time of rebirth.
A prime postulate is a positive or negative postulate that is
issued by beings, independent of any thing going on before, in the
present or after.
Prime postulates therefore can help or harm equally well.
Prime postulates are like a major roll of the dice affecting how
the present turns into the future.
However that may be, the while WILL end one day, all significances
will vaporize into humor, all something theres will return to nothing
there at native state, and all will be free to create again.
Humor and peace are not a REWARD for those that make it go right or
are 'deserving', humor and peace are home to all.
The fewer that hang out worrying about those who are descending and
what to do about them, the easier it becomes for the descending to wake
up from their descent.
We all know instinctively how it works.
OUR EXISTENCE IN FAIR CHOSEN IGNORANCE IS NOT A MISTAKE.
Our artful dodge is well arted.
These understandings get covered not only by the being's own fair
chosen not-isness, but by the postulates of everyone else to the effect
that others will 'never make it out'.
No one can confront the damned, so everyone not-ises them too,
which makes it worse for them.
They get stuck and have to swim in everyone else's darkness too.
Everyone dumping darkness into everyone else's future helps make it
so.
Think about it, its almost impossible for a being to stay stuck in
anything he alone created.
That is why we always bring other's along for the ride, so we can
ride the wave of THEIR postulates too. It's our postulate to do so, but
it works.
You can postulate for others too, so watch it, forevers kill.
Postulating or considering that someone else is or might be
unhelpable forever makes things worse for them.
But notice, considering that someone is unhelpable makes YOU
unhelpable.
You are your brother's keeper, and I don't care WHO it is, that
person is your brother.
There is no MANDATE to help someone, except if you issue a mandate
to be helped back.
That kind of help has to be a two way flow even if all you can do
after being helped is to pay it forward, by helping others as you have
been helped.
And yes help is often given from a point of view of altitude and
greater skill, scope, span, depth and field, but you can always help
back those who helped you by flowing power uphill to whence power came,
and anyhow you would be surprised who can help who if they want to.
But in any case, sometimes the best way to help another is to go
clear and get the hell out of the postulate pool so your considerations
about how bad off others are doing don't crystalize down on them like a
ton of gold.
You don't have to be the one that helps them, you just have to know
that one day they will be helped and will come to help others.
Understand?
That forever worry about others, keeps the worrier in and
descending too, because they can't confront leaving the damned behind
forever.
Thus worry can be counter productive.
That can be a hard one to swallow, we want so much for people to
hurry up and help us, we can't allow ourselves to just be there in
peace.
But if we could do that, we wouldn't NEED help anymore, would we?
Often the help we WANT is help to help others we have loved.
It is not a matter of letting God take care of his own, but of
allowing the High US to take care of itself by whatever means, some of
it you.
So don't allow your worry about EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE drown out your
ability to help this one now in present time.
You can make up for your failure to help everyone everywhere by
helping this one here now spectacularly.
It is an untenable failure in self to be unable to help another, it
doesn't matter whether you love them or hate them.
A dog pc is someone who can't be helped.
A dog auditor is someone who can't help.
A dog auditor is someone who can't blow the not-isness off a case.
and who can't deal with the revealed second isnesses of hate,
no-sympathy and regret.
A dog auditor is someone who handles second isnesses with
not-isness, and then handles not-isness with third isnesses.
What's a third isness?
I haven't a clue, but it ain't going up.
There may be no such thing as a dog pc, but the dog house is filled
with dog auditors.
Mostly all barking at each other.
Help powered by love and good humor is worthwhile, but help powered
by drama is a death trap for both, helper and helpee.
Drama means seriousness, PERMANENCE, importance and pain.
So you do not want to wait around for the end of the while (time)
before you turn yourself and your friends around.
The days of love await your return *NOW*.
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 Oct 23 23:07:03 EDT 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Sep 23 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore879.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)
iD8DBQFWAs3pURT1lqxE3HERAtKPAJ4/NYKXiY4t0990Y53yYhgsBpg3LQCfaoAv
3OEg91d8bpNjPLYD1WjMn4o=
=/NSU
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Mon Oct 19 23:39:02 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 8 12:00:05 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore879.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)
iD8DBQFdTEcFURT1lqxE3HERApkXAJ4o0KU0Zl4r9XWfkhd67llaHNpbhwCfTrBb
qjEVF0tfLdOm7f5zjywPjz8=
=hajR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE STRUCTURE OF CASE III
We describe the true nothing-there at the top of the tone scale as
nothing there.
We describe the apparent 'nothing there' at the bottom of the tone
scale as 'nothing there'.
GOD IN CARNATION
A God can create himself as anything.
Your preclear longs for the days of walking in limitless undying
love.
He can do that.
But if he is is going to love again as a God, he will have to learn
how to hate and regret again like a God too.
And, in the end how to feel nothing at all, as only a God can.
Either as ultimate truth, or as ultimate lie.
This is the emotional curve that takes a being from the beginning
of time at the top of the tone scale, to the end of time at the bottom,
and which echos itself over and over in every loss, both large and
small, in between.
The cycle of feeling starts at native state with nothing there.
It then enters ecstatic love at first isness.
It then falls down through hate and no sympathy at second isness,
to regret.
From there it sinks out of sight, finally and permanently to
'nothing there' again, total and utter not-isness, at the bottom of the
tone scale.
A God can and would do that to himself.
For a while :)
Nothing there is the birth place of the Gods at the top, and
'nothing there' is the dying place of the Gods at the bottom.
