-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
COURAGE v2.0
Typos corrected.
Standard disclaimer:
Always run this process as a GodSoul, never as a mere mortal,
because when the God stuff turns on, you won't be there to handle it,
you will be cowering in a corner crying 'Where's God when I need him!"
And don't play the prove it game, 'But I need proof that there is
something to know before I try to know it by not knowing!'
Handle fear of enforced not knowing through self determined not
knowing, not harder efforts to know.
Harder efforts to know result in hurry to make case gain, because
he ain't making any.
Trivializing this process. or throwing a fit because you can't
know at will, will break your spine in two, as forces which you should
be controlling through not know, will be released to splat all over the
place, in your efforts to know harder.
You can always not know at will, and that will chill it all out.
It is dangerous to even KNOW this process if you aren't going to
NOT KNOW IT, and run it as a fully operational GodSoul, which you are,
whether you think you are or not.
The basic process is:
"Not know something."
"Know something."
Always run the 'Not know something" first, but sync is important.
If you are not running on a meter, the only way you will know that
sync is out, is that the preclear will be bogged down in no OKs!
Simply run the existing command again, or the other command twice
in a row, back and forth until you get into sync with the preclear's
flows again. If you do not know about sync by now, you shouldn't be
running this bulletin.
This process is really easy.
You ask your preclear to 'know something'.
It can be anything, he looks around him and sees a blue book, so
now he knows the book is blue. He says OK, and that's it, next command.
Then you say "Not know something."
And your preclear goes 'Ok, well I know the book is blue, now I
will not know that!'
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO, WRONG!
That's knowing something, not not knowing something.
You do not want him to know something and then not know it, you
want him to not know something that he is already not knowing!
Have him feel the flows he is using to not know something, and do
THEM more, then when he says OK, go back to "Know something."
So your preclear complains "But I don't know if I am not knowing
anything, how can I not know something when maybe there is nothing there
that I am not knowing."
He is terrified of duplicating the not know already running his
life. Christ, he might as-is his stupid self.
Refer him to the church for auditing, he doesn't have the
prerequisite personal honesty to run the process.
If the command 'Not know something' doesn't instantly indicate to
your preclear with bells and chimes, laughter and relief, you do not
want anything to do with them.
Allow the pc to Itsa, but do not demand it, if the pc says "OK" at
the end of a command, that's fine, end of story.
None of this, 'Tell me about it', or 'Are you sure that is all?'
He can't TELL YOU ABOUT IT, because he is not knowing it, you see?
If the meter hasn't finished falling on each command, just give it
time and only start the next command when the needle starts to rise
again. You do not need a meter to run this.
A clumsy auditor, in a hurry, or running his own case, while
running this on another, can use a meter to stay in sync with the
preclear. The meter acts as a rein on the auditor.
And NEVER EVER force your preclear to answer WhatsIt?
Auditor's just always have to know whatsit, whatsit, whatsit.
You are trying to get him to NOT KNOW WhatsIt, and to not know that
he is not knowing WhatsIt. You don't do this by asking him What's It?
You get it?
He doesn't need to know whatsit to get to native state, and if he
does know whatsit momentarily, it will be so fast, he won't remember it
long enough to tell it to you, no matter how big it is. Trying to hold
on to the whatsit, so as to report to the auditor about it, will only
bog him down in making sure it doesn't appear, lest he lose it before he
he has a chance to relate it.
Sorry, poor auditor doesn't get his whatsit fix for the day.
Keep your own question asking psychoses to yourself and do not ruin
your preclears with them.
When he can feel the certainty of not knowing without wondering
about, or needing to know, what he is not knowing, he is half way there.
When he is no longer terrified out of his wits by his somatics, and
can handle them, in or out of session, when they turn on by further
running of not knowing and knowing, he will be in pretty good shape.
E/P: chilled out and able to run the remainder of this bulletin.
Go take a break, yum donuts and coffee, the rest of this is long
and very heavy.
Homer
COURAGE
I had a dream tonight. In the dream I listened to a taped lecture
by Enid Vien. This is what the lecture said.
Courage is powered by desire.
Courage is the willingness to go after something at all costs to
self, without much thought given to recovering should one lose, as
ultimately, being able is a given.
Courage is the dividing line between:
1.) Sanity and Insanity
2.) Exterior and Interior
3.) On purpose and Off purpose
4.) Exhilaration and mere Enthusiasm
Courage is item based.
An item is what your preclear has the courage to be, do and have.
Each item has embedded within it the courage to be, do or have that
item.
Items can not exist without the foundational courage to drive them.
Courage is what reads on the meter.
A being can not want something for real without the courage to
attempt to get it.
If there is no courage, the item is not really wanted, except as a
substitute.
People think they want all kinds of things that in fact they would
hate having if they had them.
Mock it up, mock up having what you think you want, notice the bad
taste in your mouth and the emptiness in the pit of your belly.
If what is wanted is prime and real, the courage to go for it will
be there as part of it.
It will feel as the warmth of life.
The opposite of emptiness.
No courage means no real desire for it in the first place.
Desire, courage and item form a complete package of power and
purpose.
Find your preclear's point of courage, and you will find their
point of true purpose.
Find their point of true purpose, and you will find their point of
courage.
Everything else sought after is a waste of time, and forces them,
by definition, into cowardice on the tone scale.
Cowardice means chasing what you don't want as prime purpose.
Cowardice is born of considered failure on prime purpose and IS the
effort to shift to a substitute.
Courage means true purpose.
True purpose means courage.
Cowardice means off purpose, someone else's purpose, substitute
purpose.
Off purpose means cowardice.
It can't be any other way.
True purposes are the items of GPMS.
GPM means Goals Problem Mass.
They float above time so your preclear is taking them everywhere he
goes. He can't escape them by moving ahead in time.
GPMS form the archetypical design of the game.
GPMS define what is worth a while and what is not.
GPMS are your preclear's raison d'etre, reason to be, do and have.
GPMS are items bound together with desire and courage, which
creates power, motion, flow towards action at Spirit of Play on the tone
scale.
Spirit of play doesn't care about winning or losing, Spirit of Play
only wants to PLAY.
Spirit of play only cares to give the other side a run for their
money that they will NEVER forget even if it loses.
Spirit of Play will do ANYTHING to play.
What really pisses it off is not being able to play any more.
If a GPM is implanted, then the courage that goes with its items
will be implanted too.
If the GPM is his own, then his courage will be his own also.
If the GPM items are suppressed, then his courage will be
suppressed too.
Without courage he will be afraid to get out, and will live a life
of purposelessness, of tooling around in secondary Q&A, substitutes.
In this sense Q&A (Question and Answer) means starting out for A,
getting stopped and saying "Ah well, I think I will go to B instead,
didn't really want to go to A anyhow."
Q&A is endless cycles of sour grapes, the fox that couldn't reach
the ripe grapes, gave up in dismay and said he didn't want them anyhow,
and pretty soon you find the person not going to A, B or C but parked at
Z, saying "Who me? I was born here, and never had a desire to leave."
That's spelled COWARDICE.
Cowardice is not cause, postulates and considerations are cause.
Cowardice is merely the color of energy the being uses to drape
himself and continue in an off prime direction, replete with gaping
wounds and overt and covert pleas for sympathy, for help to 'show him
the way'.
So you say to him, "Well, it ain't this way bud", you turn him
around and show him the direction where he WAS going that would heal
anything.
"...the direction where he WAS going that would HEAL ANYTHING."
You see?
A secondary substitute purpose is saying "Well, I didn't make it
being a doctor, so I am going to be a garbage man instead."
Fortunately the world needs 7 am garbage men, so the ploy works.
The dwindling spiral consists of endless layers of secondary
substitutes piling on top of an original primary purpose in a high state
of failure, pretending it will succeed by doing something else.
It takes great courage to travel the road of cowardice for there is
only darkness and doom up ahead that NO ONE can confront.
How can you get to A by going to B?
How can you get to A by STAYING at Z?
Cowardice is doing something else, and doing something else is
always powered by cowardice.
"There may be such a thing as Courage, but there is no such thing
as sanity totally opposed." - LRH
Suppressed GPM items can not be run by asking questions.
It is not possible to run "What is it?" and run not know at the
same time.
GPM items have been NOT KNOWN. You need to run off the not know
before the knowingness of what they are will come back.
The power of GPMS is running him. Standing aside and trying to
divine what they are, is like trying to see your gas tank in a car going
300 miles an hour. Forget the gas tank, just GO.
If he can't GO, then get him to NOT GO, but for heaven's sake do
not get him squirreled around looking for the gas tank or a road map.
Have your preclear get the idea of asking a question with all his
might, and then refusing the answer with all his might on the same item
at the same time.
That's an AND.
Wanna know AND don't wanna know.
If he is doing that, have him spot it and run it out, such activity
must not be a part of his survival repertoire.
Physical isometrics make the body strong, but mental isometrics
make the spirit insane.
Exerting the effort to ask "What is it?" runs the item IN, and
creates intractable somatics, that not even suicide will end, as being's
take their somatics with them when they die.
His after life, whether good or bad, is a kind of somatic, a heaven
or hell, arising from the GPMS he is involved in.
Heavens are winning, hells are losing.
