-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TELL ME ABUSE
Last night while going to bed, I started to think about the going
whole track problem I have and I started to think "This is
ridiculous", just find the worst moment of charge in this life, turn
it around and go past track on it Electra style.
As I was dozing off I started to run,
Tell me abuse while having a mother.
Tell me abuse while being a mother.
Tell me abuse while having a father.
Tell me abuse while being a father.
Tell me abuse while having a parent.
Tell me abuse while being a parent.
Tell me abuse while being a child.
Tell me abuse while having a child.
"Tell me abuse" meant all flows.
It ran very deep at the somatic level with no significance,
didn't actually find any abuse, no actual incidents etc, but it
clearly unwound some of the crushing force on the center of my spine
that I suffer from.
It should be continued with son, daughter, husband and wife.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jun 20 03:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom35.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)
iD8DBQFVhRDaURT1lqxE3HERAnzfAJ9C5i7H63uGmcWbha13FTA9FsRW0QCffAGy
OCL4CF3brRAioWGyGUNAYLk=
=xNl1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
ADORE197 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ARGUS
Argus was a Greek mythological hero with 100 eyes.
God the Great I AM, is not just one I AM.
God is a Multiple I AM being.
To find other souls, contact your own, and there will be the others.
The world, the All-That-Is is the body of God.
Each soul is an eye of God, an individual I AM.
As an "I" of God, each soul is God in Carnation.
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 ====================
Fri Jun 19 03:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore197.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)
iD8DBQFVg79aURT1lqxE3HERAqprAKCCGcw4HuGq7z5Ot2bMsr6C84xgmACfXjTQ
+3F0KMSPCRfts2VdTpdt8qo=
=tPmC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ARGUS
Argus was a Greek mythological hero with 100 eyes.
God the Great I AM, is not just one I AM.
God is a Multiple I AM being.
To find other souls, contact your own, and there will be the others.
The world, the All-That-Is is the body of God.
Each soul is an eye of God, an individual I AM.
As an "I" of God, each soul is God in Carnation.
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 ====================
Fri Jun 19 03:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore197.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)
iD8DBQFVg79aURT1lqxE3HERAqprAKCCGcw4HuGq7z5Ot2bMsr6C84xgmACfXjTQ
+3F0KMSPCRfts2VdTpdt8qo=
=tPmC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE92 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
POLICY ON KILLING
Here is my policy of killing.
Ant's and spiders are protected species in our house. If they
become too much trouble, I will leave honey outside to redirect the
ants there, and I will catch the spiders and put them on a plant or
take them outside. I will go out of my way to not kill ants and
spiders, even when trying to kill other insects. There are no
poisonous spiders where we live, and although I am deathly afraid of
them, I admire their ugliness and wish them well.
Flys I generally leave alone *UNLESS* they land on me, then they
become immediate fair game. At night in bed if there is a fly in the
bedroom it will be declared fair game whether or not it has landed on
me, because in general they will either land or buzz me and thus wake
me up. Sleep is sacrosanct, so the fly goes whether or not it is
guilty. If I can get the fly out of the room through the window or
the door first, then the fly lives. If the fly population gets out of
control I will hang fly strips to kill them indescriminately.
Bees and wasps I generally leave alone and welcome unless they
form a large nest where we need to work. I was once stung by a whole
nest of hornets and it wasn't pleasant. None the less I consider them
beneficial both to me and others and as long as they pose no immediate
danger as a nest I let them be. As single entities in the grass, they
are still dangerous but I generally watch out for them and leave them
alone.
Cockroaches are generally declared fair game, mostly because
there are so many of them. I will leave out roach motels pretty much
everywhere in our house. If I see a roach, in general I will chase it
and kill it, but sometimes I won't, depending on my mood and the
general background number of them.
Mosquitoes are always declared fair game, and if I see one I will
take all measures to hunt it down and kill it with out exception.
Male mosquitoes however are left alone or captured and taken outside.
Most other flying bugs, moths and insects are generally protected
and left alone.
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 Jun 17 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore92.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)
iD8DBQFVgRxaURT1lqxE3HERAnSTAJ413VQCdk1bAPetY9nr3mi52tMUAACg1MTp
KgBJapTo/tLtivgK+qmpxb0=
=U0MF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
POLICY ON KILLING
Here is my policy of killing.
Ant's and spiders are protected species in our house. If they
become too much trouble, I will leave honey outside to redirect the
ants there, and I will catch the spiders and put them on a plant or
take them outside. I will go out of my way to not kill ants and
spiders, even when trying to kill other insects. There are no
poisonous spiders where we live, and although I am deathly afraid of
them, I admire their ugliness and wish them well.
Flys I generally leave alone *UNLESS* they land on me, then they
become immediate fair game. At night in bed if there is a fly in the
bedroom it will be declared fair game whether or not it has landed on
me, because in general they will either land or buzz me and thus wake
me up. Sleep is sacrosanct, so the fly goes whether or not it is
guilty. If I can get the fly out of the room through the window or
the door first, then the fly lives. If the fly population gets out of
control I will hang fly strips to kill them indescriminately.
Bees and wasps I generally leave alone and welcome unless they
form a large nest where we need to work. I was once stung by a whole
nest of hornets and it wasn't pleasant. None the less I consider them
beneficial both to me and others and as long as they pose no immediate
danger as a nest I let them be. As single entities in the grass, they
are still dangerous but I generally watch out for them and leave them
alone.
Cockroaches are generally declared fair game, mostly because
there are so many of them. I will leave out roach motels pretty much
everywhere in our house. If I see a roach, in general I will chase it
and kill it, but sometimes I won't, depending on my mood and the
general background number of them.
Mosquitoes are always declared fair game, and if I see one I will
take all measures to hunt it down and kill it with out exception.
Male mosquitoes however are left alone or captured and taken outside.
Most other flying bugs, moths and insects are generally protected
and left alone.
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 Jun 17 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore92.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)
iD8DBQFVgRxaURT1lqxE3HERAnSTAJ413VQCdk1bAPetY9nr3mi52tMUAACg1MTp
KgBJapTo/tLtivgK+qmpxb0=
=U0MF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
PROOF33 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
USEFULNESS OF MODELS
Phil Scott (philscott@philscott.net) wrote:
> YOU have dreamed up your construct to screw with on these issues,
>and thats fine.
>
> Its just that once outside of the entire cluster fuck, all that
>thinking and figuring blows away like junk mail....and one sees all those
>wasted trees and stamps.
The idea is that people are already stuck in a mind set, i.e.
desire plus view of the cosmic all, which acts as sort of a jail cell to
their desire.
By giving them a different construct, it creates cracks in their
own jail cell, allowing light to shine through. Doesn't matter if they
accept the new construct or no construct etc, it matters that their
original one have a crack in the wall.
Your approach is to run processes on them until the constructs
crack.
My approach is to offer other plausible alternative constructs
until their false certainty in any of them cracks. Then they can let go
and look, probably even run your processes better.
I approach existence and clearing like any scientist, we observe,
we make models, we see if the models make predictions, if so, we look
for those phenomenon too, if we find them, we continue along that path.
Oh yeah and we use Occam's razor to shave in the morning.
There are perfect certainties along this path, I AM, I WANT, I KNOW
and I DO, and I find that useful as a standard of certainty against
which to compare all other ideas. With a standard of perfect certainty,
one can no longer get stuck with 'certainties' that are 'false'.
The whole idea of a perfect certainty is an anathema to a sinking
being. He can't handle them at all because of the perfect 'false'
certainties he is shunning.
The perfect certainty that perfect certainty is impossible or
useless is a symptom of a broke, beaten and cowardly mind.
I AM is certainty of I AM. To denigrate this amazing fact as
aggrandizing the supremity of the ego is suppressive and one would have
to question the motives of anyone who might do so.
Ayn Rand's book Anthem told the story of two children trying to
find the word they had forgotten because it didn't exist in the language
any more, the word "I".
Whatever the nature and intent of the AllThatIs, consciousness of
"I AM!" is certainly part of it, and a good and highly desirable part of
it.
From this certainty of "I AM" comes The Proof that the I-AM is not
a state determined space/time multi dimensional machine such as
envisioned by the meatballs.
We use standard meatball theory to prove it!
Now admittedly the individual I-AM is not the AllThatIs, and
admittedly the whole perception of 'I' may be drenched in illusion, and
delusions about illusions, but the I is not a nothing, and the illusions
are more indication that the I is a something, as a nothing can't have
illusions, and the more we contemplate these things, the more the false
certainties fall away and the mind is free to see what is as it is.