The final burial ground.
So if you are walking in 'nothing there,' tread softly, for how
many souls are there, beneath your feet?
The only difference between the top and the bottom, is at the top
the God is free to put something there, and at the bottom he isn't.
The bottom is ENFORCED top.
All aberration is enforced native state.
The whole thing is held together by beauty, admiration and humor.
The humor of ludicrous demise.
The humor is hidden in the brilliance, simplicity and intelligence
of the mechanism of descent.
The mechanism of descent is not seen on the way down, except by
others high enough to see it, but is seen on the way back up.
Thus salvation from nothing there at the top or 'nothing there' at
the bottom is a matter of understandings.
Understandings about nothing there and something there, and the
apparencies of 'nothing there' born of black something there.
In particular the way to get rid of bottom scale 'nothing there' is
NOT to try to put something there, but to put 'nothing there' some more.
That's because the 'nothing there' at the bottom is an apparency of
nothing there, it is in actuality a lot of something there in the form
of force, effort, mass, blackness, and invisibility, not to mention the
many something theres that it is trying to cover.
The way to vanish any something there is to put it there some more,
until it's true as-isness appears, then let go of it and make something
else.
Thus the way to get rid of the apparency of 'nothing there' at the
bottom is to put more 'nothing there.'
As you audit the 'nothing there' in this way, your preclear becomes
aware it is very much something there, mega tons worth of it, and
eventually, as the 'nothing there' vanishes, the something there it was
designed to cover starts to surface.
At which point the surfacing something theres are handled the same
way, put more of them there, let the significances drain off until a
pristine as-isness is clear, then let it go.
Your preclear has the top of the tone scale confused with the
bottom.
The top of the tone scale is truly nothing there.
The way to 'get rid' of native state nothing there, is to indeed
put something there (first isnesses).
But then your preclear has tried to get rid of those something
theres, first by putting more OTHER something theres (second isnesses),
then failing that, by putting 'nothing there' using bottom scale forms
of effort, force, mass, blackness and invisibility.
THEN, God forgive him, and Lord save him, he tries to get rid of
the bottom scale 'nothing theres' by putting something there.
But he can't, he has 50 percent of his beingness putting the
original top scale something theres, then he's got the remaining 50
percent of this beingness trying to cover them with bottom scale
'nothing theres.'
With what energy now will he resist the bottom scale 'nothing
theres' by putting more something theres?
The way out of a top scale heaven nothing there is to put something
there.
The way out of a bottom scale hell 'nothing there,' is to put MORE
nothing there.
You don't solve a Black V case by forcing him to peer into the
darkness to see what is there, or to put something ELSE there anyhow.
You find out what he can see, even vaguely then you make sure he
can't see even that.
You turn a Black V case into a Black Infinity case, and the he will
suddenly see how it works, and become an infinity case that can see
anything.
A being can lose utterly.
This is how he does it.
This is the mechanism.
You think spirits have it bad, it's the same for animals.
There is nothing sadder than seeing a starving animal trying to
eat.
The spirit is using methods to handle top scale nothing theres, to
solve bottom scale 'nothing theres.'
That's it, that's all there is.
He is trying to put something there, instead of more 'nothing
there'.
If he can't CREATE what is killing him, he can't remove it and
become independent of it again.
One has to see it work both going down and going back up to
appreciate it.
High appreciation for ludicrous demise, powers the dance of
existence from top to bottom, via the dwindling spiral of creation,
survival and destruction at the bottom of the sea.
It can be turned around at any time.
It can and will be turned around for everyone at some point before
the end of the present while.
It shouldn't be turned around too early, people enjoy their games,
of sinking ship. Such games are havingness that distract from the
terror of total 'nothing there' forever for free (avichi).
The mechanism of descent is the only mechanism there is, it is not
a mistake and, for a totally self responsible being, couldn't be any
other way.
But descent can get out of control as understandings wane and
darken, and no one is left to audit or be audited.
It can become impossible, through those lack of understandings, to
turn any of it around for anyone, until understandings arise again,
through prime postulates, or reading the words on their tombstone, in
one or more beings who can help.
God help you if you are the only one during such a time of rebirth.
A prime postulate is a positive or negative postulate that is
issued by beings, independent of any thing going on before, in the
present or after.
Prime postulates therefore can help or harm equally well.
Prime postulates are like a major roll of the dice affecting how
the present turns into the future.
However that may be, the while WILL end one day, all significances
will vaporize into humor, all something theres will return to nothing
there at native state, and all will be free to create again.
Humor and peace are not a REWARD for those that make it go right or
are 'deserving', humor and peace are home to all.
The fewer that hang out worrying about those who are descending and
what to do about them, the easier it becomes for the descending to wake
up from their descent.
We all know instinctively how it works.
OUR EXISTENCE IN FAIR CHOSEN IGNORANCE IS NOT A MISTAKE.
Our artful dodge is well arted.
These understandings get covered not only by the being's own fair
chosen not-isness, but by the postulates of everyone else to the effect
that others will 'never make it out'.
No one can confront the damned, so everyone not-ises them too,
which makes it worse for them.
They get stuck and have to swim in everyone else's darkness too.
Everyone dumping darkness into everyone else's future helps make it
so.
Think about it, its almost impossible for a being to stay stuck in
anything he alone created.
That is why we always bring other's along for the ride, so we can
ride the wave of THEIR postulates too. It's our postulate to do so, but
it works.