After life heavens and hells can be run out before death or after,
at which point the being is free to be reborn again or not on his own
determinism.
If these heavens and hells are not fully run out, either during the
life or after, your preclear will dramatize both for a while, and then
get reborn again anyhow on one of the flows still operating.
It other words he will be coming in on a heaven flow or a hell
flow.
In either case they will continue to alternate during his life, and
after until if and when they are all run clear.
Without clearing, the being builds up endless layers of heaven and
hell flows, none of which ever reach closure.
His eventual fate, too horrible to imagine, is something like a 9
to 5 PhD at Cornell.
If you are wondering, a clear probably would not choose to be
reborn in ignorance again, but he might :)
GPM somatics are not a body thing.
Courage and cowardice are not mortal issues, they are immortal
issues, as the being, pretending to be a mortal body, is already
drowning in a sea of glue made of cowardice and self deceit, hanging on
to his drift wood of secondary substitutes.
Exerting the effort to not know for a while, runs the not-isness on
the item out, and the item will appear in its own good time, at which
point your preclear can run with it again, and then be done with it
according to his free choice at the time.
You gotta get his car running on its track again, like it was
before he got into trouble, before he can bring it to a controlled stop.
After a long time of suppression, that GPM is going to want to GO
when it sees the light of day again, you get the picture?
CHASE
There is some attraction to being fair chosenly nuts in a time
stream chasing after pretty girls or some such thing.
If he wants it, why chase after it, why not just have it?
You see that's SPIRIT OF PLAY coming into it, Spirit of Play wants
to PLAY more than it wants to have the wiener that it wins at the end,
or a place to put it,
CHASING the pretty girl, well that's fun, but HAVING a pretty girl?
Just make sure you have a prenup handy.
Spirit of Play enjoys defeat as much as it enjoys triumph, as long
as it made the other side wonder, and it will try to optimize its games
so that it gets equal amounts of both winning and losing with LOTS of
play in between.
Short games, easily won or easily lost, are anathema to Spirit of
Play.
Spirit of Play would play forever and never win or lose if it
could. It dreams of the endless volley but may push it to a win or a
lose once in a while in order to start a new one.
AUDITING
As far as auditing is concerned ignorance (not know for a while) is
bliss.
Wouldn't it be great if you could know anything just by not knowing
it INTENTIONALLY for a while?
Do you know how many questions you have left in total failure on
your whole track, never daring to not know them even for a moment, lest
you waste precious time when you could be trying harder to answer them?
It's that sucking in, wanting to know, that keeps the whole track
caved in on you, and the key to the whole shebang is the ability and
willingness to not know for while every single one of those questions,
until you know again, and can dispense with them all.
THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS NOT IMPORTANT.
THE ABILITY TO STOP ASKING THE QUESTION UNTIL THE ANSWER REAPPEARS,
IS.
Beings think that if they give up trying to know the answers to
questions, they will forget them and never come back to them.
And as they thought, so it became.
If they had thought instead that if they forgot their questions and
let them be, the answers would all appear in their own good time, they
would have all the answers they ever wanted, and wouldn't have a whole
track bank glued to their faces still trying to know.
Even though people forgot their questions, they did so in FAILURE
AND APATHY, rather than expectation of knowing, and THEY ARE STILL
TRYING TO KNOW them.
The efforts to answer forgotten questions never go away, they get
converted into efforts to play basket ball, drink beer, or some other
substitute.
The guy picks up a fork to stick a piece of meat in his mouth,
that's an effort he once used long ago to answer a question that didn't
work. He is no longer aware of the question, but he's doing the effort
in present time on a substitute.
That's why when a being is off purpose, pretending he is on
purpose, EVERYTHING he is doing is a substitute, and thus everything
hurts and he feels lower at the end of the day, more empty, more
useless, more dead.
Once the being got the idea he had to know RIGHT NOW to survive, he
was doomed.
The truth was he had to be able to NOT KNOW for a while to survive.
Ultimate eternal survival results from total as-isness, which
results from running out all the alter-isness off of things, the FALSE
KNOWING AND THE PRETENDED NEED TO KNOW MORE.
But that can only happen after the NOT-ISNESS and pretending there
is nothing to know is run out.
As you run not know, the somatics will abate, your body will feel
better, your energy and courage will begin to return based on the
ABSENCE of dramatizing TRYING TO KNOW, acting along secondary
substitutes, and the pain of cowardice, and THEN the correct item will
appear.
Running not-know creates a small temporary native state while the
suppression blows off and runs out.
Native state feels good, certainly better than flaming hells
forever powered by false knowing and stupid question asking.
Stupidity is defined as ENFORCED unknownness of exact
consideration.
When a person thinks he knows but doesn't, that's what glues in his
stupidity. His continued thought that he knows, continues the
enforcement on his not knowing.
One audits stupidity by running NOT KNOW on all the stupid things
he thinks he knows no matter how bright he thinks they are.
When the not know is gone and he comes back to the prime original
consideration on any problem, he won't be stupid any more, but neither
will that knowingness persist because it will be a true as-isness,
resulting in a true not know of native state a moment later.
Native state is FAIR CHOSEN not knowing.
Spiritual death is ENFORCED not knowing.
Native state knows it is not knowing because there is nothing there
to know.
Spiritual death is trying to know because it believes there is
nothing being not known.
All aberration is ENFORCED native state.
Enforced native state means the being has chosen to know something,
then chosen to not know it, but continues to think he has to know it to
survive but now somehow can't.
He is too busy trying to know again, rather than trying to not know
again.
Thus the knowing that he created gets stuck on, but remains
unknowable, because he continues to try to know it through the not know
he placed over it, rather than duplicate the not know and let the not
know vanish on its own.
Persistence of not know is caused by refusal to take responsibility
for, and to reoperate the not knowing, and trying to know instead.
Hells forever are the result of trying to KNOW to escape an
ENFORCED not knowing.
Reengaging FAIR CHOSEN not know, consciously and actively, for a
while, reengages native state which vanishes all things including the
false and enforced not know made of force, effort, and black mass that
has been laid down on a being's GPM items, to cover them up, and to make
them 'never have been.'
Your preclear has been seeking his items for EVER, the quest for
peace grows old. He knows something is up, he knows he is wrong, but he
would never admit it, he wouldn't dare, he knows he would never live it
down should it all come to light.
The MECHANISM of descent escapes him, and yet only in the exact
nature of that mechanism is his pride retained.
Thus only in restoring awareness of that mechanism does one restore
him to operating pride.
"Pegasus had wings of pride, Eternal Omni Operating Pride." - Adore
Your preclear has flown Pegasus to where he is now, and then forgot
his horse, his true self, even existed.
So during auditing, his items start to appear for the first time in
forever, and you have him say, "Nope not now, in a while, I am going to
have some tea."
As long as your preclear's intent is only for a while, and NOT
FOREVER, the whiles will become shorter and shorter between reeruption,
reascension of his item from the underground. And once the whiles
finally allow it to surface it will be soft and comfortable and
FRIENDLY, his upset with HIMSELF will end, as all the pressure and
enragement from 'who did this to me?' will have been let off during
their prior repeated conscious refusals for a while.
HE DID IT TO HIMSELF VIA NOT KNOW, THEN PRETENDED 'HE HAD NOTHING
TO DO WITH THE NOT KNOW.'
The item will not arise if the pc has the slightest doubt about his
involvement in who did what to whom. He did it to himself. Running not
know gets him back into the sovereign seat of creating not know, THEN
once he KNOWS the not know is his own, he will be willing to know WHAT
he not knew, the item, again.
He will never get rid of the somatics by trying to find the item by
question asking, or looking harder, or God save him, looking for proof
that he not knew the item himself, before he tries to duplicate the not
know.
HE NOT KNOWED, what proof did he leave behind him now that he
didn't also NOT KNOW.
Prove it cases hate that, but they are alas in their own jail cell
of not knowing that they not knowed.
The prove it case needs to know he not knowed before he is willing
to not know in order to recover knowing.
Thus he never makes it.
He doesn't have to believe or have faith that he not knew the item
himself, all he has to do is PRETEND THAT MAYBE HE DID OR COULD NOT KNOW
IT NOW IN PRESENT TIME.
It is the EFFORT that counts, not any understanding about the
effort.
All he has to do is not know again, and that will spring the
earlier not know that he no longer believes or knows he did. THEN he
will have his proof.
Once he is doing the not know himself in present time and knows it,
it doesn't matter who originally did it or not.
He will find the item by chilling out the somatics, by
redramatizing not know for a while against it, intentionally and without
attitude.
Somatics are caused by breaking the not-know forever too fast and
with out responsibility for having laid it down in the first place.
Somatics are caused by trying to rip the lid off of Pandora's Box.
The proper way is to close it again by sitting on it until the
latch clears, then SLOWLY stand up and letting everything crawl out free
and clear.
The box has a latch which locks when you press it closed.
Pressing it closed AGAIN, unlocks it.
Pulling on a closed latch will never open it.
Your preclear has used (hired and payed) BT's and clusters to help
him lay down the not know and keep it in place with out his own effort
or attention any more. They balk at a sudden change in direction and
create backflow and pain.
The same would happen with out the BT's/Clusters helping him but
the kickback would not be as serious.