SOMETHING EXISTS AND KNOWS IT.
Is that aggrandizing existence? Shame on me.
Fun models to play with are not intended to replace existing mental
jail cells, but to break them open by giving the being a datum of
comparable magnitude so he ceases to hold onto one as if it was the only
one in the world.
The world however is a co-dream shared by many dreamers, lucid and
not, we do survive this life, even if not on Earth, consciousness did
not arise out of MEST, and consciousness is not merely a process in MEST
(brain).
Illusions of MEST and dimensionality arose out of consciousness, we
think there is space because we see space, and such things do not fit in
the meatball model at all, but do fit in the dreamball model, and hence
scientifically the model is useful.
There can't be an ultimate downside to having a model that is more
accurate than not. Even the model that all models are useless is a
model and thus wind between the ears, arrogant, conceited and vain all
rolled up into one.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jun 16 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof33.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)
iD8DBQFVf8raURT1lqxE3HERArbqAJwOiC/Tba2LsTPnKAcxWS0CT2nZoQCfcKk2
2TacTyl6o6j8ruA6A6WcrhM=
=tkDj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
USEFULNESS OF MODELS
Phil Scott (philscott@philscott.net) wrote:
> YOU have dreamed up your construct to screw with on these issues,
>and thats fine.
>
> Its just that once outside of the entire cluster fuck, all that
>thinking and figuring blows away like junk mail....and one sees all those
>wasted trees and stamps.
The idea is that people are already stuck in a mind set, i.e.
desire plus view of the cosmic all, which acts as sort of a jail cell to
their desire.
By giving them a different construct, it creates cracks in their
own jail cell, allowing light to shine through. Doesn't matter if they
accept the new construct or no construct etc, it matters that their
original one have a crack in the wall.
Your approach is to run processes on them until the constructs
crack.
My approach is to offer other plausible alternative constructs
until their false certainty in any of them cracks. Then they can let go
and look, probably even run your processes better.
I approach existence and clearing like any scientist, we observe,
we make models, we see if the models make predictions, if so, we look
for those phenomenon too, if we find them, we continue along that path.
Oh yeah and we use Occam's razor to shave in the morning.
There are perfect certainties along this path, I AM, I WANT, I KNOW
and I DO, and I find that useful as a standard of certainty against
which to compare all other ideas. With a standard of perfect certainty,
one can no longer get stuck with 'certainties' that are 'false'.
The whole idea of a perfect certainty is an anathema to a sinking
being. He can't handle them at all because of the perfect 'false'
certainties he is shunning.
The perfect certainty that perfect certainty is impossible or
useless is a symptom of a broke, beaten and cowardly mind.
I AM is certainty of I AM. To denigrate this amazing fact as
aggrandizing the supremity of the ego is suppressive and one would have
to question the motives of anyone who might do so.
Ayn Rand's book Anthem told the story of two children trying to
find the word they had forgotten because it didn't exist in the language
any more, the word "I".
Whatever the nature and intent of the AllThatIs, consciousness of
"I AM!" is certainly part of it, and a good and highly desirable part of
it.
From this certainty of "I AM" comes The Proof that the I-AM is not
a state determined space/time multi dimensional machine such as
envisioned by the meatballs.
We use standard meatball theory to prove it!
Now admittedly the individual I-AM is not the AllThatIs, and
admittedly the whole perception of 'I' may be drenched in illusion, and
delusions about illusions, but the I is not a nothing, and the illusions
are more indication that the I is a something, as a nothing can't have
illusions, and the more we contemplate these things, the more the false
certainties fall away and the mind is free to see what is as it is.
SOMETHING EXISTS AND KNOWS IT.
Is that aggrandizing existence? Shame on me.
Fun models to play with are not intended to replace existing mental
jail cells, but to break them open by giving the being a datum of
comparable magnitude so he ceases to hold onto one as if it was the only
one in the world.
The world however is a co-dream shared by many dreamers, lucid and
not, we do survive this life, even if not on Earth, consciousness did
not arise out of MEST, and consciousness is not merely a process in MEST
(brain).
Illusions of MEST and dimensionality arose out of consciousness, we
think there is space because we see space, and such things do not fit in
the meatball model at all, but do fit in the dreamball model, and hence
scientifically the model is useful.
There can't be an ultimate downside to having a model that is more
accurate than not. Even the model that all models are useless is a
model and thus wind between the ears, arrogant, conceited and vain all
rolled up into one.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jun 16 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof33.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)
iD8DBQFVf8raURT1lqxE3HERArbqAJwOiC/Tba2LsTPnKAcxWS0CT2nZoQCfcKk2
2TacTyl6o6j8ruA6A6WcrhM=
=tkDj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE729 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SELF EVIDENCE
We know that data moves across space and time from event to event,
from object to object, same thing, by cause and effect. The cause from
an earlier event makes an effect, impression, imprint on a later object,
which then can be used to study the first object.
One thus learns about the original referent which sourced the data
in a causal messenger wave (ie photons), by looking at a symbol for the
referent, which is ANOTHER event or object a distance way, both in space
and in time.
Symbols are LATER in time from the referent, by the time the symbol
comes to be, the referent is gone, because its moment of time is gone.
Later times are new referents even if they look the same.
Let's call the referent R1, and as it is replicated through time,
R1 becomes R2, R3, R4, R5 etc.
Some time later when R1 has become R7, the cause wave hits the soon
to be symbol object changing its state according to the nature of R when
it was R1. At that moment when the symbol is impinged upon by R1, R1 is
completely gone, it doesn't exist any more. R1 has been replaced by R7
which the symbol doesn't know exists yet.
Thus the symbol can only track the PAST of the referent. By
tracking we mean changing state due to the nature of the referent a
while back.
The causal messenger wave sourced by the referent passes through a
remote object (namely the soon to be symbol) and changes it, thus the
symbole learns something about the referent, namely how the referent
caused the symbol to change state.
The rendition zone is the area of the symbol that was actually
affected, and the change itself is the rendition, or data imprint, that
is made on the symbol as a causal result of the referent.
It's pretty clear to see that learning about a referent by looking
at later effects in a symbol remote from the referent provides evidence
and theory about the referent, at best, total nonsense at worse.
One renders the nature of the referent on the symbol, namely on the
rendition zone of the symbol.
One interprets the nature of the referent from the rendition on the
symbol.
The referent 'teaches' something about itself to the symbol via
rendering something in the rendition zone of the symbol.
Referent -> Rendition -> Symbol.
The symbol and those observing the symbol, 'learn' something about
the referent, via interpretation of the rendition in the rendition zone
of the symbol caused by the referent.
Symbol -> Interpretation -> Referent.
This process of teaching and learning is called indirect
perception.
It is also clear that a conscious observer can't even see the
symbol unless the symbol has an effect on the consciousness of the
observer who then becomes merely another symbol in the chain of symbols,
as the causal messenger wave propagates through the observer out further
into space and time.
In this case the observer's consciousness is the rendition zone,
and the rendition is the conscious experiences the observer has as 'a
result of' the original referent.
The observer and his consciousness have become an effect of the
original referent.
Thus the symbol of final authority in any learning event must be
the observer himself, more specifically his consciousness, and its new
state as a result of the impinging cause originating from the referent.
But one is still left with the question how does a conscious
observer observe his own consciousness?
If a conscious experience like red and green are separate events
from the observer who sees these events, then again the imposition of
space, time, dimension, or difference of any kind between experience and
experiencer makes them two different objects, and thus there is no
direct contact between them.
Thus one would have to postulate yet another causal messenger wave
between conscious experience and experiencer and yet another rendition
zone in the experiencer that is NOT his consciousness, and yet another
rendition in the experiencer which is NOT his conscious experience.
You see this leads to an infinite regression.
Thus by reductio ad absurdum the postulate that experience and
experiencer are two different objects must be wrong.
Thus the being can see his own consciousness because he has direct
perception of it, because he IS IT.
He has allowed his conscious experience, which he can directly
perceive, to be enslaved to be used as a symbol for something else not
it, namely referents out in the alleged phyiscal universe.
Ultimately the process of learning about referents by looking at
symbols which are different from the referent must end somewhere, or
else we just have dominoes falling forever each one the effect from the
earlier one, and none of them certain about anything, because being an
effect does not prove there was a cause.
Thus we say that consciousness is self luminous, it can see itself.
because it IS itself, the seer and seen are one.
Thus the conscious experiencer is the same object as the conscious
experience of red and green, and it is a grand illusion that perceiver
and perceived, that the I and red and green, are two different objects
from each other.
