HUMAN VS OT

HUMAN VS OT

Electra:
>> So one last thing. As I have stated many times, IF I HAD power I
>would never let anyone know I had power unless they had it too. Thus
>>from ME you could never get any demonstration of power.

Huggie (huggie@pop.ihug.co.nz) wrote:
> If she saw a rogue plane heading for the Scn. center in Clearwater
>or the Pentagon in Wash. she would just stand by and not demo her powers ?

> "Use it or lose it!"

Nice computation.

*USING* powers is different than *DEMOING* powers. Any OT could
stop the crash without anyone knowing an OT did it.

Never make a move on the chess board just to prove you can.

Anyhow, as Electra said many times, OT's are not human, OT's are
Gods.

To the degree that they use their powers to protect human concerns
like the safety of their bodies etc, they attach themselves to bodies
and actually lose their OT powers.

An OT is someone who can put the scene there. One can move a
mountain *IF* one can put it there. But if one has put it there, why
move it?

An OT might look at the plane and the pentagon and adjust the
event, but probably wouldn't take sides in human concerns. An OT would
be more concerned with the aesthetics of the crash than with being
'good' or avoiding the crash.

You know, high appreciation for the aesthetics of the ludicrous
demise of "innocent victims".

Fundamental sense of art in any God.

The OT is interested in PLAYING the game, win or lose, not in
winning the game at all costs. An OT will act to preserve the playing
field, but not any of the players on either side of the game.

OT's operate to extend the game, keep the volley going, not to help
one side win the game, good or evil.

If OT's do take sides, they tend to side with the underdog, whoever
is losing most, be they the good guys or bad guys.

OT's act to make the story more telling, not to end it because the
good guys are screaming for mama.

The more a being cares about playing the game, the more OT they
are. They more they care about winning or losing, the less OT they are.

Humans want OT powers to become super human, to help them protect
their human interests, to harm their enemies etc., that sticks them to
becoming sub human.

Humans want OT powers for them selves but not for others, they want
OT powers to help them WIN the game, not to PLAY the game.

OT's want OT powers to be better able to create playing fields and
become human.

This is why OT's don't respond to demands for proof from mental
midgets.

Basically it is not OK for a God to take sides *AS A GOD* in a game
he created. It is ok for a God to take sides in a game as a creature
though.

But creators as creatures don't have OT powers by definition.

The minute a Creator God takes sides with one of his creatures
against other's of his own creatures, you will find the God AS a
creature a few generations later.

All creatures are Creators playing Creature. They have to
keep the rules separate or it really messes up the game for everyone.

Virtue for the Creature is not virtue for the Creator.
Olaf Stapleton - Star Maker

The idea that we are made in God's image is not really true.

The Author is not the same as the Character.

Virtue for the Character is not Virtue for the Author.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

JUSTIFICATION SANDWICH

((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))

JUSTIFICATION SANDWICH

EXM - 46

3 March 1992

Copyright (C) 1992 A Voice of the Free Zone (Electra)
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

There is another smaller sandwich inside the No Sympathy Sandwich
called the Justification Sandwich. It goes as follows.

A person commits an overt act (No Sympathy) and regrets it. This
leads to pulling in some overwhelm or chronic condition with which he
justifies or explains away the seriousness of his earlier overt act.
But now he has this strange chronic disability that he can't easily
explain, so he needs to justify THAT. This allows him to continue to
commit more overt acts along the same lines.

The Justification Sandwich

OVERT - JUSTIFICATION - CONDITION - JUSTIFICATION - OVERT

There is a BEFORE justification and and AFTER justification. The
CONDITION is sandwiched between the two.

For example, let's say one day you are driving down the road in
Vietnam during the war and you see a little Vietnamese boy in the middle
of the road. Rather than slow down you decide it would be fun to scare
the hell out of the child so you hit the gas and go after him. The
child however gets confused and doesn't know which way to run and ends
up running right into your front tires, getting crushed beyond repair.
You get out of the jeep and try to comfort him. But his back is broken
and he screams for half an hour and dies looking at you with terror in
his eyes.

