-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE NATURE OF THE PROOF Part I
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/adore866.memo
THE NATURE OF THE PROOF Part II
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/adore867.memo
THE NATURE OF THE PROOF Part I
The proof is part of Information Theory, about data transfer, about
learning (as a verb, to learn), and in particular mechanical learning.
Learning as a verb is a causal PROCESS by which both THEORETICAL
and CERTAIN knowledge is gained.
There is the LEARNER, THE LEARNED, AND THE LEARNED ABOUT.
The learner is the one who learns.
The learned is what is learned, the 'learning' in the noun sense.
The "learned about" is the object being learned about, about which
the learning is true.
Learner and learned about are TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS separated by
space and time.
The learned or learning is a CHANGE IN STATE in the learner, caused
by the learned about.
If there is no change in state in the learner, nothing is learned.
The change in state in the learner, including any other changes in
state resulting from the first change in state, IS the learning.
Theoretical knowledge is born of generalizing from direct or
indirect observations or instances.
Certain knowledge is a description of the direct observations
themselves.
A direct observation is simply the process of looking at the thing
itself.
An indirect observation is the process of learning about an object
by looking at another object causally related to, or the effect of, the
first object. This produces only theoretical knowledge, never certain
knowledge.
Since there is no, and cannot be any, direct observation in the
physical or mechanical universe, all observations made of or in the
physical universe are indirect in nature, and thus produce only
theoretical conclusions.
Direct observations produce perfect certainties.
Indirect observations produce theories made of evidence and models.
Very quickly, if we are trying to learn about A by looking at B,
then B is the evidence, A is the model for the existence of A's causal
imprint in B, and the theory is the postulated causal relation between A
and the changes in state observed in B.
The above presents us with the need to define the following terms.
Causation, learning, machine and certainty.
Causation means that changes in state in one object, A, NECESSARILY
result in changes in state of a second different object, B, a moment
later.
The 'moment later' results from the fact that the speed of cause is
finite at the speed of light.
Light itself is a form of causal messenger wave.
The causing object is called the referent, and the affected object
is called the symbol.
Throw a light switch and the light bulb turns on.
The switch is the referent, and light bulb is the symbol.
We can theoretically judge (learn about) the state of the switch
(A) by looking at the state of the light bulb (B).
We say the state of the symbol TRACKS the state of the referent.
Notice, the process of learning about the state of the switch from
the state of the light bulb DEPENDS absolutely on there being a valid
causal pathway between switch and light bulb.
Without causation, meaning in the absence of valid causal pathways
between referent and symbol, there can be no learning.
Notice that using MORE causal pathways to verify the first causal
pathway between switch and light, leaves open the question of whether
the second set of causal pathways are valid.
Thus we can state that:
Causal pathways can not be used to validate other causal pathways
with certainty.
For the grammatically minded:
MORE CAUSAL PATHWAYS DO NOT A MORE CERTAIN CAUSAL PATHWAY MAKE.
Learning is any change in state in the LEARNER that is causally
related to and thus symbolizes the nature of the LEARNED ABOUT, where
the learner and the learned about are two different objects.
The change in state in the learner is a SYMBOL OF FINAL AUTHORITY
for the learned about which is the ORIGINAL REFERENT.
A machine is defined as any system of objects interacting via cause
and effect across a space time distance.
Machines learn by being an effect, by BEING the second object, the
learner, which is changing state as a causal result of the learned
about, namely the external physical universe impinging upon the machine.
In the mechanical world, all learning is symbolic in nature,
because the learner is a different object than the learned about.
For example a learning machine can take a video picture of a cow
out in the physical universe.
The picture of the cow is not a cow, but contains high DATA CONTENT
about the cow.
Further the data in the picture also looks like a COW!
We call the fact of high geometric similarity between the cow and
its picture, high GEOMETRICITY.
Notice a picture of a cow may look exactly like a cow, but its
still a symbol for the real thing.
Thus as a symbol, the picture of the cow has both high data content
and high geometricity relative to the original referent.
One could however scan that picture into an encrypted data stream
that didn't at all look like a cow but yet retained recoverable data
about the cow. Or one could write a book about the cow or its picture,
describing it in words.
Both the encrypted data stream and the book are symbols for the
cow.
In both of these symbols, they still have high data content but
very low geometricity.
As data flows from the original referent to a symbol of final
authority through a causal pathway of many hops, the geometricity may
change from high to low and back again many times, but the data content
is hopefully conserved as it travels its path.
Since each causal hop adds in its own component of change into each
symbol along the way, some times the data from the original referent can
be covered in so many other changes that it becomes unrecoverable.
Have you ever received a fax of a perfectly good picture or text
that was none the less badly marred or unreadable in sections because of
added effects from the sending fax machine?
Digitization and protocols for transmission and retransmission of
data helps greatly in this problem of data decay,
But in the natural physical universe, most data pathways are
analogue in nature, and thus original data can get covered by so many
other effects added later in the chain, that the original data falls
below the noise floor of the transmission and becomes unrecoverable.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sun May 15 15:26:30 EDT 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 29 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore866.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)
iD8DBQFduGIFURT1lqxE3HERAq5UAKCGhSNsoURPEtZzAU352l3Ryf9UmACgylQA
X57ORE0jgK4Dl92rJGzAj1Y=
=rKA9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
mct1.memo (fwd)
OUT GOING CAUSE AND IN COMING CAUSE
MCT - 1
13 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
> (If you hadn't noticed, I'm not convinced that certainty is
>absolute rather than relative.)
Fine let's accept a relative scale of certainty.
I submit that there is NO reason whatsoever to conclude that there
is cause connecting any two events that can be gleaned from merely
observing those events no matter how often they follow each other.
Correlation does not absolutely imply causation.
All a machine could do was model an intervening series of
followingnesses to 'explain' the two events that gave predictable
results, but the concept of cause would never enter into it.
Cause is something we perceive directly with consciousness in
ourselves, so we anthropomorphize and assume there is cause between
external events too.
THE CONCEPT OF CAUSE CAME FROM THE DIRECT OBSERVATION BY
CONSCIOUSNESS OF ITSELF! Not from some external observation as no
external observation can be of cause, only of the change in state that
the implied cause was responsible for.
It is this ability of consciousness to observe cause directly that
is what a machine can not do.
Learning about the existence of cause with certainty is impossible
for a space time machine. Those who deny the existence of certainty are
denying their certain knowledge of their own causation as an operating
responsible being.
You can not have your cake and eat it too. You can not say there
is no certainty of anything and then claim to be a certainly responsible
man.
Denial of certainty is essentially denial of certainty of
responsibility.
For any observed followingness in the external physical universe
between two events, there are always at least two equally possible
models to 'explain' it. The first is that there is direct cause between
the two events, and the second is that there is a third party causing
both events to happen sequentially in such a way as to make it look like
there was direct cause between the two events.
This we call the 'Causal Third Party Law', not to be confused with
Hubbard's third party law of people saying bad things about each other.
This can be diagramed with a 'flow of cause' diagram using 'cause
lines' to delineate the flow of cause.
In one case B follows A and is caused directly by A. This is
diagramed with,
A --------> B
In the other case B follows A because C causes both A and B to
happen to make it look like A caused B. This is diagrammed like,
A B
^ ^
\ /
\ /
\ /
C
Computer games are an example of how a 3rd party, the computer,
projects apparent cause on the screen by making the little light
pictures bounce off of each other and explode when hit by other light
pictures. There is NO CAUSE taking place between objects on the screen.
As an aside, I submit that the apparency of the physical universe
is such a computer arcade projection in our conscious color form.
One can say that this 3rd party theory is a more complex theory
than just assuming direct cause between observed events, and in the
sense that there is a third party, this is correct, so one would expect
or hope to find reason to support the more complex theory.
Just notice that in dreams where I knew I was dreaming, I have
bounced tennis balls off of walls to see if they were solid and worked
like 'real walls', and indeed they did. And clearly in a dream the ball
bounces of of the wall because of a third party, as the ball and wall
are merely mockups and have no external causally agent actuality
associated with them.
I could just have easily had the ball go right through the wall in
the dream merely by changing my mind about the solidity of the wall, so
clearly the wall and the ball in the dream have no cause of their own
when it comes to why the ball bounces off the wall. This is classic
example of a 3rd causal party operating to make a virtual universe
function like a real universe.
By the way I had an interesting lucid dream the other night. I
found my self dreaming in an area I did not recognize, as far as I could
remember I had never seen or been there before, in dreams, in waking
life or in past lives. So who knows whose picture it was.
I have taken to trying not to waste these times, and I have spent
many hours thinking about what I should audit or think about during
these lucid dreams, because often they are just solid as a rock, and
nothing of interest happens, I just wander up and down lonely corridors
peeking into empty rooms and offices. I figure if I could just remember
the right subject I could stir up some interesting encounters with my
past or whatever.
Sometimes I run into BT's and things, you know blobs of goo
floating or rolling along the floor leaving slime trails, and making
faces at me or trying to distract me from what ever I am trying to do
like fly or feel up some girl.
Feelable girls are real scarce in my dreams, a reflection of my
life and my childhood, and of the kind of girl I was in many past lives.
So in this dream I started listing what I might think about to see
if it caused any effects in the dream. Suddenly I came up with the idea
of making myself younger. I looked around for a mirror, but there was
none to be found, so I MADE ONE appear merely by demanding it do so. It
was unstable for a moment, but I looked away from it for a moment and
when I looked back, it was clear and stable.
In the mirror was an image of me, but actually it was NOT what I
look like now or this life, similar but not really the same. Usually in
mirrors I look like me in this life, or I look like something I
recognize from past lives, but this image was just an image, not really
one I had seen before.
So I said, ok now you will become younger, and the image in the
mirror did indeed change to a younger me. I did this a few more times
and the image finally stuck at about 17 years old, I could not get it to
go any younger. I got frustrated and again started listing for what I
might do with this mirror. Then I said, I know, I will become a girl!
A solution to the scarcity of feelies no doubt.
Suddenly there I was in the mirror, a 17 year old girl, tits and
everything, actually kind of cute, but the front teeth were ever so
slightly too big. I did not recognize the image, either from this life
or a past life. So again I don't know whose image it was or where I got
it from. Lots of BT's around I guess.
Later that night I had another dream, this time with my mother.
Now you know me and my mother, we are like cats and dogs, but in this
dream my mother was very young and very beautiful, and she was being a
really decent person, and she was concerned about my well being and we
started to talk about my case and auditing and what I had been running
recently.
I showed her an injury I had when I was a kid, a badly cut finger
that needed stitches which is one of the key incidents on my case,
involving her and my extreme distaste for her, and she took my hand in
her hand and looked at the injury and expressed sadness and surprise
because she did not remember my getting the cut.
Then she started telling me how sorry she was for an engram that I
had received as a baby during the first year of my life, apparently some
kids at a beach were dropping me in the sand and smashing my head into
the sand for fun. This startled me because I had never conceived of
such an engram. It is still not real to me, but my love for my mother
was very strong. I accepted her apology and woke up.
I can still feel love and emotion for this ideal archetypal mother.
No doubt Margaret was really like that before HER upbringing brought her
to ruin.
Now I NEVER dream about my mother, maybe 5 times in my whole life,
and the last 3 times have been in the past 2 months. This is because
the charge on my mother is some of the hardest charge to confront having
to with death and hell and the whole mess I have been writing about. So
clearly someone is making case gain around here.
>
>HS> ... Machines can observe EFFECTS, Conscious Units can observe the
> > CAUSE BETWEEN EFFECTS.
>
>I understand this assertion about machines. I await your demonstration
>of the assertion about Conscious Units; i.e. "Looking at Cause."
Are you aware of the existence of cause within yourself?
When you move your arm, is the movement of your arm CAUSALLY
connected to your volition to move it, and is your volition to move it
causally connected to your desire to move it?
Can you determine the answer to this question by observing the
three events, desire to move the arm, the volition to move the arm, and
the moving of the arm?
Are these proclaimed causal connections merely surmised and modeled
theories created to explain the apparent followingness, or can you see
for sure that there is cause between your desire and your arm moving?
That is Out Going cause, between you and a change in your color
form.
Here is another example of Out Going cause.
Making a mental image picture is creating color form. When you
make a mockup of an apple in your mind's eye, how clear it is? Can you
hallucinate an apple totally solid so that by observation alone you can
not tell it from the 'real' thing? Can you do this in self aware
dreams? Can you make it so solid that you can feel its color weight and
temperature, and take a bite out of it and taste the cold apple against
your tongue and the bitter sweet taste and smell?
While you are making that apple, can you directly observe that the
creation of that apple is causally related to your prior desire and
present volition to create that apple?
Or does the appearance of the apple in your conscious color-form,
your mind's eye, merely follow the appearance of your desire and
volition with no clear directly observable causal connection?
Is there a third party, such as God, waiting until you desire to
make an apple and then He makes it for you? If not, are you sure not?
Are YOU responsible for the apple, or do you merely desire it and
something else creates it for you? Even if something else creates it
for you, can you observe directly and personally that this something
else is doing so BECAUSE you want it to, even if only because it wants
to?
Is there any directly observable causal connection between wanting
an apple to appear, and the apple appearing?
Do you ever have images come to you that you are NOT able to
directly or easily see the causal connection of the appearance of the
image to your desire? Do you have images come to you INSPITE of your
desire? Is the image of the physical universe itself such an image
which is observed to impinge on you inspite of or without invitation by
your desire?
There is also In Coming cause.
Now In Coming cause is NOT from other beings, it is ONLY from your
own conscious color-form back to yourself, it is what allows you to
check out that what you wanted to create actually got created. In
Coming cause IS the process of perception of color form.
Notice we are not talking about light or photons or any other of
that external physical universe nonsense, we are talking about
perceiving conscious color-form, just like you do in a dream.
