PROOF35 (fwd)

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


SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS III

So far we have determined a number of salient points about symbols
and referents.

Both symbols and referents are actualities, objects, the first used
to refer to the second. Neither is a priori more or less actual than
the other. People can however use symbols to refer to referents so
heavily and exclusively that they lose sight that the symbol is its own
object worthy of study itself.

Second, because symbols and referents are both actual objects, both
have qualities of their own that may have nothing to do with each other
except that some of the qualities in the symbol may be used to refer to
some of the qualities of the referent.

For example a referent 'red plastic ball' may be made of plastic,
but it certainly is not red. The symbol in our consciousness is red.
Now we use that red symbol to refer to light waves bouncing off the ball
of certain frequency, but that connection between red consciousness and
light of a given frequency is in fact arbitrary.

Take an X-Ray picture of a star for example, where the various
frequencies of X-rays are delineated by colors of the rainbow so we can
see them. Red now refers to low frequency X-rays, and violet to high
frequency X-rays.

Now some astronomer looking at such a picture might point to a star
in the image and say "Hey I found a red star!'. But there is no way
that star is red. The quality of the symbol has been ascribed to the
referent, and now the referent is being described via the qualities of
the symbol, 'red stars' etc.

The quality of the symbol can have little to do with the quality of
the referent other than arbitrary assignment. When you start describing
the quality of the referent by the quality of the symbol you have
started down the road to confusion.

We do this all the time in normal life. We see a car and we say
'That car is red!'. No way is that car red in any possible sense of the
word, but the picture in our consciousness sure is.

Of course this kind of merging the qualities of the symbol with the
quality of the referent doesn't normally lead to trouble as we all know
that underlying 'red car' is the actual meaning 'this car reflects light
of a certain frequency'. The translation from 'red' to 'frequency' in
our minds becomes automatic, and so we get along with the misnaming.

The quality of redness is not even vaguely similar to the quality
of reflecting light of a certain frequency.

Redness is a quality of being of our conscious picture.

Reflecting light of a certain frequency is a quality of relation
between the car and light waves.

So unless we are careful to understand this process, the trip to
perdition can be swift and sure.

For example that 'red car' we see out there is also seen to be
sitting in a 3 dimensional space. We can SEE the space no? We can SEE
the 3 dimensions, right?

But anything we SEE in our consciousness is at best a SYMBOL for an
alleged referent. So if the car is not red just because we see red,
perhaps space is not dimensional just because it looks dimensional to
our consciousness.

In other words just because we see red, doesn't mean there IS red
OUT THERE, there may be something, but its association with redness in
our consciousness is an arbitrary hook together.

Just so with space. Just because we SEE space in our conscious
picture of the car, doesn't mean there is actual space OUT THERE. What
the true nature of the referent is, might be very different from what
our symbol looks like, or non existent altogether.

We see space in dreams, but surely there is no actual space there,
except as a in our conscious picture.

Now one might possibly claim that, that the world is not a dream,
and thus since we see a symbol of something in our consciousness,
SOMETHING must exist out there as the referent.

My point is that deriving the NATURE of the referent by the NATURE
of the symbol is a philosophical mistake of vast proportions.

Further if we can concede that the symbols might exist in our
consciousness without any actual existing referents at all (such as in
imagination, hallucination or a sleep dream), then our conclusion that
because we see space there must be space is completely wrong.

(A dream is a panoply of symbols implying referents where there are
in fact no actual existing referents, a virtual reality.)

It makes sense to us however that if symbols and referents do share
some qualities, that the qualities they share in common should be used
to refer to each other.

So if the car out there has dimensionality, and our conscious
pictures of the car also have 'dimensionality', it makes sense that the
dimensionality of our conscious pictures be used to refer to the
dimensionality of the car out there.

The point is that the existence of dimensionality in our symbolic
consciousness does not itself provide proof of dimensionality in the
referent.

The word interpretation means the ability to translate from symbol
to referent. One looks at the symbol and from the symbol we interpret
what the referent must be like.

Interpretation of words, pictures, data, all of which are symbols
for actual referents, is an important part of daily life and successful
living.

Now some people will say that our conscious pictures are our
interpretation of the physical universe, we see space in our
consciousness because that is our brain's interpretation of its data
coming from the the actual external universe.

But that is backwards you see, they are claiming the symbol is an
interpretation of the referent!

It is true that the electronic data received through the senses
in the brain is a symbol for the alleged external referent, and
the brain certainly has a right to interpret its symbolic data to mean
that the referent then really does have space.

