-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
OBJECTIVE PROCESSES
Curiosus (curiosus@fastmail.fm) wrote:
>Objective processing is enforcing the agreement with the ordinary
>physical world, when you are talking about breaking that agreement.
I know you won't like this answer, but the end results of
objectives are really a function of whether they are run on you by a
meatball or a dream ball.
"Come into your body and operate it" will actually put a being out
of his body, cuz he has to be out to come in, *IF* it is run by someone
who is out of their body, and who has some understandings about where
and why the pc is in.
Otherwise if it is run by a meatball in mystery, it will put the pc
more in and less out.
Homer
>--
>Curiosus
>http://www.geocities.com/curiosus_2005/index.htm
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Dec 25 23:38:39 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 16 03:06:03 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore423.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQLJvcURT1lqxE3HERAsZDAKCRIw6eQ522Lq6BQ3Ss6y6Orjl7IwCdH7Md
XmELO9oefWV25UE4WM9k7VM=
=gZur
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
THE TRUE NATURE OF MISSED WITHHOLDS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE TRUE NATURE OF MISSED WITHHOLDS
ADO - 6
25 May 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The following is a theoretical underpinning for the discussion on
missed withholds that follows. If you don't buy this particular world
view, that's fine, it is only presented to help you understand the
material on missed withholds.
A being is basically an Operating Intention Unit. His basic action
is to cause things to exist, which amounts to creating knowledge, and
then to not know that he has done so, and then to indulge in the game of
learning what he created.
The being does this in tandem with other beings who are doing the
same, thus any being can create something to know, and other beings,
along with him, can play the game of learning what was created.
Thus the cycle of creation goes:
Create -> Survive -> Destroy
Knowledge -> Question -> Answer
The being creates things to know and then by not knowing that he
has done so turns this knowledge into unknowns or questions. The game
of course is to answer the question. Once he answers a question, that
particular game of answering that particular question is ended.
Actually he doesn't even know what questions there are any more,
so the game is to find (precreated) questions to answer, and then to
find answers to questions.
More technically the cycle looks like this,
Knowing - Looking - Not Knowing - Looking - Knowing again (Learning)
Creating Answers - Creating Questions - Answering Questions
KNOWING:
The being in Creator mode starts off with nothing and then
creatively causes something to come into existence by knowing it. In
this sense, knowing is a creative action because the created thing comes
to be true because the person KNOWS it is true. It is knowing something
into existence, literally.
We are not talking about creating fundmental truths that are true
no matter what, we are talking about creating CREATED truths that are
only true because something created them into existence.
LOOKING:
Once he has known something into existence he can then look at
it, knowing full well he just created it. Looking allows the being to
CHECK-OUT what he just created to make sure it got created exactly as
he originally knowed it into existence.
NOT KNOWING:
The Creator then indulges in NOT knowing about the created
knowledge or object and he hides it from himself or puts it in a far off
galaxy where he can run across it in a million years on some voyage of
discovery.
This is the transition from Creator to Creature.
LOOKING AGAIN:
Later, the person in Creature mode, runs into something he or
others have created in Creator mode, and he finds he doesn't know what
the thing is. Thus he takes to LOOKING at it carefully, inspecting it,
playing with it, experimenting with it, until he again knows what it is.
KNOWING AGAIN:
Thus the being in Creature mode begins to accumulate knowledge on a
vast scale concerning the universe that he is in.
This knowledge is originally created with Looking by Knowing, and
is eventually rediscovered with Knowing by Looking.
Looking by Knowing means the Creator is able to LOOK at something
BECAUSE he has just created it by KNOWING it.
Knowing by Looking means the Creature is able to LEARN about
something BECAUSE he is presently LOOKING at it.
Looking by Knowing and Knowing by Looking define the two basic
operating modes of Creator and Creature.
Creator = Looking by Knowing, or Knowing -> Looking.
Creature = Knowing by Looking, or Looking -> Knowing.
In SUMMARY:
In summary then, the being in Creator mode creates things to look
at by knowing them into existence. This is called Looking by Knowing.
The being in Creature mode rediscovers things to know by looking at
them until he learns about them. This is called Knowing by Looking or
Learning by Looking.
If one graphs this as,
Knowing -> Looking -> Not knowing -> Looking -> Knowing
it can then be said that the shift from Creator mode to Creature
mode is a shift from operating the first 3 items to operating the last 3
items. The middle item, not knowing, it shared by both sides, and is
the shift over point from Creator mode to Creature mode.
This then is the cycle of a game. The cycle of a game involves the
creation of knowledge to learn in Creator mode, followed by the process
of learning it in Creature mode.
From the above discussion it is apparent that a being is inherently
a knower, something that can know, either by creating knowledge and
things to know, or by learning about things already so created. Thus it
can be surmised that anything that fouls up a being's ability to know or
to learn, or to cause others to know or to learn, will be of great upset
to him.
One of the things that beings like to do is to share what they know
with others or to hide what they know from others.
This is all part of the warp and woof of games.
You communicate to your customers that you have a product, you hide
from your competitors how you made it.
Beings use the presence or absence of communication cycles in order
to indulge in sharing or hiding things they know from others.
For example, if a being learns something of value in the struggle
for survival, he will go to some effort to communicate this to his
friends. When they finally get the message they will send back to him
an acknowledgment so that the originating being can know for sure they
got the communication and so end cycle on the effort to communicate with
them, and so proceed to take up something new.
In the same way, if a being knows something that he does NOT want
others to know, he will go to some effort to NOT communicate it to other
people, and he will look for the absence of an acknowledgement from the
other person to verify to himself that in fact they do not know it.
Thus we have these two fundamental cycles of action in this game
universe.
The first cycle of action is the effort to communicate something to
another being, followed by the clear presence of a return
acknowledgement.
The second cycle of action is the effort to NOT communicate
something to another being, followed by the clear absence of a return
acknowledgement.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF THE RETURN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CAN NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED AS IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
VERIFICATION OF THE COMMUNICATION OR NON COMMUNICATION CYCLE THE BEING
IS INDULGING IN.
Without the clear presence or absence of a return acknowledgement
the being can not end cycle on his intention to communicate or not
communicate. He thus gets stuck in that cycle forever.
1. TRYING TO COMMUNICATE
If a being is trying to communicate something to another, and no
acknowledgement is forthcoming, the originating being will be left in
doubt about whether the other being got the communication or not.
He won't know if they know.
THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO SEND THE COMMUNICATION.
It's constantly LOOKING for the presence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.
He may even take to fabricating acknowledgments where there aren't
any just to end cycle on the deal.
He can't stand not knowing.
Once he gets a clear indication of the presence of a return
acknowledgement he is free to DO other things.
2. TRYING TO NOT COMMUNICATE
If a being is trying to NOT communicate something to another, yet
he is getting constant indications that indeed the other party is
getting the communication anyhow, the withholding being will be left in
a doubt about whether the other party is NOT getting the communication
or not.
He won't know if they know.
THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO STOP THE COMMUNICATION.
It's constantly LOOKING for the absence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.
He may even take to NOT-ISing possible acknowledgments where there
may be some, just to end cycle on the deal.
He can't stand not knowing.
Once he gets a clear indication of the absence of any return
acknowledgment, meaning that he has successfully prevented others from
knowing what ever he was hiding, he is free to DO other things.
If the being is ultimately unable to determine whether his
intention has been carried out, whether it be to communicate or to not
communicate, he will suffer a DECISION CYCLE FAILURE. He won't be able
to go on to DO other things, yet he won't know what to do about his
present problem.
He gets stuck instead in a question, 'Do they know? Do they not
know?' Since he can not answer that question, he can not DECIDE what to
do next and so he starts to build up charge.
He is like a man sitting at the fork of a road asking 'Should I go
right? Should I go left?' He's been there for a LONG time.
Eventually he makes a decision about his indecision which is
usually to bury it, where it will fester, continuing to create charge
for the rest of time.
This is like the same man who DECIDES to build his home at the fork
of the road and says 'there is no fork in the road, and there is nowhere
to go, and I have arrived where I wanted to go anyway'.
Thus when the being is unable to reach a CONCLUSION about whether
other's know or not, he is also unable to DECIDE what to do next.
A CONCLUSION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what is true.
A DECISION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what to do.
The failure of the conclusion cycle leads to a failure of the
decision cycle.
Now a being in good condition will have a balance of the Creator
and Creature modes within him. He will be creating some new things to
know, and he will be discovering other things already created by himself
and others to learn about.
If such a being gets stuck in a conclusion cycle of the form 'Do
they know? Do they not know?' he will put all of his attention into his
Creature mode trying to determine the answer to the question 'Do they
know or not?'
He is trying to know by learning and loses all interest in knowing
by creating.
He is not willing or able to just CAUSE others to know or not,
which would end his quandary; so he devotes more and more time to
Creature mode where he attempts to learn by looking whether the other
party knows or not.
What he is LOOKING for is the presence or absence of a return
acknowledgment.
The long term end result of this is the being becomes incapable of
Creator modes at all, and is totally swimming in failed Creature modes.
They are failed Creature modes in that he is trying to learn by
looking whether they know or not, but can't, so he is never able to make
a decision as to what to DO next, so he never gets on with this life or
the game.
This is what Hubbard referred to as 'being stuck in a decision in
the past.' He is still there trying to draw a conclusion and make a
decision.
'Do they know or don't they know?'
Since at a high enough state two beings can see each other's
pictures anyway, not knowing whether someone else knows something is
rather silly. Thus strenuous involvement in such efforts to know if
they know, leads to a dwindling spiral of less and less direct
perception of others and what they do and do not know, and eventually to
total aloneness.
This is 'spiritual death' at the bottom of the tone scale.
Such conclusion cycle failures invalidate the being's basic
causativeness over life by invalidating his CREATIVE causative
knowingness, his ability to bring about certain knowledge in others by
creating it so, and also invalidates his ability to learn by looking,
specifically by looking directly into the minds of others.
That's why missed withholds make you DUMB.
A being who is hiding something and yet is wondering if others
know, can always end cycle on his quandary by just outright informing
the other party of what he did. You see that is ending the endless
knowing by looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing
cycle, you just CAUSE them to know, and poof no more doubt. Of course
you might get executed.
But you wouldn't be in doubt any more and you could get on with
your life. Being parked at a fork in the road is a waste of time to an
Immortal Being.
Likewise if a being is trying to get something across to someone
and yet is wondering if they have gotten it or not, he can always end
cycle on his quandary by outright NOT informing the other party of what
he wanted them to know. You see that is ending the endless knowing by
looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing cycle, you
just CAUSE them to NOT know, and poof no more doubt. Of course you
might get executed.
The point is that the correct answer to any endless failure of the
knowing by looking cycle is to exercise a causative looking by knowing
cycle and take your lumps with the consequences.
The consequences are never as bad as staying in a learning by
looking quandary for the rest of time.
THAT'S HELL. It's better to be executed.
Executions end, Hell's don't.
Mortal's by the way can always be counted upon to make the wrong
choice. That's why you always find them parked so far into their
reactive minds (their 'Bank').
Their Bank is the home they built for themselves at the fork in the
road, snarling guard dogs and all.
