-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WITCH MOTHER
You gotta understand something about Adore.
Adore is a baby phase religion that *DETESTS* women, oh just simply
and totally hates them to pieces. There are not enough bad things in
the world to wish off on them.
This is because it grew up with a witch mother. A witch mother is
a female who never matured into an adult but remained a child trying to
relate to the husband as a child, rather than as a peer.
The the child mother was jealous of her own male son, the attention
the father gave him and the abilities the son had that the mother
didn't, and tried her best to destroy the son in a form of deadly
sibling war. Since the mother had the abilities of an adult but the
mind of a brat child, the son soon gave up and went into catatonia and
oblivion to quiet the fury, rage and matricide.
This is all laid out in detail in Transactional Analysis and the
book "I'm OK, You're OK" by Eric Berne et al.
It took many years for Adore to grow up to its present view, which
is NOT a Yin-Yang of complementation between male and female, but a 4
fold encompassment of God, Man, Woman and Child.
By encompanssment Adore is referring to a series of concentric
circles, God being the outer one, man the next one in, woman the next
one, and the child the inner most one.
The circles represent arenas of activities. Because the mother's
circle is bigger than the child's, the mother may 'go' and do things the
child may not.
Just so with the other circles.
This "four circles as a whole" form a 'grade' in Adore, as in 4th
or 5th grade, etc.
The game is for the being to grow up from child, to woman, to man
to God within that grade by mastering the 4 primary characteristics of
each circle.
They are:
1.) Master of total irresponsibility (child)
2.) Master of Defense (woman)
3.) Master of Offense (man)
4.) Master of total responsibility (god)
The child wishes to earn its tits (womanhood).
The woman wishses to earn her balls (manhood).
The man wishes to earn his wings (godhood).
The god wishes to earn his childhood at the next grade up.
Although they are called man and woman, they don't really refer to
bodies or sexes, but Adore does consider that if a being is in a woman
phase for their major life goals in any particular life, they will do
better in a female body. Likewise for male phase beings having a male
body to do the job.
The game of 'growing up' through a particular grade may take more
than one life time and thus more than one body.
Since there are only two body types, and 4 levels of attainment in
each grade, one needs to make do as well as they can with the body they
have chosen.
One will find child, women, man and god phase beings in bodies
of either physical sex.
Thus body sex is not a good indication of grade level nor of level
within each grade. Body sex in fact tends to obscure the various grades
and the levels within, and creates a major hinderance to moving up the
levels and then grades due to social prejudices and body limitations.
Once a grade is completed, the being moves up to the next grade and
starts all over again as a child in that grade.
Most beings are apparently on a dwindling spiral, they are falling
down grades rather than climbing.
Mortality is a very low state of decay, probably sub kindergarten
in earth language. Something like a prison for delinquents who have
turned away from their fear of hell forever and refused to acknowledge
the eternal light and its beauty.
It's not hopeless for them, but at some point those in a low grade
are no longer able or willing to help those in the same grade advance,
and in fact work ceasely to maintain their own ascendancy in the low
grade by pushing others lower and keeping them there, eventually to fall
out to an even lower grade.
Thus it may remain to those in higher grades to keep an eye on the
lower grades and put discipline and ethics in on them.
Only those in very low grades have any problem with any of the
above, whether it is true, useful or not.
The more it rings a bell, the more they scream.
Adore presently considers itself in the woman phase of its
existence, and is very happy being a woman taking care of her child,
looking for a man worthy of her efforts, to care for her while she cares
for the child.
But all the men she runs into, are either in a lower grade than she
is, pretending that all men are 'better' than all women, and that women
are property of men, or men who have ceased seeking their wings and have
turned against personal God hood in any arena of life whatsoever.
(Men are better than all women in their own or lower grade.
Women are better than all men in a lower grade.)
The meanwhile her child phase *SON* is missing a role model, as
women phase beings can not be role models to male phase beings in the
areas that the male phase being needs to grow to earn his wings.
As a woman phase religion, Adore also tires to the point of
desperation of women who think women need a man like a fish needs a
bicycle, and Adore can only shudder at why such women would ever want a
male son, to bring him up as what?
"Women think of men as genetically inferior women.
Men think of women as children." - Adore
All evidence to the contrary, these are very *VERY* low grade views,
heading lower.
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
Tue Mar 1 15:10:58 EST 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Dec 28 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore853.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFUn7npURT1lqxE3HERAsNCAJ0YAscwG6AD+wLCdrD9IKxaOeJ7oQCfbCdF
I78Dwv8VQ0rHTy/+6AqbEIg=
=HLz0
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sun Dec 28 15:02:45 EST 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun May 24 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore853.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)
iD8DBQFeypoFURT1lqxE3HERApgMAKDX469aLASl0oAH6cAEDqBsSaAqiACgotY2
f29ewWKIHrTNLycJTQ6wBpc=
=PSaS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, May 24, 2020
Saturday, May 23, 2020
ADORE368 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
jacksonmoore69@hotmail.com wrote:
>If they think you are too different at the slightest thing, then they
>too fixed as a person.
Way understated. Try FIXIDITY on the ACC scale, just above
erosion, dissassociation, criminality, uncausing, disconnection and
unexistence.
You are talking about filth on its way out.
>HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE AN IDEAL THERAPY SESSION??
>DO YOU EVALUATE THE PERSON? DO YOU 'LEAD'THE RPSERON IN A DIRECTION
>ACCORDING TO YOUR BIAS? I MEAN WHAT DO YOU DO?
First we determine the person's intent.
They are already sitting in the chair for some purpose.
What is that purpose?
Is it to get better at staying worse, more able to operate their
service facs and make SP's wrong, gain sympathy etc, or is it to get
free, truely free?
Then how do you define free, never come back ever again to this
place? Or any place? How much total elsewhereness is in their
concept of 'better'? Do they want to get out to a place that would
never come in again?
Get them to define seriousness and humor until they get it.
Once they are oriented to 'optimized game playing', with
awareness of fair choice in their presence in all past, present and
future games, then we can start hunting around for non opimized games.
"How do you feel about your future?"
Desire and view (view = postulate mess).
Direction of auditing is to find inactalities, disasters, god
postulates, and then get them to change mind.
It should be pretty simple from there on out.
As usual impossibility, incredibility, preposterousness, no
permission, and shame guard the gates of freedom.
The pc can't rise any higher than his auditor, so at some point
he needs to start soloing.
Homer
Sat Aug 19 15:27:18 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat May 23 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore368.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)
iD8DBQFeyUiEURT1lqxE3HERAgb/AJ0X/0azsuCMP+3pnN9A/8tliB+zLwCgwISa
NxKymRE8DG8UTN5WHdr1qrQ=
=Kp5q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
jacksonmoore69@hotmail.com wrote:
>If they think you are too different at the slightest thing, then they
>too fixed as a person.
Way understated. Try FIXIDITY on the ACC scale, just above
erosion, dissassociation, criminality, uncausing, disconnection and
unexistence.
You are talking about filth on its way out.
>HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE AN IDEAL THERAPY SESSION??
>DO YOU EVALUATE THE PERSON? DO YOU 'LEAD'THE RPSERON IN A DIRECTION
>ACCORDING TO YOUR BIAS? I MEAN WHAT DO YOU DO?
First we determine the person's intent.
They are already sitting in the chair for some purpose.
What is that purpose?
Is it to get better at staying worse, more able to operate their
service facs and make SP's wrong, gain sympathy etc, or is it to get
free, truely free?
Then how do you define free, never come back ever again to this
place? Or any place? How much total elsewhereness is in their
concept of 'better'? Do they want to get out to a place that would
never come in again?
Get them to define seriousness and humor until they get it.
Once they are oriented to 'optimized game playing', with
awareness of fair choice in their presence in all past, present and
future games, then we can start hunting around for non opimized games.
"How do you feel about your future?"
Desire and view (view = postulate mess).
Direction of auditing is to find inactalities, disasters, god
postulates, and then get them to change mind.
It should be pretty simple from there on out.
As usual impossibility, incredibility, preposterousness, no
permission, and shame guard the gates of freedom.
The pc can't rise any higher than his auditor, so at some point
he needs to start soloing.
Homer
Sat Aug 19 15:27:18 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat May 23 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore368.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)
iD8DBQFeyUiEURT1lqxE3HERAgb/AJ0X/0azsuCMP+3pnN9A/8tliB+zLwCgwISa
NxKymRE8DG8UTN5WHdr1qrQ=
=Kp5q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, May 22, 2020
ADORE273 (fwd)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 12:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: homer@lightlink.com
To: homer@lightlink.com
Subject: ADORE273
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Rogers. D.Scn. (The_Bindu@NOSPAMmsn.com) wrote:
>"Homer Wilson Smith" <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in message
>> Ron says many times that the mest universe is merely a mockup,
>> no different than any other mockup the thetan can make.
>He was only partly right. It was a valid partial observation. Or, put it
>another way, a valid intimation of the capability of Theta.
>But, the mest universe has no single source and thus cannot be considered
>(in any singular sense) "a mockup."
Each being has and lives in his own copy of the MEST universe.
The various copies of everyone "in" the MEST universe interact
via *INTERNAL* resonance between beings conduited through Source.
That is what Source does, it allows two beings to resonate the
same dream, to dream together.
The MEST universe exists only as the separate individual dreams
of a zillion beings, dreaming in unison, common in theme due only to
that fair chosen resonance. Each being has his own complete copy.
If you make a mockup, and I make a similar mockup they will lock
on to each other and become 'one'. The oneness is an illusion, they
remain two mockups, but act as one.
Cool eh?
The oneness of the MEST universe is an apparency among many.
"An infinite number of infinite minds was beyond the ken of
modern day philosophers" - LRH
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri May 22 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore273.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)
iD8DBQFex/cFURT1lqxE3HERAkrcAJ9iKsamPdgqLOPA9SbnOagNwBq0eACgmFzp
d2b1bbrl3J0Y3OaI6swkgcQ=
=23a2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
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
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 12:00:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: homer@lightlink.com
To: homer@lightlink.com
Subject: ADORE273
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Rogers. D.Scn. (The_Bindu@NOSPAMmsn.com) wrote:
>"Homer Wilson Smith" <homer@lightlink.com> wrote in message
>> Ron says many times that the mest universe is merely a mockup,
>> no different than any other mockup the thetan can make.
>He was only partly right. It was a valid partial observation. Or, put it
>another way, a valid intimation of the capability of Theta.
>But, the mest universe has no single source and thus cannot be considered
>(in any singular sense) "a mockup."
Each being has and lives in his own copy of the MEST universe.
The various copies of everyone "in" the MEST universe interact
via *INTERNAL* resonance between beings conduited through Source.
That is what Source does, it allows two beings to resonate the
same dream, to dream together.
The MEST universe exists only as the separate individual dreams
of a zillion beings, dreaming in unison, common in theme due only to
that fair chosen resonance. Each being has his own complete copy.
If you make a mockup, and I make a similar mockup they will lock
on to each other and become 'one'. The oneness is an illusion, they
remain two mockups, but act as one.
Cool eh?
The oneness of the MEST universe is an apparency among many.
"An infinite number of infinite minds was beyond the ken of
modern day philosophers" - LRH
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri May 22 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore273.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)
iD8DBQFex/cFURT1lqxE3HERAkrcAJ9iKsamPdgqLOPA9SbnOagNwBq0eACgmFzp
d2b1bbrl3J0Y3OaI6swkgcQ=
=23a2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
adore728.memo (fwd)
WHY AUDIT A DREAM?
Ted Mayett <ars.to.tedmayett@xxmmxxspamgourmet.com> wrote:
> And my "avatars" in those dreams can do
> horrible nasty things. And those avatars are most certainly not in
> need of repair auditing because of overts committed.
That's because your dream avatars believe they are alone, that
others are mere hallucinations, no real concscious unit behind the
others in your dreams.
If you stick a knife into a dream being's body, and she screams in
pain, its all an act on the part of your own overts, no one actually
feels that pain.
Wrong.
Overts in dreams are just as real as overts in the waking state,
except dreams are meant to be limited in time, the waking state is not.
The dream being you slaughtered wakes up too and finds he is still alive
and ok.
Things done to someone in the waking state however are FOREVER.
Or as you point out below, are they?
If they are not forever, then even though we hurt people and are
hurt in return, just like in sleep dreams, then nothing is permanent, in
the end we all make up and make friends.
Thus hurts in this dream must be forgiven as we wish to be
forgiven.
>In fact those
> avatars in my dreams might think they have past lives, but that is
> only an illusion.
That is wrong.
Do you really believe that girl you made love to last night in a
dream wasn't there also?
Ever TALK to your dream beings?
Ever been given a talking to?
Ever gotten good auditing in a dream?
Ever had someone WAY bigger than you come to you in a dream and
tell you to start behaving yourself in your dreams and stop pretending
you are alone?
I mean how many tits can you stick a knife into before you know
well enough what it feels like?
Isn't it better to interview the dream bitch and find out what her
beef is?
I will save you some trouble, I quote "I don't want to be
arosed."
> How do you audit a dream Homer? And why would you audit a dream?
You audit out the conception that it is FOREVER.
It is only the forevers (in time) that cause problems.
Seriousness, importance, PERMANENCE and pain.
The only things that live forever (out side of time) are people and
peace.
Everything else is only for a while.
Seriousness keeps the game glued together by fear and hate for
forever losses.
Unwilling, infact unable, to ever be friends again.
That will be $10, bill is in the mail.
I got a new business model, I will be auditing this for money,
gold, guns, ammunition or lawyer parts, the E/P is the person will walk
away knowing exactly to the day how long they will being spending in
hell when they die.
For a little bit more, I will show them how to help themselves
lessen their term while still alive.
Results fully guaranteed or your money back.
Still working on the Devil, er I mean the details.
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 Feb 27 22:28:15 EST 2010
Sat Feb 27 22:34:21 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri May 22 00:06:03 EDT 2020
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore728.memo
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Ted Mayett <ars.to.tedmayett@xxmmxxspamgourmet.com> wrote:
> And my "avatars" in those dreams can do
> horrible nasty things. And those avatars are most certainly not in
> need of repair auditing because of overts committed.
That's because your dream avatars believe they are alone, that
others are mere hallucinations, no real concscious unit behind the
others in your dreams.
If you stick a knife into a dream being's body, and she screams in
pain, its all an act on the part of your own overts, no one actually
feels that pain.
Wrong.
Overts in dreams are just as real as overts in the waking state,
except dreams are meant to be limited in time, the waking state is not.
The dream being you slaughtered wakes up too and finds he is still alive
and ok.
Things done to someone in the waking state however are FOREVER.
Or as you point out below, are they?
If they are not forever, then even though we hurt people and are
hurt in return, just like in sleep dreams, then nothing is permanent, in
the end we all make up and make friends.
Thus hurts in this dream must be forgiven as we wish to be
forgiven.
>In fact those
> avatars in my dreams might think they have past lives, but that is
> only an illusion.
That is wrong.
Do you really believe that girl you made love to last night in a
dream wasn't there also?
Ever TALK to your dream beings?
Ever been given a talking to?
Ever gotten good auditing in a dream?
Ever had someone WAY bigger than you come to you in a dream and
tell you to start behaving yourself in your dreams and stop pretending
you are alone?
I mean how many tits can you stick a knife into before you know
well enough what it feels like?
Isn't it better to interview the dream bitch and find out what her
beef is?
I will save you some trouble, I quote "I don't want to be
arosed."
> How do you audit a dream Homer? And why would you audit a dream?
You audit out the conception that it is FOREVER.
It is only the forevers (in time) that cause problems.
Seriousness, importance, PERMANENCE and pain.
The only things that live forever (out side of time) are people and
peace.
Everything else is only for a while.
Seriousness keeps the game glued together by fear and hate for
forever losses.
Unwilling, infact unable, to ever be friends again.
That will be $10, bill is in the mail.
I got a new business model, I will be auditing this for money,
gold, guns, ammunition or lawyer parts, the E/P is the person will walk
away knowing exactly to the day how long they will being spending in
hell when they die.
For a little bit more, I will show them how to help themselves
lessen their term while still alive.
Results fully guaranteed or your money back.
Still working on the Devil, er I mean the details.
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 Feb 27 22:28:15 EST 2010
Sat Feb 27 22:34:21 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri May 22 00:06:03 EDT 2020
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore728.memo
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
PROOF20 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
"All certainties can be wrong."
"Is that certain?"
"Yes."
"Can that statement be wrong?"
"Yes."
"Are you perfectly certain of it then?"
"Yes."
When a person says "I am certain I am right but I could always be
wrong." they are issuing self contradictory statements and thus have
said nothing. It is no longer possible to know what they are talking
about.
The Bible says that we shall be judged by every word that comes
out of the mouth of man.
"I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they
shall give account thereof in the day of judgement. For by thy words
thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
So the good Lord takes Logic is King very seriously.
God didn't give Eve a mind so she could make Adam wrong with it.
Men learn logic from their mothers. If men then use female logic
against women again, that is justice coming full circle.
The claim to certainty for things that are not certain and in
fact CERTAINLY CAN NOT BE CERTAIN is a high crime against knowledge.
Defining out of existence entire areas of knowledge by defining
down the meanings of words so that they no longer can encompass
everything there is to encompass is also a high crime.
This is done routinely with the words 'responsibility' and
'certainty'
Responsibility means 'knowing willing cause with full awareness
of the consequences."
Certainty means "can't be wrong, if it turns out you were wrong,
then you weren't certain and could have known you weren't certain before
you found out you were wrong."
People who have never experienced a perfect certainty THAT CAN
NOT BE WRONG, will continue to call uncertainties certainty and
continue to engage in high crimes against God, the great I AM.
I AM means NOT I AM NOT.
You think God will argue that logic is illogical?
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 ====================
Mon May 18 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof20.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)
iD8DBQFewrEFURT1lqxE3HERAlBKAJ4jlE2t3e3CPNUIZWajUr1B5XQRJgCgyiHs
L+eTpdq1S6oI5lCQqj42IuY=
=STlE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
"All certainties can be wrong."
"Is that certain?"
"Yes."
"Can that statement be wrong?"
"Yes."
"Are you perfectly certain of it then?"
"Yes."
When a person says "I am certain I am right but I could always be
wrong." they are issuing self contradictory statements and thus have
said nothing. It is no longer possible to know what they are talking
about.
The Bible says that we shall be judged by every word that comes
out of the mouth of man.
"I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they
shall give account thereof in the day of judgement. For by thy words
thou shalt be justified and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."
So the good Lord takes Logic is King very seriously.
God didn't give Eve a mind so she could make Adam wrong with it.
