ADORE287 (fwd)

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

LRH talked about 8-8008, attaining infinite ability, by taking
the infinite ability of the MEST universe and reducing it to zero, and
the zero ability of the thetan and increasing it to infinity.

Yet little auditing addresses the issue of infinite charge.

The reality set that says we "live but once and die and that's it
bud," leads to infinite charge.

Specificially it leads to a loss of an infinite future, or more
correctly an infinite number of finite futures (whiles). You don't
want one girl friend forever, you want an infinite number of girl
friends for a while.

Get the idea of "girl friends never more," that's infinite
charge.

The charge created is not infinite in a static sense. However,
while mortal, the charge created in present time will always be bigger
than the pc.

Thus no matter how big the pc gets, the charge will always be
bigger than he. This scares the daylights out of the pc, he spreads
his wings to fly and gets crushed down without mercy, which makes him
feel regaining his immortality is impossible.

This state of the pc's charge always being bigger than the pc is
called the bank going up the bridge with the pc. Pc gets lots of
auditing and wins, bank is still bigger than he is, and there is no
end in sight period.

He gets disheartened, feels auditing works but will take forever
etc.

He becomes a squirrel trying to find a route that will make the
forever pass by faster and cheaper.

Well that's because the proper reality sets are not being
audited, in particular the mortal reality set, either his own or
others. Other's infinite charge will overwhelm him just as his own
will.

"Jesus Christ, look at all those meatballs!"

Bam, he's stuck, he just can't wrap his wits around infinite
charge, either his own or others.

That's why auditors who haven't ever been in this state can't
audit it, and can't help but ridicule it instead. Don't even bother
going to them, if they have never been in the state, they can't help
you out of it, they will just make you worse.

If you can't mockup being a meatball, you can't confront a
meatball. If you can't confront a pc, you can't help him, end of
story.

Of course there is no immortality to regain, timelessness is the
core nature of the being, of course he is going to 'live forever', but
not in time where forevers are detested, even pleasurable ones. (Spot
a detested pleasurable forever, until real on this point and why.)

"Everyone lives forever where there is no time.
No one lives forever wheer there is time.
Hurry is a waste of time.
The hurry of impending mortal doom obscures the hurry
of impending eternal doom.
Joke.
J.O.K.E. means Justice Of Kindship Excaliper. " - Adore.

The issue then is regaining his perspective on how he creates the
mortal reality set, regaining it in such a way that he doesn't
automatically make more charge the bigger he gets.

Remember a native state being is a total knowingness. That doesn't
mean he knows everything, it means he knows how to create anything. Theer
is no teaching him how to create. That's just built in, and part
of that built in is the mechanism of humor.

There is no creation without humor, and there is no humor
without creation.

Native State is the Imp Soul.

So humor is not a secondary thing. It is the driving impulse
behind manifestation.

Native state can create jokes forever for free, so once you get
him back to this area, it will lock on and flow. But he won't be a
human being any more.

He has to see the humor to the joke. This is a matter of
understanding.

LRH said that admiration was the universal solvent, this is true,
it is admiration of humor that does the trick.

Admiration = High Appreciation of Ludicrous Demise.

You *CAN'T* be happy in a one and only single while. People
without infinite futures don't have a present time either. The best
they can do is spend their one and only single while digging a grave
for them to cry themselves to death in at the end of the dig.

That is in fact the entirety of what your meatball is doing,
preparing a grave for himself of one kind or another.

It is a matter of understanding the joke, it is not a matter of
force. Using force to throw off a mortal bank will merely result in
infinite charge crushing you back down again.

Struggle or throwing a fit won't get you there.

Getting the joke is more like getting a nervous cat to come to
you and sit in your lap.

The pc has the qualms about laughing and crying.

Particularly never ending laughter and crying.

The pc has the qualms about locking onto Source point, and
flowing creation again.

Run,

Go to a funeral.

Try VERY hard not to laugh or cry.

E/P laughter and tears until absolute peace (and potential power
to create again.)

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

Wed Sep 14 01:49:06 EDT 2005

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Oct 16 03:06:02 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore287.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOmoJaURT1lqxE3HERApHQAJ9JiaDEwqFxrYtyD1QzdScWNwsdigCfVlaV
cdZf/cAwIGQaTTgutMZA4jc=
=msAA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--===============1478279532==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

--===============1478279532==--

SESSION ON SOVEREIGNTY

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

SESSION ON SOVEREIGNTY

SCI - 27

Copyright (C) 1992 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

I just came out of session running,

'Tell me about Sovereignty'
'What problem would it solve?'
'What problem would it present?'

'Tell me about Mortality'
'What problem does it solve?'
'What problem does it present?'

'Mortality' meaning the state of an immortal being who thinks he is
mortal.

I had a few cognitions on the subject of clearing technology and
whether it is a religion or a science or neither.

Suppose I am just walking down the street and one day I have this
big cognition to the effect that people are suffering from their past,
because they have managed to suppress efforts, emotions, ideas, and
personal responsibility on many of the subjects that hurt them during
their lives.

I also get the idea that if I could just get someone to TALK about
what they were suppressing, rather than suppress it, they would release
all those pent up efforts, emotions, ideas and irresponsibilities on the
subject and they would recover.

In otherwords I figure, maybe trying to nail out of existence all
this stuff for a whole life time leads to many persisting and perhaps
even deadly psychosomatic conditions in the body, heart, mind and soul,
and when someone is allowed to get it all off their chest and reevaluate
their present time, it all goes away and heals. Often with great
catharsis and relief.