You can postulate for others too, so watch it, forevers kill.
Postulating or considering that someone else is or might be
unhelpable forever makes things worse for them.
But notice, considering that someone is unhelpable makes YOU
unhelpable.
You are your brother's keeper, and I don't care WHO it is, that
person is your brother.
There is no MANDATE to help someone, except if you issue a mandate
to be helped back.
That kind of help has to be a two way flow even if all you can do
after being helped is to pay it forward, by helping others as you have
been helped.
And yes help is often given from a point of view of altitude and
greater skill, scope, span, depth and field, but you can always help
back those who helped you by flowing power uphill to whence power came,
and anyhow you would be surprised who can help who if they want to.
But in any case, sometimes the best way to help another is to go
clear and get the hell out of the postulate pool so your considerations
about how bad off others are doing don't crystalize down on them like a
ton of gold.
You don't have to be the one that helps them, you just have to know
that one day they will be helped and will come to help others.
Understand?
That forever worry about others, keeps the worrier in and
descending too, because they can't confront leaving the damned behind
forever.
Thus worry can be counter productive.
That can be a hard one to swallow, we want so much for people to
hurry up and help us, we can't allow ourselves to just be there in
peace.
But if we could do that, we wouldn't NEED help anymore, would we?
Often the help we WANT is help to help others we have loved.
It is not a matter of letting God take care of his own, but of
allowing the High US to take care of itself by whatever means, some of
it you.
So don't allow your worry about EVERYBODY EVERYWHERE drown out your
ability to help this one now in present time.
You can make up for your failure to help everyone everywhere by
helping this one here now spectacularly.
It is an untenable failure in self to be unable to help another, it
doesn't matter whether you love them or hate them.
A dog pc is someone who can't be helped.
A dog auditor is someone who can't help.
A dog auditor is someone who can't blow the not-isness off a case.
and who can't deal with the revealed second isnesses of hate,
no-sympathy and regret.
A dog auditor is someone who handles second isnesses with
not-isness, and then handles not-isness with third isnesses.
What's a third isness?
I haven't a clue, but it ain't going up.
There may be no such thing as a dog pc, but the dog house is filled
with dog auditors.
Mostly all barking at each other.
Help powered by love and good humor is worthwhile, but help powered
by drama is a death trap for both, helper and helpee.
Drama means seriousness, PERMANENCE, importance and pain.
So you do not want to wait around for the end of the while (time)
before you turn yourself and your friends around.
The days of love await your return *NOW*.
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 Oct 23 23:07:03 EDT 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Sep 23 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore879.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)
iD8DBQFWAs3pURT1lqxE3HERAtKPAJ4/NYKXiY4t0990Y53yYhgsBpg3LQCfaoAv
3OEg91d8bpNjPLYD1WjMn4o=
=/NSU
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Mon Oct 19 23:39:02 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 8 12:00:05 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore879.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)
iD8DBQFdTEcFURT1lqxE3HERApkXAJ4o0KU0Zl4r9XWfkhd67llaHNpbhwCfTrBb
qjEVF0tfLdOm7f5zjywPjz8=
=hajR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, August 3, 2019
ORIENTATION POINT AND SP's
ORIENTATION POINTS AND SP's
http://clearing.org/archive?/homer/orientation.memo
Rogers. D.Scn. (The_Bindu@NOSPAMmsn.com) wrote:
>True enough. But one CAN'T just imagine that one is the only player and
>everybody else is just your mockup either. You can't handle an SP by
>attempting to make a "perfect duplicate" of him/her and his/her actions.
>You can't handle an SP by improving one's own willingness to confront or
>mockup evil. Bottom line, you cannot handle an SP by making changes in YOUR
>OWN UNIVERSE. That's not the source of the SP, nor where he/she lives.
I disagree completely.
First, one is not trying to change the SP, that's just PTSness,
trying to make the SP wrong. One is trying to change one's own relation
to the SP, so one is no longer PTS. At that point the SP changes
anyhow.
The problem solved in one's own space then solves in the SP's space
too.
LRH had a good process for SP's, point at it and go 'Nothing
there'.
Of course one would actually have to run this.
OK, here's the full truth of the matter.
The thetan as native state is an all powerful Orientation Point and
a creator of symbols, that have mass, meaning and mobility.
Anything he considers comes to be in the mere consideration of it.
Once the thetan has created his playing field of space time
symbols, including identities of good and evil etc, he then jumps in.
By doing so he is no longer the infinite stationary orientation point
but has become a symbol himself with the limited powers and abilities of
that symbol.
Then he is approached by his opposition terminal, that which must
never be, never have been, and never be again.
If it ain't forever, it ain't his opposition terminal.
That's because there ARE no forevers inside a space time while.
Thus he is going PTS to the forevernesss of this other thing, which
exceeds even his own sovereign desire or ability to create it, since his
creations are limited to finite whiles.
Of course his opposition terminal CAN'T be forever, nothing can be
inside a space time while, but as long as your preclear thinks it can
be, he is doomed, he can't win by definition.
As he goes PTS, he assigns the SP more and more orientation point
ability, until the SP is everywhere present, unmovable and omnipotent.
The SP is actually just a symbol too, but he's a bigger symbol to the
thetan who is now playing the cute little innocent victim etc. The
thetan has a game now in other words.
The moment you run into something that is 'unmovable' and you can't
kick it out of your space you have just become PTS to the SP
unmoveability.