As it is, he has used the power of hundreds of trillions of other
beings closely packed into his own space to help him remain comatose and
oblivious to his and their own IMMORTAL true purposes and failures in
life. They and he need to be woken up SLOWLY.
You wake up a BT/Cluster/Self by maintaining and putting it back to
sleep consciously for a while and then letting off on the intent to
sleep a little at a time, over days, weeks, months.
Sleep doesn't only mean unconscious, it can also mean conscious but
oblivious. Some are unconscious, some are quite conscious but utterly
utterly utterly oblivious.
Kind of like that PhD we were talking about.
Thus the ability to create or maintain unconsciousness and
oblivion, FOR A WHILE, in self and others, are important auditing
survival tools.
ANATOMY OF PERSISTENCE
Persistence consists of a stack that looks like this:
Native State
As-isness
Alter-isness
Is-ness
Not-isness
As-isness is prime creation through postulate without persistence.
The instant the being takes his attention off the thing, it will
vanish as if never created, no trace remains.
Alter-isness alters the prime creation into a persisting Is-ness,
via the addition of significance through considerations.
This is what you see and know about in the work a day universe.
Not-isness covers an Is-ness in black, in a false effort to vanish
it.
Aberration is the effort to vanish unwanted is-ness via not-isness
rather than as-isness.
Auditing is the process of bringing your preclear out of a state of
not-isness (unconsciousness and oblivion) on his own true items.
Duplicating the not-isness (by making more of it), as-ises the
not-isness, revealing the persisting is-ness underneath.
Duplicating the alter-isness (by making more of it) on the
persisting is-ness, as-ises the alter-isness revealing the prime
as-isness underneath.
Letting go of the prime as-isness results in total vanishment as if
none of it had ever been.
Thus auditing out not-know results in knowing via facility in
creating more not-know, not by trying to know.
The result of facility with not-know is knowing, and then
vanishment leading to native state which is true not know.
The result of trying to know in the face of not-knowing, is
continued not knowing with endless somatics.
You can not as-is not knowing with knowing.
You can only as-is not knowing with not knowing.
If you make an apple and you want to vanish it, you need to
duplicate MAKING THE APPLE.
If you make some not-isness and you want to vanish it, you need to
duplicate MAKING THE NOT ISNESS.
Get this and don't leave it.
The effort to know in the face of not knowing, will break your
spine and leave you in hell forever. Just don't do it, let your worst
enemies do it.
For a while :)
On your enemies run:
"Can you be perfect, hurry up and try harder to remember
something?"
On your friends run:
"Not know something!"
Question asking is the effort to know, the effort to wake everyone
up at once, its like a loud alarm clock going off when you have not had
enough sleep.
And it rips the body to pieces from the inside out, and the more he
asks 'Why?' or "What is causing this?", the worse it gets.
ASKING 100 MILLION YEAR OLD QUESTIONS IS CAUSING IT, AND ASKING
MORE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IS CAUSING IT, WILL CAUSE MORE OF IT.
Making more of something will work in the right place and the right
time, but only if engaged in with intent and understandings, not with a
desperate last ditch effort TO KNOW.
This is the difference between running some dramatization in,
and running it out.
In both cases you are dramatizing the item, but when running it in
you are serious about the dramatization and are not responsibly present,
and when running it out, you are dramatizing on purpose after having put
the entire scene there, and are responsibly present trying to vanish it.
Anyhow the best answer to dramatizing question asking is to not
know intentionally and for a while, until the truth appears in its own
good time.
But you have to not know with the intent to find out, to resolve,
and THEN to vanish, not with the intent to forget forever.
Resignation is acceptance (forever) with expectation of failure.
to do anything about the item.
As-isness is acceptance (for a while) with expectation of
vanishment of the item.
Thus one should not know with expectation of vanishment of the
not know.
The original intent was to not know FOREVER (in time), to pretend a
faux native state non existence using effort, force, covering in black
and not-isness.
Native State is a jealous God, only true native state is forever
and that's outside of time.
The curative intent is to not know for a WHILE, allowing the false
intent to not know FOREVER to run out as deadly silliness.
If you postulate a forever in time, that is exactly what you get,
in time forever. (As long as you keep postulating that way.)
Is that really what you want?
As for your preclear, if there is still pain in his space, he is
still trying to solve a not know forever, by trying to know, rather than
not know again for a while.
He originally put a billion tons of force into not knowing, and
intended that it be that way forever, so he mustn't dilettante around
with this process or it will turn on more pain than he can imagine.
I been there, I kid you not. The last scream of a being dying in
pain is "Why?"
Convert "Why is it?" into "It is. Why?"
Can you see now why it is?
It is, is a causal postulate that brings about what it says.
The primary not know of the mortal is that they are indeed immortal
and dreaming and detest it, and beyond that eternal and asleep.
How much not know does that take?
How many GPMs, how many items, how many life times, how many
questions, how much hysteria, shock, catatonia, and oblivion, must he be
not knowing to maintain this delusion that he lives once and dies once
and that's it bud?
How much responsibility for his own condition does he have to
package up and flush out the tubes to get that deluded anyhow?
And you are going to audit him?
If he can be gotten to muster up that much not knowing,
intentionally and FOR A WHILE, he will smooth it all out, it will become
well behaved, his BT/Clusters will sigh a breath of relief that is
palpable, that he can feel, and they will cooperate fully in releasing
it all, in its own good time, powered by the intent to surface by not
knowing for a while.
Your preclear is an eternal spirit crucified on the cross of
immortality, and buried alive in the ground of mortality.
Self auditing is asking 'What is wrong with me' until dead.
Who, how, what, where, when, why, and which, are nails in the
coffin.
Was it, Has it, Is it, Will it, Can it, Could it, Should it, Would
it are the ropes that lower the coffin into the grave.
Am I, Are we, Are they, and all the rest of the questions on Earth
are the worms that crawl around his eternal spirit in the darkness
forever for free.
Self auditing can be cured with,
"Spot the effort to think and not think about the same subject at
the same time."
To ask questions and not answer them at the same time.
E/P: Run to "Oh Phooey with that!"
Solo auditing is "Well I feel some volcano wants to blow its lid
here, I think I will go have some tea."
Getting into the tea puts the lid back on the volcano purposefully,
intentionally, volitionally, consciously and FOR A WHILE.
No tea?
Run,
"Spot NO courage." (NO means pretended no, not-isness on courage.)
"Spot SOME courage."
Run it back and forth, get the rhythm, get the sync, and the
volcano will chill out and pop the next item on the stack in its own
good time for your viewing pleasure and endless relief.
And Christ, get an auditor already will you?
"Spot NO fear.
"Spot SOME fear."
E/P: knows what he is afraid of, worst and best life and death,
past, present and future, and can make it come up and deal with it as it
comes up.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Sep 30 18:37:26 EDT 2011
Sun Jan 20 13:26:39 EST 2013
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Apr 7 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore876.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFTQk5aURT1lqxE3HERAs9DAJ9CV55GKVyzMGNwqhvM0wn29IlbRQCggrmG
AlWcdpi+0mVmw38OMvDxqWg=
=areV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, April 7, 2014
ADORE731
THE BASIC PURPOSE RUNDOWN
The following posting was originally written for a business class,
but it turns out that vision and mission apply across all the dynamics
to every goal or purpose your preclear has ever had.
At a lower level we are trying to rehabilitate your preclear's
ability to know his own goals and go after them.
At a higher level we are trying to find the preclear's top oppterm
on his present time personal GPM, which poisons his entire relationship
with the 8 dyanmics and the universe at large.
The top oppterm is the most recent present time opposing terminal
to what the preclear is seeking, it is here that all the super overts,
forevers and nevers, murders and hells, are created and wished off on
the oppterm, only to kick back on the preclear when he regrets it or is
overwhelemed by raw force.
The bank is made of force and violence of a kind that most people
can't stomach which is in part why it is 'nothing there' for them.
Any series of goals that a preclear has had, have provided a ladder
of substitution and failure both within the goal, and then finally down
to later and other goals, we call these substitutes.
Taking the old GPM example of the temple priest who is opposed to
the temple virgins, he will engage in many different shades of the goal
to be a temple priest, and then finally give up and become a temple
virgin.
There again he will engage in a long sashay down the various game
roles available to a temple virgin, until finally he drops that GPM
entirely and becomes an anarchist opposing a tyrant which is an entirely
new and different GPM.
The more new and different a GPM he falls into, the better off he
will be at the start of it, because he isn't involving any of the
baggage he accumulated from the first one. Until he gets into the
murder and deceit again :)
He is practically DYING out of the old GPM, and getting a new life
in the new one, so he won't remember the old one at all. This is in
part why we do not remember our past lives, we refuse to span who and
what we were during those lives. Those memories are there though to be
spanned with some daring and imagination and willingness to admit you
failed miserably and took a lot of good people with you.
Don't worry, be happy, they were doing the same.
It is very easy to assess for how many levels of substitutes down
he is within his present time goal. The pristine beginning level is
level 0. The first substitute is level 1 etc,
The number found will not be huge, probably less than 200, and on
easy cases more like less than 20.
