-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NEGATIVE WORTH PEOPLE
> Reply to your posting on hourslist about the negative economic people.
>
> I just asked whether you were willing to kill these
> excess persons with your own hands, and whether you had noticed that 250
> people kicked off welfare in Arkansas had attacked the governor-- that they
> hadn't been able to find jobs and were pissed.
As I had said, I am not on hourslist any more.
What we should DO about negative worth people is a difficult
question, just as what we should DO about criminals is a difficult
question.
I am not talking about those who by circumstance are presently out
of work but who are otherwise able and interested in producing.
By negative worth people I mean those who are unwilling or unable
to produce more than they consume. Negative worth is evidenced by the
fact that other people have to be FORCED to pay their way. If people
can elicit WILLING charity from other more productive people, enough to
survive, then they must have enough positive worth to make their own way
in the world, by definition. What ever another person willingly pays
you for, is enough to call positive worth if its enough to survive
without forced handouts from others.
Some people will consider you worthwhile enough, just because you
are alive, to give you what they can. If this is enough for you to
survive, then you are positive worth enough to survive.
Lucky you for having such a valuable smile, eh?
But such charity can only go on until affluent reserves are
spent, then EVERYONE will start to look for a return for their
investment more solid than a thankyou and a God Bless.
So back to the question of what we should DO about truely
negative worth people, those who can only survive through handouts
forced out of the reserves of producers at the point of a gun.
We have to ask what obligation we have to do anything about them.
It's not about killing them off, as you suggest, its about hand
feeding them.
Before we ask if we should 'kill' them, we should ask if we
should be supporting them, particularly on their own terms. If we
just left them alone, the worst cases would starve or turn criminal
anyhow.
Turning the argument towards the problems of proactively DOING
something about them avoids the issue that we already are doing
something about them, namely enslaving ourselves to support them, and
we need to discuss that matter first.
Although in a rich world we can support non producers for a
while, if we give them better breeding grounds than the producers,
they will in fact out breed the producers, teach their children
nothing except how to suck off the producers, and eventually sink a
charitable society under its own addiction to sympathy, propitiation,
and weight of total non production.
My first response as a devil's advocate might be we shouldn't do
ANYTHING about them, and let nature take care of its own failures and
let charity be freely given to those who can solicit investment in
themselves.
But then the worst cases turn criminal and put the rest of us on
the spot. So by kind of a back door extortion, they get us to support
them 'willingly' anyhow. It's basically "Either you feed me or we
will revolt and burn the place down. If we gotta die from our own non
production, we are going to at least take you producers with us."
It's a kind of back door criminality that society gives into.
It's at least better than the kind that says "I am going to rob you
even if you do feed me!", so we have a certain amount of sympathy for
them, or propitiation, depending on how you look at it.
Practically speaking, although I hate bureacracy's, efficiencies of
scale tell us it is more efficient to have a mass charity through a well
distributed and funded welfare bureaucracy than to depend on individual
giving during time of need.
The down side of this choice is that many non producers get the
welfare who don't deserve it, because the individual charitable decision
making process is removed, anyone who wants it gets it,
And also eventually corruption, temptation and seduction begins to
settle in when the negative worth people go to work for the charity
bureaucracy department and make sure the police come to our doors to
force us to tithe to their parasitism lest they lose a job.
In general this downside is a price most of us are willing to pay
for the timely disbursement of funds to the worthy in need. Nothing
would get done if we all had to depend on individual charity for every
worthy need.
As I have said, my religion DEMANDS that duties and rights be
balanced. If I have a duty to feed them, then I have a right to fair
exchange in return. If they have a right to be fed, then they have a
DUTY to give fair exchange in return.
The basic fair exchange is work of course, but before work must
come training. So rather than force all the negative worth people into
gas chambers, I would force all of them into classrooms. In an ideal
world run by God, I would also limit their ability to breed until they
could show a positive return in life, and demonstrate before a court of
competency that they will not spawn more welfare cases, murderers and
covert criminals, but that ain't going to happen on Earth at this time.
As inalienable as it seems to all of us, the idea that just ANYONE
can breed and bring up their children just ANYWAY they want is actually
kind of weird. It's very natural of course, but nature takes care of
its own. In this society we are no longer allowed to let nature take
care of its own, so we need to think about the consequences of letting
nature breed on its own without the preening function in place.
It's not fair exchange that nature can breed at will but not be
burdened with taking care of its own, you know what I mean?
I wouldn't want humans at the head of the license to breed
department though.
So until God comes back to Earth we have a serious problem.
And in the meanwhile society sinks lower and lower under its
mandate to keep everyone alive no matter how unworthy of life they are,
or how much they consume and waste the worthiness of others who carry
them on their back.
Nature has a very austere definition of 'worthiness.'
"Can you reap more useful energy than you sow?"
Alone or in tendem with others.
Humans are not above Nature.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Jun 22 16:36:57 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco9.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)
iD8DBQFViHHpURT1lqxE3HERAqjKAJ9tnJp+vjHqJOpKVeFFDhtSq9VTcgCfRwpb
8WdiB78hQF6opcHfVf56+V4=
=sWu1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, June 22, 2015
PROOF (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PREPARING A PC FOR THE PROOF PHASE I
Grab a meatball and do the following experiment with him.
Get a video camera and hook it up in real time to a TV set, so that
what the video camera sees is displayed on the TV set. Put a video
recorder in line with the two, so that the recorder can record what the
video camera sees, and also play it back to the TV set at a later time
instead of a live feed.
Position the TV set so that when the pc is looking at the TV set,
he can not see the car, the video camera or the video recorder. Perhaps
put them all around a corner from the TV set. But make sure he sees the
full arrangement and understands the setup.
Point the video camera at a big red car on the road, turn on the
camera, and the recorder so it is recording, and the TV set. The TV set
is getting a live feed from the video camera at this point, but the
recorder is capturing it for play back at a later time.
Step I.
Take the pc to the TV set, and point to the image of the car on the
screen and ask
"What is that?"
If the pc says "That's a car" you flunk him and ask the question
again. Continue this until the pc gets the right answer.
The right answer is something on the order of "That is an image of
a car on a TV screen made of glass."
Get him to discuss what the car is made of, and what the image of
the car on the glass screen is made of.
Discuss why his first answer was wrong and the last one right,
until he 'gets it' completely and forever.
Step II.
Turn the TV set off while the pc is looking at it, so the screen is
blank and ask him, "Did the car disappear?"
If he says "Yes, the car disappeared" flunk him and ask the
question again until he gets it right.
The correct answer is "No, the image of the car on the TV screen
disappeared." Ask him if the car is still there. If he says yes it is,
ask him how he knows, since he can't see it, etc, and what his doubts
might be.
Step III.
Take the pc inside to relax for a moment, and go back outside
yourself, making sure the pc does not see what is going on.
Drive the car away, rewind the video recorder, and set it to play
back.
Go back in and grab the pc, take him out to the TV screen.
Again ask him "What is this?"
Presumably he will say "That is an image of a car on a TV screen."
Turn off the TV screen, ask him "Did the car disappear?"
Presumably he will say "No, the image of the car on the TV screen
disappeared, the car is still there."
Take him to where the car was and show him that the car is not
still there.
Discuss this with him in detail until he gets it forever that the
image of a car on the TV screen is a SYMBOL for the actual car on the
street which is the REFERENT, and that the existence of a symbol does
not prove the existence of the referent.
Get him to see that the SYMBOL on the TV screen is a casual EFFECT
of the car on the street which is a CAUSE. Light comes in from the sun,
is reflected by the car, which is where the car is CAUSE, hits the video
camera and is translated to the TV screen which is the EFFECT.
Get him to see that the existence of an effect does not prove the
existence of a cause. He will quickly see that the nature of the cause
can be in question, it will take him a bit more to see that the
EXISTENCE of cause is also in question. That is what you want,
existence of effect does not prove existence of cause.
Go over it with him until he gets it with absolute perfect
certainty and can give it back to you in his own words and own examples,
and can explain to you WHY effect does not prove cause so if you had
never been through this yourself, you would get it also.
You will know when he's 'got' it, as you will get it too, again.
Let it sink in for a while, then continue with the rest of this.
Step IV.
Take your pc to the car on the street and ask "What is this?"
If he says "That is a car" flunk him and ask him the question again
until he gets it right.
The correct answer is "That is an image of a car in my
consciousness."
Have him close his eyes, and ask him "Did the car disappear?"
Keep asking until he stops waffling about "well I can't see the car
any more", we want a yes or no answer, "Did the car disappear?" If he
says "Yes the car disappeared" flunk him until he gets it right.
The correct answer is "No the image of the car in my consciousness
disappeared."
(If he can't get the answer to the first or second question, have
him close his eyes and ask him "What disappeared?" until he says "the
image of the car in my consciousness disappeared.")
Acknowledge this, and with his eyes still closed, ask him if the
*CAR* also disappeared.
If he says "No the car is still there", ask him how he knows, what
his doubts are etc.
Remind him of the time he was looking at the TV screen when the
image of the car was on the screen and he said the car was still there,
but it was a recording and the car was gone.
Ask him to open his eyes and look at the image of the car in his
consciousness. Ask him "Is the car there?" If he says yes, ask him how
he knows, what his doubts are.
Do this with eyes open and closed, until the pc gets it forever
that he has no idea if there is a car there, all he knows is he sees the
image of the car in his consciousness.