Men learn logic from their mothers. If men then use female logic
against women again, that is justice coming full circle.
The claim to certainty for things that are not certain and in
fact CERTAINLY CAN NOT BE CERTAIN is a high crime against knowledge.
Defining out of existence entire areas of knowledge by defining
down the meanings of words so that they no longer can encompass
everything there is to encompass is also a high crime.
This is done routinely with the words 'responsibility' and
'certainty'
Responsibility means 'knowing willing cause with full awareness
of the consequences."
Certainty means "can't be wrong, if it turns out you were wrong,
then you weren't certain and could have known you weren't certain before
you found out you were wrong."
People who have never experienced a perfect certainty THAT CAN
NOT BE WRONG, will continue to call uncertainties certainty and
continue to engage in high crimes against God, the great I AM.
I AM means NOT I AM NOT.
You think God will argue that logic is illogical?
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 ====================
Mon May 18 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof20.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)
iD8DBQFewrEFURT1lqxE3HERAlBKAJ4jlE2t3e3CPNUIZWajUr1B5XQRJgCgyiHs
L+eTpdq1S6oI5lCQqj42IuY=
=STlE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE477 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BODY AND CARS
The body is a car.
Usually the being first enters the car after it is built and he
buys it.
But imagine a world where cars are scarce and people buy and pay
for their cars before they are built.
Ownership of the car takes place before it even exists.
Now image a world where thuggery and fraud and use of criminal
force is so rampant that merely owning a car before it is built is no
guarantee you will actually get the car after it is built.
So then people start to occupy their car when the first part of
its A frame is created, never to leave it.
Sometimes more than one person will manage to get into the car
and they not only fight off everone else but also each other from
there on out.
They arm themselves to the teeth against anyone who might want to
take the car from them, and they barricade themselves in while the car
is built around them so no one can pull them out, to the point where
they couldn't get out themselves anymore if they wanted to.
Exactly zero desire to get out no matter what, you see?
Often the guy who paid for the car, isn't the one who wins the
fight and gets the car. And no he doens't get his money back. So
pretty soon people are just TAKING cars, often the first one they see,
but in the fight, to the strongest go the spoils.
At the end of the car's useful life, people go to the salvage yards
still in their car, right through the compressor and into the smelter.
Only once there is liquid metal running are they able to get out again
to go buy a new car.
Or they already bought the new car before they leave the old car,
they just can't go defend it until they are free of the present one.
They pay others to defend it for them, but the thugs often get the car
in the end anyway. Sometimes the defenders ARE the thugs, so it's rough
out there getting the car of your choice.
That's pretty much how it is on Earth at this time with respect to
bodies.
We know what the attraction of cars is,
But what is the attraction of bodies?
Homer
Thu Nov 22 15:18:35 EST 2018
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun May 17 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore477.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)
iD8DBQFewV+FURT1lqxE3HERAnc/AKCoueWH0TrQlUuhLbepp7tFpGCRgQCeLhj5
yMr7iYwrZjrlbg5vVZA3Gb0=
=9elX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
BODY AND CARS
The body is a car.
Usually the being first enters the car after it is built and he
buys it.
But imagine a world where cars are scarce and people buy and pay
for their cars before they are built.
Ownership of the car takes place before it even exists.
Now image a world where thuggery and fraud and use of criminal
force is so rampant that merely owning a car before it is built is no
guarantee you will actually get the car after it is built.
So then people start to occupy their car when the first part of
its A frame is created, never to leave it.
Sometimes more than one person will manage to get into the car
and they not only fight off everone else but also each other from
there on out.
They arm themselves to the teeth against anyone who might want to
take the car from them, and they barricade themselves in while the car
is built around them so no one can pull them out, to the point where
they couldn't get out themselves anymore if they wanted to.
Exactly zero desire to get out no matter what, you see?
Often the guy who paid for the car, isn't the one who wins the
fight and gets the car. And no he doens't get his money back. So
pretty soon people are just TAKING cars, often the first one they see,
but in the fight, to the strongest go the spoils.
At the end of the car's useful life, people go to the salvage yards
still in their car, right through the compressor and into the smelter.
Only once there is liquid metal running are they able to get out again
to go buy a new car.
Or they already bought the new car before they leave the old car,
they just can't go defend it until they are free of the present one.
They pay others to defend it for them, but the thugs often get the car
in the end anyway. Sometimes the defenders ARE the thugs, so it's rough
out there getting the car of your choice.
That's pretty much how it is on Earth at this time with respect to
bodies.
We know what the attraction of cars is,
But what is the attraction of bodies?
Homer
Thu Nov 22 15:18:35 EST 2018
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun May 17 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore477.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)
iD8DBQFewV+FURT1lqxE3HERAnc/AKCoueWH0TrQlUuhLbepp7tFpGCRgQCeLhj5
yMr7iYwrZjrlbg5vVZA3Gb0=
=9elX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE738 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TO CHUCK BEATTY
Chuck Beatty,
A grown man might seem like an OT to an ant, but a man can't stand
up to a swarm of 100,000 ants. Ant swarms are some of the most feared
animals in the forest.
(OT means Operating Thetan, a scientology term referring to a being
able to operating at partial or full spiritual capacity.)
In the same way no present time OT can stand up to a swarm of
humans interested in him.
Either OT powers exist or they don't. Either you have been out of
your body or your haven't. I mean come on, how shallow does shallow come?
Its not like Joe Blow has OT powers and you don't. If OT powers
exist, then people don't 'have' them because they don't want them, as
they had OT powers at one time, and then used their OT powers to not
have OT powers.
All an OT power is, is you get what you postulate.
The postulate that postulates don't work, works.
That is the magic of no magic.
If OT powers exist, then clearly you are a god of sorts, and if you
are a god then clearly you are repsonsibile for your own condition
whatever it may be. Thus if you feel you are not a god now, you must
have chosen to not be a god when you were a god. Duplicating and
retracting the intention to not be a god would in theory remove the
limitations you imposed on yourself.
Anyhow if Joe Blow were to demonstrate that he had some serious OT
power to you or anyone, particularly an ability that could be used as a
weapon of war, it would be very dangerous to Joe and his family and
friends, all kinds of people would have the tentacles of their attention
on him for many different purposes, just as you have your tentacles of
attention on people for demonstration of proof.
But if such proof were forth coming, you and anyone else unreal on
the subject would go into a dream state, and start to doubt your own
sanity, and become afraid of the one who had the powers for fear of what
they might do to you should they one day come to dislike you.
You might think that someone who had the powers would be able to
help you get your powers back, that might or might not be true,
depending on how obstinate your desire to not have them is. What people
fear is that your initial desire to get help having OT powers would soon
turn into trying to make sure others don't have them either because you
can't confront your unwillingness to have them yourself.
Unwillingness is the only reason we don't have these powers.
Thus your whining about how you need someone else to prove OT
powers exist to you is a bit degraded beyond words not to mention
possibly disingenuous.
The only proof that you will ever find, that you will actually
believe, will come only from yourself.
Demanding proof of OT powers from others, is not only selfish,
foolish and dangerous to them and yourself, it just can't substitute for
finding those powers within yourself, or hints and rememberances of when
you had them, and why you no longer want them.
Most of the OT powers that people want, they would hate having if
they had them.
A lot of people spend their whole lives hating not having what
they would hate having if they had it.
People think they will be better able to defend the body and its
survival. OT powers used for the defense of the body is a sure way to
get entangled in a human swarm you will never shake off. That is how we
got into the state we are in.
So since I don't have any OT powers and don't want them in this
life, all I can offer is the OT Power Protocol Rundown, which if you
would but spend a hour's worth with it in a co audit, most of your need
for proof would vanish.
(Audit means a session where two people help each other find their
negative postulates and duplicate and retract them.)
You might still have your doubts that Joe who claims to have OT
powers actually has them, but you would probably lose your doubt that OT
powers exist and that you can get them alone.
The OT Power Protocol Rundown is highly confidential, very
dangerous and should only be used by people with a high degree of
spritual awareness and who are able to take full repsonsibility for
their own condition and everyone else's.
Skip the parts on Pride, they don't apply to you.
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore712.memo
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Apr 2 13:51:30 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat May 16 12:00:03 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore738.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)
iD8DBQFewA4EURT1lqxE3HERAqcGAKCfP8d9h08SlyGzf4GlnrM0wrZpAwCguV3W
BkSQrl6rYPBrym1wJYg3B8M=
=FuE9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TO CHUCK BEATTY
Chuck Beatty,
A grown man might seem like an OT to an ant, but a man can't stand
up to a swarm of 100,000 ants. Ant swarms are some of the most feared
animals in the forest.
(OT means Operating Thetan, a scientology term referring to a being
able to operating at partial or full spiritual capacity.)
In the same way no present time OT can stand up to a swarm of
humans interested in him.
Either OT powers exist or they don't. Either you have been out of
your body or your haven't. I mean come on, how shallow does shallow come?
Its not like Joe Blow has OT powers and you don't. If OT powers
exist, then people don't 'have' them because they don't want them, as
they had OT powers at one time, and then used their OT powers to not
have OT powers.
All an OT power is, is you get what you postulate.
The postulate that postulates don't work, works.
That is the magic of no magic.
If OT powers exist, then clearly you are a god of sorts, and if you
are a god then clearly you are repsonsibile for your own condition
whatever it may be. Thus if you feel you are not a god now, you must
have chosen to not be a god when you were a god. Duplicating and
retracting the intention to not be a god would in theory remove the
limitations you imposed on yourself.
Anyhow if Joe Blow were to demonstrate that he had some serious OT
power to you or anyone, particularly an ability that could be used as a
weapon of war, it would be very dangerous to Joe and his family and
friends, all kinds of people would have the tentacles of their attention
on him for many different purposes, just as you have your tentacles of
attention on people for demonstration of proof.
But if such proof were forth coming, you and anyone else unreal on
the subject would go into a dream state, and start to doubt your own
sanity, and become afraid of the one who had the powers for fear of what
they might do to you should they one day come to dislike you.
You might think that someone who had the powers would be able to
help you get your powers back, that might or might not be true,
depending on how obstinate your desire to not have them is. What people
fear is that your initial desire to get help having OT powers would soon
turn into trying to make sure others don't have them either because you
can't confront your unwillingness to have them yourself.
Unwillingness is the only reason we don't have these powers.
Thus your whining about how you need someone else to prove OT
powers exist to you is a bit degraded beyond words not to mention
possibly disingenuous.
The only proof that you will ever find, that you will actually
believe, will come only from yourself.
Demanding proof of OT powers from others, is not only selfish,
foolish and dangerous to them and yourself, it just can't substitute for
finding those powers within yourself, or hints and rememberances of when
you had them, and why you no longer want them.
Most of the OT powers that people want, they would hate having if
they had them.
A lot of people spend their whole lives hating not having what
they would hate having if they had it.
People think they will be better able to defend the body and its
survival. OT powers used for the defense of the body is a sure way to
get entangled in a human swarm you will never shake off. That is how we
got into the state we are in.
So since I don't have any OT powers and don't want them in this
life, all I can offer is the OT Power Protocol Rundown, which if you
would but spend a hour's worth with it in a co audit, most of your need
for proof would vanish.
(Audit means a session where two people help each other find their
negative postulates and duplicate and retract them.)
You might still have your doubts that Joe who claims to have OT
powers actually has them, but you would probably lose your doubt that OT
powers exist and that you can get them alone.
The OT Power Protocol Rundown is highly confidential, very
dangerous and should only be used by people with a high degree of
spritual awareness and who are able to take full repsonsibility for
their own condition and everyone else's.
Skip the parts on Pride, they don't apply to you.
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/adore712.memo
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Apr 2 13:51:30 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat May 16 12:00:03 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore738.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)
iD8DBQFewA4EURT1lqxE3HERAqcGAKCfP8d9h08SlyGzf4GlnrM0wrZpAwCguV3W
BkSQrl6rYPBrym1wJYg3B8M=
=FuE9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE767 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
06/15/10 Tuesday 6:15pm EST
HIGH US II THE CORPORATE CHURCH
Chuck Beatty said:
> thankyou for all your answers.
>
> From what you've said, I can extrapolate that the whole administrative
> running of a spiritual movement, such as Scientology, I presume you
> don't think much of the whole shebang of what Hubbard, for instance,
> wrote in the green volumes.
Like everything, some of it is brilliant, some of it is
suppressive. Doesn't take much poison to kill someone.
"Competition is a trick of the weak to fetter the strong." - LRH
Competition is all that keeps quality in the product for the
consumer, so success at wiping out competition is guaranteed bad for the
buyer.
I am a techie, I have no idea how a huge organization should be
run. Scn is very much like the military or a commie/fascism.
No one votes on anything.
Absolute dictatorial vertical control from top on down.
Its a priest hood not a democracy.
Hubbard said democracies are tone 4.0 (enthusiasm), and fascism is tone
1.5 (anger), and commies are tone 1.1 (covert hostility).
What tone is the Church and the people in it?
Propiation?
> In your opinion, do you think that efforts of any spiritual group,
> even Theosophy for instance, are valid efforts to try to organize and
> carry out?
The issue is production. It is one thing to have a bible that says
how to live life, it is quite another to provide a production/assembly
line to produce a product on another human being.
Just on the training side, take training to fly an airplane, it
takes a good organization to do that, from ground crews, to pilots to
secretaries to treasurers, the full corporate org board in other words.
If you got stock holders, then all that has to be in place, they
vote on the Board, who elect the mangers, who hire the personell, who do
the work on the customers who pay for it.
> And have you any general opinions about "organized" religion in any
> form?
To the degree that religion is merely a belief or faith system
(nonsense in other words), the organization is basically for the control
of the public, the enforcement of keeping the faith and obedience to the
party line etc. Money flows from the public to the priests to keep them
alive. There is no return flow of any kind except in the fancy of the
eye of the beholder.
To the degree that a religion is an *APPLIED* philosophy, meaning
not only a way to run one's own life, but an extended team effort to
change the state of a being from human to something higher, then it has
to be organized along standard corp lines depending upon its capital
structure, just like any enterprise including medicine and psychiatry.
Take any sports or dance camp, the purpose is to go there to get
trained. That's a team effort, and teams beyond two, like one on one
tutoring, are a corp enterprise and need everything that comes with
being a viable corporation.
In fact if you took a real hot shot MBA, someone who graduated from
a school of business management and who had succesfully run a billion
dollar enterprise as CEO for years, and set him loose on the Church to
fix what was broke, adding in all the usual legal oversight of HR and
OSHA etc, you would probably end up with a very powerful and functional
corporation that could actually produce what it promised that ended up
bigger than IBM and Microsoft combined.
Of course any legal anything with the Church would open up a can of
worms in that the end product of the Chuch is a major weapon of war, but
we would leave that problem until later.
The MBA would still be able to do a lot if allowed to molt Church
policy in a survival manner, even if the final product was super secret.
Lots of super secret corp's in the world that do just fine.
The problem is it has to remain super secret from the GOVERNMENT,
as clearing is fundamentally subversive to other's control.
> When I asked you how many people are like yourself, that is sort of
>the Scientology's "3rd dynamic" concept, and it is sort of the real
>world's "organized" religions concept/reality.
>
> Do you think organized spiritual teaching centers and spiritual
>practice centers (churches, or organizations), are valid endeavors?
Yes, if they have a highly professional valuable final product.
There are psychologists who work alone, one client at a time.
But even they need secretaries, and if they are training people
under them, they need a whole slew more. If they have a whole clinic
with multiple doctors, there has to be scheduling, conflict resolution,
results, cramming etc.
This is embodied in the awareness characteristic chart:
Prediction, Activity, Production, Result, Correction, Ability.
In the present church, there is lots of activity, but production is
low, results are terrible, correction is impossible, and final ability
(valuable final product) is non existent.
Because the church can't produce, somewhere in there between
prediction, and ability, the preclear ends up in the RPF for failing as
a preclear, or expelled as suppressive.
*THAT* then becomes the valuable final product of the Church,
taking someone who wanted to learn how to fly, and turning him into a
'wanted criminal'. Nice production line.
Take a small town animal vet clinic. Its always a whole group of
people from call takers, to technicians, to full blown doctors working
as a team. And yes there is a standard corporate structure behind all
of them.
Look you are either going to be a sole proprietorship, a
partnership or a corporation in any making a living activity.
Making money merely means making a living.
If you make a living printing the Bible, you need a corp behind you
to make it work, corporate budgeting, what to buy, corporate structure,
debt or equity, and working capital, collect on your accounts
receivables and pay your bills, and not get buried under demands for
refunds for overt products.
If you make a living counseling people one on one to enhance and
apply their understanding of the Bible, then maybe you get away with a
sole proprietorship, but if you need outside investment in facilities,
then back to being a partnership or corporation you go.
Imagine the church going public and getting real investment in its
production?
It doesn't matter what a clear *BELIEVES*, can he produce an
ethical straight line without wavering. That's all corporate america
cares about.
No matter how you cut it, if you are MAKING A LIVING HELPING OTHERS
AS A PROFESSIONAL in any field whatsoever, there is a tax return at the
end of the year, and there are policies that must be written and laws
complied with. It is the nature of life.
>I probably am just using you to ask myself questions about these
>matters, which I just need to read more about. Well thanks for your
>time Homer. Chuck
Any time, you can call me if you really want to chew the rag
at 607 227 5465. I will however record the call and post it to the
net :)
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
Tue Jun 15 18:32:34 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri May 15 12:00:03 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore767.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)
iD8DBQFevryEURT1lqxE3HERApm+AJoC5p0FhjuIssewrZClo3TcKT9qlQCgiUHI
zYmoJsWKQqy3qPEzrlsg+AE=
=pKFs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
06/15/10 Tuesday 6:15pm EST
HIGH US II THE CORPORATE CHURCH
Chuck Beatty said:
> thankyou for all your answers.
>
> From what you've said, I can extrapolate that the whole administrative
> running of a spiritual movement, such as Scientology, I presume you
> don't think much of the whole shebang of what Hubbard, for instance,
> wrote in the green volumes.
Like everything, some of it is brilliant, some of it is
suppressive. Doesn't take much poison to kill someone.
"Competition is a trick of the weak to fetter the strong." - LRH
Competition is all that keeps quality in the product for the
consumer, so success at wiping out competition is guaranteed bad for the
buyer.
I am a techie, I have no idea how a huge organization should be
run. Scn is very much like the military or a commie/fascism.
No one votes on anything.
Absolute dictatorial vertical control from top on down.
Its a priest hood not a democracy.
Hubbard said democracies are tone 4.0 (enthusiasm), and fascism is tone
1.5 (anger), and commies are tone 1.1 (covert hostility).