Now this is nothing new, right?

You have heard it a million times before.

Ok, so being the bright little devil that I am, I devise one single
technique for producing the results I am looking for. That technique or
'technology' as I would prefer to call it consists of exactly two
questions asked over and over again until the catharsis happens and the
client is happy with the results.

This is evidenced by the fact that the client pays me and wants to
make an appointment for more.

Those two questions are,

'What suffering has there been?'
'What have you not said or expressed about that suffering?'

So I find a few people and experiment with these two questions on
them to see if it really works. Indeed it apparently does and so I form
a new group, the Psychoamelioriation Center for Advanced Healing.

I charge $50 an hour for my time, and I pay taxes.

Now one day I am running this process on someone and some nosey
onlooker hears,

Auditor: 'What suffering has there been?'
Pc: 'Well I have felt abandoned by God, and pursued by the
Devil, I don't want to die, but I have visions of
Immortality that scare the hell out of me.
Auditor: 'Thank you'

Auditor: 'What have you not said about that suffering?'
Pc: 'Well, I hate God, and I have confusions on mortality
and Sovereignty and surprise and scarcity of surprise etc.
and I haven't told anyone about this but I have started
my own religion called The Order of the Adorian Creed,
and I am afraid of getting out of my body and, uh, are
you SURE I should be talking about all this stuff? I was
doing just fine for years keeping it all to myself.

Auditor: 'Thank you, please continue...'
Pc: 'Oh well, oh yes and I used to do a lot of acid, and during
the last trip the whole world got kind of thin, and I
felt there was this huge thin veil hanging
between me and the universe, and if I ever tripped again,
well, that veil would drop and I would
be face to face with Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu, and I
decided I had better not do acid anymore...'

Auditor: 'Thank you.
Auditor: 'What suffering has there been?'

etc.

Now suddenly someone comes crashing into the room, and says 'See
you are talking about God, and the Devil, and Immortality and
Sovereignty (what's that anyway) and that's all about RELIGION now isn't
it, you slime dogs, I TOLD you so, therefore you ARE a religion, how
DARE you say you are a technology of psychoamelioration, HAH!'

But the facts are only that one client was talking about God and
the Devil and HE brought it up, not the practioner. Others talk about
the army or their physics teachers or their mother in law or Uncle
Charlie who raped them as a kid or whatever.

So the fact remains that when people are run on clearing technology
deep enough for long enough some eventually wax religious, or at least
divine and supernatural. They start to have visions of Beauty, and also
of great evil, of infinite good and divine humor.

Some of them even mention very furtively that they are not alone,
and that there are a number of other very unhappy beings in their space
and body.

Some clients contact something that they call Source which seems to
be the emanation point of tremendous unfathomable intelligence, and
power and purpose, and they begin to understand how they have been
operating that Source all their lives without skill or real
understanding, causing many bad effects that were unintended.

'Hey don't ask me, I just work here' says the practioner.

Other clients just straighten out their lives and go back to work
more able to get along with their bosses, or wives, or no longer
suffering from headaches, or various addictions.

However sometimes you do run into a bunch of advanced Clear
Techies, who are yapping away about supernatural things, and so
onlookers say, 'See you are a religion, we TOLD you so. (smug, smug,
smug.)

No. It just ain't true.

ADORE is a religion, A Divine Operating REligion.

That's MY religion.

Clearing Technology is a TECHNOLOGY for relieving what ever a
person has suppressed, not-ised or is not saying or not talking about.

If it turns out your client is a star maker from the Adorian Star
Class of beings, then so be it.

That don't make you or your technology a religion.

That makes HIM a religion.

Many others will just be auto mechanics or nuclear physicists.

But they're a religion too, they just have not applied for tax
exemption status.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Oct 15 03:06:02 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sci27.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFOmTDbURT1lqxE3HERAlOwAKDCQC+z/R9IazkT2xMBRro9stLU1wCbBG5G
yIa6cAh0w0ugRJSizYXrgYA=
=bilv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

COPYRIG4 (fwd)

Nick (nburkacki@nospamyahoo.com) wrote:
>Second: You are 100% on the money here, the question is, is it inevitable or
>will people wake up and begin to understand the situation we have here?

Dunno. The deeper question relates to the propensity to hand
force over to others so that they can protect one from bad guys.

You have the basic triangle of Victim, Villain and Hero.

The Victims who are scared of the Villain try to create a police
force to be the Hero. Now this is reasonable because mob rule is
terrible, so we agree to consolidate force in a trusted group ruled by
law. The primary *purpose* of law is to restrain the trusted group,
the government/police, by the way, not the sovereign citizen.

Law is the fabric that holds together *GOVERNMENT*, not the
society that elected it to govern. The sovereign citizen is not
morally beholden to uphold any law, even ones he voted for, but the
duly sworn government officials are, for they swore to uphold it.

So a police force is a good thing, but being a concentration of
power, criminals (morally bankrupt people) try to gain positions in
it. There is a direct relation between the power of the police force
and the number of criminals in it. Criminals ain't stupid.

The problem is with 'trusted groups' that have power. How do you
make sure that all the people in the trusted group are ethical people?
The ideal scene is a divine oligarchy.

But the world is full of criminals, who is so bright to not let
one through the personnel process? So one criminal sneaks through and
gets a job in the police force and the corruption is done, there is a
crack in the integrity of the group. That one lets in more, and
pretty soon the whole place is full of criminals.