Once the preclear has a clear idea of HOW MANY substitutes he is
sitting in, he will be in a better position to correctly assess his
feelings and reactions to getting up in the morning, and better able to
see his way towards making correct indictions that bring him up tone
rather than down tone.
Usually when he gets up in the morning, he is still tring to fight
his (losing) battle with his present time substitute position within the
over all goal. Once he knows this, he can chill out on winning at the
substitute, and eventually the earlier beginnings to this goal will come
back to him with some shock.
He has copped out, and forgotten that he did so, and lost track of
how far gone and lost he has become on his original desires.
SASHAYS (VISION) and FORAYS (MISSION)
Remember each goal has a number of levels of sashays (substitute
goal variations), and each sashay has many different forays, attempts to
win the fight.
When your preclear gives up on forays at a particular goal
variation, he will sashay down to the next one, and start over again
trying to win that position instead.
The forays contain high action, force, mis communications, problems
both internal to himself and external, hideous super overts, withholds,
breaking of his own affinity, reality and communication, and
computations to the effect that the oppterm of that particular sashay
should be wiped out forever regardless of personal or collateral costs.
Many forays over time eventually build up regret, ORS
(indecisions), ANDS (decisions to do BOTH), and eventually desperate
lunacy before taking relief in the next sashay down.
Thus for each over arching goal, there will be a number of
different sashays carried out by a declining history of many forays.
The rundown goes something like this.
Each goal consists of numerous sashays, each sashay contains a
vision of accomplishment.
The vision statement is where we want to go, what future state we
want to be in.
Each vision leads to many forays or missions.
The mission statement is how to get there.
Vision statement: A better world through communication.
Mission statement: Provide everyone with internet.
1.) Assess for how many levels of substitute the preclear is from
his present time goal. It is NOT necessary to know what the goal is,
and DO NOT list for it.
Try to clarify if this number is levels of substitute GOALS down
from some earlier possibly first ever goal, in which case you are taking
about a very very long period of time, or simply the number of
substitutes he has fallen down in this life time goal while still
remaining in the goal structure as a whole.
This last is what you want, but take what you get.
Do not confuse him with the above complexities, but you as an
auditor should have a good grasp on the possibilities and have some idea
of the nature of the answer you finally agree upon with the preclear.
The answer should read well on the meter and produce VGI's. You will
find it is a 'reliable item' in that if you check it again periodically
it will release and read again and again, although the read may dry up
until some auditing takes place between checking it.
2.) Find the various visions that are involved with his present
time goals, whether subsitutes or not.
"Tell me a vision you might like to bring about in the future."
DO NOT USE REMEMBER, or any form of what question.
If he can't answer the above command, run something softer like
"Get the idea of wanting to bring something about in the future."
As his vision statements get closer to the core, they will become
easier to mockup for a short while in full 3D surround sound visio. If
he is still getting flat pictures in front of his face, he is still not
there.
3.) For each vision he gives you ask him
"Tell me how you might get there."
You want DOINGs, action.
Passive answers are fine, but if no active answers, watch out.
Make sure you allow him to answer, and keep answering until no more
come up. The go back to 2.
Allow him to tell you the woe that happened, mis comms, problems,
overts, withholds, computations, regrets, indecisions and ANDS.
Run to major insight. This will produce spectacular relief.
The pain, depression, tension, suicidal and homocidal ideations,
comes from ANDS.
Wanting something *AND* not wanting it at the same time FOREVER.
BE AND NOT BE
DO AND NOT DO
HAVE AND NOT HAVE
WANT AND NOT WANT
KNOW AND NOT KNOW
etc, etc, etc.
Every item in existence can form an AND.
Expect any and all of them.
These happen at the end of long strings of failed missions.
Every time an AND comes off, the needle will stop and drop, and
loosen up and the TA should come down a bit for a while, and the body
will go through spasms of shooting and slowing moving pain like lava
flowing back to source, ending in lasting relief, humor and tears. The
tears may take a bit, but he will be bawling in a while.
If you want, have your preclear star rate the following posting to
make sure he gets what its all about.
Make sure you do.
Homer
VISION AND MISSION
Every business must have strong vision and mission statements in
order to survive.
Without these no one knows in the general sense what they are
producing or why. Life and work are more than the immediate widget in
front of your nose.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VISION AND MISSION?
Take the example of the young man who decides to become a Green
Beret.
One day he is sent on a mission to recover a kidnapped girl and her
scientist father and to kill the terrorists who are intending to use the
father's secret formula to destroy the world.
When that mission is over, he is then sent on another mission, and
another and another. These missions can be and usually are very
different.
Did he join the military because he wanted to save that particular
girl and father, no of course not, he didn't even know about them.
So why did he join the military?
Well that was part of his vision, perhaps 'To make the world safe
for democracy.'
GENERAL VISIONS AND SUB VISIONS
"To make the world safe for democracy' would be a specific sub
vision, above that would be a more general vision, something like 'the
world at peace no longer living in terror.'
And above that would be the most general vision of all, long term
survival or the greatest good for the greatest number, which is common
to everyone who is sane.
By survival we do not mean mere survival or hand to mouth
subsistence, for that is not survival and those living on the edge that
way do not survive for long.
Things can never stay the same, so a person is either expanding in
their affluence of survival or contracting. Contraction is not long
term survival either, so by survival we mean expanding long term
affluence for self and for others. Affluence of survival is necessary
to provide margin of safety during downturns, but what is sufficient and
comfortable affluence will depend on the being involved and the size of
his goals and his commitments to life and those that depend on him.
Thus to survive means to prosper and flourish relative to the needs
of the being.
THE VISION -> MISSION TREE
Missions are derived from visions and the various existing
situations that one finds in present time.
A 'situation' is the furthest deviation from an ideal scene.
An ideal scene is how you would like the world to be.
Thus visions trickle down into sub visions which give rise to
overall missions which finally give rise to micro missions, specific
orders to DO something right now to get something done.
This trickle down forms an inverted tree with SURVIVE at the top,
and the myriad ways we could all be surviving better form the branches
leading down from the top, and the missions that arise out of these main
branches then are the little branches and leaves at the bottom of the
tree.
For example even for the soldier, there are many ways to 'bring
peace and prosperity to a world without terror' that have nothing to do
with joining the military. In fact all these other ways to accomplish
this vision are necessary to the final outcome and none of them are
sufficient alone.
Thus it may be true that 'having a strong military' is a necessary
goal to bringing peace to the world, but so is 'having enough to eat for
everyone'. But the soldier doesn't know anything about growing food, so
that's not up his alley. But he knows a lot about having a strong
military, and he ENJOYS being part of making it so, so he chooses that
branch of the vision-mission tree to guide his life.
So the geneticist who is trying to make golden rice with vitamin A
in it and the solider who is trying to knock off the terrorists, are
BOTH working for the exact same vision 'a world of peace, prosperity and
without terror' but through completely different ways.
VISIONS OF THE WORLD
Vision statements right below that absolute top level are of the
form
"A BETTER WORLD THROUGH..."
Everyone walking around has an idea of their ideal scene, of what
they would like the world to be.
If you were to get people to write down every single thing they
could think of for a better world and compare them all, you would find
almost 100 percent agreement with some exceptions.
More interesting if Joe wrote one thing, and Sue another, both
would agree with the other's goals too, and quickly add them into their
own list.
Let's take some concrete examples.
Almost everyone would agree that 'A world without war, criminality
or insanity' would be a good thing. That happens to be the vision
statement of a Church I know. Notice it is a sub vision, one of the
main branches coming down from survive or greatest long term good for
the greatest number.
A world without hunger would probably be the another one.
A world without disease, or barring that with affordable medical
care for all would be another.
A world where everyone was educated, 'no child left behind' is in
fact a vision statement of one such group working towards this end.
A world where there was social justice, that includes no religious,
racial or ethnic bigotry or racism, and equal opportunity for all to
take advantage of, according to their God given abilities.
Social justice includes human rights for both adults and children
and even for animals.
Then there are the subjects of politics and markets. Politics is
the process by which people design a society, and in particular the
markets of that society, as without sow and reap, buy and sell, there is
no society. As we shall see the needs of politics are sometimes opposed
to and outweigh the desires of markets, so we need to be very careful
not to sacrifice the needs of politics to the desires of markets, lest
the social planners end up in a police state run by market criminals.
Then there are basic freedoms, freedom to think and speak, freedom
to congregate, freedom to privacy, freedom to practice religion, freedom
to vote, and freedom to bear and carry arms in case some wise acre
thinks he is going to get rid of the first 5.
So there are a lot of situations in the world today that need a lot
of hard work.
Let's summarize the various highest level visions that a person
might have, and you should take the time now to add any of your own that
might have been left out and if you have a chance see if you can get
agreement on them from others.
Vision statement:
"A better world through..."
1.) No WAR
2.) No CRIMINALITY
3.) No INSANITY
4.) FOOD AND SHELTER
5.) PHYSICAL HEALTH
6.) MENTAL HEALTH
7.) EDUCATION
7.) SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR ADULTS, CHILDREN AND ANIMALS
8.) FREEDOM TO THINK SPEAK AND CONGREGATE
9.) FREEDOM TO PRIVACY
10.) FREEDOM TO PRACTICE RELIGION
11.) FREEDOM TO VOTE
12.) FREEDOM TO SELF DEFENSE
13.) FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN POLITICS AND MARKETS"
DISAGREEMENTS
You will find as you walk this planet that there will be people,
sometimes lots of people, that will strongly disagree with your estimate
of what a better world might look like.