So there are two kinds of missed withholds when looked at in this
light.
There are those things you wanted others to know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a POSITIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.
There are those things you wanted others to NOT know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a NEGATIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.
It is this last one that most people consider the missed withhold.
You do something bad, someone almost finds out, you are left unsure
if they did or not.
One day you are smoking in your bedroom, and you know you are not
supposed to be smoking. You hear your mother coming up the stairs and
you quickly throw the cigarette out the window. She comes in the room,
and looks around, sniffing the air, and says 'boy does it smell in here,
your sneakers need washing?'
So here is something that you wanted to NOT communicate to your
mother, namely that you were smoking a cigarette. Surely she couldn't
have possibly missed the smell or misidentified it. Yet she would have
had your hide if she thought you were smoking. So what's going on?
Does she know, or doesn't she know?
Positive missed withholds are important too.
You try to communicate something to someone, and you just never can
figure out if they got it or not.
One day you go up to your boy friend, and you tell him that you
love him and want to marry him. He says, 'Oh sure dear, that's fine.'
Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside you or is he missing the enormity of your
statement?
Wonder, wonder, wonder...
Positive missed withholds can also happen when people are trying to
confess negative withholds.
You go up to a minister on the street one night wringing your hands
and looking really distraught and you say, 'I killed my wife last night,
what should I do?' and he says, 'Thank you for telling me that, why
don't you get some sleep?'
Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside YOU or did he miss significance of the
communication?
Wonder, wonder, wonder...
So withholds can get missed even when people are desperately trying
to confess them. You say 'I feel like killing myself' and someone says
'Yeah, I know EXACTLY what you mean, life can do that to you. Don't
worry about it, I read in Psychology Today that we all feel that way
sometimes.'
Bang. The withhold was not communicated. This is deadly.
This can be particularly bad in session where bad auditing can
cause the preclear to have a DOUBLE missed withhold.
PC = Pre Clear, one who is not yet clear.
AUDITOR = One who is applying clearing to a pre clear to help
them become more clear.
Pc: 'You know you haven't been very warm to me recently, I guess I
have something to confess, and I have been wondering for a few days
whether or not you already know, so here it is... I have been sleeping
with your girl friend.'
Auditor: 'Ok, now we are going to take up your relationship with
your mother...'
Double Bang. The PC has a clearly missed severe negative
withhold from the Auditor, and he brings himself to tell the Auditor,
and the Auditor acts like he didn't even hear it, so now its a
positive missed withhold too!
'Did he know, didn't he know?' (negative missed withhold)
'DOES he know, DOESN'T he know?' (Positive missed withhold)
'Yipes!'
So in auditing you are looking for those moments of WONDER when the
person was unable to DETERMINE if the other person knows or not.
You see even the word 'determine' has this two tiered meaning.
To determine can mean to CAUSE to come into being.
"The ability to determine one's own future."
To determine can also mean to LEARN about what has already been
caused to come into being.
"The ability to determine the past."
So this whole Creator mode - Creature mode thing is built into the
very fabric of our language.
Determination can mean being determined to CAUSE, or it can mean a
determination, what was gleaned through learning by looking.
The first kind of determination is Creator mode and the second kind
of determination is Creature mode.
Creator determination is Creation arising from from Knowing,
Creature determination is Knowing arising from Creation, learning by
looking at what was already created.
Thus the being gets caught up in his failure to determine (find
out) whether others know or not, and he also fails to causatively
determine them into knowing or not knowing, and so he slowly goes crazy,
as BOTH Creature mode AND Creator mode are on hold in an inconclusion,
followed by an indecision.
So what you are looking for are those times your preclear tried to
communicate something to someone but is still wondering whether they
know or not, and also those times your preclear tried to NOT communicate
something to someone and is still wondering if they know or not.
Watch out for the can't believe its: 'I can't believe they don't
know' or 'I can't believe they found out', as these leave him in an
incredibility which stops his mind cold.
The anatomy of an incredibility is:
Certainty something is true, and
Certainty something is impossible.
Each one of these conclusion failures will be followed by a
decision failure, because being unable to determine whether they know or
not, your preclear was then unable to determine what to DO next in his
life.
He is still sitting there swimming in not know and unable to know,
and UNWILLING TO CAUSE KNOWING OR NOT KNOWING IN OTHERS outright to end
his conclusion failure.
So of course his life goes nowhere, either in parts or en masse.
So here is one way that this could be run.
Positive Missed Withholds:
'Who or what are you wondering might NOT know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might not know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might not know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'
Negative Missed Withholds:
'Who or what are you wondering might know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'
Instead of 'wondering' you can use 'worried' or 'concerned' or what
ever else indicates to your preclear.
'Who are you worried might know something about you?'
'Who are you worried might NOT know something about you?'
'Who are you concerned might know something about you?'
'Who are you concerned might NOT know something about you?'
etc.
Does she know how much you hate her?
Does she know how much you love her?
For a wider run, you can leave off the 'about you?'
'Who are you wondering might know something?'
etc.
There is no rote way to run this, run which ever questions bite and
your PC is interested in. Switch back and forth between positive and
negative missed withholds as needed.
Remember you the auditor and your preclear don't make case gain
together by doing it RIGHT, you make case gain by DOING it.
Run this alternately and repetitively, until the PC has spotted all
of his missed withholds. He will come up with more later, so this can
be run over and over again as needed.
This will turn on a LOT of anxiety. That means its biting.
As long a there is anxiety on the case, chances are there is more
to find.
Don't expect to get it all in one day.
Expect it to get pretty fantastical. Mundane human life ain't the
source of your case.
If you are co-auditing, run it back and forth on each other.
Running this on someone will open up your own case so that when
they run it on you there will be stuff to find, and visa versa. Many
processes are dead ends when audited in only one direction, but continue
to run forever when run back and forth between two people.
Auditing others and being audited are BOTH auditing.
If you miss a positive or negative withhold on your PC, if you put
them into doubt about whether you know or not, they will ARC break on
you, get pissed off in other words. You can run any ARC break at any
time with something like,
ARC = Affinity, Reality, Communication, Understanding.
ARC break = a sudden sundering of such.
'What didn't I know about you that I should have?'
'What should I have known?'
'What weren't you sure I knew?'
'What wasn't known?'
'What don't I have any idea of that you wish I did?'
'What would you like me to know about you?'
Remember an ARC break is ALWAYS caused by the MISSING of a positive
or negative withhold. The ARC break IS their wondering if you know or
not. It is an ARC break with themselves for no longer being able to
just cause you to know or not know, and know that they have.
So asking the PC 'What are you wondering if I know or not?' will
nail it.
Once the ARC break is clean, the PC will forgive you and be able to
go back into session easily. If the PC is still hedging inside, they
still have something they wish you knew but aren't sure you do, or wish
you didn't know but think you might.
When a pc is afraid there is something you might know about him,
it's usually because the pc is afraid there is something you DON'T know
about him.
In other words he doesn't want to let you know about him, until he
is sure you know something else about him!
"What would I have to know about you to let you be willing to let
me know everything about you?"
Thus negative missed withholds become difficult to pull to the
degree that the pc has positive missed withholds too.
IT IS THE PC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL THE AUDITOR IF THEY ARE ARC
BROKEN, AND IT IS A HIGH CRIME FOR THE PC TO CONTINUE TO PRETEND TO RUN
A PROCESS WHEN REALLY THEY ARE WISHING THE AUDITOR KNEW SOMETHING.
It is the Auditor's responsibility to make sure that the PC lives
up to his or her own Preclear Code. And it is the Preclear's
responsibility to make sure that the Auditor lives up to his or her own
Auditor's Code.
The Auditor's Code and the Preclear's Code are contracts that both
parties enter into willingly and with full responsibility. Each is a
bargaining tool for the other. The Auditor offers to follow the
Auditor's Code as set out by the Preclear, and in exchange the Preclear
offers to follow the Preclear's Code as set out by the Auditor.
Remember any PC WANTS to confess all their negative withholds, but
they are unsure you are a safe space, so really they only become
recalcitrant to discuss what they are hiding once they become unsure
that you don't know something that you should.
You can run,
'What would I need to know for you to feel good about my auditing
you?'
'What would I need to be, do, have or know for you to be willing to
communicate to me on this subject?'
or some such variant. You will surely figure out your own
questions once the understanding of all this bites on you.
You know a hefty portion of this material is just to get the
Auditor and PC in session with each other. This doesn't mean that this
stuff isn't deep auditing or won't blow your case to Kingdom come, but
if the Auditor and PC are chary of each other, they will have to go
through these little trials by fire in the beginning no matter what.
Auditing safe or polite material is a waste of time.
No auditing process known to man will stay safe or polite for long,
and if you aren't willing to communicate when the withholds start
showing up and the going gets hot, the process will stop dead in its
tracks. You can continue to pretend to give answers, but you will lose
what case gain you made, as each false answer after the withhold is an
overt act, and becomes another MISSED withhold.
As the PC, you will be looking at your Auditor thinking to
yourself, 'What a dumb turkey, how come he doesn't know I just stopped
myself from taking about something? How could he NOT know!?"
Although the auditor will often do something that makes the
preclear think they auditor might know, truth is, if the preclear thinks
the auditor SHOULD know or have found out, the PRECLEAR will miss the
withhold on himself out of the blue just by starting to wonder on it.
You know sessionability is not just a matter of the PC. Sure if
the PC is unhappy or unwilling to talk to the Auditor, then of course no
auditing will take place. But if the Auditor doesn't like the PC, or if
the Auditor is afraid the PC will bring up the Auditor's recent affair
with the neighbor's dog, then no auditing will take place either.
It is vitally important that the Auditor be as willing to talk to
be PC as the PC is willing to talk to the Auditor.
Auditing is not a one way confession.
Especially during a co audit, where both will be PC and both will
be Auditor.
If the person who is doing the auditing develops a withhold that
they will have to give up to the PC when the tables are turned, then
that withhold will prevent the Auditor from auditing the PC as well as
he could while he is still being the auditor.
His attention will be in the future when he must face his own
session and not on the PC in present time. Thus the acknowledgments
that the Auditor gives will all be lacking, as he won't be completely
there for the PC.
Thus it is just as important that the Auditor be able to talk to
the PC as it is that the PC be able to talk to the Auditor.
No one is really even asking you to give up having affairs with the
neighbor's dog, just so long as you can TALK about it freely to your PC
or Auditor.
If you can't talk about it freely with your PC or Auditor, don't do
it. You gotta have a full disclosure relationship with at least ONE
living human being on Earth to remain sane.
Auditing is a walk towards a group mind, where each being
intimately knows immediately everything about everyone in the group.
This is a form of telepathic co union.
The minute two people don't want to share every detail of
themselves, they are walking towards some other goal AND CASE GAIN WILL
CEASE, for there is no freedom in hiing in telepathic isolation.
Sometimes its just too much to expect auditor and pc to swap back
and forth this way, so you get a three some going, each one auditing the
other, and that way everyone's secrets remain secure.
If two people can run these withhold processes totally flat on each
other to a point where there is NO ANXIETY about communicating about any
subject to each other, they will have attained a new and totally
brilliant state in the history of the human race.