The solution the thetan has to this is to move HIMSELF around, away
from, do anything at all but just stay where he is.
That's called ELSEWHERENESS.
Since power stems from the ability to maintain your position in
space, he gives a part of himself a way every time he moves away from
the SP orientation point that no longer has to move, not even to chase
him, since it just gets bigger and expands in the preclear's mind until
it is everywhere.
So the once unmovable all powerful orientation point, your preclear
as sovereign native state being, is now moving it self around to save
its own ass.
So the thetan originally is unmovable, but he has flip flopped his
perception so he is movable and the world is unmovable and something big
in the world moves in on him and he gets scared and what does he do?
*HE MOVES*.
The moment he moves he has committed to his postulate that he is a
symbol and this other thing is an oreintation point (thus all powerful).
Before he moves he has merely made the postulates, I am a symbol, I
can move, the world is unmovable, things out there bigger than me can
move me etc.
But he hasn't done anthing to hold them in place.
If he so much as blinks, he will flip back to orientation point and
be done with this nonsense.
However once he MOVES he commits to those postulates and now they
are solid as a rock and he is an effect. He said so himself in the
action of moving.
He isn't just saying "I am making these postulates", he's saying
"I am making these postulates AND THEY ARE RIGHT, and I better get my
ass out of here before I am monster food..."
This is the consideration/observation flip flop.
As orientation point he is saying "I am making these postulates
and these postulates are cause of the condition I am in."
That's consideration as cause.
Once he moves he has said 'I am making these postulates, not
because they are cause, but because I have observed they are true
independent of what I think'.
That's consideration as learning through observation, totally being
an effect of what he has learned. SOMETHING ELSE made them be true, you
see? So he is stuck with it for good now until he flips out of learning
through observation back into causal consideration.
That's in part why power stems from the ability to maintain your
position in space. This ain't quite right though, power stems from the
ability to maintain your ORIGINAL POSITION IN SPACE, because that's
where you flipped from orientation point to symbol for the first time.
Once you have moved, holding that new position in space is
holding an already degraded condition. Perhaps thats better than
having to move again and holding that position, but you can see that's
a losing battle against one's own postulates that ONE IS NOT AN
ORIENTATION POINT.
The being had infinite power at the original position in space,
he lost it through the flip/flop only, and that was fair chosen.
From there on out, the being has only finite power at any later
position in space and can be moved by any force big enough to do so.
As he continues to be moved into newer and newer positions of
space, the amount of force it takes to move him becomes less and less,
and eventually he becomes a tumble weed.
The thetan even as symbol isn't actully moving anywhere, he's
shifting the dream around him, but his perceptions tell him the dream is
stationary and he is moving and this constant alteris takes him further
and further away from the truth that he is a stationary all powerful
orientation point, and buries him in the masses of resentment etc.
So everyone is PTS to the original SP that moved them the first
time after they entered symbol land. All other SP's are mere
restimulators for 'Nemesis One'.
What's got the thetan down? He had to MOVE out of its way.
That's it.
He had to move off the portal point into the dream and now "he's
lost", doesn't know where he is, doesn't know how to get home etc. He's
still trying to get back to the portal point by MOVING THERE, rather
than realizing that HE IS THERE and never been anywhere else.
Nemesis One class SP's love to make their home on the portal points
to dreams.
By replicating that original move from supreme orientation point to
symbol, and replicating the first APPARENT move as a symbol off that
first point, one can regain the power of that orientation point where
ONE WAS MAKING THE SP IN THE FIRST PLACE. Then one can simply cease
doing so with 'Nothing there', and then proceed to create further SP's
forever for free. Maybe you can sell them to other thetan's wanting to
play the same game, 'Die of Overwhelm' of some such thing.
This is the route to full OT and the end of PTSness, one and the
same thing.
"Behold ye now Behemoth, he who made it can approach unto it." -
Book of Job, Bible.
Homer
>Les.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
http://clearing.org/archive?/homer/orientation.memo
Rogers. D.Scn. (The_Bindu@NOSPAMmsn.com) wrote:
>True enough. But one CAN'T just imagine that one is the only player and
>everybody else is just your mockup either. You can't handle an SP by
>attempting to make a "perfect duplicate" of him/her and his/her actions.
>You can't handle an SP by improving one's own willingness to confront or
>mockup evil. Bottom line, you cannot handle an SP by making changes in YOUR
>OWN UNIVERSE. That's not the source of the SP, nor where he/she lives.
I disagree completely.
First, one is not trying to change the SP, that's just PTSness,
trying to make the SP wrong. One is trying to change one's own relation
to the SP, so one is no longer PTS. At that point the SP changes
anyhow.
The problem solved in one's own space then solves in the SP's space
too.
LRH had a good process for SP's, point at it and go 'Nothing
there'.
Of course one would actually have to run this.
OK, here's the full truth of the matter.
The thetan as native state is an all powerful Orientation Point and
a creator of symbols, that have mass, meaning and mobility.
Anything he considers comes to be in the mere consideration of it.
Once the thetan has created his playing field of space time
symbols, including identities of good and evil etc, he then jumps in.
By doing so he is no longer the infinite stationary orientation point
but has become a symbol himself with the limited powers and abilities of
that symbol.
Then he is approached by his opposition terminal, that which must
never be, never have been, and never be again.
If it ain't forever, it ain't his opposition terminal.
That's because there ARE no forevers inside a space time while.
Thus he is going PTS to the forevernesss of this other thing, which
exceeds even his own sovereign desire or ability to create it, since his
creations are limited to finite whiles.
