ON THE WINGS OF THE DICOM III
This posting depends on two earlier postings.
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/ado13.memo
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore85.memo
Homer:
>> Some people, if you don't GIVE them any tech, they don't HAVE any
>> tech. You see the problem with this, right?
XXXXX:
> Well so far my path has been to squirrel around until my TA is at six and
> then my ep is to cave in:-)...
> So I need a better path.
OK, this is a good sign. It means you are missing the real items
on your case, the ones that can kill you. I am in the same shape, and
gain is very hard, but when it comes it is interstellar, then we crash
and burn again.
by the way the items that can kill you are something like,
To cause the death of (forever).
To kill
To Murder etc.
Try running "What would make you real happy to get up and start
killing people forever for free."
That WHAT is the oppterm of your present time truncated (incomplete
GPM).
It is the restraint on acting against that what is that is killing
YOU. Don't forget the ANDS, to kill AND not to kill at the same time.
Don't figure that anyone has it all taped out, they don't. People
who are 'stable' are for the birds, just skating on thin ice, whistling
past the grave yard.
That's why you aren't allowed to SAY anything to them, you might
disturb their pretense of an F/N and turn it into a head lopping R/S.
They would be happier lopping heads, but what would society think?
The computation on the case is why its right to lop heads.
The anti computation on the case is why its not right to lop heads.
The computation and the anti computation together form an AND.
To lop heads AND to not lop heads at the same time.
That's not an indecision, should I lop heads or shouldn't I?
An indecision is idling deciding which way to go.
And AND is a DECISION to BOTH lop heads AND not lop heads at the
same time forever.
That's full power nuts, pedal to the metal.
That he isn't going anywhere, is covered in the dust and smoke from
the spinning burning tires.
Take a look at the negative awareness characteristic chart.
HELP
HOPE
DEMAND FOR IMPROVEMENT
NEED FOR CHANGE
FEAR OF WORSENING
BEING AN EFFECT <- TRYING TO MAKE OTHER'S AN EFFECT AND FAILING
RUIN <- THIS GAME IS RUINED
DESPAIR <- MUST RUN CAN'T RUN
SUFFERING <- TERROR/HORROR
NUMBNESS <- BEING EATEN
INTROVERSION <- QUESTION ASKING, WHATS WRONG WITH ME?
DISASTER <- REVIVS (ALL GAMES ARE RUINED)
INACTUALITY <- NO DISASTER
DELUSION
HYSTERIA <- ANDS
SHOCK <- INCREDIBILITY
CATATONIA <- HEAD BANGING
OBLIVION <- "Who me? What problem?"
You are trying to bring your preclear from under oblivion, (run
nothing there, something there), to HYSTERIA (run ANDS), to INACTUALITY
(run NO PROBLEM, SOME PROBLEM) up to DISASTER and blow the reviv with
dianetics, run the INTROVERSION (spot self answering questions), and get
the guy up to DESPAIR.
Confronting DESPAIR he will find his first God Postulate and end
the must run/can't run. Then pull his overts on trying to win a game by
making other's be the effect, killing, death, murder, the regrets, the
collateral damage, and he becomes free to float up to hope and helping
others.
If they run the GPM properly all the way, they exit the GPM and become neither
interested in lopping heads nor helping those whose heads are being
lopped.
You see freedom from goals isn't human any more.
The polite social human has simply forgotten what he wants to kill.
That's OBLIVION.
So he lives in drugs, sex and rock and roll, and tries to remain
civil until he dies of it, cancer, heart attacks, brain turmors,
whatever.
Poor me, sympathy, sniff, sniff.
Yes that is harsh, wait 'til you meet God, and see what He thinks
of your travail.
Travail is absolutely real inside the context of the GPM, its a
travesty of ludicrous demise outside.
Where ever and however your preclear is choking down the intent to
kill, that part of his body homogenizes and starts to die from the force
and counter force, bubbling rancor.
It helps to have a good auditor, and to be a good auditor, but it
helps most to have someone audit you who knows they are clueless so they
don't force you into wrong items and ways of being.
There are many of worth in the freezone.
>> Take respect and not respect. He respects some things, and
>> doesn't respect other things, and he takes his respect VERY SERIOUSLY.
>> You see, it owns him, he doesn't own it. He isn't free to make things
>> he would not respect and to destroy things he does respect,
>
> So are we talking for the most part about implants, and postulates made
> after an engram that might involve the creation of ser-fac's and new
> valences? I ask because running implants I am comfortable with, I just
> confront and sort of probe them until they as-is, with no process comands at
> all. I have no idea how to run out or spot valences on myself.
Run detested self images, just notice how much you detest them :)
Yeah spot and poof is very good, using pervasion and conductance,
rather than withdrawal and resistence. Life will present the next set
of masses necessary to run, the trick is to the find what they are
about, that's the hard part. One has to sometimes just shut up and
confront them for a LONG time before one gets a glimpse into what they
are about, then they start to come undone and vanish.
One expects human suffering to come from human reasons, that just
ain't right, so the human will find he has no clue while auditing, what
it is about, and once he shuts up about it, it might start presenting
itself to him, if he can handle the dicom.
A valence on oneself is something valuable to you. What part of
you, if it were to be destroyed or endangered, would really be a problem
to you, like you wouldn't exist any more etc.
Those are valences.
What gets your jucies flowing in battle?
What is it that when someone else claims to be good at something,
it just makes you stand up and feel 'how dare you claim to be better at
this than me!' That's the valence you are being at the moment, your most
prized 'expertness'.
What is it that makes you hit the floor running in karate stance?
That's your most detested enemy, your Nemesis One. These two give you
reason to get up in the morning. Morning is a good time to audit them
just after waking. The impulse to get up dramatizes one's whole case.
>> but as a sovereign Creator in control of his own experience as a
>>Creature, he has to be able to make both sides of the wings of the
>>dicom.
> Ok... What is a dicom? Is it a dichotomy?
Yes.
DICOM = DIchotomy of Comparable and Opposite Magnitude.
> >The Void, freedom, lives in the center of the wings.
>
> So you mean something like pan-deterninism?
Yes. Consider the Author. A story of nothing but good people is
boring. A story of nothing but evil people is boring.
The author creates a meticulous interweave of good and evil,
producing art. The good story is not the same thing as the good
character. What makes a character in a story good, is not what makes
the whole story good, it needs both sides of the dicom.
Consider what you are being. Consider what would create what you
are being. That gets you to spot the Creator/Creature dicom.
>> He is parked at the respect end of the wing, trying to be
>> respectable and fighting everything that is not respectable, and thus
>> sliding ever so inexorably towards the other side of the wings.
>> Eventually he becomes an abomination.
>> So you run any process you know that will break the process of
>> dramatization, of taking respect and not respect seriously,
>> permanently, importantly and with pain etc.
>
> Does this mean that just finding dramatizations and running them out with
> any process I like will keep me blowing charge for a few years?
Forever. Yes as long as it is the next dramatization in line that
really needs to be run. If you run too shallow you will get all messed
up, if you run too deep you will scare the living daylights out of your
self and feel you have no permission 'to go there'. If you just remain
open to what you as Creator/Creature show you, the proper ball will land
in your hands and you can run it. Running the item is different than
running WITH the item which is being carried away by the dramatization.
> I would
> like to find something like that, that I can just keep on running and keep
> on getting better instead of wondering what kind of charge do I run next.
One of the primary aberrations in the being is Questions and
Answers.
The very asking of a Question can be a dramatization. The NEED for
answers, the inability to just ask the question and not need an answer
etc. Questions about dramatizations can take you deep into dramatizing,
as they seem so important to answer!
The whole fabric of 'reality' starts to come apart when you start
to spot the dramatizations of questions and answers.
The whole of TROM (a process) is based on
The Goal to Know The Goal to Not Be Known
The Goal to not Know The Goal to Be Known.
It is in the archives under act7x.memo in the homer directory.
The need to blow charge itself forms charge if you start to fail.
One needs to make optimum case gain. Too much and one falters with 'no
permission'. Too little and one starts to panic with 'I am getting no
where and time is running out'.
Check out what drugs people do. Downers are used to stop
case gain that is happening too fast. Uppers are used to speed
up case gain that is happening too slow.
>> You have simple dianetics "Locate an incident of respect/not
>> respect",
>
> If I did that I would run a chain of "respect " and then a chain of "not
> respect" ? They wouldn't both be run together as one dianetic item right?
Well if you are willing to throw off Orthodox Scientology, and just
run with things as they come to you, you can run a lot of bank in a very
short period of time. particularly if you start running the *MASSES*
and the efforts that make them through out the day, without worrying
about specific events or 'memories'.
The being is living life like "I respect this, I don't respect
that", tick tock, tick tock, every day, all day, 24 hours a day, even in
his dreams. You can quickly see that they form a tightly interwoven
stream of charge, like the DNA helix, that goes back from present time
into the past, and also into the future.
Where he respects something but can't have it, he has charge, where
he doesn't respect something but has to have it, he has charge.
So they form a sort of long term continuous spiral of mass into the
past, that ranges in intensity from light locks to heavy death efforts.
What you respect and don't respect can get you killed and make you kill
others, and get yourself killed in the name of the cause etc.
Same is true of any dicom.
And then you have your masses, your BT's masses, THEIR BT's masses,
the body's masses, and everyone else's masses all doing the same damn
thing, DNA helix back into the past and into the future on respect and
not respect.
The future isn't hard to audit if you just understand that the guy
is concerned about losses that WILL happen just as bad as about losses
that HAVE happened. There is much more charge on the future than on the
past. Engrams from the past only charge up BECAUSE of the future.
Try "How do you feel about your eternal future?"
If you contact one of these things properly, like I mean its really
the next item you need to run because your whole life is dramatizing it
etc, your needle will cascade down to 2.5 and float for *HOURS* and
produce a smile you can't wipe off your face.
Can you imagine being in love again with the AllThatIS?
Then the next item will kick in and your TA will go to 6 and stay
there for a year until you find it.
>> you have all the Grades, Comm, problems, withholds, arc
>> breaks, make wrongs, service fac computations on the subjects of
>> respect and not respect, and everyone else's also. You have goals and
>> terminals on respect and not respect
>
> But where can I find the comands for running goals and terminals, as I
> mentioned I have never done the clearing course?
Forget that. The clearing course is a lot of spotting on weird
GPMS. Its a lot of eval. You don't need it. Its on the net if you
really want to know about it, but Hubbard sold it as if it were the end
all of aberration.
The commands of the clearing course are merely to spot the given
items until the meter no longer reads. So its spot and poof again.
You don't need any other 'process', and the items that you need to run
are right in front of your face and life, not on the clearing course.
In looking for a process, you are looking for what question to ask
or what subject to broach. Questions are bad for you, so take a look
at what subject to broach. Who or what do you want to kill? Once you
spot the WHAT, the class of whos, the whole thing starts to come apart
on its own.
Spot where you are dying, spot what kill/death/murder is being
suppressed, don't ask what, just look at it until you see it, and then
watch the whole game come apart in fury and surprise.
> and you have the whole CDEINR
>> scale on respect and not respect.
>
> So for example, if "curious about not respect" got a read, I would run
> "curious about not respect" earlier similar to EP and then run "respect" the
> same way? Or would I have to check for a read on each terminal seporately.
> Which would mean that I might be running only one terminal if the other
> didn't read??
You seem to be very 'into' standard Scn procedure which was
developed so that one person can help another in a very standard rote
way.
Me, I can never run E/S, because my memory as such does not work
at all. In fact I balk at any 'remember at time' type commands.
When I found the respect/not respect item for myself, I ran it very
simply on the meter for a while with,
"What do you respect?"
"What do you not respect?"
"Spot something you do not respect"
"Spot something you respect"
Then it became ludicrous as I SAW the masses created by the real
time dramatization of respect
and not respect.
I also saw that asking the QUESTIONS above was just more
dramatization, and that it was more important for me to simply keep an
eye on how I was dramatizing in real time than to ask any question about
it or run any rote commmand on it. That isn't DOING IT.
Running 'What do I respect or not respect' is not
respecting or not respecting, do you see?
The solution to dramatizing A, is not to ask questions about
dramatizing A because question asking is dramatizing B. Asking
questions helps at first, but then one just gets into the grove of
DOING IT, of DOING A and watching DOING A and watching the masses
vanish and cease to affect you and drive you into further
dramatization.
So instead I would run today:
"Spot something you respect"
"Spot something you do not respect."
Or even,
"Get the idea of respecting something".
"Get the idea of not respecting something."
>> You also have Adorian stair cases like
>>
>> The Beauty of Respect
>> The Ugly of Respect
>> The Beauty of No Respect
>> The Ugly of No Respect
>
> What is "Adorian stair cases" , never heard of it before?