Discuss this in detail with him. Get him to go over the material
on SYMBOLS and REFERENTS until he sees that the image of the car in his
consciousness is a symbol for the actual car which is the referent.
Go at this with him until he also sees that the symbol and the
referent are both actualities in their own right, and two very different
actualities to boot.
Get him to see that he thinks the purpose of his conscious pictures
(SYMBOL) is to track the REFERENT actuality which he can not actually
see but which he believes is there.
Then get him to see that all he can ever see is the SYMBOL, never
the alleged REFERENT. Go over with him how the existence of the symbol
never implies the existence of the referent with certainty, and
therefore he really has no idea at all if the REFERENT is out there at
all even though he sees the symbol with perfect clarity.
Discuss with him how this applies to dreams when he is asleep.
Get him to realize that when he is dreaming, he sees conscious
pictures which he takes to be symbols for external referents, and
believes the referents to be actual, but then he wakes up and finds that
the referents didn't exist at all, only the symbols.
Get him to compare the similarities and differences between
dreams asleep and the waking state of consciousness, until he
realizes that all he is certain of is the symbols in his conscious
pictures, and not the referents in either case.
This will make him ready for the next phase of The Proof.
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 ====================
Thu Jun 11 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof
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)
iD8DBQFVeTNaURT1lqxE3HERAq6zAKDRAXdk5DaZ6BacbZZGVlvrf3rgDwCfVy3t
6Iab/xw79nmrMEXyly7ukuk=
=dWtg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PREPARING A PC FOR THE PROOF PHASE I
Grab a meatball and do the following experiment with him.
Get a video camera and hook it up in real time to a TV set, so that
what the video camera sees is displayed on the TV set. Put a video
recorder in line with the two, so that the recorder can record what the
video camera sees, and also play it back to the TV set at a later time
instead of a live feed.
Position the TV set so that when the pc is looking at the TV set,
he can not see the car, the video camera or the video recorder. Perhaps
put them all around a corner from the TV set. But make sure he sees the
full arrangement and understands the setup.
Point the video camera at a big red car on the road, turn on the
camera, and the recorder so it is recording, and the TV set. The TV set
is getting a live feed from the video camera at this point, but the
recorder is capturing it for play back at a later time.
Step I.
Take the pc to the TV set, and point to the image of the car on the
screen and ask
"What is that?"
If the pc says "That's a car" you flunk him and ask the question
again. Continue this until the pc gets the right answer.
The right answer is something on the order of "That is an image of
a car on a TV screen made of glass."
Get him to discuss what the car is made of, and what the image of
the car on the glass screen is made of.
Discuss why his first answer was wrong and the last one right,
until he 'gets it' completely and forever.
Step II.
Turn the TV set off while the pc is looking at it, so the screen is
blank and ask him, "Did the car disappear?"
If he says "Yes, the car disappeared" flunk him and ask the
question again until he gets it right.
The correct answer is "No, the image of the car on the TV screen
disappeared." Ask him if the car is still there. If he says yes it is,
ask him how he knows, since he can't see it, etc, and what his doubts
might be.
Step III.
Take the pc inside to relax for a moment, and go back outside
yourself, making sure the pc does not see what is going on.
Drive the car away, rewind the video recorder, and set it to play
back.
Go back in and grab the pc, take him out to the TV screen.
Again ask him "What is this?"
Presumably he will say "That is an image of a car on a TV screen."
Turn off the TV screen, ask him "Did the car disappear?"
Presumably he will say "No, the image of the car on the TV screen
disappeared, the car is still there."
Take him to where the car was and show him that the car is not
still there.
Discuss this with him in detail until he gets it forever that the
image of a car on the TV screen is a SYMBOL for the actual car on the
street which is the REFERENT, and that the existence of a symbol does
not prove the existence of the referent.
Get him to see that the SYMBOL on the TV screen is a casual EFFECT
of the car on the street which is a CAUSE. Light comes in from the sun,
is reflected by the car, which is where the car is CAUSE, hits the video
camera and is translated to the TV screen which is the EFFECT.
Get him to see that the existence of an effect does not prove the
existence of a cause. He will quickly see that the nature of the cause
can be in question, it will take him a bit more to see that the
EXISTENCE of cause is also in question. That is what you want,
existence of effect does not prove existence of cause.
Go over it with him until he gets it with absolute perfect
certainty and can give it back to you in his own words and own examples,
and can explain to you WHY effect does not prove cause so if you had
never been through this yourself, you would get it also.
You will know when he's 'got' it, as you will get it too, again.
Let it sink in for a while, then continue with the rest of this.
Step IV.
Take your pc to the car on the street and ask "What is this?"
If he says "That is a car" flunk him and ask him the question again
until he gets it right.
The correct answer is "That is an image of a car in my
consciousness."
Have him close his eyes, and ask him "Did the car disappear?"
Keep asking until he stops waffling about "well I can't see the car
any more", we want a yes or no answer, "Did the car disappear?" If he
says "Yes the car disappeared" flunk him until he gets it right.
The correct answer is "No the image of the car in my consciousness
disappeared."
(If he can't get the answer to the first or second question, have
him close his eyes and ask him "What disappeared?" until he says "the
image of the car in my consciousness disappeared.")
Acknowledge this, and with his eyes still closed, ask him if the
*CAR* also disappeared.
If he says "No the car is still there", ask him how he knows, what
his doubts are etc.
Remind him of the time he was looking at the TV screen when the
image of the car was on the screen and he said the car was still there,
but it was a recording and the car was gone.
Ask him to open his eyes and look at the image of the car in his
consciousness. Ask him "Is the car there?" If he says yes, ask him how
he knows, what his doubts are.
Do this with eyes open and closed, until the pc gets it forever
that he has no idea if there is a car there, all he knows is he sees the
image of the car in his consciousness.
Discuss this in detail with him. Get him to go over the material
on SYMBOLS and REFERENTS until he sees that the image of the car in his
consciousness is a symbol for the actual car which is the referent.
Go at this with him until he also sees that the symbol and the
referent are both actualities in their own right, and two very different
actualities to boot.
Get him to see that he thinks the purpose of his conscious pictures
(SYMBOL) is to track the REFERENT actuality which he can not actually
see but which he believes is there.
Then get him to see that all he can ever see is the SYMBOL, never
the alleged REFERENT. Go over with him how the existence of the symbol
never implies the existence of the referent with certainty, and
therefore he really has no idea at all if the REFERENT is out there at
all even though he sees the symbol with perfect clarity.
Discuss with him how this applies to dreams when he is asleep.
Get him to realize that when he is dreaming, he sees conscious
pictures which he takes to be symbols for external referents, and
believes the referents to be actual, but then he wakes up and finds that
the referents didn't exist at all, only the symbols.
Get him to compare the similarities and differences between
dreams asleep and the waking state of consciousness, until he
realizes that all he is certain of is the symbols in his conscious
pictures, and not the referents in either case.
This will make him ready for the next phase of The Proof.
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 ====================
Thu Jun 11 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof
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)
iD8DBQFVeTNaURT1lqxE3HERAq6zAKDRAXdk5DaZ6BacbZZGVlvrf3rgDwCfVy3t
6Iab/xw79nmrMEXyly7ukuk=
=dWtg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE124 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
HALLUCINATION
Part of the problem with KP is he very easily condemns other's
ideas as HALLUCINATION but does not go into detail on how to know what
is hallucination and what isn't.
Hallucination is generally taken to mean percieving something
that is not real. The perception is real, but the implied external
referent isn't.
For example someone reviving a death in the Revolution will be
back there, he will be right back there man, Redcoats all over the
place, and he can SEE them.
If he is reviving then he will also react to them. If he is
merely returning, then he will be able to recount 'what is happening'.
If he is merely remembering, then he will be looking at a picture of
what happened.
So during a reviv or even a return we can say the pc is
hallucinating. In the reviv he believes momentarily his
hallucinations, but in returning he knows he is hallucinating.
So now that's in session, but sometimes you will get a guy on the
street who is so restimulated he will start seeing redcoats walking up
and down the boulevard and that is another kind of hallucination.
Or rather than hallucinate a sensory event like visuals or sonic,
he may just hallucinate ideas. He sees a guy walk in the door and the
guy is clearly an agent of Mars etc.
So you have hallucination of sensory events and hallucination of
significance or both.
But if we go back to the definition of hallucination as
perceiving something that is not real, we really have to first define
what is real and what is not.
One reknown psych said that basically since the perception is
real, then whatever is in the perception is irrelevant, the guy is
seeing what he is seeing. The real issue is how many are seeing it.
If EVERYONE is seeing the same thing, then who is to say it is
real or just a hallucination?
So his claim was that assignment of terms like hallucination or
psychotic to people was just one groups way of trying to out evolve
another group competing with it for survival.
Now your average meatball will claim that this is absurd, the
universe is one way and not another, and we evolve up to a point where
we can sense the physical universe, and our survival depends on
whether we perceive it correctly or not, and if we don't, then we die
and that includes if we hallucinate things being there that aren't or
visa versa.
Certainly this is a reasonable point of view from the meatballs
perspective but it depends on the concept that there exists a universe
independent of our perceptions of it, a universe that is in fact
RESPONSIBLE mechanically for our perceptions of it, and if we don't
perceive it right, well then our perceptual machine is broke.