For example vast areas of the globe believe that the freedoms to
engage in capitalism (a market) is not showing 'love of the people', and
they will fight you to the death to get rid of you.
CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM
Although capitalism is often associated with democracy, and
communism is associated with tyranny, we need to keep the two separated
in our minds in order to understand business.
Democracy and Tyranny are two forms of GOVERNMENT, along with
Monarchies, Oligarchies, Kingships, and other forms of rule.
Capitalism, socialism, and communism are forms of MARKETS, how we
consume, produce, buy and sell.
It is quite possible for a communism to be a democracy, and a
capitalism to be a tyranny.
For example in a true democracy a person is welcome to vote for the
communist party, as long as the communist sticks to market issues, and
doesn't try to undermine the DEMOCRACY OF VOTING otherwise he is a
tyrant commie rather than a democratic one.
You see?
OK, so what is the basic difference between a capitalism and a
communism?. This is important, because if you are going to start a
business of your own, you are being a capitalist for the duration of
that business.
The basic difference lies in the following questions.
1.) What are you going to produce?
2.) Who are you going to sell it to?
3.) How much are you going to charge for it.
4.) WHO is going to produce it?
5.) WHO gets to own the rights of control over the profits?
In a capitalism you make those decisions.
In a communism someone else makes those decisions for you, a
centrally planned committee that oversees all production, and sale of
products.
A communism believes that a very few, very bright minds, can
determine all the GLOBAL actions of a market as defined in those three
questions above.
A capitalism believes that no single mind can handle the global
equations, and thus the problem must be distributed to each and every
local entrepreneur to make those decisions for himself.
In an ideal communism, all property belongs to the state, which
then becomes the Grand Business of the country, and everyone else is an
employee of the state.
Everyone is paid according to their need, and everyone is expected
to produce as much as they can. 'From each according to his ability,
and to each according to his need.'
Since your need is about 3000 calories a day, that's what you get,
and you work all day long for love of the people.
The downside is you don't own anything that is truly yours, and the
upside is you get your 3000 calories whether or not you produce
anything. That means you can fail and continue on, because you are
protected from Darwinian selection by the Committee. You get paid for
trying, not succeeding. Of course if you don't try, they will take you
out back and shoot you.
In a capitalism you get to keep what you own as yours.
By OWNERSHIP we mean the rights to control.
Thus you take out a loan, you invent toilet paper, you sell to
millions of people at a penny a roll, you pay back your loan, and you
get to keep the rest as YOURS.
That's the upside.
The downside is, if people don't like your toilet paper because it
sticks to their butt, you don't sell any, the bank forecloses on your
means of production and you are left with nothing.
There is no one to take you out back to end your misery, except
Darwinian starvation.
This by the way is one reason why we have politics, no one wants to
support a welfare state, but everyone wants a safety net, so you find
that the optimum market is actually a mixture of of capitalism,
socialism and communism, although few will agree to that.
Politics is where people argue it out.
DISAGREEMENTS AGAIN.
OK, so let's get back to disagreements with your vision of an ideal
scene again.
WAR. Some people think that war is good for the planet, it prunes
the population, it makes people work under dire necessity to find better
ways of doing things, knowledge about how the physical universe works
increases exponentially etc. Most of the computer technology you use
today came out of World War II, as did the interest in radar and
encryption. Although we use encryption for commercial transactions, it
was actually developed by people concerned for national security. And
even when things are invented in the civilian arena, the military gets
interested in it very fast and pours millions of dollars into it. If
you think Intel and the Military have no interest in each other you
should think again.
In fact one can argue that if the planet were so wealthy that
everyone could just eat and sit around all day long, people would become
like the Eloi in 'The Time Machine', friendly, peaceable, but totally
unable to defend themselves. Thus they become easy targets for those
that would enslave or eat them as the case may be.
Thus you will find people who don't actually want a world without
war, they want a world with OPTIMUM WAR, just enough to keep us all on
our toes and letting necessity be the mother of invention, but not
enough to destroy the place. Besides how is an honest arms dealer going
to turn a profit if there is no war?
SOCIAL JUSTICE. It would be hard to imagine anyone against social
justice, but when you get into justice for animals, which they sorely
need, you will run into people who want the whole world to be
vegetarian. So expect some rancor.
Anyhow I am sure you get the point, the vision held by the greatest
number is the one that has the greatest chance of survival, but don't be
surprised if a backrunner comes forward and takes over, particularly if
YOU are the one who wants the forerunner.
THE MISSION STATEMENT
The mission statement is derived from your vision statement.
To make this clear, I am going to give a very specific example from
our own lives, Lightlink Internet.
When dealing with visions and vision statements you are dealing
with global ideals, desires and goals that you can share with anyone.
Vision statements are goals for the future state of mankind, final
ideal scenes of the form
"A better world through..."
When you start to move into specific mission statements, you are
dealing with your personal enjoyment, feelings, abilities and
involvement in those higher visions.
Mission statements are present time actions and short term goals
directed at the long term future vision.
Everyone can agree on 'peace on earth', but if you are soldier
rescuing the girl, you might find it hard relating to others about the
sweet sound of the breaking of a terrorist's neck. To you it is heaven,
to others, well...
Thus mission statements have to be made in such a way that they
reflect the higher visions from which they came so as to maintain,
affinity, agreement and communication with everyone else. You do want
them to buy your product, even if your monthly stat is 'number of
terrorist necks broken'.
Thus to understand Lightlink's mission statement, to some degree
you have to understand me personally.
HOMER WILSON SMITH
I like others wish for a better world.
I came from a highly regarded, almost famous, medical family, my
father was a leading researcher and teacher in the field of human
physiology. My mother was a nurse who worked at Oak Ridge during the
development of the atomic bomb.
Thus my childhood was full of chemistry, physics, electronics,
motors, explosives, geology, glow in the dark things, math, music and
orange juice, milk and corn flakes.
But alas I did not have an academic mind, not even a musical mind
although I can and do all of the above things with great trouble.
I had the mind of a philosopher, and my main interests were
religion, politics and markets.
I saw a world going to hell in atomic war in the 1st grade, Kennedy
and Kruschev were going at in the 5th grade, and Kennedy was killed in
the 6th.
I saw that Russia and America hated each other at the government
level, mostly born of insane paranoia and no communication.
But I had a Russian Nanny, and later after my parents died in 5th
grade, I had Jewish foster parents, and I saw that people were people.
It just wasn't true that the peasant on the farm in Russia was hateful
or fearful of an American capitalist, except maybe for the propaganda
that the government fed them about our tendency towards preemptive
nuclear strikes, born of WW II.
What I saw was a tremendous lack of FREE communication between the
people of the planet.
At the time, there was not much choice, we had radio, we had news
papers, the first black and white TV's, watched Felix the Cat, but not
even the President had a clue what was up in Russia, they were still
using AMBASSADORS to communicate between Kennedy and Kruschev.
That's nuts don't you see?
I went to Cornell in 1969 as a student in Electrical Engineering.
Now EE is an interesting subject because it spans theoretical physics at
one end, and hard core things like phones, radios, TV's and cell phones
at the other.
Of course EE can also be used to make bombs and guidance systems
for their delivery, but at the height of the Vietnam War in the early
70's I had little interest in that branch of the vision tree.
Too many being killed, too many insane at the helm on all sides,
too many making money off the insanity, and not enough free
communication of the truth.
TV started to change that, we saw not only the count of the dead,
but the dead themselves every night for dinner. This changed how people
thought of the war. It is a never ending disgrace that it took SEEING
war to change how people THOUGHT about war, but there it is.
Later in the 80's, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the revolt at
Tiananmen Square were directly influenced by FAX machines, because now
people could write up what they thought, and get it to many many people
all at once compared to how it had been before.
As more people were able to talk to more people on all sides of the
walls, the walls started to come down. Rather than pointing guns at
each other, they started to point advertisements at each other, to come
visit and have lunch on their side of the bridge (true story).
So an important law was learned, in the presence of communication,
affinity and agreement go up which results in market trade, which
results in peace and prosperity, and in the absence of communication,
affinity and agreement go down until a point of war is started.
Now communication is one part of the highest level of visions
written above, namely freedom to think and speak and congregate.
Prior to the 80's most communication was one way, namely the owners
of the newspapers, radios, TV's or their advertisers pushing their
pablum message to us.
Once people could start talking freely to EACH OTHER in mass
communication, then the world changed forever for the better.
POLITICS, MARKETS AND COMMUNICATION
So to understand me better, we need to go back to politics, markets
and communication.
A society is a collection of people engaged in survival, sow and
reap cycles, and the markets that arise from them. Thus we could say
that society IS the markets that are spawned by the people trying to
survive.
Those markets consist of religion, science, art and business.
Religion is creation, science is discovery, art is expression, and
business is trade, where the rubber meets the road so to speak, and
where the coin meets the table.
You could also throw government in there, which is the ultimate
manager of the markets and the governor of the mint.