It's worth dreaming of, and striving for, even if there is a whole
mess of human emotion and reaction in between.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Aug 15 03:06:03 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado6.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQK0pbURT1lqxE3HERArOeAJ9q5UVk1hDlogIauZH3TcTz8p/zDgCfeRmH
YG8m/KuHjWeJqmwVf8VjIvo=
=g3Nr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE TRUE NATURE OF MISSED WITHHOLDS
ADO - 6
25 May 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The following is a theoretical underpinning for the discussion on
missed withholds that follows. If you don't buy this particular world
view, that's fine, it is only presented to help you understand the
material on missed withholds.
A being is basically an Operating Intention Unit. His basic action
is to cause things to exist, which amounts to creating knowledge, and
then to not know that he has done so, and then to indulge in the game of
learning what he created.
The being does this in tandem with other beings who are doing the
same, thus any being can create something to know, and other beings,
along with him, can play the game of learning what was created.
Thus the cycle of creation goes:
Create -> Survive -> Destroy
Knowledge -> Question -> Answer
The being creates things to know and then by not knowing that he
has done so turns this knowledge into unknowns or questions. The game
of course is to answer the question. Once he answers a question, that
particular game of answering that particular question is ended.
Actually he doesn't even know what questions there are any more,
so the game is to find (precreated) questions to answer, and then to
find answers to questions.
More technically the cycle looks like this,
Knowing - Looking - Not Knowing - Looking - Knowing again (Learning)
Creating Answers - Creating Questions - Answering Questions
KNOWING:
The being in Creator mode starts off with nothing and then
creatively causes something to come into existence by knowing it. In
this sense, knowing is a creative action because the created thing comes
to be true because the person KNOWS it is true. It is knowing something
into existence, literally.
We are not talking about creating fundmental truths that are true
no matter what, we are talking about creating CREATED truths that are
only true because something created them into existence.
LOOKING:
Once he has known something into existence he can then look at
it, knowing full well he just created it. Looking allows the being to
CHECK-OUT what he just created to make sure it got created exactly as
he originally knowed it into existence.
NOT KNOWING:
The Creator then indulges in NOT knowing about the created
knowledge or object and he hides it from himself or puts it in a far off
galaxy where he can run across it in a million years on some voyage of
discovery.
This is the transition from Creator to Creature.
LOOKING AGAIN:
Later, the person in Creature mode, runs into something he or
others have created in Creator mode, and he finds he doesn't know what
the thing is. Thus he takes to LOOKING at it carefully, inspecting it,
playing with it, experimenting with it, until he again knows what it is.
KNOWING AGAIN:
Thus the being in Creature mode begins to accumulate knowledge on a
vast scale concerning the universe that he is in.
This knowledge is originally created with Looking by Knowing, and
is eventually rediscovered with Knowing by Looking.
Looking by Knowing means the Creator is able to LOOK at something
BECAUSE he has just created it by KNOWING it.
Knowing by Looking means the Creature is able to LEARN about
something BECAUSE he is presently LOOKING at it.
Looking by Knowing and Knowing by Looking define the two basic
operating modes of Creator and Creature.
Creator = Looking by Knowing, or Knowing -> Looking.
Creature = Knowing by Looking, or Looking -> Knowing.
In SUMMARY:
In summary then, the being in Creator mode creates things to look
at by knowing them into existence. This is called Looking by Knowing.
The being in Creature mode rediscovers things to know by looking at
them until he learns about them. This is called Knowing by Looking or
Learning by Looking.
If one graphs this as,
Knowing -> Looking -> Not knowing -> Looking -> Knowing
it can then be said that the shift from Creator mode to Creature
mode is a shift from operating the first 3 items to operating the last 3
items. The middle item, not knowing, it shared by both sides, and is
the shift over point from Creator mode to Creature mode.
This then is the cycle of a game. The cycle of a game involves the
creation of knowledge to learn in Creator mode, followed by the process
of learning it in Creature mode.
From the above discussion it is apparent that a being is inherently
a knower, something that can know, either by creating knowledge and
things to know, or by learning about things already so created. Thus it
can be surmised that anything that fouls up a being's ability to know or
to learn, or to cause others to know or to learn, will be of great upset
to him.
One of the things that beings like to do is to share what they know
with others or to hide what they know from others.
This is all part of the warp and woof of games.
You communicate to your customers that you have a product, you hide
from your competitors how you made it.
Beings use the presence or absence of communication cycles in order
to indulge in sharing or hiding things they know from others.
For example, if a being learns something of value in the struggle
for survival, he will go to some effort to communicate this to his
friends. When they finally get the message they will send back to him
an acknowledgment so that the originating being can know for sure they
got the communication and so end cycle on the effort to communicate with
them, and so proceed to take up something new.
In the same way, if a being knows something that he does NOT want
others to know, he will go to some effort to NOT communicate it to other
people, and he will look for the absence of an acknowledgement from the
other person to verify to himself that in fact they do not know it.
Thus we have these two fundamental cycles of action in this game
universe.
The first cycle of action is the effort to communicate something to
another being, followed by the clear presence of a return
acknowledgement.
The second cycle of action is the effort to NOT communicate
something to another being, followed by the clear absence of a return
acknowledgement.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF THE RETURN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CAN NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED AS IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
VERIFICATION OF THE COMMUNICATION OR NON COMMUNICATION CYCLE THE BEING
IS INDULGING IN.
Without the clear presence or absence of a return acknowledgement
the being can not end cycle on his intention to communicate or not
communicate. He thus gets stuck in that cycle forever.
1. TRYING TO COMMUNICATE
If a being is trying to communicate something to another, and no
acknowledgement is forthcoming, the originating being will be left in
doubt about whether the other being got the communication or not.
He won't know if they know.
THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO SEND THE COMMUNICATION.
It's constantly LOOKING for the presence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.
He may even take to fabricating acknowledgments where there aren't
any just to end cycle on the deal.
He can't stand not knowing.
Once he gets a clear indication of the presence of a return
acknowledgement he is free to DO other things.
2. TRYING TO NOT COMMUNICATE
If a being is trying to NOT communicate something to another, yet
he is getting constant indications that indeed the other party is
getting the communication anyhow, the withholding being will be left in
a doubt about whether the other party is NOT getting the communication
or not.
He won't know if they know.
THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO STOP THE COMMUNICATION.
It's constantly LOOKING for the absence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.
He may even take to NOT-ISing possible acknowledgments where there
may be some, just to end cycle on the deal.
He can't stand not knowing.
Once he gets a clear indication of the absence of any return
acknowledgment, meaning that he has successfully prevented others from
knowing what ever he was hiding, he is free to DO other things.
If the being is ultimately unable to determine whether his
intention has been carried out, whether it be to communicate or to not
communicate, he will suffer a DECISION CYCLE FAILURE. He won't be able
to go on to DO other things, yet he won't know what to do about his
present problem.
He gets stuck instead in a question, 'Do they know? Do they not
know?' Since he can not answer that question, he can not DECIDE what to
do next and so he starts to build up charge.
He is like a man sitting at the fork of a road asking 'Should I go
right? Should I go left?' He's been there for a LONG time.
Eventually he makes a decision about his indecision which is
usually to bury it, where it will fester, continuing to create charge
for the rest of time.
This is like the same man who DECIDES to build his home at the fork
of the road and says 'there is no fork in the road, and there is nowhere
to go, and I have arrived where I wanted to go anyway'.
Thus when the being is unable to reach a CONCLUSION about whether
other's know or not, he is also unable to DECIDE what to do next.
A CONCLUSION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what is true.
A DECISION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what to do.
The failure of the conclusion cycle leads to a failure of the
decision cycle.
Now a being in good condition will have a balance of the Creator
and Creature modes within him. He will be creating some new things to
know, and he will be discovering other things already created by himself
and others to learn about.
If such a being gets stuck in a conclusion cycle of the form 'Do
they know? Do they not know?' he will put all of his attention into his
Creature mode trying to determine the answer to the question 'Do they
know or not?'
He is trying to know by learning and loses all interest in knowing
by creating.
He is not willing or able to just CAUSE others to know or not,
which would end his quandary; so he devotes more and more time to
Creature mode where he attempts to learn by looking whether the other
party knows or not.
What he is LOOKING for is the presence or absence of a return
acknowledgment.
The long term end result of this is the being becomes incapable of
Creator modes at all, and is totally swimming in failed Creature modes.
They are failed Creature modes in that he is trying to learn by
looking whether they know or not, but can't, so he is never able to make
a decision as to what to DO next, so he never gets on with this life or
the game.
This is what Hubbard referred to as 'being stuck in a decision in
the past.' He is still there trying to draw a conclusion and make a
decision.
'Do they know or don't they know?'
Since at a high enough state two beings can see each other's
pictures anyway, not knowing whether someone else knows something is
rather silly. Thus strenuous involvement in such efforts to know if
they know, leads to a dwindling spiral of less and less direct
perception of others and what they do and do not know, and eventually to
total aloneness.
This is 'spiritual death' at the bottom of the tone scale.
Such conclusion cycle failures invalidate the being's basic
causativeness over life by invalidating his CREATIVE causative
knowingness, his ability to bring about certain knowledge in others by
creating it so, and also invalidates his ability to learn by looking,
specifically by looking directly into the minds of others.
That's why missed withholds make you DUMB.
A being who is hiding something and yet is wondering if others
know, can always end cycle on his quandary by just outright informing
the other party of what he did. You see that is ending the endless
knowing by looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing
cycle, you just CAUSE them to know, and poof no more doubt. Of course
you might get executed.
But you wouldn't be in doubt any more and you could get on with
your life. Being parked at a fork in the road is a waste of time to an
Immortal Being.
Likewise if a being is trying to get something across to someone
and yet is wondering if they have gotten it or not, he can always end
cycle on his quandary by outright NOT informing the other party of what
he wanted them to know. You see that is ending the endless knowing by
looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing cycle, you
just CAUSE them to NOT know, and poof no more doubt. Of course you
might get executed.
The point is that the correct answer to any endless failure of the
knowing by looking cycle is to exercise a causative looking by knowing
cycle and take your lumps with the consequences.
The consequences are never as bad as staying in a learning by
looking quandary for the rest of time.
THAT'S HELL. It's better to be executed.
Executions end, Hell's don't.
Mortal's by the way can always be counted upon to make the wrong
choice. That's why you always find them parked so far into their
reactive minds (their 'Bank').
Their Bank is the home they built for themselves at the fork in the
road, snarling guard dogs and all.
So there are two kinds of missed withholds when looked at in this
light.
There are those things you wanted others to know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a POSITIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.
There are those things you wanted others to NOT know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a NEGATIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.
It is this last one that most people consider the missed withhold.
You do something bad, someone almost finds out, you are left unsure
if they did or not.
One day you are smoking in your bedroom, and you know you are not
supposed to be smoking. You hear your mother coming up the stairs and
you quickly throw the cigarette out the window. She comes in the room,
and looks around, sniffing the air, and says 'boy does it smell in here,
your sneakers need washing?'