ADORE is my own religion.
It stands for A Divine Operating REligion.
A staircase is like a descending tone scale.
The guy starts off with
The Beauty of Memory. Then he does something bad and goes to
The Ugly of Memory. Then he does a lot of drugs and goes to
The Beauty of No Memory. Then he realizes he can't remember anything
any more and goes into
The Ugly of No Memory, and wants auditing!
There is lots of stuff on this in the homer directory of the
archives.
>> So that adds up to about 2 million different 'processes' to run
>> on the pc and his items, so you choose the one that indicates.
>>
>> Simply "What do you respect?", "What do you not respect?" is
>> enough to break into the dramatization while it is going on and kick
>> the being upstairs to Creator/Author and away from Creature/Character.
>
> And that would of course be run alternating comands right?
Yeah, for me when I hit the item, I ran it back and forth,
listing each question until the next one became interesting, then back
to the first one again. Nothing was run rote, too much energy to keep
composure and anality about being rote etc.
I just kept at which ever side of the dicom was interesting at
the moment.
> I was just reading about the "Over Under" process and the author of the
> posting said that it probably wouldn't run well on solo. So are ther
> certain types of processes that shouldn't be run solo?
Don't know. It takes a really deep understanding of why
processing works to understand what makes a solo process work well.
Most processes aren't things you would do to your worst enemy,
but they get the pc to cough up or vomit up items that the pc can then
run. The pc doesn't consciously know how to pervade, and he doesn't
know that he SHOULD pervade, and he is quite sure he shouldn't
pervade, so you trick him into pervading anyhow by getting him to tell
you about the accident over and over again.
"Go to the beginning of the incident, tell me when you are there."
Running this solo is like putting your nose to the grindstone.
Forget it. If you have an item, real solo auditing is more like
doing a touch assist on your space/time track, all around over and
under the incident. Certainly you don't tell yourself 'Go to the
beginning tell me when you are there!'. You poke around from
beginning to end and before and after and all over the known universe
including other's incidents until its flat for you. If you try to run
R3R rotely on yourself, you are taking your attention off of doing
what is actually working to release the incident which is pervasion
and replication of the efforts and postulates.
Again *LOOKING* and *NOT LOOKING* is much more effective than
looking for a *QUESTION* to ask. Look at your life, spot the
dramatizations. Don't look for questions to ask ABOUT your life. AS-IS
takes place at the level of knowingness, not at the level of knowing
aboutness (questions/answers).
People who know alot about what questions to audit others with,
tend to be in lousy case state themselves, even if they can help others.
Because they can not pervade, they can only ask questions, and although
asking another a question, in the beginning, will help him pervade in
spite of himself, asking oneself a question takes one further away from
pervading the dramatization.
Once one gets good at pervading, one will shoot any auditor that
asks questions of you because questions are Q&A with just simply DOING
IT.
Asking "What am I dramatizing now?" is rhetorically correct, but
lousy solo because the answer is "You are dramatizing asking a stupid
question about your GPMs, rather than dramatizing the GPM and SEEING
what you are doing!"
The guy asking "What am I dramatizing now?" isn't dramtizing what
he is looking for, so how is he going to see it?
Better to just give the command,
"Dramatize your next item!"
"Tell me about it.
If the pc says "But I don't know what my next item is, how can I
dramatize it?" tell him to shut the fuck up and dramatize his next item!
He is trying to look at himself doing it, that won't work, as that
is putting separation in there between the pc and his item. FIRST get
him to dramatize it, THEN in retrospect he can start to put separation
in himself and report back what he is doing.
Asking questions about what one is doing, is not DOING IT.
You need to DO IT and OBSERVE DOING IT to as-is dramtization. No
questions are needed at all.
>> We want the being willing and able to artistically make both
>> sides of all dicoms, good and evil, light and dark, love and hate etc.
>> The Creator as Author creates tapestries of space/time manifestations
>> of these dicoms at war with each other.
>> God is not good. God is Author. Creatures/Characters are good
>> or evil, and to the degree that they take themselves seriously,
>> permanently, importantly and with pain, they lose. Because there is
>> no willingness to create the other side. Once the Good get the idea
>> "Hey lets create some evil so we can have a game!" they are no longer
>> good, they are Author again. That is the final E/P of all auditing.
>
> Sounds great!
> Are there items that can't be run as terminals? I mean can ideas and
> concepts and mest things all be run as terminals?
Terminals are solid masses that are being something.
A Teacher with the Goal to Teach is a terminal.
They are identities, valences, taken on by the being to resist
everything that he considers bad in the world and which shouldn't
exist, ignorance, stupidity, dufussness, whatever opposes The Teacher
in his mind.
Items can be terminals like Teacher, Goals like To Teach, or just
relationships between Teach and Taught like respect. Run Whatever
comes up. It's important to get the terminals, the goals and the
attitudes (like respect/not respect) that glue the being to his
Nemesis One.
All are runnable and must be run with spot and poof.
But notice it is way more important to get the WHAT than the WHO.
Mrs. Jones was a nut case, but she was a TEACHER and the GPM is on
TEACHERS not Mrs. Jones.
>> It doesn't matter WHO you audit, yourself, your body, your
>> friends, your families, bugs, animals, universes, gods, BT's, etc.
>> Everyone is dramatizing. Wherever you can get a wedge in that
>> dramatization, no matter who it is, you free someone from something.
>> The point is to find deep items,
>
> By "deep" do you mean items that are basic or fundimental to life, right?
Yes. Items that underlie EVERYTHING, like respect, choice,
willingness etc.
Doesn't matter whether the guy is being a Teacher or a Soldier,
respect is applicable to both. Probably there isn't a terminal in the
universe that doesn't have respect/not respect underlying it. So if you
manage to hit one of these types of items, relationships between
terminal and opposed, it will run out the charge of ALL terminals and
opposed terminals at once without ever knowing what they are!
That makes it much easier to run the actual terminals later
when they do pop up, which they will.
I can't tell you what item you need to run next, you will find
it, and even if you tell it to others, it won't be their next item
either, even if it is fundamental. But as each being runs his own
items, the whole fabric of encasement between beings starts to come
apart.
>>for example just for yuks, try
>> 1.) Respect - Not Respect
>> 2.) Chosen - Not Chosen
>> 3.) Benefit - Detriment
>>
>> Spot them in operation, that is the basic 'process'. Everything
>> more complicated than that is rote mechanical auditing that works and
>> serves its purpose but eventually is just so much dev-t, to a mind
>> that can make and not make at will.
>
> Yes, so I would eventually hope to just run the terminals by confront with
> no comands?
Yes. I would discriminate between questions and commands.
Asking a pc "What are you dramatizing?" is a question.
Telling the pc "Dramatize!" "Tell me about it!" is a command.
When you first wake up, notice the commands you give to 'Live your
life.' Notice the seriousness, importance, permanence and pain of your
concerns about the future. Fear and Need.
Notice the interweave of your postulates and how you are just SURE
they are right because you OBSERVE they are right, rather than change
your mind and have it be otherwise because you are a Creator that
precipitates everything you conceive of in the very conception of it.
Again one needs to change one's mind in the right order, the next
postulate in line that needs to be reversed is waiting for you to spot
it. These are called God Postulates by Adore, because you CAN change
your mind about them, and alter your entire future effortlessly. But
try to change them out of order, and they all hang up and freeze you on
a Cross of pride and shame.
So the auditing game is to continue spotting your dramatizations in
present time, your get up and gos with seriousness, and in those
dramatizations and the reason for their existence, spot the God
Postulates that you believe are true because you observe they are true,
when in fact they are true only because in the moment you say they are.
Once you find one of these, and you change your mind on them,
the POWER that is yours at that moment is unfathomable.
We aren't talking 'well and happy human being here'.
We are talking something else that makes a well and happy human
being worry about permission and places that Angels dare not tread and
Gods go screaming for their mama.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jan 29 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore86.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)
iD4DBQFeMboUURT1lqxE3HERAi0tAKCY/kTl0VlOLdNf9jBTLq9yCwDXPwCY41dE
RFSQJ4eGfliFjqvsUk3g/w==
=Q0yl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, January 30, 2020
ADORE282 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
OVERWHELM
Rogers. D.Scn. (The_Bindu@NOSPAMmsn.com) wrote:
>"Homer Wilson Smith" <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in message
>> Find someone to run on you for a few sessions:
>>
>> "Get the viewpoint of being overwhelmed."
>> "Get how it feels."
>> "Get the viewpoint of not being overwhelmed."
>> "Get how it feels."
>>
>> Its probably an unlimited process, can be run forever with gain.
>Ian, that is a non-LRH process, and it sure doesn't look like a good process
>to me.
Apparently you have never run it to EP.
Mostly when pro Scn people put down Freezone tech, they have
never used it. So they speak much about what they don't know.
*I* however have had hundreds of hours of church and flag
auditing all for *NOTHING*.
>I think Homer's entire suggestion is like a bad joke (with bad tech to
>boot). "Find somebody to run on you...?" The joke begins there. Let's
>assume you yourself had a real grip on what auditing is and how it is
>conducted, what you gonna do, get a neighbor to sit across from you and then
>YOU feed them instructions on how to audit you and what to say next? It's
>preposterous.
No it isn't. Anyhow I wrote the C/S for the guy, so I have
handed it to him and told him to get someone to run it on him.
>But that process itself? Geezus! It seems to me the equivalent of:
> "Get the viewpoint of having a needle stuck in your eye."
> "Get how it feels."
> "Get the viewpoint of not having a needle stuck in your eye."
> "Get how it feels."
Good process.
> "Now go cut your throat."
Bad process, and an additive.
The process derives directly from Description Processing.
"Tell me how does it seem to you now."
The item is 'it', it can and should be listed for rather than use
overwhelm per se, but overwhelm is the item mentioned by the dude in
question, so I put it in there.
It differs from description processesing in that it runs 'it' and
'not it' back and forth.
"How does being overwhelmed seem to you now?"
"How does not being overwhelmed seem to you now?"
Also it allows the pc to 'get' the feeling without having
to TALK about it unless he wants to.
It is also a form of postulate processing. We know the guy is
overwhelmed, and probably looking for a why etc. This process gets
him to simply mockup NOT being overwhelmed, wherein he runs into a lot
of stuff, charge, masses, postulates and all the why's fall out of it
wholesale.
It is a very good process, probably one of the best, simplest and
most powerful for those really interested in going OT.
It is however a long run, not just one session, and all kinds of
fireworks from MEST to philosophy will blow up from the run.
Homer
>Les.
Sun Oct 5 20:10:47 EDT 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jan 28 12:00:05 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore282.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)
iD8DBQFeMGiVURT1lqxE3HERAqSCAKCjKHGEZFEzFySlpq7NjFSrsecpDwCfaR76
uxH7KRWbs/9aHbRlTQH81t8=
=wJk4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
OVERWHELM
Rogers. D.Scn. (The_Bindu@NOSPAMmsn.com) wrote:
>"Homer Wilson Smith" <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in message
>> Find someone to run on you for a few sessions:
>>
>> "Get the viewpoint of being overwhelmed."
>> "Get how it feels."
>> "Get the viewpoint of not being overwhelmed."
>> "Get how it feels."
>>
>> Its probably an unlimited process, can be run forever with gain.
>Ian, that is a non-LRH process, and it sure doesn't look like a good process
>to me.
Apparently you have never run it to EP.
Mostly when pro Scn people put down Freezone tech, they have
never used it. So they speak much about what they don't know.
*I* however have had hundreds of hours of church and flag
auditing all for *NOTHING*.
>I think Homer's entire suggestion is like a bad joke (with bad tech to
>boot). "Find somebody to run on you...?" The joke begins there. Let's
>assume you yourself had a real grip on what auditing is and how it is
>conducted, what you gonna do, get a neighbor to sit across from you and then
>YOU feed them instructions on how to audit you and what to say next? It's
>preposterous.
No it isn't. Anyhow I wrote the C/S for the guy, so I have
handed it to him and told him to get someone to run it on him.
>But that process itself? Geezus! It seems to me the equivalent of:
> "Get the viewpoint of having a needle stuck in your eye."
> "Get how it feels."
> "Get the viewpoint of not having a needle stuck in your eye."
> "Get how it feels."
Good process.
> "Now go cut your throat."
Bad process, and an additive.
The process derives directly from Description Processing.
"Tell me how does it seem to you now."
The item is 'it', it can and should be listed for rather than use
overwhelm per se, but overwhelm is the item mentioned by the dude in
question, so I put it in there.
It differs from description processesing in that it runs 'it' and
'not it' back and forth.
"How does being overwhelmed seem to you now?"