There is no group or police force in the world that criminals
can't infiltrate. The ONLY thing in the way is whether the criminals
WANT TO or not. Why be a police man if the pay is poor? If the pay
is great, kick backs, forfieture, free drugs, control the law making
process etc, then it becomes very desirable. If the police force has
monitoring ability over the entire populace, then the criminals know
who is doing what, where the money is, and can command the sudden
death or demise of anyone that is a danger to them.

The more powerful the police force, the more desirable it is for
criminals to live there. That is the ONLY determining factor in
whether criminals live there!

So there is this balance point where handing over more and more
force to the 'Heros' suddenly has diminishing and even negative
returns. That is the balance point which our constitution was
designed to keep in mind.

People think they can push that balance point safely, they still
think the people in government and the police and their parents etc
are a divine oligarchy or close enough for all practical purposes.

*THIS IS REALLY STUPID*.

Giving the police force too much power is like putting out
cockroach food in your house and expecting all the cockroaches to
disappear.

The basic war of course is between freedom to communicate and no
freedom to communicate. One is not suggesting that total freedom to
communicate is a good thing, people have a desire for their secrets
etc for trade purposes, anything really.

So they negotiate for the 'rights' to have secrets with other
people by negotiating duties in those others to keep their noses out
of those secrets. A's right to a secret is B's duty to not trespass
that right. B then negotiates for something in return because every
duty is balanced by a right of its own, and A conceeds and everyone is
happy.

One of the things that A and B negotiate is the creation of C
which is the government/police force. Rather than use force
themselves to defend their duties and rights, they hand that job over
to C as a 'professional' in the matter of justice, because justice can
be a tricky matter and needs a professional touch.

Justice is a fair chosen operating balance of duties and rights,
and frankly it takes professionals to maintain that balance amongst a
society of 100 million people. So C has a job for life so to speak.

But because it is a job of force and control over others, it has
special allures of corruption, temptation and seduction that are very
attractive to bad guys who use force as their basic modus operandi.

A criminal is basically one who wishes to use force to force
others into unfair trades that are not fair chosen. They do this
either through direct force like at the point of a gun, or though
treasonous negotiations, making agreements they know they will never
keep etc. They violate the free society prime directive of knowing
willing free trade.

For example someone who buys a CDROM under the explicit promise
to not copy it and hand it out has acted in treason when he does. It
is quite in line for the artist to demand 'you don't copy this!'
before he sells his product to a consumer. Anyone can sell whatever
they want with whatever conditions or restraints on it they want. If
the consumer knows what he is buying and agrees to it, and then breaks
it knowingly, he is in treason, a form of criminality.

This may look like force was not used to make the transaction,
but the buyer is depending on being protected by distance, space, time
etc, to not be caught, which are all parts of Matter, Energy, Space
and Time, which are the component parts of force.

The other bad guys are the ones that simply stick a gun in your
face and say hand it over! Their basic intent is to overwhelm your
desire for a fair chosen trade with raw force.

Since criminals use force to do their deeds, it takes force to
stop them. Allowing the populace as a whole to use force to control
or punish criminality is problematic at best, so SOME of that force is
handed over to the government/police. Citizens are still allowed to
carry arms and shoot in self defense, but they arn't allowed for
example to chase after the bad guy and say "Stop or I will shoot!",
the way cops can.

A vigilante is someone who has on his own determinism
redistributed the roles of force between populace and the
government/police.

Each society has its own concept of how much power is taken from
the populace and given to the police force.

When too much force is handed over to the government/police and
taken away from the people, then the concentration of criminals
bubbling up into the government and police force, seeking sanctuary
and affluence in THEIR FORCE, reaches a critical mass and suddenly the
populace *CAN'T* fight back, they got no guns or position in space to
fight from any more. At that point the society can only be saved by
mass suicide/kamikazee, so the government or police force has no one
to rule any more and starves to death.

The populace has a moral duty to always maintain enough force in
its own hands so that should a *MAJORITY* of the populace decide that
the government needs to go, it can do so forthwith.

This tendency to create a police state is most embodied in those
trying to stiffle free communication in the name of protection.

What is special is the internet that has suddenly swung the
pendulum WAY over towards the area of total free speech with impunity.
People can still have their secrets, we aren't talking telepathy quite
yet, that will come, but they have lost the means of control over
distribution of information items.

Presently they can keep their information items to themselves
forever, but once they give an information item to one, they have
given it to all.

The reaction of course is to swing the pendulum way over to the
other side again of total no free speech, everyone moderated,
trackable or even better just plain silent, back to the one way pablum
push of the 50's. Big guys push the data they want to the little
guys, little guys can say nothing.

When was the last time in history some little guy in America
could say something and have EVERYONE in Russia read it the next day
in usenet news? Think about this until you get it.

But you can't just give push control over to the artists so they
can distribute their works to end users, and not give it to everyone,
for everyone is an artist and if everyone can push data (publish,
write, free speech) then we are back where we were, a free for all.

To prevent this free for all, we are back to where NO ONE can
push data, not even the artists, except the agreed upon monolithic
trusted group that proxy pushes for everyone else, the publishers.

Even the little artist that just WANTS to give it away can't,
because the trusted group is the only way communication CAN take place
now, and they gotta be paid no matter what. And if they don't like
your content, well tough luck.