What tone is the Church and the people in it?
Propiation?
> In your opinion, do you think that efforts of any spiritual group,
> even Theosophy for instance, are valid efforts to try to organize and
> carry out?
The issue is production. It is one thing to have a bible that says
how to live life, it is quite another to provide a production/assembly
line to produce a product on another human being.
Just on the training side, take training to fly an airplane, it
takes a good organization to do that, from ground crews, to pilots to
secretaries to treasurers, the full corporate org board in other words.
If you got stock holders, then all that has to be in place, they
vote on the Board, who elect the mangers, who hire the personell, who do
the work on the customers who pay for it.
> And have you any general opinions about "organized" religion in any
> form?
To the degree that religion is merely a belief or faith system
(nonsense in other words), the organization is basically for the control
of the public, the enforcement of keeping the faith and obedience to the
party line etc. Money flows from the public to the priests to keep them
alive. There is no return flow of any kind except in the fancy of the
eye of the beholder.
To the degree that a religion is an *APPLIED* philosophy, meaning
not only a way to run one's own life, but an extended team effort to
change the state of a being from human to something higher, then it has
to be organized along standard corp lines depending upon its capital
structure, just like any enterprise including medicine and psychiatry.
Take any sports or dance camp, the purpose is to go there to get
trained. That's a team effort, and teams beyond two, like one on one
tutoring, are a corp enterprise and need everything that comes with
being a viable corporation.
In fact if you took a real hot shot MBA, someone who graduated from
a school of business management and who had succesfully run a billion
dollar enterprise as CEO for years, and set him loose on the Church to
fix what was broke, adding in all the usual legal oversight of HR and
OSHA etc, you would probably end up with a very powerful and functional
corporation that could actually produce what it promised that ended up
bigger than IBM and Microsoft combined.
Of course any legal anything with the Church would open up a can of
worms in that the end product of the Chuch is a major weapon of war, but
we would leave that problem until later.
The MBA would still be able to do a lot if allowed to molt Church
policy in a survival manner, even if the final product was super secret.
Lots of super secret corp's in the world that do just fine.
The problem is it has to remain super secret from the GOVERNMENT,
as clearing is fundamentally subversive to other's control.
> When I asked you how many people are like yourself, that is sort of
>the Scientology's "3rd dynamic" concept, and it is sort of the real
>world's "organized" religions concept/reality.
>
> Do you think organized spiritual teaching centers and spiritual
>practice centers (churches, or organizations), are valid endeavors?
Yes, if they have a highly professional valuable final product.
There are psychologists who work alone, one client at a time.
But even they need secretaries, and if they are training people
under them, they need a whole slew more. If they have a whole clinic
with multiple doctors, there has to be scheduling, conflict resolution,
results, cramming etc.
This is embodied in the awareness characteristic chart:
Prediction, Activity, Production, Result, Correction, Ability.
In the present church, there is lots of activity, but production is
low, results are terrible, correction is impossible, and final ability
(valuable final product) is non existent.
Because the church can't produce, somewhere in there between
prediction, and ability, the preclear ends up in the RPF for failing as
a preclear, or expelled as suppressive.
*THAT* then becomes the valuable final product of the Church,
taking someone who wanted to learn how to fly, and turning him into a
'wanted criminal'. Nice production line.
Take a small town animal vet clinic. Its always a whole group of
people from call takers, to technicians, to full blown doctors working
as a team. And yes there is a standard corporate structure behind all
of them.
Look you are either going to be a sole proprietorship, a
partnership or a corporation in any making a living activity.
Making money merely means making a living.
If you make a living printing the Bible, you need a corp behind you
to make it work, corporate budgeting, what to buy, corporate structure,
debt or equity, and working capital, collect on your accounts
receivables and pay your bills, and not get buried under demands for
refunds for overt products.
If you make a living counseling people one on one to enhance and
apply their understanding of the Bible, then maybe you get away with a
sole proprietorship, but if you need outside investment in facilities,
then back to being a partnership or corporation you go.
Imagine the church going public and getting real investment in its
production?
It doesn't matter what a clear *BELIEVES*, can he produce an
ethical straight line without wavering. That's all corporate america
cares about.
No matter how you cut it, if you are MAKING A LIVING HELPING OTHERS
AS A PROFESSIONAL in any field whatsoever, there is a tax return at the
end of the year, and there are policies that must be written and laws
complied with. It is the nature of life.
>I probably am just using you to ask myself questions about these
>matters, which I just need to read more about. Well thanks for your
>time Homer. Chuck
Any time, you can call me if you really want to chew the rag
at 607 227 5465. I will however record the call and post it to the
net :)
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
Tue Jun 15 18:32:34 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri May 15 12:00:03 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore767.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)
iD8DBQFevryEURT1lqxE3HERApm+AJoC5p0FhjuIssewrZClo3TcKT9qlQCgiUHI
zYmoJsWKQqy3qPEzrlsg+AE=
=pKFs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, May 12, 2020
ADORE74 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NULLING KARMA
Nick (nburkacki@nospamyahoo.com) wrote:
>That's good food for thought..
>The way I understand karma at this moment is that it's an irrefutable law of
>this universe that even the most powerful beings within it must take
>responsibility for at some point and time. I know this isn't a popular idea
>here, but I don't agree that taking on the experience of a victim in a
>auditor/PC setting is going to stop the wheel of action/reaction.
It is generally conceeded that by running out the withhold/overt
charge in session, the pc frees himself from the reactions dependent
on the existence of that charge and efforts.
Of course the person he hurt might still have it in for him, but
presumably the preclear can deal with that also, either by dealing with it
in his own space, or going up to the victim and saying he is sorry. Of
course the victim himself will need auditing because he is after all a
victim suffering from karma at the hands of our pc etc.
So I would say that real multiple viewpoint auditing taken to
completion would result in null karma, but only because it results in
everyone's agreement that things are resolved without further
nastiness.
>It all comes down to whether the universe was designed by our own postulates
>and we are keeping it here, or whether the universe was designed for us and
>it's laws are enforced by the designer so that they can't be broken from
>within.
I would guess it is designed by the High US for the High US, much
as laid out by the Pilot. It probably is set up so that certain rules
can't be broken while still within it, but nothing prevents the being
from leaving it except his own postulate matrix.
Again the most important postulate that pulls in karma is the
postulate of separation from the person you are victimizing, in particular
dramatizing the intent to destroy them *FOREVER*, ie a classless
friendless effort to help oneself by NOT helping them etc.
Once one gives up on "This dream ends forever when the circle of
friends are all holding hands again." one opens oneself to separation
from that which you are destining for permanent destruction and one has
given away one's power of postulate to save and salavage rather than
ruin etc.
Once one gives up on the power of one's own postulates then one is
dead meat becuase one is now running on the postulate that one can be an
effect and can do nothing about it, which is what you are wishing off on
your victim. Since that is an indecent postulate on self, the self
(preclear) will then dramatize indecency on others to continue to protect
himself from what he considers in a losing situation.
Indecency is basically a violation of 'Class is an attitude, that
all should live forever and be my friend' and the resulting efforts to
destroy forever those that would not be one's friend forever etc.
Homer
Fri Nov 16 15:34:06 EST 2018
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun May 10 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore74.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)
iD8DBQFeuCUFURT1lqxE3HERAvb0AJ9c73h1l8RamTBIq0EC2Ii9V/Rw4gCffVPy
aWnmbfAdbrY/gv4Dhaahd0w=
=c7B8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
NULLING KARMA
Nick (nburkacki@nospamyahoo.com) wrote:
>That's good food for thought..
>The way I understand karma at this moment is that it's an irrefutable law of
>this universe that even the most powerful beings within it must take
>responsibility for at some point and time. I know this isn't a popular idea
>here, but I don't agree that taking on the experience of a victim in a
>auditor/PC setting is going to stop the wheel of action/reaction.
It is generally conceeded that by running out the withhold/overt
charge in session, the pc frees himself from the reactions dependent
on the existence of that charge and efforts.
Of course the person he hurt might still have it in for him, but
presumably the preclear can deal with that also, either by dealing with it
in his own space, or going up to the victim and saying he is sorry. Of
course the victim himself will need auditing because he is after all a
victim suffering from karma at the hands of our pc etc.
So I would say that real multiple viewpoint auditing taken to
completion would result in null karma, but only because it results in
everyone's agreement that things are resolved without further
nastiness.
>It all comes down to whether the universe was designed by our own postulates
>and we are keeping it here, or whether the universe was designed for us and
>it's laws are enforced by the designer so that they can't be broken from
>within.
I would guess it is designed by the High US for the High US, much
as laid out by the Pilot. It probably is set up so that certain rules
can't be broken while still within it, but nothing prevents the being
from leaving it except his own postulate matrix.
Again the most important postulate that pulls in karma is the
postulate of separation from the person you are victimizing, in particular
dramatizing the intent to destroy them *FOREVER*, ie a classless
friendless effort to help oneself by NOT helping them etc.
Once one gives up on "This dream ends forever when the circle of
friends are all holding hands again." one opens oneself to separation
from that which you are destining for permanent destruction and one has
given away one's power of postulate to save and salavage rather than
ruin etc.
Once one gives up on the power of one's own postulates then one is
dead meat becuase one is now running on the postulate that one can be an
effect and can do nothing about it, which is what you are wishing off on
your victim. Since that is an indecent postulate on self, the self
(preclear) will then dramatize indecency on others to continue to protect
himself from what he considers in a losing situation.
Indecency is basically a violation of 'Class is an attitude, that
all should live forever and be my friend' and the resulting efforts to
destroy forever those that would not be one's friend forever etc.
Homer
Fri Nov 16 15:34:06 EST 2018
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun May 10 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore74.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)
iD8DBQFeuCUFURT1lqxE3HERAvb0AJ9c73h1l8RamTBIq0EC2Ii9V/Rw4gCffVPy
aWnmbfAdbrY/gv4Dhaahd0w=
=c7B8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, May 9, 2020
ADORE144 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BEAUTY AND ILLOGICS
Adore claims that we manifest because we want to share the
perfection and beauty of the unmanifest. Kind of a contradiction, as
the Big Snooze is the Big Snooze, but Adore claims that native state is
"Infinitely happy, alone, forever, and beyond thank you." Well that's
just before the Big Snooze :)
"The law of Saviors is, if you are grateful for having been saved,
you aren't."
That's peace, smugness and self confidence all rolled up into one.
We wake up into the as-isness of "infinitely happy, alone forever
and beyond thank you." But then it vanishes and we go back to the big
snooze again, and do this over and over again.
Eventually we want to share this with someone else.
So we create manifestation by mocking up persistences that persist
due to a particular mechanism of lies and illogic. That mechanism of
lies and illogic contains the beauty and perfection of native state.
It would be the beauty of tragedy and travesty, miracles and
majesty (jokes), romance and sin/song.
Ludicrous demise in other words.
Auditing beautiful illogic will bring many to a glimpse of this.
Thus by entering manifestation we wear these losses via this
mechanism of persistence, but are no longer aware ourselves of that
mechanism (lest we wake up to native state again) nor of its beauty.
Since both native state and awareness of the mechanism of loss are
lost to us, our experience is one of loss.
But others who are higher can see the mechanism and how we have
adorned ourselves with loss, and they will see the beauty of ourselves
and our native state that is encoded in our adornments of loss.
By going clear, we ourselves recover one by one the mechanisms of
our own losses, and as we do so, the beauty and humor of ourselves is
returned to us, along with awareness of absolute responsibility for our
condition, why we chose to manifest and how and for who etc.
Our suffering was an act of love given to our audiences, so they
might appreciate, through our display of 'tragedy and travesty, romance
and song' the beauty of ourselves.
The greatest love is self love. The second greatest love is love
for other's self love. Unfortunately the only way we can share our self
love with others, is to adorn ourselves with loss of it through
manifestation and decension into limitation etc.
The new idea is that the ineffable beauty of native state is
retained in the beautiful illogics by which we leave native state for a
while.
Man is that convoluted, but it says it as best I can at the moment.
Homer
Wed Feb 25 14:03:10 EST 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat May 9 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore144.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)
iD8DBQFettOFURT1lqxE3HERAlv/AJ9prTc+XQHRxsNVzAKJWhJIYOfWpgCgxZ1j
Jp4X54ffthUWN5OTWr+h1Lk=
=xGEY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
BEAUTY AND ILLOGICS
Adore claims that we manifest because we want to share the
perfection and beauty of the unmanifest. Kind of a contradiction, as
the Big Snooze is the Big Snooze, but Adore claims that native state is
"Infinitely happy, alone, forever, and beyond thank you." Well that's
just before the Big Snooze :)
"The law of Saviors is, if you are grateful for having been saved,
you aren't."
That's peace, smugness and self confidence all rolled up into one.
We wake up into the as-isness of "infinitely happy, alone forever
and beyond thank you." But then it vanishes and we go back to the big
snooze again, and do this over and over again.
Eventually we want to share this with someone else.
So we create manifestation by mocking up persistences that persist
due to a particular mechanism of lies and illogic. That mechanism of
lies and illogic contains the beauty and perfection of native state.
It would be the beauty of tragedy and travesty, miracles and
majesty (jokes), romance and sin/song.
Ludicrous demise in other words.
Auditing beautiful illogic will bring many to a glimpse of this.
Thus by entering manifestation we wear these losses via this
mechanism of persistence, but are no longer aware ourselves of that
mechanism (lest we wake up to native state again) nor of its beauty.
Since both native state and awareness of the mechanism of loss are
lost to us, our experience is one of loss.
But others who are higher can see the mechanism and how we have
adorned ourselves with loss, and they will see the beauty of ourselves
and our native state that is encoded in our adornments of loss.
By going clear, we ourselves recover one by one the mechanisms of
our own losses, and as we do so, the beauty and humor of ourselves is
returned to us, along with awareness of absolute responsibility for our
condition, why we chose to manifest and how and for who etc.
Our suffering was an act of love given to our audiences, so they
might appreciate, through our display of 'tragedy and travesty, romance
and song' the beauty of ourselves.
The greatest love is self love. The second greatest love is love
for other's self love. Unfortunately the only way we can share our self
love with others, is to adorn ourselves with loss of it through
manifestation and decension into limitation etc.
The new idea is that the ineffable beauty of native state is
retained in the beautiful illogics by which we leave native state for a
while.
Man is that convoluted, but it says it as best I can at the moment.
Homer
Wed Feb 25 14:03:10 EST 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat May 9 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore144.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)
iD8DBQFettOFURT1lqxE3HERAlv/AJ9prTc+XQHRxsNVzAKJWhJIYOfWpgCgxZ1j
Jp4X54ffthUWN5OTWr+h1Lk=
=xGEY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, May 7, 2020
ACT52 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
DIVINITY, EVIL, AND GOOD
ACT - 52
11 March 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
>I propose this:
>
> Divinity
>
> Good <---> Evil
Yes. However in my opinion Good always loses.
Good can maintain its position in space ONLY to the degree that it
is willing and able to place and locate in space the Evil it is
opposing, at which point it is operating Divinity and not Good.
What usually happens is Good tries to UNLOCATE the Evil it is
opposing, trying to remove it and get rid of it as an unwanted game, and
then failing that, Good tries to unlocate itself, again trying to leave
the game it can't get rid of.
These two efforts to first UNLOCATE the opposition and then to
unlocate self are the anatomy of elsewhereness. The effort to NOT BE
THERE.
Good is not HAPPY to have Evil to fight, and to that degree Good is
food for the Devil.
Since Good is now on a failed elsewhereness, and Evil is on the
rampage, Good ends up hiding in a hole with Evil all around it. The
only way Good can come out of its hole is to BECOME the Evil that
surrounds it, or going out of valence in to what it fears most, and
takes no responsibility for the location of. Essentially that is what
going out of valence is, it is being besieged by Evil, and going over to
the other side once one's rations run out, WITHOUT EVER HAVING PUT THE
OTHER SIDE THERE. They then become stuck in something they did not
locate, and can not locate further, so it locates them and that is what
being out of valence means, taking orders from the opposition without
any ability to resist. Successful resistance would mean being able to
locate oneself independently from the opposition, and THAT can only
happen if one is WILLING TO LOCATE THE OPPOSITION!
If you can't put the opposition THERE, you can't put your self HERE
separated from them.
But to have the POWER to put them THERE and you HERE, you have to
be WILLING TO HAVE THEM THERE AND YOU HERE! So with out responsibility
for the other side, you become the other side.
Goodness is always irresponsibility for the other side, "It's too
bad there is Evil, I certainly wouldn't have wished there to be Evil,
but now that it is here we must fight it for the Good of all."
Said the marble rolling around the drain.
Divinity is always responsibility for BOTH sides including
responsibility for the irresponsibility of having been Good.
You can only win against Evil if you are willing to PUT IT THERE,
and then play the game as if you paid for the privilege.
THAT attitude is Omni Sovereignty, only Divinity can win its own
games.
GOOD ALWAYS LOOSES
You see guys, the point is that Evil is HAPPY to have Good there to
eat. Evil is not trying to get rid of Good, Evil is trying to enslave,
imprison or EAT Good. Yum. Evil is quite happy to indulge in the chase
as long as it gets fed in the end.
Good on the other hand is NOT happy that Evil is there, so that is
why Good always loses. Evil has one tiny little bit of willingness and
responsibility going for it, that Good doesn't. Evil likes to eat Good,
but Good doesn't like to be eaten, and doesn't like to eat Evil either.
From Adore,
"Love Hates Hate.
Hate Hates Love.
How come Hate always wins?
It's 4 against 2, that's why."
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed May 6 12:00:05 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act52.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)
iD8DBQFest8GURT1lqxE3HERAurNAKCrPt7IGvSC8rWZ5vlQc5U/D+lVIQCcDSMG
3o2T4J5xG2ssysaz5CNOuuQ=
=YH7p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
DIVINITY, EVIL, AND GOOD
ACT - 52
11 March 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
>I propose this:
>
> Divinity
>
> Good <---> Evil
Yes. However in my opinion Good always loses.
Good can maintain its position in space ONLY to the degree that it
is willing and able to place and locate in space the Evil it is
opposing, at which point it is operating Divinity and not Good.
What usually happens is Good tries to UNLOCATE the Evil it is
opposing, trying to remove it and get rid of it as an unwanted game, and
then failing that, Good tries to unlocate itself, again trying to leave
the game it can't get rid of.
These two efforts to first UNLOCATE the opposition and then to
unlocate self are the anatomy of elsewhereness. The effort to NOT BE
THERE.
Good is not HAPPY to have Evil to fight, and to that degree Good is
food for the Devil.