Of course his opposition terminal CAN'T be forever, nothing can be
inside a space time while, but as long as your preclear thinks it can
be, he is doomed, he can't win by definition.
As he goes PTS, he assigns the SP more and more orientation point
ability, until the SP is everywhere present, unmovable and omnipotent.
The SP is actually just a symbol too, but he's a bigger symbol to the
thetan who is now playing the cute little innocent victim etc. The
thetan has a game now in other words.
The moment you run into something that is 'unmovable' and you can't
kick it out of your space you have just become PTS to the SP
unmoveability.
The solution the thetan has to this is to move HIMSELF around, away
from, do anything at all but just stay where he is.
That's called ELSEWHERENESS.
Since power stems from the ability to maintain your position in
space, he gives a part of himself a way every time he moves away from
the SP orientation point that no longer has to move, not even to chase
him, since it just gets bigger and expands in the preclear's mind until
it is everywhere.
So the once unmovable all powerful orientation point, your preclear
as sovereign native state being, is now moving it self around to save
its own ass.
So the thetan originally is unmovable, but he has flip flopped his
perception so he is movable and the world is unmovable and something big
in the world moves in on him and he gets scared and what does he do?
*HE MOVES*.
The moment he moves he has committed to his postulate that he is a
symbol and this other thing is an oreintation point (thus all powerful).
Before he moves he has merely made the postulates, I am a symbol, I
can move, the world is unmovable, things out there bigger than me can
move me etc.
But he hasn't done anthing to hold them in place.
If he so much as blinks, he will flip back to orientation point and
be done with this nonsense.
However once he MOVES he commits to those postulates and now they
are solid as a rock and he is an effect. He said so himself in the
action of moving.
He isn't just saying "I am making these postulates", he's saying
"I am making these postulates AND THEY ARE RIGHT, and I better get my
ass out of here before I am monster food..."
This is the consideration/observation flip flop.
As orientation point he is saying "I am making these postulates
and these postulates are cause of the condition I am in."
That's consideration as cause.
Once he moves he has said 'I am making these postulates, not
because they are cause, but because I have observed they are true
independent of what I think'.
That's consideration as learning through observation, totally being
an effect of what he has learned. SOMETHING ELSE made them be true, you
see? So he is stuck with it for good now until he flips out of learning
through observation back into causal consideration.
That's in part why power stems from the ability to maintain your
position in space. This ain't quite right though, power stems from the
ability to maintain your ORIGINAL POSITION IN SPACE, because that's
where you flipped from orientation point to symbol for the first time.
Once you have moved, holding that new position in space is
holding an already degraded condition. Perhaps thats better than
having to move again and holding that position, but you can see that's
a losing battle against one's own postulates that ONE IS NOT AN
ORIENTATION POINT.
The being had infinite power at the original position in space,
he lost it through the flip/flop only, and that was fair chosen.
From there on out, the being has only finite power at any later
position in space and can be moved by any force big enough to do so.
As he continues to be moved into newer and newer positions of
space, the amount of force it takes to move him becomes less and less,
and eventually he becomes a tumble weed.
The thetan even as symbol isn't actully moving anywhere, he's
shifting the dream around him, but his perceptions tell him the dream is
stationary and he is moving and this constant alteris takes him further
and further away from the truth that he is a stationary all powerful
orientation point, and buries him in the masses of resentment etc.
So everyone is PTS to the original SP that moved them the first
time after they entered symbol land. All other SP's are mere
restimulators for 'Nemesis One'.
What's got the thetan down? He had to MOVE out of its way.
That's it.
He had to move off the portal point into the dream and now "he's
lost", doesn't know where he is, doesn't know how to get home etc. He's
still trying to get back to the portal point by MOVING THERE, rather
than realizing that HE IS THERE and never been anywhere else.
Nemesis One class SP's love to make their home on the portal points
to dreams.
By replicating that original move from supreme orientation point to
symbol, and replicating the first APPARENT move as a symbol off that
first point, one can regain the power of that orientation point where
ONE WAS MAKING THE SP IN THE FIRST PLACE. Then one can simply cease
doing so with 'Nothing there', and then proceed to create further SP's
forever for free. Maybe you can sell them to other thetan's wanting to
play the same game, 'Die of Overwhelm' of some such thing.
This is the route to full OT and the end of PTSness, one and the
same thing.
"Behold ye now Behemoth, he who made it can approach unto it." -
Book of Job, Bible.
Homer
>Les.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Thursday, August 1, 2019
ADORE292 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SOMETHING NOTHING, FOREVER NEVER.
There are two primary dramatizations that will get a thetan in
trouble as an OT, both of which violate the sovereign "while" in which
he has created a time stream.
They are FOREVERS and NEVERS.
The GPM goes as follows.
Nothing Forever (Native state, a timeless forever.)
Nothing Never (Impulse to create a permanent persistance.)
Something Forever (Created permanent persistance.)
Something Never (Death forever, a forever in time.)
They follow the standard Beauty Ugly staircase:
The Beauty of Nothing Nothing Forever
The Ugly of Nothing Nothing Never
The Beauty of Something Something Forever
The Ugly of Something Something Never
Notice Nothing Never is pretty much the same thing as Something
Forever. So you really have a cross of sorts.
Nothing Forever
|
Nothing Never------|----------Something Forever
|
|
Something Never
The bars of the cross are made of Love.