So here is something that you wanted to NOT communicate to your
mother, namely that you were smoking a cigarette. Surely she couldn't
have possibly missed the smell or misidentified it. Yet she would have
had your hide if she thought you were smoking. So what's going on?
Does she know, or doesn't she know?
Positive missed withholds are important too.
You try to communicate something to someone, and you just never can
figure out if they got it or not.
One day you go up to your boy friend, and you tell him that you
love him and want to marry him. He says, 'Oh sure dear, that's fine.'
Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside you or is he missing the enormity of your
statement?
Wonder, wonder, wonder...
Positive missed withholds can also happen when people are trying to
confess negative withholds.
You go up to a minister on the street one night wringing your hands
and looking really distraught and you say, 'I killed my wife last night,
what should I do?' and he says, 'Thank you for telling me that, why
don't you get some sleep?'
Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside YOU or did he miss significance of the
communication?
Wonder, wonder, wonder...
So withholds can get missed even when people are desperately trying
to confess them. You say 'I feel like killing myself' and someone says
'Yeah, I know EXACTLY what you mean, life can do that to you. Don't
worry about it, I read in Psychology Today that we all feel that way
sometimes.'
Bang. The withhold was not communicated. This is deadly.
This can be particularly bad in session where bad auditing can
cause the preclear to have a DOUBLE missed withhold.
PC = Pre Clear, one who is not yet clear.
AUDITOR = One who is applying clearing to a pre clear to help
them become more clear.
Pc: 'You know you haven't been very warm to me recently, I guess I
have something to confess, and I have been wondering for a few days
whether or not you already know, so here it is... I have been sleeping
with your girl friend.'
Auditor: 'Ok, now we are going to take up your relationship with
your mother...'
Double Bang. The PC has a clearly missed severe negative
withhold from the Auditor, and he brings himself to tell the Auditor,
and the Auditor acts like he didn't even hear it, so now its a
positive missed withhold too!
'Did he know, didn't he know?' (negative missed withhold)
'DOES he know, DOESN'T he know?' (Positive missed withhold)
'Yipes!'
So in auditing you are looking for those moments of WONDER when the
person was unable to DETERMINE if the other person knows or not.
You see even the word 'determine' has this two tiered meaning.
To determine can mean to CAUSE to come into being.
"The ability to determine one's own future."
To determine can also mean to LEARN about what has already been
caused to come into being.
"The ability to determine the past."
So this whole Creator mode - Creature mode thing is built into the
very fabric of our language.
Determination can mean being determined to CAUSE, or it can mean a
determination, what was gleaned through learning by looking.
The first kind of determination is Creator mode and the second kind
of determination is Creature mode.
Creator determination is Creation arising from from Knowing,
Creature determination is Knowing arising from Creation, learning by
looking at what was already created.
Thus the being gets caught up in his failure to determine (find
out) whether others know or not, and he also fails to causatively
determine them into knowing or not knowing, and so he slowly goes crazy,
as BOTH Creature mode AND Creator mode are on hold in an inconclusion,
followed by an indecision.
So what you are looking for are those times your preclear tried to
communicate something to someone but is still wondering whether they
know or not, and also those times your preclear tried to NOT communicate
something to someone and is still wondering if they know or not.
Watch out for the can't believe its: 'I can't believe they don't
know' or 'I can't believe they found out', as these leave him in an
incredibility which stops his mind cold.
The anatomy of an incredibility is:
Certainty something is true, and
Certainty something is impossible.
Each one of these conclusion failures will be followed by a
decision failure, because being unable to determine whether they know or
not, your preclear was then unable to determine what to DO next in his
life.
He is still sitting there swimming in not know and unable to know,
and UNWILLING TO CAUSE KNOWING OR NOT KNOWING IN OTHERS outright to end
his conclusion failure.
So of course his life goes nowhere, either in parts or en masse.
So here is one way that this could be run.
Positive Missed Withholds:
'Who or what are you wondering might NOT know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might not know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might not know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'
Negative Missed Withholds:
'Who or what are you wondering might know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'
Instead of 'wondering' you can use 'worried' or 'concerned' or what
ever else indicates to your preclear.
'Who are you worried might know something about you?'
'Who are you worried might NOT know something about you?'
'Who are you concerned might know something about you?'
'Who are you concerned might NOT know something about you?'
etc.
Does she know how much you hate her?
Does she know how much you love her?
For a wider run, you can leave off the 'about you?'
'Who are you wondering might know something?'
etc.
There is no rote way to run this, run which ever questions bite and
your PC is interested in. Switch back and forth between positive and
negative missed withholds as needed.
Remember you the auditor and your preclear don't make case gain
together by doing it RIGHT, you make case gain by DOING it.
Run this alternately and repetitively, until the PC has spotted all
of his missed withholds. He will come up with more later, so this can
be run over and over again as needed.
This will turn on a LOT of anxiety. That means its biting.
As long a there is anxiety on the case, chances are there is more
to find.
Don't expect to get it all in one day.
Expect it to get pretty fantastical. Mundane human life ain't the
source of your case.
If you are co-auditing, run it back and forth on each other.
Running this on someone will open up your own case so that when
they run it on you there will be stuff to find, and visa versa. Many
processes are dead ends when audited in only one direction, but continue
to run forever when run back and forth between two people.
Auditing others and being audited are BOTH auditing.
If you miss a positive or negative withhold on your PC, if you put
them into doubt about whether you know or not, they will ARC break on
you, get pissed off in other words. You can run any ARC break at any
time with something like,
ARC = Affinity, Reality, Communication, Understanding.
ARC break = a sudden sundering of such.
'What didn't I know about you that I should have?'
'What should I have known?'
'What weren't you sure I knew?'
'What wasn't known?'
'What don't I have any idea of that you wish I did?'
'What would you like me to know about you?'
Remember an ARC break is ALWAYS caused by the MISSING of a positive
or negative withhold. The ARC break IS their wondering if you know or
not. It is an ARC break with themselves for no longer being able to
just cause you to know or not know, and know that they have.
So asking the PC 'What are you wondering if I know or not?' will
nail it.
Once the ARC break is clean, the PC will forgive you and be able to
go back into session easily. If the PC is still hedging inside, they
still have something they wish you knew but aren't sure you do, or wish
you didn't know but think you might.
When a pc is afraid there is something you might know about him,
it's usually because the pc is afraid there is something you DON'T know
about him.
In other words he doesn't want to let you know about him, until he
is sure you know something else about him!
"What would I have to know about you to let you be willing to let
me know everything about you?"
Thus negative missed withholds become difficult to pull to the
degree that the pc has positive missed withholds too.
IT IS THE PC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL THE AUDITOR IF THEY ARE ARC
BROKEN, AND IT IS A HIGH CRIME FOR THE PC TO CONTINUE TO PRETEND TO RUN
A PROCESS WHEN REALLY THEY ARE WISHING THE AUDITOR KNEW SOMETHING.
It is the Auditor's responsibility to make sure that the PC lives
up to his or her own Preclear Code. And it is the Preclear's
responsibility to make sure that the Auditor lives up to his or her own
Auditor's Code.
The Auditor's Code and the Preclear's Code are contracts that both
parties enter into willingly and with full responsibility. Each is a
bargaining tool for the other. The Auditor offers to follow the
Auditor's Code as set out by the Preclear, and in exchange the Preclear
offers to follow the Preclear's Code as set out by the Auditor.
Remember any PC WANTS to confess all their negative withholds, but
they are unsure you are a safe space, so really they only become
recalcitrant to discuss what they are hiding once they become unsure
that you don't know something that you should.
You can run,
'What would I need to know for you to feel good about my auditing
you?'
'What would I need to be, do, have or know for you to be willing to
communicate to me on this subject?'
or some such variant. You will surely figure out your own
questions once the understanding of all this bites on you.
You know a hefty portion of this material is just to get the
Auditor and PC in session with each other. This doesn't mean that this
stuff isn't deep auditing or won't blow your case to Kingdom come, but
if the Auditor and PC are chary of each other, they will have to go
through these little trials by fire in the beginning no matter what.
Auditing safe or polite material is a waste of time.
No auditing process known to man will stay safe or polite for long,
and if you aren't willing to communicate when the withholds start
showing up and the going gets hot, the process will stop dead in its
tracks. You can continue to pretend to give answers, but you will lose
what case gain you made, as each false answer after the withhold is an
overt act, and becomes another MISSED withhold.
As the PC, you will be looking at your Auditor thinking to
yourself, 'What a dumb turkey, how come he doesn't know I just stopped
myself from taking about something? How could he NOT know!?"
Although the auditor will often do something that makes the
preclear think they auditor might know, truth is, if the preclear thinks
the auditor SHOULD know or have found out, the PRECLEAR will miss the
withhold on himself out of the blue just by starting to wonder on it.
You know sessionability is not just a matter of the PC. Sure if
the PC is unhappy or unwilling to talk to the Auditor, then of course no
auditing will take place. But if the Auditor doesn't like the PC, or if
the Auditor is afraid the PC will bring up the Auditor's recent affair
with the neighbor's dog, then no auditing will take place either.
It is vitally important that the Auditor be as willing to talk to
be PC as the PC is willing to talk to the Auditor.
Auditing is not a one way confession.
Especially during a co audit, where both will be PC and both will
be Auditor.
If the person who is doing the auditing develops a withhold that
they will have to give up to the PC when the tables are turned, then
that withhold will prevent the Auditor from auditing the PC as well as
he could while he is still being the auditor.
His attention will be in the future when he must face his own
session and not on the PC in present time. Thus the acknowledgments
that the Auditor gives will all be lacking, as he won't be completely
there for the PC.
Thus it is just as important that the Auditor be able to talk to
the PC as it is that the PC be able to talk to the Auditor.
No one is really even asking you to give up having affairs with the
neighbor's dog, just so long as you can TALK about it freely to your PC
or Auditor.
If you can't talk about it freely with your PC or Auditor, don't do
it. You gotta have a full disclosure relationship with at least ONE
living human being on Earth to remain sane.
Auditing is a walk towards a group mind, where each being
intimately knows immediately everything about everyone in the group.
This is a form of telepathic co union.
The minute two people don't want to share every detail of
themselves, they are walking towards some other goal AND CASE GAIN WILL
CEASE, for there is no freedom in hiing in telepathic isolation.
Sometimes its just too much to expect auditor and pc to swap back
and forth this way, so you get a three some going, each one auditing the
other, and that way everyone's secrets remain secure.
If two people can run these withhold processes totally flat on each
other to a point where there is NO ANXIETY about communicating about any
subject to each other, they will have attained a new and totally
brilliant state in the history of the human race.
It's worth dreaming of, and striving for, even if there is a whole
mess of human emotion and reaction in between.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Aug 15 03:06:03 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado6.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQK0pbURT1lqxE3HERArOeAJ9q5UVk1hDlogIauZH3TcTz8p/zDgCfeRmH
YG8m/KuHjWeJqmwVf8VjIvo=
=g3Nr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
FROCE AND MASS, WILL AND MOTIVATION
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FORCE AND MASS, WILL AND MOTIVATION
MCT - 7
25 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MEATBALL AND A DREAMBALL IS WHAT
THEY THINK CONSCIOUSNESS IS.