Self luminous color form is what you see around you when you 'open'
your eyes and look, or when you imagine something, or what you see in
dreams. It is color in apparent space and time, and is used to
symbolize and refer to the implied external physical universe which may
or may not be out there. The color form is certainly there.
Say you desire to visualize (create) a color-form of two different
colors. There is the idea 'different' in your mind which is it self not
a color or a visualization of a color.
Then you create a mockup in front of you that is one half yellow
and one half red. Do you see the yellow color-form next to the red-
color form? Is the appearance of the two toned color form causally
related to your desire to see a two toned color form of two different
colors? Are you perfectly certain? If yes, then that is certainty of
Out Going cause.
But now, how do you know that what you WANTED to create actually
got created? By looking at the color form you can tell if two different
colors got created. That is CERTAINTY OF IN COMING CAUSE and is the
'checking it out process'.
Can you see IN THE CONSCIOUS SELF LUMINOUS NATURE OF THE MOCKUP
ITSELF that IT IS CAUSE of you knowing that is it there and that indeed
it has two colors?
We have two events here that follow each other. The color form
appears in your view is the first event. You know it has two colors is
the second event. We are doing this in a dream so there are no photons
to worry about, just you and your color form and direct perception by
self of its color form.
Here is the question. Is the existence of the color form in your
view, and the fact that you are looking at it, in any way causally
connected to your coming to know that it has two colors?
Maybe a third party is making the color form have 2 colors and
making you 'know' it has 2 colors so, yes you are right, but it could
just as easily given you false data, and you would never know.
Do you know for sure what you know about the color of your color
form?
Can you see that your knowledge that the color form has two colors
is directly and causally connected to the nature of the color form which
has two colors?
Can you see that there is NOT a third party orchestrating the two
events of 1) color form existing and 2) your knowledge about the color
of the color form?
Can you see that your knowledge of the color form is certain and
can not be wrong because you are in direct contact with the color form
as DIRECT CAUSE of your knowledge that it has two colors?
Can you see it's CAUSE?
Can you see it CAUSING you to know it has two colors, red and
yellow?
This is certainty of In Coming cause, perception.
So there are only two kinds of cause that a CU can be certain of.
Both are related to self and creation and perception of creation.
Out going cause is related to self and creation of color form.
In Coming cause is related to self and perception of color form.
The first is certainty of Out Going cause between self/desire and
the color forms that the self creates. The existence of the created
color-form is causally connected to the volition of the self to create
the color form.
This causal train from self through desire to created color form is
directly perceivable WITH CERTAINTY by the self to be CAUSATION AND NOT
MERELY FOLLOWINGNESS OR EVENT CORRELATION.
The second certainty of cause is the In Coming cause of the self
learning about and verifying or checking out that what it wanted to
create it actually created. This IS the process by which we perceive
our own color forms.
There are really only two causes operating here. The first is the
Out Going causation called creation (or change) of color-form. The
second is In Coming causation called perception of color-form.
Color-form by the way includes any conscious experience, be it
visual, auditory, tactile, the 52 perceptions of Dianetics, etc.
Both the Out Going cause of creation of color-form and the In
Coming cause of perception of color form can be directly observed to be
CAUSAL with certainty.
There is certainly NO third party between your looking at a color
form and knowing what its shape and color are, you can SEE that your
knowledge about it's color comes directly from SEEING it's color.
This is looking at cause, not looking at some effect it has had in
you and computing back to what its color must be like to create that
effect, which is what a machine does.
You can see that the color of the color-form is CAUSALLY
responsible for you being able to know its color and to know if it is
different from some other color near by.
You can see the LIVING CAUSE IN IT as it causes you to SEE it!
You see most people are used to looking at their color form to see
what its color is, but they are NOT used to looking at their color form
to see that it is CAUSALLY AGENT in the process of coming to know what
color it is. That is because most people are basically asleep.
They are looking at their color form to know what's going on in the
implied physical universe, not to know about the nature of color form
itself.
It never occurs to them that the fact that they can see cause in
color form with certainty means they are not a space time machine.
The process of learning by looking at cause can not happen in a
space time continuum. Thus all INTRA conscious processes of certainty
do not involve space or time. There is no space or time between the
self and its color form. The image LOOKS 3D, but it is actually 0
dimensional.
There is no time between the event of a color form appearing and
the event of seeing it, because SEEING IS APPEARING.
There is no space between the event of a color form and the event
of the self coming to know how many colors it has, because if there were
space between self and its color forms, self could never see them, it
could only impute them from effects they might have in self.
Logically deducing what color something would have to be OVER
THERE, in order to have this effect OVER HERE, is not the same as being
able to see the color there. Since you can't see across a distance or
across a time directly, if you ARE seeing something directly there can
be no space and time between what is seen and what is doing the seeing.
Self and color form are one.
You are actually looking at yourself when you look at the world.
>HS> Direct perception of cause is almost magical in nature compared
> > to the mechanics of machines, and is the sole purview of a true
> > conscious unit.
>
>I do not have certainty on the existence of direct perception of cause.
Then you can not have certainty of the existence of cause.
This if fine.
>HS> Let's start with,
> >
> > SOMETHING EXISTS WHICH IS NOT A NOTHING.
>
>Okay. Granted. Next?
Granted what? Granted that maybe this is true, or granted that
certainly this is true? Would you bet your Eternity in Hell that this
is true? (If you say yes, and you are wrong, you go to Hell forever.
It's a good but not perfect check on one's certainty on a matter.)
>
>TG> When you are wrong, your absolute certainty is not perfect.
>
>HS> Absolute certainty can not be wrong.
>
>If you propose that this is true by definition, then I suspect that
>Conscious Units in a physical body cannot possess absolute certainty as
>defined.
Fine, but by your own statement you can not be sure of this.
Therefore you might be wrong. Right? If you're wrong, then maybe I am
right and such absolute certainty is maybe possible.
Saying there is no certainty merely invalidates the surety of
everything you say afterwards including your original statement there is
no certainty.
"THERE IS NO CERTAINTY" = "MAYBE THERE IS CERTAINTY"
The statement 'There is no certainty' is itself unsure by its own
statement, so maybe it is wrong, so maybe there IS certainty.
Certainly.
If maybe there is certainty, then the only way to find out is to
OBSERVE and see if you see any.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 29 06:06:02 EDT 2019
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/mct/mct1.memo
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
MCT - 1
13 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
> (If you hadn't noticed, I'm not convinced that certainty is
>absolute rather than relative.)
Fine let's accept a relative scale of certainty.
I submit that there is NO reason whatsoever to conclude that there
is cause connecting any two events that can be gleaned from merely
observing those events no matter how often they follow each other.
Correlation does not absolutely imply causation.
All a machine could do was model an intervening series of
followingnesses to 'explain' the two events that gave predictable
results, but the concept of cause would never enter into it.
Cause is something we perceive directly with consciousness in
ourselves, so we anthropomorphize and assume there is cause between
external events too.
THE CONCEPT OF CAUSE CAME FROM THE DIRECT OBSERVATION BY
CONSCIOUSNESS OF ITSELF! Not from some external observation as no
external observation can be of cause, only of the change in state that
the implied cause was responsible for.
It is this ability of consciousness to observe cause directly that
is what a machine can not do.
Learning about the existence of cause with certainty is impossible
for a space time machine. Those who deny the existence of certainty are
denying their certain knowledge of their own causation as an operating
responsible being.
You can not have your cake and eat it too. You can not say there
is no certainty of anything and then claim to be a certainly responsible
man.
Denial of certainty is essentially denial of certainty of
responsibility.
For any observed followingness in the external physical universe
between two events, there are always at least two equally possible
models to 'explain' it. The first is that there is direct cause between
the two events, and the second is that there is a third party causing
both events to happen sequentially in such a way as to make it look like
there was direct cause between the two events.
This we call the 'Causal Third Party Law', not to be confused with
Hubbard's third party law of people saying bad things about each other.
This can be diagramed with a 'flow of cause' diagram using 'cause
lines' to delineate the flow of cause.
In one case B follows A and is caused directly by A. This is
diagramed with,
A --------> B
In the other case B follows A because C causes both A and B to
happen to make it look like A caused B. This is diagrammed like,
A B
^ ^
\ /
\ /
\ /
C
Computer games are an example of how a 3rd party, the computer,
projects apparent cause on the screen by making the little light
pictures bounce off of each other and explode when hit by other light
pictures. There is NO CAUSE taking place between objects on the screen.
As an aside, I submit that the apparency of the physical universe
is such a computer arcade projection in our conscious color form.
One can say that this 3rd party theory is a more complex theory
than just assuming direct cause between observed events, and in the
sense that there is a third party, this is correct, so one would expect
or hope to find reason to support the more complex theory.
Just notice that in dreams where I knew I was dreaming, I have
bounced tennis balls off of walls to see if they were solid and worked
like 'real walls', and indeed they did. And clearly in a dream the ball
bounces of of the wall because of a third party, as the ball and wall
are merely mockups and have no external causally agent actuality
associated with them.
I could just have easily had the ball go right through the wall in
the dream merely by changing my mind about the solidity of the wall, so
clearly the wall and the ball in the dream have no cause of their own
when it comes to why the ball bounces off the wall. This is classic
example of a 3rd causal party operating to make a virtual universe
function like a real universe.
By the way I had an interesting lucid dream the other night. I
found my self dreaming in an area I did not recognize, as far as I could
remember I had never seen or been there before, in dreams, in waking
life or in past lives. So who knows whose picture it was.
I have taken to trying not to waste these times, and I have spent
many hours thinking about what I should audit or think about during
these lucid dreams, because often they are just solid as a rock, and
nothing of interest happens, I just wander up and down lonely corridors
peeking into empty rooms and offices. I figure if I could just remember
the right subject I could stir up some interesting encounters with my
past or whatever.
Sometimes I run into BT's and things, you know blobs of goo
floating or rolling along the floor leaving slime trails, and making
faces at me or trying to distract me from what ever I am trying to do
like fly or feel up some girl.
Feelable girls are real scarce in my dreams, a reflection of my
life and my childhood, and of the kind of girl I was in many past lives.
So in this dream I started listing what I might think about to see
if it caused any effects in the dream. Suddenly I came up with the idea
of making myself younger. I looked around for a mirror, but there was
none to be found, so I MADE ONE appear merely by demanding it do so. It
was unstable for a moment, but I looked away from it for a moment and
when I looked back, it was clear and stable.
In the mirror was an image of me, but actually it was NOT what I
look like now or this life, similar but not really the same. Usually in
mirrors I look like me in this life, or I look like something I
recognize from past lives, but this image was just an image, not really
one I had seen before.
So I said, ok now you will become younger, and the image in the
mirror did indeed change to a younger me. I did this a few more times
and the image finally stuck at about 17 years old, I could not get it to
go any younger. I got frustrated and again started listing for what I
might do with this mirror. Then I said, I know, I will become a girl!
A solution to the scarcity of feelies no doubt.
Suddenly there I was in the mirror, a 17 year old girl, tits and
everything, actually kind of cute, but the front teeth were ever so
slightly too big. I did not recognize the image, either from this life
or a past life. So again I don't know whose image it was or where I got
it from. Lots of BT's around I guess.
Later that night I had another dream, this time with my mother.
Now you know me and my mother, we are like cats and dogs, but in this
dream my mother was very young and very beautiful, and she was being a
really decent person, and she was concerned about my well being and we
started to talk about my case and auditing and what I had been running
recently.
I showed her an injury I had when I was a kid, a badly cut finger
that needed stitches which is one of the key incidents on my case,
involving her and my extreme distaste for her, and she took my hand in
her hand and looked at the injury and expressed sadness and surprise
because she did not remember my getting the cut.
Then she started telling me how sorry she was for an engram that I
had received as a baby during the first year of my life, apparently some
kids at a beach were dropping me in the sand and smashing my head into
the sand for fun. This startled me because I had never conceived of
such an engram. It is still not real to me, but my love for my mother
was very strong. I accepted her apology and woke up.
I can still feel love and emotion for this ideal archetypal mother.
No doubt Margaret was really like that before HER upbringing brought her
to ruin.
Now I NEVER dream about my mother, maybe 5 times in my whole life,
and the last 3 times have been in the past 2 months. This is because
the charge on my mother is some of the hardest charge to confront having
to with death and hell and the whole mess I have been writing about. So
clearly someone is making case gain around here.
>
>HS> ... Machines can observe EFFECTS, Conscious Units can observe the
> > CAUSE BETWEEN EFFECTS.
>
>I understand this assertion about machines. I await your demonstration
>of the assertion about Conscious Units; i.e. "Looking at Cause."
Are you aware of the existence of cause within yourself?
When you move your arm, is the movement of your arm CAUSALLY
connected to your volition to move it, and is your volition to move it
causally connected to your desire to move it?
Can you determine the answer to this question by observing the
three events, desire to move the arm, the volition to move the arm, and
the moving of the arm?
Are these proclaimed causal connections merely surmised and modeled
theories created to explain the apparent followingness, or can you see
for sure that there is cause between your desire and your arm moving?
That is Out Going cause, between you and a change in your color
form.
Here is another example of Out Going cause.
Making a mental image picture is creating color form. When you
make a mockup of an apple in your mind's eye, how clear it is? Can you
hallucinate an apple totally solid so that by observation alone you can
not tell it from the 'real' thing? Can you do this in self aware
dreams? Can you make it so solid that you can feel its color weight and
temperature, and take a bite out of it and taste the cold apple against
your tongue and the bitter sweet taste and smell?
While you are making that apple, can you directly observe that the
creation of that apple is causally related to your prior desire and
present volition to create that apple?
Or does the appearance of the apple in your conscious color-form,
your mind's eye, merely follow the appearance of your desire and
volition with no clear directly observable causal connection?
Is there a third party, such as God, waiting until you desire to
make an apple and then He makes it for you? If not, are you sure not?
Are YOU responsible for the apple, or do you merely desire it and
something else creates it for you? Even if something else creates it
for you, can you observe directly and personally that this something
else is doing so BECAUSE you want it to, even if only because it wants
to?