This means that the conscious experiencer can see the referent
directly (his conscious experience) without having to look at or be yet
another later symbol.
Thus the original referent (red and green) BECOMES the symbol of
final authority, the I learns about the referent by looking at the
referent!
That is the definition of direct perception, looking at what you
are looking at, rather than something else representing what you want to
look at.
This is called a self symbolizing event, a referent that is also
its own symbol.
One could also call this a self referencing event, a symbol that is
also its own referent.
One could also call this a self evidential event.
"The existence of a fundamental operating actuality is self
evident." - Sufi
The existence of the referent is self evidence for its own
existence. One doesn't need to look at a later symbol to find out about
the referent!
But the only thing that could possibly be 'self' evident, is
whatever 'self' is.
For nothing can be self evident across a space time distance.
Thus anything whose existence or nature is self evident to you,
MUST BE YOU.
Thus you are anything you can see or experience.
That red and green out there, that's you looking back at yourself.
That's what you look like in a mirror.
Your consciousness is acting like a holographic mirror, and
everything you see in the mirror is just you, what you look like at that
moment.
Thus we conclude that self evident, self symbolizing, self
referencing and self luminous all mean the same thing.
Technically they all mean no separation between referent and
symbol, no two different objects referring to each other. One doesn't
learn about the referent by looking at ANOTHER symbol later in space and
time, one learns about the referent by looking at the referent directly
RIGHT HERE NOW.
It also means the referent and symbol are tracking each other IN
PRESENT TIME, in the NOW, thus there is no space or time between the
referent event and the symbol event.
Physical tracking between referent and symbol is always across a
space time distance, thus referent and symbol MUST BE two different
objects, and can only act as evidence and theory to each other.
Conscious tracking between experiencer and experience, looker and
looked-at, seer and seen, perceiver and perceived, is instantaneous, a
no time event, or else you couldn't see the perceived as it would
already be gone by the time 'it' got to you.
And this process of conscious learning is also called direct
perception.
There is more to self luminousness than mere self referencing or
self symbolizing events, and that is the difference between mere BEING
and KNOWING.
One could in theory have a self referencing chain of pure cause and
effect that effected only pure BEINGNESS.
Self luminousness adds KNOWING into the mix of mere self
referencing beingness.
Dominoes falling are a causal chain of mere beingness, nothing
knows anything, everything is simply in what ever state it is in, and
the various states change according to the cause wave moving through the
dominoes.
But no domino KNOWS anything, although its mere beingness could be
considered symbolic 'knowledge' about the nature of what caused it to
fall. But such knowledge would be unverifiable evidence and theory at
best.
So yes consciousness is self referencing, as there is a kind of
learning that is causeeffect in the same moment, but consciousness is
also self LUMINOUS, in that it knows what is causing it to know.
Consciousness can see not only the red and the green directly, it
can also see the causal agency between the red and the green and one's
certainty there are two different colors causing it to see that there
are two different colors!
That is quite impossible in a purely mechanical universe of parts
interacting via cause and effect across a space time distance.
That's because each effect can only see itself, and effect does not
prove cause.
The conscious universe, the perceiver can see the CAUSE AND THE
EFFECT and can see that the cause is indeed the cause of the effect.
Cause is existence of red and green.
Effect is certainty of two different colors, AND the certainty that
two different colors are causing the effect.
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 2 03:41:21 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jun 15 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore729.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)
iD8DBQFVfnlaURT1lqxE3HERAsiBAJ4hpy54B9goEMjb0wqtBmYcMNTLPACgtVXv
IiOALULH0SM8hgVaG1aRa9k=
=UJuI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SELF EVIDENCE
We know that data moves across space and time from event to event,
from object to object, same thing, by cause and effect. The cause from
an earlier event makes an effect, impression, imprint on a later object,
which then can be used to study the first object.
One thus learns about the original referent which sourced the data
in a causal messenger wave (ie photons), by looking at a symbol for the
referent, which is ANOTHER event or object a distance way, both in space
and in time.
Symbols are LATER in time from the referent, by the time the symbol
comes to be, the referent is gone, because its moment of time is gone.
Later times are new referents even if they look the same.
Let's call the referent R1, and as it is replicated through time,
R1 becomes R2, R3, R4, R5 etc.
Some time later when R1 has become R7, the cause wave hits the soon
to be symbol object changing its state according to the nature of R when
it was R1. At that moment when the symbol is impinged upon by R1, R1 is
completely gone, it doesn't exist any more. R1 has been replaced by R7
which the symbol doesn't know exists yet.
Thus the symbol can only track the PAST of the referent. By
tracking we mean changing state due to the nature of the referent a
while back.
The causal messenger wave sourced by the referent passes through a
remote object (namely the soon to be symbol) and changes it, thus the
symbole learns something about the referent, namely how the referent
caused the symbol to change state.
The rendition zone is the area of the symbol that was actually
affected, and the change itself is the rendition, or data imprint, that
is made on the symbol as a causal result of the referent.
It's pretty clear to see that learning about a referent by looking
at later effects in a symbol remote from the referent provides evidence
and theory about the referent, at best, total nonsense at worse.
One renders the nature of the referent on the symbol, namely on the
rendition zone of the symbol.
One interprets the nature of the referent from the rendition on the
symbol.
The referent 'teaches' something about itself to the symbol via
rendering something in the rendition zone of the symbol.
Referent -> Rendition -> Symbol.
The symbol and those observing the symbol, 'learn' something about
the referent, via interpretation of the rendition in the rendition zone
of the symbol caused by the referent.
Symbol -> Interpretation -> Referent.
This process of teaching and learning is called indirect
perception.
It is also clear that a conscious observer can't even see the
symbol unless the symbol has an effect on the consciousness of the
observer who then becomes merely another symbol in the chain of symbols,
as the causal messenger wave propagates through the observer out further
into space and time.
In this case the observer's consciousness is the rendition zone,
and the rendition is the conscious experiences the observer has as 'a
result of' the original referent.
The observer and his consciousness have become an effect of the
original referent.
Thus the symbol of final authority in any learning event must be
the observer himself, more specifically his consciousness, and its new
state as a result of the impinging cause originating from the referent.
But one is still left with the question how does a conscious
observer observe his own consciousness?
If a conscious experience like red and green are separate events
from the observer who sees these events, then again the imposition of
space, time, dimension, or difference of any kind between experience and
experiencer makes them two different objects, and thus there is no
direct contact between them.
Thus one would have to postulate yet another causal messenger wave
between conscious experience and experiencer and yet another rendition
zone in the experiencer that is NOT his consciousness, and yet another
rendition in the experiencer which is NOT his conscious experience.
You see this leads to an infinite regression.
Thus by reductio ad absurdum the postulate that experience and
experiencer are two different objects must be wrong.
Thus the being can see his own consciousness because he has direct
perception of it, because he IS IT.
He has allowed his conscious experience, which he can directly
perceive, to be enslaved to be used as a symbol for something else not
it, namely referents out in the alleged phyiscal universe.
Ultimately the process of learning about referents by looking at
symbols which are different from the referent must end somewhere, or
else we just have dominoes falling forever each one the effect from the
earlier one, and none of them certain about anything, because being an
effect does not prove there was a cause.
Thus we say that consciousness is self luminous, it can see itself.
because it IS itself, the seer and seen are one.
Thus the conscious experiencer is the same object as the conscious
experience of red and green, and it is a grand illusion that perceiver
and perceived, that the I and red and green, are two different objects
from each other.
This means that the conscious experiencer can see the referent
directly (his conscious experience) without having to look at or be yet
another later symbol.
Thus the original referent (red and green) BECOMES the symbol of
final authority, the I learns about the referent by looking at the
referent!
That is the definition of direct perception, looking at what you
are looking at, rather than something else representing what you want to
look at.
This is called a self symbolizing event, a referent that is also
its own symbol.
One could also call this a self referencing event, a symbol that is
also its own referent.
One could also call this a self evidential event.
"The existence of a fundamental operating actuality is self
evident." - Sufi
The existence of the referent is self evidence for its own
existence. One doesn't need to look at a later symbol to find out about
the referent!
But the only thing that could possibly be 'self' evident, is
whatever 'self' is.
For nothing can be self evident across a space time distance.
Thus anything whose existence or nature is self evident to you,
MUST BE YOU.
Thus you are anything you can see or experience.
That red and green out there, that's you looking back at yourself.
That's what you look like in a mirror.
Your consciousness is acting like a holographic mirror, and
everything you see in the mirror is just you, what you look like at that
moment.
Thus we conclude that self evident, self symbolizing, self
referencing and self luminous all mean the same thing.