The meatball thinks that consciousness is a name for mechanical
processes going on in the brain, in the same way that dieticians
consider that metabolism is a name for processes going on in the body.
The dreamball thinks that consciousness is its own thing.
There are two kinds of dreamballs, Hybrids and Projectionists.
Hybrids believe in a hybrid theory that contains both the physical
universe AND this thing called a conscious unit. In this sense the
conscious unit is another part of the whole, a part working and
interacting in tandem with the remaining physical universe parts that
make up the body.
They envision consciousness as something that can be the effect of
physical forces and events, and also as something that can CAUSE
physical forces and events. They conceive that cause travels FROM the
physical universe TO the conscious unit, THROUGH the conscious unit, and
back into the physical universe again.
For example physical sensory data comes in from the physical senses
through the retina, and the optic nerve and are distributed on the
visual cortex of the brain.
Here the conscious unit overlays the visual cortex and the physical
energies in the visual cortex, which cause a color form display in the
conscious unit, much as a television signal finally gets display on a
color TV set.
Then the self, which is also part of the conscious unit is able to
see this data right off the conscious color form screen, and so make
decisions based on its desire and knowledge and issue a command back out
towards the physical universe to create a physical action.
The intentional volition of the self, originating in the mechanics
of the conscious unit itself and NOT in any 'underlying' physical
processes in the brain, travels out of the conscious unit back into the
neuromuscular command pathways of the brain via a second interface, and
the nerve pathways translate the outward going causal flow into body
action.
Thus there are two hybrid interfaces in this theory. The first is
the in coming data interface whereby physical data in the visual cortex
becomes translated into conscious color form data for the self to see.
The second is the out going action interface whereby volitional
intention on the part of the conscious unit self is translated back into
physical universe nerve impulses in the brain to be carried out by the
neuromuscular system.
There would also have to be another set of in coming and outgoing
data interfaces to deal with physically stored memory, but it is also
assumed that the conscious unit has its own memory capacity independent
of the body memory, and which does not depend on the underlying physical
structure of the body for its existence.
Of course this is a hotly contested and very controversial theory
of things. Most hardball scientists would reject it out of hand.
On the surface this theory might imply a violation of conservation
of energy and momentum, because of the influence of the conscious unit.
It has to take energy from the visual cortex to conform its color form
display to the physical data in the visual cortex, and when the self
issues a command to the body, it must be generating impulses to initiate
nerve flow, which involves more energy.
Even among the hybrids there is contention concerning the role that
the CU plays in such energy transfers. One group holds that the CU is
merely a stimulus response part in the over all system of parts. It is
moved by incoming energy, and it in turn moves other parts according to
how it was moved, much as any other state determined part in the system
behaves. The CU plays the role of gaining its desires and acts as a
computer that constantly calculates what to do based on what it knows
and what it wants.
The other group claims that the CU has a connection to a higher
universe and can actually inject energy into this universe, and take
energy out of it and does so all the time. In their view, the CU can
originate actions independently of what is happening to it in the
physical universe, in other words it can do things that are not a
function of its past in the physical universe. They hold that the CU is
not state determined by its past in either this or the higher universe,
but is of course always state determined by its own present nature.
This view obviously conflicts with strong conservation of energy
and momentum, but it is claimed that on average the amount of energy
added to this universe is equal to the amount absorbed back out, so the
over all effect is minimal. This is very dissatisfactory to the
mathematically strict conservationists and state determinedists.
A deeper look however might suggest that one merely need to
increase the width of one's universe to include the conscious universe,
where one might find that between the two of them, the physical universe
AND the conscious universe, energy and momentum are still conserved.
But then again one might find that they are not. The very creation
of a universe at all is the grand daddy of all violation of conservation
of energy and momentum, and if the universe was created at all, then why
not have little moments of creation and destruction going on all the
time.
Recent mathematical models of the universe suggest that the
universe never was created, it just always was. The model holds that
both space and time are circular and closed, so one has sort of an
unchanging permanent universe of space-time, forever shining in the
library of spaceless, timeless Eternity.
As an aside, one of the philosophical reasons that people like to
think that energy is conserved, is because they consider that energy
is what is real. Since intuitionally they conceive that something
can't come from nothing, nor can something go into nothing, energy,
which is the real 'something' of this universe, must therefore be
conserved.
It might be called more accurately, the conservation of Something.
Although some of the hybrids claim that energy may not be
conserved, what they are all saying is that there are two fundamental
realities interacting with each other, one based on force and mass, and
the other based on will and motivation.
The meatballs wish to reduce will and motivation TO force and mass.
They wish to reduce PAIN and PLEASURE to PUSH and PULL, as they claim
there is no evidence to support the more complex theory.
Notice that the hybrid theory IS a more complex theory, probably
exponentially so, however, what the meatballs are really saying is that
they are too lazy to figure it out given a total lack of evidence that
it might be true.
Philosophers however go at it the other way around. FIRST they
come up with the more complex theory, not to explain anything they have
observed, the 'scientists' have already done that, but just to do it.
THEN they see if this theory predicts anything new that hasn't even been
thought of before, let alone observed, and THEN they try to observe it.
WAITING for evidence to come along and FORCE you to change your
theory is a smug meatball's way of getting out of work. It is also a
way to not rock the boat. They already have their thesis written that
the universe works this way, and not that way. Why dream up weird
theories that might predict weirder phenomenon that might then be
observed to exist, when you can just keep quiet, and let everyone be
satisfied with the extant, self consistent and closed body of evidence
and theory that already exist?
Science can become sort of a self fulfilling body of ignorance.
Ignorance comes from the word IGNORE by the way. It doesn't mean
stupidity, nor does it mean uneducated or unknowledgeable. It means the
state of mind you get into when you IGNORE things that are clearly
visible.
Anyhow if the scientific community has a body of evidence that they
have found, and a theory that models the evidence as well as they can
measure it, then you have a closed self consistent system. This does
not mean it is correct, nor does it mean that MORE evidence is not
available for observation. It may mean only that no one has thought of
the remaining evidence because it is not predicted by their theory, and
so they may never get around to looking for it.
So unless such new and unknown evidence comes along on its own
accord and kicks some scientific rump, people can get kind of
complacent. They sit around WAITING ON CALL for some evidence to show
up. But Lord forbid they should ever start theorizing something new out
of the blue, that might predict some new phenomena they would then be
obligated to go verify.
It is politically DANGEROUS to theorize in the absence of evidence
prompting you to do so. It creates more work for scientists who have
already written their theses and it ruins perfectly good theories that
give people stature and importance and awards in their communities, even
though they are completely wrong.
Everyone knows they have to change their theories if evidence comes
along, but why push it?
So you find societies falling into stagnant eddies of scientific
thought. Their theories predict the evidence and the evidence supports
the theories, and you have a closed system that everyone thinks is the
last word, even though in truth it covers about .00001 percent of
reality.
That's about where we are today with our nuclear physics and quarks
and things. And don't be fooled, our present theories will NOT advance
very far in the same direction they have been going all along, into more
and more quarks and things and different kinds of sub atomic particles.
They will advance instead into more CONSCIOUSNESS.
OF COURSE the meatballs scream for proof, they are terrified you
might have it.
What would happen to their physics if one little thetan could throw
one little spark that someone else could feel?
What would happen if they put two people in two separate Faraday
Cages, you know the kind completely surrounded with chicken wire so
NOTHING electrical could get through, and these two could still swap
notes on a telepathic basis?
I mean forget the social, religious and political impact of such a
demonstration. What about the poor guys in white lab coats. What would
happen to them? They would have no where to go. Their priorities would
fall through the floor. They wouldn't know where to start picking up
the pieces. All they were good at was making ADJUSTMENTS to theories,
they never thought they would have to start FROM SCRATCH.
You see it is still too wild. They can't even conceive of the
consequences. It would take a science fiction writer like Asimov or
Clarke to figure this one out.
Now I am being a bit unfair, this kind of scientific revolution has
happened before including during the late 19th and early 20th century
with the discovery of Special Relativity. Those guys had to throw it
ALL away and start over again. And they were up to the job, but me
thinks those days are gone, and those guys are gone too, although they
may still be walking among us.
You know great advances come in waves, in periods. For example,
all the really great music happened from 1650 to 1930 or so. But now
they are gone. You are NEVER going to get the likes of Mozart, Brahms,
Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Tchaikovski, Grieg, Mousourski, Rachmaninoff,
and Debussy walking around the planet again. Music has decayed down to
levels of degradation that those guys never dreamed could happen.
Today, except for a few exceptions like Bernstein and Rogers and
Hammerstein, and a couple of songs here and there, people put noise
pollution on a pedestal and call it art.
Same for physics. Today you have very few people who are really
able to do the work that Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein, Heisenberg, Pauli,
and Borh did.
Maybe it will take a new breed of person to finally crack open the
next level of how this universe really works. The meatballs don't seem
to have the depth to do it. They have the intelligence and the
complexity to do it, but the shallowness of their Divinity is appalling.
They are like the technicians that Beethoven complained about who
could play his pieces with extraordinary technical skill and speed,
never making a mistake, but who left everyone bored stiff. They had no
FEELING.
The same thing goes for today's extant breed of high tech
physicist, they struggle to get that last decimal place in their
equation to agree with reality and then they think they will have it
all, the pinnacle of achievement of conscious thought in this universe.
AND THEY WILL HAVE NOTHING.
For maybe the universe does not work the way they think it does,
maybe they have it all wrong from beginning to end. Maybe the world
really is a dream as the Dreamball Projectionists think and maybe all
this physical universe nonsense was just an intellectual trap to tie up
a civilization's resources so that they would develop the bomb before
developing a heart.
And that brings us to the real dreamballs, if there are any of you
out there. You listening?
You have your work cut out for you. NO ONE WILL LISTEN except
those who can see. Everyone else would prefer to eat rather than wake
up. Even if the physical universe is true, we don't have to be here.
We CAN be here if we want! We can come visit the machines, and the
people who think they are machines, and we can argue the philosophy of
those who say we are machines.
But first and foremost, we need to collect our own kind. Tap them
on the shoulder, tell them, "You can wake up, remember where you came
from, remember that you DON'T know how it all works."
Remind them that consciousness-of is consciousness of certainty and
cause. Remind them that machines can never be certain of anything and
can never know if there is cause.
Remind them that machines don't care and don't give a damn.
Remind them that people who think they are machines, act like
machines and shouldn't be in control.
Keep after them until they know that without consciousness of
certainty and cause, their souls are but Dust in the Wind.
They will get it fast enough. Any 3 year old can understand this.
Then you won't have to be alone when the government and the police
force, and the army, and the Church, and the school teachers, and the
drunken parents, and the religiously insane, and the Psychiatric Zombie
Lords, and the walking dead, come for you in the middle of the night for
waking up people who they would prefer to be asleep.
There is only one crime in this universe of lies.
LUCIDITY.
Why?
Because it wakes you up from the liars.