Or if they consider it too expense to store and make your stuff
available because no one will buy it, more tough luck. Once art is in
the hands of those that will only push if it makes them money, then
art that doesn't make money doesn't get pushed.

*GOOD ART IS NOT NECESSARILY ONLY THE ART THAT MAKES MONEY*

For 10 cents a hit you can download a song and play it from
Microsoft, but e-mail doesn't work any more, usenet news doesn't work
any more, ftp doesn't work any more etc, so once you have that song
you can't do anything with it any more, even keep it and play it
again. They only license the song to you for a one time play and it
self erases. And they gotta have your credit card on record to charge
it automatically etc.

And the black market soars through the roof for tape recorders, and
the police state grows a whole department just to confiscate tape
recorders so that they can have them themselves. Police *HATE* being
poor. It's hard remaining ethical in that atmosphere.

Information owners want to *LICENSE* their songs to you, not SELL
them to you any more. Software has been doing that for a long time,
and putting music in the hands of software moguls is reaching for a
critical mass of magnitude, the whole society will just simply move
over the balance point into a police state over night and no one will
know until it is *WAY* too late.

It is one thing to make laws against copyright violations, it is
quite another to make the world such that copyright violations are
impossible.

Read that again, and dig it and don't leave it.

It is fine to punish people for posting copyrights on the
internet, but it is not fine to make the internet such that copyrights
can not be posted.

Do you see the difference.

*POLITICAL FREEDOM* is more important than *MARKET FREEDOM*.

For the price of a song, Bush jokes and laywer jokes and *ANY*
political commentary will become illegal.

You want that?

Just say NO to copyright holders.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 14 03:06:02 EDT 2011
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/copyrig4.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD4DBQFOl99aURT1lqxE3HERApMqAKCzFhMH22GgnNqEZ7khMLY0YwMkAwCXXX3E
8JfIWiC/bMPls+hxnWX3CA==
=OnVK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

QUALITIES, OBJECTS and CLASSES

QUALITIES, OBJECTS AND CLASSES

Lecture December 4th, 2005

This is a lecture given on December 4th, 2005, entitled Qualities,
Objects and Classes. ((Given to no one in particular, the class room was
empty when I gave it, but the blackboards learned alot!))

QUALITIES, OBJECTS AND CLASSES

There are qualities, objects and classes.

An object is that which is made of (has) qualities.

A quality is that which makes up an object.

It is considered that objects are a collections of qualities, and
classes are collections of objects.

The collection of qualities that makes up an object is called the
Object Quality Set or OQS for short.

The object quality set contains all the qualities that make up or
describe an object.

The object quality set is sometimes called the object description
set.

There is nothing about an object that is not in the object quality
set.

Objects are gathered together into classes because of qualities
that are common and unique to all the objects in the class.

The set of qualities that are both common and unique to a
particular class of objects is called the Pertinent Quality Set or PQS
of that class.

For example, brown is a quality, Joey, my dog, is an object, and
dog is a class.

The pertinent quality set for the class of dogs is what ever group
of qualities constitutes 'dogginess'.

Dogginess is probably difficult to specify exactly, but pertinent
quality sets don't have to be complex. The pertinent quality set of the
class of spheres, for example, is simply spherical.

Commonness means that every object in the class has all the
qualities in the pertinent quality set, all spheres are spherical.

Uniqueness means that only objects in the class have that pertinent
quality set as their pertinent quality set. Every object in the world
that is spherical is a sphere.

LABELS

Words are labels, symbols, for qualities, objects and classes.

Brown is a quality label.

Joey is an object label.

Dog is a class label.

QUALITIES OF BEING AND QUALITIES OF RELATION

There are two kinds of qualities that an object can have.

They are qualities of being and qualities of relation.

Qualities of being are those qualities an object has by virtue of
being alone.

Qualities of relation are those qualities an object has by virtue
of being unalone.

Existence is a quality of being. It is considered that an object
can exist alone even if nothing else in the world exists.

In particular we conclude that an object can exist whether or not
anybody knows it exists. Some objects may only exist when they are
known about, this does not change the fact that EXISTENCE is a quality
of being, even though it may depend upon a relation to a knower in order
to be.

FIVE KINDS OF QUALITIES OF RELATION

Qualities of relation fall into 5 basic kinds.

Spacial relations, temporal relations, material relations,
energetic relations, and causal relations.

For example, take a book, put it on a table. It now has a quality
of relation to the table in that it is on the table.

"The book is on the table", is a quality of both the book and the
table.

It is true of the book that the book is on the table, and it is
true of the table that the book is on the table.

Qualities of relation are thus equally true of both objects
involved. This is in part why a single object alone can not have any
qualities of relation!

THE FOUR FOLD TEST FOR QUALITIES OF RELATION

Further, qualities of relation can often be described by a
dichotomy of comparable and opposite magnitude, by an opposite quality.

For example 'the table is under the book' is an opposite quality to
'the book is on top of the table'.

Notice it is also true of the opposite quality that it is equally
true of both objects.

It is true of the book, that the table is under the book, and it is
true of the table, that the table is under the book.

Thus for any quality of relation we expect to find 4 equally
correct ways of describing the relationship.

It is true of the book, that the book is on top of the table.

It is true of the table, that the book is on top of the table.

It is true of the book, that the table is under the book.

It is true of the table, that the table is under the book.

In this way we can know for sure that a quality is a quality of
relation.

Spacial relations are of the form: on top of, under, next to, far
from, near, bigger than, smaller than, inside of, outside of, to the
left of, to the right of, in front of, behind, above and below, etc.