Technically they all mean no separation between referent and
symbol, no two different objects referring to each other. One doesn't
learn about the referent by looking at ANOTHER symbol later in space and
time, one learns about the referent by looking at the referent directly
RIGHT HERE NOW.
It also means the referent and symbol are tracking each other IN
PRESENT TIME, in the NOW, thus there is no space or time between the
referent event and the symbol event.
Physical tracking between referent and symbol is always across a
space time distance, thus referent and symbol MUST BE two different
objects, and can only act as evidence and theory to each other.
Conscious tracking between experiencer and experience, looker and
looked-at, seer and seen, perceiver and perceived, is instantaneous, a
no time event, or else you couldn't see the perceived as it would
already be gone by the time 'it' got to you.
And this process of conscious learning is also called direct
perception.
There is more to self luminousness than mere self referencing or
self symbolizing events, and that is the difference between mere BEING
and KNOWING.
One could in theory have a self referencing chain of pure cause and
effect that effected only pure BEINGNESS.
Self luminousness adds KNOWING into the mix of mere self
referencing beingness.
Dominoes falling are a causal chain of mere beingness, nothing
knows anything, everything is simply in what ever state it is in, and
the various states change according to the cause wave moving through the
dominoes.
But no domino KNOWS anything, although its mere beingness could be
considered symbolic 'knowledge' about the nature of what caused it to
fall. But such knowledge would be unverifiable evidence and theory at
best.
So yes consciousness is self referencing, as there is a kind of
learning that is causeeffect in the same moment, but consciousness is
also self LUMINOUS, in that it knows what is causing it to know.
Consciousness can see not only the red and the green directly, it
can also see the causal agency between the red and the green and one's
certainty there are two different colors causing it to see that there
are two different colors!
That is quite impossible in a purely mechanical universe of parts
interacting via cause and effect across a space time distance.
That's because each effect can only see itself, and effect does not
prove cause.
The conscious universe, the perceiver can see the CAUSE AND THE
EFFECT and can see that the cause is indeed the cause of the effect.
Cause is existence of red and green.
Effect is certainty of two different colors, AND the certainty that
two different colors are causing the effect.
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 2 03:41:21 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Jun 15 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore729.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)
iD8DBQFVfnlaURT1lqxE3HERAsiBAJ4hpy54B9goEMjb0wqtBmYcMNTLPACgtVXv
IiOALULH0SM8hgVaG1aRa9k=
=UJuI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE940 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LIFE REPAIR
This is New Clearing Technology.
INDOCTRINATE THE PRECLEAR INTO AS MUCH OF THE FOLLOWING AS
NECESSARY TO GET THE PROCESS TO RUN, BUT NOT ONE WORD MORE.
The End Phenomenon of Life Repair is:
Awareness of Truth and the way to Personal Integrity.
Integrity means knowing what you know, and knowing what you do not
know. It may have other meanings, but without this meaning in
operation, any others will never be attained.
We want a simple and totally non evaluative process to run on the
brand new preclear off the street, a process that can be run on someone
you just met by accident on the concourses of life, with noticeable and
astounding results.
Sessions should last between 20 and 90 minutes at most, and take
place every 3 or more days apart. Less than 3 and the preclear will
still be in the previous session getting wins. Too many more than 3
days, and he will be bogged down in life out rudiments again, upsets,
problems, withholds, wars of make wrong etc.
That said the results of this process are firm and stable, and at
the end of this process, the preclear will be able to deal with incoming
realities properly rather than being ruined by them. It may however
take you and the preclear more than one session to accomplish this,
perhaps 10 at most.
The auditor is allowed to run the process, ask the questions, give
the commands, but is forbidden to answer the question or execute the
command for the preclear.
Totally non evaluative technology is hard to come by because of a
number of reasons.
First the very fact that you are running a given process on the
preclear indicates an evaluation by the C/S and the auditor that the
preclear needs to have the process run on him.
This indicates that the preclear is presently not operating with
the E/P of the process, but that at the end of a reasonable (financially
supportable) amount of time of running the process, he will be operating
in life with the E/P of the process.
At the end of session the preclear should be happy with the money
spent for that session, which is charged by the session not the hour,
and within a few days the preclear should feel serious return on
investment coming from what you did with him during that session.
EVERY SESSION MUST SHOW POSITIVE RETURN ON INVESTMENT AT THE END OF
THAT SESSION OR WITHIN A FEW DAYS MORE.
AT THE VERY LEAST, AT THE END OF EVERY SESSION THE PRECLEAR SHOULD
SEE THAT THE DOOR TO POSITIVE RETURN HAS OPENED AND IS LOOKING FORWARD
TO ITS FULL FRUITION OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS FOR THAT SESSION.
HE IS EXTROVERTED WATCHING THE POSITIVE RETURNS COME IN.
IF YOUR PRECLEAR IS HUNKERED DOWN ENDURING AUDITING, SESSION AFTER
SESSION, CLEARING ONLY HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS, WAITING
FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN THAT WOULD MAKE HIS EXPENDITURES FOR SESSION
TIME WORTHWHILE, THEN YOU ARE A SUPPRESSIVE AUDITOR THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN
OUT BACK AND SHOT IMMEDIATELY.
There is a SHORT time delay measured in a few days, between a
session and full return on investment for that session to make itself
apparent.
Second, every process needs a necessary modicum of indoctrination
at the beginning of it, such as what we are doing in this posting,
including word clearing the words of the process, and clearing the basic
concepts of the process that will be used.
Words and concepts used in a process may be different than their
normal loose English usage, so such differences need to be clarified and
understood by the preclear.
If a preclear can't change his definition of the word God to mean a
watermelon, he is in trouble.
Beyond that, once the session starts, the auditor asks the
questions, gives the commands, and the preclear responds.
A violation of this is a High Auditing Crime, no matter how
reasonable it might seem at the time.
Answering a question for the preclear WILL result in an ARC break
later.
The more the preclear begs for an answer, the more they will
crucify you later if you give them one.
In session means the preclear is interested in his own case and
willing to talk to the auditor.
Out of session means the preclear is not interested in his own case
or not willing to talk to the auditor.
Out of sessionness is either an IMMEDIATE present time problem,
such as needing to pee, which you should allow to be handled, or two way
comm'd to a release per standard tech, or withholds, or an ARC break.
Handle ARC breaks with "What would you like me to know about you?"
Once you find the item or items, make SURE the preclear KNOWS you
understand and know what he wanted you to know, even if you have to give
it back to him in your own words. That's called a super ack.
Then continue with the process.
You do NOT super ack during normal session processing.
In normal processing, giving back to the preclear what he just said
is called echo auditing and will cause the preclear to go out of
session. He expects you to get it the first time.
If he asks if you got it, say yes, and then continue.
On a new preclear, they will be very sensitive about withholds,
sexual pecadillos etc.
Indicate to the preclear you do not need to know them unless the
preclear wants you to know them, but that the preclear should indicate,
if he can, that there is something he is not talking about and let it go
at that. This will greatly relieve the new preclear who will start
spilling the beans anyhow as things progress.
Notice, in session means the auditor asks the questions, and the
preclear gives the answers.
Out of session means, the preclear asks the question and the
auditor gives an answer.
It is OK for the preclear to ask a question in session, but it is
NOT OK for the auditor to answer it, unless it is a question about the
procedure.
Preclear questions DURING SESSION need to be handled with standard
TR (Training Routine) procedures.
SPECIFIC PROCESS INDOCTRINATION
A being is an operating system of desire and view.
Desire is what he wants, his goals, and are the source of his
emotion, feelings and drive through out the day.
View is his view of the Cosmic All, the AllThatIs.
Views are opinions, bets, beliefs, convictions and perfect
certainties.
Your preclear will have desires and views along all 8 dynamics or
action from himself to The Infinite.
The 8 dynamics of action are self, family, groups, mankind, life
forms, MEST, Spirit and The Infinite.
He will also have desires about his views and views about his
desires.
Your average preclear will be found to be in a state where his
views constrain, invalidate or make impossible his desires,
Thus coming to believe his views with great conviction, he has
retired, submerged or outright buried his desires that were not
consistent with his views.
This is the opposite of how a God works.
The human makes his desires subservient to his views.
The human rearranges his desires to accomodate his views.
A God makes his views subservient to his desires.
A God rearranges his views to accomodate his desires.
Views consist of considerations as to what is true and what is
false about the nature of things, ranging from himself, up through the 8
dynamics to The Infinite.
Views thus consist of items of belief in true and false, right and
wrong, desirable and undesirable.