Is there any directly observable causal connection between wanting
an apple to appear, and the apple appearing?
Do you ever have images come to you that you are NOT able to
directly or easily see the causal connection of the appearance of the
image to your desire? Do you have images come to you INSPITE of your
desire? Is the image of the physical universe itself such an image
which is observed to impinge on you inspite of or without invitation by
your desire?
There is also In Coming cause.
Now In Coming cause is NOT from other beings, it is ONLY from your
own conscious color-form back to yourself, it is what allows you to
check out that what you wanted to create actually got created. In
Coming cause IS the process of perception of color form.
Notice we are not talking about light or photons or any other of
that external physical universe nonsense, we are talking about
perceiving conscious color-form, just like you do in a dream.
Self luminous color form is what you see around you when you 'open'
your eyes and look, or when you imagine something, or what you see in
dreams. It is color in apparent space and time, and is used to
symbolize and refer to the implied external physical universe which may
or may not be out there. The color form is certainly there.
Say you desire to visualize (create) a color-form of two different
colors. There is the idea 'different' in your mind which is it self not
a color or a visualization of a color.
Then you create a mockup in front of you that is one half yellow
and one half red. Do you see the yellow color-form next to the red-
color form? Is the appearance of the two toned color form causally
related to your desire to see a two toned color form of two different
colors? Are you perfectly certain? If yes, then that is certainty of
Out Going cause.
But now, how do you know that what you WANTED to create actually
got created? By looking at the color form you can tell if two different
colors got created. That is CERTAINTY OF IN COMING CAUSE and is the
'checking it out process'.
Can you see IN THE CONSCIOUS SELF LUMINOUS NATURE OF THE MOCKUP
ITSELF that IT IS CAUSE of you knowing that is it there and that indeed
it has two colors?
We have two events here that follow each other. The color form
appears in your view is the first event. You know it has two colors is
the second event. We are doing this in a dream so there are no photons
to worry about, just you and your color form and direct perception by
self of its color form.
Here is the question. Is the existence of the color form in your
view, and the fact that you are looking at it, in any way causally
connected to your coming to know that it has two colors?
Maybe a third party is making the color form have 2 colors and
making you 'know' it has 2 colors so, yes you are right, but it could
just as easily given you false data, and you would never know.
Do you know for sure what you know about the color of your color
form?
Can you see that your knowledge that the color form has two colors
is directly and causally connected to the nature of the color form which
has two colors?
Can you see that there is NOT a third party orchestrating the two
events of 1) color form existing and 2) your knowledge about the color
of the color form?
Can you see that your knowledge of the color form is certain and
can not be wrong because you are in direct contact with the color form
as DIRECT CAUSE of your knowledge that it has two colors?
Can you see it's CAUSE?
Can you see it CAUSING you to know it has two colors, red and
yellow?
This is certainty of In Coming cause, perception.
So there are only two kinds of cause that a CU can be certain of.
Both are related to self and creation and perception of creation.
Out going cause is related to self and creation of color form.
In Coming cause is related to self and perception of color form.
The first is certainty of Out Going cause between self/desire and
the color forms that the self creates. The existence of the created
color-form is causally connected to the volition of the self to create
the color form.
This causal train from self through desire to created color form is
directly perceivable WITH CERTAINTY by the self to be CAUSATION AND NOT
MERELY FOLLOWINGNESS OR EVENT CORRELATION.
The second certainty of cause is the In Coming cause of the self
learning about and verifying or checking out that what it wanted to
create it actually created. This IS the process by which we perceive
our own color forms.
There are really only two causes operating here. The first is the
Out Going causation called creation (or change) of color-form. The
second is In Coming causation called perception of color-form.
Color-form by the way includes any conscious experience, be it
visual, auditory, tactile, the 52 perceptions of Dianetics, etc.
Both the Out Going cause of creation of color-form and the In
Coming cause of perception of color form can be directly observed to be
CAUSAL with certainty.
There is certainly NO third party between your looking at a color
form and knowing what its shape and color are, you can SEE that your
knowledge about it's color comes directly from SEEING it's color.
This is looking at cause, not looking at some effect it has had in
you and computing back to what its color must be like to create that
effect, which is what a machine does.
You can see that the color of the color-form is CAUSALLY
responsible for you being able to know its color and to know if it is
different from some other color near by.
You can see the LIVING CAUSE IN IT as it causes you to SEE it!
You see most people are used to looking at their color form to see
what its color is, but they are NOT used to looking at their color form
to see that it is CAUSALLY AGENT in the process of coming to know what
color it is. That is because most people are basically asleep.
They are looking at their color form to know what's going on in the
implied physical universe, not to know about the nature of color form
itself.
It never occurs to them that the fact that they can see cause in
color form with certainty means they are not a space time machine.
The process of learning by looking at cause can not happen in a
space time continuum. Thus all INTRA conscious processes of certainty
do not involve space or time. There is no space or time between the
self and its color form. The image LOOKS 3D, but it is actually 0
dimensional.
There is no time between the event of a color form appearing and
the event of seeing it, because SEEING IS APPEARING.
There is no space between the event of a color form and the event
of the self coming to know how many colors it has, because if there were
space between self and its color forms, self could never see them, it
could only impute them from effects they might have in self.
Logically deducing what color something would have to be OVER
THERE, in order to have this effect OVER HERE, is not the same as being
able to see the color there. Since you can't see across a distance or
across a time directly, if you ARE seeing something directly there can
be no space and time between what is seen and what is doing the seeing.
Self and color form are one.
You are actually looking at yourself when you look at the world.
>HS> Direct perception of cause is almost magical in nature compared
> > to the mechanics of machines, and is the sole purview of a true
> > conscious unit.
>
>I do not have certainty on the existence of direct perception of cause.
Then you can not have certainty of the existence of cause.
This if fine.
>HS> Let's start with,
> >
> > SOMETHING EXISTS WHICH IS NOT A NOTHING.
>
>Okay. Granted. Next?
Granted what? Granted that maybe this is true, or granted that
certainly this is true? Would you bet your Eternity in Hell that this
is true? (If you say yes, and you are wrong, you go to Hell forever.
It's a good but not perfect check on one's certainty on a matter.)
>
>TG> When you are wrong, your absolute certainty is not perfect.
>
>HS> Absolute certainty can not be wrong.
>
>If you propose that this is true by definition, then I suspect that
>Conscious Units in a physical body cannot possess absolute certainty as
>defined.
Fine, but by your own statement you can not be sure of this.
Therefore you might be wrong. Right? If you're wrong, then maybe I am
right and such absolute certainty is maybe possible.
Saying there is no certainty merely invalidates the surety of
everything you say afterwards including your original statement there is
no certainty.
"THERE IS NO CERTAINTY" = "MAYBE THERE IS CERTAINTY"
The statement 'There is no certainty' is itself unsure by its own
statement, so maybe it is wrong, so maybe there IS certainty.
Certainly.
If maybe there is certainty, then the only way to find out is to
OBSERVE and see if you see any.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 29 06:06:02 EDT 2019
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/mct/mct1.memo
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
Monday, October 28, 2019
ADORE133 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BAUBLES OF BUBBLES
((Some corrections and clarifications.))
>Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
>> We are positing the existence of a single zero dimensional
>>object, the conscious unit. This throws a monkey wrench into the
>>whole 'multi dimensional out there' theory of existence.
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Certainly a provocative thesis.
Well it goes beyond being merely provocative, as it claims to be
THE mechanism that a being drops from above 26.0 to below 26.0 on the
tone scale.
26.0 = Apparencies are Actuality.
As a native state static, the being creates a humongous space and
time bubble to view and to put things in. Since the being is creating
the (illusion of) space and time, the being knows it itself has no space
nor time, nor does anyone else, as clearly space/time is being created
by himself and his co creators.
Or the being can choose to enter space/time bubbles already created
by others, doesn't matter who is creating the space/time, when the being
is outside the bubble, he knows he is stationary and the bubble is a
bauble for his enjoyment.
In this state the being is the ORIENTATION point of Hubbard's Scn.
The being is still and creating space/times of motion.
Then once created the being shifts consideration and makes the
space/time bubble 'actual' and himself a point IN the space/time bubble
moving around in it. He grants stillness to the space/time bubble
rather than himself, and grants mobility to himself.
Further the being considers himself MADE of the bits and pieces he
or other's have put into the space time bubble and so becomes in his own
mind a part of the space/time bubble.
'There is only MEST, and I am a small part of MEST.'
MEST means MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE and TIME (and FORCE).
Postulates and considerations are true cause emmanating from the
static, force is the (illusory) proxy for cause inside the kinetic space/time
bubble.
Scientology's MEST is the same thing as Adore's TIMESTONE.
In this state the being is being the SYMBOL of Hubbard's Scn, he
has mass, meaning and *MOBILITY*.
The being has become a symbol for himself, his symbol is his
body, he no longer considers the referent, himself, exists. So as a
MESTer he lives the life AS a symbol without a referent.
As an Orientation point the being is dimensionless cause creating
illusions (viewpoints) of dimension.
As an orientation point the experienced illusions of space/time
symbols, are known to be symbols for non existent referents in the dream
universe as the being knows he is mocking up experiences of space/time
which have no referent in actuality.
As a symbol, the being has chosen to become a dimensional effect
inside an apparent dimensional cause the space/time bubble he created,
and the other objects inside it.
In this state as a symbol the being confuses his symbolic
experiences with the (non existent) referents they pretend to refer to.
He considers the referents actual and his experience 'nothing'.
He will tell you his conscious experience is an interpretation of
what he has sensed in the outside world.
The truth is his idea of the outside world is an interpretation he
puts on his experience. He sees space/time, so he considers there IS
space/time. He sees red, so he imagines something red out there.
The SYMBOL in his experience is red, the referent can never be.
His conscious experience is a RENDITION of the alleged physical
universe, not an interpretation.
Rendition is the act of creating the symbol from the referent.
Interpretation is the act of finding the referent from the symbol.
As a symbol, the being has assigned cause to objects 'out there',
and thus they can affect him. Eventually they become suppressive to the
being as any disowned creation will, and start to come after him.
The being solves this by running away from the SP object, i.e. he
uses his 'mobility' inside the space/time bubble to put space/time
distance between him and the SP object.
SP means Suppressive Person or Parent.
Since he carries his space/time bubble with him no matter where he
runs inside the space/time bubble, this does not work, as he takes his
suppressor with him.
The correct answer is to flip one's consideration back above 26.0
on the tone scale where the being is once again the orientation point
creating his space/time bubble and putting things into it including the
SP objects. He can then simply let go of the SP object and it will
vanish.
There is nothing more dangerous to a created dimensional object (in
this case the SP), than to lose the attention of the God that IS
creating it.
Hubbard said the SP is trying to unmock you. In truth it is trying
to keep your attention, because if it lost your attention, the SP object
itself would unmock. But as a symbol, one can not just take one's
attention off things, one MUST flip back to being full orientation point
to do this.
If you aren't putting it there (as an orientation point), you
can't un put it there.
And, Lord save you, if you consider IT is putting YOU there, you
will never be able to un put it there.
Symbols can be impinged upon, they do not have full control over
their attention or where it goes. Only the true eternal referent,
namely the being himself, not the physical universe lie, can absolutely
control his attention and not be impinged upon if he chooses.
The attention put on the creation of a space/time bubble by an
orientation point in the creation of it, is a whole order of ball game
bigger than the attention put on an SP object by a symbol.
It is the first kind of attention that needs to be withdrawn to
resolve the suppression.
An orientation point can not be suppressed by a symbol.
An orientation point can create assholes forever for free coming
after him, but until he flips down into being a symbol himself, they
have no power over him and he knows it, as all an SP can affect are
other symbols (objects) inside the space/time bubble.
No symbol can affect an orientation point, unless the orientation
has chosen to become a symbol himself.
He has to assign himself AS a symbol INSIDE the space/time bubble
before the SP can do anything to him.
Above 26.0 the being is the orientation point and the space/time
bubble is the symbol.
Below 26.0 the space/time bubble becomes the Eternally still
everywhere present orientation point and the being who created it
becomes the symbol.
Practice at this flip flop will lead straight into becoming the
Orientation point again.
But one must be WILLING TO BECOME THE SYMBOL in order to become the
orientation point, because that's what orientation points do, create
bubbles and jump in.
Orientation Points like to become Symbols.
This is Spirit of Play.
Symbols want to become orientation points, but usually miss the
mark because the orientation point they want to become is one that would
NEVER chose to become a symbol, in particular a suppressed symbol.
They are trying to become a 'God' that would 'never create *THAT*
again!"
Such orientation points do not exist, and thus the symbol never
wins until he wises up to his original desire to become a symbol, and be
chased all over kingdom come.
The key experience of being above 26.0 is absolute, utter, eternal
immobility because THERE IS NO PLACE TO GO. Someplace to go implies
space or time both of which are illusions in a non space/time substrate
of the All That Is.
The key experience of being below 26.0 is having everywhere to go,
being totally lost in the infinite choices of where to go, and not being
able to go there fast enough in order to get away from what is chasing
one.
One also doesn't remember coming in, or how one got in,
that's how you know is a dream :)
Below 26.0 is LOSTNESS, doesn't know where or when he is.
Above 26.0 is HOME, can't go anywhere anyhow.
The purpose of creation is to create places to go in a universe
where there IS no place to go.
This is served by the creation of illusions of space/time bubbles
that give the being the *EXPERIENCE* of having some place to go but
which in fact go nowhere.
The being feels he is walking down the road in a dream, but in fact
is going nowhere, the dream is redrawn around him to give him the
illusion of movement.
Just so in waking life, and in any life.
Because there is no where to go, no matter how many illusions of
places to go the being creates for himself, he can never get lost, and
never get separated from anyone he loves.