The guy starts off at the top of the cross, knowing what he is
doing, creates and spends his time on the cross bar of the cross, and
eventually ends up 'dying forever in the rigid apathy of MEST' at the
bottom of the cross, trying to not-is everything out of existence.
Remember though, this is not a mistake on the part of the thetan,
it is fair chosen from beginning to end. At the top he doesn't really
want to die forever, but he is impishly happy at the thought of creating
a bear trap of magnitude for himself.
Its a game, he wants to know just how far he can dig himself in
before he get's saved inspite of himself.
The purpose of auditing is to get the guy to take full
responsibility for the whole cross again so he can operate it freely
once more.
Yes he will bury himself in tar again. There is a beauty to it.
It's not really forever because he knows there will always be some
goody two shoes auditor to get him out of his own ludicrous demise, but
he will try.
If he didn't have the Messiah postulate on the future track to save
his sorry ass, he wouldn't engage in trying to die forever.
The universe is made of whiles, not forevers, so there HAS to be a
way out of everything created eventually for everyone period. How that
is arranged in particular for each being is his personal Messiah
Postulate. Everyone has one, and everyone's is the same and different,
and recovering it for the pc allows them to operate it smoothly with the
auditor in front of him.
Without some agreement between auditor and pc on the operating
messiah postulate of the session, no auditing will take place. Help
that does not conform to the pc's messiah postulate will not be
acceptable and thus won't 'work'.
Thus it behooves the auditor to find the pc's messiah postulate
early on, then they will both find that the messiah postulate just sort
of runs the session to good results every time.
If there are session failures, then it is quite possible the
messiah postulate has gotten into conflict again, but of course it could
just be bad pc-ing or bad auditing.
Any pc who snarls at a good auditor likes tar more than freedom,
audit him on scarcity of tar and he will give that up immediately.
Any pc who snarls at a bad auditor likes freedom more than tar and
will eventually try to make the auditor into a tarcicle.
MURDER AND DAMNATION
The most usual manifestations of forevers and nevers are murder,
and damnation. Murder includes wanting to destroy, kill or make nothing
out of. Damnation includes intents to harm, hurt, torture or disable.
Nothing Forever is Eternal Sleep at the top or the Big Snooze.
Nothing Forever is not in time, it is not an infinite amount of
time of nothing forever. It is a timeless eternalness.
Something Never, it's opposite, is Death Forever in time at the
bottom. He is trying to be no more by seeking death *IN TIME*. Ask him
if the rocks will out live him. "They god damn better well out live me,
I paid a lot for my tombstone!" He is *DEPENDING* on it, so the Messiah
yet to come will know some day where to come dig him up to restore him
to sovereignty.
Something Never is an enforced Basic Truth on Nothing Forever. He
is sick of Being but can't figure out how to not Be without dying
forever *IN TIME*.
LIFE ON THE CROSS
Persistence starts with there must never be nothing again, which
flows into there must always something forever more.
Nothing Never and Something Forever are both opposite sides of the
same coin, namely damnation or Hell Forever. Any state of ON or BEING
forever, whether pleasurable or painful is a Hell forever.
What he WANTS are cycles of sleep and manifestation, sleep and
manifestatoin. What he has created as a subset of that want is infinite
manifestation in time (hell forever) followed by infinite non
manifestation in time (death forever).
Notice that since he CAN'T die forever in time, his efforts to do
so are merely a part of his infinite manifestation in time and are thus
part of his continuing hell forever.
Don't worry, be happy, its just a game and gives you the auditor
something to do. Yeah, yeah, so charge more.
The primary dramatization then of forevers and nevers are damnation
and murder, hell forever and death forever.
Murder is the effort to destroy forever, it is Something Never, at
the bottom of the cross.
When creating a Murder Rundown you need to take into account 5
factors that may not happen in this order.
There is the first idea to murder.
There is the first accidental murder.
There is the first intent to murder.
There is the first attempt to murder.
There is the first accomplished murder.
Don't forget to audit pretenses on murder and being murdered
either. They often come before the real thing.
One of the most powerful processes there is, and an instant
cure to to a whole host of symptoms is simply:
"Who do you still want to murder?"
He doesn't even have to ANSWER IT, just asking
is enough.
That runs you right around the "Who me?" case or the
"I don't know" case.
They are simply murdering murdering.
If you don't like questions, run:
"Get the idea of wanting to murder something or someone."
Run all flows of course.
Notice that intent and attempt to murder have the same NO-NO value
as an actual accomplished murder.
We don't consider it that way legally, but emotionally, the first
time the guy develops the intent to murder, or attempts it, he is as
good as gone, as if he had done it.
You don't get away with murder and you don't get away with
violating your own Sovereign Desire or Sovereign While.
Notice we aren't talking about knocking off a body or two in an
otherwise on going game. We are talking about destroying the being
forever, period. At one time people knew that bodies were cars and that
beings in them would just get another car if the car got killed. No big
deal. But eventually the intent to kill THE BEING FOREVER became the
game, and that just turns the killer into a tarcicle.
The original intent to murder, either others or himself, will be a
surprise to him, "where did THAT come from?", and be regretted, for it
will act as a 'forever stain' on his beingness, and eventually he will
inevitably come to accept it as necessary to attempt and accomplish.
But he will separate from the group mind as he can't continue with
the withhold and pretense that he is still pure of such stains if
everyone can read his mind or beingness.
If you come to the wedding with blood on your wedding dress,
everyone is going to know SOMETHING is up.