Society is designed by the 'body politic' which are the members of
the designing committee. In a free society the body politic is
everyone.
A free society is the one that everyone wants to be in, unless they
do not desire any personal responsibility for how things turn out.
Usually if you look at the border between two countries the foot
steps will be going towards the freer of the two societies. A balance
of trade in footsteps means both societies are doing pretty well, unless
the footsteps are being dragged one way.
In order for the body politic to function and design their society,
people need to be able to communicate with each other in order to
express their ideal scenes, views, concerns, problems and solutions.
AND THEY MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO SO WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
For example in any group of people trying to form a society, many
will be capitalistic and others will be communistic. Sometimes the
arguments can get heated to a point of war.
Capitalists for example don't like being told that everything they
make must be put in a central lot to be given away to first in liners.
If you are brighter and more valuable to society than someone else,
produce more, consume less, you deserve to be rewarded by the natural
affluence of your production.
For example, say you are an native Indian in a forest, and you
discover how to make a boat out of chopping a big tree trunk into the
shape of a boat. No one else can do this as well as you, and soon a
line is forming bidding for your services, and you end up with a great
big pile of wampum as a result.
Then some big guys come around and tell you that you need to give
them your wampum so they can distribute it to the poor and not quite as
bright, and you have a duty to make your boats for free.
This makes you madder than hell, but there is some validity to it.
The community supports you as best it can, and you should support it the
best you can.
Further who owns the trees you are carving up into boats?
They belong to the community, so you are benefiting from community
assets in your process of getting rich.
The whole subject of ownership of natural resources and land has
probably given rise to more wars and arguments between capitalists and
communists than any other single subject.
So anyhow, there you all are, arguing this out, and it starts to
get violent. Some of the capitalists just sort of disappear in the
night, and some of the communists are found at the bottom of cliffs.
You see how this goes? It is a very serious problem to the body
politic of ANY planet and any social design group. Any time you start
talking about taking the production of he who is brighter or more able,
and giving to the others who are not so bright in the name of 'love for
the people', you have a problem.
So the first requirement for a communication line being used by the
body politic to discuss its agendas in safety, is anonymity. That means
no one knows who is saying what, if they don't want to be known. And no
one can trace them back to where and who they are to punish, silence or
moderate them or their loved ones.
Thus the FIRST and most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is anonymous untraceable communication to anyone else.
This is the right of PUBLIC CONGREGATION. Public congregation
doesn't just mean getting together in a crowd out on a street or in a
church where everyone is identifiable and easy to round up or attack.
More broadly public congregation means the ability to issue a public
communication and feel assured that everyone who wants to receive it can
and does in a timely fashion, ALL OVER THE PLANET.
Internet anonymity provides public congregation in a way that has
never been available before.
But then sometimes you and your cohorts want to be able to talk to
each other, without other hostile elements listening in. This is the
right of PRIVATE CONGREGATION.
Thus the SECOND most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is the right to encryption so only the chosen can understand the
communication even if others intercept it.
Public key encryption now provides people the ability to
communicate privately and securely to anyone they wish, in a way that
has never existed before.
This is the right to privacy, not just in your home, but in your
entire web of communication lines, that you extend to those you wish to
communicate with, and who wish to be communicated to.
Do you really want to give the government access to your e-mail?
Do you really want the vying parties for power to know who you are
going to vote for, before you vote for them?
Now often you find that people actually don't mind being known as
the author of some idea, in fact they WANT to be known. Soon they are
finding that hostile and anonymous forces are posting things in their
name and people are getting confused as to who is saying what.
Thus the THIRD most fundamental right to all people in a free
society is the right to irrefutably sign a document so anyone reading it
can verify for themselves who it came from.
To sum up, the three basic rights in a free society are anonymity,
encryption and non repudiation.
PROBLEMS WITH NON ANONYMITY AND ANONYMITY.
Now there are obvious problems on both sides of the anonymity coin.
If good people speak openly, non anonymously, then criminals can
hunt them down and hurt them and their loved ones. Try speaking out
against the Nazi's in France 1941, or in east Berlin 1970, or in Pol
Pot's Cambodia or Stalin's Russia. Even in America during the
revolution and afterwards, people chose to speak anonymously in order to
protect themselves against those who would silence them.
THE HISTORY OF MANKIND IS A STORY TOLD OF ONE SIDE OF THE BODY
POLITIC TRYING TO SILENCE AND DESTROY THE OTHER.
On the other hand if you provide anonymity to everyone, then the
criminals can talk among themselves safely to plot the downfall of the
free society.
The upside is that good people, if they find out about such
criminal conspiracies, can blow the whistle on the criminals in safety
using those same anonymous communication lines.
So you have two choices.
A world where there is no anonymity, where everyone can be tracked
and held accountable for what they say. Sounds good for keeping the
criminals under control, but bad for the good who know that criminals
can't be controlled anyhow, and which said criminals will eventually
become the controllers of the good if the good are not allowed to speak
and plan anonymously or privately.
Or you can have a world where everyone has anonymity, where
everyone can speak freely without fear of repercussion. Thus the
criminals can talk safely amongst themselves, but the good can blow the
whistle on them in safety when they can.
The world has been playing the game of body politic ever since we
crawled out of the ocean using the first method, track and kill.
Now we can play it using the second method.
MARKETS
But now we have the markets and boy do we have a problem.
The problem is that the communication lines that have been created
so the body politic can design the market system, ARE THE SAME LINES
USED BY THE MARKET SYSTEM TO CARRY OUT ITS OPERATIONS.
So now someone buys a CD, rips the mp3 onto his hard drive, and
sends it on to everyone he knows for free.
Markets don't like free communication, markets thrive on secrets,
trade secrets, competition secrets, plan secrets, and they thrive on the
inability of just anyone to make the product they are trying to sell.
Intellectual ownership has become the next war between the
capitalists who want to own, and the communists who think everyone owns
everything.
The whole subject of copyrights still has the body politic arguing
with each other, even AFTER the markets were designed and set in motion.
Copyrights were invented in the distant past to protect the
publisher, not the artist. Further, publishers were owned by the King
(who got his cut), and the publisher could only publish what the King
approved of.
At the time it was very hard to publish, so copyright violations by
the reading public were not the problem. The problem were rogue
publishers who may or may not have been loyal to the King.
As time went on, copyrights were considered a good thing for the
authors too, along with patents and the rest, with limitations on time
so that eventually works could belong to the general public, because
after all "everyone owns everything." Even capitalists have a sense of
the public good.
This has given rise to two major problems.
The first is the little kid with the mp3 ripper sending songs to
everyone else for free. Napster caused the biggest scare in the history
of man for the record industry, they thought it was OVER.
Napster was easy to shut down, but using anonymity and encryption,
music sharing continues to this day. The only limiting factor on it, is
people's general ignorance of how to do it, and fear of being caught
anyway. The music industry knows there is nothing they can do about it.
Thus in some sense, ideas of copyright and ownership become moot because
they can't be enforced.
Once a technological war starts on these things, it becomes never
ending. Someone invents an encryption scheme so CD's can't be ripped,
and someone cracks the scheme and posts it to the net anonymously.
The other problem is when various people started to patent things
that were not theirs to patent, such as the genes in your breast that
make you prone to breast cancer. Under some interpretations of the law,
if your breast has that gene, your BREAST belongs to the owner of the
patent. Silly? Think again.
MARKET EFFORTS TO LIMIT THE BODY POLITIC
Because the markets have a very hard time with free communication,
they try to put restraints it. For example by changing the nature of
computers so they can't talk anonymously. That is like putting a cop in
every bedroom to prevent child molestation.
These kind of solutions of watching over everyone to make sure they
don't break market rules, can then be used against them to make sure
they stay silent during political debate.
Market players ARE ALWAYS trying to sacrifice political freedoms of
communication to benefit the profits in the markets. This is either
very short sighted with a firm belief in a benign government, or it is
knowingly selfish or evil.
Thus the body politic wants everyone to have anonymity, strong
encryption, and non repudiation, while the markets want everyone
trackable, moderateable, and plausible deniability.
THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT.
Although we tend to think of politics and government in the same
breath, politics is actually above the government, politics comes first
and in fact creates the the government you get. Thus government
fundamentally has no right whatsoever to say word one about politics or
how it operates or what communication freedoms it needs to operate.
GOVERNMENT IS ON THE SIDE OF THE MARKETS, NOT THE BODY POLITIC, BY
DESIGN OF THE BODY POLITIC!
Once markets are created, we create a government to mange them, and
to enforce the rules of fair trade.
Fair trade means each party enters into the trade willingly and
fully informed.
If a criminal sticks a gun in your face and says give me all your
produce, you are no longer a willing participant in that transaction and
thus it is not a fair trade.
We could leave the problem of criminality to vigilante justice, but
long history has shown that matters of criminal justice need to be left
to objective professionals, who do it full time, and who have a sense of
the society that its members may not have.
This includes the court system, from the Supreme Court on down, the
cops that arrest criminals, and the lawyers that prosecute and defend
them in court. That is an amazing edifice to erect to replace a couple
of guys with a noose and a gun.
Thus besides governing the mint and the markets, one primary
purpose of the government is to enforce fair trade, USING FORCE WHERE
NECESSARY, in a way we don't want lesser market players doing on their
own.