You never MEANT to kill the child, you just wanted to have some
(cruel) fun. Now you feel sorry. The last look of those sad eyes is
YOUR memory forever. What's that cute Nurse you been dating back at the
camp going to think? You going to take his crushed body to her? You
wish to hell you had some justification to explain why you did not see
the child in the road or were unable to avoid hitting him. Having bad
eye sight fits the bill. Suddenly your eyes are not feeling so hot and
your vision is a little blurry. You go to the doctor and he gives you a
prescription for eye glasses. Your Nurse friend gives you sympathy, she
'understands what you have been through.'

So there is the OVERT (killing the child), the false JUSTIFICATION
(couldn't see well) and the CHRONIC OVERWHELM CONDITION (bad eyes). But
then one day you cross paths with one of your old buddies who remarks
about your new eye glasses and how you used to have the eyes of an
eagle. Suddenly you feel horrible inside because he is missing your
withhold that you killed a child in fun.

So you explain to him how your father had bad eyes, and how it's
genetic in origin and runs in your family. This is the AFTER
JUSTIFICATION of the condition, a condition which you are using to make
yourself feel less responsible for having killed the child. Claiming
that bad eyes is genetic makes it OK to have bad eyes and wear glasses.
It allows you to survive with this condition and keeps others off your
case about the anomaly.

However once you have claimed that wearing eye glasses is right and
not your fault, the door is now open for you to start a business
manufacturing and selling eye glasses to others and making your living
from it. Thus you become involved in continuous present time overt acts
born of your earlier before and after justifications.

OVERT - Killed Child.
BEFORE JUSTIFICATION - Couldn't see well
CHRONIC CONDITION - Bad eyes and wearing glasses.
AFTER JUSTIFICATION - Bad eyes are genetic not engramic.
OVERT - Making a living selling eye glasses
rather than pulling people's withholds.

That is the Justification Sandwich which you are trying to run off
a case.

Now any person will have possibly many of these things, but there
will be a central one, a first one, a biggest and worst one on his case.
You know, the one that is HIM. It makes him who he is in his eyes, the
screw ball who...

It is his ruin in life, and may even be his ruin in all of
Eternity.

THAT is the one you want to find.

One way to handle this is as follows. First you get the person to
state and recognize what the central condition is on their case. A
condition is any disability or illness or chronic unwanted condition.
The word unwanted must be understood thoroughly, because your pc may be
very glad he has glasses on the surface but just under the surface his
eye problem is a very unwanted condition and just earlier is a VERY
unwanted regret.

The condition you are looking for is NOT the original overt act he
committed, it is NOT the justification he used. It is the condition
that he pulled in engramically to provide the justification for the
overt act. The condition will exist on all 4 planes of existence,
physical, emotional, mental and spiritual.

Physical conditions will be illnesses or aches and pains or
disabilities or compulsions or inhibitions in the functioning of his
physical body and his relationship to the external physical universe.

Emotional conditions will be unwanted feelings, or inabilities to
feel things.

Mental disabilities will be things like not being able to think or
remember, hallucinations, no mockups, etc.

Spiritual disabilities will manifest themselves as a total
inability to take responsibility for or exercise responsibility over
some sphere of being, doing or having in the lower 3 planes.

The condition may be some thing he has in relation to other people,
such as BEING UNWANTED or it may be something he has alone such as BEING
FORGETFUL. These are just examples.

The condition may be very poetic like the following:

"Well, I'm sort of a bottom of the barrel, marked down, last one on
sale with no buyers, kind of girl."

That's a condition, don't you see?

The condition that you are looking for will have all 4 planes
represented in it's disability.

One way to find this is to audit on an E-meter the following
question until you find a blow down item with relief, humor and VGI's,

'What is the central condition on your case?'
'What is NOT the central condition on your case?'

For example, let's say he finally says 'there is something too ugly
to look at!' So that's a chronic condition, every time he makes a
mockup, IF he manages to get one to appear, it immediately turns into
some ultimate horror show of hideousness and he wonders where all the
ugliness comes from. He is worried he might DIE if he manages to look
at it too long.