Since Good is now on a failed elsewhereness, and Evil is on the
rampage, Good ends up hiding in a hole with Evil all around it. The
only way Good can come out of its hole is to BECOME the Evil that
surrounds it, or going out of valence in to what it fears most, and
takes no responsibility for the location of. Essentially that is what
going out of valence is, it is being besieged by Evil, and going over to
the other side once one's rations run out, WITHOUT EVER HAVING PUT THE
OTHER SIDE THERE. They then become stuck in something they did not
locate, and can not locate further, so it locates them and that is what
being out of valence means, taking orders from the opposition without
any ability to resist. Successful resistance would mean being able to
locate oneself independently from the opposition, and THAT can only
happen if one is WILLING TO LOCATE THE OPPOSITION!
If you can't put the opposition THERE, you can't put your self HERE
separated from them.
But to have the POWER to put them THERE and you HERE, you have to
be WILLING TO HAVE THEM THERE AND YOU HERE! So with out responsibility
for the other side, you become the other side.
Goodness is always irresponsibility for the other side, "It's too
bad there is Evil, I certainly wouldn't have wished there to be Evil,
but now that it is here we must fight it for the Good of all."
Said the marble rolling around the drain.
Divinity is always responsibility for BOTH sides including
responsibility for the irresponsibility of having been Good.
You can only win against Evil if you are willing to PUT IT THERE,
and then play the game as if you paid for the privilege.
THAT attitude is Omni Sovereignty, only Divinity can win its own
games.
GOOD ALWAYS LOOSES
You see guys, the point is that Evil is HAPPY to have Good there to
eat. Evil is not trying to get rid of Good, Evil is trying to enslave,
imprison or EAT Good. Yum. Evil is quite happy to indulge in the chase
as long as it gets fed in the end.
Good on the other hand is NOT happy that Evil is there, so that is
why Good always loses. Evil has one tiny little bit of willingness and
responsibility going for it, that Good doesn't. Evil likes to eat Good,
but Good doesn't like to be eaten, and doesn't like to eat Evil either.
From Adore,
"Love Hates Hate.
Hate Hates Love.
How come Hate always wins?
It's 4 against 2, that's why."
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed May 6 12:00:05 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act52.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)
iD8DBQFest8GURT1lqxE3HERAurNAKCrPt7IGvSC8rWZ5vlQc5U/D+lVIQCcDSMG
3o2T4J5xG2ssysaz5CNOuuQ=
=YH7p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, May 5, 2020
ADORE174 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
DESCENT FROM NATIVE STATE
>homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>> That's because postulates don't postulate ability, they postulate
>>DIS ABILITY.
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Those sound like really bum postulates to me.
>We can do better than that!!
Well you are missing what I am saying.
'Better than that' is native state, no postulates.
ANY postulate is a descent from being into becoming and is a
*DESCENT*.
Once one has descended, one can try to re ascend by postulating
oneself upwards, but one is fighting the postulates that caused the
descension in the first place.
Postulates are best erased, that allows a refloat back
to native state being, then things go well because one hasn't
descended so far, not because one is postulating positive things!
Homer
Sun Sep 27 19:17:25 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat May 2 12:00:05 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore174.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)
iD8DBQFerZkGURT1lqxE3HERAsRgAJwM915J8YCoZY3lzzAKWpKBMj9u0QCfTrYF
7dQaMURT6XkpWYudDvZspac=
=rkag
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
DESCENT FROM NATIVE STATE
>homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>> That's because postulates don't postulate ability, they postulate
>>DIS ABILITY.
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Those sound like really bum postulates to me.
>We can do better than that!!
Well you are missing what I am saying.
'Better than that' is native state, no postulates.
ANY postulate is a descent from being into becoming and is a
*DESCENT*.
Once one has descended, one can try to re ascend by postulating
oneself upwards, but one is fighting the postulates that caused the
descension in the first place.
Postulates are best erased, that allows a refloat back
to native state being, then things go well because one hasn't
descended so far, not because one is postulating positive things!
Homer
Sun Sep 27 19:17:25 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat May 2 12:00:05 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore174.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)
iD8DBQFerZkGURT1lqxE3HERAsRgAJwM915J8YCoZY3lzzAKWpKBMj9u0QCfTrYF
7dQaMURT6XkpWYudDvZspac=
=rkag
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE174 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
DESCENT FROM NATIVE STATE
>homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>> That's because postulates don't postulate ability, they postulate
>>DIS ABILITY.
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Those sound like really bum postulates to me.
>We can do better than that!!
Well you are missing what I am saying.
'Better than that' is native state, no postulates.
ANY postulate is a descent from being into becoming and is a
*DESCENT*.
Once one has descended, one can try to re ascend by postulating
oneself upwards, but one is fighting the postulates that caused the
descension in the first place.
Postulates are best erased, that allows a refloat back
to native state being, then things go well because one hasn't
descended so far, not because one is postulating positive things!
Homer
Sun Sep 27 19:17:25 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat May 2 12:00:05 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore174.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)
iD8DBQFerZkGURT1lqxE3HERAsRgAJwM915J8YCoZY3lzzAKWpKBMj9u0QCfTrYF
7dQaMURT6XkpWYudDvZspac=
=rkag
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
DESCENT FROM NATIVE STATE
>homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>> That's because postulates don't postulate ability, they postulate
>>DIS ABILITY.
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Those sound like really bum postulates to me.
>We can do better than that!!
Well you are missing what I am saying.
'Better than that' is native state, no postulates.
ANY postulate is a descent from being into becoming and is a
*DESCENT*.
Once one has descended, one can try to re ascend by postulating
oneself upwards, but one is fighting the postulates that caused the
descension in the first place.
Postulates are best erased, that allows a refloat back
to native state being, then things go well because one hasn't
descended so far, not because one is postulating positive things!
Homer
Sun Sep 27 19:17:25 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat May 2 12:00:05 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore174.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)
iD8DBQFerZkGURT1lqxE3HERAsRgAJwM915J8YCoZY3lzzAKWpKBMj9u0QCfTrYF
7dQaMURT6XkpWYudDvZspac=
=rkag
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
PROOF31 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS II
One way to tell that the symbol and referent are two different
objects, is if the symbol has qualities that the referent doesn't have.
For example you are in a car on a road at an intersection, looking
at a map of the area. You see the intersection on the map labeled with
the names of the roads, and you know where you are.
In this case the map is the symbol and the actual roadways are the
referent.
The symbolic map is made of paper with color and ink denoting the
roadways, the referent roads themselves are made of tar and asphalt.
Clearly in this case no one could ever mistake the map for the
territory, or the symbol for the referent.
However let's take a subtler example.
Find yourself a small coffee table and a red plastic ball like the
ones kids like to play with in pools.
First check the ball out all over, push it, poke it, bite into it,
blecch, yep made of plastic all right, then put the ball on the table
and sit down facing it.
Now the first thing one might think is that one is looking at a red
plastic ball. But that's a confusion between symbol and referent. The
two have been smushed together into one object.
So let's notice something.
If you close your eyes, the red ball disappears from your field
of view, but the plastic ball is still out there on the table right?
"If A and B are objects, and A changes and B doesn't, then A is
not B, i.e. A and B are two *DIFFERENT* objects."
So immediately we can conclude that the 'red ball' and the
'plastic ball' are two different objects.
The 'red ball' that we see is a conscious color form projected in our
consciousness. It is much like the picture of the Empire State Building
projected on the plasma display of the cockpit. The "plastic ball" that
remains even after the 'red ball' is gone, is a whole nother object out
there on the table which exists whether we see it or not.
So its pretty clear here that the 'red ball' which we see in our
consciousness when our eyes are open is its own object that is different
from the 'plastic ball' out on the table, which exists whether we see it
or not.
TWO different objects, both actual.
The red ball is in fact being used as a symbol for the plastic ball
on the table. We can change the symbol, make it come and go, by opening
and closing our eyes, or looking away, but the plastic ball remains
unchanged. Thus the symbol and the referent are not the same object. We
have two different objects, one used to represent the other.
Notice also that the red ball is RED. Now we tend to associate
redness in consciousness with a certain frequency of light, but clearly
there is nothing about light that is 'red'.
Redness in consciousness is a symbol for the external referent of
light of a particular frequency.
Light has qualities such as energy, speed, direction, amplitude and
frequency, which do not apply to conscious color forms.
Conscious color forms have qualities like redness and an implied
viewpoint which do not apply to light. An implied viewpoint means the
symbol includes in it where it is being viewed from.
So we have two different objects, red color form, and light, which
have very different qualities from each other, almost none of which
overlap except that they both exist, yet one can be used very effectively
as a symbol for the other with little confusion.
So from this we can conclude that symbols don't have to be all that
similar in nature to what they symbolize in order to be useful as symbols.
Words are a perfect example, the word 'ball' is VERY different than a
ball, yet we do just fine using one to symbolize the other.
Another thing we need to notice is that the symbols we use to refer
to referents can pretty well be chosen arbitrarily. For example the word
'blog' could just as easily be used to refer to ball, as long as we all
agree to the relationship. Since its an arbitrary assignment between
symbol and referent, its just a matter of agreement between people to use
symbols and referents the way they do.
As another example of this, there is clearly nothing RED about light
of any frequency. Thus we could just as easily see green or blue where we
now see red, and we would never know the difference.
In fact what I see when looking at the ball may be what you would
call green and what you see may be what I would call blue, but we both
call it red by agreement.
As long as we see the same color in ourselves when we see the same
frequency, and as long as we both call it the same word when we talk to
each other about it, it doesn't matter if you or I see the same color when
looking at the same frequency!
There is no way to know if someone else sees the same color that we
do, because no one can see into anyone else's consciousness than their
own.
OK, so now let's do this same experiment in a sleep dream.
We are sound asleep and lo and behold we find a red plastic ball on
the floor next to a small coffee table.
Again we pick it up, push it, poke it, bite it, blecch sure tastes
like plastic to me, and put it on the table.
Then we sit down and we look at it.
Now having done this experiment while wake, we study the red ball on
the table for any differences between what we see now and what we saw when
we were awake.
And there are none. Looks just like the other red ball down to the
last detail.
But what of the plastic ball?
In the waking state we say there is a red ball acting as a symbol for
a plastic ball acting as the referent.
But in the dream, is there a plastic ball?
No of course not, if there were, when we woke up, the plastic ball
would go poof and that would violate the laws of conservation of energy
and momentum.
You see red conscious color forms can come and go at the will of the
conscious unit, but plastic can't.
Besides there is no plastic in sleep dreams, because there is no
ANYTHING in sleep dreams except the symbols in conscious color form
pretending that there is.
The symbols are actual in the dream, but the implied referents
aren't. They just aren't there in the dream. In the dream the plasma
display shows the city in complete detail, but there is no city down
below.
So the non lucid dreamer doesn't realize he is dreaming and he
worries about the plastic ball implied by the red ball in his conscious
picture.
The lucid dreamer, realizes that the red ball in his conscious
picture is all there is, and there is no plastic ball at all in the dream.
The lucid dreamer realizes that the symbols in his conscious pictures
are more important than the implied referents because the implied
referents don't exist at all! They never did.
Notice this has nothing to do with other dreamers being in the dream
with him. Any number of conscious dream units can get together and share
a co dream, a shared virtualization, a panoply of symbols with non
existent referents.
For these co dreamers the symbol IS the referent, the symbol is used
to symbolize itself! The symbol is what is important.
The map hasn't become confused with the territory, the map IS the
territory for real as there IS no other territory!
Now some non lucid dreamer still fixated on non existent referents
like the plastic ball, could come along in the dream and say "Well what
difference does it make whether this is a dream or not, I still have to go
to school, eat, sleep, fight war, die etc."
Why?
Well he thinks he has to do all these things because he still
believes in the referents that don't exist. The kind of referents he is
worried about are external physical universe objects that he didn't ask
for, didn't make, can't get rid of, and certainly can't control.
They in fact control him, in fact he is MADE OF THEM, if he thinks he
is a body!
Talk about inverted. The conscious unit that perceives the conscious
symbol thinks it is made of the referent! That's like the pilot looking
at the plasma display and thinking HE IS THE CITY!
So you try to wake him up a bit, you don't want him to leave the
dream, but you do want him to know it IS a dream, namely a world of
symbols with non existing referents.
Then he can stop worrying about all those dangerous referents and
perhaps try his hand at casting some symbols around by force of will
alone, rearrange the dream to suit his needs, instead of it rearranging
him.
Pretty soon illegally pretty girls are popping out of the walls and
falling all over him, each vying for his attention, "touch me! touch me!"
You see, the world is a better place for being lucid.
So this material is important, as the 'waking' state is a dream
state also.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Apr 29 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof31.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)
iD8DBQFeqaSEURT1lqxE3HERAtJ2AKCJ91JzuV5+yPjhnwbogiTp9ug3TgCgleUd
gW651W3i9EZu7rU2TIH8Bzk=
=KQSj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS II
One way to tell that the symbol and referent are two different
objects, is if the symbol has qualities that the referent doesn't have.
For example you are in a car on a road at an intersection, looking
at a map of the area. You see the intersection on the map labeled with
the names of the roads, and you know where you are.
In this case the map is the symbol and the actual roadways are the
referent.
The symbolic map is made of paper with color and ink denoting the
roadways, the referent roads themselves are made of tar and asphalt.
Clearly in this case no one could ever mistake the map for the
territory, or the symbol for the referent.
However let's take a subtler example.
Find yourself a small coffee table and a red plastic ball like the
ones kids like to play with in pools.
First check the ball out all over, push it, poke it, bite into it,
blecch, yep made of plastic all right, then put the ball on the table
and sit down facing it.
Now the first thing one might think is that one is looking at a red
plastic ball. But that's a confusion between symbol and referent. The
two have been smushed together into one object.
So let's notice something.
If you close your eyes, the red ball disappears from your field
of view, but the plastic ball is still out there on the table right?
"If A and B are objects, and A changes and B doesn't, then A is
not B, i.e. A and B are two *DIFFERENT* objects."
So immediately we can conclude that the 'red ball' and the
'plastic ball' are two different objects.
The 'red ball' that we see is a conscious color form projected in our
consciousness. It is much like the picture of the Empire State Building
projected on the plasma display of the cockpit. The "plastic ball" that
remains even after the 'red ball' is gone, is a whole nother object out
there on the table which exists whether we see it or not.
So its pretty clear here that the 'red ball' which we see in our
consciousness when our eyes are open is its own object that is different
from the 'plastic ball' out on the table, which exists whether we see it
or not.
TWO different objects, both actual.
The red ball is in fact being used as a symbol for the plastic ball
on the table. We can change the symbol, make it come and go, by opening
and closing our eyes, or looking away, but the plastic ball remains
unchanged. Thus the symbol and the referent are not the same object. We
have two different objects, one used to represent the other.
Notice also that the red ball is RED. Now we tend to associate
redness in consciousness with a certain frequency of light, but clearly
there is nothing about light that is 'red'.
Redness in consciousness is a symbol for the external referent of
light of a particular frequency.
Light has qualities such as energy, speed, direction, amplitude and
frequency, which do not apply to conscious color forms.
Conscious color forms have qualities like redness and an implied
viewpoint which do not apply to light. An implied viewpoint means the
symbol includes in it where it is being viewed from.
So we have two different objects, red color form, and light, which
have very different qualities from each other, almost none of which
overlap except that they both exist, yet one can be used very effectively
as a symbol for the other with little confusion.
So from this we can conclude that symbols don't have to be all that
similar in nature to what they symbolize in order to be useful as symbols.
Words are a perfect example, the word 'ball' is VERY different than a
ball, yet we do just fine using one to symbolize the other.
Another thing we need to notice is that the symbols we use to refer
to referents can pretty well be chosen arbitrarily. For example the word
'blog' could just as easily be used to refer to ball, as long as we all
agree to the relationship. Since its an arbitrary assignment between
symbol and referent, its just a matter of agreement between people to use
symbols and referents the way they do.
As another example of this, there is clearly nothing RED about light
of any frequency. Thus we could just as easily see green or blue where we
now see red, and we would never know the difference.
In fact what I see when looking at the ball may be what you would
call green and what you see may be what I would call blue, but we both
call it red by agreement.
As long as we see the same color in ourselves when we see the same
frequency, and as long as we both call it the same word when we talk to
each other about it, it doesn't matter if you or I see the same color when
looking at the same frequency!
There is no way to know if someone else sees the same color that we
do, because no one can see into anyone else's consciousness than their
own.
OK, so now let's do this same experiment in a sleep dream.
We are sound asleep and lo and behold we find a red plastic ball on
the floor next to a small coffee table.
Again we pick it up, push it, poke it, bite it, blecch sure tastes
like plastic to me, and put it on the table.
Then we sit down and we look at it.
Now having done this experiment while wake, we study the red ball on
the table for any differences between what we see now and what we saw when
we were awake.
And there are none. Looks just like the other red ball down to the
last detail.
But what of the plastic ball?
In the waking state we say there is a red ball acting as a symbol for
a plastic ball acting as the referent.
But in the dream, is there a plastic ball?
No of course not, if there were, when we woke up, the plastic ball
would go poof and that would violate the laws of conservation of energy
and momentum.
You see red conscious color forms can come and go at the will of the
conscious unit, but plastic can't.
Besides there is no plastic in sleep dreams, because there is no
ANYTHING in sleep dreams except the symbols in conscious color form
pretending that there is.
The symbols are actual in the dream, but the implied referents
aren't. They just aren't there in the dream. In the dream the plasma
display shows the city in complete detail, but there is no city down
below.
So the non lucid dreamer doesn't realize he is dreaming and he
worries about the plastic ball implied by the red ball in his conscious
picture.
The lucid dreamer, realizes that the red ball in his conscious
picture is all there is, and there is no plastic ball at all in the dream.
The lucid dreamer realizes that the symbols in his conscious pictures
are more important than the implied referents because the implied
referents don't exist at all! They never did.
Notice this has nothing to do with other dreamers being in the dream
with him. Any number of conscious dream units can get together and share
a co dream, a shared virtualization, a panoply of symbols with non
existent referents.
For these co dreamers the symbol IS the referent, the symbol is used
to symbolize itself! The symbol is what is important.
The map hasn't become confused with the territory, the map IS the
territory for real as there IS no other territory!
Now some non lucid dreamer still fixated on non existent referents
like the plastic ball, could come along in the dream and say "Well what
difference does it make whether this is a dream or not, I still have to go
to school, eat, sleep, fight war, die etc."
Why?
Well he thinks he has to do all these things because he still
believes in the referents that don't exist. The kind of referents he is
worried about are external physical universe objects that he didn't ask
for, didn't make, can't get rid of, and certainly can't control.