"How does not being overwhelmed seem to you now?"
Also it allows the pc to 'get' the feeling without having
to TALK about it unless he wants to.
It is also a form of postulate processing. We know the guy is
overwhelmed, and probably looking for a why etc. This process gets
him to simply mockup NOT being overwhelmed, wherein he runs into a lot
of stuff, charge, masses, postulates and all the why's fall out of it
wholesale.
It is a very good process, probably one of the best, simplest and
most powerful for those really interested in going OT.
It is however a long run, not just one session, and all kinds of
fireworks from MEST to philosophy will blow up from the run.
Homer
>Les.
Sun Oct 5 20:10:47 EDT 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jan 28 12:00:05 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore282.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)
iD8DBQFeMGiVURT1lqxE3HERAqSCAKCjKHGEZFEzFySlpq7NjFSrsecpDwCfaR76
uxH7KRWbs/9aHbRlTQH81t8=
=wJk4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADOR1048 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TWO OTs - SCIENTOLOGY GRADE III PART II
SCIENTOLOGY GRADE III Part I
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/ador1047.memo
SCIENTOLOGY GRADE III Part II
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/ador1048.memo
SCIENTOLOGY GRADE III Part III
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/ador1049.memo
So say OT A does something terrible to OT B.
OT A has the CAUSAL postulate "I have done you in."
OT B has the CAUSAL postulate "You have done me in."
These two postulates lock up with each other due to agreement and
zero responsibility on the part of either of them, to produce a
persisting situation of
1.) damage to OT B,
2.) blame of OT A by OT B for the damage done, and
3.) regret of OT A about doing damage to OT B.
OT A considers HE is responsible for the damage, that OT B had
zero responsibility for letting OT A into OT B's world.
OT B considers OT A is responsible for his damage, that he had zero
responsibility for letting OT A into OT B's world.
Total agreement on zero responsibility and two strikes and you are
out.
So both OT A and OT B have a persisting upset about each other.
OT A is upset with himself, and OT B is upset with OT A.
This lock down of upsets creates a hell forever for both OT A and
OT B.
For OT A that hell consists of regret forever and hatred of
himself.
For OT B that hell consists of hatred of OT A forever.
These forevers are in time, which is what makes the joke so heavy
and so ludicrous, because no one is at time = 0 any more.
So an auditor comes a long and grabs OT A by the neck and puts him
in the chair and runs Hubbard's Black V process, modified by the need of
the moment.
"What part of this could you take FULL pan determined
responsibility for?"
Figure out some way to run this without what questions unless the
preclear can answer them.
Pan determined means causing both sides of a game, like playing
chess against yourself because you can't get a date.
"What part of this could you allow OT B to take FULL pan determined
responsibility for?"
Now you have two OT's playing both sides of the SAME chess game.
You see pandeterminism isn't just a matter of causing both sides of
the game, it is also a matter of WILLINGNESS to have caused, and let the
other guy also have caused, it doesn't matter at all WHO caused it
originally.
Originally, in this case, means time NOT equal to zero, because
originally implies the consideration that the persisting problem was
caused IN THE PAST.
Time 0 is always NOW, regardless of how 'long ago' something was
originally created in its original time = 0.
If you think time = 0 was a million years ago, then you will be
looking for time = 0 in your facsimiles of back then, rather than at
time = 0 NOW.
That is in part why auditing the past via facsimiles is a waste of
time = 0, and auditing fails or is limited at best.
You don't want to know what he DID, you want to know what he is
DOING, which is mostly mucking around with facsimiles NOW of what he
DID!
He is not suffering from what he DID, he is suffering from his
facsimiles NOW of what he did, everyone of which has a wrong time tab on
it because its not time = 0 NOW.
Facsimiles give the illusion that the correct time = 0 for any
creation is in the past!
Ransacking facsimiles gives you a face full of ransacked
facsimilies.
That's cool if you want to impress your girlfriend with it and gain
her sympathy.
If you want to as-is your facsimile time track, spot its creation,
its moment of time = 0, in the NOW.
It's right there in front of you nose, just LOOK for it in the
operation of it.
It may take a bit to be there when it most needs for you to be
there to as-is it, but that's better than being stuck with it forever
trying to date and locate it.
The creation of the time track is not recorded in the time track!
And so we have willingness at the bottom of the auditing stack, and
the result of cleared willingness which is change.
1.) RESPONSIBILITY
2.) CREATION
3.) PROBLEMS
4.) HELP (audit this stack)
5.) CHANGE (postulate lockups come apart)
6.) WILLINGNESS (to be cause and have others be cause)
Audit from the bottom up.
Grade III clears willingness, willingess to face the eternal
future.
Anyone can jump in the seat of a run away car, grab the steering
wheel, and bring it to a controlled halt.
It just doesn't matter who started it, and asking that question is
a waste of time not equal to 0.
If YOU recreate time = 0, well you ARE STARTING IT, present time =
0, and when you let go of it, its gone as if never created, no memory,
no lessons learned, no must not happen again, no being careful next
time, no warning/punishing others, no being leary of being cause or
allowing others to be cause.
Running full responsibility, suddenly OT A is looking at time = 0
when he let OT B into his world and OT B let OT A into his world.
AND THEY SHOOK HANDS AND UNANIMOUSLY INVITED EACH OTHER IN AND
AGREED TO BE IN EACH OTHER'S WORLD.
An invite is an as-isness of the time = 0 postulate to put
something there and/or to consider that a particular posted thing can be
cause over some other posted thing and visa versa.
Without invite nothing can be created at all, for invite is the
invite for the created thing TO BE THERE.
That's called 'putting it there' or posting it there.
Once invited to be there a loss of direct awareness of that invite
by considering now is a different moment of time later, will cause
anything to persist forever.
This is not magic, persistence of postulate A is caused by a second
postulate B that one must postulate MORE in order to vanish postulate A.
So chasing postulating MORE, prepostulates that A is true,
and won't vanish on its own.
Postulating MORE is called chase.
And chasing starts at time greater than 0!
Thus the being is chasing a solution to the existence of A at time
= 0, by running down the time track time > 0, for the rest of time.
And not being any more at time = 0, the being won't be able to
vanish A and it won't vanish by itself.
The being is WELDED to creating A continuously by the postulate
that A won't simply vanish on its own, but needs some more things
postulated to help vanish A forever!
Postulate 0 at time = 0: A IS
Postulate 1 at time = 1: I don't want A but A is still there and
won't vanish on its own.
Postulate 2 at time = 2: I must postulate B, C, D etc to get rid
of A.
Good luck.
Putting A there, and then chasing putting OTHER things there in
order to get rid of A, is not the same as putting A there and letting
go, wherein A will vanish on its own.
Postulate 1 is called a prepostulate because it prepostulates that
A exists, which causes it to exist over and over again.
Postulate 1 is also filled with poison postulates like "Where did A
come from!, I didn't make A, I don't want A, who ordered or invited A?"
and other zero responsibility gimmicks to keep postulate 0 being
repostulated over and over again, while he figures out what to DO about
A!
The proof of invite is only available at time = 0 with postulate 0.
By the time he gets to postulate 1, he is no longer in contact with
postulate 0 and the invite, by direct perception, so he postulates he
didn't make an invite at all.
So the persistence of A becomes self proving, "you see its 10
thousand years later, and A is still there."
Every time he looks for A, he puts it there, and says "yep,
A's still there, I told you A won't vanish on its own, gotta keep
looking for a solution to the persistence of A.
A is self vanishing, why is he looking then for something to help
him vanish A?
He is doing this to make sure A doesn't vanish, thus giving
him a game to play of vanquishing A.
A will outlast the being.
And when a being's postulates out last the being MAKING THEM, you
know you got a problem on your hands.
The being nervously looks around to see if the original invite to A
has his signature on it, breathes a sign of relief when he can't find
the invite (because he doesn't want to), and thus can't be blamed for
the existence and persistence of A.
Some relief, for now his hell is having A forever, and chasing
doing something about it.
Admired original invite will vanish anything, because in part it
is taking full responsibility without added significance of shame, blame
or regret for having invited and put the thing there in the first place.
Admired original invite.
Knowing willing cause with full awareness of the consequences.
Don't go near it, if you want to keep your suffering around.
So in session with our auditor, OT A finally seeing time = 0 on the
matter, vanishes the postulate "I can affect you without your say so and
without your desire that I do", and suddenly OT A's regret vanishes into
humor.
At the same time B's postulates vanish that he can be the effect of
OT A, and both are now out of hell.
Notice the auditor only had to audit one of them to break the lock
down, doesn't matter which one.
It takes two to get locked in hell, and if either one takes full
responsibility for both sides, and the zero responsibilities involved,
the hell simply vanishes like an as-isness, because it has just been
as-ised.
But contacting that time = 0 is critically important to get rid of
the causal postulates that each can cause the other harm.
If someone says "You have harmed me", and you agree that you have
harmed them, they and you have harmeed *YOU*.
When you take full responsibility for something, not by owning up
to having caused it in the past, but in CAUSING IT NOW, admiring,
inviting and putting it there, it becomes yours, no matter who
originally did it.
The aesthetic of it being yours completely heals all wounds.
"Clear laughter is all the kind justice there is, and all the
justice you will ever need forever, for real.
This thing ain't called a religion for nothing." - Adore.com
Seeking forgiveness continues the postulate that OTHERS can't heal
themselves via the same mechanism.
"Man if someone did that to me, I would be pissed, so I can see why
they are pissed at me for doing it to them", you see victim, victim,
victim...
And this, although human, actually solidifies THEM in their own
mispostulate of victimness, because you are not a human, and neither are
they, you are both OTs.
Thus when an OT worries about others needing his help, they need
his help more, because OTs create in the mere conception of things.
And so no, they will never 'forgive you', once they get it however,
they will send you awards and accolades for the brilliance of your work
of doing them in, they couldn't have done it without your help, and you
will return the favor in like kind.
Your greatest laugh will be when you resolve what they did to you.
That's High Halcyon on the verge of time, High Appreciation for
Ludicrous Demise. -Adore.com
You see (my clarifications in brackets):
"There is no compromise with full responsibility.
It lies above 20.0 on the tone scale, and is descended from in
order to effect [the apparency of] randomity [and other cause], but is
descended from with the full knowledge of its assumptions [and
consequences]." LRH Advanced Procedure and Axioms, page 57.
Still the coolest words ever written.
TONE SCALE
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/electra/tone.memo
That's why people hate LRH by the way, they can't stand the idea
that life is the illusion that there is other cause than your own.
There is other cause, but only if you cause it to be so and invite
it in and it accepts and invites you back :)
On some worlds that's called FRIENDING.
And you can take that invite and it's granted cause back, through
the process of auditing out the times you gave it away to others, and
cemented it in place through shame, blame and regret/guilt.
That's called UNFRIENDING.
DEFRIENDING or debonding is when you remain further down in shame,
blame and regret creating the illusion of no further connection between
the two of you, when in fact both of you are held together like glue
from your hate and wish the other didn't exist.
UNFRIENDING is what this posting is about, because one starts to
take cause over one's life back from others during the auditing of Grade
III.
The only way to handle a prime upset in a Homo Novis, is to admit
you are causing it and know how to stop doing that.
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
Tue Sep 11 20:44:46 EDT 2018
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jan 26 12:00:05 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1048.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)
iD8DBQFeLcWVURT1lqxE3HERAtDyAJ9A7PzZy1U1AkdduIe14PNgG4b4WgCglexF
cv5ZdZhVzQdYNAlJhc2Xsbw=
=1K5L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TWO OTs - SCIENTOLOGY GRADE III PART II
SCIENTOLOGY GRADE III Part I
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/ador1047.memo
SCIENTOLOGY GRADE III Part II
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/ador1048.memo
SCIENTOLOGY GRADE III Part III
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/homer/ador1049.memo
So say OT A does something terrible to OT B.
OT A has the CAUSAL postulate "I have done you in."
OT B has the CAUSAL postulate "You have done me in."
These two postulates lock up with each other due to agreement and
zero responsibility on the part of either of them, to produce a
persisting situation of
1.) damage to OT B,
2.) blame of OT A by OT B for the damage done, and
3.) regret of OT A about doing damage to OT B.
OT A considers HE is responsible for the damage, that OT B had
zero responsibility for letting OT A into OT B's world.
OT B considers OT A is responsible for his damage, that he had zero
responsibility for letting OT A into OT B's world.
Total agreement on zero responsibility and two strikes and you are
out.
So both OT A and OT B have a persisting upset about each other.
OT A is upset with himself, and OT B is upset with OT A.
This lock down of upsets creates a hell forever for both OT A and
OT B.
For OT A that hell consists of regret forever and hatred of
himself.