He is also just sure that no one in their right mind could ever
MAKE such a thing, so his responsibility on the subject is quite low.

So it effects him physically because 'he might die' if he looks at
it too long. It effects him emotionally because it's hideous. It
effects him mentally because he can't understand it, it's just totally
alien to him. And it effects him spiritually because he feels he could
not, would not, should not have created it.

So once you have his central condition, or a condition he is
interested in running you then can run alternately in any order,

1.) 'How have you justified having this condition?'
2.) 'What have you used this condition to justify?'

or

1.) 'What justifies this condition?'
2.) 'What does this condition justify?'

You see, the first question asks for the AFTER justification, and
the second question asks for the BEFORE justification.

This should go a long ways to breaking up his Justification
Sandwich. Eventually you should find some regret and the earlier overt
he has been 'solving' by being deaf, dumb, blind, fat and stupid.

If during this or after a win, your pc wishes to go deeper and find
a new more central condition to his case, by all means run it as above.

Conditions can be things like, being mortal, can't remember, don't
dare look, can't work, I'm too ugly/beautiful, drug addiction, I'm too
poor/rich, etc.

If you are having trouble getting your pc to state a condition that
he considers central to his self respect, get him to run the following.
Have him consider that some great being is coming to earth to look
everyone over, and they are able to see everything there is about
anyone, and they are looking at your pc, very intelligently,
dispassionately, objectively as an observer. Get your pc to list what
this person would think about him, or see or observe if he could see
all. If your pc's name is Susan, you might use as your auditing
question,

'What is it about Susan?'

Run it as long as it makes the TA go up and down, don't stop at the
first win, or chuckle. What you will get is a long list of valences,
beingnesses in a condition. Eventually you will get nearer to your pc's
central condition.

Electra

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Aug 26 00:06:06 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm46.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.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l

SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS III

SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS III

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Redness is a quality of being of our conscious picture.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homer

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

EFFECTS OF DEMONSTRATING OT POWERS

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







EFFECTS OF DEMONSTRATING OT POWERS

SCI - 23

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

>>I submit that effects never prove absolutely the existence of cause.

> Of course not. This is what *we've* been trying to say in this
>thread for a while: science is not about anything absolute. It's
>about a model -- a predictor -- for some effect in the world. It's
>not about any absolute existence of cause; it's the best model we can
>make today.

No you go one step further and claim that the experimenter can not
be part of the experiment. Tell that to Albert Hofmann who discovered
LSD. Tell him his second trip was not an 'experiment in the name of
science.'

Look it's real simple. I run a process on a pc and he SAYS he got
out of his body. That vocalization is the external data that I can
observe about the pc. I run the same process on 2 million pcs and they
ALL SAY they can get out of their body.

Seems to me we have a science here, I do an experiment, I get a
result, I can observe the result in others, others can observe the
results too.

Others can do the same experiment, not on themselves Lord forbid,
and they can get the same results, the pc SAYS 'I am OUT!'

Now what model would you like to propose to explain this data?

1.) The pc is lying.

2.) The pc is hallucinating.

3.) The pc is out of his body and is reporting the truth.

Tell me this is not a *Science* (tm) up to this point.

>Well, Homer, we're left with a question. If you want "clearing tech" to
>be a science, you would definitely benefit from creating an objective
>demonstration of an OOBE.

Sure, the question is do I want clear tech to BE a *Science* (tm)
and the answer is no, or well maybe. If I must provide external
evidence for internal states, then perhaps I should stick to providing
that evidence only for those internal states that others, who do not
have those states, would not feel threatened by and be prone to attack
as too dangerous.

Grand exteriorization would not be one of these, I would rather
keep that weapon under cover in my secret laboratory where no one can
know about it except those who can do it or those working towards
getting there.

>Would you want this to happen?

Yes but not at the expense of the stability of civilization.

Half the world would immediately decide you were under the control
of the Devil if you demonstrated any such power, they would NOT think
you were out of your body, they KNOW this is impossible, they KNOW you
ARE a body, they KNOW you have only LIVED ONCE, therefore if you have
such power the Devil must be doing it for you.

WAKE UP!