Once the intent has slipped through into his world and stained him,
there is no turning back without responsibility and understanding. He
created the surprise in his long ago as part of the game, but no longer
understands this, it is foreign to him to even consider the possibility
of it.
"Hey I am a pure good guy, why would I never set myself up to such
a corruption of my beingness, who needs that kind of surprise!?"
However that may be this is total no responsibility for condition.
Run this on children early, for the child that has already
developed his first intent to murder is in deep trouble, even if he
manages to withhold it.
Be particularly wary of a child that was murdered in his last
life, only to meet the murderer again in his early baby life while the
murderer was still in his original body. This will create a
magnificent withhold of magnitude on the part of the child, because if
he lets on he knows, the murderer may murder him again.
Don't forget to run when the child did it to others.
People who you murder in one life, tend to be your baby sitter in
the next.
Notice it didn't happen to him BECAUSE he did it to others, and if
being murdered runs easily in the child then he may not have done it to
others, for those who are not guilty heal easily, on their own and in
auditing.
But if it runs like black obsidian glass, tar and crazy glue, then
he did it either before or after it was done to him, or both, and is
using his murder as both justification for having done it to others
either before or after it happened to him, and restraint to make sure he
doesn't do it again.
Remember that things the being uses to restrain committing
overt acts are ALSO used to justify overt acts already committed.
"What you did to me just now, justified what I did you earlier,
because what i did was right, but also cripples me to a point where I
can't do it again, because it is wrong." This combo of justification and
restraint creates a permanent overwhelm and an inability to think about
right and wrong clearly, not to mention a pendulum swing between
justification and doing it again, and regret and restraint and never
doing it again.
Get the regret off the cycle. The regret is intolerable, arises
from total irresponsibility, and creates a compulsion to justify and
restrain.
E/P on murder rundown is humor and understanding about being a
victim forever with full capacity to mock the cross up again and not get
involved in other people's Something/Nothing Forever/Never Crosses.
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 Dec 5 00:06:17 EST 2005
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 1 12:00:03 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore292.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)
iD8DBQFdQwyEURT1lqxE3HERAhdFAJwOAxX/2rukQOtmIOrhMyHjcaPWrwCgkLng
MqXxCE2EhXlmsMaAz90y01c=
=/Ump
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SOMETHING NOTHING, FOREVER NEVER.
There are two primary dramatizations that will get a thetan in
trouble as an OT, both of which violate the sovereign "while" in which
he has created a time stream.
They are FOREVERS and NEVERS.
The GPM goes as follows.
Nothing Forever (Native state, a timeless forever.)
Nothing Never (Impulse to create a permanent persistance.)
Something Forever (Created permanent persistance.)
Something Never (Death forever, a forever in time.)
They follow the standard Beauty Ugly staircase:
The Beauty of Nothing Nothing Forever
The Ugly of Nothing Nothing Never
The Beauty of Something Something Forever
The Ugly of Something Something Never
Notice Nothing Never is pretty much the same thing as Something
Forever. So you really have a cross of sorts.
Nothing Forever
|
Nothing Never------|----------Something Forever
|
|
Something Never
The bars of the cross are made of Love.
The guy starts off at the top of the cross, knowing what he is
doing, creates and spends his time on the cross bar of the cross, and
eventually ends up 'dying forever in the rigid apathy of MEST' at the
bottom of the cross, trying to not-is everything out of existence.
Remember though, this is not a mistake on the part of the thetan,
it is fair chosen from beginning to end. At the top he doesn't really
want to die forever, but he is impishly happy at the thought of creating
a bear trap of magnitude for himself.
Its a game, he wants to know just how far he can dig himself in
before he get's saved inspite of himself.
The purpose of auditing is to get the guy to take full
responsibility for the whole cross again so he can operate it freely
once more.
Yes he will bury himself in tar again. There is a beauty to it.
It's not really forever because he knows there will always be some
goody two shoes auditor to get him out of his own ludicrous demise, but
he will try.
If he didn't have the Messiah postulate on the future track to save
his sorry ass, he wouldn't engage in trying to die forever.
The universe is made of whiles, not forevers, so there HAS to be a
way out of everything created eventually for everyone period. How that
is arranged in particular for each being is his personal Messiah
Postulate. Everyone has one, and everyone's is the same and different,
and recovering it for the pc allows them to operate it smoothly with the
auditor in front of him.
Without some agreement between auditor and pc on the operating
messiah postulate of the session, no auditing will take place. Help
that does not conform to the pc's messiah postulate will not be
acceptable and thus won't 'work'.
Thus it behooves the auditor to find the pc's messiah postulate
early on, then they will both find that the messiah postulate just sort
of runs the session to good results every time.
If there are session failures, then it is quite possible the
messiah postulate has gotten into conflict again, but of course it could
just be bad pc-ing or bad auditing.
Any pc who snarls at a good auditor likes tar more than freedom,
audit him on scarcity of tar and he will give that up immediately.
Any pc who snarls at a bad auditor likes freedom more than tar and
will eventually try to make the auditor into a tarcicle.
MURDER AND DAMNATION
The most usual manifestations of forevers and nevers are murder,
and damnation. Murder includes wanting to destroy, kill or make nothing
out of. Damnation includes intents to harm, hurt, torture or disable.
Nothing Forever is Eternal Sleep at the top or the Big Snooze.
Nothing Forever is not in time, it is not an infinite amount of
time of nothing forever. It is a timeless eternalness.