Thus the All-That-Is is completely safe to wander around in,
although one can get 'lost' in the dream for a very long time, by
design.
When one becomes the Orientation Point again, that safeness will
come home to one, and one will once again understand where the
willingness to get so lost for so long came from.
The flip flop from Orientation Point to Symbol is the basic
J.O.K.E. that the being plays on himself.
J.O.K.E. stands for Justice Of Kindship Excaliper.
The intent is Spirit of Play going in, and Humor coming out.
The whole thing is powered by Eternal Omni Awesome Peace.
Homer
Fri Apr 10 23:01:28 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 28 12:00:03 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore133.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)
iD8DBQFdtxCEURT1lqxE3HERAqnWAJ4xK0hKKho2EQdu/39DNRszU3yCvACdGsAv
tevEUGh1TUHXtNv+t8KK3k8=
=jKKk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
BAUBLES OF BUBBLES
((Some corrections and clarifications.))
>Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
>> We are positing the existence of a single zero dimensional
>>object, the conscious unit. This throws a monkey wrench into the
>>whole 'multi dimensional out there' theory of existence.
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Certainly a provocative thesis.
Well it goes beyond being merely provocative, as it claims to be
THE mechanism that a being drops from above 26.0 to below 26.0 on the
tone scale.
26.0 = Apparencies are Actuality.
As a native state static, the being creates a humongous space and
time bubble to view and to put things in. Since the being is creating
the (illusion of) space and time, the being knows it itself has no space
nor time, nor does anyone else, as clearly space/time is being created
by himself and his co creators.
Or the being can choose to enter space/time bubbles already created
by others, doesn't matter who is creating the space/time, when the being
is outside the bubble, he knows he is stationary and the bubble is a
bauble for his enjoyment.
In this state the being is the ORIENTATION point of Hubbard's Scn.
The being is still and creating space/times of motion.
Then once created the being shifts consideration and makes the
space/time bubble 'actual' and himself a point IN the space/time bubble
moving around in it. He grants stillness to the space/time bubble
rather than himself, and grants mobility to himself.
Further the being considers himself MADE of the bits and pieces he
or other's have put into the space time bubble and so becomes in his own
mind a part of the space/time bubble.
'There is only MEST, and I am a small part of MEST.'
MEST means MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE and TIME (and FORCE).
Postulates and considerations are true cause emmanating from the
static, force is the (illusory) proxy for cause inside the kinetic space/time
bubble.
Scientology's MEST is the same thing as Adore's TIMESTONE.
In this state the being is being the SYMBOL of Hubbard's Scn, he
has mass, meaning and *MOBILITY*.
The being has become a symbol for himself, his symbol is his
body, he no longer considers the referent, himself, exists. So as a
MESTer he lives the life AS a symbol without a referent.
As an Orientation point the being is dimensionless cause creating
illusions (viewpoints) of dimension.
As an orientation point the experienced illusions of space/time
symbols, are known to be symbols for non existent referents in the dream
universe as the being knows he is mocking up experiences of space/time
which have no referent in actuality.
As a symbol, the being has chosen to become a dimensional effect
inside an apparent dimensional cause the space/time bubble he created,
and the other objects inside it.
In this state as a symbol the being confuses his symbolic
experiences with the (non existent) referents they pretend to refer to.
He considers the referents actual and his experience 'nothing'.
He will tell you his conscious experience is an interpretation of
what he has sensed in the outside world.
The truth is his idea of the outside world is an interpretation he
puts on his experience. He sees space/time, so he considers there IS
space/time. He sees red, so he imagines something red out there.
The SYMBOL in his experience is red, the referent can never be.
His conscious experience is a RENDITION of the alleged physical
universe, not an interpretation.
Rendition is the act of creating the symbol from the referent.
Interpretation is the act of finding the referent from the symbol.
As a symbol, the being has assigned cause to objects 'out there',
and thus they can affect him. Eventually they become suppressive to the
being as any disowned creation will, and start to come after him.
The being solves this by running away from the SP object, i.e. he
uses his 'mobility' inside the space/time bubble to put space/time
distance between him and the SP object.
SP means Suppressive Person or Parent.
Since he carries his space/time bubble with him no matter where he
runs inside the space/time bubble, this does not work, as he takes his
suppressor with him.
The correct answer is to flip one's consideration back above 26.0
on the tone scale where the being is once again the orientation point
creating his space/time bubble and putting things into it including the
SP objects. He can then simply let go of the SP object and it will
vanish.
There is nothing more dangerous to a created dimensional object (in
this case the SP), than to lose the attention of the God that IS
creating it.
Hubbard said the SP is trying to unmock you. In truth it is trying
to keep your attention, because if it lost your attention, the SP object
itself would unmock. But as a symbol, one can not just take one's
attention off things, one MUST flip back to being full orientation point
to do this.
If you aren't putting it there (as an orientation point), you
can't un put it there.
And, Lord save you, if you consider IT is putting YOU there, you
will never be able to un put it there.
Symbols can be impinged upon, they do not have full control over
their attention or where it goes. Only the true eternal referent,
namely the being himself, not the physical universe lie, can absolutely
control his attention and not be impinged upon if he chooses.
The attention put on the creation of a space/time bubble by an
orientation point in the creation of it, is a whole order of ball game
bigger than the attention put on an SP object by a symbol.
It is the first kind of attention that needs to be withdrawn to
resolve the suppression.
An orientation point can not be suppressed by a symbol.
An orientation point can create assholes forever for free coming
after him, but until he flips down into being a symbol himself, they
have no power over him and he knows it, as all an SP can affect are
other symbols (objects) inside the space/time bubble.
No symbol can affect an orientation point, unless the orientation
has chosen to become a symbol himself.
He has to assign himself AS a symbol INSIDE the space/time bubble
before the SP can do anything to him.
Above 26.0 the being is the orientation point and the space/time
bubble is the symbol.
Below 26.0 the space/time bubble becomes the Eternally still
everywhere present orientation point and the being who created it
becomes the symbol.
Practice at this flip flop will lead straight into becoming the
Orientation point again.
But one must be WILLING TO BECOME THE SYMBOL in order to become the
orientation point, because that's what orientation points do, create
bubbles and jump in.
Orientation Points like to become Symbols.
This is Spirit of Play.
Symbols want to become orientation points, but usually miss the
mark because the orientation point they want to become is one that would
NEVER chose to become a symbol, in particular a suppressed symbol.
They are trying to become a 'God' that would 'never create *THAT*
again!"
Such orientation points do not exist, and thus the symbol never
wins until he wises up to his original desire to become a symbol, and be
chased all over kingdom come.
The key experience of being above 26.0 is absolute, utter, eternal
immobility because THERE IS NO PLACE TO GO. Someplace to go implies
space or time both of which are illusions in a non space/time substrate
of the All That Is.
The key experience of being below 26.0 is having everywhere to go,
being totally lost in the infinite choices of where to go, and not being
able to go there fast enough in order to get away from what is chasing
one.
One also doesn't remember coming in, or how one got in,
that's how you know is a dream :)
Below 26.0 is LOSTNESS, doesn't know where or when he is.
Above 26.0 is HOME, can't go anywhere anyhow.
The purpose of creation is to create places to go in a universe
where there IS no place to go.
This is served by the creation of illusions of space/time bubbles
that give the being the *EXPERIENCE* of having some place to go but
which in fact go nowhere.
The being feels he is walking down the road in a dream, but in fact
is going nowhere, the dream is redrawn around him to give him the
illusion of movement.
Just so in waking life, and in any life.
Because there is no where to go, no matter how many illusions of
places to go the being creates for himself, he can never get lost, and
never get separated from anyone he loves.
Thus the All-That-Is is completely safe to wander around in,
although one can get 'lost' in the dream for a very long time, by
design.
When one becomes the Orientation Point again, that safeness will
come home to one, and one will once again understand where the
willingness to get so lost for so long came from.
The flip flop from Orientation Point to Symbol is the basic
J.O.K.E. that the being plays on himself.
J.O.K.E. stands for Justice Of Kindship Excaliper.
The intent is Spirit of Play going in, and Humor coming out.
The whole thing is powered by Eternal Omni Awesome Peace.
Homer
Fri Apr 10 23:01:28 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 28 12:00:03 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore133.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)
iD8DBQFdtxCEURT1lqxE3HERAqnWAJ4xK0hKKho2EQdu/39DNRszU3yCvACdGsAv
tevEUGh1TUHXtNv+t8KK3k8=
=jKKk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
eco11.memo (fwd)
OWNERSHIP vs STEWARDSHIP
>>I call it the "metaphysics penalty" plus "poor boundary awareness"
>>analogous to communism. What's yours is mine.
It is tempting to confuse the move from ownership to stewardship as
a move towards communism.
The primary problem with communism was central plan, having someone
tell you what you could make, who you could sell it to, and what you
could charge for it. As there is no single human being or group of
human beings smart enough to span an entire civlization and its markets,
this was doomed to failure, not to mention the seeping in of corruption,
tempation and seduction at the highest places of power. Pretty soon the
top level people are running the place for themselves at the expense of
everyone else.
In a free market, each person is allowed to make these decisions
himself, what to make, who to sell it to, and how much to charge.
It is tempting to consider that the RIGHT to do these things
comes from OWNERSHIP of the means of production and the product and
perhaps one find its hard to conceive how a free market can run in an
environment of stewardship rather than ownership. Certainly this
needs to be hashed out.
Ownership means rights of control.
Stewardship is more like a duty of guardainship with limited rights
of control as the steward never really owns the item he is guardian for.
For example people own stock, but give it over to their stock
broker to invest for them as stewards of the stock.
I bring you back to the forest and the boat. Ownership of land is
probably one of the most fudamental and most ridiculous basis of
production and product ownership, because ultimately everything comes
from the land. Who owns the land? Those that take it by force, end of
story.
Now you consider a more spiritual concept that everyone owns the
land, then everyone owns the tree in the forest. Who then owns the boat
invented by and made by one man from the tree?
Do not the people who own the tree the boat was made from, and who
supported and put the civilization there so the man could invent and
make the boat, have some claim to the boat?
The arguements between total ownership and total slavery tend to
leave out a middle path that is more favorable to spiritual development,
probably best described by stewardship, but not completely delineated by
it.
Lots of non producers would love to have everyone own everything,
so they can suck off the work of the producers. These of course push
things towards very tight ownership in the name of "I produced it, so I
own it so you have no rights to it!"
Giving sway to the non producers leads to welfare states at the
point of a gun aimed at the producers, which by definition is a form of
communism, "from each according to his ability and to each according to
his need." But who determines ability and need? So we have a central
government again, which pushes the 'welfare of the people' party line,
while actually lining their own pockets with the protectorship scam.
A protector is one who says something is good for you, when in
fact it is good for them at your expense, and they know it.
Their primary interest is to protect you from the truth in order to
protect themselves by keeping their slavery of you in working order.
Protectors running a protectorship scam are probably the closest
definition of evil there is.
Homer
Mon Oct 10 16:25:42 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 28 00:06:03 EDT 2019
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco11.memo
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
>>I call it the "metaphysics penalty" plus "poor boundary awareness"
>>analogous to communism. What's yours is mine.
It is tempting to confuse the move from ownership to stewardship as
a move towards communism.
The primary problem with communism was central plan, having someone
tell you what you could make, who you could sell it to, and what you
could charge for it. As there is no single human being or group of
human beings smart enough to span an entire civlization and its markets,
this was doomed to failure, not to mention the seeping in of corruption,
tempation and seduction at the highest places of power. Pretty soon the
top level people are running the place for themselves at the expense of
everyone else.
In a free market, each person is allowed to make these decisions
himself, what to make, who to sell it to, and how much to charge.
It is tempting to consider that the RIGHT to do these things
comes from OWNERSHIP of the means of production and the product and
perhaps one find its hard to conceive how a free market can run in an
environment of stewardship rather than ownership. Certainly this
needs to be hashed out.
Ownership means rights of control.
Stewardship is more like a duty of guardainship with limited rights
of control as the steward never really owns the item he is guardian for.
For example people own stock, but give it over to their stock
broker to invest for them as stewards of the stock.
I bring you back to the forest and the boat. Ownership of land is
probably one of the most fudamental and most ridiculous basis of
production and product ownership, because ultimately everything comes
from the land. Who owns the land? Those that take it by force, end of
story.
Now you consider a more spiritual concept that everyone owns the
land, then everyone owns the tree in the forest. Who then owns the boat
invented by and made by one man from the tree?
Do not the people who own the tree the boat was made from, and who
supported and put the civilization there so the man could invent and
make the boat, have some claim to the boat?
The arguements between total ownership and total slavery tend to
leave out a middle path that is more favorable to spiritual development,
probably best described by stewardship, but not completely delineated by
it.
Lots of non producers would love to have everyone own everything,
so they can suck off the work of the producers. These of course push
things towards very tight ownership in the name of "I produced it, so I
own it so you have no rights to it!"
Giving sway to the non producers leads to welfare states at the
point of a gun aimed at the producers, which by definition is a form of
communism, "from each according to his ability and to each according to
his need." But who determines ability and need? So we have a central
government again, which pushes the 'welfare of the people' party line,
while actually lining their own pockets with the protectorship scam.
A protector is one who says something is good for you, when in
fact it is good for them at your expense, and they know it.
Their primary interest is to protect you from the truth in order to
protect themselves by keeping their slavery of you in working order.
Protectors running a protectorship scam are probably the closest
definition of evil there is.
Homer
Mon Oct 10 16:25:42 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Oct 28 00:06:03 EDT 2019
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco11.memo
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
HOM43 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
EXTERIORIZING FROM THE MIND
((As an aside, trying to get out of the body INTO the physical
universe is still being interior to the universe, and is a weapon of
war not to mention a highly vulnerable place to be because any theta
vaccum machine can suck you up and dump you into a trash can.
Its coming into the universe and going out of the universe and the
whole chain of universe it is in as a whole that is way more important and
safer.))