Beliefs fall into 5 categories, and the preclear thus has 5
'buckets' into which he has tossed all of his beliefs.
The 5 buckets are:
1.) Perfectly Certain is true.
2.) Probably true.
3.) No clue if true or false.
4.) Probably false.
5.) Perfectly certain is false.
More bullshit will never be found on Earth than in those 5 buckets.
Preclears confuse perfect certainties with convictions.
Convictions can be wrong, because convictions gain their 'evidence'
from overwhelming force. The more it knocks him unconscious, the more
he is just sure it is true.
FORCE is the pretense of cause in the physical universe.
Force is a mask over the underlying eternal postulates that are the
true cause.
Perfect certainties are self obvious and can not be wrong, because
perfect certainties gain their evidence from direct perception which is
capable of continuous present time reverification.
The preclear must be drilled on the difference between conviction
and perfect certainty until he no long confuses the two.
For the record, the term 'perfect certainty' is redundant.
For anything your preclear says is true, ask if him he would be
willing to bet his eternity in hell forever on it.
If yes, then ask him if he would be willing to bet EVERYONE ELSE'S
eternity in hell on it.
If yes, then probably the item is a perfect certainty.
If no, then its not.
Get him to spot a perfect certainty, then a conviction, until he
can notice the difference between a deeply held belief and a direct
present time perception of a perfect certainty.
"Spot two different colors in the environment.
Are you perfectly certain there are at least two different colors
there?
Good."
At some point he will get honest with himself, and recognize the
facility of perfect certainty within himself. That is NOT the E/P of
the process, that merely allows him to continue the process with honest
answers.
However, since the facility of perfect certainty is what makes him
conscious and not a machine, it's an important first step towards
awareness of anything, let alone truth and the way to personal
integrity.
Now what we want the preclear to do, figuratively, is to dump the
confused contents of all his buckets on the ground in one big messy
pile.
Then one by one, individually inspect each item of knowledge and
replace it into its correct bucket, based on his present time mature
adult judgment.
Once all items have been reevaluated by the preclear and are in
their correct bucket, his awareness of actual truth and personal
integrity will be restored.
Life is a path on the way to greater evolution as a spirit, towards
spiritual sovereignty, which starts with the ability to TAKE full
responsibility for all things and actions as one's own, whether one
'created them' or not.
To take means to see a silver dollar on a table that is not yours,
and TAKE it, so that it becomes yours.
Theft of things might normally be considered bad, but for a God,
theft of responsibility for all things is normal operating procedure as
long as the being allows other's to take full responsibility for all
things at the same time.
The Many in time are related via the One in Eternity, the same way
the Many heads of the hydra are related to the One body.
Inside of time the Many look like they have only individual
responsibility.
But from Eternity, the view is of One responsibility.
Thus the way from the Many to the One is theft of responsibility
while leaving it there for others to take also.
"All choose that all should choose, and that all should choose
more." -Adore
That's like taking the silver dollar for yourself, but leaving one
on the table for someone else to take too.
If you can put it there, put the silver dollar there, so that
someone else can also put the same silver dollar there, who now is
responsible for the silver dollar being there?
The path of life through spiritual evolution towards sovereignty,
has been ruined by various views, which views where then used by the
being to submerge his desires related to life and walking that path.
The being has 'chernobled' his true desires with his questionable
views.
To chernoble means to bury in concrete, in this case 'mental mass.'
The impulse to chernoble desire with view results from high
appreciation for ludicrous demise.
It is a game of the Imp Soul, who wishes to play the game of
seeking God while getting tied up playing the games of life instead.
Eventually the Imp Soul ends of seeking God by seeking death.
By running the Life Repair process fully to a complete E/P, that
walk of Life on the path towards the game of evolution will no longer be
ruined, and his High Appreciation for Ludicrous Demise will be restored.
Rather than walk in anger, fear and sorrow, he can walk in
Living Peace.
Living Peace is a kind of serenity of beingness that still allows
for high action without the hysteria about doom.
And so too will be restored his get up and go, because now he has
reoriented himself with what the games of life are about, fun and not
shackels on his feet to trip himself up, during the game of evolving
back towards sovereignty.
In other words he can pick himself up in life and walk that path
again without getting sucked into the drama of really bad life games.
Before that he is sitting in a mess, doing life as best he can, but
no spiritual evolution is taking place and the PURPOSE of life games are
lost to him.
The process is NOT an effort to rehabilitate any particular life
game of survival on any dynamic, but to rehabilitate WHY the preclear is
involved in life games in the first place, win or lose, and how to
readjust himself in the game stream, not for maximum wins in life games,
but for optimum play.
By desiring to play, he will put life games there rather than
playing them to get rid of them forever.
He does this BY TAKING FULL RESPONSIBILITY and failing to bury his
desire with his views.
As a side result, the win/lose ratio of life games will change
markedly, along with what games he chooses to play, but more to the
point, the preclear will have his get up and go operational again and
will be feeling good and enjoying the path to greater SPIRITUAL
evolution, on the 8 dynamics of action.
Love is such a game. Love is an emotion, a warm and powerful
feeling that drives the efforts to enhance the future of yourself and
another across all dynamics.
It is the Many seeking the One, via interacting with other Manys.
while retaining itself as one of Many.
Feeling good about get up and go in time, and certainty that one is
now SPIRITUALLY evolving properly towards Eternity, is the return on
investment of this process.
THE PROCESS
"Tell me something true."
"What evidence do you have for this?"
"What bucket does it belong in?"
"How does knowing it is true make you feel?"
"Tell me something false."
"What evidence do you have for this?"
"What bucket does it belong in?"
"How does knowing it is false make you feel?"
Two way comm between preclear and auditor is critical to this
process, let the preclear hash it out, he took a long time to get all
his beliefs in place, it will take him some time to release them all.
The feeling question is also CRITICAL to the process.
The preclear will start off with desire being subjugated by view.
Eventually he will realize that his VIEWS are killing his will to
live.
He will eventually have to decide between believing what is killing
him, or looking deeper until he finds a more palatable view to forge
ahead with.
He will realize he ran into this conflict long ago between what he
thought was true and what he really desired was true, and he made the
wrong choices to deal with the conflict by bowing to the view and
suppressing his desire.
He chose the idea that view is sovereign and desire is not.
The truth is, desire is sovereign and view is not.
He will have to learn that desire CREATES views, even those views
that suppress desire.
Majesty is the sovereign desire that desire not be sovereign FOR A
WHILE.
Thus the concentration on taking responsibility for total
irresponsibility.
The guy choose to not know he choose, this process will start to
run that out for good.
Eventually once the process is completed, after one or many
sessions, including between session background solo time, and running
the process on his friends and getting them to run it their friends, he
won't accept any view that makes him feel bad.
We are dealing with a fundamental operational aspect of the mind.
That consists of asking is this true, and do I like it?
He has never before been willing to consider that the fact he
didn't like an idea, was itself evidence that the idea was not true NO
MATTER WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE HE THOUGHT HE HAD THAT IT WAS TRUE.
Meatballs won't understand that statement, so don't piss them off
by showing it to them.
But in fact it is impossible to have something be true that you do
not like.
So either the idea is not completely true, or you do like it and in
fact wanted it from an Eternal perspective.
Thus a clear being is one whose desire and view are in perfect
accord.
When a being can finally find accord between his desire and view,
his willingness to take responsibility for those views goes up to the
point where he CAN take responsibility for them, and thus create or not
create views as he wishes, including views that send him right back into
the auditor's chair.
Since views ARE ALL THAT ARE MAKING A PERSON FEEL BAD, once this
process completes, he will be running in the strong interest and
positive emotion range most of the time, and will be able to handle
crushing emotional losses as positive influences to his spiritual
evolvement back to absolute Sovereignty rather than as crushing blows to
his future enjoyment of life.
Everything lives in a 'while', by putting the thing in a while,
even if he doesn't know the beginning or end, he pops himself out
of that while and the inevitable loss of what is in the while.
By doing this with everything in his life on an on going basis,
he starts to take responsibility for things by putting them in their
while, and thus he can handle the ending of the while BECAUSE HE
ALREADY ORDAINED IT, even if not knowing when. That is part of his
ordainment of that while.
"Spot something you love."
"Put it in a while."
E/P: Torrents of love and laughter.
Joy does not come from playing, winning or losing the games of
life, it comes from spiritual advancement back to sovereignty.
In games of life happiness comes from playing, overcoming not
unknowable barriers towards known purposes.
The games of spiritual evolvement, happiness comes from being able
to take responsibility for anything the games of life throw at you,
whether play, win or lose, each successful action of taking
responsibility being one more step towards sovereignty, the ultimate and
inevitable outcome.