They in fact control him, in fact he is MADE OF THEM, if he thinks he
is a body!
Talk about inverted. The conscious unit that perceives the conscious
symbol thinks it is made of the referent! That's like the pilot looking
at the plasma display and thinking HE IS THE CITY!
So you try to wake him up a bit, you don't want him to leave the
dream, but you do want him to know it IS a dream, namely a world of
symbols with non existing referents.
Then he can stop worrying about all those dangerous referents and
perhaps try his hand at casting some symbols around by force of will
alone, rearrange the dream to suit his needs, instead of it rearranging
him.
Pretty soon illegally pretty girls are popping out of the walls and
falling all over him, each vying for his attention, "touch me! touch me!"
You see, the world is a better place for being lucid.
So this material is important, as the 'waking' state is a dream
state also.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Apr 29 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof31.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)
iD8DBQFeqaSEURT1lqxE3HERAtJ2AKCJ91JzuV5+yPjhnwbogiTp9ug3TgCgleUd
gW651W3i9EZu7rU2TIH8Bzk=
=KQSj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
val3.txt (fwd)
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE III
THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
Good evening, today is late Sunday evening March 30th, 2009.
This is the third part of the Valentine's Day lecture on the
subject of The Proof.
First we need to summarize where we have been so far and to refresh
our memories of what we are talking about.
So very quickly let's start at the beginning.
OBJECTS AND QUALITY SETS
Objects are states or events in space and time.
We usually think of events as changes in state, but a single point
in space time IS an event, a 'happening'. Thus space time is a fabric
of events, or objects, each one of which has a quality set including its
location in space and time.
Objects have quality sets which describe them.
Anything that has qualities is an object, and anything that is an
object has a quality set with qualities in it.
Except of course the Nothing which has an empty quality set!
I can hear a bright little Goober ask "But isn't it then a quality
of the Nothing that it has no qualities?"
We will avoid that Godel jail by asking you to apply understanding
rather than rigor.
GODEL JAIL
Godel jails are philosophical black holes that one falls into by
being a little too bright.
They are also the place we send people who are a little too dumb,
and who suffer from proffering logical absurdities as wisdom.
For example the statement 'All generalizations are false' leads to
a Godel Jail for any mind that tries to determine if it is true or
false.
Since the statement IS a generalization, if we assume the statement
is false, then the statement is true, if we assume the statement is
false, then the state is true.
Around and around we go. This arises because the statement is a
self denying statement, and thus forms the basis of a Godel Jail for the
bright mind that can't figure its way out of the logical whirlpool.
But we also send people to Godel Jail who try to make the statement
into a working philosophy.
Godel Jails are filled with the bones of fools and charlatans.
TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS
Two different objects have two different quality sets, and any
objects with two different quality sets are two different objects.
Since where and when an object exists is part of it's quality set,
a change in position in space or time indicates a new different object.
The parts of you that move in time are a new you from moment to
moment. The parts of you that do not move in time are the same you, as
for them there IS no moment to moment.
Just because everything IN consciousness is made of apparitions of
space and time, doesn't mean that consciousness itself is made of space
and time.
In this case, the TV set (consciousness) is not made of what is
displayed in the TV set screen (space and time, parts and mechanics).
REFERENT AND SYMBOL
A symbol is any object that is used to refer back to another
object.
A referent is any object referred to by a symbol.
Referent and symbol are two different objects with two different
qualities sets.
The symbol of final authority is the last symbol in the causal
chain actually used by the observer to learn about the referent. The
symbol of final authority IS that observer and the changes that take
place in him due to the causal wave reaching and impinging on him from
the referent.
The RENDITION ZONE is the area in the observer that changes state
due to the causal wave, usually that observer's consciousness, and the
RENDITION is the changes that take place in the observer's rendition
zone.
The referent is the rendered, the symbol is the rendition.
ONTOLOGICAL STATUS
Ontology is the study of being or existing.
Ontological status is the status of the existingness of an object.
Either something exists or it doesn't.
Thus ontology is a pretty simple science of what is and what ain't.
Since referent and symbol are both objects which ARE, both have
equal ontological status, they have a parity of (equal) existingness
with each other.
Something might be heavier than another, but something can not
exist more than another.
There is no gradient scale of TO BE or TO EXIST.
Thus it is not true that the referent exists or is more actual than
the symbol. Both exist and both are actual.
Both referent and symbol have their own distinct quality sets, both
of which contain 'exists'.
If the symbol did not exist, it would be impossible to get the idea
that the referent existed by studying the symbol.
Thus claiming that the physical universe exists but that our
consciousness doesn't really exist, is ludicrous.
We like to think that the original referent out there in
space and time is SOMETHING, you know, heavy made of mass,
objective, you can 'prove' it exists etc. (Actually you can't).
But our conscious experience of that referent, the symbol
of final authority for learning about the referent, has no mass,
isn't heavy and therefore probably isn't real.
How heavy is a conscious experience of heaviness?
Thus it is tempting to say the referent exists but the symbol, our
conscious experience, eh, well who knows....
However it is the very glaring existence of our consciousness that
gives us the idea that the physical universe exists also, as we are
using our consciousness to symbolize the alleged physical universe.
Our consciousness, the SYMBOL, certainly exists, so we conclude
rightly or wrongly that the physical universe, the REFERENT, must exist
at least as much as the symbol does.
Existence of the symbol does not imply existence of the referent,
as you could be dreaming, hallucinating or imagining.
Most perceptions in consciousness are a symbol of the alleged
physical universe. When studied as themselves though, conscious
experiences are self symbolizing, self luminous. You don't see them by
looking at SOMETHING ELSE.
One learns about conscious experiences by direct perception, by
looking at them directly, not by looking at something later that was the
effect of them earlier.
One USES one's conscious experiences to learn about the alleged
physical universe through indirect perception, because one is learning
about the physical universe by looking at one's conscious experiences,
and not the physical universe directly. Also the alleged event in the
physical universe exists prior to the event in consciousness, and no
longer exists at the moment the conscious symbol arises.
We say alleged, because the event in the physical universe is a
THEORY to explain the perfectly certain existence of the conscious
experience.
MAPPING
Some qualities in the symbol, MAP back to qualities in the
referent, so one can glean something about the referent by looking at
the symbol.
For example a map of city streets will show the street pattern on
the map which pretty well matches that actual pattern of streets in the
city.
Symbols however will have other qualities that do not map back to
the referent, for example, the map is made of paper, the city isn't.
And the referent will have qualities that are not represented in
some particular symbol, for example Ithaca (the city) has poisonous air
from buses and cars, enough to supply a needy concentration camp for the
length of a war, and the map doesn't.
COLLAPSING REFERENT AND SYMBOL
Collapsing referent and symbol means to look at a symbol and
consider it IS the referent.
Referents and symbols are two different objects with two different
quality sets.
However those quality sets may overlap in some areas where certain
qualities are common to both.
Both referent and symbol 'exist' for example.
Both referent and symbol may be 'square', we call this geometricity
between referent and symbol, or geometric similarity.
There are also a subset of qualities in the symbol that are mapped
back to OTHER very different qualities in the referent because of a
causal connection between them.
Thus visual color in our consciousness is mapped back to various
frequencies of light in the referent physical universe.
Except in the case of geometricity, mapped qualities are NOT
necessarily, and usually are NOT, common qualities of both referent and
symbol.
Conscious experiences have color but do not have frequency.
Photons have frequency but do not have color.
Nonetheless conscious color is mapped back to alleged photon
frequency.
Consider a light in the physical universe that emits 5000 Angstroms
of light. In our consciousness we perceive it as red light, but in the
physical universe there is no red, just frequency and wave length.
Color in the conscious symbol maps back to frequency in the
physical referent.
The mapping between color and frequency is arbitrary but
nonetheless (allegedly) causally related.
THE THREE FORMS OF INSANITY
Collapsing symbol and referent leads to three errors, all of which
are forms of insanity. If a machine were to do any one of these things,
you would throw it out.
INSANITY ONE
First, when qualities in the symbol map back to qualities in the
referent, one gets the idea that the referent has the exact same quality
because the symbol has it.
In the case where conscious color is being used to map back to
physical frequency, when we collapse symbol and referent we consider
that photons are 'red'.
This is a domain error, as redness is not a quality of photons and
CAN NOT be a quality of photons. Photons are outside of the domain of
redness, of red things.
DOMAIN ERRORS
Photons do not belong to the domain of objects which can have
redness as part of their quality sets.
If you ask 'What objects can be red?', photons can never be part of
that group, but conscious experiences can be.
A domain error is when a quality is applied to an inappropriate
object that can not have that quality.
For example asking "what is the square root of a dog?" is a domain
error.
Dogs do not have square roots and photons do not have color.
Consider the case of a color coded image (symbol) of x-ray
emissions of the sun (referent). In this case 'color' in the symbol is
mapped to 'frequency' in the x-ray range rather than the visible light
range.
When referent and symbol are collapsed, one gets the idea that low
frequency x-rays are 'red' and high frequency x-rays are 'violet'. when
in truth the symbolic image has 'red' and 'violet', and the referent
x-rays don't, they have frequency.
Further the exact mapping between color and frequency can change
depending on the situation. A human uses 'red' to mean 5000 Angstroms
of wave length, an X ray telescope uses red to mean much smaller
wavelengths. Birds use red for a range similar to humans but not the
same.
Confusion between conscious color and photon frequency is a common
result of referent and symbol collapsation and is a form of insanity.
INSANITY TWO
Second, when there are qualities in the symbol that DO NOT map back
to the referent, one gets the idea that the referent has those qualities
anyhow because the symbol has them, when in truth the referent may not.
Because the conscious experience of 'red' is self luminous, we then
conclude that photons are self luminous too.
Self luminous means not lit by anything else. Table lamps in a
dream do not light the other objects in the dream.
Symbols are objects in their own sovereign right, and often have
whole ranges of qualities that have nothing to do with the referent that
they are being used to symbolize, at all.
Thus considering that the referent has a quality because the symbol
has the quality, is a second form of insanity.
A worst case of this is when someone is hallucinating conscious
experiences of little green martians on the street. In this case the
referent doesn't exist at all, although the symbol does. Thus ALL of
the symbol's qualities are considered to map back to the referent when
they don't.
Another classic example is when one considers that because one is
capable of perfect certainty of the symbol (conscious picture), one
thinks one is perfectly certain of the referent (physical universe).
Thus people think they are certain the physical universe exists,
when it doesn't.
He is perfectly certain his conscious experience of the physical
universe exists, therefore he assumes the physical universe exists too.
This goes lower south into an inversion where the being thinks he
is certain of the physical universe, but isn't sure he exists as a
conscious unit.
Sanity is recognizing that the symbol is certain and the referent
is not.
Insanity is thinking the referent is certain and the symbol doesn't
exist, meaning thinking you are seeing the referent distant from you.
INSANITY THREE
The third kind of insanity is when the referent has qualities that
the symbol does not have, and thus one gets the idea that the referent
does not have them either because the symbol doesn't have them.
Collapsing referent and symbol is always a form of insanity when it
is out of volitional control, because it puts one permanently out of
contact with actuality as it truly is.
THE THREE KINDS OF INSANITY SUMMARIZED
The three kinds of insanity arise from collapsing referent and
symbol into one and the same object, because referent and symbol are two
different objects with two different quality sets, yet collapsation
considers they are one and the same object with only one quality set
between them.
The three kinds of insanity are:
1.) considering that because two different qualities in a referent
and symbol are mapped to each other, that they are instead one and the
same quality. Thus 'frequency' (referent) *IS* 'red' (symbol).
The insanity then would be considering that red = frequency = red.
2.) considering the referent has qualities that rightly belong only
to the symbol. Thus self luminousness in consciousness (symbol) means
self luminousness in the physical universe (referent).
The insanity then would be to attribute self luminous certainty to
the physical universe just and only because one is self luminously
certain of one's own conscious image of the physical universe.
In fact self luminosity CAN NOT exist in the physical universe
because it is a form of learning by looking at cause directly rather
than the effect, and that is impossible across a distance.
3.) Considering the referent does not have qualities only because
the symbol does not have them. We can't see x-rays (symbol), therefore
there are no x-rays (referent). Our inability to be conscious of
radioactivity, the way we can of visible light, can be very dangerous to
us when traveling through a radioactive field.
Another example would be a belief that the city does not have cars
and buses, because the map doesn't show them.
CAUSATION
There is FOLLOWINGNESS.
That means event B followed event A at least once.
There is DEPENDABLE followingness.
That means B always follows A every time we have observed A.
There is NECESSARY dependable followingness.
That means B MUST follow A because A causes B.
Causation is DEFINED as necessary dependable followingness.
Defining causation as necessity may seem weak, as there may be more
to causation than mere necessity, but necessity is both necessary and
sufficient to causation.
Thus if there is cause, there must be necessity, and if there is
necessity there must be cause.
That alone is enough to allow us to get away with claiming
CAUSE = NECESSITY = CAUSE
Formally,
There is causation if and only if there is necessity.
There is necessity if and only if there is causation.
Notice the following relationships.
Necessary dependable followingness implies dependable
followingness.
Dependable followingness does not imply necessary dependable
followingness.
Thus,
Necessity implies dependability.
Dependability does not imply necessity.
Thus,
Cause implies dependability.
Dependability does not imply cause.
In the popular voice we say 'Correlation does not imply causation.'
Dependability of followingness between two events is 'correlation'.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The scientific method is the process of science, of coming to know
about the universe around us.
Because some of the alleged universe around us is a universe of
separations in space and time, the physical universe, all that can be
known of the physical universe are qualities of causal relation via
learning by being an effect.
That's a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.
All we can know of the physical universe IS HOW IT AFFECTS US AS
CONSCIOUS OBSERVER. We never see the physical universe directly, only
its rendition in our conscious rendition zone.
Any quality in a physical universe object OR ANY OTHER KIND OF
OBJECT, that does not have a cause and effect relation to us can not be
known by us, as we can only learn by looking directly at cause (self
luminosity of consciousness ) or indirectly by looking at effect.
Thus ALL we can know about things distant from us are cause and
effect, and none of what we can know about those things can ever be more
than a theory because distance implies learning by looking only at the
effect and effect does not prove cause.
MODELS AND EVIDENCE
The valuable final product of science are models of cause and
effect to account for evidence, i.e. conscious observations which are
data gleaned from symbols about referents which are 'things out there'.
The observations (conscious symbols) are perfectly certain, the
theories about the alleged referents, created to account for the
observations, are never perfectly certain, only workable or not.
Claiming perfect certainty about a theory of cause is a DOMAIN
ERROR.
Perfect certainty can not be part of the quality set of any theory
of cause.
Theories of cause gleaned indirectly by looking at effects can only
be workable or unworkable. We say the theory is wrong, but we mean
unworkable.
Statements of fact gleaned directly by looking at cause can only be
true or false.
Evidence is always observation of dependable followingness.
Theory is model of necessary dependable followingness.
Thus all models are models of cause and effect.
If something is not cause and effect, science has no interest in
it.
THEORY BALLS
Theories consist of model and evidence.
Evidence is data born of observations.
Observations are data gleaned from symbols about referents, via
learning by being an effect.
Thus the scientific method consists of the following:
Observations -> evidence -> models -> predictions -> observations.
Notice the above process is circular, the end feeds back into the
beginning. New observations lead to corrections of the model, which
lead to new predictions which lead to new observations, which are new
evidence, and around and around we go.
This process refines the model into a complete theory ball.
A complete (round) theory ball obtains when all evidence is modeled
(explained), and all predictions are evidenced (observed).
TRUTH AND CERTAINTY
Truth is a quality of relation between a statement of fact and a
given specified actuality.
"The house is red' is a statement of fact, whether right or wrong.
Certainty is a quality of relation between a knower of truth, and a
given stated truth value of the given specified statement of fact.
Having now observed the house, the knower is now certain of the
truth or falsity of the statement that the house is red or at least his
conscious rendition of it is :) He could be dreaming, imagining or
hallucinating, but WHAT HE SEES IS RED WITHOUT QUESTION.
Statements of fact are always of the form
'Quality belongs to object' (The house is red)
or
'Object belongs to class.' (Joey my pet is a dog.)
or
'Class belongs to bigger Class.' (All dogs are animals.)
Truth is a quality of relation between the statement and the
actualities it refers to.
Certainty is another quality of relation between the conscious unit
and the truth value of the statement under scrutiny.
Thus we have in order:
'The house is red' which is a statement.
'It is true that the house is red' which is the statement's
asserted truth value.
'I am certain it is true that the house is red.' which is my
conscious relationship to the asserted truth value of the statement.
CERTAINTY AND SCIENTIFIC THEORY
There are two kinds of theories, existential theories or
specifications, and universal theories, or generalizations.
EXISTENTIAL THEORIES
'Daisies exist' is an existential theory or specification.
Science can prove it true by having a clear specification of what a
daisy is, and then finding one instance of a daisy, namely an object
that meets that specification. A specification is essentially a
delineation of the quality set of the object.
Science can never prove the above theory false, for the absence of
evidence for a daisy is not proof of its non existence.
In the popular voice we say 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.'
This is because science can not observe all space and time looking
for a daisy. The best science can say is 'Right here and right now,
there is not a daisy.'
Thus the absence of evidence for unicorns, does not prove that
unicorns do not exist, never have existed, nor never will exist.
UNIVERSAL THEORIES
'All daisies are white' is a universal theory or generalization.
Science can prove it false by finding one non white (black) daisy.
Science can never prove it true, because the presence of one or a
billion white daisies is not proof that all daisies are white.
Again in the popular voice we say 'Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence (of the black daisey)'.
This is because science can not observe all space and time looking
for a non white daisy. The best science can say is 'Right here and
right now, there is a white daisy'.
CAUSAL MODELS ARE UNIVERSAL THEORIES
Causal models attempt to explain DEPENDABLE followingness, which
means for all space and time A will always be followed by B, and B is
always preceded by A. Thus causation is a universal theory.
The very statement that B ALWAYS follows A is a universal theory, a
generalization, and thus fits into the category of theories that can
never be proven right, but can be proven wrong (unworkable) with one
counter example.
Theories may 'stand the test of time', but in the end, everything
that lives inside of time, is dust in the wind.
Science is interested in what will happen, but can only observe
what did happen.
What did happen does not imply what will happen, thus science is at
a disadvantage.
The reason that science can never prove a causal theory true is
because all such theories are theories of cause and effect, theories of
NECESSITY, and science can never directly observe a necessity, but can
only observe a dependability.
In other words science can observe A and then B following, but
never observe the necessity that they do so. This is because the EVENTS
are observable but never the CAUSE between them.
So dependability of followingness does not imply necessity of
followingness.