However what if the meatball theory is wrong? What if there is
no actual external physical universe at all, what if its all a
holographic projection in the mind of God and its micro facets, us?
Then the universe no longer is relayed to us by our PERCEPTIONS
of what is there, but is in fact CREATED by our PROJECTIONS of what is
there.
Again you have the problem of minorities projecting one thing and
majorities projecting others and so eventually winning out etc.
But still the meaning of the term hallucination becomes much less
clear.
For example according to Adore which eschews the meatball theory
in favor of the dreamball theory, just because we SEE space and time,
doesn't mean there IS space and time. It does mean there is a
holographic projection mechanism, but the projector itself does not
have space or time.
"Source sources what source is not." - Adore.
In this view what we have are a number of dreamers projecting a
picture in their own minds of an external space/time universe, and
sharing it within themselves so they can all resonate to the same
illusion of space/time.
What the meatballs assign to a huge external commonality that our
perceptions should refer to and must match to be 'right', dreamballs
assign to a co shared resonation of personal perceptions.
Meatballs use perception to LEARN about the universe.
This is Knowing by Looking, we look first then we know.
Dreamballs use perception to CREATE the universe.
This is looking by knowing, we know first then we see what we
knowed. Meatballs of course call this hallcination and consider it
the highest high crime of all, namely to believe that what you think
is true becomes true just because you think its true.
But then they are meatballs, eh?
Adore says the meatballs used to be dreamballs but have by choice
fallen down into a state of DELUSION ABOUT ILLUSION. They see space
so they believe there IS space.
The Perception of space/time is an ILLUSION, and those that
believe it isn't are DELUDED ABOUT THE ILLUSION.
So who is hallucinating, the meatball or the dreamball?
Both are, but the dreamball knows it and the meatball thinks he's
in contact with actuality. The dreamball knows both are only in
contact with their perceptions. Since the dreamball makes no
interpolation from his perceptions to implied external actualities, he
can't be hallucinating as EVERYTHING he perceives exists only as the
perception of it.
So take a look at dreams. In my dreams there are people's,
places and times, and also in this world there are people's, places
and times.
Since I have probably 2 to 3 lucid dreams a night and have for
years, I have spent many many many hours in my dreams doing
experiments to see how real they are, how in sync they are with their
own pretenses, and most of all whether the beings I meet in them are
"real" or not.
For example I can say when I turn around there will be a piano
there, and sure enough I turn around and there it is.
But its keys won't be right so I say, I'm gonna turn around again
and this time the piano will be right! And there it is, just perfect.
So I sit down at the piano and start some haunted melody out of
Chopin's 3rd piano concerto from who knows what life, and I find the
keys above middle C are just silent. I can see the hammers moving,
but no sound. The lower keys work perfectly.
So I say "All right guys, stop fooling around, make the keys work
properly", and suddenly they do and away we go into music that haunts
the night and reminds me I don't know everything there is to know.
OK, so is that a hallucination?
Is the piano real?
The music sure is, I can HEAR IT.
My efforts to hit the keys in the dream are also real.
So what isn't real?
Just so with people.
I run into all kinds of people in dreams. Little one picture
BT's, more complex human type people, and some really mean powerful
demons etc.
The BT's if they bug me I say "You are a BT!" and usually that's
enough to get them to stop. If not, "Who are you/I? What are you/I?"
and a few of those will puddle them into a little color puddle on the
ground or make them vaporize.
The more complex people too respond to this kind of thing but I
find them more interesting. I go up to them, grab them by the ribs
and squeeze to see if I get a living body reaction out of them, and I
talk to them, feel their tits, give them a kiss, ask them their name,
what the date is, what city this is, what planet this is, whether they
know they are dreaming or not etc.
Finally I tell them I have only a few more minutes in their world
because I will be waking up soon and I can't stop it. The love and
feeling in these dream worlds is WAY beyond this waking world, and
often both they and I are sad to see me go. I wake up saying good bye
to them knowing I won't be with them for a while again.
I lose new friends every night when I wake up.
So is any of that real?
Well my feelings are real.
My perception of their bodies are real.
But is there another being in that other body perceiving me back?
I don't know, because I can't see another perceiver looking back.
You look into their eyes, and THEY LOOK ALIVE, just like any human
does who doesn't have tombstones in their eyes, in fact the dream
beings look MORE alive.
And they act alive. And the cry out in pain when hurt etc.
And they are bright, and they can audit up a storm, and play
music, and smile and laugh and crack jokes, and impart wisdom I have
no clue where it comes from.
I have more love and desire for some of my dream beings than I
have ever had for anyone in the waking world in this life.
Is that hallucination?
Am I just living in a dream world?
No one there but my own imagination?
I stick a knife into one of then and they cry in pain. Just a
pretense, just a program to make the sounds sound right?
The evidence that I have that my dream beings have living
sentient conscious units in them is just as great as any evidence I
might have about waking life beings.
So how can I say that one is hallucination and another is real?
KP can't answer this, so that kind of discounts his position.
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 10 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore124.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)
iD8DBQFVd+HaURT1lqxE3HERAjjIAJsHr/AqGrBz7oJfzR+BpAP4gyG9NgCgxdD6
1rnj1exJRExKtlOqvujoBig=
=FxJV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
HALLUCINATION
Part of the problem with KP is he very easily condemns other's
ideas as HALLUCINATION but does not go into detail on how to know what
is hallucination and what isn't.
Hallucination is generally taken to mean percieving something
that is not real. The perception is real, but the implied external
referent isn't.
For example someone reviving a death in the Revolution will be
back there, he will be right back there man, Redcoats all over the
place, and he can SEE them.
If he is reviving then he will also react to them. If he is
merely returning, then he will be able to recount 'what is happening'.
If he is merely remembering, then he will be looking at a picture of
what happened.
So during a reviv or even a return we can say the pc is
hallucinating. In the reviv he believes momentarily his
hallucinations, but in returning he knows he is hallucinating.
So now that's in session, but sometimes you will get a guy on the
street who is so restimulated he will start seeing redcoats walking up
and down the boulevard and that is another kind of hallucination.
Or rather than hallucinate a sensory event like visuals or sonic,
he may just hallucinate ideas. He sees a guy walk in the door and the
guy is clearly an agent of Mars etc.
So you have hallucination of sensory events and hallucination of
significance or both.
But if we go back to the definition of hallucination as
perceiving something that is not real, we really have to first define
what is real and what is not.
One reknown psych said that basically since the perception is
real, then whatever is in the perception is irrelevant, the guy is
seeing what he is seeing. The real issue is how many are seeing it.
If EVERYONE is seeing the same thing, then who is to say it is
real or just a hallucination?
So his claim was that assignment of terms like hallucination or
psychotic to people was just one groups way of trying to out evolve
another group competing with it for survival.
Now your average meatball will claim that this is absurd, the
universe is one way and not another, and we evolve up to a point where
we can sense the physical universe, and our survival depends on
whether we perceive it correctly or not, and if we don't, then we die
and that includes if we hallucinate things being there that aren't or
visa versa.
Certainly this is a reasonable point of view from the meatballs
perspective but it depends on the concept that there exists a universe
independent of our perceptions of it, a universe that is in fact
RESPONSIBLE mechanically for our perceptions of it, and if we don't
perceive it right, well then our perceptual machine is broke.
However what if the meatball theory is wrong? What if there is
no actual external physical universe at all, what if its all a
holographic projection in the mind of God and its micro facets, us?
Then the universe no longer is relayed to us by our PERCEPTIONS
of what is there, but is in fact CREATED by our PROJECTIONS of what is
there.
Again you have the problem of minorities projecting one thing and
majorities projecting others and so eventually winning out etc.
But still the meaning of the term hallucination becomes much less
clear.
For example according to Adore which eschews the meatball theory
in favor of the dreamball theory, just because we SEE space and time,
doesn't mean there IS space and time. It does mean there is a
holographic projection mechanism, but the projector itself does not
have space or time.
"Source sources what source is not." - Adore.
In this view what we have are a number of dreamers projecting a
picture in their own minds of an external space/time universe, and
sharing it within themselves so they can all resonate to the same
illusion of space/time.
What the meatballs assign to a huge external commonality that our
perceptions should refer to and must match to be 'right', dreamballs
assign to a co shared resonation of personal perceptions.
Meatballs use perception to LEARN about the universe.
This is Knowing by Looking, we look first then we know.
Dreamballs use perception to CREATE the universe.
This is looking by knowing, we know first then we see what we
knowed. Meatballs of course call this hallcination and consider it
the highest high crime of all, namely to believe that what you think
is true becomes true just because you think its true.
But then they are meatballs, eh?
Adore says the meatballs used to be dreamballs but have by choice
fallen down into a state of DELUSION ABOUT ILLUSION. They see space
so they believe there IS space.
The Perception of space/time is an ILLUSION, and those that
believe it isn't are DELUDED ABOUT THE ILLUSION.
So who is hallucinating, the meatball or the dreamball?
Both are, but the dreamball knows it and the meatball thinks he's
in contact with actuality. The dreamball knows both are only in
contact with their perceptions. Since the dreamball makes no
interpolation from his perceptions to implied external actualities, he
can't be hallucinating as EVERYTHING he perceives exists only as the
perception of it.
So take a look at dreams. In my dreams there are people's,
places and times, and also in this world there are people's, places
and times.