>At 8:44 PM -0500 2/26/99, Ryan wrote:
>> I want to get _more_ exterior.
>>
>> Can go interior, can be at "back" of my head, but can't go out further.
>>
>> Anybody got a particular HCOB/process/RD to offer me?
You are trying to take your mind with you.
Exteriorize from your mind.
A being exterior to his mind is exterior to questions and
answers.
No more questions and answers.
No more problems to pose and re-solve.
No more trying to take responsibility, trying to not take
responsibility.
No more wanting to know, wanting to not know.
No more trying to know, trying to not know.
No more effort to know, effort to not know.
Trying to know how to exteriorize from the mind is an effort to
know and thus interiorizes into it.
Watch it, Medusa is the Devil's Harem.
The prior beginning to any incident is the effort to take
responsibility for an area.
To take responsibility means to take responsibiity for (to
create) or to take responsibility over (to improve).
Run the emotional curve from trying to take responsibility
for/over an area to create or improve it, down to regret about taking
responsibility, with special attention to the efforts to know and not
know all the way through.
Taking responsibility is the earlier beginning, its the moment of
interiorization into the mind which ends in grief, and unwillingness
and inability to take responsibility any more.
Run wanting responsibility, not wanting responsibility.
Being forced to take responsibility, being prevented from taking
responsibility.
Being rewarded for taking responsibility, being punished for
taking responsibility.
Notice that *TAKING* is a pulling in, so that one can put out
causative flows.
Thus, yes 'one pulls it in' whatever it is, literally.
One wears the mind in order to get involved in the game of posing
and re-solving problems.
Don't wear the mind to get rid of the mind, it will stick like
glue.
Don't make the mind into a problem. It will stick like glue.
Don't doubt a true certainty. If you do you will get what you
deserve. That is justice and the genesis of humor which re-solves all
bitterness.
A Grade I is someone who has no unwanted problems, because he is
able to look out into the world and find a life full of problems that
he wants.
That's what life is, a huge infinite grocery store of every
possible problem to taste and enjoy.
We are talking pure magic here. Can you imagine a world where
pleasure comes from waking up in the morning, picking a problem to
solve, and getting on with solving it?
The *PURPOSE* of life is to pose and resolve problems.
It's a playing field where people can choose and play out the
problems of their choice. Only by withdrawing from ones fair chosen
problems, does a being get trapped in problems that are unwanted,
because they come after him in the vacuum of his withdrawal.
Unwanted problems arise when one refused to want problems that
one wants.
Then one wants 'to not have problems'. That's glum sourness
about problems one wanted and 'couldn't have'. Audit consequences to
taking responsibility. Overts of creating consequences,
determinations to have or create consequences to taking responsibility
etc.
Audit taking responsibility and regretting taking responsibility,
refusing to take responsibility, denying you took responsibility, no
sympathy for responsibility and those who take responsibility etc.
Taking responsibility *IS* posing and re-solving problems.
One can go exterior to problems, have none at all, but only by
exteriorizeing from taking responsibility, from wanting to know/not
know, and from the mind.
That's different from being glum about it all and regretting the
day you ever got the idea it might be fun to do something about
something.
The being going out the bottom is withdrawing from problems he
doesn't want by withdrawing from problems altogether, and he thus gets
covered in problems he doesn't want and goes glum stuck in wanting to
know but can't know, or wanting to not know, but must know.
The being going out the top goes out in humor and class, freedom
to not know at will, no longer desires to know or not know etc.
Can you stop the effort to know or not know?
Homer (who is *REALLY* good at head talk) Smith.
- - --
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 10 03:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom43.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFVn27aURT1lqxE3HERAtXoAKC7t8CiSfjFQZ6/UNtg5TA5lZvjTQCdEjsz
LrquGFDZ9I2zgBQqwKKst2o=
=WFb/
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fri Jul 10 16:49:33 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 27 12:00:03 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom43.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)
iD8DBQFdtb8EURT1lqxE3HERAssaAKC3unEjyripGDKGHDPkX39HGG7Z+ACfeTB1
wZ1F8lDILKo9CouHQC6VKoQ=
=ujjK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
EXTERIORIZING FROM THE MIND
((As an aside, trying to get out of the body INTO the physical
universe is still being interior to the universe, and is a weapon of
war not to mention a highly vulnerable place to be because any theta
vaccum machine can suck you up and dump you into a trash can.
Its coming into the universe and going out of the universe and the
whole chain of universe it is in as a whole that is way more important and
safer.))
>At 8:44 PM -0500 2/26/99, Ryan wrote:
>> I want to get _more_ exterior.
>>
>> Can go interior, can be at "back" of my head, but can't go out further.
>>
>> Anybody got a particular HCOB/process/RD to offer me?
You are trying to take your mind with you.
Exteriorize from your mind.
A being exterior to his mind is exterior to questions and
answers.
No more questions and answers.
No more problems to pose and re-solve.
No more trying to take responsibility, trying to not take
responsibility.
No more wanting to know, wanting to not know.
No more trying to know, trying to not know.
No more effort to know, effort to not know.
Trying to know how to exteriorize from the mind is an effort to
know and thus interiorizes into it.
Watch it, Medusa is the Devil's Harem.
The prior beginning to any incident is the effort to take
responsibility for an area.
To take responsibility means to take responsibiity for (to
create) or to take responsibility over (to improve).
Run the emotional curve from trying to take responsibility
for/over an area to create or improve it, down to regret about taking
responsibility, with special attention to the efforts to know and not
know all the way through.
Taking responsibility is the earlier beginning, its the moment of
interiorization into the mind which ends in grief, and unwillingness
and inability to take responsibility any more.
Run wanting responsibility, not wanting responsibility.
Being forced to take responsibility, being prevented from taking
responsibility.
Being rewarded for taking responsibility, being punished for
taking responsibility.
Notice that *TAKING* is a pulling in, so that one can put out
causative flows.
Thus, yes 'one pulls it in' whatever it is, literally.
One wears the mind in order to get involved in the game of posing
and re-solving problems.
Don't wear the mind to get rid of the mind, it will stick like
glue.
Don't make the mind into a problem. It will stick like glue.
Don't doubt a true certainty. If you do you will get what you
deserve. That is justice and the genesis of humor which re-solves all
bitterness.
A Grade I is someone who has no unwanted problems, because he is
able to look out into the world and find a life full of problems that
he wants.
That's what life is, a huge infinite grocery store of every
possible problem to taste and enjoy.
We are talking pure magic here. Can you imagine a world where
pleasure comes from waking up in the morning, picking a problem to
solve, and getting on with solving it?
The *PURPOSE* of life is to pose and resolve problems.
It's a playing field where people can choose and play out the
problems of their choice. Only by withdrawing from ones fair chosen
problems, does a being get trapped in problems that are unwanted,
because they come after him in the vacuum of his withdrawal.
Unwanted problems arise when one refused to want problems that
one wants.
Then one wants 'to not have problems'. That's glum sourness
about problems one wanted and 'couldn't have'. Audit consequences to
taking responsibility. Overts of creating consequences,
determinations to have or create consequences to taking responsibility
etc.
Audit taking responsibility and regretting taking responsibility,
refusing to take responsibility, denying you took responsibility, no
sympathy for responsibility and those who take responsibility etc.
Taking responsibility *IS* posing and re-solving problems.
One can go exterior to problems, have none at all, but only by
exteriorizeing from taking responsibility, from wanting to know/not
know, and from the mind.
That's different from being glum about it all and regretting the
day you ever got the idea it might be fun to do something about
something.
The being going out the bottom is withdrawing from problems he
doesn't want by withdrawing from problems altogether, and he thus gets
covered in problems he doesn't want and goes glum stuck in wanting to
know but can't know, or wanting to not know, but must know.
The being going out the top goes out in humor and class, freedom
to not know at will, no longer desires to know or not know etc.
Can you stop the effort to know or not know?
Homer (who is *REALLY* good at head talk) Smith.
- - --
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 10 03:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom43.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFVn27aURT1lqxE3HERAtXoAKC7t8CiSfjFQZ6/UNtg5TA5lZvjTQCdEjsz
LrquGFDZ9I2zgBQqwKKst2o=
=WFb/
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Fri Jul 10 16:49:33 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 27 12:00:03 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom43.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)
iD8DBQFdtb8EURT1lqxE3HERAssaAKC3unEjyripGDKGHDPkX39HGG7Z+ACfeTB1
wZ1F8lDILKo9CouHQC6VKoQ=
=ujjK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, October 18, 2019
ADORE24 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
APPRECIATION AND REGRET
> So my next steps would seem to be erasing the 'powerful' valence (so that it
> will no longer lead me to do things that I (my 'higher self') regrets too
> much), then erase the 'weak' valence. So that's my plan.
Higher Self has no regrets, all is designed with pride and majesty
aforethought.
Erase what has regrets, but only after you stop regretting regretting
and see the humor and beauty to it all. The idea that cause flows from
being to being is in fact wrong. Overts and motivators both are a lie.
Erasure only takes place upon recongnition of perfect art and humor.
One does not get rid of what one doesn't want. One only erases what is
too cool to let be any longer. Put it back in the vault of potential
manifestation for another day.
If it ain't cool, you are stuck with it man.
> But these things would seem to be (pacticularly the 'powerful' identity)tied
> up with the GPM legs, so I was wondering if anyone has any processes that
> would handle that?
Spot and poof stupid considerations.
Particularly those of 'must not happen again *FOREVER*'.
Also anything to do with error, mistake, accidents, surprise and
injustice.
If you don't get the joke to it, it won't erase, if you do get
the joke to it, it will erase, that is absolute.
And that's High Cool.
> I will see if I can find the GPM processes in 'SuperScio'. I would also
> think of looking to the beginning of a particular 'valence' to see what
> started it (probably unsucessful opposition of the previous GPM leg), and
> also various other valence processes, like those given to me by the Pilot a
> while ago.
What started it was you engaging in class and tapestry, artful dodge,
writing a comedy-tragedy that only the audience can appreciate. You
become free when you can as-is your stuck condition in the actor and can
become the audience again.
The audience *APPRECIATES* what happened.
The actor regrets.
Run appreciation and regret.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 18 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore24.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)
iD8DBQFdqeGEURT1lqxE3HERAvqDAJ0XFszR9SD0ODKh9dvh5tVP0ig1IgCdFsBe
zus9eENfiitU2vleXqf1nBs=
=XWaD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
APPRECIATION AND REGRET
> So my next steps would seem to be erasing the 'powerful' valence (so that it
> will no longer lead me to do things that I (my 'higher self') regrets too
> much), then erase the 'weak' valence. So that's my plan.
Higher Self has no regrets, all is designed with pride and majesty
aforethought.
Erase what has regrets, but only after you stop regretting regretting
and see the humor and beauty to it all. The idea that cause flows from
being to being is in fact wrong. Overts and motivators both are a lie.
Erasure only takes place upon recongnition of perfect art and humor.
One does not get rid of what one doesn't want. One only erases what is
too cool to let be any longer. Put it back in the vault of potential
manifestation for another day.
If it ain't cool, you are stuck with it man.
> But these things would seem to be (pacticularly the 'powerful' identity)tied
> up with the GPM legs, so I was wondering if anyone has any processes that
> would handle that?
Spot and poof stupid considerations.
Particularly those of 'must not happen again *FOREVER*'.
Also anything to do with error, mistake, accidents, surprise and
injustice.
If you don't get the joke to it, it won't erase, if you do get
the joke to it, it will erase, that is absolute.
And that's High Cool.
> I will see if I can find the GPM processes in 'SuperScio'. I would also
> think of looking to the beginning of a particular 'valence' to see what
> started it (probably unsucessful opposition of the previous GPM leg), and
> also various other valence processes, like those given to me by the Pilot a
> while ago.
What started it was you engaging in class and tapestry, artful dodge,
writing a comedy-tragedy that only the audience can appreciate. You
become free when you can as-is your stuck condition in the actor and can
become the audience again.
The audience *APPRECIATES* what happened.
The actor regrets.
Run appreciation and regret.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 18 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore24.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)
iD8DBQFdqeGEURT1lqxE3HERAvqDAJ0XFszR9SD0ODKh9dvh5tVP0ig1IgCdFsBe
zus9eENfiitU2vleXqf1nBs=
=XWaD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
ucp9.memo (fwd)
Scorpio (mudrunner@eudoramail.com) wrote:
>You're not the only one for whom "Classic" UCP commands and their
>variants proved too constrictive.
I been thinking more about this.
For me there are 7 basic questions about an event:
Who, How, What, Where, When, Why and Which.
When whos don't run, whens might, or wheres or whys etc.
It's amazing what going around a black mass with these 7 can
bring up. Loosen up one, and the others start to run.
If one won't answer, find the one that will, and the others
start to respond.
The UCP command "WHERE have you been", stuck me in the where's
which made an instant ridge of resentment as it acted as
a wrong indication 6 out of 7 times on average.
It doesn't matter if KP wants us to interpret the word 'where'
differently, the bank and BT's and the whole composite has automatic
reactions to words and the efforts to think them.
Remember the very effort to think or say a word permeates the
whole space of the pc and his bank.
Even 'Who have you been in relation to' sticks me in the who's.
So in general I tend to try to use the most general question
possible, maybe something like "Spot something."
But linguistics tend to limit what I am actually doing,
and I don't recommend any particular phrasing.
Then we have the words BEEN and ARE. These are BEINGNESS words,
and stick a person in space and time. KP admits that as a person goes
up tone, there will be a need to change these words to 'viewpoint'
etc.
But I would suggest that it is more subtle than that. Basically
I would suggest that each pc needs to find his own wording to best get
him to spot things in the past, present and future.
This could even be run as a pre process itself, just to find his
wording. When he finds a set, then he runs that set, until he needs
to find another set.