It's a loss of havingness to them, because they have no one to lie
to any more.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Aug 14 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct7.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQKfjbURT1lqxE3HERAoKIAKCaJL6qs9ZkN+boKfG7SZd7q4otUQCeKfvc
D8+trXm4rzGn02iQkx3w9fY=
=Vkoe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
FORCE AND MASS, WILL AND MOTIVATION
MCT - 7
25 December 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MEATBALL AND A DREAMBALL IS WHAT
THEY THINK CONSCIOUSNESS IS.
The meatball thinks that consciousness is a name for mechanical
processes going on in the brain, in the same way that dieticians
consider that metabolism is a name for processes going on in the body.
The dreamball thinks that consciousness is its own thing.
There are two kinds of dreamballs, Hybrids and Projectionists.
Hybrids believe in a hybrid theory that contains both the physical
universe AND this thing called a conscious unit. In this sense the
conscious unit is another part of the whole, a part working and
interacting in tandem with the remaining physical universe parts that
make up the body.
They envision consciousness as something that can be the effect of
physical forces and events, and also as something that can CAUSE
physical forces and events. They conceive that cause travels FROM the
physical universe TO the conscious unit, THROUGH the conscious unit, and
back into the physical universe again.
For example physical sensory data comes in from the physical senses
through the retina, and the optic nerve and are distributed on the
visual cortex of the brain.
Here the conscious unit overlays the visual cortex and the physical
energies in the visual cortex, which cause a color form display in the
conscious unit, much as a television signal finally gets display on a
color TV set.
Then the self, which is also part of the conscious unit is able to
see this data right off the conscious color form screen, and so make
decisions based on its desire and knowledge and issue a command back out
towards the physical universe to create a physical action.
The intentional volition of the self, originating in the mechanics
of the conscious unit itself and NOT in any 'underlying' physical
processes in the brain, travels out of the conscious unit back into the
neuromuscular command pathways of the brain via a second interface, and
the nerve pathways translate the outward going causal flow into body
action.
Thus there are two hybrid interfaces in this theory. The first is
the in coming data interface whereby physical data in the visual cortex
becomes translated into conscious color form data for the self to see.
The second is the out going action interface whereby volitional
intention on the part of the conscious unit self is translated back into
physical universe nerve impulses in the brain to be carried out by the
neuromuscular system.
There would also have to be another set of in coming and outgoing
data interfaces to deal with physically stored memory, but it is also
assumed that the conscious unit has its own memory capacity independent
of the body memory, and which does not depend on the underlying physical
structure of the body for its existence.
Of course this is a hotly contested and very controversial theory
of things. Most hardball scientists would reject it out of hand.
On the surface this theory might imply a violation of conservation
of energy and momentum, because of the influence of the conscious unit.
It has to take energy from the visual cortex to conform its color form
display to the physical data in the visual cortex, and when the self
issues a command to the body, it must be generating impulses to initiate
nerve flow, which involves more energy.
Even among the hybrids there is contention concerning the role that
the CU plays in such energy transfers. One group holds that the CU is
merely a stimulus response part in the over all system of parts. It is
moved by incoming energy, and it in turn moves other parts according to
how it was moved, much as any other state determined part in the system
behaves. The CU plays the role of gaining its desires and acts as a
computer that constantly calculates what to do based on what it knows
and what it wants.
The other group claims that the CU has a connection to a higher
universe and can actually inject energy into this universe, and take
energy out of it and does so all the time. In their view, the CU can
originate actions independently of what is happening to it in the
physical universe, in other words it can do things that are not a
function of its past in the physical universe. They hold that the CU is
not state determined by its past in either this or the higher universe,
but is of course always state determined by its own present nature.
This view obviously conflicts with strong conservation of energy
and momentum, but it is claimed that on average the amount of energy
added to this universe is equal to the amount absorbed back out, so the
over all effect is minimal. This is very dissatisfactory to the
mathematically strict conservationists and state determinedists.
A deeper look however might suggest that one merely need to
increase the width of one's universe to include the conscious universe,
where one might find that between the two of them, the physical universe
AND the conscious universe, energy and momentum are still conserved.
But then again one might find that they are not. The very creation
of a universe at all is the grand daddy of all violation of conservation
of energy and momentum, and if the universe was created at all, then why
not have little moments of creation and destruction going on all the
time.
Recent mathematical models of the universe suggest that the
universe never was created, it just always was. The model holds that
both space and time are circular and closed, so one has sort of an
unchanging permanent universe of space-time, forever shining in the
library of spaceless, timeless Eternity.
As an aside, one of the philosophical reasons that people like to
think that energy is conserved, is because they consider that energy
is what is real. Since intuitionally they conceive that something
can't come from nothing, nor can something go into nothing, energy,
which is the real 'something' of this universe, must therefore be
conserved.
It might be called more accurately, the conservation of Something.
Although some of the hybrids claim that energy may not be
conserved, what they are all saying is that there are two fundamental
realities interacting with each other, one based on force and mass, and
the other based on will and motivation.
The meatballs wish to reduce will and motivation TO force and mass.
They wish to reduce PAIN and PLEASURE to PUSH and PULL, as they claim
there is no evidence to support the more complex theory.
Notice that the hybrid theory IS a more complex theory, probably
exponentially so, however, what the meatballs are really saying is that
they are too lazy to figure it out given a total lack of evidence that
it might be true.
Philosophers however go at it the other way around. FIRST they
come up with the more complex theory, not to explain anything they have
observed, the 'scientists' have already done that, but just to do it.
THEN they see if this theory predicts anything new that hasn't even been
thought of before, let alone observed, and THEN they try to observe it.
WAITING for evidence to come along and FORCE you to change your
theory is a smug meatball's way of getting out of work. It is also a
way to not rock the boat. They already have their thesis written that
the universe works this way, and not that way. Why dream up weird
theories that might predict weirder phenomenon that might then be
observed to exist, when you can just keep quiet, and let everyone be
satisfied with the extant, self consistent and closed body of evidence
and theory that already exist?
Science can become sort of a self fulfilling body of ignorance.
Ignorance comes from the word IGNORE by the way. It doesn't mean
stupidity, nor does it mean uneducated or unknowledgeable. It means the
state of mind you get into when you IGNORE things that are clearly
visible.
Anyhow if the scientific community has a body of evidence that they
have found, and a theory that models the evidence as well as they can
measure it, then you have a closed self consistent system. This does
not mean it is correct, nor does it mean that MORE evidence is not
available for observation. It may mean only that no one has thought of
the remaining evidence because it is not predicted by their theory, and
so they may never get around to looking for it.
So unless such new and unknown evidence comes along on its own
accord and kicks some scientific rump, people can get kind of
complacent. They sit around WAITING ON CALL for some evidence to show
up. But Lord forbid they should ever start theorizing something new out
of the blue, that might predict some new phenomena they would then be
obligated to go verify.
It is politically DANGEROUS to theorize in the absence of evidence
prompting you to do so. It creates more work for scientists who have
already written their theses and it ruins perfectly good theories that
give people stature and importance and awards in their communities, even
though they are completely wrong.
Everyone knows they have to change their theories if evidence comes
along, but why push it?
So you find societies falling into stagnant eddies of scientific
thought. Their theories predict the evidence and the evidence supports
the theories, and you have a closed system that everyone thinks is the
last word, even though in truth it covers about .00001 percent of
reality.
That's about where we are today with our nuclear physics and quarks
and things. And don't be fooled, our present theories will NOT advance
very far in the same direction they have been going all along, into more
and more quarks and things and different kinds of sub atomic particles.
They will advance instead into more CONSCIOUSNESS.
OF COURSE the meatballs scream for proof, they are terrified you
might have it.
What would happen to their physics if one little thetan could throw
one little spark that someone else could feel?
What would happen if they put two people in two separate Faraday
Cages, you know the kind completely surrounded with chicken wire so
NOTHING electrical could get through, and these two could still swap
notes on a telepathic basis?
I mean forget the social, religious and political impact of such a
demonstration. What about the poor guys in white lab coats. What would
happen to them? They would have no where to go. Their priorities would
fall through the floor. They wouldn't know where to start picking up
the pieces. All they were good at was making ADJUSTMENTS to theories,
they never thought they would have to start FROM SCRATCH.
You see it is still too wild. They can't even conceive of the
consequences. It would take a science fiction writer like Asimov or
Clarke to figure this one out.
Now I am being a bit unfair, this kind of scientific revolution has
happened before including during the late 19th and early 20th century
with the discovery of Special Relativity. Those guys had to throw it
ALL away and start over again. And they were up to the job, but me
thinks those days are gone, and those guys are gone too, although they
may still be walking among us.
You know great advances come in waves, in periods. For example,
all the really great music happened from 1650 to 1930 or so. But now
they are gone. You are NEVER going to get the likes of Mozart, Brahms,
Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Tchaikovski, Grieg, Mousourski, Rachmaninoff,
and Debussy walking around the planet again. Music has decayed down to
levels of degradation that those guys never dreamed could happen.
Today, except for a few exceptions like Bernstein and Rogers and
Hammerstein, and a couple of songs here and there, people put noise
pollution on a pedestal and call it art.
Same for physics. Today you have very few people who are really
able to do the work that Maxwell, Faraday, Einstein, Heisenberg, Pauli,
and Borh did.
Maybe it will take a new breed of person to finally crack open the
next level of how this universe really works. The meatballs don't seem
to have the depth to do it. They have the intelligence and the
complexity to do it, but the shallowness of their Divinity is appalling.
They are like the technicians that Beethoven complained about who
could play his pieces with extraordinary technical skill and speed,
never making a mistake, but who left everyone bored stiff. They had no
FEELING.
The same thing goes for today's extant breed of high tech
physicist, they struggle to get that last decimal place in their
equation to agree with reality and then they think they will have it
all, the pinnacle of achievement of conscious thought in this universe.
AND THEY WILL HAVE NOTHING.
For maybe the universe does not work the way they think it does,
maybe they have it all wrong from beginning to end. Maybe the world
really is a dream as the Dreamball Projectionists think and maybe all
this physical universe nonsense was just an intellectual trap to tie up
a civilization's resources so that they would develop the bomb before
developing a heart.
And that brings us to the real dreamballs, if there are any of you
out there. You listening?
You have your work cut out for you. NO ONE WILL LISTEN except
those who can see. Everyone else would prefer to eat rather than wake
up. Even if the physical universe is true, we don't have to be here.
We CAN be here if we want! We can come visit the machines, and the
people who think they are machines, and we can argue the philosophy of
those who say we are machines.
But first and foremost, we need to collect our own kind. Tap them
on the shoulder, tell them, "You can wake up, remember where you came
from, remember that you DON'T know how it all works."
Remind them that consciousness-of is consciousness of certainty and
cause. Remind them that machines can never be certain of anything and
can never know if there is cause.
Remind them that machines don't care and don't give a damn.
Remind them that people who think they are machines, act like
machines and shouldn't be in control.
Keep after them until they know that without consciousness of
certainty and cause, their souls are but Dust in the Wind.
They will get it fast enough. Any 3 year old can understand this.
Then you won't have to be alone when the government and the police
force, and the army, and the Church, and the school teachers, and the
drunken parents, and the religiously insane, and the Psychiatric Zombie
Lords, and the walking dead, come for you in the middle of the night for
waking up people who they would prefer to be asleep.
There is only one crime in this universe of lies.
LUCIDITY.