Being able to CREATE games is more enjoyable than playing,
winning or losing them.
What is being tested is not how well or good a being can live, nor
how compassionate he can be, but by how able he is to take full
responsibility for all conditions of existence, and all actions on all
dynamics whether good or bad.
If his house gets robbed, and he says 'Well I didn't do that, HE
did that!', then he starts a cycle of karma from that moment on, that
continues and commits to the idea that he can be an effect of causes
that he had nothing to do with, leaving him less and less able to
control others directly on the physical, emotional mental and spiritual
planes.
So he is more likely to get robbed again, and he will get involved
in all kinds of life games having to do with anti robbery etc.
In the meanwhile his emotional tone is future tainted with the
worry about being robbed again, and others being robbed. He will
eventually solve this emotional irritation by making robbery right, and
taking to robbing others.
That ain't sovereignty.
If he takes full responsibility for the robbery, he is saying HE
caused the other guy to do it, even if only after the fact, for no
reason at all, then he can step out of the consideration that he is an
effect of unwanted causes, and thus regain a touch of his absolute
eternal sovereignty.
*THAT* is spiritual evolution.
It's not about being good, the being as A CHARACTER is trying to be
good against evil he would never create.
It's about being AUTHOR, the being as AUTHOR creates grand
tapestries of good and evil.
One can only get stuck in a tapestry of dicoms, by siding adamantly
with one side and refusing to while the pair, put it there.
CHARACTERS do that, back themselves and hide in the corners of one
side of a dicom, not Authors.
One doesn't have to go out and BE evil, but one does have to be
willing to write the story of his life so its a better story.
He can't do that without being willing to put it there AS HIMSELF,
as the effect of some other authorship.
God is authorship, that's Sovereignty.
Grand tapestries of good and evil.
Got it?
If you want control of your life, you have to author it, into a rip
roaring good story, not an easy win against your most detested enemies.
You think God the Author detests any character in its story?
He loves them all equally because they TOGETHER make a good story.
What? I thought evil was a BAD thing!
Yes to a character it is, but not to an Author.
Without evil Authors would be out of business as not even
the good would read a book that had only good characters in it.
Therefore worship your most detested enemies as yourself, lest your
life become boring as hell, or you get eaten by the bad you would never,
could never, should never have created.
Your entire track from the beginning of time to where you are
sitting in your chair right now is a composite of all the times you
either took full responsibility for something or didn't.
Those things you did take full responsibility for vanished with no
wake left in time, so all that's left is ...
Which way are you going to turn?
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Jun 23 17:27:00 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore940.memo
Send mail to archive.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)
iD8DBQFVic8kURT1lqxE3HERAu52AJ0XJ+Gom7+GhZGVYtyiZTXWveRStQCfcedM
oZrrbzMDWcHZPwWTUDfn+iY=
=Gurx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
LIFE REPAIR
This is New Clearing Technology.
INDOCTRINATE THE PRECLEAR INTO AS MUCH OF THE FOLLOWING AS
NECESSARY TO GET THE PROCESS TO RUN, BUT NOT ONE WORD MORE.
The End Phenomenon of Life Repair is:
Awareness of Truth and the way to Personal Integrity.
Integrity means knowing what you know, and knowing what you do not
know. It may have other meanings, but without this meaning in
operation, any others will never be attained.
We want a simple and totally non evaluative process to run on the
brand new preclear off the street, a process that can be run on someone
you just met by accident on the concourses of life, with noticeable and
astounding results.
Sessions should last between 20 and 90 minutes at most, and take
place every 3 or more days apart. Less than 3 and the preclear will
still be in the previous session getting wins. Too many more than 3
days, and he will be bogged down in life out rudiments again, upsets,
problems, withholds, wars of make wrong etc.
That said the results of this process are firm and stable, and at
the end of this process, the preclear will be able to deal with incoming
realities properly rather than being ruined by them. It may however
take you and the preclear more than one session to accomplish this,
perhaps 10 at most.
The auditor is allowed to run the process, ask the questions, give
the commands, but is forbidden to answer the question or execute the
command for the preclear.
Totally non evaluative technology is hard to come by because of a
number of reasons.
First the very fact that you are running a given process on the
preclear indicates an evaluation by the C/S and the auditor that the
preclear needs to have the process run on him.
This indicates that the preclear is presently not operating with
the E/P of the process, but that at the end of a reasonable (financially
supportable) amount of time of running the process, he will be operating
in life with the E/P of the process.
At the end of session the preclear should be happy with the money
spent for that session, which is charged by the session not the hour,
and within a few days the preclear should feel serious return on
investment coming from what you did with him during that session.
EVERY SESSION MUST SHOW POSITIVE RETURN ON INVESTMENT AT THE END OF
THAT SESSION OR WITHIN A FEW DAYS MORE.
AT THE VERY LEAST, AT THE END OF EVERY SESSION THE PRECLEAR SHOULD
SEE THAT THE DOOR TO POSITIVE RETURN HAS OPENED AND IS LOOKING FORWARD
TO ITS FULL FRUITION OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS FOR THAT SESSION.
HE IS EXTROVERTED WATCHING THE POSITIVE RETURNS COME IN.
IF YOUR PRECLEAR IS HUNKERED DOWN ENDURING AUDITING, SESSION AFTER
SESSION, CLEARING ONLY HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS, WAITING
FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN THAT WOULD MAKE HIS EXPENDITURES FOR SESSION
TIME WORTHWHILE, THEN YOU ARE A SUPPRESSIVE AUDITOR THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN
OUT BACK AND SHOT IMMEDIATELY.
There is a SHORT time delay measured in a few days, between a
session and full return on investment for that session to make itself
apparent.
Second, every process needs a necessary modicum of indoctrination
at the beginning of it, such as what we are doing in this posting,
including word clearing the words of the process, and clearing the basic
concepts of the process that will be used.
Words and concepts used in a process may be different than their
normal loose English usage, so such differences need to be clarified and
understood by the preclear.
If a preclear can't change his definition of the word God to mean a
watermelon, he is in trouble.
Beyond that, once the session starts, the auditor asks the
questions, gives the commands, and the preclear responds.
A violation of this is a High Auditing Crime, no matter how
reasonable it might seem at the time.
Answering a question for the preclear WILL result in an ARC break
later.
The more the preclear begs for an answer, the more they will
crucify you later if you give them one.
In session means the preclear is interested in his own case and
willing to talk to the auditor.
Out of session means the preclear is not interested in his own case
or not willing to talk to the auditor.
Out of sessionness is either an IMMEDIATE present time problem,
such as needing to pee, which you should allow to be handled, or two way
comm'd to a release per standard tech, or withholds, or an ARC break.
Handle ARC breaks with "What would you like me to know about you?"
Once you find the item or items, make SURE the preclear KNOWS you
understand and know what he wanted you to know, even if you have to give
it back to him in your own words. That's called a super ack.
Then continue with the process.
You do NOT super ack during normal session processing.
In normal processing, giving back to the preclear what he just said
is called echo auditing and will cause the preclear to go out of
session. He expects you to get it the first time.
If he asks if you got it, say yes, and then continue.
On a new preclear, they will be very sensitive about withholds,
sexual pecadillos etc.
Indicate to the preclear you do not need to know them unless the
preclear wants you to know them, but that the preclear should indicate,
if he can, that there is something he is not talking about and let it go
at that. This will greatly relieve the new preclear who will start
spilling the beans anyhow as things progress.
Notice, in session means the auditor asks the questions, and the
preclear gives the answers.
Out of session means, the preclear asks the question and the
auditor gives an answer.
It is OK for the preclear to ask a question in session, but it is
NOT OK for the auditor to answer it, unless it is a question about the
procedure.
Preclear questions DURING SESSION need to be handled with standard
TR (Training Routine) procedures.
SPECIFIC PROCESS INDOCTRINATION
A being is an operating system of desire and view.
Desire is what he wants, his goals, and are the source of his
emotion, feelings and drive through out the day.
View is his view of the Cosmic All, the AllThatIs.
Views are opinions, bets, beliefs, convictions and perfect
certainties.
Your preclear will have desires and views along all 8 dynamics or
action from himself to The Infinite.
The 8 dynamics of action are self, family, groups, mankind, life
forms, MEST, Spirit and The Infinite.
He will also have desires about his views and views about his
desires.
Your average preclear will be found to be in a state where his
views constrain, invalidate or make impossible his desires,
Thus coming to believe his views with great conviction, he has
retired, submerged or outright buried his desires that were not
consistent with his views.