The first OT to demonstrate serious power would be considered the
Anti-Christ by that evening's news.

>If the answer is yes,
>how about if you objectively demonstrate an OOBE?

Not in a million years.

Those who are being helped TOWARDS this ability have a very strong
desire that such abilities not be demonstrated because they know it will
make it harder for them to get there smoothly.

> What is obvious is that, if you could objective demonstrate an
>OOBE, you could [virtually] instantly bring the credibility of science
>to "clearing tech."

Credibility to who, Phil?

Skeptics? Who cares, BOOORRRRRIIINNNNGGGG.

Christians? No way, it would be Anti Christ city for them.

At what expense?

Who is to judge the effects of such a demonstration?

You?

>This is where you lose the audience, >Homer. *You* are the one who
wants >"clearing tech" to become a science.

Phil, my friend, my long lost buddy of millions of years ago, YOU
ARE NOT MY AUDIENCE, NEVER HAVE BEEN AND NEVER WILL BE.

Nor is anyone like you, including all of your skeptic and
*Scientist* (tm) friends.

>But you obviously can, right? >And you do have motivation for
demonstrating >your powers, right?

Me? Phil, you been reading my stuff? Did I ever say I was a full
OT with grand exteriorization ability? I doubt there is anyone on this
list with this ability.

But I will bet you they wouldn't tell you if they had it.

> Don't you think it would make a huge difference to the world to
>demonstrate this "clearing tech" *as a science* to the rest of us?

Yes, perhaps, but you *Scientists of the Rock* (tm) are pretty
dense, not sure if you are worth the bother.

Certainly demostrating some lower level improvement in case gain
might be useful to those who are able to make case gain.

You know even if someone did demonstrate to you OOBE, and you
believed it, YOU still might be an inaccessible pc.

Getting out of a body is a matter of confronting why you were in
one in the first place.

Do YOU have the personal confront for this Phil?

Or are you hiding behind your doubt so you don't have to see your
own wall of fire?

Anyhow, any serious demonstration of super human powers would
destroy all of civilization with in a year, so no that would not be good
for clear tech.

There are many more people who do not need that level of proof,
they can REMEMBER they once had power, they just want it back.

THOSE are my audience, those who still have a memory, and confront.

>Do you or do you not want to
>demonstrate the science of "clearing tech" to
>the world?

Sorry Phil, you and your kind are not the world. The world is full
of pcs beating a path to auditor's doors.

We don't need you.

Skeptics can have the planet all to themselves when the rest of us
leave.

When everyone goes clear who can, the Earth will become a Holding
Tank for Skeptics.

They can keep each other warm with their doubt.

No one is asking you to believe what you have not experienced for
yourself.

We ARE asking you to believe what you HAVE experienced for yourself
even if you can't prove it to some Joe Smoe in a white lab coat.

Get some auditing, stop hiding behind your *Science* (tm).

You don't need permission from the American Journal of Physics to
get a new reality on what you are, why you are here, and what you can
do.

That reality comes from YOU, if they don't know it, it's only
because they don't want to know it.

You can always get out of your body and go watch them having sex
and groaning 'Clear Tech, right, Prove it!'

They should get some auditing too.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 23 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sci23.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)

iD8DBQFQNdZaURT1lqxE3HERApS+AJ9jxxIhx4OFsTQyZb0DEljsw25blgCdF2on
I35FefClomfTzkDwttcBPrs=
=6xPc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

RECOVERY AND DISCOVERY

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

09/13/10 Monday 2:57pm EST

DISCOVERY AND RECOVERY

I think part of the problem is meatballs live in a world view where
we are born of nothing and evolved, and thus there is no prior knowledge
of anything important forgottgen.

Looking down their memory track they expect to see nothing because
they were nothing a while back.

Thus if someone can move the marble, it becomes a *DISCOVERY*,
rather than a *RECOVERY*. Thus of course one would want to shout eureka
to the world and let everyone know.

This doesn't mean the need for a prime directive wouldn't swiftly
form around the ability, but it does mean there is no PRIOR prime
directive hiding those powers in the first place.

