ADORE443 (fwd)

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

INDIRECT KNOWLEDGE

Curiosus (curiosus@fastmail.fm) wrote:
>But there might be on the hard disk a book about how the processor is
>built and how it is working, and the sentient unit could eventually
>discover this book.

>Maybe the creator(s) of the physical universe has (have) recorded its
>blueprints in some place.

The truth of such indirect knowledge would forever remain a
theory.

As you said, ALL consciousness is consciousness-of.

The ONLY consciousness is consciousness-of.

All perfect certainty is consciousness-of too.

And all consciousness-of is perfect certainty.

Since you can not be conscious of what you are not conscious of,
there is no certainty outside of our experience, the symbol, period.

The theoretical physical universe referent is the -1 level
abstraction, as it is a created interpretation of our conscious
experience the symbol.

Our conscious experience, the red ball we see, is the
zero level abstraction, and is in fact the true referent,
if we weren't all deluding ourselves about a physical referent
out there.

Any symbol is itself an object and thus can be considered an
orginal referent of its own. With the physical universe, people
extend the chain of symbol and referents back to one before the first
true referent, to a referent that doesn't in fact exist, so they
bypass the first one on the chain that does exist, their experience of
the red ball they see.

Higher level abstractions, 1, 2 and 3 etc, are ideas,
concepts, generalizations about the experience.

If people would just see that they see, and stop pretending
they are seeing things they can't see, they would be much better
off.

The PU is a *THEORY*.

And a very bad one at that.

That something is virtualizing a PU is self evident.

However that something doesn't then become the true
referent for the symbol red ball we experience.

Once people can see the symbol AS the referent, they can start to
as-is things, because using their conscious experiences as a symbol
for some alleged theoretical unseen referent is an inverted
alter-isness.

Homer

>--
>Curiosus
>http://www.geocities.com/curiosus_2005/index.htm



- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Feb 16 00:12:48 EST 2007

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 25 12:00:03 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore443.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)

iD8DBQFflaEEURT1lqxE3HERAstiAKCJUA4Gy13sbHWV7Fb6qWn/N8eVzwCfeVhL
RrcvYbJqRRoGq8iln7/akJQ=
=zYLJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l