This is the opposite of how a God works.
The human makes his desires subservient to his views.
The human rearranges his desires to accomodate his views.
A God makes his views subservient to his desires.
A God rearranges his views to accomodate his desires.
Views consist of considerations as to what is true and what is
false about the nature of things, ranging from himself, up through the 8
dynamics to The Infinite.
Views thus consist of items of belief in true and false, right and
wrong, desirable and undesirable.
Beliefs fall into 5 categories, and the preclear thus has 5
'buckets' into which he has tossed all of his beliefs.
The 5 buckets are:
1.) Perfectly Certain is true.
2.) Probably true.
3.) No clue if true or false.
4.) Probably false.
5.) Perfectly certain is false.
More bullshit will never be found on Earth than in those 5 buckets.
Preclears confuse perfect certainties with convictions.
Convictions can be wrong, because convictions gain their 'evidence'
from overwhelming force. The more it knocks him unconscious, the more
he is just sure it is true.
FORCE is the pretense of cause in the physical universe.
Force is a mask over the underlying eternal postulates that are the
true cause.
Perfect certainties are self obvious and can not be wrong, because
perfect certainties gain their evidence from direct perception which is
capable of continuous present time reverification.
The preclear must be drilled on the difference between conviction
and perfect certainty until he no long confuses the two.
For the record, the term 'perfect certainty' is redundant.
For anything your preclear says is true, ask if him he would be
willing to bet his eternity in hell forever on it.
If yes, then ask him if he would be willing to bet EVERYONE ELSE'S
eternity in hell on it.
If yes, then probably the item is a perfect certainty.
If no, then its not.
Get him to spot a perfect certainty, then a conviction, until he
can notice the difference between a deeply held belief and a direct
present time perception of a perfect certainty.
"Spot two different colors in the environment.
Are you perfectly certain there are at least two different colors
there?
Good."
At some point he will get honest with himself, and recognize the
facility of perfect certainty within himself. That is NOT the E/P of
the process, that merely allows him to continue the process with honest
answers.
However, since the facility of perfect certainty is what makes him
conscious and not a machine, it's an important first step towards
awareness of anything, let alone truth and the way to personal
integrity.
Now what we want the preclear to do, figuratively, is to dump the
confused contents of all his buckets on the ground in one big messy
pile.
Then one by one, individually inspect each item of knowledge and
replace it into its correct bucket, based on his present time mature
adult judgment.
Once all items have been reevaluated by the preclear and are in
their correct bucket, his awareness of actual truth and personal
integrity will be restored.
Life is a path on the way to greater evolution as a spirit, towards
spiritual sovereignty, which starts with the ability to TAKE full
responsibility for all things and actions as one's own, whether one
'created them' or not.
To take means to see a silver dollar on a table that is not yours,
and TAKE it, so that it becomes yours.
Theft of things might normally be considered bad, but for a God,
theft of responsibility for all things is normal operating procedure as
long as the being allows other's to take full responsibility for all
things at the same time.
The Many in time are related via the One in Eternity, the same way
the Many heads of the hydra are related to the One body.
Inside of time the Many look like they have only individual
responsibility.
But from Eternity, the view is of One responsibility.
Thus the way from the Many to the One is theft of responsibility
while leaving it there for others to take also.
"All choose that all should choose, and that all should choose
more." -Adore
That's like taking the silver dollar for yourself, but leaving one
on the table for someone else to take too.
If you can put it there, put the silver dollar there, so that
someone else can also put the same silver dollar there, who now is
responsible for the silver dollar being there?
The path of life through spiritual evolution towards sovereignty,
has been ruined by various views, which views where then used by the
being to submerge his desires related to life and walking that path.
The being has 'chernobled' his true desires with his questionable
views.
To chernoble means to bury in concrete, in this case 'mental mass.'
The impulse to chernoble desire with view results from high
appreciation for ludicrous demise.
It is a game of the Imp Soul, who wishes to play the game of
seeking God while getting tied up playing the games of life instead.
Eventually the Imp Soul ends of seeking God by seeking death.
By running the Life Repair process fully to a complete E/P, that
walk of Life on the path towards the game of evolution will no longer be
ruined, and his High Appreciation for Ludicrous Demise will be restored.
Rather than walk in anger, fear and sorrow, he can walk in
Living Peace.
Living Peace is a kind of serenity of beingness that still allows
for high action without the hysteria about doom.
And so too will be restored his get up and go, because now he has
reoriented himself with what the games of life are about, fun and not
shackels on his feet to trip himself up, during the game of evolving
back towards sovereignty.
In other words he can pick himself up in life and walk that path
again without getting sucked into the drama of really bad life games.
Before that he is sitting in a mess, doing life as best he can, but
no spiritual evolution is taking place and the PURPOSE of life games are
lost to him.
The process is NOT an effort to rehabilitate any particular life
game of survival on any dynamic, but to rehabilitate WHY the preclear is
involved in life games in the first place, win or lose, and how to
readjust himself in the game stream, not for maximum wins in life games,
but for optimum play.
By desiring to play, he will put life games there rather than
playing them to get rid of them forever.
He does this BY TAKING FULL RESPONSIBILITY and failing to bury his
desire with his views.
As a side result, the win/lose ratio of life games will change
markedly, along with what games he chooses to play, but more to the
point, the preclear will have his get up and go operational again and
will be feeling good and enjoying the path to greater SPIRITUAL
evolution, on the 8 dynamics of action.
Love is such a game. Love is an emotion, a warm and powerful
feeling that drives the efforts to enhance the future of yourself and
another across all dynamics.
It is the Many seeking the One, via interacting with other Manys.
while retaining itself as one of Many.
Feeling good about get up and go in time, and certainty that one is
now SPIRITUALLY evolving properly towards Eternity, is the return on
investment of this process.
THE PROCESS
"Tell me something true."
"What evidence do you have for this?"
"What bucket does it belong in?"
"How does knowing it is true make you feel?"
"Tell me something false."
"What evidence do you have for this?"
"What bucket does it belong in?"
"How does knowing it is false make you feel?"
Two way comm between preclear and auditor is critical to this
process, let the preclear hash it out, he took a long time to get all
his beliefs in place, it will take him some time to release them all.
The feeling question is also CRITICAL to the process.
The preclear will start off with desire being subjugated by view.
Eventually he will realize that his VIEWS are killing his will to
live.
He will eventually have to decide between believing what is killing
him, or looking deeper until he finds a more palatable view to forge
ahead with.
He will realize he ran into this conflict long ago between what he
thought was true and what he really desired was true, and he made the
wrong choices to deal with the conflict by bowing to the view and
suppressing his desire.
He chose the idea that view is sovereign and desire is not.
The truth is, desire is sovereign and view is not.
He will have to learn that desire CREATES views, even those views
that suppress desire.
Majesty is the sovereign desire that desire not be sovereign FOR A
WHILE.
Thus the concentration on taking responsibility for total
irresponsibility.
The guy choose to not know he choose, this process will start to
run that out for good.
Eventually once the process is completed, after one or many
sessions, including between session background solo time, and running
the process on his friends and getting them to run it their friends, he
won't accept any view that makes him feel bad.
We are dealing with a fundamental operational aspect of the mind.
That consists of asking is this true, and do I like it?
He has never before been willing to consider that the fact he
didn't like an idea, was itself evidence that the idea was not true NO
MATTER WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE HE THOUGHT HE HAD THAT IT WAS TRUE.
Meatballs won't understand that statement, so don't piss them off
by showing it to them.
But in fact it is impossible to have something be true that you do
not like.
So either the idea is not completely true, or you do like it and in
fact wanted it from an Eternal perspective.
Thus a clear being is one whose desire and view are in perfect
accord.
When a being can finally find accord between his desire and view,
his willingness to take responsibility for those views goes up to the
point where he CAN take responsibility for them, and thus create or not
create views as he wishes, including views that send him right back into
the auditor's chair.
Since views ARE ALL THAT ARE MAKING A PERSON FEEL BAD, once this
process completes, he will be running in the strong interest and
positive emotion range most of the time, and will be able to handle
crushing emotional losses as positive influences to his spiritual
evolvement back to absolute Sovereignty rather than as crushing blows to
his future enjoyment of life.
Everything lives in a 'while', by putting the thing in a while,
even if he doesn't know the beginning or end, he pops himself out
of that while and the inevitable loss of what is in the while.
By doing this with everything in his life on an on going basis,
he starts to take responsibility for things by putting them in their
while, and thus he can handle the ending of the while BECAUSE HE
ALREADY ORDAINED IT, even if not knowing when. That is part of his
ordainment of that while.