For OT B that hell consists of hatred of OT A forever.
These forevers are in time, which is what makes the joke so heavy
and so ludicrous, because no one is at time = 0 any more.
So an auditor comes a long and grabs OT A by the neck and puts him
in the chair and runs Hubbard's Black V process, modified by the need of
the moment.
"What part of this could you take FULL pan determined
responsibility for?"
Figure out some way to run this without what questions unless the
preclear can answer them.
Pan determined means causing both sides of a game, like playing
chess against yourself because you can't get a date.
"What part of this could you allow OT B to take FULL pan determined
responsibility for?"
Now you have two OT's playing both sides of the SAME chess game.
You see pandeterminism isn't just a matter of causing both sides of
the game, it is also a matter of WILLINGNESS to have caused, and let the
other guy also have caused, it doesn't matter at all WHO caused it
originally.
Originally, in this case, means time NOT equal to zero, because
originally implies the consideration that the persisting problem was
caused IN THE PAST.
Time 0 is always NOW, regardless of how 'long ago' something was
originally created in its original time = 0.
If you think time = 0 was a million years ago, then you will be
looking for time = 0 in your facsimiles of back then, rather than at
time = 0 NOW.
That is in part why auditing the past via facsimiles is a waste of
time = 0, and auditing fails or is limited at best.
You don't want to know what he DID, you want to know what he is
DOING, which is mostly mucking around with facsimiles NOW of what he
DID!
He is not suffering from what he DID, he is suffering from his
facsimiles NOW of what he did, everyone of which has a wrong time tab on
it because its not time = 0 NOW.
Facsimiles give the illusion that the correct time = 0 for any
creation is in the past!
Ransacking facsimiles gives you a face full of ransacked
facsimilies.
That's cool if you want to impress your girlfriend with it and gain
her sympathy.
If you want to as-is your facsimile time track, spot its creation,
its moment of time = 0, in the NOW.
It's right there in front of you nose, just LOOK for it in the
operation of it.
It may take a bit to be there when it most needs for you to be
there to as-is it, but that's better than being stuck with it forever
trying to date and locate it.
The creation of the time track is not recorded in the time track!
And so we have willingness at the bottom of the auditing stack, and
the result of cleared willingness which is change.
1.) RESPONSIBILITY
2.) CREATION
3.) PROBLEMS
4.) HELP (audit this stack)
5.) CHANGE (postulate lockups come apart)
6.) WILLINGNESS (to be cause and have others be cause)
Audit from the bottom up.
Grade III clears willingness, willingess to face the eternal
future.
Anyone can jump in the seat of a run away car, grab the steering
wheel, and bring it to a controlled halt.
It just doesn't matter who started it, and asking that question is
a waste of time not equal to 0.
If YOU recreate time = 0, well you ARE STARTING IT, present time =
0, and when you let go of it, its gone as if never created, no memory,
no lessons learned, no must not happen again, no being careful next
time, no warning/punishing others, no being leary of being cause or
allowing others to be cause.
Running full responsibility, suddenly OT A is looking at time = 0
when he let OT B into his world and OT B let OT A into his world.
AND THEY SHOOK HANDS AND UNANIMOUSLY INVITED EACH OTHER IN AND
AGREED TO BE IN EACH OTHER'S WORLD.
An invite is an as-isness of the time = 0 postulate to put
something there and/or to consider that a particular posted thing can be
cause over some other posted thing and visa versa.
Without invite nothing can be created at all, for invite is the
invite for the created thing TO BE THERE.
That's called 'putting it there' or posting it there.
Once invited to be there a loss of direct awareness of that invite
by considering now is a different moment of time later, will cause
anything to persist forever.
This is not magic, persistence of postulate A is caused by a second
postulate B that one must postulate MORE in order to vanish postulate A.
So chasing postulating MORE, prepostulates that A is true,
and won't vanish on its own.
Postulating MORE is called chase.
And chasing starts at time greater than 0!
Thus the being is chasing a solution to the existence of A at time
= 0, by running down the time track time > 0, for the rest of time.
And not being any more at time = 0, the being won't be able to
vanish A and it won't vanish by itself.
The being is WELDED to creating A continuously by the postulate
that A won't simply vanish on its own, but needs some more things
postulated to help vanish A forever!
Postulate 0 at time = 0: A IS
Postulate 1 at time = 1: I don't want A but A is still there and
won't vanish on its own.
Postulate 2 at time = 2: I must postulate B, C, D etc to get rid
of A.
Good luck.
Putting A there, and then chasing putting OTHER things there in
order to get rid of A, is not the same as putting A there and letting
go, wherein A will vanish on its own.
Postulate 1 is called a prepostulate because it prepostulates that
A exists, which causes it to exist over and over again.
Postulate 1 is also filled with poison postulates like "Where did A
come from!, I didn't make A, I don't want A, who ordered or invited A?"
and other zero responsibility gimmicks to keep postulate 0 being
repostulated over and over again, while he figures out what to DO about
A!
The proof of invite is only available at time = 0 with postulate 0.
By the time he gets to postulate 1, he is no longer in contact with
postulate 0 and the invite, by direct perception, so he postulates he
didn't make an invite at all.
So the persistence of A becomes self proving, "you see its 10
thousand years later, and A is still there."
Every time he looks for A, he puts it there, and says "yep,
A's still there, I told you A won't vanish on its own, gotta keep
looking for a solution to the persistence of A.
A is self vanishing, why is he looking then for something to help
him vanish A?
He is doing this to make sure A doesn't vanish, thus giving
him a game to play of vanquishing A.
A will outlast the being.
And when a being's postulates out last the being MAKING THEM, you
know you got a problem on your hands.
The being nervously looks around to see if the original invite to A
has his signature on it, breathes a sign of relief when he can't find
the invite (because he doesn't want to), and thus can't be blamed for
the existence and persistence of A.
Some relief, for now his hell is having A forever, and chasing
doing something about it.
Admired original invite will vanish anything, because in part it
is taking full responsibility without added significance of shame, blame
or regret for having invited and put the thing there in the first place.
Admired original invite.
Knowing willing cause with full awareness of the consequences.
Don't go near it, if you want to keep your suffering around.
So in session with our auditor, OT A finally seeing time = 0 on the
matter, vanishes the postulate "I can affect you without your say so and
without your desire that I do", and suddenly OT A's regret vanishes into
humor.
At the same time B's postulates vanish that he can be the effect of
OT A, and both are now out of hell.
Notice the auditor only had to audit one of them to break the lock
down, doesn't matter which one.
It takes two to get locked in hell, and if either one takes full
responsibility for both sides, and the zero responsibilities involved,
the hell simply vanishes like an as-isness, because it has just been
as-ised.
But contacting that time = 0 is critically important to get rid of
the causal postulates that each can cause the other harm.
If someone says "You have harmed me", and you agree that you have
harmed them, they and you have harmeed *YOU*.
When you take full responsibility for something, not by owning up
to having caused it in the past, but in CAUSING IT NOW, admiring,
inviting and putting it there, it becomes yours, no matter who
originally did it.
The aesthetic of it being yours completely heals all wounds.
"Clear laughter is all the kind justice there is, and all the
justice you will ever need forever, for real.
This thing ain't called a religion for nothing." - Adore.com
Seeking forgiveness continues the postulate that OTHERS can't heal
themselves via the same mechanism.
"Man if someone did that to me, I would be pissed, so I can see why
they are pissed at me for doing it to them", you see victim, victim,
victim...
And this, although human, actually solidifies THEM in their own
mispostulate of victimness, because you are not a human, and neither are
they, you are both OTs.
Thus when an OT worries about others needing his help, they need
his help more, because OTs create in the mere conception of things.
And so no, they will never 'forgive you', once they get it however,
they will send you awards and accolades for the brilliance of your work
of doing them in, they couldn't have done it without your help, and you
will return the favor in like kind.
Your greatest laugh will be when you resolve what they did to you.
That's High Halcyon on the verge of time, High Appreciation for
Ludicrous Demise. -Adore.com
You see (my clarifications in brackets):
"There is no compromise with full responsibility.
It lies above 20.0 on the tone scale, and is descended from in
order to effect [the apparency of] randomity [and other cause], but is
descended from with the full knowledge of its assumptions [and
consequences]." LRH Advanced Procedure and Axioms, page 57.
Still the coolest words ever written.
TONE SCALE
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/electra/tone.memo
That's why people hate LRH by the way, they can't stand the idea
that life is the illusion that there is other cause than your own.
There is other cause, but only if you cause it to be so and invite
it in and it accepts and invites you back :)
On some worlds that's called FRIENDING.
And you can take that invite and it's granted cause back, through
the process of auditing out the times you gave it away to others, and
cemented it in place through shame, blame and regret/guilt.
That's called UNFRIENDING.
DEFRIENDING or debonding is when you remain further down in shame,
blame and regret creating the illusion of no further connection between
the two of you, when in fact both of you are held together like glue
from your hate and wish the other didn't exist.
UNFRIENDING is what this posting is about, because one starts to
take cause over one's life back from others during the auditing of Grade
III.
The only way to handle a prime upset in a Homo Novis, is to admit
you are causing it and know how to stop doing that.
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
Tue Sep 11 20:44:46 EDT 2018
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jan 26 12:00:05 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1048.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)
iD8DBQFeLcWVURT1lqxE3HERAtDyAJ9A7PzZy1U1AkdduIe14PNgG4b4WgCglexF
cv5ZdZhVzQdYNAlJhc2Xsbw=
=1K5L
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, January 16, 2020
ADORE780 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
08/02/10 Monday 01:38am EST
CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY
Pip <pip1010@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Then this must be a perfect certainty:
'I am not sure I am certain...'
Did I flunk?
Homer wrote:
"Certainty that certainty is impossible is absurd. Certainly.
Therefore certainty certainly exists.
Uncertainty also exists.
To doubt this, is to prove it." -The Proof ca 1973
Certainty of uncertainy is the first perfect certainty.
Doubting if you doubt, wondering if you wonder, are all
mind broke.
So, you answer the question, did you flunk?
Now answer this one:
"I am uncertain if I am uncertain."
Everything you say of the form 'X is true', is saying
'I am certain X is true.'
Even if you say 'I am uncertain X is true', that is saying
'I am certain that I am uncertain that X is true.'
EVERY STATEMENT assumes an 'I AM CERTAIN' at the beginning of it or
else why bother saying it?
Many statements also start with an implied 'I think, or I believe,
or I would bet, or It is probable or possible that...'
But each one of those expressions of doubt all have an implied
'I am certain that...'
in front of them too.
If it doesn't, then the person is just spewing garbage.
There is no certainty in the absence of direct perception,
and in the absence of direct perception there is no certainty.
Seeing through the eyes is not direct perception.
Seeing one's own conscious experiences is.
We use our consciousness to represent to us the alleged
physical universe, we see our consciousness and not the phyiscal
universe directly.
We consider that there is nothing to learn of importance
by looking at our conscious experiences directly, the only
thing of import is to learn about what our conscious experiences
represent to us about the phyiscal universe.
We can not eat a conscious experience, we need to eat
phyiscal universe.
We can perceive as many apples as we wish in our consciousness,
but only the conscious apple that is connected to a physical apple
is important because we need to eat the physical apple.
Thus we become experts in what our consciousness represents
to us about the physical universe, but about which we can never
be certain even exists, and totally ignorant of the nature of
our conscious experiences AS CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCES, because
what they represent to us about the physical universe is way
more important than what they are themselves.
If we fill our world with dreams of apples, we might reach for a
dream apple and eat it, missing the physical apple that someone else
gets who is not so foolish as to confuse himself with images of things
that are not 'causally' connected to the physical object.
Thus allowing images in our consciousness that do not represent
actual objects in the physical universe in present time becomes
forbidden to us.
Our entire belief in the physical universe comes from the fact
that we believe our very existence is dependent upon the objects
our consciousness represents to us about the physical universe
in particular food and toilets.
You can mockup endless numbers of dream apples and eat them
all, each one more delicious and fullfilling than the one before it,
but eventually the raw hunger will mock ITSELF up in your consciousness
and not let you go until you eat an actual physical apple.
If you try to unmock the raw physical hunger, you will fail.
Or maybe you won't fail. What then?
In the meanwhile, mockups that represent realtime physical objects
are kept separate from mockups of fantasy objects, and the importance of
keeping one's attention on the represented physical object, makes it
almost impossible for people to put their attention on the representor
of that object, namely their conscious experience of it.
In other words when people try to put their attention on their
conscious experience, it tends to vanish on them, pretending to be
nothing. The only way they can be conscious is to put their attention
on the alleged physical object VIA their conscious experience, but then
they think they are seeing the physical object and not their conscious
experience.