Anything that has to do with space or the spacial relationship
between two objects is a spacial quality of relation.

Temporal relations are relations that have to do with time: before,
after, and during are the 3 basic ones.

An object by the way can be defined as any moment of spacetime, or
any chunk of spacetime.

Notice that an object at one time, is a different object at another
time because they have two different object quality sets, even if its
time stamp is the only quality that changed.

Material relations are things like heavier than, lighter than, etc.

Energetic relations have to do with potential energy and kinetic
energy, faster than, slower than, hotter than, cooler than, etc.

Causal relations relate how objects affect, create or destroy each
other. Goober is the father of Dufus is a causal relation in a family
tree. A Rubic's Cube reflects light of certain frequencies is a casual
relation between the cube and the photons hitting it from the sun.

CAUSAL CHAINS AND PATHWAYS

Any two objects that affect each other have causal relations
between them.

A series of cause and effects is called a causal pathway or causal
chain. It may have an unprovoked instigator at the beginning of it, and
it may have a last event on the chain.

Notice that every separate spacetime event in a causal pathway is a
different separate object.

A process is defined as a single object undergoing a cause/effect
event resulting in a change of state or quality set.

STATEMENTS OF FACT

Statements of fact are statements of the form 'Quality belongs to
Object' or 'Object belongs to Class'.

We are going to concentrate on the first kind, quality belongs to
object.

Statements of fact do not have to be true, they are called
statements of fact to distinguish them from other kind of statements
such as commands, expletives, questions and anything else that might be
stated or said.

Notice a statement of fact is itself an object with qualities.

Statements of fact may be presented as symbols, words, or
may be taken as themselves as pure ideas even separate from a conscious
or mechanical knower. In other words, some things are true whether
or not anything exists at all to know it or state it.

For example if nothing existed, that would be true whether or not
anyone was around to know it, which there wouldn't be because nothing
existed. Thus the statement of fact 'Nothing exists' is true or false
regardless of whether anything exists or not.

The statement "Either something exists or nothing exists" is true
at all times for all people's and places, so it is an absolute truth.

TRUTH

Truth is a quality of relation between a statement of fact and a
given specified actuality.

In other words a statement of fact has to be compared against a
given specified actuality to determine whether or not that statement of
fact is indeed true, that is whether the object in question actually has
the quality as asserted in the statement of fact.

For example, the statement "My dog Joey is brown" is only true in
relation to my dog Joey, if he really is brown.

There are four kinds of statements of fact, and therefore four
kinds of truths.

There are logical tautologies that are true by virtue of being
logical tautologies.

Either something exists or nothing exists is logically always true.

There are definitional truths, that are true by definition, the
person has chosen to define them as true.

So when we claim that a symbol refers to a referent, know
that is true because we defined symbol as any object that refers
to a referent.

As an aside, we further *DEFINE* a referent and its symbol as any
two events that are causally related.

Intuitional truths which the person feels they are true mainly out
of some gut feeling that it couldn't be any other way.

Something can't come from nothing is an intuitional truth.

And observational truths, things that you have directly observed
and reported what you found, and have to do with the universe at
large.

Joey is brown is an observational truth, but notice it would be
true whether or not anyone had actually made the observation!

Unless you want to get into quantum mechanics.

LOGIC

Logic is the ethics of language.

Another example of a logical truth is something like "Either Goober
is a Christian or Goober isn't a Christian."

One of the two statements has to be correct because actuality
limits us to only two possibilities, Christian or not Christian.

You can be a Christian and a Jew, but you can't be a Christian and
a not Christian.

Logical tautologies are often of the form,

Either A or not A, or
A implies A, or
It is always the case that A or not A,
IT is never the case that A and not A.

Also certain syllogisms become logical tautologies if you accept
their premises,

All dogs are animals, Joey is a dog, therefore, Joey is an animal.

Also opposite syllogisms,

All dogs are animals, My pet rock is not an animal, therefore my
pet rock is not a dog.

Logical tautologies get their authority from the idea that IS means
IS, and IS NOT means IS NOT.

In other words IS does not mean IS NOT, and IS NOT does not mean
IS.

We can say this mathematically with the following:

IS IS IS
IS IS NOT IS NOT
IS NOT IS IS NOT
IS NOT IS NOT IS

One might think the above is either a silly logical truth about IS
and IS NOT or definitional truths to suit our mood of the moment.

Neither is the case, these are in fact direct OBSERVATIONAL truths
about the nature of IS and IS NOT. We took at look at something that
was and noticed that it wasn't wasn't. Thus the above word matrix on IS
and IS NOT is not an arbitrary creation, but a well justified
description of things that are.

Thus we have the description pattern of IS AND IS NOT which
observably applies to the actual universe we see around us, most
particularly our own consciousness. We are and we aren't aren't.

Anyone who says otherwise hasn't looked and is in fact wrong.

Some people like to confuse the matter by claiming there are
gradient degrees of beingness, that you can be somewhere between not
being and being, or be both not being and being, or be neither not being
and being.

Frankly either you be or you ain't, and that's a very important
part of the description of isness.

Its also a very important part of personal integrity.

Remember, logic is the ethics of language.

If you say something is and isn't, what have you said?

For example, if you say

All dogs are animals,
And Joey is a dog,
But Joey is not an animal.

what have you said?

Nothing of any meaning or import.