But the brain then RERENDERS that interpretation as a picture of
space in our consciousness which is yet another symbol for the referent.
- From our point of view WE then interpret that the referent has space
because our conscious symbol of it does.

They say we see space in our conscious symbol because there IS
space in the referent!

But in fact we believe there IS space in the referent because we
see space in our conscious symbols of things!

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 ====================
Thu Aug 5 12:00:06 EDT 2021
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof35.memo.bak
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)

iD8DBQFhDAsHURT1lqxE3HERAtUmAKDIspcMTBXy8EjG993bE1mSHED1jwCgio/O
LAg6mEY2S1lBGHRxTz7OB/E=
=uTqP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE667 (fwd)

UNAUDITABILITY

This was written on 8/03/1999 but got lost in the system.

Homer

> So there are 2 ways - steadily improve your average tone, without worrying
> about
> the small things as they will drop out by themselves. Or have some
> solo tech to apply during the low tone. Do you know any?
> Nothing solo works for me in low tone. This is like cold - you
> have to wait some time before it vanishes by itself. During
> this time you sneeze here and there inevitably. How to
> control low toned condition?

There may be central cores to our cases that are 'unauditable', one
has to wait through them. Try to run 'unauditability' as an item. Also
waiting and enduring.

Remember every item of importance has an anti item.

Future - Anti Future

Get the idea of a future.
Get the idea of an anti future.

etc.

Sometimes the anti items are totally non obvious, but running
them produces *MARKED* results anyhow.

Sovereignty - Anti Sovereignty
Adoration - Anti Adoration
Operation - Anti Operation
Class - Anti Class
Majesty - Anti Majesty
Pride - Anti Pride
Magnificence - Anti Magnificence
Glory - Anti Glory
Source - Anti Source
Respect - Anti Respect
Tragedy - Anti Tragedy
Travesty - Anti Travesty
Ludicrous - Anti Ludicrous
Demise - Anti Demise
Agony - Anti Agony
Ecstasy - Anti Ecstasy
Golden Temper - Anti Golden Temper
Romance - Anti Romance
Thrill - Anti Thrill
Sin Song - Anti Sin Song
Joke - Anti Joke
Imp Soul - Anti Imp Soul
Humor - Anti Humor
Halcyon - Anti Halcyon
High Cool - High Anti Cool
High Friend - High Anti Friend
Miracle - Anti Miracle
King - Anti King

Get used to swinging wide on both sides of the dicoms
that you run into.

If you have an ascension experience, run the descension
experience! If you have a descension experience, run the
ascension experience! They come in pairs.

Don't use opposites like good and bad, use the anti form

Ascension - Anti Ascension
Descension - Anti Descension

Good - Anti Good
Bad - Anti Bad

This isn't a solo process so much as a way to live life and
field the curve balls it is throwing you.

Life - Anti Life

Don't let an important concept go by without running both sides of it,
*DEEPLY* and beyond when you might think it is flat.

Important - Anti Important
Unimportant - Anti Unimportant

Also remember there is not-isness producing a 'No' Item.

No can mean truly not there, but it usually means No at
the bottom of the CDEINR scale. Pretended not there.

No Importance - No Anti Importance

The basic form is

Postulate - Anti Postulate
No Postulate - No Anti Postulate

Take any subject.

Pretty girls.

"Is there a postulate on pretty girls?"
"Is there an anti postulate on pretty girls?"
"is there a no postulate on pretty girls?"
"Is there a no anti postulate on pretty girls?"

You don't have to get *WHAT* the postulate is, you want the FORCE on
both sides of the postulates. The actual what may or may not come to you.
It's the force that you are killing yourself with, particularly the 'no'
part of the force.

Its one thing to be operating postulates and anti postulates and know
it, and quite another to be operating no postulates and no anti postulates
and not know it! Something else is creating the world and our condition
in it right?

Anti postulates are necessary to produce an ongoing space time
game stream, so trying to get rid of anti postulates is fool hardy,
but running them and reoptimzing their balance against the postulates
can work miracles.

You want to get to your car, that's a postulate. But you can't just
get there by wanting it, desire isn't sovereign for a while, you have to
*WALK* to your car. That's an anti postulate.