Since I have probably 2 to 3 lucid dreams a night and have for
years, I have spent many many many hours in my dreams doing
experiments to see how real they are, how in sync they are with their
own pretenses, and most of all whether the beings I meet in them are
"real" or not.
For example I can say when I turn around there will be a piano
there, and sure enough I turn around and there it is.
But its keys won't be right so I say, I'm gonna turn around again
and this time the piano will be right! And there it is, just perfect.
So I sit down at the piano and start some haunted melody out of
Chopin's 3rd piano concerto from who knows what life, and I find the
keys above middle C are just silent. I can see the hammers moving,
but no sound. The lower keys work perfectly.
So I say "All right guys, stop fooling around, make the keys work
properly", and suddenly they do and away we go into music that haunts
the night and reminds me I don't know everything there is to know.
OK, so is that a hallucination?
Is the piano real?
The music sure is, I can HEAR IT.
My efforts to hit the keys in the dream are also real.
So what isn't real?
Just so with people.
I run into all kinds of people in dreams. Little one picture
BT's, more complex human type people, and some really mean powerful
demons etc.
The BT's if they bug me I say "You are a BT!" and usually that's
enough to get them to stop. If not, "Who are you/I? What are you/I?"
and a few of those will puddle them into a little color puddle on the
ground or make them vaporize.
The more complex people too respond to this kind of thing but I
find them more interesting. I go up to them, grab them by the ribs
and squeeze to see if I get a living body reaction out of them, and I
talk to them, feel their tits, give them a kiss, ask them their name,
what the date is, what city this is, what planet this is, whether they
know they are dreaming or not etc.
Finally I tell them I have only a few more minutes in their world
because I will be waking up soon and I can't stop it. The love and
feeling in these dream worlds is WAY beyond this waking world, and
often both they and I are sad to see me go. I wake up saying good bye
to them knowing I won't be with them for a while again.
I lose new friends every night when I wake up.
So is any of that real?
Well my feelings are real.
My perception of their bodies are real.
But is there another being in that other body perceiving me back?
I don't know, because I can't see another perceiver looking back.
You look into their eyes, and THEY LOOK ALIVE, just like any human
does who doesn't have tombstones in their eyes, in fact the dream
beings look MORE alive.
And they act alive. And the cry out in pain when hurt etc.
And they are bright, and they can audit up a storm, and play
music, and smile and laugh and crack jokes, and impart wisdom I have
no clue where it comes from.
I have more love and desire for some of my dream beings than I
have ever had for anyone in the waking world in this life.
Is that hallucination?
Am I just living in a dream world?
No one there but my own imagination?
I stick a knife into one of then and they cry in pain. Just a
pretense, just a program to make the sounds sound right?
The evidence that I have that my dream beings have living
sentient conscious units in them is just as great as any evidence I
might have about waking life beings.
So how can I say that one is hallucination and another is real?
KP can't answer this, so that kind of discounts his position.
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 10 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore124.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)
iD8DBQFVd+HaURT1lqxE3HERAjjIAJsHr/AqGrBz7oJfzR+BpAP4gyG9NgCgxdD6
1rnj1exJRExKtlOqvujoBig=
=FxJV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
CODES (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TO TALK OR NOT TO TALK
((That said, it is possible for someone to die after being tasked
to think of certain things. Meatballs for example are ultra highly
charged on the subject of death because they have spent their entire
lives NOT THINKING ABOUT death as much as possible. So you start
talking about before birth and after death and it all hits them in the
face like a ton of bricks. Next morning they are quite dead.))
Lyn Keller (lynmore@pacbell.net) wrote:
>If there is fighting on this list - then what would be the winning
>factor and what would be the losing factor?
I think the fighting is caused by Code conflict, once everyone here
as their codes they will stop acting like monkeys bouncing around in a
cage.
You know not only do people not know their own Codes, they
certainly do not know other's codes, yet they continuously try to figure
out what they are, and respond therefrom, so it acts as a massive
continuous ongoing implied wrong indication they are making to everyone
around them.
So people get enraged by the presumptions that are put on them by
others.
This is in part, part of the problem of people not talking about
their Codes. Once someone knows your Codes for real, then they can
start figuring out where you are coming from without emmanating lots of
wrong indications. Not only do they make sense to themselves, since
they know their own Codes, but YOU begin to make sense to them as well.
Thus I would guess it is imperative for people to discuss their
Codes with each other, individually and as a group. Although it is
presently popular to claim that pre Codees should not hear the Codes of
Codees, on the face of it this isn't going to work in an open forum, so
it *HAS* to be wrong, as right as it might seem.
The only other solution is to have an elite super private group
with high security etc, that watches its every word, and who it talks
to, and we all know where that leads, right into the toilet on many
levels. You also get into a massive problem of people claiming they
have their Codes, when they don't, just so they can be part of the
group. How do you know if someone has their Codes? Really? So how are
you going to know who is safe to talk to?
If Codees carry the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval stamped on
their asses because they have passed some Code Authority and gotten
their license to talk, you still don't know if its real or not, unless
you trust the Authority explicitly, and that's just another route of
control down and even bigger toilet.
The only other alternative is to have everyone consider that Codes
aren't important to talk about, and so they start talking *AROUND* them.
That's the kind of hypocrisy and social facade that drives straight
talking into talking *ABOUT*.
Certain things are inexorable, all considerations to the contrary.
Once Codes are known, they are *THE* most important thing to talk
about and get to know in another person.
Has to be.
Homer
>Lyn
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Jun 22 16:10:03 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/codes.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)
iD8DBQFViGubURT1lqxE3HERAiE8AJwO8l9E3ol/kv9HmDjU+/s2ilCfAACfSoye
ZVlWcLioyGIKEfqUErl2waM=
=ACF8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TO TALK OR NOT TO TALK
((That said, it is possible for someone to die after being tasked
to think of certain things. Meatballs for example are ultra highly
charged on the subject of death because they have spent their entire
lives NOT THINKING ABOUT death as much as possible. So you start
talking about before birth and after death and it all hits them in the
face like a ton of bricks. Next morning they are quite dead.))
Lyn Keller (lynmore@pacbell.net) wrote:
>If there is fighting on this list - then what would be the winning
>factor and what would be the losing factor?
I think the fighting is caused by Code conflict, once everyone here
as their codes they will stop acting like monkeys bouncing around in a
cage.
You know not only do people not know their own Codes, they
certainly do not know other's codes, yet they continuously try to figure
out what they are, and respond therefrom, so it acts as a massive
continuous ongoing implied wrong indication they are making to everyone
around them.
So people get enraged by the presumptions that are put on them by
others.
This is in part, part of the problem of people not talking about
their Codes. Once someone knows your Codes for real, then they can
start figuring out where you are coming from without emmanating lots of
wrong indications. Not only do they make sense to themselves, since
they know their own Codes, but YOU begin to make sense to them as well.
Thus I would guess it is imperative for people to discuss their
Codes with each other, individually and as a group. Although it is
presently popular to claim that pre Codees should not hear the Codes of
Codees, on the face of it this isn't going to work in an open forum, so
it *HAS* to be wrong, as right as it might seem.
The only other solution is to have an elite super private group
with high security etc, that watches its every word, and who it talks
to, and we all know where that leads, right into the toilet on many
levels. You also get into a massive problem of people claiming they
have their Codes, when they don't, just so they can be part of the
group. How do you know if someone has their Codes? Really? So how are
you going to know who is safe to talk to?
If Codees carry the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval stamped on
their asses because they have passed some Code Authority and gotten
their license to talk, you still don't know if its real or not, unless
you trust the Authority explicitly, and that's just another route of
control down and even bigger toilet.
The only other alternative is to have everyone consider that Codes
aren't important to talk about, and so they start talking *AROUND* them.
That's the kind of hypocrisy and social facade that drives straight
talking into talking *ABOUT*.
Certain things are inexorable, all considerations to the contrary.
Once Codes are known, they are *THE* most important thing to talk
about and get to know in another person.
Has to be.
Homer
>Lyn
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Jun 22 16:10:03 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/codes.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)
iD8DBQFViGubURT1lqxE3HERAiE8AJwO8l9E3ol/kv9HmDjU+/s2ilCfAACfSoye
ZVlWcLioyGIKEfqUErl2waM=
=ACF8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, June 11, 2015
MURDER RUNDOWN REVISITED
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
MURDER RUNDOWN REVISITED
Anything that is killing a preclear somatically is caused by
suppressed anger, fear, sorrow and apathy, or the intent to murder in
other words.
This will be very hard to run on some preclears who are into
playing games of non existence with their emotions, but very easy to run
on just about anyone real out on the streets.
The trick is the ability to run it without the preclear actually
going out and murdering anyone he might regret.
It's not that murdering people is bad, its murdering the wrong
people is bad, and above that one can usually handle these things on a
postulate basis rather than a force basis for which your preclear can
and will be held accountable.
The original murder rundown is here:
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/murder
But below is the simplest way once a person gets high enough toned
to know what he feels.
It is similar to a part of terrible trio, "...what could you
dispense with."
Terrible trio is
"Look around here and spot something you could have."
"Look around here and spot something you could let be."
"Look around here and spot something you could dispense with."
Because of its wording, terrible trio is generally run on THINGS
not people.