Thus science can never prove a causal theory true (permanently
workable).
But science CAN observe an UNdependability, which would immediately
imply a lack of necessity and thus imply that the theory of necessity
was false (unworkable).
Thus science can prove a causal theory false with one observation
that denies a dependability.
Science can only observe the weaker (right hand) side of the
equation:
Necessity implies Dependability.
In the presence of dependability there may be necessity (cause),
but this remains forever a theory.
However in the absence of dependability there certainly is no
cause. At least as it was modeled in the theory.
Thus if one observes a dependability there MAY BE cause.
But if one observes an undependability, there CERTAINLY is no
cause.
Since all causal theories are theories of cause and effect, which
model evidential dependability via theoretical necessity, science can
only prove a causal theory false and never prove it true, depending on
whether it observes an UNdependability or not.
Necessity is an anthropomorphization of directly perceived self
luminous causal agency within the conscious unit.
"I DO AND I KNOW IT."
Science can not observe cause in the external space time universe,
because science is limited to the indirect observation of cause only via
the followingness between two different events, but consciousness can
perceive cause directly within itself.
The miraculousness of that statement will be left for another time.
Direct perception of cause, and in fact direct perception of
anything, is what the proof and consciousness is all about.
ANTHROPOMORPHIZATION
Anthropomorphization is assigning qualities that rightly belong
only to consciousness, to the physical universe. It is insanity number
two: because the symbol has the quality, we believe the alleged referent
must have the quality also.
As such there may in fact be no necessity in the outward physical
universe at all. Just because we see causal agency within our conscious
unit, doesn't mean there is any causal agency between any two different
objects out in the alleged physical universe.
It is possible that what the conscious unit perceives as cause
between things in the physical universe, is actually the cause of the
conscious unit itself being projected out on to the things displayed IN
consciousness (apparitions of space and time) in order to make it look
like there is cause between them directly out there in the physical
universe.
We call this the THIRD PARTY LAW and will get into it later in
detail.
As absurd as the above may sound to sophomoric minds, there is no
*SCIENTIFIC* ground to reject the possibility out of hand, AND CAN NEVER
BE, as
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN WITH PERFECT CERTAINTY ABOUT CAUSATION
BETWEEN REFERENTS BY LOOKING AT CAUSATION BETWEEN SYMBOLS.
IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN WITH PERFECT CERTAINTY IF THE
REFERENT EVEN EXISTS MY LOOKING AT THE EXISTENCE OF THE SYMBOL.
IF ONE CAN NOT PROVE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE REFERENT EXISTS, HOW
THEN CAN ONE PROVE WITH CERTAINTY THAT CAUSE BETWEEN REFERENTS EXISTS?
SEEING THE WORLD THROUGH THEORY COLORED GLASSES
People tend to see the world through theory colored glasses.
If they have a theory that says consciousness is a process in a
machine (a brain), and a theorem that says machines can't be certain of
anything, they will conclude that consciousness can't be certain of
anything either, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE LOOKING DIRECTLY AT PERFECT
CERTAINTIES ALL DAY LONG (any two conscious colors around them, notice
the perfect certainty of their difference and their existence.)
Thus theory, in the hands of incompetent proponents, can obscure
observation and corrupt interpretation.
CAUSAL PATHWAYS
Objects communicate with each other via cause and effect.
That means that some quality in one object causes a change in state
in the quality set of another object.
A CAUSAL PATHWAY is a series of cause and effect events that
propagate out through space and time from an original source.
More broadly we DEFINE referent and symbol as any two objects that
have a causal pathway between them, meaning the symbol's state is a
function of the prior referent's state.
Therefore there has to be a causal pathway between any referent and
any of its later symbols.
Any two objects which are related to each other by cause and
effect, are referent and symbol to each other.
Any two objects which are referent and symbol to each other, are
related by a causal pathway between them.
If A and B are referent and symbol, then there is a causal pathway
from A to B.
If there is a causal pathway from A to B, then A and B are referent
and symbol.
CAUSAL MESSENGER WAVES.
The procession of changes in state emanating from an original
referent along a causal pathway out into space and time is called a
causal messenger wave.
It is called a WAVE because it moves continuously out into space
and time like a wave, at the speed of cause.
Different kinds of causes can travel at different speeds, but the
maximum speed of cause in the physical universe, is apparently the speed
of light in a vacuum.
Light is one kind of causal messenger wave.
It is called a MESSENGER wave because the wave of changes that
occur carry data about the nature of the various referents that
originally emanated it, and the other referents the wave later
encountered and passed through.
It is called a CAUSAL messenger wave, because it is a wave of
causation traveling through the universe and the data it carries is data
solely about the causal relations between the referents and symbols that
it encounters along the way.
THE REFERENT AND SYMBOL CONTINUUM
Because the causal messenger wave travels along its causal pathway
in a continuous manner, every point in space time along that path
becomes first a symbol to prior referents, and then a referent to later
symbols.
Thus we say that the causal messenger wave creates a referent and
symbol continuum as it propagates through space and time.
Quantum mechanics will want to argue about just how continuous this
continuum really is.
So noted.
We are not arguing against quantum mechanics here, but neither are
we bringing quantum mechanics into the discussion.
ORIGINAL REFERENT AND SYMBOL OF FINAL AUTHORITY
The original referent is DEFINED as the event we wish to learn
about.
The symbol of final authority is DEFINED as the event we will study
to learn about the original referent.
Thus a causal pathway is a series of referents and symbols
following each other in space and time starting at the original
referent, and ending at the symbol of final authority.
The original referent is probably not the first referent in the
causal pathway, because in this universe anyhow every change HAS to come
from some thing else. Changes don't just happen with out something else
changing first, even atomic decay. At the very least time is changing
before the decay.
The symbol of final authority is not necessarily the last symbol in
the causal pathway, most of which never end; it is however the chosen
symbol under scrutiny to learn about the original referent by studying
the state of the symbol.
Any point in a referent and symbol continuum can be assigned as the
original referent we want to know about, or the symbol of final
authority we are going to use to learn about earlier referents from.
Probably the first original referent is at the beginning of time,
and the last symbol of final authority will be at the end of time. Thus
note that the 'original referent' under study is rarely the first
referent in the chain, just as the symbol of final authority is never
the last symbol in the chain (unless the universe has ended.)
However note that the original referent under study is ALWAYS in
the past, and the symbol of final authority is in the NOW.
Thus learning can take place between any two points in the referent
and symbol continuum, the earlier point is the original referent and the
later point is the symbol of final authority.
Thus causal messenger waves pass THROUGH original referents and
symbols of final authority, and eventually referent and symbol both
become part of the causal messenger wave's wake as it moves on into the
future, leaving them behind. And as each new symbol is created, a data
imprint is left on it about the causal nature of all the referents
behind it.
TRACKING
Tracking means a symbol is under the continuous causal influence of
the referent at all times so that the symbol's state is an ongoing
function of the referent's state albeit delayed in time by the speed of
cause and the distance between referent and symbol.
Tracking ends when the symbol's state is no longer a causal
function of the referent's state.
In this case we say the state of the symbol is no longer tracking
the state of the referent.
There is a subtle but important change in definition here that
needs to be kept track of lest it lead to confusions.
Take a light bulb and a light meter on the other side of the room.
A referent is an object in ONE moment of space and time, because in
the next moment its a whole new object. So when we talk about the light
bulb, technically we have to ask which light bulb, meaning where and
when.
So the light bulb at 12 noon emits a photon which travels to the
light meter and the meter dial reads.
That is a single causal pathway between light bulb and meter.
The meter for that one event 'tracked' the light bulb.
But then a second later, the NEW light bulb emits a NEW photon that
heads over to the NEW light meter, and again it reads. Thus the new
meter is tracking the new light bulb.
If we consider that the succession of events in time called light
bulb is in fact one single light bulb moving through time, and the same
for the meter, we can then say that the meter is tracking the light bulb
across time, because the meter's state is a function of the light bulb's
state minus the travel time distance between them.
Notice that although we may claim it is one light bulb moving
through time and one meter moving through time, the photons being
emitted by the light bulb at each moment of time are CLEARLY new photons
with each one emitted.
Thus we can get get sloppy and consider that the same old light
bulb is emitting different new photons at the same old meter, and thus
the meter is tracking the light bulb from moment to moment.
Conveniences of conversation are ok as long as we keep track of
them, otherwise confusions will arise, as in fact the light bulb is a
brand new light bulb every new moment of time and so is the meter.
DATA CONTENT
A symbol can have many qualities that do not causally map back to
the referent.
DATA is the subset of qualities in the symbol that do causally map
back to the referent and thus represent qualities in the referent.
A symbol can have either high DATA CONTENT or low DATA CONTENT.
A causal pathway is the means by which data propagates from it's
original referent through space and time to an endless series of
symbols.
Each symbol in turn becomes its own referent as it passes on the
causal messenger wave to the next symbol in line. Thus the next symbol
in line is affected by both the many symbols before it and the original
referent.
DATA INTEGRITY
Data integrity is the conformance of the data contained in the
symbol to the original referent. The longer the causal pathway between
referent and symbol, i.e. the greater the number of referent to symbol
'hops', the lower the data integrity.
DATA IMPRINT
A data imprint is the changes in state incurred in a symbol by
virtue of a causal wave originating from a referent.
A data imprint is a rendering in the rendition zone of a symbol, a
rendition of the causal nature of the original referent.
Since every symbol along the way between original referent and the
symbol of final authority adds its own causal influence into the
traveling causal messenger wave, the data imprint on the final symbol
contains data about ALL of the symbols back to the original referent and
even before.
Separating out the data from a given symbol and knowing which prior
referent to apply it to can be daunting.
GEOMETRICITY OR GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY (SIMILARITY)
The FORM of a symbol's data content can have either high GEOMETRIC
CONGRUENCY or low GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY to the referent.
Geometric congruency means that the symbol 'looks similar to' the
referent. There is a one to one space and time correspondence between
the referent and the symbol.
Purists will complain that we really want to call this geometric
similarity, as congruency demands absolute equality of geometric form.
So noted. So ignored :)
However for the purposes of this lecture, geometric congruency,
similarity, conformance, and commensurateness mean the same thing. And
just to annoy people, so to equivalent and proportional.
Notice that data conformance, how well the symbol is tracking the
referent, and geometric conformance, how much the symbol 'looks like'
the referent are related but not quite the same thing. Data conformance
can be very high, but geometric congruency very low, as we shall see.
In general we will call data conformance simply data content.
For example the word COW refers back to a particular kind of
animal. Therefore 'COW' is a symbol.
But the symbol itself has very little data in its structure to give
us a hint as to what it is referring back to. Thus we say it's DATA
CONTENT (conformance) is low.
And yes the word cow doesn't look at all like a cow so its
geometric congruency is also low.
Notice there must have been a causal pathway between some cow
somewhere and the being who first created the symbol 'cow' or the word
would never have been invented, so 'cow' remains a proper symbol to the
animal in question even if very indirectly causally related to any cow.
On the other hand a picture of a cow taken by a camera is also a
symbol for the cow, but this symbol has a high degree of data content,
so we can tell much about the referent by looking at the symbol.
The picture of a cow also 'looks like' a cow, thus the data content
contained in the symbol has a high degree of GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY with
the original referent.
However if we scan the picture into an encrypted data stream of 1's
and 0's, that data stream still has high data content about the cow, but
very low geometric congruency indeed.
High data content does not necessarily mean RECOVERABLE data
content. It is possible to have a symbol with high data content, but
non recoverable.
EXAMPLE:
The unix cleartext password is the referent and the encrypted
password is the symbol. It is generally not possible to determine the
original password from the encrypted symbol. The data content of the
symbol remains high, uniquely rendering the referent, but the
recoverability from symbol back to referent, remains zero, as intended.
That means you can't learn about the referent from the symbol at all
even though the data is there!
The way passwords work, is the user types in his referent password,
and it is RE ENCRYPTED, and if the new symbol matches the old symbol,
then its a pass.
Thus although one can not learn about the referent via the symbol,
one can learn about two referents from their two symbols. If the
symbols are the same, the referents must have been the same, but what
the referent was forever is lost.
The reason passwords work, is if you re encrypt the same password,
you will get the same symbol. If there were no data content left in the
symbol, this would not happen.
ACCIDENTAL LEARNING
A symbol can contain data that matches the nature of the referent,
but not BECAUSE the referent causally impinged on the symbol and
imprinted or rendered that data there.
If there is no causal pathway between referent and symbol, any
'data' in the symbol about the referent is unrelated to a causal
connection between them and thus is coincidental.
Thus the symbol's state accidentally describes the referent.
Accidental data conformance between uncausally related objects, can
not be counted upon to provide dependable results, and in fact must not
be called LEARNING at all.
In fact if there is no causal pathway between the two objects, they
can't be called referent and symbol either!
Thus we say that learning implies learning by being an effect of a
cause, or by looking at cause directly (self luminous direct
perception). In the absence of cause there can be no learning even if
the symbol is 'right' about the referent.
RELATION BETWEEN DATA CONTENT AND GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY.
With the above caveat in mind about accidental data conformance, in
general geometric congruency IS one form of data content.
In the popular voice we call geometric congruency HIGH PICTURENESS,
or high picture content. Hieroglyphs of birds that look like birds or
are similar to birds have a high data content and high geometric
congruency.
Thus, ignoring instances of accidental data conformance, we can
state:
High geometric congruency implies high data content.
Low data content implies low geometric congruency.
However,
High data content does not necessarily imply high geometric
congruency.
Low geometric congruency does not necessarily imply low data
content.
INTERPRETATION AND RENDITION
Some will tell you that your conscious experience is your brain's
interpretation of the physical universe.
That is ass backwards with emphasis on the word ass.
Your consciousness is your brain's RENDITION of the physical
universe, and the physical universe is your interpretation of the
rendition you see in your consciousness.
Let's get this straight.
The physical universe is the referent.
Your conscious experience is the symbol.
Interpretation is the process of extracting data about a referent
from a symbol.
Oui?
Rendition is the process of encoding data about a referent into a
symbol.
Rendition means encode.
Interpretation means decode.
Referent -> rendition -> symbol.
Referent <- interpretation <- symbol.
From the referent state one renders a symbol state.
From the symbol state, one interprets the referent state.
In mathematical terms consider rendition (to render), and
interpretation (to interpret) to be functions over a domain like f(x).
Then:
Symbol = rendition(referent).
Referent = interpretation(symbol).
The domain of rendition are referents and the range of
renditions are symbols.
The domain of interpretation are symbols, and the range
of interpretations are referents.
Your conscious experience is a symbol for the physical
universe referent, therefore your conscious experience is a
rendition.
The alleged physical universe is the referent for your conscious
experience symbol, thus the physical universe is an interpretation of
your conscious experience.
DO NOT GET THESE BACKWARDS.
Hell doesn't care and will not help you disentangle your
confusions.
COLLAPSING REFERENT AND SYMBOL REVISITED.
If you look up interpretation in a dictionary it will say
rendition.
If you look up rendition it will say interpretation.
Considering that
interpretation = rendition
is the same as considering that
referent = symbol.
This is all three forms of insanity rolled into one.
Those three insanities ARE the fabric of Hell.
There are a lot of dictionaries in hell.
One in the hands of every Medusa running around turning people to
stone.
Fire and Brim Stone.
Omni good work, and Omni Amen.
Some would say these words are inappropriate.
Let me apologize by saying that neither religion nor science are
worthy to breath the ashes of this work.
Let them read and suffer until they have done penance for the
damage they have wrought upon mankind over the millenia.
And when they have lived through hell and returned to tell the
tale, then perhaps they may criticize our approach and delivery.
But I assure you, when they return from the sticky dark bottom of
the abyss, they WILL know the difference between interpretation and
rendition, because that is the only way out.
And they will also know how to confuse the hell out of the two,
because that is the way in.
Studied expertise on how to come in is the way out.
That's because trying to come in, puts you out, as you can't come
in unless you ARE out.
LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT
Learning by being an effect is the process of gleaning data about
the nature of an original referent by BEING a symbol of final authority.
Notice we say BEING.
If the symbol of final authority is not you yourself, then it is
separate from you, and you can never know about it at all without
looking at a later symbol, thus you need to find a later symbol closer
to you to study.
But 'closer' is never enough, the only way you can ever know
anything by being an effect, is TO BE THE EFFECT! Thus *YOU* become the
symbol of final authority and the changes in your own state become the
data by which you judge the referent.
Thus consciousness, as the symbol of final authority, becomes the
final collapser of quantum wave functions. But that is for another
time.
DEPENDABILITY OF TRACKING
The dependability of learning by being an effect depends on the
dependability of tracking between alleged referent and symbol.
In the absence of dependable tracking, in the absence of a
dependable causal pathway between referent and symbol, there can be no
confidence in the data gleaned from the symbol about the referent as the
two will be causally unrelated (and thus are not actually referent and
symbol to each other any more).
Thus learning by being an effect depends upon a dependable causal
pathway between referent and symbol.
Dependable causal pathways leads to dependable tracking.
VERIFICATION
Verification is the verification of tracking, the verification of
the causal pathway between referent and symbol.
However cause is not sufficient to witness cause. (Jane's law.)
Translation:
Witnessing effects is not sufficient to witness or prove cause.
One can perhaps witness dependability, but never necessity between
events in the physical universe.
Dependability and necessity are not the same thing.
Only by witnessing necessity between events could one truly verify
a casual pathway.
Therefore verification of causal pathways can not be done by using
causal pathways.
Just because the meter is reading, does that mean the light is on?
What other meter are you going to use to measure the causal pathway
between the light bulb and the first meter? How do you know your second
meter is working as theorized?
CAUSAL PATHWAYS CAN NOT BE VERIFIED BY OTHER CAUSAL PATHWAYS.
MORE CAUSAL PATHWAYS DO NOT A MORE CERTAIN CAUSAL PATHWAY MAKE.
ALL CAUSAL PATHWAYS THROUGH A NON ZERO, MULTI DIMENSIONAL SYSTEM
FOREVER REMAIN UNVERIFIED AND THUS REMAIN THEORY, EVIDENCE AND MODEL AT
BEST.
Thus an object that is limited to learning by being an effect, that
is by looking at symbols to determine the nature of referents, can never
be certain of its results, neither certain of the nature of the
referent, nor certain that the referent even exists.
Thus we have the third line of The Proof:
3.) LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT IMPLIES NOT LEARNING WITH
CERTAINTY.
So now we are in a position to draw a partial conclusion from lines
2.) and 3.) of The Proof:
2.) DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT.
3.) LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT IMPLIES NOT LEARNING WITH
CERTAINTY.
from this we can conclude:
DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES NOT LEARNING WITH CERTAINTY.