Why?
Because it wakes you up from the liars.
It's a loss of havingness to them, because they have no one to lie
to any more.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Aug 14 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct7.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQKfjbURT1lqxE3HERAoKIAKCaJL6qs9ZkN+boKfG7SZd7q4otUQCeKfvc
D8+trXm4rzGn02iQkx3w9fY=
=Vkoe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, August 13, 2012
ALONENESS AND UNALONENESS
Difficult...
ALONENESS AND UNALONENESS
> Btw. The statement "there is something, so there was something" can
> be logically accepted only if preceded with "the whole world is the
> closed system". Can you accept this statement? Closed from what? From outside world?
The proof says the following.
Objects are defined by their Object Quality Set, (their nature).
Nothings have an empty Object Quality Set.
Somethings have a non empty Object Quality Set.
The Object Quality Set contains qualities that describe the object.
Qualities can be either Qualities of Being or Qualities of
Relation.
A Quality of Being is a quality the object has alone and exists
independent of its relation to any other object.
Existence is a quality of being. Dimensionality might be another,
whether it was 3D, 4D etc.
A Quality of Relation is a quality the object has by virtue of its
relation to other objects.
Next to, bigger than, cause of, came from, used for etc are
qualities of relation.
Many qualities that sound like qualities of being are in fact
qualities of relation.
Being red as a physical quality, for example is actually a casual
relation between the object and light waves, such that it reflects red
light and absorbs all other colors. Reflects and absorbs are forms of
'cause of'.
Being red as a conscious picture however is a true Quality
of Being. You don't see your conscious color forms with light waves!
(if you did you couldn't see them, you would see the light waves!)
Physical universe mass is another quality often taken to be a
quality of being, but is in fact measured by force from an external
object so is really only knowable through causal relation.
All Learning by Looking at Effects in the physical universe is
through causal relation. If there is no causal relation between A and
B, B can not learn about A.
This immediately implies that B can not learn about the Qualities
of Being of A, unless those Qualities of Being of A affect the causal
Qualities of Relation that A exerts over B. The Qualities of Being of
A in any case are at best logically derived back from the causal
Qualities of Relation of A as any Quality of Being of A can not be
directly observed by B using Learning by Looking at Effects.
Learning by looking at effects is the only mechanism for learning
available to B if B and A are separated by a real space time distance.
Notice since the conscious unit CAN learn about the Qualities of
Being of its own conscious color forms (redness), that therefore the
conscious unit is not Learning by Looking at Effects, but is Learning by
Looking at Cause, and therefore can not be learning about its color
forms across a distance.
Thus inside of consciousness, the Learner and the Learned About
must be one and the same object.
Qualities of Relation between B and A imply at least one Quality of
Being in both related objects, namely that they exist.
One assumes that if A can effect B and visa versa, then both A
and B have other qualities of being that give rise to the causal
relations between them. Learning by Looking at Effects is the effort
of B to learn about A's other Qualities of Being via experiencing the
effects of A's causal Quality of Relations on B.
Any Qualities of Being of A that do not affect A's causal Qualities
of Relation to B, can not be learned about by B by Learning by
Looking at Effects.
If *NO* Qualities of Being in A affect its causal Qualities of
Relation to B, then B can not learn *ANYTHING* about A, including
whether it exists or not.
One can exist alone, but one can not be in relation alone.
Therefore aloneness is a Quality of Being, and unaloneness is a
Quality of Relation.
The All That Is is by definition alone, as anything outside of
it, different from it, would mean that it wasn't the All That Is.
Therefore if one considers All That Is, it must be alone with
nothing outside of it.
Thus 'the world' is a closed system, and therefore, as you say, if
something exists now, something must have always existed.
It is a perfect certainty that something exists now, therefore
something is immortal, *IF* one accepts the intuitive idea that
something can not come from absolute nothing as defined above.
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
ALONENESS AND UNALONENESS
> Btw. The statement "there is something, so there was something" can
> be logically accepted only if preceded with "the whole world is the
> closed system". Can you accept this statement? Closed from what? From outside world?
The proof says the following.
Objects are defined by their Object Quality Set, (their nature).
Nothings have an empty Object Quality Set.
Somethings have a non empty Object Quality Set.
The Object Quality Set contains qualities that describe the object.
Qualities can be either Qualities of Being or Qualities of
Relation.
A Quality of Being is a quality the object has alone and exists
independent of its relation to any other object.
Existence is a quality of being. Dimensionality might be another,
whether it was 3D, 4D etc.
A Quality of Relation is a quality the object has by virtue of its
relation to other objects.
Next to, bigger than, cause of, came from, used for etc are
qualities of relation.
Many qualities that sound like qualities of being are in fact
qualities of relation.
Being red as a physical quality, for example is actually a casual
relation between the object and light waves, such that it reflects red
light and absorbs all other colors. Reflects and absorbs are forms of
'cause of'.
Being red as a conscious picture however is a true Quality
of Being. You don't see your conscious color forms with light waves!
(if you did you couldn't see them, you would see the light waves!)
Physical universe mass is another quality often taken to be a
quality of being, but is in fact measured by force from an external
object so is really only knowable through causal relation.
All Learning by Looking at Effects in the physical universe is
through causal relation. If there is no causal relation between A and
B, B can not learn about A.
This immediately implies that B can not learn about the Qualities
of Being of A, unless those Qualities of Being of A affect the causal
Qualities of Relation that A exerts over B. The Qualities of Being of
A in any case are at best logically derived back from the causal
Qualities of Relation of A as any Quality of Being of A can not be
directly observed by B using Learning by Looking at Effects.
Learning by looking at effects is the only mechanism for learning
available to B if B and A are separated by a real space time distance.
Notice since the conscious unit CAN learn about the Qualities of
Being of its own conscious color forms (redness), that therefore the
conscious unit is not Learning by Looking at Effects, but is Learning by
Looking at Cause, and therefore can not be learning about its color
forms across a distance.
Thus inside of consciousness, the Learner and the Learned About
must be one and the same object.
Qualities of Relation between B and A imply at least one Quality of
Being in both related objects, namely that they exist.
One assumes that if A can effect B and visa versa, then both A
and B have other qualities of being that give rise to the causal
relations between them. Learning by Looking at Effects is the effort
of B to learn about A's other Qualities of Being via experiencing the
effects of A's causal Quality of Relations on B.
Any Qualities of Being of A that do not affect A's causal Qualities
of Relation to B, can not be learned about by B by Learning by
Looking at Effects.
If *NO* Qualities of Being in A affect its causal Qualities of
Relation to B, then B can not learn *ANYTHING* about A, including
whether it exists or not.
One can exist alone, but one can not be in relation alone.
Therefore aloneness is a Quality of Being, and unaloneness is a
Quality of Relation.
The All That Is is by definition alone, as anything outside of
it, different from it, would mean that it wasn't the All That Is.
Therefore if one considers All That Is, it must be alone with
nothing outside of it.
Thus 'the world' is a closed system, and therefore, as you say, if
something exists now, something must have always existed.
It is a perfect certainty that something exists now, therefore
something is immortal, *IF* one accepts the intuitive idea that
something can not come from absolute nothing as defined above.
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
Sunday, August 5, 2012
EXTERIOR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>At 8:44 PM -0500 2/26/99, Ryan wrote:
>> I want to get _more_ exterior.
>>
>> Can go interior, can be at "back" of my head, but can't go out further.
>>
>> Anybody got a particular HCOB/process/RD to offer me?
You are trying to take your mind with you.
Exteriorize from your mind.
A being exterior to his mind is exterior to questions and
answers.
No more questions and answers.
No more problems to pose and re-solve.
No more trying to take responsibility, trying to not take
responsibility.
No more wanting to know, wanting to not know.
No more trying to know, trying to not know.
No more effort to know, effort to not know.
Trying to know how to exteriorize from the mind is an effort to
know and thus interiorizes into it.
Watch it, Medusa is the Devil's Harem.
The prior beginning to any incident is the effort to take
responsibility for an area.
To take responsibility means to take responsibility for (to
create) or to take responsibility over (to improve).
Run the emotional curve from trying to take responsibility
for/over an area to create or improve it, down to regret about taking
responsibility, with special attention to the efforts to know and not
know all the way through.
Taking responsibility is the earlier beginning, its the moment of
interiorization into the mind which ends in grief, and unwillingness
and inability to take responsibility any more.
Run wanting responsibility, not wanting responsibility.
Being forced to take responsibility, being prevented from taking
responsibility.
Being rewarded for taking responsibility, being punished for
taking responsibility.
Notice that *TAKING* is a pulling in, so that one can put out
causative flows.
Thus, yes 'one pulls it in' whatever it is, literally.
One wears the mind in order to get involved in the game of posing
and re-solving problems.
Don't wear the mind to get rid of the mind, it will stick like
glue.
Don't make the mind into a problem. It will stick like glue.
Don't doubt a true certainty. If you do you will get what you
deserve. That is justice and the genesis of humor which re-solves all
bitterness.
A Grade I is someone who has no unwanted problems, because he is
able to look out into the world and find a life full of problems that
he wants.
That's what life is, a huge infinite grocery store of every
possible problem to taste and enjoy.
We are talking pure magic here. Can you imagine a world where
pleasure comes from waking up in the morning, picking a problem to
solve, and getting on with solving it?
The *PURPOSE* of life is to pose and resolve problems.
It's a playing field where people can choose and play out the
problems of their choice. Only by withdrawing from ones fair chosen
problems, does a being get trapped in problems that are unwanted,
because they come after him in the vacuum of his withdrawal.
Unwanted problems arise when one refused to want problems that
one wants.
Then one wants 'to not have problems'. That's glum sourness
about problems one wanted and 'couldn't have'. Audit consequences to
taking responsibility. Overts of creating consequences,
determinations to have or create consequences to taking responsibility
etc.
Audit taking responsibility and regretting taking responsibility,
refusing to take responsibility, denying you took responsibility, no
sympathy for responsibility and those who take responsibility etc.
Taking responsibility *IS* posing and re-solving problems.
One can go exterior to problems, have none at all, but only by
exteriorizing from taking responsibility, from wanting to know/not
know, and from the mind.
That's different from being glum about it all and regretting the
day you ever got the idea it might be fun to do something about
something.
The being going out the bottom is withdrawing from problems he
doesn't want by withdrawing from problems altogether, and he thus gets
covered in problems he doesn't want and goes glum stuck in wanting to
know but can't know, or wanting to not know, but must know.
The being going out the top goes out in humor and class, freedom
to not know at will, no longer desires to know or not know etc.
Can you stop the effort to know or not know?
Homer (who is *REALLY* good at head talk) Smith.
- --------- End Forwarded Message ---------
- --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ====================
Sun Aug 5 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom48.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQHhtaURT1lqxE3HERAituAJ9E/88neX7liK7PbVX3446KFsFqQgCdF60l
ICjljT6xVoueq/04Sj+8RLg=
=x/hT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
>At 8:44 PM -0500 2/26/99, Ryan wrote:
>> I want to get _more_ exterior.
>>
>> Can go interior, can be at "back" of my head, but can't go out further.
>>
>> Anybody got a particular HCOB/process/RD to offer me?