This mind fuck has Earth in a strangle hold, an entire
population of billions of people who are conscious VIA cold dead
stone.
The represented is more real to them than the representor.
No wonder zombie movies are so popular.
If the world is a dream, then the BRAIN is a dream.
And if the brain doesn't exist, what can we blame ourselves on?
Homer
Mon Aug 2 02:06:01 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jan 15 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore780.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)
iD8DBQFeH0UUURT1lqxE3HERAvI0AJ0R5Q4kxpq4OjH/8+jYzCkXWkKuzgCfRw93
VKJBrCUeGeG0eoG9zCuto+U=
=2YrV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
08/02/10 Monday 01:38am EST
CERTAINTY AND UNCERTAINTY
Pip <pip1010@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Then this must be a perfect certainty:
'I am not sure I am certain...'
Did I flunk?
Homer wrote:
"Certainty that certainty is impossible is absurd. Certainly.
Therefore certainty certainly exists.
Uncertainty also exists.
To doubt this, is to prove it." -The Proof ca 1973
Certainty of uncertainy is the first perfect certainty.
Doubting if you doubt, wondering if you wonder, are all
mind broke.
So, you answer the question, did you flunk?
Now answer this one:
"I am uncertain if I am uncertain."
Everything you say of the form 'X is true', is saying
'I am certain X is true.'
Even if you say 'I am uncertain X is true', that is saying
'I am certain that I am uncertain that X is true.'
EVERY STATEMENT assumes an 'I AM CERTAIN' at the beginning of it or
else why bother saying it?
Many statements also start with an implied 'I think, or I believe,
or I would bet, or It is probable or possible that...'
But each one of those expressions of doubt all have an implied
'I am certain that...'
in front of them too.
If it doesn't, then the person is just spewing garbage.
There is no certainty in the absence of direct perception,
and in the absence of direct perception there is no certainty.
Seeing through the eyes is not direct perception.
Seeing one's own conscious experiences is.
We use our consciousness to represent to us the alleged
physical universe, we see our consciousness and not the phyiscal
universe directly.
We consider that there is nothing to learn of importance
by looking at our conscious experiences directly, the only
thing of import is to learn about what our conscious experiences
represent to us about the phyiscal universe.
We can not eat a conscious experience, we need to eat
phyiscal universe.
We can perceive as many apples as we wish in our consciousness,
but only the conscious apple that is connected to a physical apple
is important because we need to eat the physical apple.
Thus we become experts in what our consciousness represents
to us about the physical universe, but about which we can never
be certain even exists, and totally ignorant of the nature of
our conscious experiences AS CONSCIOUS EXPERIENCES, because
what they represent to us about the physical universe is way
more important than what they are themselves.
If we fill our world with dreams of apples, we might reach for a
dream apple and eat it, missing the physical apple that someone else
gets who is not so foolish as to confuse himself with images of things
that are not 'causally' connected to the physical object.
Thus allowing images in our consciousness that do not represent
actual objects in the physical universe in present time becomes
forbidden to us.
Our entire belief in the physical universe comes from the fact
that we believe our very existence is dependent upon the objects
our consciousness represents to us about the physical universe
in particular food and toilets.
You can mockup endless numbers of dream apples and eat them
all, each one more delicious and fullfilling than the one before it,
but eventually the raw hunger will mock ITSELF up in your consciousness
and not let you go until you eat an actual physical apple.
If you try to unmock the raw physical hunger, you will fail.
Or maybe you won't fail. What then?
In the meanwhile, mockups that represent realtime physical objects
are kept separate from mockups of fantasy objects, and the importance of
keeping one's attention on the represented physical object, makes it
almost impossible for people to put their attention on the representor
of that object, namely their conscious experience of it.
In other words when people try to put their attention on their
conscious experience, it tends to vanish on them, pretending to be
nothing. The only way they can be conscious is to put their attention
on the alleged physical object VIA their conscious experience, but then
they think they are seeing the physical object and not their conscious
experience.
This mind fuck has Earth in a strangle hold, an entire
population of billions of people who are conscious VIA cold dead
stone.
The represented is more real to them than the representor.
No wonder zombie movies are so popular.
If the world is a dream, then the BRAIN is a dream.
And if the brain doesn't exist, what can we blame ourselves on?
Homer
Mon Aug 2 02:06:01 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jan 15 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore780.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)
iD8DBQFeH0UUURT1lqxE3HERAvI0AJ0R5Q4kxpq4OjH/8+jYzCkXWkKuzgCfRw93
VKJBrCUeGeG0eoG9zCuto+U=
=2YrV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, January 11, 2020
ADO11 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
MORE ON MISSED WITHHOLDS
ADO - 11
24 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
There are two broad classes of Withholds.
They are POSITIVE WITHHOLDS and NEGATIVE WITHHOLDS.
A Withhold is something that you know and others don't.
A Positive Withhold was something you wanted to communicate to
another but were unable to.
A Negative Withhold was something you wanted to NOT communicate to
another but were unable to.
A MISSED WITHHOLD is a Positive or Negative Withhold that has been
restimulated but not pulled. That means you were reminded about it,
felt bad about it, but failed to complete your intention on it to have
it known or not known, and so it gets buried again along with newly
created charge.
There are three broad classes of Missed Withholds.
They are CLOSE CALLS, WONDERS and STILL KNOWS.
A Close Calls Missed Withhold is when a communication was almost
received but it wasn't OR when a communication was almost NOT received
but it was. It was a close call, regardless of which way it turned out.
A Wonders Missed Withhold is when the being can not determine if
the communication was received or not. He is left WONDERING.
A Still Knows Missed Withhold is when the being knows that the
communication WAS received, but later he wonders if the receiver still
knows or still remembers receiving it. There is also a Still Doesn't
Know Missed Withhold which is when the being knows that the
communication WAS NOT received, but later he wonders if the receiver
still doesn't know.
A Positive Close Call is when you try to communicate to someone and
they almost receive it but you know they don't.
A Positive Close Call is also when you try to communicate to
someone and they almost DON'T receive it but you know they do.
A Positive Wonders is when you try to communicate to someone and
you can't determine if they received it or not.
A Positive Still Knows is when you try to communicate to someone
and you know they got it, but later you wonder if they still have it.
A Positive Still Doesn't Know is when you try to communicate to
someone and you know they didn't get it, but later you wonder if they
still don't know.
A Negative Close Call is when you try to NOT communicate to someone
and they almost receive it but you know they don't.
A Negative Close Call is when you try to NOT communicate to someone
and they almost don't receive it but you know they did.
A Negative Wonders is when you try to NOT communicate to someone
and you can't determine if they received it or not.
A Negative Still Knows is when you try to NOT communicate to
someone and you know they recieved it anyhow, but later you wonder if
they still know it.
A Negative Still Doesn't Know is when you try to NOT communicate to
someone and you know they didn't receive it, but later you wonder if
they still don't know.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jan 10 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado11.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)
iD8DBQFeGK2VURT1lqxE3HERAgicAKCIpW8b6V5GHtaDZrR6WV33sQy1UwCgk0FA
7G1MqBY558rV9OD57hCLkG8=
=eYjN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
MORE ON MISSED WITHHOLDS
ADO - 11
24 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
There are two broad classes of Withholds.
They are POSITIVE WITHHOLDS and NEGATIVE WITHHOLDS.
A Withhold is something that you know and others don't.
A Positive Withhold was something you wanted to communicate to
another but were unable to.
A Negative Withhold was something you wanted to NOT communicate to
another but were unable to.
A MISSED WITHHOLD is a Positive or Negative Withhold that has been
restimulated but not pulled. That means you were reminded about it,
felt bad about it, but failed to complete your intention on it to have
it known or not known, and so it gets buried again along with newly
created charge.
There are three broad classes of Missed Withholds.
They are CLOSE CALLS, WONDERS and STILL KNOWS.
A Close Calls Missed Withhold is when a communication was almost
received but it wasn't OR when a communication was almost NOT received
but it was. It was a close call, regardless of which way it turned out.
A Wonders Missed Withhold is when the being can not determine if
the communication was received or not. He is left WONDERING.
A Still Knows Missed Withhold is when the being knows that the
communication WAS received, but later he wonders if the receiver still
knows or still remembers receiving it. There is also a Still Doesn't
Know Missed Withhold which is when the being knows that the
communication WAS NOT received, but later he wonders if the receiver
still doesn't know.
A Positive Close Call is when you try to communicate to someone and
they almost receive it but you know they don't.
A Positive Close Call is also when you try to communicate to
someone and they almost DON'T receive it but you know they do.
A Positive Wonders is when you try to communicate to someone and
you can't determine if they received it or not.
A Positive Still Knows is when you try to communicate to someone
and you know they got it, but later you wonder if they still have it.
A Positive Still Doesn't Know is when you try to communicate to
someone and you know they didn't get it, but later you wonder if they
still don't know.
A Negative Close Call is when you try to NOT communicate to someone
and they almost receive it but you know they don't.
A Negative Close Call is when you try to NOT communicate to someone
and they almost don't receive it but you know they did.
A Negative Wonders is when you try to NOT communicate to someone
and you can't determine if they received it or not.
A Negative Still Knows is when you try to NOT communicate to
someone and you know they recieved it anyhow, but later you wonder if
they still know it.
A Negative Still Doesn't Know is when you try to NOT communicate to
someone and you know they didn't receive it, but later you wonder if
they still don't know.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jan 10 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado11.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)
iD8DBQFeGK2VURT1lqxE3HERAgicAKCIpW8b6V5GHtaDZrR6WV33sQy1UwCgk0FA
7G1MqBY558rV9OD57hCLkG8=
=eYjN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
LOGIC0 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
It is one thing to say that there is knowledge outside of the
realm of Aristotelian logic, but the moment one makes Aristotelian
statements, one must be bound by it, otherwise one is merely spewing
inconsistent babble.
All dogs have 4 legs.
My dog Joey has 2 legs.
One or both sentences MUST be wrong.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jan 9 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic0.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)
iD8DBQFeF1wUURT1lqxE3HERAv//AKCCHQpvWy48mrR/PFAKCUF09+ZuUQCdGXZh
EXFrchD97VFhtNNqbwypcj4=
=6CE8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
It is one thing to say that there is knowledge outside of the
realm of Aristotelian logic, but the moment one makes Aristotelian
statements, one must be bound by it, otherwise one is merely spewing
inconsistent babble.
All dogs have 4 legs.
My dog Joey has 2 legs.
One or both sentences MUST be wrong.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jan 9 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic0.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)
iD8DBQFeF1wUURT1lqxE3HERAv//AKCCHQpvWy48mrR/PFAKCUF09+ZuUQCdGXZh
EXFrchD97VFhtNNqbwypcj4=
=6CE8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, January 7, 2020
ADORE843 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
EGO
I accept your apology for confusing the illusions of ego with "I"
which is absolute and is all things conscious or asleep.
Ego is not a THING, it is a function of a thing, namely the I, and
the I gets all involved with the functions of the ego, to survive in
space time as a self determined or other determined unit.
What is missing from all these discussion is an analysis of AGENCY.
Just as we can be certain we see (or are) red, we can also be
certain we are agent.
Sense of agency leads directly into sense of the true Self, the
responsible one.
There is a reason one feels guilty, and thus lives in shame.
There may be illusions obscuring a clear view to this, but it is
powered by the truth of an allmighty I AM, or SOMETHING IS.
That agency may be a conscious reflection or even usurpation of a
higher agency that powers even the I, we admit that without further
argument.
But that higher power is the GROUND of I, not a higher I.
Those that hope to doff responsibility however by handing it over
to the ground of all being, are in for a long haul of pain.
The ground of all being gave full responsibility to you, so I
suggest you use it.
"Source sources only when will casts."
What is also left out are the perceptions of perfect certainty that
exists in consciousness and IS consciousness.
It's too hot to handle.
Running "I am not that" is a waste of time, unless one also runs "I
am that, certainly". One may be wrong, but eventually one becomes right
on the matter.
The ego is a small piece and function of the totality of existence,
that the I has come to think that's all it has, self image is somewhat
good to describe this.
Auditing self images is also cool.
But the problem is not that the self is wrong about being that or
this, it's error is in thinking it is this and NOT that.
It is this AND that.
And that grows big very fast.
Concentrating on I AM NOT, or what I am NOT goes down hill very
fast.
It isn't true I is NOTHING, it is true that I is ALL.
Something exists, that is certain.
That which is certain, agent and gives a damn is the true *I* even
in its illusion of abject finiteness.
Homer
Pip <pip1010@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Ego is a latin word meaning "I". Ego is also one of the three
> constructs in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche.