Thus it is counter intuitive to the meatball to audit the power
protocol rundown, because he can't imagine that PRIOR violations of
protocol and maybe even the protocols themselves lead to no power.

He also can't imagine that power itself is being used to limit
power.

As long as people are in discovery mode about spiritual abiliies,
they pretty much don't stand a chance, as their responsibility for not
having powers is nill.

Learning by looking is a trap when it comes to spiritual matters.

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

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010, Pip wrote:

> Unless one can grasp the idea of the world being a dream, the Prime
> Directive is just another wacky idea in a preposterous world view. But
> if you understand games, you understand mutually agreed upon rules and
> how they are enforced. No matter how far reaching or complex the game
> may be, it's really that simple. No rules, or no enforcement, = no
> game. The only proof is to see it for yourself. I saw it for myself.
> All proof is inside, not outside. Most people won't look - they suffer
> from the fatal disease of "I already know everything". Actually that's
> for protection; looking can be terrifying. It's easier to stay in the
> comfort zone. A lot of talk happens in the comfort zone. It's filled
> with opinions.
>
> Pip
>
> PS: The prime directive rule does have some loopholes apparently.
>
> homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>
>> In article <5e3c880a-e6f1-4c48-bde5-82e741b5c62d@e34g2000prn.googlegroups.com> you wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Prime directive stuff is a cop out obviously. Who, when, where and
>>> why, and for how long?
>>>
>>> Again none of the pertinent information is ever supplied. Pearls
>>> before swine, and the besmirching
>>> of sacremental texts or wisdoms whatever could it possibly be.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Actually this is wrong.
>>
>> The prime directive is very simple, if someone wants some
>> ability, you may provide him with time and effort to help HIM
>> get the ability, and you may provide him with the processes to
>> look over before you run them on him if necessary, but you may not
>> demonstrate that YOU have the ability to him before he has it himself.
>>
>> Hardly a cop out.
>>
>> Homer
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>
Mon Sep 13 15:00:15 EDT 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Aug 21 03:06:02 EDT 2012
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore795.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)

iD8DBQFQMzNaURT1lqxE3HERAlMeAJ9o+YZUIpqnjN7qrPAOV3/q2/qZSACfTC/D
oFsJRJFOTPZgOW3OLwX16a4=
=HF2x
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Homerwsmith-l mailing list
Homerwsmith-l@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

LOW REALITY PCS

LOW REALITY PCS

As the higher reality pcs have left this list for quieter climes,
the remaining people on this list seem to be more and more low reality
pcs.

Past lives don't exist, BT's don't exist, OT powers don't exist,
exteriorization doesn't exist, implants don't exist, personal
responsibility for condition doesn't exist, sovereignty doesn't exist, I
worry I might be a brain, prove it, prove it, prove it...

"I am trying to evolve, not resolve!"

Right.

Doubt is fine, but all this know before you go prove it crap is
not.

Nattering about Hubbard because he dared to tell you what was
there to be had, reflects on you, not him.

If he couldn't deliver and YOU can't deliver, well that's two
strikes and you are out.

If someone has no reality on past lives, then they won't audit
why they can't remember them. An in the absence of auditing past life
charge, either their own, or others, there is no case gain, because
real auditing flat out doesn't work if limited to this life only, the
earlier similars are all ignored as are the earlier others.

*DESIRE IS TO HAVE LIVED BEFORE AND TO LIVE AGAIN.*

If you ain't auditing BT's, you might as well give it up, there
are more of them than there are of you, and man are THEY pissed off
and charged up, mostly at what a dufus their auditor is.

Their auditor is a 'What PC?' case.

The guy who is going 'Prove to me I have lived before' is
actually saying "Prove to me I chose to forget.'

Think about it.

Electra wrote whole tomes about people who think their eyes are
bad because 'it runs in the family gene pool'.

Real nut jobs.

Once a Pre OT starts to be able to see again, he can see damn
well why he can't see and becomes quite happy at NOT being able to see
again.

That's how he created it, happy to not see, and that is exactly
how he will uncreat it, happy to not see.