You are trying to take your mind with you.
Exteriorize from your mind.
A being exterior to his mind is exterior to questions and
answers.
No more questions and answers.
No more problems to pose and re-solve.
No more trying to take responsibility, trying to not take
responsibility.
No more wanting to know, wanting to not know.
No more trying to know, trying to not know.
No more effort to know, effort to not know.
Trying to know how to exteriorize from the mind is an effort to
know and thus interiorizes into it.
Watch it, Medusa is the Devil's Harem.
The prior beginning to any incident is the effort to take
responsibility for an area.
To take responsibility means to take responsibility for (to
create) or to take responsibility over (to improve).
Run the emotional curve from trying to take responsibility
for/over an area to create or improve it, down to regret about taking
responsibility, with special attention to the efforts to know and not
know all the way through.
Taking responsibility is the earlier beginning, its the moment of
interiorization into the mind which ends in grief, and unwillingness
and inability to take responsibility any more.
Run wanting responsibility, not wanting responsibility.
Being forced to take responsibility, being prevented from taking
responsibility.
Being rewarded for taking responsibility, being punished for
taking responsibility.
Notice that *TAKING* is a pulling in, so that one can put out
causative flows.
Thus, yes 'one pulls it in' whatever it is, literally.
One wears the mind in order to get involved in the game of posing
and re-solving problems.
Don't wear the mind to get rid of the mind, it will stick like
glue.
Don't make the mind into a problem. It will stick like glue.
Don't doubt a true certainty. If you do you will get what you
deserve. That is justice and the genesis of humor which re-solves all
bitterness.
A Grade I is someone who has no unwanted problems, because he is
able to look out into the world and find a life full of problems that
he wants.
That's what life is, a huge infinite grocery store of every
possible problem to taste and enjoy.
We are talking pure magic here. Can you imagine a world where
pleasure comes from waking up in the morning, picking a problem to
solve, and getting on with solving it?
The *PURPOSE* of life is to pose and resolve problems.
It's a playing field where people can choose and play out the
problems of their choice. Only by withdrawing from ones fair chosen
problems, does a being get trapped in problems that are unwanted,
because they come after him in the vacuum of his withdrawal.
Unwanted problems arise when one refused to want problems that
one wants.
Then one wants 'to not have problems'. That's glum sourness
about problems one wanted and 'couldn't have'. Audit consequences to
taking responsibility. Overts of creating consequences,
determinations to have or create consequences to taking responsibility
etc.
Audit taking responsibility and regretting taking responsibility,
refusing to take responsibility, denying you took responsibility, no
sympathy for responsibility and those who take responsibility etc.
Taking responsibility *IS* posing and re-solving problems.
One can go exterior to problems, have none at all, but only by
exteriorizing from taking responsibility, from wanting to know/not
know, and from the mind.
That's different from being glum about it all and regretting the
day you ever got the idea it might be fun to do something about
something.
The being going out the bottom is withdrawing from problems he
doesn't want by withdrawing from problems altogether, and he thus gets
covered in problems he doesn't want and goes glum stuck in wanting to
know but can't know, or wanting to not know, but must know.
The being going out the top goes out in humor and class, freedom
to not know at will, no longer desires to know or not know etc.
Can you stop the effort to know or not know?
Homer (who is *REALLY* good at head talk) Smith.
- --------- End Forwarded Message ---------
- --== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 ====================
Sun Aug 5 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom48.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQHhtaURT1lqxE3HERAituAJ9E/88neX7liK7PbVX3446KFsFqQgCdF60l
ICjljT6xVoueq/04Sj+8RLg=
=x/hT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, August 4, 2012
WORSHIP AND IDOL
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WORSHIP AND IDOL
"\"Rev\" Norle Enturbulata, OD, DTS" <notearthlight2k@nothotmail.com> wrote:
> Reading about the recent stalking of Anons in LA by "Fatty" Patty (not my
> description) and a bunch of other clam thugs, I noted some big text (which
> helps when you're over 50) that stated a question Scientologists cannot
> answer.
>
> "A Church is a place to worship. What do you worship?"
What you are probably meaning to ask is what do they idol?
But a quick answer would be aesthetics, ethics, decency, truth,
awareness, individuality, coexistence, source, sovereignty, and sanity,
clarity and lucidity, in themselves and others.
Lord knows they need it.
Idol and Worship.
Worship is Work.
Directed by one trying to bring
Order to chaos, better to worse, and idol to mess.
Worship is what a Master does to a pig in a pen,
in the dream that one day the pig will be better than he.
Any celestial anybody has this dream.
Creatures idol their creator.
They worship the creator's creatures in order to bring about
a more idol (ideal) state in the creator's creatures.
Worship is WORK SHIP, the Ship of Worthy Work.
Worship is operating kindship in concert of effort and concern.
Idol is towards excaliper competency in operating kindship.
(Ex Caliper means beyond measure)
Idol the creator and worship the creature.
Do not worship the creator nor idol the creature.
Watch it.
Medusa is the Devil's Harem.
Homer
Fri Nov 28 19:05:16 EST 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Aug 4 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore627.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQHMnbURT1lqxE3HERAjOkAKCon2F7YlXkHxYoVwtDDWcEHkT7pgCfZ1bl
ks4REHxqVP3gP4RDjlEtY4E=
=ow0P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Hash: SHA1
WORSHIP AND IDOL
"\"Rev\" Norle Enturbulata, OD, DTS" <notearthlight2k@nothotmail.com> wrote:
> Reading about the recent stalking of Anons in LA by "Fatty" Patty (not my
> description) and a bunch of other clam thugs, I noted some big text (which
> helps when you're over 50) that stated a question Scientologists cannot
> answer.
>
> "A Church is a place to worship. What do you worship?"
What you are probably meaning to ask is what do they idol?
But a quick answer would be aesthetics, ethics, decency, truth,
awareness, individuality, coexistence, source, sovereignty, and sanity,
clarity and lucidity, in themselves and others.
Lord knows they need it.
Idol and Worship.
Worship is Work.
Directed by one trying to bring
Order to chaos, better to worse, and idol to mess.
Worship is what a Master does to a pig in a pen,
in the dream that one day the pig will be better than he.
Any celestial anybody has this dream.
Creatures idol their creator.
They worship the creator's creatures in order to bring about
a more idol (ideal) state in the creator's creatures.
Worship is WORK SHIP, the Ship of Worthy Work.
Worship is operating kindship in concert of effort and concern.
Idol is towards excaliper competency in operating kindship.
(Ex Caliper means beyond measure)
Idol the creator and worship the creature.
Do not worship the creator nor idol the creature.
Watch it.
Medusa is the Devil's Harem.
Homer
Fri Nov 28 19:05:16 EST 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Aug 4 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore627.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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQHMnbURT1lqxE3HERAjOkAKCon2F7YlXkHxYoVwtDDWcEHkT7pgCfZ1bl
ks4REHxqVP3gP4RDjlEtY4E=
=ow0P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
Thursday, August 2, 2012
OT MOTIVATION AND HUMAN MOTIVATION
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
OT MOTIVATION AND HUMAN MOTIVATION
rolandberry@hotmail.com wrote:
>Now, if you could use OT powers to kill that nutcase in charge of North
>Korea.....
Lot's are trying, right or wrong.
The issue falls out in complete gory detail on the murder
rundown, and one sees quickly why one doesn't have OT powers, and
doesn't want them. Using an OT power to protect a human body or win a
game leads to regret.
Using an OT power to optimize a game so it can play longer works
well.
The issue is motivation.
The motivation of an OT is not the motivation of a human being.
The OT is creating tapestries of conflict, good and evil, i.e.
games, the human being in the conflict is trying to win the game.
The OT wants to PLAY, doesn't matter what side.
The human being wants to WIN, doesn't matter what side.
The OT wants to move the mountain in order to put it in a better
place for game play, the human wants to move the mountain in order to
crush his enemies.
Two totally different motivations, the OT is CREATING enemies and
friends, the human is FIGHTING enemies, would/should/could never
create enemies etc.
Good would never create evil to fight. An OT would.
So here's is the most fundamental truth about OT powers, there is
no inability only superior unwillingness.
All cant's are ultimately wont's born of incorrect motivations.
OT power flows freely and without restraint from OT motivations,
it won't flow at all from human motivations.
OT power flows for the Author, but not the Character.
The way to become the Author is to BE the Author becoming the
Character. Practicing coming in puts you out.
It is merely a matter of changing your motivation from game
creator to game player.
If you can put the playing field in place, you can move the
marble.
But the Author isn't into demonstrating Author powers to
Characters, the whole idea is absurd. Unless the author wants to
interfere in the game.
Sometimes characters get powers, but not for long. but they use
them for human ends, and that is just more drama, as ANY ability leads
to the overt/restraint/justification cycle if engaged in too
seriously.
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 Sep 20 16:47:23 EDT 2005
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 2 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore289.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQGibaURT1lqxE3HERAofhAKCtfB3jOXWHS+S+BnCjdWR769YVwQCeNv6x
QOBOREqcIgUATSOPPdb22qs=
=TJ/y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
OT MOTIVATION AND HUMAN MOTIVATION
rolandberry@hotmail.com wrote:
>Now, if you could use OT powers to kill that nutcase in charge of North
>Korea.....
Lot's are trying, right or wrong.
The issue falls out in complete gory detail on the murder
rundown, and one sees quickly why one doesn't have OT powers, and
doesn't want them. Using an OT power to protect a human body or win a
game leads to regret.
Using an OT power to optimize a game so it can play longer works
well.
The issue is motivation.
The motivation of an OT is not the motivation of a human being.
The OT is creating tapestries of conflict, good and evil, i.e.
games, the human being in the conflict is trying to win the game.
The OT wants to PLAY, doesn't matter what side.
The human being wants to WIN, doesn't matter what side.
The OT wants to move the mountain in order to put it in a better
place for game play, the human wants to move the mountain in order to
crush his enemies.
Two totally different motivations, the OT is CREATING enemies and
friends, the human is FIGHTING enemies, would/should/could never
create enemies etc.
Good would never create evil to fight. An OT would.
So here's is the most fundamental truth about OT powers, there is
no inability only superior unwillingness.
All cant's are ultimately wont's born of incorrect motivations.
OT power flows freely and without restraint from OT motivations,
it won't flow at all from human motivations.
OT power flows for the Author, but not the Character.
The way to become the Author is to BE the Author becoming the
Character. Practicing coming in puts you out.
It is merely a matter of changing your motivation from game
creator to game player.
If you can put the playing field in place, you can move the
marble.
But the Author isn't into demonstrating Author powers to
Characters, the whole idea is absurd. Unless the author wants to
interfere in the game.
Sometimes characters get powers, but not for long. but they use
them for human ends, and that is just more drama, as ANY ability leads
to the overt/restraint/justification cycle if engaged in too
seriously.
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 Sep 20 16:47:23 EDT 2005
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 2 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore289.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFQGibaURT1lqxE3HERAofhAKCtfB3jOXWHS+S+BnCjdWR769YVwQCeNv6x
QOBOREqcIgUATSOPPdb22qs=
=TJ/y
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)