In other words where a person can not defend themselves, we call on
the government to defend them for them.
Sometimes the government acts poorly, sometimes the government acts
criminally, sometimes the government acts like a tyranny, moved by
personal fancy, whim, greed and caprice, rather than a nation of law.
Sometimes we might feel that anarchy would be better than that
tyranny.
But eventually ANARCHY BECOMES A SEA OF MICRO TYRANNIES.
In the absence of government, people coalesce into thousands of
little groups, each controlled by the biggest, meanest, strongest, most
selfish guy, and thus you have a thousand little absolute tyrannies all
over again. Such groups quickly try to throw their self elected leaders
off as soon as they can, rebuild a democratic power structure again,
including professional police forces, judges, lawyers and armies!
So the war over land and natural resource property rights has now
moved to a war over intellectual property rights that is bad enough to
make both the capitalists and the communists hopping mad.
In the end, although the 3 fundamental communication rights of all
people in a free society, untrackable anonymity, unbreakable encryption,
and irrefutable signature, are controversial and have their collateral
damage IN THE MARKET ARENA, I believe they are necessary to the survival
of the POLITICAL ARENA and thus, in the end, to the very survival of
society itself.
Thus I formed the first part of my personal sub vision statement,
I envision a world where
EVERYONE IS FREE TO COMMUNICATE WITH WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE, ABOUT
ANYTHING WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
Yes that means little kiddies can trade nuclear secrets and naked
pictures of themselves in safety, but the military can use encryption to
make sure the kiddies don't get those secrets in the first place.
I also believe it is wrong for the government and its markets to
wish backdoors on encryption to make sure that its people haven't become
overloaded with criminals, but I do believe it is right for the people,
as the body politic, to wish back door's on the government's encryption
to make sure the government hasn't become overloaded with criminals.
Now there are many many ways to improve the communication abilities
among the people of the planet, from newspapers, radio, TV, faxes all
the way to the internet.
But me personally, I could never understand or get into any of
them, except for the internet which became a natural for me.
The two way nature of the internet made it deliciously subversive,
and it allowed everyone to be come a publisher overnight without
permission of the King or his assigns, and it allowed everyone to speak
freely and anonymously to everyone on the planet, and secretly to
whomever they wished.
For me it was a no brainer that this was the way *I* should go
towards 'making a better world through free communication.'
This is where MY abilities locked onto, I felt "I can do that" and
I can do it better than the other guy, so I had better get a crackin'.
Thus from my vision statement I then formed my mission statement.
Vision statement: A better world through free communication.
Mission statement: To deliver dependable but affordable internet
access to those who are under served.
So you see we have moved from a vision of how I would like the
world to be, to a specific mission of what to do about it.
Now lower down the Vision tree, even below the mission statement,
we get into explicit orders on what exactly to do in order to deploy
that 'dependable but affordable' product. That then becomes all the
technogobble about modems, T1's, wireless, DSL, web hosting, e-mail and
usenet news.
Without the mission statement it is easy to lose my way towards
fulfilling my top level vision statement of a better world through free
and open communication.
The energy to do what I am doing when I am nailing another wire to
a wall, or helping another person online, comes down from the top of the
tree.
"Why exactly am I talking to this idiot on the other end of my
phone line? Oh yeah, a world of free and open communication between all
people in it."
That's why you need a vision statement, and you need a mission
statement, because the two of them give you your marching orders. AND
THE ENERGY AND WILL DO TO THEM.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@Lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.Lightlink.com
Fri Mar 5 20:01:30 EST 2010
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
The following posting was originally written for a business class,
but it turns out that vision and mission apply across all the dynamics
to every goal or purpose your preclear has ever had.
At a lower level we are trying to rehabilitate your preclear's
ability to know his own goals and go after them.
At a higher level we are trying to find the preclear's top oppterm
on his present time personal GPM, which poisons his entire relationship
with the 8 dyanmics and the universe at large.
The top oppterm is the most recent present time opposing terminal
to what the preclear is seeking, it is here that all the super overts,
forevers and nevers, murders and hells, are created and wished off on
the oppterm, only to kick back on the preclear when he regrets it or is
overwhelemed by raw force.
The bank is made of force and violence of a kind that most people
can't stomach which is in part why it is 'nothing there' for them.
Any series of goals that a preclear has had, have provided a ladder
of substitution and failure both within the goal, and then finally down
to later and other goals, we call these substitutes.
Taking the old GPM example of the temple priest who is opposed to
the temple virgins, he will engage in many different shades of the goal
to be a temple priest, and then finally give up and become a temple
virgin.
There again he will engage in a long sashay down the various game
roles available to a temple virgin, until finally he drops that GPM
entirely and becomes an anarchist opposing a tyrant which is an entirely
new and different GPM.
The more new and different a GPM he falls into, the better off he
will be at the start of it, because he isn't involving any of the
baggage he accumulated from the first one. Until he gets into the
murder and deceit again :)
He is practically DYING out of the old GPM, and getting a new life
in the new one, so he won't remember the old one at all. This is in
part why we do not remember our past lives, we refuse to span who and
what we were during those lives. Those memories are there though to be
spanned with some daring and imagination and willingness to admit you
failed miserably and took a lot of good people with you.
Don't worry, be happy, they were doing the same.
It is very easy to assess for how many levels of substitutes down
he is within his present time goal. The pristine beginning level is
level 0. The first substitute is level 1 etc,
The number found will not be huge, probably less than 200, and on
easy cases more like less than 20.
Once the preclear has a clear idea of HOW MANY substitutes he is
sitting in, he will be in a better position to correctly assess his
feelings and reactions to getting up in the morning, and better able to
see his way towards making correct indictions that bring him up tone
rather than down tone.
Usually when he gets up in the morning, he is still tring to fight
his (losing) battle with his present time substitute position within the
over all goal. Once he knows this, he can chill out on winning at the
substitute, and eventually the earlier beginnings to this goal will come
back to him with some shock.
He has copped out, and forgotten that he did so, and lost track of
how far gone and lost he has become on his original desires.
SASHAYS (VISION) and FORAYS (MISSION)
Remember each goal has a number of levels of sashays (substitute
goal variations), and each sashay has many different forays, attempts to
win the fight.
When your preclear gives up on forays at a particular goal
variation, he will sashay down to the next one, and start over again
trying to win that position instead.
The forays contain high action, force, mis communications, problems
both internal to himself and external, hideous super overts, withholds,
breaking of his own affinity, reality and communication, and
computations to the effect that the oppterm of that particular sashay
should be wiped out forever regardless of personal or collateral costs.
Many forays over time eventually build up regret, ORS
(indecisions), ANDS (decisions to do BOTH), and eventually desperate
lunacy before taking relief in the next sashay down.
Thus for each over arching goal, there will be a number of
different sashays carried out by a declining history of many forays.
The rundown goes something like this.
Each goal consists of numerous sashays, each sashay contains a
vision of accomplishment.
The vision statement is where we want to go, what future state we
want to be in.
Each vision leads to many forays or missions.
The mission statement is how to get there.
Vision statement: A better world through communication.
Mission statement: Provide everyone with internet.
1.) Assess for how many levels of substitute the preclear is from
his present time goal. It is NOT necessary to know what the goal is,
and DO NOT list for it.
Try to clarify if this number is levels of substitute GOALS down
from some earlier possibly first ever goal, in which case you are taking
about a very very long period of time, or simply the number of
substitutes he has fallen down in this life time goal while still
remaining in the goal structure as a whole.
This last is what you want, but take what you get.
Do not confuse him with the above complexities, but you as an
auditor should have a good grasp on the possibilities and have some idea
of the nature of the answer you finally agree upon with the preclear.
The answer should read well on the meter and produce VGI's. You will
find it is a 'reliable item' in that if you check it again periodically
it will release and read again and again, although the read may dry up
until some auditing takes place between checking it.
2.) Find the various visions that are involved with his present
time goals, whether subsitutes or not.
"Tell me a vision you might like to bring about in the future."
DO NOT USE REMEMBER, or any form of what question.
If he can't answer the above command, run something softer like
"Get the idea of wanting to bring something about in the future."
As his vision statements get closer to the core, they will become
easier to mockup for a short while in full 3D surround sound visio. If
he is still getting flat pictures in front of his face, he is still not
there.
3.) For each vision he gives you ask him
"Tell me how you might get there."
You want DOINGs, action.
Passive answers are fine, but if no active answers, watch out.
Make sure you allow him to answer, and keep answering until no more
come up. The go back to 2.
Allow him to tell you the woe that happened, mis comms, problems,
overts, withholds, computations, regrets, indecisions and ANDS.
Run to major insight. This will produce spectacular relief.
The pain, depression, tension, suicidal and homocidal ideations,
comes from ANDS.
Wanting something *AND* not wanting it at the same time FOREVER.
BE AND NOT BE
DO AND NOT DO
HAVE AND NOT HAVE
WANT AND NOT WANT
KNOW AND NOT KNOW
etc, etc, etc.
Every item in existence can form an AND.
Expect any and all of them.
These happen at the end of long strings of failed missions.