"Spot something you love."
"Put it in a while."
E/P: Torrents of love and laughter.
Joy does not come from playing, winning or losing the games of
life, it comes from spiritual advancement back to sovereignty.
In games of life happiness comes from playing, overcoming not
unknowable barriers towards known purposes.
The games of spiritual evolvement, happiness comes from being able
to take responsibility for anything the games of life throw at you,
whether play, win or lose, each successful action of taking
responsibility being one more step towards sovereignty, the ultimate and
inevitable outcome.
Being able to CREATE games is more enjoyable than playing,
winning or losing them.
What is being tested is not how well or good a being can live, nor
how compassionate he can be, but by how able he is to take full
responsibility for all conditions of existence, and all actions on all
dynamics whether good or bad.
If his house gets robbed, and he says 'Well I didn't do that, HE
did that!', then he starts a cycle of karma from that moment on, that
continues and commits to the idea that he can be an effect of causes
that he had nothing to do with, leaving him less and less able to
control others directly on the physical, emotional mental and spiritual
planes.
So he is more likely to get robbed again, and he will get involved
in all kinds of life games having to do with anti robbery etc.
In the meanwhile his emotional tone is future tainted with the
worry about being robbed again, and others being robbed. He will
eventually solve this emotional irritation by making robbery right, and
taking to robbing others.
That ain't sovereignty.
If he takes full responsibility for the robbery, he is saying HE
caused the other guy to do it, even if only after the fact, for no
reason at all, then he can step out of the consideration that he is an
effect of unwanted causes, and thus regain a touch of his absolute
eternal sovereignty.
*THAT* is spiritual evolution.
It's not about being good, the being as A CHARACTER is trying to be
good against evil he would never create.
It's about being AUTHOR, the being as AUTHOR creates grand
tapestries of good and evil.
One can only get stuck in a tapestry of dicoms, by siding adamantly
with one side and refusing to while the pair, put it there.
CHARACTERS do that, back themselves and hide in the corners of one
side of a dicom, not Authors.
One doesn't have to go out and BE evil, but one does have to be
willing to write the story of his life so its a better story.
He can't do that without being willing to put it there AS HIMSELF,
as the effect of some other authorship.
God is authorship, that's Sovereignty.
Grand tapestries of good and evil.
Got it?
If you want control of your life, you have to author it, into a rip
roaring good story, not an easy win against your most detested enemies.
You think God the Author detests any character in its story?
He loves them all equally because they TOGETHER make a good story.
What? I thought evil was a BAD thing!
Yes to a character it is, but not to an Author.
Without evil Authors would be out of business as not even
the good would read a book that had only good characters in it.
Therefore worship your most detested enemies as yourself, lest your
life become boring as hell, or you get eaten by the bad you would never,
could never, should never have created.
Your entire track from the beginning of time to where you are
sitting in your chair right now is a composite of all the times you
either took full responsibility for something or didn't.
Those things you did take full responsibility for vanished with no
wake left in time, so all that's left is ...
Which way are you going to turn?
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Jun 23 17:27:00 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore940.memo
Send mail to archive.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)
iD8DBQFVic8kURT1lqxE3HERAu52AJ0XJ+Gom7+GhZGVYtyiZTXWveRStQCfcedM
oZrrbzMDWcHZPwWTUDfn+iY=
=Gurx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, June 22, 2015
ADORE95 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
RESISTENCE AND PERSISTENCE
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Kathie Lynch (kathielynch@cox.net) wrote:
>>Resisting something only means you will
>>end up with just that.
>A popular misconception. You MAY end up with that, but you may not.
>If you think of many things you've "resisted" to some degree in this life,
>you didn't end up with all of them, and probably won't manifest them
>henceforth either.
That people 'win' by using force resisting things, doesn't mean
they didn't sink deeper into the spiritual quicksand of life, by doing
so.
People climb the mountain, and are triumphant that they got to
the top, but they fail to see that they and the mountain have sunk
together down into the abyss.
Thus the small view is they are higher up, the big view is
they and everything involved are lower down.
Now Carol you may in fact be right, if you are, then all of
scientology is completely and utterly wrong.
So you should understand what Scn is saying.
Anything 'vanquished' by resistance and force in space and time
leads to a permanent impression called a ridge that the person keeps
along with him forever afterwards, not only as a lesson learned, but
as a shield against becoming that which he resisted.
One resists the murderer by shooting him first, but one lessens
ones space so one can not BE the murderer and simply cause him to toss
his weapon into the bay.
Meatballs always think they are winning when in fact they are
losing. They are winning as humans, but losing as gods.
Their fate is monster food.
>If one buys the idea that resisting something means you will end up with
>that, he will create resisted circumstances more often, will also fear
>that happening, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, an adopted
>postulate of not-necessarily-true data, inadequately examined data.
The problem of resisting resistance, fearing resistence etc, is
an important one, not to be lightly sloughed off as you are doing.
Resisting resistence is in fact necessary to making any
resistence persist at all, it is thus part of the excaliper and grand
design of how the thetan created and jumped into the spiritual
quicksand in the first place.
Play with cornstarch in warm water until you understand how
struggle in quicksand makes things solid and more rigid.
You can roll a *LIQUID* cornstarch blob up into a ball as long
as you keep it moving, the moment you let it rest it melts into a puddle.
If you stick your finger into it, it solidifies, if you relax
it melts. The ultimate chinese finger trap.
The actual quicksand of life is more complex than the cornstarch
mechanism, one needs to study the caps lock key to understand it
further.
>It would pay not to be so fast and loose with the new age slogans.
>"The unexamined life...." - Socrates
You teach best what you most need to learn.
Homer
>- CBW
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Jun 22 16:42:27 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore95.memo
Send mail to archive.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)
iD8DBQFViHMzURT1lqxE3HERAnJ5AJ9xAcqxAn8k7hHQ+44NopH2LD97mwCgor7c
JSxmnP86d02Rl06s0rdtd8c=
=2bO0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
RESISTENCE AND PERSISTENCE
CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Kathie Lynch (kathielynch@cox.net) wrote:
>>Resisting something only means you will
>>end up with just that.
>A popular misconception. You MAY end up with that, but you may not.
>If you think of many things you've "resisted" to some degree in this life,
>you didn't end up with all of them, and probably won't manifest them
>henceforth either.
That people 'win' by using force resisting things, doesn't mean
they didn't sink deeper into the spiritual quicksand of life, by doing
so.
People climb the mountain, and are triumphant that they got to
the top, but they fail to see that they and the mountain have sunk
together down into the abyss.
Thus the small view is they are higher up, the big view is
they and everything involved are lower down.
Now Carol you may in fact be right, if you are, then all of
scientology is completely and utterly wrong.
So you should understand what Scn is saying.
Anything 'vanquished' by resistance and force in space and time
leads to a permanent impression called a ridge that the person keeps
along with him forever afterwards, not only as a lesson learned, but
as a shield against becoming that which he resisted.
One resists the murderer by shooting him first, but one lessens
ones space so one can not BE the murderer and simply cause him to toss
his weapon into the bay.
Meatballs always think they are winning when in fact they are
losing. They are winning as humans, but losing as gods.
Their fate is monster food.
>If one buys the idea that resisting something means you will end up with
>that, he will create resisted circumstances more often, will also fear
>that happening, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, an adopted
>postulate of not-necessarily-true data, inadequately examined data.
The problem of resisting resistance, fearing resistence etc, is
an important one, not to be lightly sloughed off as you are doing.
Resisting resistence is in fact necessary to making any
resistence persist at all, it is thus part of the excaliper and grand
design of how the thetan created and jumped into the spiritual
quicksand in the first place.
Play with cornstarch in warm water until you understand how
struggle in quicksand makes things solid and more rigid.
You can roll a *LIQUID* cornstarch blob up into a ball as long
as you keep it moving, the moment you let it rest it melts into a puddle.
If you stick your finger into it, it solidifies, if you relax
it melts. The ultimate chinese finger trap.
The actual quicksand of life is more complex than the cornstarch
mechanism, one needs to study the caps lock key to understand it
further.
>It would pay not to be so fast and loose with the new age slogans.
>"The unexamined life...." - Socrates
You teach best what you most need to learn.
Homer
>- CBW
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Jun 22 16:42:27 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore95.memo
Send mail to archive.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)
iD8DBQFViHMzURT1lqxE3HERAnJ5AJ9xAcqxAn8k7hHQ+44NopH2LD97mwCgor7c
JSxmnP86d02Rl06s0rdtd8c=
=2bO0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)