Terrible trio was originally meant to be run on immediate objects
in the room around the preclear, but to run it on people, places and
things, it would need to be run on his whole track, past, present and
future.
Future? Well he might want to dispense with The Grim Reaper at the
end of his life for example. :)
The murder rundown is run on people mostly, so it goes very deep
very fast.
If the preclear can't answer who or what questions, change over to
"Get the idea of...". Who or what will show up quick enough.
Make sure to define 'who' as a particular person such as his mother
Margaret, and 'what' as a class of whos such as mothers in general.
Notably 'what' does NOT refer in this case to an inanimate thing
like a chair, but take his items as he gives to you regardless.
On the other hand if your preclear is giving you only Margarets as
whos and Chairs as whats, you know he is missing Mothers as whats which
are the real target.
This process can, should and will be run many times over the course
of a life time.
It is very simple:
"Who or what would you like to murder?"
"Who or what would like to murder you?"
"Who or what would like to murder another?"
"Who or what would like to murder themselves?"
"Get the idea of murdering another."
"Get the idea of another murdering you."
"Get the idea of another murdering another."
"Get the idea of someone murdering themselves."
You gotta run it with another, to get the benefits, not just read
it.
A couple of 30 minute sessions should do it.
Run each line until no more answers or a big win.
Then go to the next line and do the same.
If no big win by the end of the group, start back at the beginning.
If your preclear gives you answer from line 2 while you are running
line 1 for example, take his answer, ack it, and then continue running
line 1.
If it becomes obvious your preclear is running line 2 no matter
what you are doing, run line 2, but make sure to go back and run the
other lines once line 2 is flat, until all lines are flatter than a one
sided pancake, no more answers, wide grin and floating needle.
Sometimes your preclear will put a restraint on his answer "Well I
would like to murder Goober, but I would be caught and pupnished and so
no I wouldn't like to murder Goober."
He is being dishonest with himself because he ends up pretending he
doesn't want to murder anyone, and suppresses the murderous intent
instead which ends up murdering him.
They end up in an old folks home with dementia, not able to
remember that they just had breakfast 10 minutes ago.
You want to get your preclear to run something like, who or what
would you like to murder if you could get away with it and no one would
know. That should open it up for them.
Once you get it pretty flat, your preclear will start spotting new
items as the days go by and he runs into them in real life, which were
not obvious before. You gotta clean the screen in order to see what's
really broiling your preclear into overwhelm which enlightenment will
for sure come later after the formal process is long finished.
That's the point, after the process is finished, your precleear
will be able to spot and deal with murderous rages as they come up
rather than try to sink them or worse dramatize them.
His basic computation on murderous rage is to not think about it,
but the truth is one really good way to let the pressure off is to mock
up endless ways the murder could happen until he's bored with it.
The inventiveness of his mockups will eventually make him laugh.
You can see why conservative folk might be a bit charry about you
running this thing on some people, but someone who is coming uptone to
taking full responsibility for their murderous rages is safer to have
around than someone who is suppressing them all day long and being a
good boy.
Although the process does not ask 'why?' for each item found, AND
YOU ARE NOT TO ASK FOR IT, it is expected the preclear will offer up
whys a-many.
They will often be in the area of use of force and illogic against
someone in order to maintain an injustice, criminal rip off or
enslavement of one sort of another. But the reasons can be many.
Justice can be defined as a fair chosen balance of duties and
rights.
Beyond that there are so many ways a being can invent and design to
piss himself off, it would be misleading to claim anyone has it all
taped.
The key though is the violation of his sense of being responsible
FOR and his unwilliingness to take responsibility OVER the situation.
So he goes into destroy FOREVER mode, which is a loss of class for
him, that all should live forever and be his friend, and a violation of
his sovereign desire that everything, even hate, last only for a while.
He WANTS to hate forever, and that's the ruin of him.
The rage will not resolve as long as the forever postulate is
still active on it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jun 11 15:00:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/murder0.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)
iD8DBQFVedqxURT1lqxE3HERAuAnAJ9ft+fvP0U+r9Uxqzzkerg/AhH0JACbBGL6
6Lv5knDEob7vHLbaas2Y2OE=
=OYPA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
MURDER RUNDOWN REVISITED
Anything that is killing a preclear somatically is caused by
suppressed anger, fear, sorrow and apathy, or the intent to murder in
other words.
This will be very hard to run on some preclears who are into
playing games of non existence with their emotions, but very easy to run
on just about anyone real out on the streets.
The trick is the ability to run it without the preclear actually
going out and murdering anyone he might regret.
It's not that murdering people is bad, its murdering the wrong
people is bad, and above that one can usually handle these things on a
postulate basis rather than a force basis for which your preclear can
and will be held accountable.
The original murder rundown is here:
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/homer/murder
But below is the simplest way once a person gets high enough toned
to know what he feels.
It is similar to a part of terrible trio, "...what could you
dispense with."
Terrible trio is
"Look around here and spot something you could have."
"Look around here and spot something you could let be."
"Look around here and spot something you could dispense with."
Because of its wording, terrible trio is generally run on THINGS
not people.
Terrible trio was originally meant to be run on immediate objects
in the room around the preclear, but to run it on people, places and
things, it would need to be run on his whole track, past, present and
future.
Future? Well he might want to dispense with The Grim Reaper at the
end of his life for example. :)
The murder rundown is run on people mostly, so it goes very deep
very fast.
If the preclear can't answer who or what questions, change over to
"Get the idea of...". Who or what will show up quick enough.
Make sure to define 'who' as a particular person such as his mother
Margaret, and 'what' as a class of whos such as mothers in general.
Notably 'what' does NOT refer in this case to an inanimate thing
like a chair, but take his items as he gives to you regardless.
On the other hand if your preclear is giving you only Margarets as
whos and Chairs as whats, you know he is missing Mothers as whats which
are the real target.
This process can, should and will be run many times over the course
of a life time.
It is very simple:
"Who or what would you like to murder?"
"Who or what would like to murder you?"
"Who or what would like to murder another?"
"Who or what would like to murder themselves?"
"Get the idea of murdering another."
"Get the idea of another murdering you."
"Get the idea of another murdering another."
"Get the idea of someone murdering themselves."
You gotta run it with another, to get the benefits, not just read
it.
A couple of 30 minute sessions should do it.
Run each line until no more answers or a big win.
Then go to the next line and do the same.
If no big win by the end of the group, start back at the beginning.
If your preclear gives you answer from line 2 while you are running
line 1 for example, take his answer, ack it, and then continue running
line 1.
If it becomes obvious your preclear is running line 2 no matter
what you are doing, run line 2, but make sure to go back and run the
other lines once line 2 is flat, until all lines are flatter than a one
sided pancake, no more answers, wide grin and floating needle.
Sometimes your preclear will put a restraint on his answer "Well I
would like to murder Goober, but I would be caught and pupnished and so
no I wouldn't like to murder Goober."
He is being dishonest with himself because he ends up pretending he
doesn't want to murder anyone, and suppresses the murderous intent
instead which ends up murdering him.
They end up in an old folks home with dementia, not able to
remember that they just had breakfast 10 minutes ago.
You want to get your preclear to run something like, who or what
would you like to murder if you could get away with it and no one would
know. That should open it up for them.
Once you get it pretty flat, your preclear will start spotting new
items as the days go by and he runs into them in real life, which were
not obvious before. You gotta clean the screen in order to see what's
really broiling your preclear into overwhelm which enlightenment will
for sure come later after the formal process is long finished.
That's the point, after the process is finished, your precleear
will be able to spot and deal with murderous rages as they come up
rather than try to sink them or worse dramatize them.
His basic computation on murderous rage is to not think about it,
but the truth is one really good way to let the pressure off is to mock
up endless ways the murder could happen until he's bored with it.
The inventiveness of his mockups will eventually make him laugh.
You can see why conservative folk might be a bit charry about you
running this thing on some people, but someone who is coming uptone to
taking full responsibility for their murderous rages is safer to have
around than someone who is suppressing them all day long and being a
good boy.
Although the process does not ask 'why?' for each item found, AND
YOU ARE NOT TO ASK FOR IT, it is expected the preclear will offer up
whys a-many.
They will often be in the area of use of force and illogic against
someone in order to maintain an injustice, criminal rip off or
enslavement of one sort of another. But the reasons can be many.
Justice can be defined as a fair chosen balance of duties and
rights.
Beyond that there are so many ways a being can invent and design to
piss himself off, it would be misleading to claim anyone has it all
taped.
The key though is the violation of his sense of being responsible
FOR and his unwilliingness to take responsibility OVER the situation.
So he goes into destroy FOREVER mode, which is a loss of class for
him, that all should live forever and be his friend, and a violation of
his sovereign desire that everything, even hate, last only for a while.
He WANTS to hate forever, and that's the ruin of him.
The rage will not resolve as long as the forever postulate is
still active on it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jun 11 15:00:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/murder0.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)
iD8DBQFVedqxURT1lqxE3HERAuAnAJ9ft+fvP0U+r9Uxqzzkerg/AhH0JACbBGL6
6Lv5knDEob7vHLbaas2Y2OE=
=OYPA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, June 8, 2015
HOM29 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WANT AND DEMAND
I believe it is incorrect to assert that one must merely tone down
from demand to mere want in order to get rid of something. Demanding to
get rid of something and wanting to get rid of something are both
efforts to push away, and doing less of something wrong, pushing away,
is still a complete alter-is of the truth.