Something Never, it's opposite, is Death Forever in time at the
bottom. He is trying to be no more by seeking death *IN TIME*. Ask him
if the rocks will out live him. "They god damn better well out live me,
I paid a lot for my tombstone!" He is *DEPENDING* on it, so the Messiah
yet to come will know some day where to come dig him up to restore him
to sovereignty.
Something Never is an enforced Basic Truth on Nothing Forever. He
is sick of Being but can't figure out how to not Be without dying
forever *IN TIME*.
LIFE ON THE CROSS
Persistence starts with there must never be nothing again, which
flows into there must always something forever more.
Nothing Never and Something Forever are both opposite sides of the
same coin, namely damnation or Hell Forever. Any state of ON or BEING
forever, whether pleasurable or painful is a Hell forever.
What he WANTS are cycles of sleep and manifestation, sleep and
manifestatoin. What he has created as a subset of that want is infinite
manifestation in time (hell forever) followed by infinite non
manifestation in time (death forever).
Notice that since he CAN'T die forever in time, his efforts to do
so are merely a part of his infinite manifestation in time and are thus
part of his continuing hell forever.
Don't worry, be happy, its just a game and gives you the auditor
something to do. Yeah, yeah, so charge more.
The primary dramatization then of forevers and nevers are damnation
and murder, hell forever and death forever.
Murder is the effort to destroy forever, it is Something Never, at
the bottom of the cross.
When creating a Murder Rundown you need to take into account 5
factors that may not happen in this order.
There is the first idea to murder.
There is the first accidental murder.
There is the first intent to murder.
There is the first attempt to murder.
There is the first accomplished murder.
Don't forget to audit pretenses on murder and being murdered
either. They often come before the real thing.
One of the most powerful processes there is, and an instant
cure to to a whole host of symptoms is simply:
"Who do you still want to murder?"
He doesn't even have to ANSWER IT, just asking
is enough.
That runs you right around the "Who me?" case or the
"I don't know" case.
They are simply murdering murdering.
If you don't like questions, run:
"Get the idea of wanting to murder something or someone."
Run all flows of course.
Notice that intent and attempt to murder have the same NO-NO value
as an actual accomplished murder.
We don't consider it that way legally, but emotionally, the first
time the guy develops the intent to murder, or attempts it, he is as
good as gone, as if he had done it.
You don't get away with murder and you don't get away with
violating your own Sovereign Desire or Sovereign While.
Notice we aren't talking about knocking off a body or two in an
otherwise on going game. We are talking about destroying the being
forever, period. At one time people knew that bodies were cars and that
beings in them would just get another car if the car got killed. No big
deal. But eventually the intent to kill THE BEING FOREVER became the
game, and that just turns the killer into a tarcicle.
The original intent to murder, either others or himself, will be a
surprise to him, "where did THAT come from?", and be regretted, for it
will act as a 'forever stain' on his beingness, and eventually he will
inevitably come to accept it as necessary to attempt and accomplish.
But he will separate from the group mind as he can't continue with
the withhold and pretense that he is still pure of such stains if
everyone can read his mind or beingness.
If you come to the wedding with blood on your wedding dress,
everyone is going to know SOMETHING is up.
Once the intent has slipped through into his world and stained him,
there is no turning back without responsibility and understanding. He
created the surprise in his long ago as part of the game, but no longer
understands this, it is foreign to him to even consider the possibility
of it.
"Hey I am a pure good guy, why would I never set myself up to such
a corruption of my beingness, who needs that kind of surprise!?"
However that may be this is total no responsibility for condition.
Run this on children early, for the child that has already
developed his first intent to murder is in deep trouble, even if he
manages to withhold it.
Be particularly wary of a child that was murdered in his last
life, only to meet the murderer again in his early baby life while the
murderer was still in his original body. This will create a
magnificent withhold of magnitude on the part of the child, because if
he lets on he knows, the murderer may murder him again.
Don't forget to run when the child did it to others.
People who you murder in one life, tend to be your baby sitter in
the next.
Notice it didn't happen to him BECAUSE he did it to others, and if
being murdered runs easily in the child then he may not have done it to
others, for those who are not guilty heal easily, on their own and in
auditing.
But if it runs like black obsidian glass, tar and crazy glue, then
he did it either before or after it was done to him, or both, and is
using his murder as both justification for having done it to others
either before or after it happened to him, and restraint to make sure he
doesn't do it again.
Remember that things the being uses to restrain committing
overt acts are ALSO used to justify overt acts already committed.
"What you did to me just now, justified what I did you earlier,
because what i did was right, but also cripples me to a point where I
can't do it again, because it is wrong." This combo of justification and
restraint creates a permanent overwhelm and an inability to think about
right and wrong clearly, not to mention a pendulum swing between
justification and doing it again, and regret and restraint and never
doing it again.
Get the regret off the cycle. The regret is intolerable, arises
from total irresponsibility, and creates a compulsion to justify and
restrain.
E/P on murder rundown is humor and understanding about being a
victim forever with full capacity to mock the cross up again and not get
involved in other people's Something/Nothing Forever/Never Crosses.
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 Dec 5 00:06:17 EST 2005
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 1 12:00:03 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore292.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)
iD8DBQFdQwyEURT1lqxE3HERAhdFAJwOAxX/2rukQOtmIOrhMyHjcaPWrwCgkLng
MqXxCE2EhXlmsMaAz90y01c=
=/Ump
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)