If UCP has dried up on someone, maybe all they have to do is
run the wording pre process again. Or start auditing the others
in his vicinty screaming for auditing :)
Then there is the matter of what exactly we are auditing. KP says
we are auditing 'YOURSELF', but that is highly introverting and in
fact wrong as there is no 'YOURSELF'.
But given that people think there is a 'YOURSELF', the truth is
that what we are auditing is charge. Charge results from failed
desire. Desire relates the self to something else.
So we have SELF - DESIRE - SOMETHING ELSE.
The point is you have two terminals, self and other, and the
relationship between them which is desire.
Now it might seem simplistic to boil down all relationships to
desire, but any relationship that has charge on it, has desire and
failure inter woven through the fabric of the relationship, both
intensity of desire and considered probability of failure which
results in tone amplitude and tone frequency.
Intensity of desire = tone intensity.
Probability of failure = tone frequency.
Thus any spotting of the past, present or future, needs to evenly
cover all these aspects of self, desire/relation and other.
The basic fundamental of UCP, which is to spot something in the
past, present, and future and compare ALL OF THEM TO EACH OTHER, can
be brought about by many different wordings and approaches, both in
rote session and in backgrounding throughout the day.
If you are only comparing the past to the present and the future
to the present you are missing out on comparing the past to the future
and leaving one leg of the triangle unaudited. That will also cause a
bog.
A more thorough analysis of exactly what is worth spotting about
the past, present and future is also in order.
There is vast richness in between self and other.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Oct 16 00:06:02 EDT 2019
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/ucp/ucp9.memo
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
>You're not the only one for whom "Classic" UCP commands and their
>variants proved too constrictive.
I been thinking more about this.
For me there are 7 basic questions about an event:
Who, How, What, Where, When, Why and Which.
When whos don't run, whens might, or wheres or whys etc.
It's amazing what going around a black mass with these 7 can
bring up. Loosen up one, and the others start to run.
If one won't answer, find the one that will, and the others
start to respond.
The UCP command "WHERE have you been", stuck me in the where's
which made an instant ridge of resentment as it acted as
a wrong indication 6 out of 7 times on average.
It doesn't matter if KP wants us to interpret the word 'where'
differently, the bank and BT's and the whole composite has automatic
reactions to words and the efforts to think them.
Remember the very effort to think or say a word permeates the
whole space of the pc and his bank.
Even 'Who have you been in relation to' sticks me in the who's.
So in general I tend to try to use the most general question
possible, maybe something like "Spot something."
But linguistics tend to limit what I am actually doing,
and I don't recommend any particular phrasing.
Then we have the words BEEN and ARE. These are BEINGNESS words,
and stick a person in space and time. KP admits that as a person goes
up tone, there will be a need to change these words to 'viewpoint'
etc.
But I would suggest that it is more subtle than that. Basically
I would suggest that each pc needs to find his own wording to best get
him to spot things in the past, present and future.
This could even be run as a pre process itself, just to find his
wording. When he finds a set, then he runs that set, until he needs
to find another set.
If UCP has dried up on someone, maybe all they have to do is
run the wording pre process again. Or start auditing the others
in his vicinty screaming for auditing :)
Then there is the matter of what exactly we are auditing. KP says
we are auditing 'YOURSELF', but that is highly introverting and in
fact wrong as there is no 'YOURSELF'.
But given that people think there is a 'YOURSELF', the truth is
that what we are auditing is charge. Charge results from failed
desire. Desire relates the self to something else.
So we have SELF - DESIRE - SOMETHING ELSE.
The point is you have two terminals, self and other, and the
relationship between them which is desire.
Now it might seem simplistic to boil down all relationships to
desire, but any relationship that has charge on it, has desire and
failure inter woven through the fabric of the relationship, both
intensity of desire and considered probability of failure which
results in tone amplitude and tone frequency.
Intensity of desire = tone intensity.
Probability of failure = tone frequency.
Thus any spotting of the past, present or future, needs to evenly
cover all these aspects of self, desire/relation and other.
The basic fundamental of UCP, which is to spot something in the
past, present, and future and compare ALL OF THEM TO EACH OTHER, can
be brought about by many different wordings and approaches, both in
rote session and in backgrounding throughout the day.
If you are only comparing the past to the present and the future
to the present you are missing out on comparing the past to the future
and leaving one leg of the triangle unaudited. That will also cause a
bog.
A more thorough analysis of exactly what is worth spotting about
the past, present and future is also in order.
There is vast richness in between self and other.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Oct 16 00:06:02 EDT 2019
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/ucp/ucp9.memo
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
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
ADORE904 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FINDING GAMES SPHERE ARCHETYPES
Enid,
So as I remember the Scientology way to list for this is:
On each dynamic, the infinite, spirit, MEST, life, mankind, career,
family and self:
"Who or what are you opposing."
Desire to imprison, enslave, pin down, shut up, murder, kamikaze or
suicide mission them into the ground forever is a good indicator.
I used to take "what" to mean an object, but I understand it now as a
class of who's, ie Margaret my mother is a who, mothers is a what.
John McMaster said that the preclear was not PTS to a who but
to a what.
Probably the who or what is never an object or symbol.
The who makes a terminal, a communication end point that the preclear
is moving in on for the kill, closing terminals with.
The what makes the indentity that has been assigned to the who by
the preclear and which he is fighting to the death.
Identities are always class labels for groups of specific who's.
The what is always a class label for the who's that belong to
that class.
The actual who may have nothing to do with the what that the preclear
has assigned to the who, but the preclear thinks the who personifies the
what.
Then if you find a who terminal (Margaret), list for what that terminal
would represent to you, to find the what (mothers, parents, women etc).
Then once you have a Rocket Reading Reliable Item, say its parents, run
"Who or what would oppose that item (parents)?"
In this case the who is the preclear of course, but he may find cross
flows of others who also oppose the first item (parents).
If he finds a what then you have the preclears identity.
If he find anothers who, then list for what that who terminal would
represent to you, to again find the class item what.
That should find the what that the preclear is being, say it is
orphaned child.
Then spot the problem in present time between the two whats,
parents and an orphaned child, and run your fleshing out of the roles of
both sides in present time, including computations, ARC Breaks,
continuing present time Overt/Withholds, and Problems of long duration,
avoiding any auditing of any past dones etc.
Present time super overts are critical, super overts contain
forever death or demise, death forever and hell forever.
The problem between the whats is the fulcrum point that all the
rest rely on to persist.
I got this right?
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
Mon Jun 11 17:02:54 EDT 2012
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 15 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore904.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)
iD8DBQFdpe0FURT1lqxE3HERAkOuAJ9sVIGFrDMajGMZMbUEbBYksAZgbgCeLW+i
AU/UmDobiiKFfI9Fx9NgaxI=
=tMZ6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
FINDING GAMES SPHERE ARCHETYPES
Enid,
So as I remember the Scientology way to list for this is:
On each dynamic, the infinite, spirit, MEST, life, mankind, career,
family and self:
"Who or what are you opposing."
Desire to imprison, enslave, pin down, shut up, murder, kamikaze or
suicide mission them into the ground forever is a good indicator.
I used to take "what" to mean an object, but I understand it now as a
class of who's, ie Margaret my mother is a who, mothers is a what.
John McMaster said that the preclear was not PTS to a who but
to a what.
Probably the who or what is never an object or symbol.
The who makes a terminal, a communication end point that the preclear
is moving in on for the kill, closing terminals with.
The what makes the indentity that has been assigned to the who by
the preclear and which he is fighting to the death.
Identities are always class labels for groups of specific who's.
The what is always a class label for the who's that belong to
that class.
The actual who may have nothing to do with the what that the preclear
has assigned to the who, but the preclear thinks the who personifies the
what.
Then if you find a who terminal (Margaret), list for what that terminal
would represent to you, to find the what (mothers, parents, women etc).
Then once you have a Rocket Reading Reliable Item, say its parents, run
"Who or what would oppose that item (parents)?"
In this case the who is the preclear of course, but he may find cross
flows of others who also oppose the first item (parents).
If he finds a what then you have the preclears identity.
If he find anothers who, then list for what that who terminal would
represent to you, to again find the class item what.
That should find the what that the preclear is being, say it is
orphaned child.
Then spot the problem in present time between the two whats,
parents and an orphaned child, and run your fleshing out of the roles of
both sides in present time, including computations, ARC Breaks,
continuing present time Overt/Withholds, and Problems of long duration,
avoiding any auditing of any past dones etc.
Present time super overts are critical, super overts contain
forever death or demise, death forever and hell forever.
The problem between the whats is the fulcrum point that all the
rest rely on to persist.
I got this right?
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
Mon Jun 11 17:02:54 EDT 2012
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 15 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore904.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)
iD8DBQFdpe0FURT1lqxE3HERAkOuAJ9sVIGFrDMajGMZMbUEbBYksAZgbgCeLW+i
AU/UmDobiiKFfI9Fx9NgaxI=
=tMZ6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, October 11, 2019
ADORE269 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Rogers. D.Scn. (The_Bindu@NOSPAMmsn.com) wrote:
>Now, funnily enough, I think it might be a needed process exactly FOR those
>who have seen the universe dissolve and somehow concluded either: a) it was
>only there "for them", or b) they're the "only one" there, or c) it was only
>an "illusion" in the first place - like that is meaningful or something.
The day you understand that a mockup of space doesn't take
up any space, you will understand what an illusion is.
>"There IS something there."
Actually the process needs to be continued to
"There IS nothing there."
"Spot a something."
"Spot a nothing."
Produces marked alteration of what something and nothing mean.
>Here, I'd say it could be a fair process if it was changed to "a hologram"
>as opposed the "the." Oh, and secondly, it would have to be understood that
>any "walking" within that hologram was done by means of a body similarly
>created in the hologram. I mean, the mest universe is NOT a hologram
>anyway, and mocking it up that way and then using the mest body to move
>around as usual, well, I think it would be like a Zen exercise and make
>people spin.
The mest universe IS a hologram projected in a zero dimensional
substrate called Source.
Source sources (illusions of) what source is not.
That which didn't have any space or time could never create any
space or time, but it might be able to create illusions of space and
time projected into its own spaceless timeless substrate.
"Life is a holodeck" - Adore.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Oct 10 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore269.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)
iD8DBQFdn1WFURT1lqxE3HERAog2AJwMuVCVl4Ig6W10vXPuu/s8efa0DACfZCAY
hxlwee1T0gssgPZHhh4UBVY=
=F6rO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Rogers. D.Scn. (The_Bindu@NOSPAMmsn.com) wrote:
>Now, funnily enough, I think it might be a needed process exactly FOR those
>who have seen the universe dissolve and somehow concluded either: a) it was
>only there "for them", or b) they're the "only one" there, or c) it was only
>an "illusion" in the first place - like that is meaningful or something.
The day you understand that a mockup of space doesn't take
up any space, you will understand what an illusion is.
>"There IS something there."
Actually the process needs to be continued to
"There IS nothing there."
"Spot a something."
"Spot a nothing."
Produces marked alteration of what something and nothing mean.
>Here, I'd say it could be a fair process if it was changed to "a hologram"
>as opposed the "the." Oh, and secondly, it would have to be understood that
>any "walking" within that hologram was done by means of a body similarly
>created in the hologram. I mean, the mest universe is NOT a hologram
>anyway, and mocking it up that way and then using the mest body to move
>around as usual, well, I think it would be like a Zen exercise and make
>people spin.
The mest universe IS a hologram projected in a zero dimensional
substrate called Source.
Source sources (illusions of) what source is not.
That which didn't have any space or time could never create any
space or time, but it might be able to create illusions of space and
time projected into its own spaceless timeless substrate.
"Life is a holodeck" - Adore.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Oct 10 12:00:04 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore269.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)
iD8DBQFdn1WFURT1lqxE3HERAog2AJwMuVCVl4Ig6W10vXPuu/s8efa0DACfZCAY
hxlwee1T0gssgPZHhh4UBVY=
=F6rO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
ADORE933
SESSION NOTES 1/29/2013
OK. I am rollercoastering wildly.
Had a really good run with Jane on,
Get the idea of
Something you want to not be.
Something you want to be.
Something you want to not do.
Something you want to do.
Something you want to not have
Something you want to have.
Something you want to not know.
Something you want to know.
I ran it muzzled Model Session II, with simple OK's as my response,
and tried to stay away from digging for or speaking about specific
things, although of course some came up. Took about 30 minutes to dig
deep.
The process really started to bite on DO *AND* NOT DO.
No specifics but it was clear that EVERYTHING I do is a do AND not
do at the same time. 51.0 percent do, and 49.0 percent not do, and
things get done :)
I run a lot of 'What is right, What is wrong?', because it is
apparent that EVERYTHING I AM DOING IS WRONG.
This led into OFF PURPOSE again, and OPPOSED/OPPOSING, and it would
seem that there are major oppterms in my NOTS casings which are made of
beings still working to die, enslave, etc. They don't want to be this
way most of them, but they think their mother will be skinned and dumped
outside as an ant farm if they don't cooperate with the enslavers.
Simple NOTS (auditing other beings in vicinity) handling alleviates
the term/oppterm tension until the next layer. But I will tell you, its
not the goals in opposition that cause all the problem, its the level of
wild abandon that the overts reached on each side trying to deal with or
wipe out the other, and the collateral damage. Each side has probably
caused more harm to their own side than the other side during this war.
(It is indeed the goals in opposition that cause the problem, but
one might have to dust off the damage first before one can see them
clearly or at all.)
That's the sticky tar the being can't see through or dig his way
out of it, because he will never live it down: "Who killed my cat!"
There is a good possibility he did, while trying to kill the bad
guy's cat, and when its one's own parents, mate, children or teammates
that get killed as unintended collateral damage, it can be a soul
crusher.