Adore says that prior to the NOT WANTED is a WANTED. Adore says
that the only way to fully as-is something, one must contact the WANTED
prior to the UNWANTED, at which point one is then putting it out there
with full operational acceptance. Of course one accepts what one is
making willingly as an original creation.
For example, LRH says the preclear chose his condition with full
knowingness and awareness exactly as he is now suffering it. So at that
time it was WANTED and included an aesthetic. The aesthetic sticks the
creation because its never duplicated, the wanted and the aesthetic are
'gone' to the pc's present time awareness
The being chooses the condition, and then chooses to not know that
the condition is wanted and beautiful, and chooses to NOT WANT the
condition instead under the guise of he can't get rid of it, and he also
chooses to not know that he is choosing to not know he chose these
things.
The alter-is from wanted to unwanted is necessary to cause
persistence. This is not a mistake or a flaw, as there are no such
things.
The being is trying to vanish unwanteds by taking responsibility
OVER the unwanted, but this still denies his responsibility FOR the
unwanted. The subtle change from responsibility FOR, to responsibility
OVER is enough of an alter-is to cause a persistence which is why
talking responsibility over as a sole procedure never works and results
in games that one can never win as everything persists by default of the
approach.
(To take responsibility over something means to add your cause into
an existing situation to make it better.
To take repsonsibility for something, means to own up to having
created the situation in the first place.)
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Jun 8 15:36:25 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom29.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)
iD8DBQFVde65URT1lqxE3HERAjgOAJ0bJtlhcCijL/lZ2j6gF9Q2kApVQwCfSzwx
iAqaMJSuLmhdLwd4eRnv/GY=
=Ytns
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WANT AND DEMAND
I believe it is incorrect to assert that one must merely tone down
from demand to mere want in order to get rid of something. Demanding to
get rid of something and wanting to get rid of something are both
efforts to push away, and doing less of something wrong, pushing away,
is still a complete alter-is of the truth.
Adore says that prior to the NOT WANTED is a WANTED. Adore says
that the only way to fully as-is something, one must contact the WANTED
prior to the UNWANTED, at which point one is then putting it out there
with full operational acceptance. Of course one accepts what one is
making willingly as an original creation.
For example, LRH says the preclear chose his condition with full
knowingness and awareness exactly as he is now suffering it. So at that
time it was WANTED and included an aesthetic. The aesthetic sticks the
creation because its never duplicated, the wanted and the aesthetic are
'gone' to the pc's present time awareness
The being chooses the condition, and then chooses to not know that
the condition is wanted and beautiful, and chooses to NOT WANT the
condition instead under the guise of he can't get rid of it, and he also
chooses to not know that he is choosing to not know he chose these
things.
The alter-is from wanted to unwanted is necessary to cause
persistence. This is not a mistake or a flaw, as there are no such
things.
The being is trying to vanish unwanteds by taking responsibility
OVER the unwanted, but this still denies his responsibility FOR the
unwanted. The subtle change from responsibility FOR, to responsibility
OVER is enough of an alter-is to cause a persistence which is why
talking responsibility over as a sole procedure never works and results
in games that one can never win as everything persists by default of the
approach.
(To take responsibility over something means to add your cause into
an existing situation to make it better.
To take repsonsibility for something, means to own up to having
created the situation in the first place.)
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Jun 8 15:36:25 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom29.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)
iD8DBQFVde65URT1lqxE3HERAjgOAJ0bJtlhcCijL/lZ2j6gF9Q2kApVQwCfSzwx
iAqaMJSuLmhdLwd4eRnv/GY=
=Ytns
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, June 4, 2015
ADORE445 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
ASSIGNMENT OF QUALITIES II
OK, so we have this conscious unit, a looker looking at his looked
ats, and we stick him in the head of a human body and connect his
consciousness to the sensory system of the body.
That means that now, rather than his looked ats being pure
imagination, dreaming or hallucination, they are causally connected to
events in the alleged physical universe.
You know, photon bounces off object, hits retina, travels along
brain pathways and eventually gets displayed as color and intensity in
the the conscious unit's looked at display.
So this guy is sitting there aiming his eyes at an apple on a
table in the physical universe, and he's seeing a red apple in his
consciousness.
The red apple that he actually sees in his consciousness is the
symbol, and the physical universe apple on the table is the referent.
Presumably the physical referent is a causal precursor to the
conscious symbol, and the state of the symbol is trackiing the
referent properly. For example if the physical apple changes color,
the conscious experience (symbol) will change color in tandem.
Tracking between symbol and referent is also called necessary
dependable followingness.
If there is no casaul pathway between symbol and referent then
there is no guarantee that the tracking will continue for long,
even if it continues forever.
Thus causation is what brings NECESSITY to dependable
followingness.
Now we know that the symbol and referent are two different events,
two different objects, existing and happening in two different
spaces and times.
The referent happens before the symbol in time determined by the
speed of light travel from apple to eye, and the speed of impingement
through the brain system.
The referent is also in a different place in space than the
symbol, because the referent is out there in the physical universe,
whereas the symbol is in here in the conscious universe, even though
the symbol LOOKS like it is out there where the physical apple
allegedly is.
We know that the symbol is not actually out there, because if it
were the looker couldn't see it, distance in space or time between
looker and looked at creates blindness by making direct contact
impossible.
Across a distance in space or time, everything remains forever a
theory.
Lastly we know that the symbol has its own qualities, different
than the referent, but that some of the qualities of the symbol may be
similar to those of the referent, and other qualities of the symbol
that the referent doesn't have, may be used to refer to qualities in
the referent that the symbol doesn't have.
Take color and frequency for example, as described below.
Color is a quality of the symbol which the symbol has and the
referent does not have, which is used to refer to frequency of light
reflecting off the referent, which the referent has and the symbol
does not.
So let's take a look a what some of those qualities of the symbol
are that are used to refer to the referent.
EXISTENCE
The first quality is existence. The symbol exists.
The conscious looker exists, and his looked ats exist, he can see
them and he needs no further proof. Someone else may doubt that he
sees them, but if he does see them, they must exist, as they couldn't
be seen if they didn't exist.
They don't just exist 'for him', if they exist for anyone, they
must exist for everyone whether they know it or not. In other words
if it is true for Goober that Goober sees a red apple, it must be true
for everyone that Goober sees a red apple.
This quality of existence in the symbol is then attributed to the
referent: because I see a conscious apple, there must BE a physical
apple.
Our whole concept of existence, what it is, what it means, what
it's ramifications are, come directly from our experience of the
existence of our conscious experiences.
If our conscious experiences did not exist, we would never have
come up with the idea of existence in the first place because we could
never have experienced something that existed!
How else could you experience something that existed, except
through the existence of your own conscious experiences of its
existence.
Our sense of existingness comes directly from our conscious
experience of the existence of our conscious experiences.
Since we have never seen any physical object EXCEPT via its
symbol in our conscious experience, assignment of any existence to the
physical object that exceeds the existence of the conscious symbol is
meaningless or arbitrary. Certainly not based on experience!
You can't experience something that has more existence than
the existence of your conscious experience of existence.
Sometimes you can have an indirect experience of something's
existence. The table may not look visually to real to you, but then
you bump into it and feel the pain. The realness of the pain
convinces you of the realness of the table more than the original
visual of the table did.
So all reality, actuality, or existingness that we assign to the
referent physical universe comes directly from the existingness of our
conscious experiences.
In other words the physical apple can not be more real, more
actual, have more existingness than the conscious experience by which
we learned of the apple in the first place.
Thus the assertion that the physical universe is real, but our
conscious experiences are not as real is delusive inversion.
CERTAINTY
The next quality that the conscious symbol has is certainty of
existence.
Not only does the conscious sysmbol exist, but the looker KNOWS
it exists without question, without doubt, without second thought.
This is the quality of learnability with perfect certainty.
Now we know that if looker and looked at are two different
objects separated by space or time distance, then the looker can never
see the looked at directly.
The looked at is NOT THERE for him.
The best the looker can do is wait for an impingement and then
theorize back into time about the possible nature of the source of
that impingement.
In this case the looker changes state as a result of the
impingement from the alleged remote source. The looker's change in
state is the symbol, and the alleged remote source is the referent.
Since one can not learn with certainty about the referent by
looking at or being a symbol for it, space and time between looker and
looked at make perfect certainty of looked at impossible.
Since the existence and nature of the conscious looked at IS
perfectly certain to the conscious looker, we are forced to conclude
that in the case of consciousness, the looker and looked at are one
and the same thing, not separated by a space or time distance.
Thus although the red apple LOOKS like it is out there, relative
to the looker, that out thereness must be an illusion, and the
entirety of consciousness and what it is conscious of must exist in a
zero dimensional, spaceless, timeless existence.
However the looker, seeing its perfect certainty of its
experience of the apple, then assigns perfect certainty to the alleged
physical referent.
Thus not only does the conscious looker then consider that the
physical apple exists, he concludes that the physical apple exists
with *CERTAINTY*. He has no doubt about the symbol, so he has no
doubt about the referent.
At all times and all places this is a very serious form of mind
broke, because it is impossible to attain certainty of a referent, via
certainty of a symbol.
Certainty of the referent is not certainly implied by certainty
of the symbol.
Consciousness *IS* certainty-of.