True some people are born blind, but 3 billion eye glass wearers
were not born blind, and anyhow if you were born blind, what are you
doing using a piece of FDA approved meat to see with?

"The hypocrisy on Earth is so thick it is like a wall. You can
hammer nails into it, and hang pictures of smiling faces from them.

FUN stands for Find and UNearthing unearthly hypocrisy." - Adore

Homer

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

Sat Aug 18 01:05:46 EDT 2007

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

W.O.W.

W.O.W.

Spiritual abilities that can be used as weapons of war (W.O.W.) need
to be handled with appropriate security measures.

Unfortunately the desire and need for peer review can sometimes be
opposed to those same security measures.

One can doubt one's own experiences unless one can ground them in
some kind of physical evidence.

Physical evidence is important not because the physical universe is
actual or has any cause in it, but because it is merely another playing
field created by the thetan. If you can see an object on the playing
field of life without your body, you should also be able to see it with
a body, and visa versa.

(This isn't true of course, there are lots of things in the playing
field of life, even physical things, that the body can not see.)

Fortunately one's own body can act both as peer review and as
grounding in the physical evidence.

Say you get out of your body, go wandering in the forest and see a
beer can lying under a bush that has been there for years. You take
note of it's characteristics, what kind of beer, condition of can etc,
and you come back to your body and write it all down.

THEN you take your body to where the beer can lays, pick it up and
bring it home with you and compare notes.

If you got it right, then 'you were out of your body' as far as the
meaning of that experiment is concerned.

Just as in special relativity, in the phyiscal universe game, the
meaning of 'truth' is the experiment you did and its outcome, nothing
more, nothing less.

Then you do this same experiment many times, until you are sure you
can replicate it at will. This doesn't mean you can get out at will, it
means that if and when you can get out, if you see something without
your bodies eyes, you then go back to that place later with your body
and verify data. The experiment must be done on objects and places you
have never gone or been before, under a bridge, deep in the middle of a
bramble, at the bottom of a shallow lake etc.

Hunting for your cat is a good way to visit places NO one visits.

Once you have verified your ability and its dependability such as
it is, you probably would not go telling the world about it, as very
undesirable people will start showing up at your door, including those
that don't believe you.

But they aren't the problem. The problem people are those that do
believe you, who may or may not have such powers themselves, but who
either don't want you also having those powers, or who will insist you
'work for them' if you do.

Such people can be very dangerous, it is not enough for example to
merely pretend to not have the ability. They will torture you or your
loved ones, until you admit you do, or you exercise some defense power
in desperation.

"Hah, you see, you blew up my head, I knew you had the power!"

Even if they think you might not have the powers, they will STILL
torture you just to make sure. Thus they will torture you and everyone
else around you just to find the one that might have the power.

This is right off the whole track, any fool can see it, but
apparently fools squared can't.

So if you don't have a taste for hot branding irons up your ass,
you might want to keep your abilities to yourself. Remember it is YOU
that has the power, but it is you BODY that gets tortured.

Do you want the bad guys torturing your pets to get at you?

On the other hand as you experiment more and more with your
abilities, you will notice two things.

First will be a craving to use your abilities to go watch others
having sex or thrills of some kind, or to cheat at the games of survival
that everyone is playing, like the stock market, or war.

Your body will love your ability to go exterior as it will act as a
vicarious spectator to anything you see. This will quickly get you into
the track of degradation that got you stuck with bodies in the first
place.

The body knows more about sex than about physics and math, the
thetan knows more about math and physics than about sex.

Which are you?

The second thing you notice on your exterior excursions, if they
are real, are other beings who are also exterior watching you.

Now these guys you need to watch out for, their intentions may or
may not be pro you.

Thus no matter how much you try to 'Stay Fabian' (incognito, out of
sight) with your powers, the best way is to stay in your body and not
use them at all, or worse, not know you have them and believe with all
your body, heart, mind and soul, er that dead thing in your face, that
you don't have them.

That unfortunately leads to the kind of lives you are living now,
so be prepared for at least some excitement once you start to get out
for real and start to wander around.

The fun and trill will be balanced by danger.

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 May 4 15:58:15 EDT 2010