Or to make it easier:
LEARNING WITH CERTAINTY ACROSS A DISTANCE IS IMPOSSIBLE.
OK, let's take a break.
Homer
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE I - THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/val/val1.txt
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE II - THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/val/val2.txt
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE III - THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/val/val3.txt
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE IV - THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/val/val4.txt
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE V - THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/val/val5.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Apr 1 00:55:59 EDT 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Apr 28 12:06:02 EDT 2020
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val3.txt
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
Good evening, today is late Sunday evening March 30th, 2009.
This is the third part of the Valentine's Day lecture on the
subject of The Proof.
First we need to summarize where we have been so far and to refresh
our memories of what we are talking about.
So very quickly let's start at the beginning.
OBJECTS AND QUALITY SETS
Objects are states or events in space and time.
We usually think of events as changes in state, but a single point
in space time IS an event, a 'happening'. Thus space time is a fabric
of events, or objects, each one of which has a quality set including its
location in space and time.
Objects have quality sets which describe them.
Anything that has qualities is an object, and anything that is an
object has a quality set with qualities in it.
Except of course the Nothing which has an empty quality set!
I can hear a bright little Goober ask "But isn't it then a quality
of the Nothing that it has no qualities?"
We will avoid that Godel jail by asking you to apply understanding
rather than rigor.
GODEL JAIL
Godel jails are philosophical black holes that one falls into by
being a little too bright.
They are also the place we send people who are a little too dumb,
and who suffer from proffering logical absurdities as wisdom.
For example the statement 'All generalizations are false' leads to
a Godel Jail for any mind that tries to determine if it is true or
false.
Since the statement IS a generalization, if we assume the statement
is false, then the statement is true, if we assume the statement is
false, then the state is true.
Around and around we go. This arises because the statement is a
self denying statement, and thus forms the basis of a Godel Jail for the
bright mind that can't figure its way out of the logical whirlpool.
But we also send people to Godel Jail who try to make the statement
into a working philosophy.
Godel Jails are filled with the bones of fools and charlatans.
TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS
Two different objects have two different quality sets, and any
objects with two different quality sets are two different objects.
Since where and when an object exists is part of it's quality set,
a change in position in space or time indicates a new different object.
The parts of you that move in time are a new you from moment to
moment. The parts of you that do not move in time are the same you, as
for them there IS no moment to moment.
Just because everything IN consciousness is made of apparitions of
space and time, doesn't mean that consciousness itself is made of space
and time.
In this case, the TV set (consciousness) is not made of what is
displayed in the TV set screen (space and time, parts and mechanics).
REFERENT AND SYMBOL
A symbol is any object that is used to refer back to another
object.
A referent is any object referred to by a symbol.
Referent and symbol are two different objects with two different
qualities sets.
The symbol of final authority is the last symbol in the causal
chain actually used by the observer to learn about the referent. The
symbol of final authority IS that observer and the changes that take
place in him due to the causal wave reaching and impinging on him from
the referent.
The RENDITION ZONE is the area in the observer that changes state
due to the causal wave, usually that observer's consciousness, and the
RENDITION is the changes that take place in the observer's rendition
zone.
The referent is the rendered, the symbol is the rendition.
ONTOLOGICAL STATUS
Ontology is the study of being or existing.
Ontological status is the status of the existingness of an object.
Either something exists or it doesn't.
Thus ontology is a pretty simple science of what is and what ain't.
Since referent and symbol are both objects which ARE, both have
equal ontological status, they have a parity of (equal) existingness
with each other.
Something might be heavier than another, but something can not
exist more than another.
There is no gradient scale of TO BE or TO EXIST.
Thus it is not true that the referent exists or is more actual than
the symbol. Both exist and both are actual.
Both referent and symbol have their own distinct quality sets, both
of which contain 'exists'.
If the symbol did not exist, it would be impossible to get the idea
that the referent existed by studying the symbol.
Thus claiming that the physical universe exists but that our
consciousness doesn't really exist, is ludicrous.
We like to think that the original referent out there in
space and time is SOMETHING, you know, heavy made of mass,
objective, you can 'prove' it exists etc. (Actually you can't).
But our conscious experience of that referent, the symbol
of final authority for learning about the referent, has no mass,
isn't heavy and therefore probably isn't real.
How heavy is a conscious experience of heaviness?
Thus it is tempting to say the referent exists but the symbol, our
conscious experience, eh, well who knows....
However it is the very glaring existence of our consciousness that
gives us the idea that the physical universe exists also, as we are
using our consciousness to symbolize the alleged physical universe.
Our consciousness, the SYMBOL, certainly exists, so we conclude
rightly or wrongly that the physical universe, the REFERENT, must exist
at least as much as the symbol does.
Existence of the symbol does not imply existence of the referent,
as you could be dreaming, hallucinating or imagining.
Most perceptions in consciousness are a symbol of the alleged
physical universe. When studied as themselves though, conscious
experiences are self symbolizing, self luminous. You don't see them by
looking at SOMETHING ELSE.
One learns about conscious experiences by direct perception, by
looking at them directly, not by looking at something later that was the
effect of them earlier.
One USES one's conscious experiences to learn about the alleged
physical universe through indirect perception, because one is learning
about the physical universe by looking at one's conscious experiences,
and not the physical universe directly. Also the alleged event in the
physical universe exists prior to the event in consciousness, and no
longer exists at the moment the conscious symbol arises.
We say alleged, because the event in the physical universe is a
THEORY to explain the perfectly certain existence of the conscious
experience.
MAPPING
Some qualities in the symbol, MAP back to qualities in the
referent, so one can glean something about the referent by looking at
the symbol.
For example a map of city streets will show the street pattern on
the map which pretty well matches that actual pattern of streets in the
city.
Symbols however will have other qualities that do not map back to
the referent, for example, the map is made of paper, the city isn't.
And the referent will have qualities that are not represented in
some particular symbol, for example Ithaca (the city) has poisonous air
from buses and cars, enough to supply a needy concentration camp for the
length of a war, and the map doesn't.
COLLAPSING REFERENT AND SYMBOL
Collapsing referent and symbol means to look at a symbol and
consider it IS the referent.
Referents and symbols are two different objects with two different
quality sets.
However those quality sets may overlap in some areas where certain
qualities are common to both.
Both referent and symbol 'exist' for example.
Both referent and symbol may be 'square', we call this geometricity
between referent and symbol, or geometric similarity.
There are also a subset of qualities in the symbol that are mapped
back to OTHER very different qualities in the referent because of a
causal connection between them.
Thus visual color in our consciousness is mapped back to various
frequencies of light in the referent physical universe.
Except in the case of geometricity, mapped qualities are NOT
necessarily, and usually are NOT, common qualities of both referent and
symbol.
Conscious experiences have color but do not have frequency.
Photons have frequency but do not have color.
Nonetheless conscious color is mapped back to alleged photon
frequency.
Consider a light in the physical universe that emits 5000 Angstroms
of light. In our consciousness we perceive it as red light, but in the
physical universe there is no red, just frequency and wave length.
Color in the conscious symbol maps back to frequency in the
physical referent.
The mapping between color and frequency is arbitrary but
nonetheless (allegedly) causally related.
THE THREE FORMS OF INSANITY
Collapsing symbol and referent leads to three errors, all of which
are forms of insanity. If a machine were to do any one of these things,
you would throw it out.
INSANITY ONE
First, when qualities in the symbol map back to qualities in the
referent, one gets the idea that the referent has the exact same quality
because the symbol has it.
In the case where conscious color is being used to map back to
physical frequency, when we collapse symbol and referent we consider
that photons are 'red'.
This is a domain error, as redness is not a quality of photons and
CAN NOT be a quality of photons. Photons are outside of the domain of
redness, of red things.
DOMAIN ERRORS
Photons do not belong to the domain of objects which can have
redness as part of their quality sets.
If you ask 'What objects can be red?', photons can never be part of
that group, but conscious experiences can be.
A domain error is when a quality is applied to an inappropriate
object that can not have that quality.
For example asking "what is the square root of a dog?" is a domain
error.
Dogs do not have square roots and photons do not have color.
Consider the case of a color coded image (symbol) of x-ray
emissions of the sun (referent). In this case 'color' in the symbol is
mapped to 'frequency' in the x-ray range rather than the visible light
range.
When referent and symbol are collapsed, one gets the idea that low
frequency x-rays are 'red' and high frequency x-rays are 'violet'. when
in truth the symbolic image has 'red' and 'violet', and the referent
x-rays don't, they have frequency.
Further the exact mapping between color and frequency can change
depending on the situation. A human uses 'red' to mean 5000 Angstroms
of wave length, an X ray telescope uses red to mean much smaller
wavelengths. Birds use red for a range similar to humans but not the
same.
Confusion between conscious color and photon frequency is a common
result of referent and symbol collapsation and is a form of insanity.
INSANITY TWO
Second, when there are qualities in the symbol that DO NOT map back
to the referent, one gets the idea that the referent has those qualities
anyhow because the symbol has them, when in truth the referent may not.
Because the conscious experience of 'red' is self luminous, we then
conclude that photons are self luminous too.
Self luminous means not lit by anything else. Table lamps in a
dream do not light the other objects in the dream.
Symbols are objects in their own sovereign right, and often have
whole ranges of qualities that have nothing to do with the referent that
they are being used to symbolize, at all.
Thus considering that the referent has a quality because the symbol
has the quality, is a second form of insanity.
A worst case of this is when someone is hallucinating conscious
experiences of little green martians on the street. In this case the
referent doesn't exist at all, although the symbol does. Thus ALL of
the symbol's qualities are considered to map back to the referent when
they don't.
Another classic example is when one considers that because one is
capable of perfect certainty of the symbol (conscious picture), one
thinks one is perfectly certain of the referent (physical universe).
Thus people think they are certain the physical universe exists,
when it doesn't.
He is perfectly certain his conscious experience of the physical
universe exists, therefore he assumes the physical universe exists too.
This goes lower south into an inversion where the being thinks he
is certain of the physical universe, but isn't sure he exists as a
conscious unit.
Sanity is recognizing that the symbol is certain and the referent
is not.
Insanity is thinking the referent is certain and the symbol doesn't
exist, meaning thinking you are seeing the referent distant from you.
INSANITY THREE
The third kind of insanity is when the referent has qualities that
the symbol does not have, and thus one gets the idea that the referent
does not have them either because the symbol doesn't have them.
Collapsing referent and symbol is always a form of insanity when it
is out of volitional control, because it puts one permanently out of
contact with actuality as it truly is.
THE THREE KINDS OF INSANITY SUMMARIZED
The three kinds of insanity arise from collapsing referent and
symbol into one and the same object, because referent and symbol are two
different objects with two different quality sets, yet collapsation
considers they are one and the same object with only one quality set
between them.
The three kinds of insanity are:
1.) considering that because two different qualities in a referent
and symbol are mapped to each other, that they are instead one and the
same quality. Thus 'frequency' (referent) *IS* 'red' (symbol).
The insanity then would be considering that red = frequency = red.
2.) considering the referent has qualities that rightly belong only
to the symbol. Thus self luminousness in consciousness (symbol) means
self luminousness in the physical universe (referent).
The insanity then would be to attribute self luminous certainty to
the physical universe just and only because one is self luminously
certain of one's own conscious image of the physical universe.
In fact self luminosity CAN NOT exist in the physical universe
because it is a form of learning by looking at cause directly rather
than the effect, and that is impossible across a distance.
3.) Considering the referent does not have qualities only because
the symbol does not have them. We can't see x-rays (symbol), therefore
there are no x-rays (referent). Our inability to be conscious of
radioactivity, the way we can of visible light, can be very dangerous to
us when traveling through a radioactive field.
Another example would be a belief that the city does not have cars
and buses, because the map doesn't show them.
CAUSATION
There is FOLLOWINGNESS.
That means event B followed event A at least once.
There is DEPENDABLE followingness.
That means B always follows A every time we have observed A.
There is NECESSARY dependable followingness.
That means B MUST follow A because A causes B.
Causation is DEFINED as necessary dependable followingness.
Defining causation as necessity may seem weak, as there may be more
to causation than mere necessity, but necessity is both necessary and
sufficient to causation.
Thus if there is cause, there must be necessity, and if there is
necessity there must be cause.
That alone is enough to allow us to get away with claiming
CAUSE = NECESSITY = CAUSE
Formally,
There is causation if and only if there is necessity.
There is necessity if and only if there is causation.
Notice the following relationships.
Necessary dependable followingness implies dependable
followingness.
Dependable followingness does not imply necessary dependable
followingness.
Thus,
Necessity implies dependability.
Dependability does not imply necessity.
Thus,
Cause implies dependability.
Dependability does not imply cause.
In the popular voice we say 'Correlation does not imply causation.'
Dependability of followingness between two events is 'correlation'.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD
The scientific method is the process of science, of coming to know
about the universe around us.
Because some of the alleged universe around us is a universe of
separations in space and time, the physical universe, all that can be
known of the physical universe are qualities of causal relation via
learning by being an effect.
That's a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.
All we can know of the physical universe IS HOW IT AFFECTS US AS
CONSCIOUS OBSERVER. We never see the physical universe directly, only
its rendition in our conscious rendition zone.
Any quality in a physical universe object OR ANY OTHER KIND OF
OBJECT, that does not have a cause and effect relation to us can not be
known by us, as we can only learn by looking directly at cause (self
luminosity of consciousness ) or indirectly by looking at effect.
Thus ALL we can know about things distant from us are cause and
effect, and none of what we can know about those things can ever be more
than a theory because distance implies learning by looking only at the
effect and effect does not prove cause.
MODELS AND EVIDENCE
The valuable final product of science are models of cause and
effect to account for evidence, i.e. conscious observations which are
data gleaned from symbols about referents which are 'things out there'.
The observations (conscious symbols) are perfectly certain, the
theories about the alleged referents, created to account for the
observations, are never perfectly certain, only workable or not.
Claiming perfect certainty about a theory of cause is a DOMAIN
ERROR.
Perfect certainty can not be part of the quality set of any theory
of cause.
Theories of cause gleaned indirectly by looking at effects can only
be workable or unworkable. We say the theory is wrong, but we mean
unworkable.
Statements of fact gleaned directly by looking at cause can only be
true or false.
Evidence is always observation of dependable followingness.
Theory is model of necessary dependable followingness.
Thus all models are models of cause and effect.
If something is not cause and effect, science has no interest in
it.
THEORY BALLS
Theories consist of model and evidence.
Evidence is data born of observations.
Observations are data gleaned from symbols about referents, via
learning by being an effect.
Thus the scientific method consists of the following:
Observations -> evidence -> models -> predictions -> observations.
Notice the above process is circular, the end feeds back into the
beginning. New observations lead to corrections of the model, which
lead to new predictions which lead to new observations, which are new
evidence, and around and around we go.
This process refines the model into a complete theory ball.
A complete (round) theory ball obtains when all evidence is modeled
(explained), and all predictions are evidenced (observed).
TRUTH AND CERTAINTY
Truth is a quality of relation between a statement of fact and a
given specified actuality.
"The house is red' is a statement of fact, whether right or wrong.
Certainty is a quality of relation between a knower of truth, and a
given stated truth value of the given specified statement of fact.
Having now observed the house, the knower is now certain of the
truth or falsity of the statement that the house is red or at least his
conscious rendition of it is :) He could be dreaming, imagining or
hallucinating, but WHAT HE SEES IS RED WITHOUT QUESTION.
Statements of fact are always of the form
'Quality belongs to object' (The house is red)
or
'Object belongs to class.' (Joey my pet is a dog.)
or
'Class belongs to bigger Class.' (All dogs are animals.)
Truth is a quality of relation between the statement and the
actualities it refers to.
Certainty is another quality of relation between the conscious unit
and the truth value of the statement under scrutiny.
Thus we have in order:
'The house is red' which is a statement.
'It is true that the house is red' which is the statement's
asserted truth value.
'I am certain it is true that the house is red.' which is my
conscious relationship to the asserted truth value of the statement.
CERTAINTY AND SCIENTIFIC THEORY
There are two kinds of theories, existential theories or
specifications, and universal theories, or generalizations.
EXISTENTIAL THEORIES
'Daisies exist' is an existential theory or specification.
Science can prove it true by having a clear specification of what a
daisy is, and then finding one instance of a daisy, namely an object
that meets that specification. A specification is essentially a
delineation of the quality set of the object.
Science can never prove the above theory false, for the absence of
evidence for a daisy is not proof of its non existence.
In the popular voice we say 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.'
This is because science can not observe all space and time looking
for a daisy. The best science can say is 'Right here and right now,
there is not a daisy.'
Thus the absence of evidence for unicorns, does not prove that
unicorns do not exist, never have existed, nor never will exist.
UNIVERSAL THEORIES
'All daisies are white' is a universal theory or generalization.
Science can prove it false by finding one non white (black) daisy.
Science can never prove it true, because the presence of one or a
billion white daisies is not proof that all daisies are white.
Again in the popular voice we say 'Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence (of the black daisey)'.
This is because science can not observe all space and time looking
for a non white daisy. The best science can say is 'Right here and
right now, there is a white daisy'.
CAUSAL MODELS ARE UNIVERSAL THEORIES
Causal models attempt to explain DEPENDABLE followingness, which
means for all space and time A will always be followed by B, and B is
always preceded by A. Thus causation is a universal theory.
The very statement that B ALWAYS follows A is a universal theory, a
generalization, and thus fits into the category of theories that can
never be proven right, but can be proven wrong (unworkable) with one
counter example.
Theories may 'stand the test of time', but in the end, everything
that lives inside of time, is dust in the wind.
Science is interested in what will happen, but can only observe
what did happen.
What did happen does not imply what will happen, thus science is at
a disadvantage.
The reason that science can never prove a causal theory true is
because all such theories are theories of cause and effect, theories of
NECESSITY, and science can never directly observe a necessity, but can
only observe a dependability.
In other words science can observe A and then B following, but
never observe the necessity that they do so. This is because the EVENTS
are observable but never the CAUSE between them.
So dependability of followingness does not imply necessity of
followingness.
Thus science can never prove a causal theory true (permanently
workable).
But science CAN observe an UNdependability, which would immediately
imply a lack of necessity and thus imply that the theory of necessity
was false (unworkable).
Thus science can prove a causal theory false with one observation
that denies a dependability.
Science can only observe the weaker (right hand) side of the
equation:
Necessity implies Dependability.
In the presence of dependability there may be necessity (cause),
but this remains forever a theory.
However in the absence of dependability there certainly is no
cause. At least as it was modeled in the theory.
Thus if one observes a dependability there MAY BE cause.