Contradictions carry no meaning, and thus are a waste of time
except to notice them when offered by language criminals, and those
engaging in dharma treason to cheat at winning philosophical debates.

You can always tell dharma treason, their sword is blunt,
and they claim to have cut you when they haven't.

OK, that's the end of this lecture.

Homer

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

Fri Nov 17 01:06:24 EST 2006

JUSTICE OF CHOICE

JUSTICE OF CHOICE

It is pretty clear that most of the psychosomatic stuff people are
walking around with is not of this life, but rather immortal hells of
their own or others they are pulling in on themselves to deal with the
blunt injustices of life that they have suffered and have occasioned on
others, in this life and prior, including inbetween lives.

One might claim that all these restimulations were done in this
life, thus auditing this life alone should be able to key them all out
again, but I would counter that the being was in a highly restimulated
state when he took on the body in the first place, and in fact the
assumption of the body was itself part of those immortal hells he was
stuck in before.

Immortally stuck in the hell of having to suffer mortal flesh over
and over again and not know it.

Thus our lives are in no way benign, we are here to suffer and
eventually perish as spiritual beings at the bottom of the tone scale.

We are not in the good hands of AllState.

However, since the whole thing is based on a stupidity, not a true
deservingness, it can be turned around for everyone.

In looking at our present sufferings then, and possibly recognizing
them to be a cave in of pre existing immortal hells, we need to consider
the possibility of a GOD, similar to the Christian God, from whom only
good flows, and from whom man flowed, but from whom all evil flows.

As an eternal being we are theoretically able to mock up any kind
of nonsense universe we wish, including the above mentioned scenario,
particularly in our lust for such hells that always arise.

It is perfectly conceivable that we mocked up a universe, with a
God who 'created' us, and got involved in the war between good and evil,
and annoyed our God a bit too much and got thrown into an immortal hell,
of one kind or another. Namely the one we are sitting in, in present
time, going to doctors for.

Doctors in this sense are the devil's minions, as they help us to
cover symptoms, but in the end hardly help us undo the source of our
sufferings.

In trying to run this out, one naturally tries to rebuild one's
relationship to that God, hey if he can throw us into a hell, he can
throw us into a heaven too. Maybe with a little humility and awareness
of God's purpose (which WE created), we could realign ourselves with
him, and stop making him wrong, and maybe on a good day he might forgive
us, and set our lives right.

But in trying to do this, one always runs into the problem of
CHOICE.

If God created us in the worst sense, (assuming we didn't mock him
up to do so), then we had no CHOICE in being created and thus no choice
in our existing.

For a being conceived in choice, and whose very nature is to make
choices, it would be odd that his very existence was based in NO choice,
or SOMEONE ELSE'S CHOICE.

"I exist because someone else wanted me to and created me for their
purposes."

If you didn't have a choice in your existence, then you would have
probably had no choice in needing to choose more after you existed, you
know, you gotta make choices just to survive in this universe.

So once you exist, making choices becomes mandatory whether you
want to make them or not.

Now maybe you didn't have to choose more after you were created,
maybe you could have just sat there forever doing nothing.

But could you have chosen to not exist if you had wanted to, to
just end it all forever?

So there may be a God, or a being playing God, or a being elected
to the post of God by the rest of us, but in all cases, the idea that
God CREATED us is problematic, because that starts our existence with no
choice, or the apparency of no choice.

Now if we are eternal beings, then we probably have no choice about
existing anyway, and also do we not have any choice about not existing,
because we can't not exist. I don't mean existing in time, I mean
existing period.

But we as good as have a choice to not exist in that we can choose
sleep and unimpingable unmanifestation for as long as we wish.

We do not need to not exist to be free, we do however need
unimpingable sleep for as long as we wish, to be free.

Sleep at least gives us the option to dream again and get
into trouble.

The problem with God then, is not that we didn't have a choice to
exist or not, but that our existence was dependent on SOMETHING ELSE'S
choice, and thus so is our non existence be similarly dependent.

What created us, can destroy us.

As an eternal being nothing created us, we simply existed forever,
and thus nothing can destroy us either.

But with a God, we didn't exist, then by his choice we
came to exist, and by his choice we can come to not exist again,
or not as his whim determines.

This is an ARC break of magnitude. Most beings are not willing to
admit it, because they are afraid of their God, a petty jealous tyrant,
to say the least, who detests the truth of himself most of all, and the
truth of his creatures who secretly hate him. And he is just vain
enough to miss it on them. Or to hold it against them if he manages to
notice the seething incandescent broil of hatred underneath their
smiling renditions of the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty".

But the truth is, being created is like being raped, only worse.

You couldn't have been raped until you were created.

If there is no choice in our existence, and no choice in the kind
of universe we find ourselves in, that creates a whole hell of a lot of
people walking around in a hot bed of charge on the subject of no
choice.

It's not the rape or the crucifixion that matters, its the prior no
choice in being there.

Even if one didn't choose the crucifixion, even if one wasn't even
vaguely appraised of the possibility of the crucifixion, the mere fact
that one had chosen to be in that arena and could have not chosen, makes
the crucifixion runable, where otherwise it never will be.

That goes for rape too, and any other childhood or adult injustice.

Because nothing will run until basic on the chain is resolved, and
basic on the chain of injustice is EXISTENCE IN THE HANDS OF SOMEONE
ELSE'S CHOICE.

That's the primary DONE TO YOU, you were MADE without a purchase
order.

Being created IMPLIES no purchase order.