Part of my sorrow on Mira, was that she was an experiment on my
part of taking care of a semi wild cat, spade but abandoned. I was
doing it for me, it gave me something to do, and although she
appreciated being fed every day after hunting her down with the radio, I
was in love with the game, so she ended up dead. Of course I also saved
her life at least twice including when she first came to us. But the
self blame remains and leads right down the channel of sorrow. Like
Hubbard said about squeezing the kitten too hard because you adored it
so, freaked it out and it died in your arms. You love the kitten but
the kitten thinks you are a boa, and so buys the farm on credit.
Also on Black V I ran a lot of
"Put a NO mockup there, and not know what it is."
That loosened up things measurably and made it abundantly clear
that blackness is not nothing there but something there.
I think I mentioned already one of the most powerful unlimited
processes there is was:
"Get the idea there is nothing there."
"Get the idea there is something there."
"Get the idea there is no one there."
"Get the idea there is some one there."
The someone/noone grants life, we are auditing elementals after all
that are making the black MEST mockups of the time track.
The two guys who are mocking up the unwanted scene and the
blackness covering it are WAY more important to audit that the unwanted
scene or the blackness taken as mere recording of MEST happenstance.
Yes we care what happened, but we are hiring out the chronic
remindering of the incident to a couple of mercenary mockup creators to
keep it in restim.
This is why humans never solved this problem, they think they are
alone in a dead MEST universe, when in fact their mind and bodies and
every thought are MADE of elemental conscious units BEING those things,
there isn't a dead particle in existence anywhere, and can't be!
Even the experience of death has to be mocked up by a living unit.
Also looking at blackness isn't BEING blackness, remember a being
creates by BEING, *THEN* by standing back and looking at it from 'a
distance'. That scene over there that he can't confront looking at is
really something he daren't BE first.
That's why solo NOTS can be better run as
"WHAT AM I?"
"WHO AM I?"
You and your preclears are being something hideous, so hideous he
can't see it because he won't see it, as it might kill him.
"If looks could kill, they probably will..."
He also has a lot of pulled in encrustation of unspeakable
monstrosities to keep him contained so he CAN'T BE it and hurt someone.
The monstrosities don't help much as they also act as an endless
motivator that poke him incessantly into becoming and dramatizing what
he is trying not to be.
He has to be willing to BE it, to deal with it safely, and resolve
his AND on whether to BE or NOT BE.
So run the cycle, BE -> SEPARATE -> LOOK AT ACROSS A DISTANCE. The
distance doesn't exist anyhow, its an illusion in consciousness, but the
insertion of that illusion is enough of an alter-is to make the mockup
unas-isable, and unconfrontable. You can always confront what you can
BE, it is the movement from BE-ER to LOOKER and the resulting (illusory)
separation between LOOKER and LOOKED-AT via the LOOKED-THROUGH (space)
that causes persisting pain, no matter what the mockup.
Then I started to solo a really long and rough run of:
What is the worst thing about your future?
What is the best thing about your future?
Probably should have run past present and future.
(Its a terrible process as it runs the preclear at effect rather
than as cause, so don't run it as written.)
But I figure "The past is used to excuse the future, and the future
is used to make up for the past, via our present time considerations
that we are failing miserably." - Adore.com
Also the past is WHAT is in restim, but the future is WHY it is in
restim, and the present provides the HOW it is in restim if only we
could see it.
We also tend to consider a causal relationship between the future
and the past, because we use the past as evidence of what the future
will probably be like, at least we worry about it.
Having been unwanted becomes will be unwanted.
Anyhow on "worse thing about the future," I got a very deep covered
in pain item about not having a father next life old enough to be dead
out of the gate next life time. But it went all over the place, and was
a good run,
My father this life time was 57 when I was born.
I keep crying about Mira, cold dead crushed body etc, what ever
happened to well and happy human being, I ask you?
How do you live and care deeply and keep it together in this valley
of the shadow of death? They say its a shadow, but man, looks real as
cold dead meat to me.
The difference between an alive thing and a dead thing is almost
unspannable, and the fall between the high of life and the low of death
is as steep and deep as the abyss of sorrow.
This 'I got to be a God' stuff to not puke all day long at what is
going on makes it hard :)
I don't want to be a God (with no bias) and I don't want to be a
human (with bias). The minute you care (bias) for anything here, your
heart is crucified.
The ANDS are monumental.
Don't want to live forever AND don't want to die forever.
Don't want to BE AND don't want to NOT BE.
I suppose only an AND could drive a GodSoul crazy and keep
persistence in TimeStone (MESTF) going long enough to suffer.
MESTF = Matter, Energy, Space Time and Force.
Below postulates, force is the proxy for cause in the physical
universe.
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
> Hello Homer, another black case here. My auditor (he seems to be back
> online now) asked me some questions about how I mock things up (or don't),
> and started to look like a compulsive not-is of all "present time" scenes,
> objects, etc.. In basic, must know butted up against must not know.
> Already did CCHs and that helped. Doing Dennis' repair of importances
> (with some help to stay focused).
>
> Yes, I used to see dead civil war soldiers in the woods. Timebreaking
> seems to have keyed that out.
>
> Dennis' processes, done as instructed, are not a bandaid, and sometimes the
> patient needs a bandaid too. Maybe they are a bandaid, just that pc
> cannot stay the fidgets when in solo mode.
>
> Running Level 4 To Enhance was a bandaid and helped with livingness,
> key-outs, but not much help to enable me to do the Level 2 instructions
> without mental flights. I feel like a kid with a beautiful new bike and
> cannot ride it. Training wheels?
>
> Okay, back to it. Thank you for the post -- very timely.
>
Tue Jan 29 21:12:27 EST 2013
Wed Oct 3 15:00:04 EDT 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
OK. I am rollercoastering wildly.
Had a really good run with Jane on,
Get the idea of
Something you want to not be.
Something you want to be.
Something you want to not do.
Something you want to do.
Something you want to not have
Something you want to have.
Something you want to not know.
Something you want to know.
I ran it muzzled Model Session II, with simple OK's as my response,
and tried to stay away from digging for or speaking about specific
things, although of course some came up. Took about 30 minutes to dig
deep.
The process really started to bite on DO *AND* NOT DO.
No specifics but it was clear that EVERYTHING I do is a do AND not
do at the same time. 51.0 percent do, and 49.0 percent not do, and
things get done :)
I run a lot of 'What is right, What is wrong?', because it is
apparent that EVERYTHING I AM DOING IS WRONG.
This led into OFF PURPOSE again, and OPPOSED/OPPOSING, and it would
seem that there are major oppterms in my NOTS casings which are made of
beings still working to die, enslave, etc. They don't want to be this
way most of them, but they think their mother will be skinned and dumped
outside as an ant farm if they don't cooperate with the enslavers.
Simple NOTS (auditing other beings in vicinity) handling alleviates
the term/oppterm tension until the next layer. But I will tell you, its
not the goals in opposition that cause all the problem, its the level of
wild abandon that the overts reached on each side trying to deal with or
wipe out the other, and the collateral damage. Each side has probably
caused more harm to their own side than the other side during this war.
(It is indeed the goals in opposition that cause the problem, but
one might have to dust off the damage first before one can see them
clearly or at all.)
That's the sticky tar the being can't see through or dig his way
out of it, because he will never live it down: "Who killed my cat!"
There is a good possibility he did, while trying to kill the bad
guy's cat, and when its one's own parents, mate, children or teammates
that get killed as unintended collateral damage, it can be a soul
crusher.
Part of my sorrow on Mira, was that she was an experiment on my
part of taking care of a semi wild cat, spade but abandoned. I was
doing it for me, it gave me something to do, and although she
appreciated being fed every day after hunting her down with the radio, I
was in love with the game, so she ended up dead. Of course I also saved
her life at least twice including when she first came to us. But the
self blame remains and leads right down the channel of sorrow. Like
Hubbard said about squeezing the kitten too hard because you adored it
so, freaked it out and it died in your arms. You love the kitten but
the kitten thinks you are a boa, and so buys the farm on credit.
Also on Black V I ran a lot of
"Put a NO mockup there, and not know what it is."
That loosened up things measurably and made it abundantly clear
that blackness is not nothing there but something there.
I think I mentioned already one of the most powerful unlimited
processes there is was:
"Get the idea there is nothing there."
"Get the idea there is something there."
"Get the idea there is no one there."
"Get the idea there is some one there."
The someone/noone grants life, we are auditing elementals after all
that are making the black MEST mockups of the time track.
The two guys who are mocking up the unwanted scene and the
blackness covering it are WAY more important to audit that the unwanted
scene or the blackness taken as mere recording of MEST happenstance.
Yes we care what happened, but we are hiring out the chronic
remindering of the incident to a couple of mercenary mockup creators to
keep it in restim.
This is why humans never solved this problem, they think they are
alone in a dead MEST universe, when in fact their mind and bodies and
every thought are MADE of elemental conscious units BEING those things,
there isn't a dead particle in existence anywhere, and can't be!
Even the experience of death has to be mocked up by a living unit.
Also looking at blackness isn't BEING blackness, remember a being
creates by BEING, *THEN* by standing back and looking at it from 'a
distance'. That scene over there that he can't confront looking at is
really something he daren't BE first.
That's why solo NOTS can be better run as
"WHAT AM I?"
"WHO AM I?"
You and your preclears are being something hideous, so hideous he
can't see it because he won't see it, as it might kill him.
"If looks could kill, they probably will..."
He also has a lot of pulled in encrustation of unspeakable
monstrosities to keep him contained so he CAN'T BE it and hurt someone.
The monstrosities don't help much as they also act as an endless
motivator that poke him incessantly into becoming and dramatizing what
he is trying not to be.
He has to be willing to BE it, to deal with it safely, and resolve
his AND on whether to BE or NOT BE.
So run the cycle, BE -> SEPARATE -> LOOK AT ACROSS A DISTANCE. The
distance doesn't exist anyhow, its an illusion in consciousness, but the
insertion of that illusion is enough of an alter-is to make the mockup
unas-isable, and unconfrontable. You can always confront what you can
BE, it is the movement from BE-ER to LOOKER and the resulting (illusory)
separation between LOOKER and LOOKED-AT via the LOOKED-THROUGH (space)
that causes persisting pain, no matter what the mockup.
Then I started to solo a really long and rough run of:
What is the worst thing about your future?
What is the best thing about your future?
Probably should have run past present and future.
(Its a terrible process as it runs the preclear at effect rather
than as cause, so don't run it as written.)
But I figure "The past is used to excuse the future, and the future
is used to make up for the past, via our present time considerations
that we are failing miserably." - Adore.com
Also the past is WHAT is in restim, but the future is WHY it is in
restim, and the present provides the HOW it is in restim if only we
could see it.
We also tend to consider a causal relationship between the future
and the past, because we use the past as evidence of what the future
will probably be like, at least we worry about it.
Having been unwanted becomes will be unwanted.
Anyhow on "worse thing about the future," I got a very deep covered
in pain item about not having a father next life old enough to be dead
out of the gate next life time. But it went all over the place, and was
a good run,
My father this life time was 57 when I was born.
I keep crying about Mira, cold dead crushed body etc, what ever
happened to well and happy human being, I ask you?
How do you live and care deeply and keep it together in this valley
of the shadow of death? They say its a shadow, but man, looks real as
cold dead meat to me.
The difference between an alive thing and a dead thing is almost
unspannable, and the fall between the high of life and the low of death
is as steep and deep as the abyss of sorrow.
This 'I got to be a God' stuff to not puke all day long at what is
going on makes it hard :)
I don't want to be a God (with no bias) and I don't want to be a
human (with bias). The minute you care (bias) for anything here, your
heart is crucified.
The ANDS are monumental.
Don't want to live forever AND don't want to die forever.
Don't want to BE AND don't want to NOT BE.
I suppose only an AND could drive a GodSoul crazy and keep
persistence in TimeStone (MESTF) going long enough to suffer.
MESTF = Matter, Energy, Space Time and Force.
Below postulates, force is the proxy for cause in the physical
universe.
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
> Hello Homer, another black case here. My auditor (he seems to be back
> online now) asked me some questions about how I mock things up (or don't),
> and started to look like a compulsive not-is of all "present time" scenes,
> objects, etc.. In basic, must know butted up against must not know.
> Already did CCHs and that helped. Doing Dennis' repair of importances
> (with some help to stay focused).
>
> Yes, I used to see dead civil war soldiers in the woods. Timebreaking
> seems to have keyed that out.
>
> Dennis' processes, done as instructed, are not a bandaid, and sometimes the
> patient needs a bandaid too. Maybe they are a bandaid, just that pc
> cannot stay the fidgets when in solo mode.
>
> Running Level 4 To Enhance was a bandaid and helped with livingness,
> key-outs, but not much help to enable me to do the Level 2 instructions
> without mental flights. I feel like a kid with a beautiful new bike and
> cannot ride it. Training wheels?
>
> Okay, back to it. Thank you for the post -- very timely.
>
Tue Jan 29 21:12:27 EST 2013
Wed Oct 3 15:00:04 EDT 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
ADORE933 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SESSION NOTES 1/29/2013
OK. I am rollercoastering wildly.
Had a really good run with Jane on,
Get the idea of
Something you want to not be.
Something you want to be.
Something you want to not do.
Something you want to do.
Something you want to not have
Something you want to have.
Something you want to not know.
Something you want to know.
I ran it muzzled Model Session II, with simple OK's as my response,
and tried to stay away from digging for or speaking about specific
things, although of course some came up. Took about 30 minutes to dig
deep.
The process really started to bite on DO *AND* NOT DO.
No specifics but it was clear that EVERYTHING I do is a do AND not
do at the same time. 51.0 percent do, and 49.0 percent not do, and
things get done :)
I run a lot of 'What is right, What is wrong?', because it is
apparent that EVERYTHING I AM DOING IS WRONG.
This led into OFF PURPOSE again, and OPPOSED/OPPOSING, and it would
seem that there are major oppterms in my NOTS casings which are made of
beings still working to die, enslave, etc. They don't want to be this
way most of them, but they think their mother will be skinned and dumped
outside as an ant farm if they don't cooperate with the enslavers.