> In spirituality the ego is often associated with mind and the sense of
> time, which compulsively thinks in order to be assured of its future
> existence, rather than simply knowing its own self and the present.
>
> The spiritual goal of many traditions involves the dissolving of the
> ego, allowing self-knowledge of one's own true nature to become
> experienced and enacted in the world. This is variously known as
> enlightenment, Nirvana, Presence, and the "Here and Now". Eckhart Tolle
> comments that, to the extent that the ego is present in an individual,
> that individual is somewhat insane psychologially, in reference to the
> ego's nature as compulsovely hyperactive and compulsively (and
> pathologically) self-centered. However, since this is the norm, it goes
> unrecognised as the source of much that could be classified as insane
> behavior in everyday life. In South Asian traditions, the state of
> being trapped in the illusory belief that one is the ego is known as
> maya or samsara. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_%28spirituality%29 ***
>
> Like the four blind men describing an elephant, descriptions of the ego
> never seem to tell the whole story. So what is the ego? Both
> discussions below are relevant and Carol makes a good point and preface
> for my view of the ego. The qualities ascribed to the ego like
> arrogance, pride, or posessiveness are often called "ego" but ego
> itself is something deeper, some more nebulous structure from which
> these traits arise. The simplest description might just be that ego is
> one's "self image" which might be strong, healthy, confident, or weak,
> defensive, overbearing etc. It consists of one's story, memories,
> personality, and situation. Confusion comes from "ego" meaning "I",
> while the attributes of the ego structure being discussed are NOT one's
> sense self awareness and existence but something else. So for this
> discussion ego is not the real "I" but only those aspects of one's mind
> and personality that one mistakenly takes oneself to be.
>
> So the ego is a false self which might be describes as the various
> identities or programmed characteristics which one identifies with.
> When a set of beliefs, memories, and goals are taken to represent ones
> true beliefs memories and goals then we can say that the being is under
> the control of the false self. One's existence or real "I" is a self
> knowing state whereas what one feels and believes about oneself and what
> one takes oneself to be may indeed be false, and certainly is, if it is
> anything other than the real I. But then what is the real I? It is
> possible to conceive of the real I to some degree, as one can conceive
> of the Static, but the concept is of course not the thing. The problem
> is that most of what we think of as being "ourselves" may be only
> characteristics of our bodies, our circumstances, our memories, our
> stories, our personality, and all the things which we HAVE, DO, or are
> BEING (portraying). Yet all these things can and do change. Virtually
> all these things change lifetime to lifetime and yet our essential
> nature, our true self affirming "I" does not. You can see this right
> now - you are always you even when you have other bodies and other
> personalities - that's the real "I". The question then arises whether
> ANY beliefs, memories, or characteristics can represent the true self.
> The answer is, not unless the being has recognized what it is. While
> these things are creations of the true self, unless they are informed by
> the realization of truth in present time, they only represent an
> evolving beingness, a character in a story who is continuously
> transformed by its personality and circumstances.
>
> But we can take this deeper. What allows us to not see what we are? To
> have a "false self" or to get falsely self-identified in the first
> place? I believe that not seeing what we really are starts as a sense
> of separation from our own experience. One can say of any aspect of
> one's own experience "I experience that". The I and the "that" are
> separate. This may be the ultimate illusion. This opens the door to
> finding something to be (since one has in a sense forgotten what one
> is) and identifying with it, ie strongly believing, assuming, and acting
> as if one is that, be it a body, mind, character, story etc. Ideas like
> oneness and "I am everything" are often expressed by those claiming to
> have regained their original perspective as a self illuminated eternal
> being.
>
> So those advocating the end of the ego may be pointing the way to
> spiritual freedom but by declaring that the ego as "I" is an illusion or
> non-existent, as I have done, they are treading on sacred ground.
> The ego they are referring to is of course the false self, but as Carol
> describes below, ideologies clash without proper duplication. Perhaps
> the easiest route is to notice what one is NOT until one has a
> realization. This would be an unlimited process. One way to look at
> this is that the "NOT" is already the postulate in effect, so one is
> taking it over and theoretically getting free of it at some point. We
> are actually everything but we are identifying with something we assume
> exists but does not. Another viewpoint is that this process eventually
> exhausts the possibilities, or the ego itself, so that only the truth
> remains. Also if one questions all identifications, all things one
> believes one IS, and all concepts of reality continually, this may also
> be a valid path to waking up from the virtual reality dream we are in as
> well.
>
> "I ask you only to stop imagining that you were born, have parents, are
> a body, will die and so on. Just try. Make a beginning - it's not as
> hard as you think." -Nisargadatta Maharaj
>
> "All you have to do is get past the idea that you're a human being on
> planet Earth. Flush that belief out of your system and a huge mass of
> backed-up mental sewage automatically gets flushed out with it." -Jed
> McKenna
>
> Pip
>
>
> that's like calling a tree a forest when it is only one attribute of a
> forest ecosystem although it is a microcosm of the forest and posseses
> some of the characteristics of the forest.
>
> Clearing Archive Roboposter wrote:
>
>> CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Ego" is a very ambiguous word in the history of psychology, world
>>> religions, and metaphysics. Sometimes it has a positive healthy
>>> connotation akin to soul or healthy individuality, other times it has an
>>> undesirable or derogatory connotation akin to arrogance or
>>> worldly-physicalworld self. So you have to know a tradition and how it
>>> defines "ego", not mix traditions or desirable/undesirable connotations
>>> and have broad historical awareness when you hear the term.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Prayer, meditation, contemplation, prayer intentions, postulates,
>>> affirmations are a complex set of subjects. There is great danger that
>>> one from outside of a tradition will misdefine and misunderstand, and then
>>> argue against his own misdefinition and misunderstanding, with the
>>> questionable purpose of setting his own view off against or in contrast to
>>> some other view that he has now in effect trashed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> My preferred interpretation of Scn "thetan" is more like Hindu "atman" or
>>> pure consciousness, spirit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> And I understand "theta" as spiritual substance in a classical sense.
>>> But I've been told countless times that my understanding on these misses
>>> LRH's view/definition. My view is more like Scn if I had invented it.
>>> Sort of like the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) - the group that
>>> acts out days from the middle ages as they should have been lived.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think however that LRH modeled "thetan" in large part on, or was
>>> inspired by, Kant's "transcendental unity of apperception."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> My partial definition of Kant's "transcendental unity of apperception"
>>> is a self that is a priori or prior and beyond sense experience and
>>> logic, with an ability to look AT the contents of thought, and includes
>>> self-consciousness or self awareness. This was a step beyond Descartes'
>>> systematic doubt and his "I think, therefore I am." So what is prior to
>>> and beyond sense experience and logic? Traditionally that would be
>>> spirit, self as spirit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In Scn, sometimes ego in an undesirable sense as in arrogance or excessive
>>> pride or narcissism etc. get tangled up with thetan. I consider that a
>>> liability and a failure to differentiate, but it does make for certain
>>> kinds of "games" in life, people having an experience, and all who stand
>>> witness then have an opportunity to see the consequences, how all that
>>> tends to unfold. As Phil would say, "People are doing their demo in
>>> life."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> jacksonmoore69@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please help me understand
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> By auditing the past we are clearing the losses of the "being"
>>>> individual. Of course this is placing "share of attention" on these
>>>> areas of Duress and we of course can expect future slumps after
>>>> auditing as a result. (A thetan creates what they postulate and
>>>> validates whatever they put their attention on)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> It appears that the Thetan realises with more clarity that they are
>>>> 'source' and do not need to Prayer or Connect to a source point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Is this the premise behind all auditing type schools??
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On the other hand - there are those that use the brotherhood of the
>>>> universe - the infinite energy - an with meditation and intention,
>>>> prayer and whatever ...do well in life.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> A true Scientologist may beleive they are falling into the oneness
>>>> trap...a long term trap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> However many people in a very loving way - say how many wins they have
>>>> had from this path...
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Hardcore scios are the first to ridge against most other non scio
>>>> things including oneness - we know they are awkward to be around and
>>>> we know they have individuated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> In Jungian or any other ology - this is the ego talking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Are we supposed ti audit this ego and make IT more aware...simply
>>>> because..
>>>> WE THINK WE ARE A THETAN - THE I ....NOT PART OF AN OTHER...
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> A few of you guys have said that god is a duality and we are both "at
>>>> one" and "ourselves" simultaneously..
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Or is it more correct to say...
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "we are all connected to the infinite...but we are all individual and
>>>> this is how the glory of the infinite realises its own wonder..." or
>>>> some stuff like that
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And if one person wants to exteriorise and realise they ARE a thetan
>>>> (ie exteriorise the EGO to validate erroneously that we are super
>>>> individual) then they may be subject to the ultimate CON
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> That we can enforce everlasting life by empowering the ego through
>>>> auditing the ?thetan? so that this ego can have everlasting life which
>>>> was the original erroneous goal of the ego in teh original scriptures
>>>> (refer to the story of aladdin and the lamp - aladin is the poor boy
>>>> that wants to improve his lot by askiing the infinite wisdom, genie,
>>>> BUT the bad guy wants the lamp for himself to have all the power for
>>>> himself and thus wishes he has all the power of the genie and is thus
>>>> destroyed in the attempt)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> This is the ancient way of describing hw the ego realises it can have
>>>> the knowledge of GOD AS the ego instead f connecting with source.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On the tone scale we may easily say - well at tone 400 (not tone 40)
>>>> 400!!, you are the one source (hyperthetically) - But that is theory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Are we just trying to enforce everlasting life by figuring out HOW the
>>>> ego (thetan) failed in past eons..when we should be validating TRUE
>>>> SELF.. straight off and placing most attention on that and ignoring
>>>> most of the negative other than giving it acks..
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> TRUE SELF??? - is this the being that is part of the whole magic of
>>>> the universe and can make an impact onteh universe with infinite
>>>> loving power. With no ego and unlimited forgiveness and love can we
>>>> use the theta energy or whatever you want to call it to truly move
>>>> mountains...Shift galaxies (lovingly).
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Do WE live forever - operative word WE collectively and simply ebb and
>>>> flow from each other...am I truly NOT YOU (i don't think so) - this is
>>>> even proven in Scientology as auditing case from a % of the population
>>>> is enough to handle the condition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Thanks for reading
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
- - --
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Feb 5 23:04:09 EST 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Aug 30 12:06:01 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore843.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)
iD8DBQFXxa7pURT1lqxE3HERAspaAJ9Q/7x8Vz/W614vPACSmzioZ8zMnwCeL7u+
XpMJan5sUCq60Ythb1UBHLs=
=G0e+
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tue Aug 30 22:52:12 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jan 6 12:00:03 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore843.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)
iD8DBQFeE2eTURT1lqxE3HERAtSEAJ9dU0OUkuJXc8kP97F23aY6thItxACgxGNL
LJovOho6BggtQ8N9Vh7LIXU=
=yqeL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
EGO
I accept your apology for confusing the illusions of ego with "I"
which is absolute and is all things conscious or asleep.
Ego is not a THING, it is a function of a thing, namely the I, and
the I gets all involved with the functions of the ego, to survive in
space time as a self determined or other determined unit.
What is missing from all these discussion is an analysis of AGENCY.
Just as we can be certain we see (or are) red, we can also be
certain we are agent.
Sense of agency leads directly into sense of the true Self, the
responsible one.
There is a reason one feels guilty, and thus lives in shame.
There may be illusions obscuring a clear view to this, but it is
powered by the truth of an allmighty I AM, or SOMETHING IS.
That agency may be a conscious reflection or even usurpation of a
higher agency that powers even the I, we admit that without further
argument.
But that higher power is the GROUND of I, not a higher I.
Those that hope to doff responsibility however by handing it over
to the ground of all being, are in for a long haul of pain.
The ground of all being gave full responsibility to you, so I
suggest you use it.
"Source sources only when will casts."
What is also left out are the perceptions of perfect certainty that
exists in consciousness and IS consciousness.
It's too hot to handle.
Running "I am not that" is a waste of time, unless one also runs "I
am that, certainly". One may be wrong, but eventually one becomes right
on the matter.
The ego is a small piece and function of the totality of existence,
that the I has come to think that's all it has, self image is somewhat
good to describe this.
Auditing self images is also cool.
But the problem is not that the self is wrong about being that or
this, it's error is in thinking it is this and NOT that.
It is this AND that.
And that grows big very fast.
Concentrating on I AM NOT, or what I am NOT goes down hill very
fast.
It isn't true I is NOTHING, it is true that I is ALL.
Something exists, that is certain.
That which is certain, agent and gives a damn is the true *I* even
in its illusion of abject finiteness.
Homer
Pip <pip1010@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Ego is a latin word meaning "I". Ego is also one of the three
> constructs in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche.