Most people are unaware of postulates and anti postulates, so they
need to run No Postulate - No Anti Postulate first, until the come up to
recognizing that postulates and anti postulates are all that exist and
cause anything. It's not a head cognition, they *SEE* it all of a sudden,
and they see they are operating both sides of operation and anti operation
and they been anti operating THAT for a long time too!

Try

Source - Anti Source
Sovereign Source - Anti Sovereign Source
Sovereign Anti Source - Anti Sovereign Anti Source

Don't ask 'What the !@#@#% does that mean?'

Run the item, let existence show you what it means. Don't presume to
know. Existence is *WAY BIG*, it has more to offer us than we can know
until we get it. Knowing what there is to know is a covert way of not
knowing what there is to know and how much we don't know.

Also remember Adore defines a Miracle as

The *UNDREAMED* dream come true.

If you know what you want, it ain't no miracle if you get it,
no matter what it is.

What there is to have and get is *WAY* beyond our comprehension in the
not have state, let existence give it to you without knowing what it is
before you have it. That produces havingness that is just out of this
world. It's the undreamed dream come true that results in Joy in Eternal
Miracles.

Miracle - Anti Miracle
No Miracle - No Anti Miracle

JOY is Joke's On You.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Jul 29 12:00:05 EDT 2021
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore667.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)

iD8DBQFhAtCFURT1lqxE3HERAtduAKCjRQCM1Fy0tZzts4Oa5uEvKbkdpgCfenEY
lrtwHs3aZRvk/die/qW8+xM=
=OOcp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ACT92 (fwd)

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







((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))

THE GAMES WE PLAY

ACT - 92
25 December 1995

Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

Life is a game.

When people undertake to play a game, they design the playing
field, and the rules of play, they train in that play, and they
eventually invite the opposing team to come and play.

When people find themselves forced to play a game that they don't
want to play, rather than play the game, they will try to destroy the
game, or destroy the other side, particularly if they think the other
side is the one forcing them to play.

If the other side thinks that YOU are the one forcing them to play,
then they will take to playing the game of destroying you, which of
course puts you in a game you don't want to play so you will take to
trying to destroy them back.

In this way the game of playing against the opponent, becomes the
game of destroying the game and opponent.

It's not much of a foot ball game if one side takes out shotguns
and blasts away at the other side just as they kick off.

An analysis of games then would include an analysis of how the
various games we are playing have decayed down into the game of
destroying the game and the other side.

You know from LRH that games consist of Purposes, Barriers and
Freedoms in that order of importance.

But they also involve DESIGN, TRAINING, INVITATION, WELCOME, PLAY,
HALFTIME, and the after game HAND SHAKE.

You can take a look at any activity you are engaged in through out
the day and spot its various games aspects. This includes purposes,
barriers and freedoms, but also design, training, invitation, welcome,
play, half time and the ending handshake, all of which add up to
"putting the game there".

Life's games go well to the degree that both sides are putting it
there. The minute someone starts not putting it there, and trying to
put it not there, the game goes to hell and becomes the game of
destroying the game and the opposing team.

The side that is the most bent on destroying the game always loses,
because you can't destroy what you "aren't putting there".

The way you destroy something is to PUT IT THERE TWICE!

If people continue to not put the game there, the GAME wins, as
everyone is forced to play the game of destroying unwanted persisting
games forever.

The game persists solely because the players aren't putting it
there with design, training, invitation, welcome, play, half time and
handshake.

Thus the best they can do is play forever in an unwanted game,
which is the definition of hell.

That's how MEST wins. That's how Creators (thetans) become pieces
in the Creature's (MEST's) game.

So take a look at it folks, see where your life has sunk into
destroying games instead of playing games.

Assess for

Start of Game
Purposes
Barriers
Freedoms
Design
Rules
Training
Invitation
Welcome
Teams
Spectators
Concessions
Umpires
Announcers
Play
Half Time
Come Back
Win/Lose
Handshake
End of Game

Remember that the goal to WIN a game is secondary to and derives
from the goal to PLAY a game.

This IS the definition of Sportsmanship.

If you find a game where winning is more important than playing,
you will have found a game where getting rid of the game is more
important than playing the game.

That defines an Overt.

Homer


- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith This file may be found at
homer@lightlink.com ftp.lightlink.com/pub/homer/act92.memo

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 28 12:00:05 EDT 2021
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act92.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)

iD8DBQFhAX8GURT1lqxE3HERAp4aAJ4jW2U2EYXeveblRHnoTGxPubUepgCfTLcY
JghCEg1eWeoEqxEu7eZgen0=
=sYyS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l