Thus it is the aim of auditing to spot and run the purchase order
anyhow:

The choice to believe in no choice.

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
Mon May 30 10:58:19 EDT 2011

SELF EVIDENCE

SELF EVIDENCE

We know that data moves across space and time from event to event,
from object to object, same thing, by cause and effect. The cause from
an earlier event makes an effect, impression, imprint on a later object,
which then can be used to study the first object.

One thus learns about the original referent which sourced the data
in a causal messenger wave (ie photons), by looking at a symbol for the
referent, which is ANOTHER event or object a distance way, both in space
and in time.

Symbols are LATER in time from the referent, by the time the symbol
comes to be, the referent is gone, because its moment of time is gone.
Later times are new referents even if they look the same.

Let's call the referent R1, and as it is replicated through time,
R1 becomes R2, R3, R4, R5 etc.

Some time later when R1 has become R7, the cause wave hits the soon
to be symbol object changing its state according to the nature of R when
it was R1. At that moment when the symbol is impinged upon by R1, R1 is
completely gone, it doesn't exist any more. R1 has been replaced by R7
which the symbol doesn't know exists yet.

Thus the symbol can only track the PAST of the referent. By
tracking we mean changing state due to the nature of the referent a
while back.

The causal messenger wave sourced by the referent passes through a
remote object (namely the soon to be symbol) and changes it, thus the
symbole learns something about the referent, namely how the referent
caused the symbol to change state.

The rendition zone is the area of the symbol that was actually
affected, and the change itself is the rendition, or data imprint, that
is made on the symbol as a causal result of the referent.

It's pretty clear to see that learning about a referent by looking
at later effects in a symbol remote from the referent provides evidence
and theory about the referent, at best, total nonsense at worse.

One renders the nature of the referent on the symbol, namely on the
rendition zone of the symbol.

One interprets the nature of the referent from the rendition on the
symbol.

The referent 'teaches' something about itself to the symbol via
rendering something in the rendition zone of the symbol.

Referent -> Rendition -> Symbol.

The symbol and those observing the symbol, 'learn' something about
the referent, via interpretation of the rendition in the rendition zone
of the symbol caused by the referent.

Symbol -> Interpretation -> Referent.

This process of teaching and learning is called indirect
perception.

It is also clear that a conscious observer can't even see the
symbol unless the symbol has an effect on the consciousness of the
observer who then becomes merely another symbol in the chain of symbols,
as the causal messenger wave propagates through the observer out further
into space and time.

In this case the observer's consciousness is the rendition zone,
and the rendition is the conscious experiences the observer has as 'a
result of' the original referent.

The observer and his consciousness have become an effect of the
original referent.

Thus the symbol of final authority in any learning event must be
the observer himself, more specifically his consciousness, and its new
state as a result of the impinging cause originating from the referent.

But one is still left with the question how does a conscious
observer observe his own consciousness?

If a conscious experience like red and green are separate events
from the observer who sees these events, then again the imposition of
space, time, dimension, or difference of any kind between experience and
experiencer makes them two different objects, and thus there is no
direct contact between them.

Thus one would have to postulate yet another causal messenger wave
between conscious experience and experiencer and yet another rendition
zone in the experiencer that is NOT his consciousness, and yet another
rendition in the experiencer which is NOT his conscious experience.

You see this leads to an infinite regression.

Thus by reductio ad absurdum the postulate that experience and
experiencer are two different objects must be wrong.

Thus the being can see his own consciousness because he has direct
perception of it, because he IS IT.

He has allowed his conscious experience, which he can directly
perceive, to be enslaved to be used as a symbol for something else not
it, namely referents out in the alleged phyiscal universe.

Ultimately the process of learning about referents by looking at
symbols which are different from the referent must end somewhere, or
else we just have dominoes falling forever each one the effect from the
earlier one, and none of them certain about anything, because being an
effect does not prove there was a cause.

Thus we say that consciousness is self luminous, it can see itself.
because it IS itself, the seer and seen are one.

Thus the conscious experiencer is the same object as the conscious
experience of red and green, and it is a grand illusion that perceiver
and perceived, that the I and red and green, are two different objects
from each other.

This means that the conscious experiencer can see the referent
directly (his conscious experience) without having to look at or be yet
another later symbol.

Thus the original referent (red and green) BECOMES the symbol of
final authority, the I learns about the referent by looking at the
referent!

That is the definition of direct perception, looking at what you
are looking at, rather than something else representing what you want to
look at.

This is called a self symbolizing event, a referent that is also
its own symbol.

One could also call this a self referencing event, a symbol that is
also its own referent.

One could also call this a self evidential event.

"The existence of a fundamental operating actuality is self
evident." - Sufi

The existence of the referent is self evidence for its own
existence. One doesn't need to look at a later symbol to find out about
the referent!

But the only thing that could possibly be 'self' evident, is
whatever 'self' is.

For nothing can be self evident across a space time distance.

Thus anything whose existence or nature is self evident to you,
MUST BE YOU.

Thus you are anything you can see or experience.

That red and green out there, that's you looking back at yourself.

That's what you look like in a mirror.

Your consciousness is acting like a holographic mirror, and
everything you see in the mirror is just you, what you look like at that
moment.

Thus we conclude that self evident, self symbolizing, self
referencing and self luminous all mean the same thing.

Technically they all mean no separation between referent and
symbol, no two different objects referring to each other. One doesn't
learn about the referent by looking at ANOTHER symbol later in space and
time, one learns about the referent by looking at the referent directly
RIGHT HERE NOW.