> In spirituality the ego is often associated with mind and the sense of
> time, which compulsively thinks in order to be assured of its future
> existence, rather than simply knowing its own self and the present.
>
> The spiritual goal of many traditions involves the dissolving of the
> ego, allowing self-knowledge of one's own true nature to become
> experienced and enacted in the world. This is variously known as
> enlightenment, Nirvana, Presence, and the "Here and Now". Eckhart Tolle
> comments that, to the extent that the ego is present in an individual,
> that individual is somewhat insane psychologially, in reference to the
> ego's nature as compulsovely hyperactive and compulsively (and
> pathologically) self-centered. However, since this is the norm, it goes
> unrecognised as the source of much that could be classified as insane
> behavior in everyday life. In South Asian traditions, the state of
> being trapped in the illusory belief that one is the ego is known as
> maya or samsara. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_%28spirituality%29 ***
>
> Like the four blind men describing an elephant, descriptions of the ego
> never seem to tell the whole story. So what is the ego? Both
> discussions below are relevant and Carol makes a good point and preface
> for my view of the ego. The qualities ascribed to the ego like
> arrogance, pride, or posessiveness are often called "ego" but ego
> itself is something deeper, some more nebulous structure from which
> these traits arise. The simplest description might just be that ego is
> one's "self image" which might be strong, healthy, confident, or weak,
> defensive, overbearing etc. It consists of one's story, memories,
> personality, and situation. Confusion comes from "ego" meaning "I",
> while the attributes of the ego structure being discussed are NOT one's
> sense self awareness and existence but something else. So for this
> discussion ego is not the real "I" but only those aspects of one's mind
> and personality that one mistakenly takes oneself to be.
>
> So the ego is a false self which might be describes as the various
> identities or programmed characteristics which one identifies with.
> When a set of beliefs, memories, and goals are taken to represent ones
> true beliefs memories and goals then we can say that the being is under
> the control of the false self. One's existence or real "I" is a self
> knowing state whereas what one feels and believes about oneself and what
> one takes oneself to be may indeed be false, and certainly is, if it is
> anything other than the real I. But then what is the real I? It is
> possible to conceive of the real I to some degree, as one can conceive
> of the Static, but the concept is of course not the thing. The problem
> is that most of what we think of as being "ourselves" may be only
> characteristics of our bodies, our circumstances, our memories, our
> stories, our personality, and all the things which we HAVE, DO, or are
> BEING (portraying). Yet all these things can and do change. Virtually
> all these things change lifetime to lifetime and yet our essential
> nature, our true self affirming "I" does not. You can see this right
> now - you are always you even when you have other bodies and other
> personalities - that's the real "I". The question then arises whether
> ANY beliefs, memories, or characteristics can represent the true self.
> The answer is, not unless the being has recognized what it is. While
> these things are creations of the true self, unless they are informed by
> the realization of truth in present time, they only represent an
> evolving beingness, a character in a story who is continuously
> transformed by its personality and circumstances.
>
> But we can take this deeper. What allows us to not see what we are? To
> have a "false self" or to get falsely self-identified in the first
> place? I believe that not seeing what we really are starts as a sense
> of separation from our own experience. One can say of any aspect of
> one's own experience "I experience that". The I and the "that" are
> separate. This may be the ultimate illusion. This opens the door to
> finding something to be (since one has in a sense forgotten what one
> is) and identifying with it, ie strongly believing, assuming, and acting
> as if one is that, be it a body, mind, character, story etc. Ideas like
> oneness and "I am everything" are often expressed by those claiming to
> have regained their original perspective as a self illuminated eternal
> being.
>
> So those advocating the end of the ego may be pointing the way to
> spiritual freedom but by declaring that the ego as "I" is an illusion or
> non-existent, as I have done, they are treading on sacred ground.
> The ego they are referring to is of course the false self, but as Carol
> describes below, ideologies clash without proper duplication. Perhaps
> the easiest route is to notice what one is NOT until one has a
> realization. This would be an unlimited process. One way to look at
> this is that the "NOT" is already the postulate in effect, so one is
> taking it over and theoretically getting free of it at some point. We
> are actually everything but we are identifying with something we assume
> exists but does not. Another viewpoint is that this process eventually
> exhausts the possibilities, or the ego itself, so that only the truth
> remains. Also if one questions all identifications, all things one
> believes one IS, and all concepts of reality continually, this may also
> be a valid path to waking up from the virtual reality dream we are in as
> well.
>
> "I ask you only to stop imagining that you were born, have parents, are
> a body, will die and so on. Just try. Make a beginning - it's not as
> hard as you think." -Nisargadatta Maharaj
>
> "All you have to do is get past the idea that you're a human being on
> planet Earth. Flush that belief out of your system and a huge mass of
> backed-up mental sewage automatically gets flushed out with it." -Jed
> McKenna
>
> Pip
>
>
> that's like calling a tree a forest when it is only one attribute of a
> forest ecosystem although it is a microcosm of the forest and posseses
> some of the characteristics of the forest.
>
> Clearing Archive Roboposter wrote:
>
>> CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Ego" is a very ambiguous word in the history of psychology, world
>>> religions, and metaphysics. Sometimes it has a positive healthy
>>> connotation akin to soul or healthy individuality, other times it has an
>>> undesirable or derogatory connotation akin to arrogance or
>>> worldly-physicalworld self. So you have to know a tradition and how it
>>> defines "ego", not mix traditions or desirable/undesirable connotations
>>> and have broad historical awareness when you hear the term.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Prayer, meditation, contemplation, prayer intentions, postulates,
>>> affirmations are a complex set of subjects. There is great danger that
>>> one from outside of a tradition will misdefine and misunderstand, and then
>>> argue against his own misdefinition and misunderstanding, with the
>>> questionable purpose of setting his own view off against or in contrast to
>>> some other view that he has now in effect trashed.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> My preferred interpretation of Scn "thetan" is more like Hindu "atman" or
>>> pure consciousness, spirit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> And I understand "theta" as spiritual substance in a classical sense.
>>> But I've been told countless times that my understanding on these misses
>>> LRH's view/definition. My view is more like Scn if I had invented it.
>>> Sort of like the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) - the group that
>>> acts out days from the middle ages as they should have been lived.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I think however that LRH modeled "thetan" in large part on, or was
>>> inspired by, Kant's "transcendental unity of apperception."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> My partial definition of Kant's "transcendental unity of apperception"
>>> is a self that is a priori or prior and beyond sense experience and
>>> logic, with an ability to look AT the contents of thought, and includes
>>> self-consciousness or self awareness. This was a step beyond Descartes'
>>> systematic doubt and his "I think, therefore I am." So what is prior to
>>> and beyond sense experience and logic? Traditionally that would be
>>> spirit, self as spirit.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> In Scn, sometimes ego in an undesirable sense as in arrogance or excessive
>>> pride or narcissism etc. get tangled up with thetan. I consider that a
>>> liability and a failure to differentiate, but it does make for certain
>>> kinds of "games" in life, people having an experience, and all who stand
>>> witness then have an opportunity to see the consequences, how all that
>>> tends to unfold. As Phil would say, "People are doing their demo in
>>> life."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Carol
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> jacksonmoore69@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please help me understand
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> By auditing the past we are clearing the losses of the "being"
>>>> individual. Of course this is placing "share of attention" on these
>>>> areas of Duress and we of course can expect future slumps after
>>>> auditing as a result. (A thetan creates what they postulate and
>>>> validates whatever they put their attention on)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> It appears that the Thetan realises with more clarity that they are
>>>> 'source' and do not need to Prayer or Connect to a source point.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Is this the premise behind all auditing type schools??
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On the other hand - there are those that use the brotherhood of the
>>>> universe - the infinite energy - an with meditation and intention,
>>>> prayer and whatever ...do well in life.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> A true Scientologist may beleive they are falling into the oneness
>>>> trap...a long term trap.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> However many people in a very loving way - say how many wins they have
>>>> had from this path...
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Hardcore scios are the first to ridge against most other non scio
>>>> things including oneness - we know they are awkward to be around and
>>>> we know they have individuated.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> In Jungian or any other ology - this is the ego talking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Are we supposed ti audit this ego and make IT more aware...simply
>>>> because..
>>>> WE THINK WE ARE A THETAN - THE I ....NOT PART OF AN OTHER...
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> A few of you guys have said that god is a duality and we are both "at
>>>> one" and "ourselves" simultaneously..
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Or is it more correct to say...
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "we are all connected to the infinite...but we are all individual and
>>>> this is how the glory of the infinite realises its own wonder..." or
>>>> some stuff like that
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And if one person wants to exteriorise and realise they ARE a thetan
>>>> (ie exteriorise the EGO to validate erroneously that we are super
>>>> individual) then they may be subject to the ultimate CON
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> That we can enforce everlasting life by empowering the ego through
>>>> auditing the ?thetan? so that this ego can have everlasting life which
>>>> was the original erroneous goal of the ego in teh original scriptures
>>>> (refer to the story of aladdin and the lamp - aladin is the poor boy
>>>> that wants to improve his lot by askiing the infinite wisdom, genie,
>>>> BUT the bad guy wants the lamp for himself to have all the power for
>>>> himself and thus wishes he has all the power of the genie and is thus
>>>> destroyed in the attempt)
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> This is the ancient way of describing hw the ego realises it can have
>>>> the knowledge of GOD AS the ego instead f connecting with source.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> On the tone scale we may easily say - well at tone 400 (not tone 40)
>>>> 400!!, you are the one source (hyperthetically) - But that is theory.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Are we just trying to enforce everlasting life by figuring out HOW the
>>>> ego (thetan) failed in past eons..when we should be validating TRUE
>>>> SELF.. straight off and placing most attention on that and ignoring
>>>> most of the negative other than giving it acks..
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> TRUE SELF??? - is this the being that is part of the whole magic of
>>>> the universe and can make an impact onteh universe with infinite
>>>> loving power. With no ego and unlimited forgiveness and love can we
>>>> use the theta energy or whatever you want to call it to truly move
>>>> mountains...Shift galaxies (lovingly).
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Do WE live forever - operative word WE collectively and simply ebb and
>>>> flow from each other...am I truly NOT YOU (i don't think so) - this is
>>>> even proven in Scientology as auditing case from a % of the population
>>>> is enough to handle the condition.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Thanks for reading
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
- - --
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Feb 5 23:04:09 EST 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Aug 30 12:06:01 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore843.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)
iD8DBQFXxa7pURT1lqxE3HERAspaAJ9Q/7x8Vz/W614vPACSmzioZ8zMnwCeL7u+
XpMJan5sUCq60Ythb1UBHLs=
=G0e+
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tue Aug 30 22:52:12 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jan 6 12:00:03 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore843.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)
iD8DBQFeE2eTURT1lqxE3HERAtSEAJ9dU0OUkuJXc8kP97F23aY6thItxACgxGNL
LJovOho6BggtQ8N9Vh7LIXU=
=yqeL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE620 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
IDEAL SCENES
Happiness arises when desire and actuality are in accord.
When you finally know what you really want, you will remember
it is true.
So seek desirable views of the Cosmic All until you find the one
that sticks and stands forever.
I had a dream tonight, wherein I was talking with Ron about my view
of the Cosmic All.
I said,
First you choose.
Then you choose to not know you chose.
Then you wonder if you chose,
Then you try to know if you chose by looking into created space to
see if you chose (memories, facsimiles etc).
Finding nothing there, you doubt you chose, which makes you feel so
bad, you become convinced you did not chose.
Doubt is self casting.
Thus you conclude that you really are what you have chosen to be
without having chosen to be it.
This is not stupid behavior on the part of the being, it is intensely
intentional, it is the warp and woof of spiritual persistence in space and
time.
Without it, there is no show.
Since the being no longer has his finger on the start point of his
existence, he falls into a dwindling spiral ending in desperation and
hysteria headed for spiritual death.
One way to blow through this spiral is to
Run,
"Mock down an ideal scene."
"Mock up an ideal scene."
If you want to be orthodox about it, run
Spot,
NO IDEAL SCENE
SOME IDEAL SCENE
This is a very rough process that will throw the being deeper into
despair and hysteria than he dares imagine,
His present feelings are mere intimations of the truth in the deep
which will surface with great brutality while running the process.
Ever felt slammed against a wall by despair?
This process can and will run for a very long time, across multiple
F/N's (Floating Needles on the E-meter), and multiple years.
It must be run across all dynamics everywhere for all beings.
"Spot a being".
"Mock down an ideal scene for him."
"Mock up an ideal scene for him."
This will run into your preclear's resignations, settlings,
compromisings and uncommunions.
It is this last that leads to hysteria and despair.
Separation from Love.
The purpose of existence is to co-create, while in communion with
others.