Simple NOTS (auditing other beings in vicinity) handling alleviates
the term/oppterm tension until the next layer. But I will tell you, its
not the goals in opposition that cause all the problem, its the level of
wild abandon that the overts reached on each side trying to deal with or
wipe out the other, and the collateral damage. Each side has probably
caused more harm to their own side than the other side during this war.
(It is indeed the goals in opposition that cause the problem, but
one might have to dust off the damage first before one can see them
clearly or at all.)
That's the sticky tar the being can't see through or dig his way
out of it, because he will never live it down: "Who killed my cat!"
There is a good possibility he did, while trying to kill the bad
guy's cat, and when its one's own parents, mate, children or teammates
that get killed as unintended collateral damage, it can be a soul
crusher.
Part of my sorrow on Mira, was that she was an experiment on my
part of taking care of a semi wild cat, spade but abandoned. I was
doing it for me, it gave me something to do, and although she
appreciated being fed every day after hunting her down with the radio, I
was in love with the game, so she ended up dead. Of course I also saved
her life at least twice including when she first came to us. But the
self blame remains and leads right down the channel of sorrow. Like
Hubbard said about squeezing the kitten too hard because you adored it
so, freaked it out and it died in your arms. You love the kitten but
the kitten thinks you are a boa, and so buys the farm on credit.
Also on Black V I ran a lot of
"Put a NO mockup there, and not know what it is."
That loosened up things measurably and made it abundantly clear
that blackness is not nothing there but something there.
I think I mentioned already one of the most powerful unlimited
processes there is was:
"Get the idea there is nothing there."
"Get the idea there is something there."
"Get the idea there is no one there."
"Get the idea there is some one there."
The someone/noone grants life, we are auditing elementals after all
that are making the black MEST mockups of the time track.
The two guys who are mocking up the unwanted scene and the
blackness covering it are WAY more important to audit that the unwanted
scene or the blackness taken as mere recording of MEST happenstance.
Yes we care what happened, but we are hiring out the chronic
remindering of the incident to a couple of mercenary mockup creators to
keep it in restim.
This is why humans never solved this problem, they think they are
alone in a dead MEST universe, when in fact their mind and bodies and
every thought are MADE of elemental conscious units BEING those things,
there isn't a dead particle in existence anywhere, and can't be!
Even the experience of death has to be mocked up by a living unit.
Also looking at blackness isn't BEING blackness, remember a being
creates by BEING, *THEN* by standing back and looking at it from 'a
distance'. That scene over there that he can't confront looking at is
really something he daren't BE first.
That's why solo NOTS can be better run as
"WHAT AM I?"
"WHO AM I?"
You and your preclears are being something hideous, so
hideous he can see it as it might kill him.
"If looks could kill, they probably will..."
He also has a lot of pulled in encrustation of unspeakable
monstrosities to keep him contained so he CAN'T BE it and hurt someone.
The monstrosities don't help much as they also act as an endless
motivator that poke him incessantly into becoming and dramatizing what
he is trying not to be.
He has to be willing to BE it, to deal with it safely. and resolve
his AND on whether to BE or NOT BE.
So run the cycle, BE -> SEPARATE -> LOOK AT ACROSS A DISTANCE. The
distance doesn't exist anyhow, its an illusion in consciousness, but the
insertion of that illusion is enough of an alter-is to make the mockup
un as-isable, and unconfrontable. You can always confront what you can
BE, it is the movement from BE-ER to LOOKER and the resulting (illusory)
separation between LOOKER and LOOKED-AT that causes persisting pain, no
matter what the mockup.
Then I started to solo a really long and rough run of:
What is the worst thing about your future?
What is the best thing about your future?
Probably should have run past present and future.
(Its a terrible process as it runs the preclear at effect rather
than as cause, so don't run it as written.)
But I figure "The past is used to excuse the future, and the future
is used to make up for the past, via our present time considerations
that we are failing miserably."
Also the past is WHAT is in restim, but the future is WHY it is in
restim, and the present provides the HOW it is in restim if only we
could see it.
Anyhow on worse thing about the future, I got a very deep covered
in pain item about not having a father old enough to be dead out of the
gate next life time. But it went all over the place, was a good run,
I keep crying about Mira, cold dead crushed body etc, what ever
happened to well and happy human being, I ask you?
How do you live and care deeply and keep it together in this valley
of the shadow of death? They say its a shadow, but man, looks real as
cold dead meat to me.
The difference between an alive thing and a dead thing is almost
unspannable, and the fall between the high of life and the low of death
is as steep and deep as the abyss of sorrow.
This 'I got to be a God' stuff to not puke all day long at what is
going on makes it hard :)
I don't want to be a God (no bias) and I don't want to be a human
(bias). The minute you care (bias) for anything here, your heart is
crucified.
The ANDS are monumental.
Don't want to live forever AND don't want to die forever.
Don't want to BE AND don't want to NOT BE.
I suppose only an AND could drive a GodSoul crazy and keep
persistence in TimeStone (MESTF) going long enough to suffer.
MESTF = Matter, Energy, Space Time and Force.
Below postulates, force is the proxy for cause in the physical
universe.
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
> Hello Homer, another black case here. My auditor (he seems to be back
> online now) asked me some questions about how I mock things up (or don't),
> and started to look like a compulsive not-is of all "present time" scenes,
> objects, etc.. In basic, must know butted up against must not know.
> Already did CCHs and that helped. Doing Dennis' repair of importances
> (with some help to stay focused).
>
> Yes, I used to see dead civil war soldiers in the woods. Timebreaking
> seems to have keyed that out.
>
> Dennis' processes, done as instructed, are not a bandaid, and sometimes the
> patient needs a bandaid too. Maybe they are a bandaid, just that pc
> cannot stay the fidgets when in solo mode.
>
> Running Level 4 To Enhance was a bandaid and helped with livingness,
> key-outs, but not much help to enable me to do the Level 2 instructions
> without mental flights. I feel like a kid with a beautiful new bike and
> cannot ride it. Training wheels?
>
> Okay, back to it. Thank you for the post -- very timely.
>
Tue Jan 29 21:12:27 EST 2013
Wed Oct 3 15:00:04 EDT 2018
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Oct 9 12:00:03 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore933.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)
iD8DBQFdngQEURT1lqxE3HERAuZvAJ99vozNK3u0YIBNBUzU8WHzLZ4uUwCdG+HG
u3HNWpGcQDwiGvviqHBp3Mc=
=IbT1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SESSION NOTES 1/29/2013
OK. I am rollercoastering wildly.
Had a really good run with Jane on,
Get the idea of
Something you want to not be.
Something you want to be.
Something you want to not do.
Something you want to do.
Something you want to not have
Something you want to have.
Something you want to not know.
Something you want to know.
I ran it muzzled Model Session II, with simple OK's as my response,
and tried to stay away from digging for or speaking about specific
things, although of course some came up. Took about 30 minutes to dig
deep.
The process really started to bite on DO *AND* NOT DO.
No specifics but it was clear that EVERYTHING I do is a do AND not
do at the same time. 51.0 percent do, and 49.0 percent not do, and
things get done :)
I run a lot of 'What is right, What is wrong?', because it is
apparent that EVERYTHING I AM DOING IS WRONG.
This led into OFF PURPOSE again, and OPPOSED/OPPOSING, and it would
seem that there are major oppterms in my NOTS casings which are made of
beings still working to die, enslave, etc. They don't want to be this
way most of them, but they think their mother will be skinned and dumped
outside as an ant farm if they don't cooperate with the enslavers.
Simple NOTS (auditing other beings in vicinity) handling alleviates
the term/oppterm tension until the next layer. But I will tell you, its
not the goals in opposition that cause all the problem, its the level of
wild abandon that the overts reached on each side trying to deal with or
wipe out the other, and the collateral damage. Each side has probably
caused more harm to their own side than the other side during this war.
(It is indeed the goals in opposition that cause the problem, but
one might have to dust off the damage first before one can see them
clearly or at all.)
That's the sticky tar the being can't see through or dig his way
out of it, because he will never live it down: "Who killed my cat!"
There is a good possibility he did, while trying to kill the bad
guy's cat, and when its one's own parents, mate, children or teammates
that get killed as unintended collateral damage, it can be a soul
crusher.
Part of my sorrow on Mira, was that she was an experiment on my
part of taking care of a semi wild cat, spade but abandoned. I was
doing it for me, it gave me something to do, and although she
appreciated being fed every day after hunting her down with the radio, I
was in love with the game, so she ended up dead. Of course I also saved
her life at least twice including when she first came to us. But the
self blame remains and leads right down the channel of sorrow. Like
Hubbard said about squeezing the kitten too hard because you adored it
so, freaked it out and it died in your arms. You love the kitten but
the kitten thinks you are a boa, and so buys the farm on credit.
Also on Black V I ran a lot of
"Put a NO mockup there, and not know what it is."
That loosened up things measurably and made it abundantly clear
that blackness is not nothing there but something there.
I think I mentioned already one of the most powerful unlimited
processes there is was:
"Get the idea there is nothing there."
"Get the idea there is something there."
"Get the idea there is no one there."
"Get the idea there is some one there."
The someone/noone grants life, we are auditing elementals after all
that are making the black MEST mockups of the time track.
The two guys who are mocking up the unwanted scene and the
blackness covering it are WAY more important to audit that the unwanted
scene or the blackness taken as mere recording of MEST happenstance.
Yes we care what happened, but we are hiring out the chronic
remindering of the incident to a couple of mercenary mockup creators to
keep it in restim.
This is why humans never solved this problem, they think they are
alone in a dead MEST universe, when in fact their mind and bodies and
every thought are MADE of elemental conscious units BEING those things,
there isn't a dead particle in existence anywhere, and can't be!
Even the experience of death has to be mocked up by a living unit.
Also looking at blackness isn't BEING blackness, remember a being
creates by BEING, *THEN* by standing back and looking at it from 'a
distance'. That scene over there that he can't confront looking at is
really something he daren't BE first.
That's why solo NOTS can be better run as
"WHAT AM I?"
"WHO AM I?"
You and your preclears are being something hideous, so
hideous he can see it as it might kill him.
"If looks could kill, they probably will..."
He also has a lot of pulled in encrustation of unspeakable
monstrosities to keep him contained so he CAN'T BE it and hurt someone.
The monstrosities don't help much as they also act as an endless
motivator that poke him incessantly into becoming and dramatizing what
he is trying not to be.
He has to be willing to BE it, to deal with it safely. and resolve
his AND on whether to BE or NOT BE.
So run the cycle, BE -> SEPARATE -> LOOK AT ACROSS A DISTANCE. The
distance doesn't exist anyhow, its an illusion in consciousness, but the
insertion of that illusion is enough of an alter-is to make the mockup
un as-isable, and unconfrontable. You can always confront what you can
BE, it is the movement from BE-ER to LOOKER and the resulting (illusory)
separation between LOOKER and LOOKED-AT that causes persisting pain, no
matter what the mockup.
Then I started to solo a really long and rough run of:
What is the worst thing about your future?
What is the best thing about your future?
Probably should have run past present and future.
(Its a terrible process as it runs the preclear at effect rather
than as cause, so don't run it as written.)
But I figure "The past is used to excuse the future, and the future
is used to make up for the past, via our present time considerations
that we are failing miserably."
Also the past is WHAT is in restim, but the future is WHY it is in
restim, and the present provides the HOW it is in restim if only we
could see it.
Anyhow on worse thing about the future, I got a very deep covered
in pain item about not having a father old enough to be dead out of the
gate next life time. But it went all over the place, was a good run,
I keep crying about Mira, cold dead crushed body etc, what ever
happened to well and happy human being, I ask you?
How do you live and care deeply and keep it together in this valley
of the shadow of death? They say its a shadow, but man, looks real as
cold dead meat to me.
The difference between an alive thing and a dead thing is almost
unspannable, and the fall between the high of life and the low of death
is as steep and deep as the abyss of sorrow.
This 'I got to be a God' stuff to not puke all day long at what is
going on makes it hard :)
I don't want to be a God (no bias) and I don't want to be a human
(bias). The minute you care (bias) for anything here, your heart is
crucified.
The ANDS are monumental.
Don't want to live forever AND don't want to die forever.
Don't want to BE AND don't want to NOT BE.
I suppose only an AND could drive a GodSoul crazy and keep
persistence in TimeStone (MESTF) going long enough to suffer.
MESTF = Matter, Energy, Space Time and Force.
Below postulates, force is the proxy for cause in the physical
universe.
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
> Hello Homer, another black case here. My auditor (he seems to be back
> online now) asked me some questions about how I mock things up (or don't),
> and started to look like a compulsive not-is of all "present time" scenes,
> objects, etc.. In basic, must know butted up against must not know.
> Already did CCHs and that helped. Doing Dennis' repair of importances
> (with some help to stay focused).
>
> Yes, I used to see dead civil war soldiers in the woods. Timebreaking
> seems to have keyed that out.
>
> Dennis' processes, done as instructed, are not a bandaid, and sometimes the
> patient needs a bandaid too. Maybe they are a bandaid, just that pc
> cannot stay the fidgets when in solo mode.
>
> Running Level 4 To Enhance was a bandaid and helped with livingness,
> key-outs, but not much help to enable me to do the Level 2 instructions
> without mental flights. I feel like a kid with a beautiful new bike and
> cannot ride it. Training wheels?
>
> Okay, back to it. Thank you for the post -- very timely.
>
Tue Jan 29 21:12:27 EST 2013
Wed Oct 3 15:00:04 EDT 2018
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Oct 9 12:00:03 EDT 2019
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore933.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)
iD8DBQFdngQEURT1lqxE3HERAuZvAJ99vozNK3u0YIBNBUzU8WHzLZ4uUwCdG+HG
u3HNWpGcQDwiGvviqHBp3Mc=
=IbT1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)