Since the only thing a looker can be conscious of is his own
conscious experiences, namely his a conscious looked ats, therefore
the only thing that a looker can be certain of is his own conscious
looked ats, his conscious experiences or symbols, in this case, of the
physcial universe.
With regards to a zero dimensional conscious unit perceiving
objects separated from him in a multi dimensional space time
continuum, the conscious symbol is always certain, the referent
remains forever a theory.
COLOR FORM
The next quality that the symbol has which is mistakenly assigned
to the referent is color.
Color, like redness, is a quality of being on one object, the
looked at.
The ability to reflect photons of a given frquency is a causal
quality of relation, between two different objects, physical apple and
physical photon.
Color in the conscious symbol is used to represent frequency of
reflected photons in the physcial universe. Intensity of color in
consciousness is used to represent amplitude of energy of those
photons or number of them per second.
There are no photons in imagination, dreaming or hallucination.
The lamp does not light the room in your dreams.
Conscious looked ats are self luminous, if they were illuminated
by something else, you couldn't see them at all. You could only
become a symbol for them according to the impingement on you of their
reflected or emmanated causal messenger wave.
Being a symbol for a referent is not the same thing as SEEING THE
REFERENT!
The fact that you see your looked ats with certainty proves that
you ARE them, and there is no via between them and you seeing them.
Thus color and perception of color is a zero dimensional
conscious phenomenon that has no place, CAN have no place in the multi
dimensional physical world with distance and time separating lookers
and looke ats.
Thus there is no color in the physical universe, only waves of
energy of different frequencies all made of the same stuff.
OUT THERENESS
The fourth quality of the conscious symbol that is assigned to
the physical referent is out thereness.
If you ask someone where his conscious experiences are he will
point vaguely in the area of his head, but if you ask him where he
sees the red apple, he will point out there where he thinks the
physical apple is.
Now our conscious color forms certainly LOOK like they are out
there, and thus because we see space we think there is space.
But in fact if our conscious pictures were out where they look
like they are, we couldn't see them, because imposition of space and
time between looker and looked at creates the blindness of no direct
contact.
Being a symbol for a referent at a distance from you is not the
same thing as SEEING the referent directly.
However the illusion of space is so strong in our conscious
looked ats, that we are just sure the physical referent must also have
space and be out there. I mean where else could it be?
The *PHYSICAL* apple has to be *SOMEWHERE*, right? What better
place than out there!
Some people will even go so far to say that the reason we see
conscious experiences of space is because there IS space. How else
could we have represented the actuality of physical space if not
through the conscious experience of space?
However certainty of experience does not provide certainty of the
physical referent, and worse THERE CAN BE NO CERTAINTY of physical
referent as certainty is the sole purvue of the conscious experience.
Thus claiming we see space because there is space is putting the
cart before the horse and is another case of very dangerous delusive
inversion.
It asserts that the nature of our consciousness is determined by
the nature of the physical universe. That consciousness EXISTS in
order to accuratly display the physical universe.
Eventually they will tell you that consciousness is MADE of the
physical universe, and a being is rolling around the drain to hell at
that point, the inversion is just too great to survive for long as a
causitive unit.
Love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
The truth is that consciousness had the ability to create
illusions of space (and time), and thus decided to employ the ability
in its game creation.
Actual space was never created, but the illusion of space between
looker and looked at was used to invite the idea that space did in
fact exist so beings could get lost playing in it.
I mean what fun is it knowing you have NEVER gone anywhere. You
couldn't get lost even if you wanted to.
You can't get lost when you ARE your home.
THREE DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRICITY
Out thereness is really just a subset of the 3 dimensions of
space.
Thus not only do you have here and there (depth), you also have
left and right (width) and up and down (height).
Now it might be pretty easy to see how here and there are
illusions, if you just consider the looker IS the looked at, but how
do you explain left and right or up and down.
I mean maybe there is no distance between you and the square you
are looking at, but the square is definitely a square and has a left
to right width of a foot or so.
So imagine that that the being is a light source, a source of
conscious light. And imagine the being has painted on himself a zero
dimensional point, a complete picture of the world all around him in
360 degrees.
Then imagine the painted up being is inside a perfectly mirrored
metal sphere.
The light leaves the being, gets colored as it goes through his
surface, heads out to the metal ball with the mirrored inside, and
reflects back off the mirrored surface and heads back to the being.
When the light reaches the being, he 'sees the world' that is painted
on him.
So seeing the world is like a being seeing himself in a spherical
mirror.
But now make the radius of the spherical mirror smaller and
smaller until it vanishes to zero. Thus the whole size of the being
plus mirror is zero. He is still going to see his own reflection lit
by his own self luminousness.
That's a really bad analogy but might help to understand how
something of no dimensions and thus no size, could none the less
project and reflect and see a multidimensional world of apparently
infinite size.
TIME
The last quality of the conscious symbol that is collapsed onto
the referent is timeingness, or change.
A physical universe machine can only be in a state. Since no
state proves the existence of a prior state with certainty, a machine
can never know with certainty that it is changing state! Thus a
machine can never know with certainty that time exists.
Yet consciousness certainly can know that not only does its
symbols exist, but they change! Thus the conscious looker assumes
that because he experiences time in his consciousness, there must BE
time in the physical universe referent.
So the five qualities of the symbol are
1.) Existence
2.) Certainty
3.) Color
4.) Out thereness, space
5.) Time
Each of these are then assigned to the physical universe
referent, even though the true referent may not have any of these
qualities at all!
What is the source of our zero dimensional conscious pictures?
Is it a multi dimensional physical universe as represented to us
in our looked ats, or is it perhaps something else entirely?
At 28.0 on the tone scale, the being descends down through
apparencies are reality.
The apparencies are the actualities of his conscious symbols,
existence, certainty, color, out thereness and time.
In going below apparencies are reality, the being considers that
his symbols refer to referents that actually have those qualities.
He forgets that he is dealing with the alleged referents solely
via his symbols, and eventually comes to consider that the symbols are
nothing, and the referent is the only something there is.
A meatball is a symbol that thinks it is made of the referent.
That's like a TV set thinking it is made of the stuff one sees
displayed in the TV set.
You can't get more inverted than that.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Feb 17 23:49:47 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jun 3 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore445.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)
iD8DBQFVbqdaURT1lqxE3HERApyGAKDFGvZ5zAfqaT1sD5JirfCHxcb3PgCeMkEg
zNacJLnXBc6mCSp2MGljwJ8=
=8/ZF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
ASSIGNMENT OF QUALITIES II
OK, so we have this conscious unit, a looker looking at his looked
ats, and we stick him in the head of a human body and connect his
consciousness to the sensory system of the body.
That means that now, rather than his looked ats being pure
imagination, dreaming or hallucination, they are causally connected to
events in the alleged physical universe.
You know, photon bounces off object, hits retina, travels along
brain pathways and eventually gets displayed as color and intensity in
the the conscious unit's looked at display.
So this guy is sitting there aiming his eyes at an apple on a
table in the physical universe, and he's seeing a red apple in his
consciousness.
The red apple that he actually sees in his consciousness is the
symbol, and the physical universe apple on the table is the referent.
Presumably the physical referent is a causal precursor to the
conscious symbol, and the state of the symbol is trackiing the
referent properly. For example if the physical apple changes color,
the conscious experience (symbol) will change color in tandem.
Tracking between symbol and referent is also called necessary
dependable followingness.
If there is no casaul pathway between symbol and referent then
there is no guarantee that the tracking will continue for long,
even if it continues forever.
Thus causation is what brings NECESSITY to dependable
followingness.
Now we know that the symbol and referent are two different events,
two different objects, existing and happening in two different
spaces and times.
The referent happens before the symbol in time determined by the
speed of light travel from apple to eye, and the speed of impingement
through the brain system.
The referent is also in a different place in space than the
symbol, because the referent is out there in the physical universe,
whereas the symbol is in here in the conscious universe, even though
the symbol LOOKS like it is out there where the physical apple
allegedly is.
We know that the symbol is not actually out there, because if it
were the looker couldn't see it, distance in space or time between
looker and looked at creates blindness by making direct contact
impossible.
Across a distance in space or time, everything remains forever a
theory.
Lastly we know that the symbol has its own qualities, different
than the referent, but that some of the qualities of the symbol may be
similar to those of the referent, and other qualities of the symbol
that the referent doesn't have, may be used to refer to qualities in
the referent that the symbol doesn't have.
Take color and frequency for example, as described below.
Color is a quality of the symbol which the symbol has and the
referent does not have, which is used to refer to frequency of light
reflecting off the referent, which the referent has and the symbol
does not.
So let's take a look a what some of those qualities of the symbol
are that are used to refer to the referent.
EXISTENCE
The first quality is existence. The symbol exists.
The conscious looker exists, and his looked ats exist, he can see
them and he needs no further proof. Someone else may doubt that he
sees them, but if he does see them, they must exist, as they couldn't
be seen if they didn't exist.
They don't just exist 'for him', if they exist for anyone, they
must exist for everyone whether they know it or not. In other words
if it is true for Goober that Goober sees a red apple, it must be true
for everyone that Goober sees a red apple.
This quality of existence in the symbol is then attributed to the
referent: because I see a conscious apple, there must BE a physical
apple.
Our whole concept of existence, what it is, what it means, what
it's ramifications are, come directly from our experience of the
existence of our conscious experiences.