Many would tell you that communion should be reserved for God, but
all beings are God in carnation, and they are all the God there is.
Thus communing with others, with *ALL* others, is communing with God,
so you have the best of both worlds.
If you could live in the (spiritual) heart of another being and pump
it for them, would that be sufficient reason to live?
E/P (End Phenomenon of the process): happy, moving forward in life,
and able and willing to manifest an ideal scene for self and for others.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Nov 12 14:06:32 EST 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jan 5 12:00:03 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore620.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)
iD8DBQFeEhYUURT1lqxE3HERAma+AJ4jK3kToOgrGCVoPUnMqtgRaOx6bgCfQxPt
DRVXSIQ9ndEU8DVBh0Srr/s=
=PJ0R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
IDEAL SCENES
Happiness arises when desire and actuality are in accord.
When you finally know what you really want, you will remember
it is true.
So seek desirable views of the Cosmic All until you find the one
that sticks and stands forever.
I had a dream tonight, wherein I was talking with Ron about my view
of the Cosmic All.
I said,
First you choose.
Then you choose to not know you chose.
Then you wonder if you chose,
Then you try to know if you chose by looking into created space to
see if you chose (memories, facsimiles etc).
Finding nothing there, you doubt you chose, which makes you feel so
bad, you become convinced you did not chose.
Doubt is self casting.
Thus you conclude that you really are what you have chosen to be
without having chosen to be it.
This is not stupid behavior on the part of the being, it is intensely
intentional, it is the warp and woof of spiritual persistence in space and
time.
Without it, there is no show.
Since the being no longer has his finger on the start point of his
existence, he falls into a dwindling spiral ending in desperation and
hysteria headed for spiritual death.
One way to blow through this spiral is to
Run,
"Mock down an ideal scene."
"Mock up an ideal scene."
If you want to be orthodox about it, run
Spot,
NO IDEAL SCENE
SOME IDEAL SCENE
This is a very rough process that will throw the being deeper into
despair and hysteria than he dares imagine,
His present feelings are mere intimations of the truth in the deep
which will surface with great brutality while running the process.
Ever felt slammed against a wall by despair?
This process can and will run for a very long time, across multiple
F/N's (Floating Needles on the E-meter), and multiple years.
It must be run across all dynamics everywhere for all beings.
"Spot a being".
"Mock down an ideal scene for him."
"Mock up an ideal scene for him."
This will run into your preclear's resignations, settlings,
compromisings and uncommunions.
It is this last that leads to hysteria and despair.
Separation from Love.
The purpose of existence is to co-create, while in communion with
others.
Many would tell you that communion should be reserved for God, but
all beings are God in carnation, and they are all the God there is.
Thus communing with others, with *ALL* others, is communing with God,
so you have the best of both worlds.
If you could live in the (spiritual) heart of another being and pump
it for them, would that be sufficient reason to live?
E/P (End Phenomenon of the process): happy, moving forward in life,
and able and willing to manifest an ideal scene for self and for others.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Nov 12 14:06:32 EST 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jan 5 12:00:03 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore620.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)
iD8DBQFeEhYUURT1lqxE3HERAma+AJ4jK3kToOgrGCVoPUnMqtgRaOx6bgCfQxPt
DRVXSIQ9ndEU8DVBh0Srr/s=
=PJ0R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE393 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE CHRONIC CASE
A being in a body can not rest for long.
The call of duty and the impingement of life and survival
necessities force him to get up and do something constructive towards
those ends.
A body that is wounded needs to rest in order to heal. This can
be counter to the need to get up and go in order to survive.
But a body can also suffer from psychosomatic woundings that are
a result of the thetan body conflict going on between the two.
Psychosomatic woundings can be every much as wounding as physical
trauma. Cancers, lukemias, allergies, asthmas, environmental
sensitivities etc are all examples of this category.
Since they are being caused by what the thetan is DOING to the
body, one has to ask, should one heal them by doing or by not doing?
Acute psychosomatic woundings can heal in miraculous time once
the being stops causing them. So sometimes just getting a being to DO
something other than hurt the body can itself be a cure.
Chronic long term psychosomatic woundings can also heal in
miracle time, but often need an exact indication of whats going on to
get the being to stop hurting the body. This is where auditing comes
in.
Now work towards survival itself can be wounding, particularly if
the being has installed psychosomatic damage in the channels of
control. The more the guy works, the sicker he becomes.
It can even get to a point where SLEEP makes him ill, because the
psychomatic damage takes place during sleep where it is uncontrolled
and rampant. At least when he is awake he can WATCH himself do it,
when he is asleep its 8 or more hours of damage with no respite.
A common example of this is when a child decides to go to sleep
to forget some trauma going on in his life, and succeeds in doing so.
Forever afterwards sleep becomes an effort to forget charged events,
and thus of course sleep hurts the body because the concommittant
effort to forget kills it.
It takes a LOT of effort directed at the back of the brain and
awareness systems to shut out a memory for good.
Black V's are dead men walking.
So a being in a state of life threatening chronic psychosomatic
damage has to decide whether to do or not do, and if to do, what to
do.
He can't work normal survival channels because they make him
worse.
He can't just be still and do nothing, an effort to rest, because
that doesn't stop the damage either, its on automatic. And he is
getting further and further behind in his survival needs which starts
to drive him to hysteria and desperation.
So he turns to auditing which is a fix and repair detour to
getting on with survival.
Now most people who come into auditing are doing well in life,
they have charge around them but its not in restimulation, and so
periodically when it does get restimulated, they have reactions which
they would like to overcome.
Thus they sit down at the auditing table, the auditor quickly
gets an F/N on ruds, and then selectively starts to probe the
quiescent charge around the being for something that can be
restimulated, cleared and thus erased.
Auditing is like precision surgical bull bait.
After such actions the being has more free theta which is now
his, to enjoy life with, and has less fear of reaction because
he knows there is one less source of reaction hiding in his space to
dramatize him when it gets triggered.
But the other guy who is in a chronic state of damage is in a
very different state. He sits down at the table, and his TA is at
5.5. He can't float any ruds because his condition is a present time
problem of long duration that needs to be solved NOW or he won't
survive at all, particularly if its stopping him from working.
Now work itself might be some of the source of his chronic
restimulation, he might be very off purpose, at the end of a long GPM
opposing himself, and thus surviving in life by essentially throwing
his time in life away.
Maybe he gets to eat, but nothing real gets done and beings hate
that, subsistence level hand to mouth survival.
He may still be around or associated with the beings that came into
conflict with his originals goals that gave him purpose to live. In
this case he is under persistent present time suppression. He may even
WORK for such people and thus himself continuously be enhancing his
degraded being status.
Or maybe he LOST the beings that gave him purpose to live, and now
without them, he can't win.
In the first case, spotting the SP's in his environment can help
him get out from under their suppression of invention. The SP can be
very specific or very wide like 'the public at large'. He can stop
working for them, throw off the yoke of burden, and suddenly go very
free and become an easy to audit case.
In the second case, you have a deeper problem to solve, he has to
rehab his desire and confidence that he can rebuild his team and get on
with it.
If he lost his entire team, then everyone else he has been living
around is almost assuredly indifferent, unable to rise to, or opposed to
his goals or they would already have become a new team, and thus he will
be found to be PTS to everyone.
In any case the chronic somatic case and the easy to F/N case are
two completely different cases and need to be approached in different
ways.
The easy to F/N case just needs his next thing restimulated and
erased. The auditor doesn't have to know how to fix the case because
the guy is already fixed, he just needs preventative maintenance.
The chronic somatic case needs his entire present time
rehabilitated and handled, and no charge on his case will be available
to view until that is done. This takes an auditor who knows the
anatomy of ascent and descent upside down, forwards and backwards.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Sep 9 23:09:32 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jan 4 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore393.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)
iD8DBQFeEMSVURT1lqxE3HERAlgoAKC+nMcrnKLxJSWsLQDJsH4De9lQFwCeNMn6
AaQAbWVcHFqNJxjnpvSoao0=
=1XZF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE CHRONIC CASE
A being in a body can not rest for long.
The call of duty and the impingement of life and survival
necessities force him to get up and do something constructive towards
those ends.
A body that is wounded needs to rest in order to heal. This can
be counter to the need to get up and go in order to survive.
But a body can also suffer from psychosomatic woundings that are
a result of the thetan body conflict going on between the two.
Psychosomatic woundings can be every much as wounding as physical
trauma. Cancers, lukemias, allergies, asthmas, environmental
sensitivities etc are all examples of this category.
Since they are being caused by what the thetan is DOING to the
body, one has to ask, should one heal them by doing or by not doing?
Acute psychosomatic woundings can heal in miraculous time once
the being stops causing them. So sometimes just getting a being to DO
something other than hurt the body can itself be a cure.
Chronic long term psychosomatic woundings can also heal in
miracle time, but often need an exact indication of whats going on to
get the being to stop hurting the body. This is where auditing comes
in.
Now work towards survival itself can be wounding, particularly if
the being has installed psychosomatic damage in the channels of
control. The more the guy works, the sicker he becomes.
It can even get to a point where SLEEP makes him ill, because the
psychomatic damage takes place during sleep where it is uncontrolled
and rampant. At least when he is awake he can WATCH himself do it,
when he is asleep its 8 or more hours of damage with no respite.
A common example of this is when a child decides to go to sleep
to forget some trauma going on in his life, and succeeds in doing so.
Forever afterwards sleep becomes an effort to forget charged events,
and thus of course sleep hurts the body because the concommittant
effort to forget kills it.
It takes a LOT of effort directed at the back of the brain and
awareness systems to shut out a memory for good.
Black V's are dead men walking.
So a being in a state of life threatening chronic psychosomatic
damage has to decide whether to do or not do, and if to do, what to
do.
He can't work normal survival channels because they make him
worse.
He can't just be still and do nothing, an effort to rest, because
that doesn't stop the damage either, its on automatic. And he is
getting further and further behind in his survival needs which starts
to drive him to hysteria and desperation.
So he turns to auditing which is a fix and repair detour to
getting on with survival.
Now most people who come into auditing are doing well in life,
they have charge around them but its not in restimulation, and so
periodically when it does get restimulated, they have reactions which
they would like to overcome.
Thus they sit down at the auditing table, the auditor quickly
gets an F/N on ruds, and then selectively starts to probe the
quiescent charge around the being for something that can be
restimulated, cleared and thus erased.
Auditing is like precision surgical bull bait.
After such actions the being has more free theta which is now
his, to enjoy life with, and has less fear of reaction because
he knows there is one less source of reaction hiding in his space to
dramatize him when it gets triggered.
But the other guy who is in a chronic state of damage is in a
very different state. He sits down at the table, and his TA is at
5.5. He can't float any ruds because his condition is a present time
problem of long duration that needs to be solved NOW or he won't
survive at all, particularly if its stopping him from working.
Now work itself might be some of the source of his chronic
restimulation, he might be very off purpose, at the end of a long GPM
opposing himself, and thus surviving in life by essentially throwing
his time in life away.
Maybe he gets to eat, but nothing real gets done and beings hate
that, subsistence level hand to mouth survival.
He may still be around or associated with the beings that came into
conflict with his originals goals that gave him purpose to live. In
this case he is under persistent present time suppression. He may even
WORK for such people and thus himself continuously be enhancing his
degraded being status.
Or maybe he LOST the beings that gave him purpose to live, and now
without them, he can't win.
In the first case, spotting the SP's in his environment can help
him get out from under their suppression of invention. The SP can be
very specific or very wide like 'the public at large'. He can stop
working for them, throw off the yoke of burden, and suddenly go very
free and become an easy to audit case.
In the second case, you have a deeper problem to solve, he has to
rehab his desire and confidence that he can rebuild his team and get on
with it.
If he lost his entire team, then everyone else he has been living
around is almost assuredly indifferent, unable to rise to, or opposed to
his goals or they would already have become a new team, and thus he will
be found to be PTS to everyone.
In any case the chronic somatic case and the easy to F/N case are
two completely different cases and need to be approached in different
ways.
The easy to F/N case just needs his next thing restimulated and
erased. The auditor doesn't have to know how to fix the case because
the guy is already fixed, he just needs preventative maintenance.
The chronic somatic case needs his entire present time
rehabilitated and handled, and no charge on his case will be available
to view until that is done. This takes an auditor who knows the
anatomy of ascent and descent upside down, forwards and backwards.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Sep 9 23:09:32 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jan 4 12:00:04 EST 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore393.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)
iD8DBQFeEMSVURT1lqxE3HERAlgoAKC+nMcrnKLxJSWsLQDJsH4De9lQFwCeNMn6
AaQAbWVcHFqNJxjnpvSoao0=
=1XZF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)