It also means the referent and symbol are tracking each other IN
PRESENT TIME, in the NOW, thus there is no space or time between the
referent event and the symbol event.

Physical tracking between referent and symbol is always across a
space time distance, thus referent and symbol MUST BE two different
objects, and can only act as evidence and theory to each other.

Conscious tracking between experiencer and experience, looker and
looked-at, seer and seen, perceiver and perceived, is instantaneous, a
no time event, or else you couldn't see the perceived as it would
already be gone by the time 'it' got to you.

And this process of conscious learning is also called direct
perception.

There is more to self luminousness than mere self referencing or
self symbolizing events, and that is the difference between mere BEING
and KNOWING.

One could in theory have a self referencing chain of pure cause and
effect that effected only pure BEINGNESS.

Self luminousness adds KNOWING into the mix of mere self
referencing beingness.

Dominoes falling are a causal chain of mere beingness, nothing
knows anything, everything is simply in what ever state it is in, and
the various states change according to the cause wave moving through the
dominoes.

But no domino KNOWS anything, although its mere beingness could be
considered symbolic 'knowledge' about the nature of what caused it to
fall. But such knowledge would be unverifiable evidence and theory at
best.

So yes consciousness is self referencing, as there is a kind of
learning that is causeeffect in the same moment, but consciousness is
also self LUMINOUS, in that it knows what is causing it to know.

Consciousness can see not only the red and the green directly, it
can also see the causal agency between the red and the green and one's
certainty there are two different colors causing it to see that there
are two different colors!

That is quite impossible in a purely mechanical universe of parts
interacting via cause and effect across a space time distance.

That's because each effect can only see itself, and effect does not
prove cause.

The conscious universe, the perceiver can see the CAUSE AND THE
EFFECT and can see that the cause is indeed the cause of the effect.

Cause is existence of red and green.

Effect is certainty of two different colors, AND the certainty that
two different colors are causing the effect.

Homer

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Mar 2 03:41:21 EST 2010

DEVIL'S RELIGION II

THE DEVIL'S RELIGION

Fiddling the Devil's Tune, means preaching the Devil's Religion.

The Devil's Religion teaches:

That zero dimensionality does not exist and is not functional.

That multi dimensionality is not a dream.

That you can learn about cause by being an effect.

That two different objects can learn about each other with perfect
certainty.

That God and Soul are two different objects.

That a machine can care.

That a machine can learn with perfect certainty that space and time
and itself exists.

That we were created.

That the damned can not be saved.

That before you were created, you had no choice in being created,
and after you were created, you had no veto chioce in uncreating
yourself.

That you did not choose to be here.

That you did not invite others in.

That a being can not choose to forget that he has chosen to forget.

That you have no ability to make yourself unable.

That the desire to win is more important than the desire to play.

That knowing the anatomy of heaven and hell will not give you
control over them for yourself and for others.

That consciousness is made of meat.

That time lasts forever.

That each conscious unit is not bigger than the world.

That justice does not reign at all times.

That Eternality and Immortality are the same thing.

That the only three options are death forever, hell forever or
heaven forever in time.

That there is or can be separaton between God and Soul.

That the Soul is not an instantiation of the Multi I AM God in
carnation.

That all of existence is not God in carnation.

That the world is not the self luminous body of God glowing in the
dark of the void.

That something exists which you can not be directly conscious of.

That because you see and experience space and time, there must BE
space and time.

That because things look like they are out there, means that they
ARE out there.

That the conscious experience of space and time takes up space and
time.

That obedience takes precedence over conscience.

That we should subsume our consciences under the conscience of
another or a moral code or a law written by man.

That the law of the sky does not take precedence over the law of
the land.

That we have a moral duty to obey the law first and do what is
right second.

That we exist and live for someone else's plan.

That we should disown the damned.

That damnation does not result from disowning.

That the effort to disown another, does not result in disowning
one's self.

That our inability to help another does not result in our own
inability to be helped.

That it is not true that hells and heavens can last as long as we
want them to, but never forever.

That never and forever do not make the warp and woof of hell.

That people deserve to go to hell forever for the sins of one life.

That people deserve to go to hell for any reason whatsoever.

That 'deserve' is not a sarcasm.

That the loving fatherly thing to do is to let people run amuck
with no discipline, guidance, correction or interference, and then
torture the bad one's forever when they die.

That letting the guilty violate the innocent until the innocent
break and become guilty is divine wisdom in operation.

That we exist in order to be tested.

That we are judged by another.

That punishment is sane.

That the parent is not responsible for the sins of the child.

That the written word takes precedence over personal vision.

That looking by knowing is the same thing as knowing by looking.

That faith takes precedence over perfect certainty born of direct
perception.

That doubt in what we can not directly perceive is a sin.

That there is only one boat to cross the river.

That the only way to happiness is not a true confession of sins
against one's OWN conscience.

That every religion except yours is the Devil's Religion.

That there is such a thing as an innocent chronic victim.

That prayer to another works without damaging the flow of God power
through one's own self.

That you have a soul, rather than you are a soul.

That your self is not your conscious unit.

That your self is not a God unit, one of an infinite number of
individual I-Am's that together make up the High Us and the AllThatIs.

That the Soul is not Sovereign.

That the Soul would not write a false religion to lead itself
astray.

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
Sun Jan 4 02:02:43 EST 2009