If our conscious experiences did not exist, we would never have
come up with the idea of existence in the first place because we could
never have experienced something that existed!
How else could you experience something that existed, except
through the existence of your own conscious experiences of its
existence.
Our sense of existingness comes directly from our conscious
experience of the existence of our conscious experiences.
Since we have never seen any physical object EXCEPT via its
symbol in our conscious experience, assignment of any existence to the
physical object that exceeds the existence of the conscious symbol is
meaningless or arbitrary. Certainly not based on experience!
You can't experience something that has more existence than
the existence of your conscious experience of existence.
Sometimes you can have an indirect experience of something's
existence. The table may not look visually to real to you, but then
you bump into it and feel the pain. The realness of the pain
convinces you of the realness of the table more than the original
visual of the table did.
So all reality, actuality, or existingness that we assign to the
referent physical universe comes directly from the existingness of our
conscious experiences.
In other words the physical apple can not be more real, more
actual, have more existingness than the conscious experience by which
we learned of the apple in the first place.
Thus the assertion that the physical universe is real, but our
conscious experiences are not as real is delusive inversion.
CERTAINTY
The next quality that the conscious symbol has is certainty of
existence.
Not only does the conscious sysmbol exist, but the looker KNOWS
it exists without question, without doubt, without second thought.
This is the quality of learnability with perfect certainty.
Now we know that if looker and looked at are two different
objects separated by space or time distance, then the looker can never
see the looked at directly.
The looked at is NOT THERE for him.
The best the looker can do is wait for an impingement and then
theorize back into time about the possible nature of the source of
that impingement.
In this case the looker changes state as a result of the
impingement from the alleged remote source. The looker's change in
state is the symbol, and the alleged remote source is the referent.
Since one can not learn with certainty about the referent by
looking at or being a symbol for it, space and time between looker and
looked at make perfect certainty of looked at impossible.
Since the existence and nature of the conscious looked at IS
perfectly certain to the conscious looker, we are forced to conclude
that in the case of consciousness, the looker and looked at are one
and the same thing, not separated by a space or time distance.
Thus although the red apple LOOKS like it is out there, relative
to the looker, that out thereness must be an illusion, and the
entirety of consciousness and what it is conscious of must exist in a
zero dimensional, spaceless, timeless existence.
However the looker, seeing its perfect certainty of its
experience of the apple, then assigns perfect certainty to the alleged
physical referent.
Thus not only does the conscious looker then consider that the
physical apple exists, he concludes that the physical apple exists
with *CERTAINTY*. He has no doubt about the symbol, so he has no
doubt about the referent.
At all times and all places this is a very serious form of mind
broke, because it is impossible to attain certainty of a referent, via
certainty of a symbol.
Certainty of the referent is not certainly implied by certainty
of the symbol.
Consciousness *IS* certainty-of.
Since the only thing a looker can be conscious of is his own
conscious experiences, namely his a conscious looked ats, therefore
the only thing that a looker can be certain of is his own conscious
looked ats, his conscious experiences or symbols, in this case, of the
physcial universe.
With regards to a zero dimensional conscious unit perceiving
objects separated from him in a multi dimensional space time
continuum, the conscious symbol is always certain, the referent
remains forever a theory.
COLOR FORM
The next quality that the symbol has which is mistakenly assigned
to the referent is color.
Color, like redness, is a quality of being on one object, the
looked at.
The ability to reflect photons of a given frquency is a causal
quality of relation, between two different objects, physical apple and
physical photon.
Color in the conscious symbol is used to represent frequency of
reflected photons in the physcial universe. Intensity of color in
consciousness is used to represent amplitude of energy of those
photons or number of them per second.
There are no photons in imagination, dreaming or hallucination.
The lamp does not light the room in your dreams.
Conscious looked ats are self luminous, if they were illuminated
by something else, you couldn't see them at all. You could only
become a symbol for them according to the impingement on you of their
reflected or emmanated causal messenger wave.
Being a symbol for a referent is not the same thing as SEEING THE
REFERENT!
The fact that you see your looked ats with certainty proves that
you ARE them, and there is no via between them and you seeing them.
Thus color and perception of color is a zero dimensional
conscious phenomenon that has no place, CAN have no place in the multi
dimensional physical world with distance and time separating lookers
and looke ats.
Thus there is no color in the physical universe, only waves of
energy of different frequencies all made of the same stuff.
OUT THERENESS
The fourth quality of the conscious symbol that is assigned to
the physical referent is out thereness.
If you ask someone where his conscious experiences are he will
point vaguely in the area of his head, but if you ask him where he
sees the red apple, he will point out there where he thinks the
physical apple is.
Now our conscious color forms certainly LOOK like they are out
there, and thus because we see space we think there is space.
But in fact if our conscious pictures were out where they look
like they are, we couldn't see them, because imposition of space and
time between looker and looked at creates the blindness of no direct
contact.
Being a symbol for a referent at a distance from you is not the
same thing as SEEING the referent directly.
However the illusion of space is so strong in our conscious
looked ats, that we are just sure the physical referent must also have
space and be out there. I mean where else could it be?
The *PHYSICAL* apple has to be *SOMEWHERE*, right? What better
place than out there!
Some people will even go so far to say that the reason we see
conscious experiences of space is because there IS space. How else
could we have represented the actuality of physical space if not
through the conscious experience of space?
However certainty of experience does not provide certainty of the
physical referent, and worse THERE CAN BE NO CERTAINTY of physical
referent as certainty is the sole purvue of the conscious experience.
Thus claiming we see space because there is space is putting the
cart before the horse and is another case of very dangerous delusive
inversion.
It asserts that the nature of our consciousness is determined by
the nature of the physical universe. That consciousness EXISTS in
order to accuratly display the physical universe.
Eventually they will tell you that consciousness is MADE of the
physical universe, and a being is rolling around the drain to hell at
that point, the inversion is just too great to survive for long as a
causitive unit.
Love and shame can not of force and mass be made.
The truth is that consciousness had the ability to create
illusions of space (and time), and thus decided to employ the ability
in its game creation.
Actual space was never created, but the illusion of space between
looker and looked at was used to invite the idea that space did in
fact exist so beings could get lost playing in it.
I mean what fun is it knowing you have NEVER gone anywhere. You
couldn't get lost even if you wanted to.
You can't get lost when you ARE your home.
THREE DIMENSIONAL GEOMETRICITY
Out thereness is really just a subset of the 3 dimensions of
space.
Thus not only do you have here and there (depth), you also have
left and right (width) and up and down (height).
Now it might be pretty easy to see how here and there are
illusions, if you just consider the looker IS the looked at, but how
do you explain left and right or up and down.
I mean maybe there is no distance between you and the square you
are looking at, but the square is definitely a square and has a left
to right width of a foot or so.
So imagine that that the being is a light source, a source of
conscious light. And imagine the being has painted on himself a zero
dimensional point, a complete picture of the world all around him in
360 degrees.
Then imagine the painted up being is inside a perfectly mirrored
metal sphere.
The light leaves the being, gets colored as it goes through his
surface, heads out to the metal ball with the mirrored inside, and
reflects back off the mirrored surface and heads back to the being.
When the light reaches the being, he 'sees the world' that is painted
on him.
So seeing the world is like a being seeing himself in a spherical
mirror.
But now make the radius of the spherical mirror smaller and
smaller until it vanishes to zero. Thus the whole size of the being
plus mirror is zero. He is still going to see his own reflection lit
by his own self luminousness.
That's a really bad analogy but might help to understand how
something of no dimensions and thus no size, could none the less
project and reflect and see a multidimensional world of apparently
infinite size.
TIME
The last quality of the conscious symbol that is collapsed onto
the referent is timeingness, or change.
A physical universe machine can only be in a state. Since no
state proves the existence of a prior state with certainty, a machine
can never know with certainty that it is changing state! Thus a
machine can never know with certainty that time exists.
Yet consciousness certainly can know that not only does its
symbols exist, but they change! Thus the conscious looker assumes
that because he experiences time in his consciousness, there must BE
time in the physical universe referent.
So the five qualities of the symbol are
1.) Existence
2.) Certainty
3.) Color
4.) Out thereness, space
5.) Time
Each of these are then assigned to the physical universe
referent, even though the true referent may not have any of these
qualities at all!
What is the source of our zero dimensional conscious pictures?
Is it a multi dimensional physical universe as represented to us
in our looked ats, or is it perhaps something else entirely?
At 28.0 on the tone scale, the being descends down through
apparencies are reality.
The apparencies are the actualities of his conscious symbols,
existence, certainty, color, out thereness and time.
In going below apparencies are reality, the being considers that
his symbols refer to referents that actually have those qualities.
He forgets that he is dealing with the alleged referents solely
via his symbols, and eventually comes to consider that the symbols are
nothing, and the referent is the only something there is.
A meatball is a symbol that thinks it is made of the referent.
That's like a TV set thinking it is made of the stuff one sees
displayed in the TV set.
You can't get more inverted than that.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Sat Feb 17 23:49:47 EST 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jun 3 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore445.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)
iD8DBQFVbqdaURT1lqxE3HERApyGAKDFGvZ5zAfqaT1sD5JirfCHxcb3PgCeMkEg
zNacJLnXBc6mCSp2MGljwJ8=
=8/ZF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)