But if one observes an undependability, there CERTAINLY is no
cause.
Since all causal theories are theories of cause and effect, which
model evidential dependability via theoretical necessity, science can
only prove a causal theory false and never prove it true, depending on
whether it observes an UNdependability or not.
Necessity is an anthropomorphization of directly perceived self
luminous causal agency within the conscious unit.
"I DO AND I KNOW IT."
Science can not observe cause in the external space time universe,
because science is limited to the indirect observation of cause only via
the followingness between two different events, but consciousness can
perceive cause directly within itself.
The miraculousness of that statement will be left for another time.
Direct perception of cause, and in fact direct perception of
anything, is what the proof and consciousness is all about.
ANTHROPOMORPHIZATION
Anthropomorphization is assigning qualities that rightly belong
only to consciousness, to the physical universe. It is insanity number
two: because the symbol has the quality, we believe the alleged referent
must have the quality also.
As such there may in fact be no necessity in the outward physical
universe at all. Just because we see causal agency within our conscious
unit, doesn't mean there is any causal agency between any two different
objects out in the alleged physical universe.
It is possible that what the conscious unit perceives as cause
between things in the physical universe, is actually the cause of the
conscious unit itself being projected out on to the things displayed IN
consciousness (apparitions of space and time) in order to make it look
like there is cause between them directly out there in the physical
universe.
We call this the THIRD PARTY LAW and will get into it later in
detail.
As absurd as the above may sound to sophomoric minds, there is no
*SCIENTIFIC* ground to reject the possibility out of hand, AND CAN NEVER
BE, as
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN WITH PERFECT CERTAINTY ABOUT CAUSATION
BETWEEN REFERENTS BY LOOKING AT CAUSATION BETWEEN SYMBOLS.
IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN WITH PERFECT CERTAINTY IF THE
REFERENT EVEN EXISTS MY LOOKING AT THE EXISTENCE OF THE SYMBOL.
IF ONE CAN NOT PROVE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE REFERENT EXISTS, HOW
THEN CAN ONE PROVE WITH CERTAINTY THAT CAUSE BETWEEN REFERENTS EXISTS?
SEEING THE WORLD THROUGH THEORY COLORED GLASSES
People tend to see the world through theory colored glasses.
If they have a theory that says consciousness is a process in a
machine (a brain), and a theorem that says machines can't be certain of
anything, they will conclude that consciousness can't be certain of
anything either, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE LOOKING DIRECTLY AT PERFECT
CERTAINTIES ALL DAY LONG (any two conscious colors around them, notice
the perfect certainty of their difference and their existence.)
Thus theory, in the hands of incompetent proponents, can obscure
observation and corrupt interpretation.
CAUSAL PATHWAYS
Objects communicate with each other via cause and effect.
That means that some quality in one object causes a change in state
in the quality set of another object.
A CAUSAL PATHWAY is a series of cause and effect events that
propagate out through space and time from an original source.
More broadly we DEFINE referent and symbol as any two objects that
have a causal pathway between them, meaning the symbol's state is a
function of the prior referent's state.
Therefore there has to be a causal pathway between any referent and
any of its later symbols.
Any two objects which are related to each other by cause and
effect, are referent and symbol to each other.
Any two objects which are referent and symbol to each other, are
related by a causal pathway between them.
If A and B are referent and symbol, then there is a causal pathway
from A to B.
If there is a causal pathway from A to B, then A and B are referent
and symbol.
CAUSAL MESSENGER WAVES.
The procession of changes in state emanating from an original
referent along a causal pathway out into space and time is called a
causal messenger wave.
It is called a WAVE because it moves continuously out into space
and time like a wave, at the speed of cause.
Different kinds of causes can travel at different speeds, but the
maximum speed of cause in the physical universe, is apparently the speed
of light in a vacuum.
Light is one kind of causal messenger wave.
It is called a MESSENGER wave because the wave of changes that
occur carry data about the nature of the various referents that
originally emanated it, and the other referents the wave later
encountered and passed through.
It is called a CAUSAL messenger wave, because it is a wave of
causation traveling through the universe and the data it carries is data
solely about the causal relations between the referents and symbols that
it encounters along the way.
THE REFERENT AND SYMBOL CONTINUUM
Because the causal messenger wave travels along its causal pathway
in a continuous manner, every point in space time along that path
becomes first a symbol to prior referents, and then a referent to later
symbols.
Thus we say that the causal messenger wave creates a referent and
symbol continuum as it propagates through space and time.
Quantum mechanics will want to argue about just how continuous this
continuum really is.
So noted.
We are not arguing against quantum mechanics here, but neither are
we bringing quantum mechanics into the discussion.
ORIGINAL REFERENT AND SYMBOL OF FINAL AUTHORITY
The original referent is DEFINED as the event we wish to learn
about.
The symbol of final authority is DEFINED as the event we will study
to learn about the original referent.
Thus a causal pathway is a series of referents and symbols
following each other in space and time starting at the original
referent, and ending at the symbol of final authority.
The original referent is probably not the first referent in the
causal pathway, because in this universe anyhow every change HAS to come
from some thing else. Changes don't just happen with out something else
changing first, even atomic decay. At the very least time is changing
before the decay.
The symbol of final authority is not necessarily the last symbol in
the causal pathway, most of which never end; it is however the chosen
symbol under scrutiny to learn about the original referent by studying
the state of the symbol.
Any point in a referent and symbol continuum can be assigned as the
original referent we want to know about, or the symbol of final
authority we are going to use to learn about earlier referents from.
Probably the first original referent is at the beginning of time,
and the last symbol of final authority will be at the end of time. Thus
note that the 'original referent' under study is rarely the first
referent in the chain, just as the symbol of final authority is never
the last symbol in the chain (unless the universe has ended.)
However note that the original referent under study is ALWAYS in
the past, and the symbol of final authority is in the NOW.
Thus learning can take place between any two points in the referent
and symbol continuum, the earlier point is the original referent and the
later point is the symbol of final authority.
Thus causal messenger waves pass THROUGH original referents and
symbols of final authority, and eventually referent and symbol both
become part of the causal messenger wave's wake as it moves on into the
future, leaving them behind. And as each new symbol is created, a data
imprint is left on it about the causal nature of all the referents
behind it.
TRACKING
Tracking means a symbol is under the continuous causal influence of
the referent at all times so that the symbol's state is an ongoing
function of the referent's state albeit delayed in time by the speed of
cause and the distance between referent and symbol.
Tracking ends when the symbol's state is no longer a causal
function of the referent's state.
In this case we say the state of the symbol is no longer tracking
the state of the referent.
There is a subtle but important change in definition here that
needs to be kept track of lest it lead to confusions.
Take a light bulb and a light meter on the other side of the room.
A referent is an object in ONE moment of space and time, because in
the next moment its a whole new object. So when we talk about the light
bulb, technically we have to ask which light bulb, meaning where and
when.
So the light bulb at 12 noon emits a photon which travels to the
light meter and the meter dial reads.
That is a single causal pathway between light bulb and meter.
The meter for that one event 'tracked' the light bulb.
But then a second later, the NEW light bulb emits a NEW photon that
heads over to the NEW light meter, and again it reads. Thus the new
meter is tracking the new light bulb.
If we consider that the succession of events in time called light
bulb is in fact one single light bulb moving through time, and the same
for the meter, we can then say that the meter is tracking the light bulb
across time, because the meter's state is a function of the light bulb's
state minus the travel time distance between them.
Notice that although we may claim it is one light bulb moving
through time and one meter moving through time, the photons being
emitted by the light bulb at each moment of time are CLEARLY new photons
with each one emitted.
Thus we can get get sloppy and consider that the same old light
bulb is emitting different new photons at the same old meter, and thus
the meter is tracking the light bulb from moment to moment.
Conveniences of conversation are ok as long as we keep track of
them, otherwise confusions will arise, as in fact the light bulb is a
brand new light bulb every new moment of time and so is the meter.
DATA CONTENT
A symbol can have many qualities that do not causally map back to
the referent.
DATA is the subset of qualities in the symbol that do causally map
back to the referent and thus represent qualities in the referent.
A symbol can have either high DATA CONTENT or low DATA CONTENT.
A causal pathway is the means by which data propagates from it's
original referent through space and time to an endless series of
symbols.
Each symbol in turn becomes its own referent as it passes on the
causal messenger wave to the next symbol in line. Thus the next symbol
in line is affected by both the many symbols before it and the original
referent.
DATA INTEGRITY
Data integrity is the conformance of the data contained in the
symbol to the original referent. The longer the causal pathway between
referent and symbol, i.e. the greater the number of referent to symbol
'hops', the lower the data integrity.
DATA IMPRINT
A data imprint is the changes in state incurred in a symbol by
virtue of a causal wave originating from a referent.
A data imprint is a rendering in the rendition zone of a symbol, a
rendition of the causal nature of the original referent.
Since every symbol along the way between original referent and the
symbol of final authority adds its own causal influence into the
traveling causal messenger wave, the data imprint on the final symbol
contains data about ALL of the symbols back to the original referent and
even before.
Separating out the data from a given symbol and knowing which prior
referent to apply it to can be daunting.
GEOMETRICITY OR GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY (SIMILARITY)
The FORM of a symbol's data content can have either high GEOMETRIC
CONGRUENCY or low GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY to the referent.
Geometric congruency means that the symbol 'looks similar to' the
referent. There is a one to one space and time correspondence between
the referent and the symbol.
Purists will complain that we really want to call this geometric
similarity, as congruency demands absolute equality of geometric form.
So noted. So ignored :)
However for the purposes of this lecture, geometric congruency,
similarity, conformance, and commensurateness mean the same thing. And
just to annoy people, so to equivalent and proportional.
Notice that data conformance, how well the symbol is tracking the
referent, and geometric conformance, how much the symbol 'looks like'
the referent are related but not quite the same thing. Data conformance
can be very high, but geometric congruency very low, as we shall see.
In general we will call data conformance simply data content.
For example the word COW refers back to a particular kind of
animal. Therefore 'COW' is a symbol.
But the symbol itself has very little data in its structure to give
us a hint as to what it is referring back to. Thus we say it's DATA
CONTENT (conformance) is low.
And yes the word cow doesn't look at all like a cow so its
geometric congruency is also low.
Notice there must have been a causal pathway between some cow
somewhere and the being who first created the symbol 'cow' or the word
would never have been invented, so 'cow' remains a proper symbol to the
animal in question even if very indirectly causally related to any cow.
On the other hand a picture of a cow taken by a camera is also a
symbol for the cow, but this symbol has a high degree of data content,
so we can tell much about the referent by looking at the symbol.
The picture of a cow also 'looks like' a cow, thus the data content
contained in the symbol has a high degree of GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY with
the original referent.
However if we scan the picture into an encrypted data stream of 1's
and 0's, that data stream still has high data content about the cow, but
very low geometric congruency indeed.
High data content does not necessarily mean RECOVERABLE data
content. It is possible to have a symbol with high data content, but
non recoverable.
EXAMPLE:
The unix cleartext password is the referent and the encrypted
password is the symbol. It is generally not possible to determine the
original password from the encrypted symbol. The data content of the
symbol remains high, uniquely rendering the referent, but the
recoverability from symbol back to referent, remains zero, as intended.
That means you can't learn about the referent from the symbol at all
even though the data is there!
The way passwords work, is the user types in his referent password,
and it is RE ENCRYPTED, and if the new symbol matches the old symbol,
then its a pass.
Thus although one can not learn about the referent via the symbol,
one can learn about two referents from their two symbols. If the
symbols are the same, the referents must have been the same, but what
the referent was forever is lost.
The reason passwords work, is if you re encrypt the same password,
you will get the same symbol. If there were no data content left in the
symbol, this would not happen.
ACCIDENTAL LEARNING
A symbol can contain data that matches the nature of the referent,
but not BECAUSE the referent causally impinged on the symbol and
imprinted or rendered that data there.
If there is no causal pathway between referent and symbol, any
'data' in the symbol about the referent is unrelated to a causal
connection between them and thus is coincidental.
Thus the symbol's state accidentally describes the referent.
Accidental data conformance between uncausally related objects, can
not be counted upon to provide dependable results, and in fact must not
be called LEARNING at all.
In fact if there is no causal pathway between the two objects, they
can't be called referent and symbol either!
Thus we say that learning implies learning by being an effect of a
cause, or by looking at cause directly (self luminous direct
perception). In the absence of cause there can be no learning even if
the symbol is 'right' about the referent.
RELATION BETWEEN DATA CONTENT AND GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY.
With the above caveat in mind about accidental data conformance, in
general geometric congruency IS one form of data content.
In the popular voice we call geometric congruency HIGH PICTURENESS,
or high picture content. Hieroglyphs of birds that look like birds or
are similar to birds have a high data content and high geometric
congruency.
Thus, ignoring instances of accidental data conformance, we can
state:
High geometric congruency implies high data content.
Low data content implies low geometric congruency.
However,
High data content does not necessarily imply high geometric
congruency.
Low geometric congruency does not necessarily imply low data
content.
INTERPRETATION AND RENDITION
Some will tell you that your conscious experience is your brain's
interpretation of the physical universe.
That is ass backwards with emphasis on the word ass.
Your consciousness is your brain's RENDITION of the physical
universe, and the physical universe is your interpretation of the
rendition you see in your consciousness.
Let's get this straight.
The physical universe is the referent.
Your conscious experience is the symbol.
Interpretation is the process of extracting data about a referent
from a symbol.
Oui?
Rendition is the process of encoding data about a referent into a
symbol.
Rendition means encode.
Interpretation means decode.
Referent -> rendition -> symbol.
Referent <- interpretation <- symbol.
From the referent state one renders a symbol state.
From the symbol state, one interprets the referent state.
In mathematical terms consider rendition (to render), and
interpretation (to interpret) to be functions over a domain like f(x).
Then:
Symbol = rendition(referent).
Referent = interpretation(symbol).
The domain of rendition are referents and the range of
renditions are symbols.
The domain of interpretation are symbols, and the range
of interpretations are referents.
Your conscious experience is a symbol for the physical
universe referent, therefore your conscious experience is a
rendition.
The alleged physical universe is the referent for your conscious
experience symbol, thus the physical universe is an interpretation of
your conscious experience.
DO NOT GET THESE BACKWARDS.
Hell doesn't care and will not help you disentangle your
confusions.
COLLAPSING REFERENT AND SYMBOL REVISITED.
If you look up interpretation in a dictionary it will say
rendition.
If you look up rendition it will say interpretation.
Considering that
interpretation = rendition
is the same as considering that
referent = symbol.
This is all three forms of insanity rolled into one.
Those three insanities ARE the fabric of Hell.
There are a lot of dictionaries in hell.
One in the hands of every Medusa running around turning people to
stone.
Fire and Brim Stone.
Omni good work, and Omni Amen.
Some would say these words are inappropriate.
Let me apologize by saying that neither religion nor science are
worthy to breath the ashes of this work.
Let them read and suffer until they have done penance for the
damage they have wrought upon mankind over the millenia.
And when they have lived through hell and returned to tell the
tale, then perhaps they may criticize our approach and delivery.
But I assure you, when they return from the sticky dark bottom of
the abyss, they WILL know the difference between interpretation and
rendition, because that is the only way out.
And they will also know how to confuse the hell out of the two,
because that is the way in.
Studied expertise on how to come in is the way out.
That's because trying to come in, puts you out, as you can't come
in unless you ARE out.
LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT
Learning by being an effect is the process of gleaning data about
the nature of an original referent by BEING a symbol of final authority.
Notice we say BEING.
If the symbol of final authority is not you yourself, then it is
separate from you, and you can never know about it at all without
looking at a later symbol, thus you need to find a later symbol closer
to you to study.
But 'closer' is never enough, the only way you can ever know
anything by being an effect, is TO BE THE EFFECT! Thus *YOU* become the
symbol of final authority and the changes in your own state become the
data by which you judge the referent.
Thus consciousness, as the symbol of final authority, becomes the
final collapser of quantum wave functions. But that is for another
time.
DEPENDABILITY OF TRACKING
The dependability of learning by being an effect depends on the
dependability of tracking between alleged referent and symbol.
In the absence of dependable tracking, in the absence of a
dependable causal pathway between referent and symbol, there can be no
confidence in the data gleaned from the symbol about the referent as the
two will be causally unrelated (and thus are not actually referent and
symbol to each other any more).
Thus learning by being an effect depends upon a dependable causal
pathway between referent and symbol.
Dependable causal pathways leads to dependable tracking.
VERIFICATION
Verification is the verification of tracking, the verification of
the causal pathway between referent and symbol.
However cause is not sufficient to witness cause. (Jane's law.)
Translation:
Witnessing effects is not sufficient to witness or prove cause.
One can perhaps witness dependability, but never necessity between
events in the physical universe.
Dependability and necessity are not the same thing.
Only by witnessing necessity between events could one truly verify
a casual pathway.
Therefore verification of causal pathways can not be done by using
causal pathways.
Just because the meter is reading, does that mean the light is on?
What other meter are you going to use to measure the causal pathway
between the light bulb and the first meter? How do you know your second
meter is working as theorized?
CAUSAL PATHWAYS CAN NOT BE VERIFIED BY OTHER CAUSAL PATHWAYS.
MORE CAUSAL PATHWAYS DO NOT A MORE CERTAIN CAUSAL PATHWAY MAKE.
ALL CAUSAL PATHWAYS THROUGH A NON ZERO, MULTI DIMENSIONAL SYSTEM
FOREVER REMAIN UNVERIFIED AND THUS REMAIN THEORY, EVIDENCE AND MODEL AT
BEST.
Thus an object that is limited to learning by being an effect, that
is by looking at symbols to determine the nature of referents, can never
be certain of its results, neither certain of the nature of the
referent, nor certain that the referent even exists.
Thus we have the third line of The Proof:
3.) LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT IMPLIES NOT LEARNING WITH
CERTAINTY.
So now we are in a position to draw a partial conclusion from lines
2.) and 3.) of The Proof:
2.) DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT.
3.) LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT IMPLIES NOT LEARNING WITH
CERTAINTY.
from this we can conclude:
DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES NOT LEARNING WITH CERTAINTY.
Or to make it easier:
LEARNING WITH CERTAINTY ACROSS A DISTANCE IS IMPOSSIBLE.
OK, let's take a break.
Homer
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE I - THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/val/val1.txt
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE II - THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/val/val2.txt
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE III - THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/val/val3.txt
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE IV - THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/val/val4.txt
VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE V - THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY
http://www.clearing.org/archive?/val/val5.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Apr 1 00:55:59 EDT 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Apr 28 12:06:02 EDT 2020
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val3.txt
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)