Every time an AND comes off, the needle will stop and drop, and
loosen up and the TA should come down a bit for a while, and the body
will go through spasms of shooting and slowing moving pain like lava
flowing back to source, ending in lasting relief, humor and tears. The
tears may take a bit, but he will be bawling in a while.
If you want, have your preclear star rate the following posting to
make sure he gets what its all about.
Make sure you do.
Homer
VISION AND MISSION
Every business must have strong vision and mission statements in
order to survive.
Without these no one knows in the general sense what they are
producing or why. Life and work are more than the immediate widget in
front of your nose.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VISION AND MISSION?
Take the example of the young man who decides to become a Green
Beret.
One day he is sent on a mission to recover a kidnapped girl and her
scientist father and to kill the terrorists who are intending to use the
father's secret formula to destroy the world.
When that mission is over, he is then sent on another mission, and
another and another. These missions can be and usually are very
different.
Did he join the military because he wanted to save that particular
girl and father, no of course not, he didn't even know about them.
So why did he join the military?
Well that was part of his vision, perhaps 'To make the world safe
for democracy.'
GENERAL VISIONS AND SUB VISIONS
"To make the world safe for democracy' would be a specific sub
vision, above that would be a more general vision, something like 'the
world at peace no longer living in terror.'
And above that would be the most general vision of all, long term
survival or the greatest good for the greatest number, which is common
to everyone who is sane.
By survival we do not mean mere survival or hand to mouth
subsistence, for that is not survival and those living on the edge that
way do not survive for long.
Things can never stay the same, so a person is either expanding in
their affluence of survival or contracting. Contraction is not long
term survival either, so by survival we mean expanding long term
affluence for self and for others. Affluence of survival is necessary
to provide margin of safety during downturns, but what is sufficient and
comfortable affluence will depend on the being involved and the size of
his goals and his commitments to life and those that depend on him.
Thus to survive means to prosper and flourish relative to the needs
of the being.
THE VISION -> MISSION TREE
Missions are derived from visions and the various existing
situations that one finds in present time.
A 'situation' is the furthest deviation from an ideal scene.
An ideal scene is how you would like the world to be.
Thus visions trickle down into sub visions which give rise to
overall missions which finally give rise to micro missions, specific
orders to DO something right now to get something done.
This trickle down forms an inverted tree with SURVIVE at the top,
and the myriad ways we could all be surviving better form the branches
leading down from the top, and the missions that arise out of these main
branches then are the little branches and leaves at the bottom of the
tree.
For example even for the soldier, there are many ways to 'bring
peace and prosperity to a world without terror' that have nothing to do
with joining the military. In fact all these other ways to accomplish
this vision are necessary to the final outcome and none of them are
sufficient alone.
Thus it may be true that 'having a strong military' is a necessary
goal to bringing peace to the world, but so is 'having enough to eat for
everyone'. But the soldier doesn't know anything about growing food, so
that's not up his alley. But he knows a lot about having a strong
military, and he ENJOYS being part of making it so, so he chooses that
branch of the vision-mission tree to guide his life.
So the geneticist who is trying to make golden rice with vitamin A
in it and the solider who is trying to knock off the terrorists, are
BOTH working for the exact same vision 'a world of peace, prosperity and
without terror' but through completely different ways.
VISIONS OF THE WORLD
Vision statements right below that absolute top level are of the
form
"A BETTER WORLD THROUGH..."
Everyone walking around has an idea of their ideal scene, of what
they would like the world to be.
If you were to get people to write down every single thing they
could think of for a better world and compare them all, you would find
almost 100 percent agreement with some exceptions.
More interesting if Joe wrote one thing, and Sue another, both
would agree with the other's goals too, and quickly add them into their
own list.
Let's take some concrete examples.
Almost everyone would agree that 'A world without war, criminality
or insanity' would be a good thing. That happens to be the vision
statement of a Church I know. Notice it is a sub vision, one of the
main branches coming down from survive or greatest long term good for
the greatest number.
A world without hunger would probably be the another one.
A world without disease, or barring that with affordable medical
care for all would be another.
A world where everyone was educated, 'no child left behind' is in
fact a vision statement of one such group working towards this end.
A world where there was social justice, that includes no religious,
racial or ethnic bigotry or racism, and equal opportunity for all to
take advantage of, according to their God given abilities.
Social justice includes human rights for both adults and children
and even for animals.
Then there are the subjects of politics and markets. Politics is
the process by which people design a society, and in particular the
markets of that society, as without sow and reap, buy and sell, there is
no society. As we shall see the needs of politics are sometimes opposed
to and outweigh the desires of markets, so we need to be very careful
not to sacrifice the needs of politics to the desires of markets, lest
the social planners end up in a police state run by market criminals.
Then there are basic freedoms, freedom to think and speak, freedom
to congregate, freedom to privacy, freedom to practice religion, freedom
to vote, and freedom to bear and carry arms in case some wise acre
thinks he is going to get rid of the first 5.
So there are a lot of situations in the world today that need a lot
of hard work.
Let's summarize the various highest level visions that a person
might have, and you should take the time now to add any of your own that
might have been left out and if you have a chance see if you can get
agreement on them from others.
Vision statement:
"A better world through..."
1.) No WAR
2.) No CRIMINALITY
3.) No INSANITY
4.) FOOD AND SHELTER
5.) PHYSICAL HEALTH
6.) MENTAL HEALTH
7.) EDUCATION
7.) SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR ADULTS, CHILDREN AND ANIMALS
8.) FREEDOM TO THINK SPEAK AND CONGREGATE
9.) FREEDOM TO PRIVACY
10.) FREEDOM TO PRACTICE RELIGION
11.) FREEDOM TO VOTE
12.) FREEDOM TO SELF DEFENSE
13.) FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN POLITICS AND MARKETS"
DISAGREEMENTS
You will find as you walk this planet that there will be people,
sometimes lots of people, that will strongly disagree with your estimate
of what a better world might look like.
For example vast areas of the globe believe that the freedoms to
engage in capitalism (a market) is not showing 'love of the people', and
they will fight you to the death to get rid of you.
CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM
Although capitalism is often associated with democracy, and
communism is associated with tyranny, we need to keep the two separated
in our minds in order to understand business.
Democracy and Tyranny are two forms of GOVERNMENT, along with
Monarchies, Oligarchies, Kingships, and other forms of rule.
Capitalism, socialism, and communism are forms of MARKETS, how we
consume, produce, buy and sell.
It is quite possible for a communism to be a democracy, and a
capitalism to be a tyranny.
For example in a true democracy a person is welcome to vote for the
communist party, as long as the communist sticks to market issues, and
doesn't try to undermine the DEMOCRACY OF VOTING otherwise he is a
tyrant commie rather than a democratic one.
You see?
OK, so what is the basic difference between a capitalism and a
communism?. This is important, because if you are going to start a
business of your own, you are being a capitalist for the duration of
that business.
The basic difference lies in the following questions.
1.) What are you going to produce?
2.) Who are you going to sell it to?
3.) How much are you going to charge for it.
4.) WHO is going to produce it?
5.) WHO gets to own the rights of control over the profits?
In a capitalism you make those decisions.
In a communism someone else makes those decisions for you, a
centrally planned committee that oversees all production, and sale of
products.
A communism believes that a very few, very bright minds, can
determine all the GLOBAL actions of a market as defined in those three
questions above.
A capitalism believes that no single mind can handle the global
equations, and thus the problem must be distributed to each and every
local entrepreneur to make those decisions for himself.
In an ideal communism, all property belongs to the state, which
then becomes the Grand Business of the country, and everyone else is an
employee of the state.
Everyone is paid according to their need, and everyone is expected
to produce as much as they can. 'From each according to his ability,
and to each according to his need.'
Since your need is about 3000 calories a day, that's what you get,
and you work all day long for love of the people.
The downside is you don't own anything that is truly yours, and the
upside is you get your 3000 calories whether or not you produce
anything. That means you can fail and continue on, because you are
protected from Darwinian selection by the Committee. You get paid for
trying, not succeeding. Of course if you don't try, they will take you
out back and shoot you.
In a capitalism you get to keep what you own as yours.
By OWNERSHIP we mean the rights to control.
Thus you take out a loan, you invent toilet paper, you sell to
millions of people at a penny a roll, you pay back your loan, and you
get to keep the rest as YOURS.
That's the upside.
The downside is, if people don't like your toilet paper because it
sticks to their butt, you don't sell any, the bank forecloses on your
means of production and you are left with nothing.
There is no one to take you out back to end your misery, except
Darwinian starvation.
This by the way is one reason why we have politics, no one wants to
support a welfare state, but everyone wants a safety net, so you find
that the optimum market is actually a mixture of of capitalism,
socialism and communism, although few will agree to that.
Politics is where people argue it out.
DISAGREEMENTS AGAIN.
OK, so let's get back to disagreements with your vision of an ideal
scene again.
WAR. Some people think that war is good for the planet, it prunes
the population, it makes people work under dire necessity to find better
ways of doing things, knowledge about how the physical universe works
increases exponentially etc. Most of the computer technology you use
today came out of World War II, as did the interest in radar and
encryption. Although we use encryption for commercial transactions, it
was actually developed by people concerned for national security. And
even when things are invented in the civilian arena, the military gets
interested in it very fast and pours millions of dollars into it. If
you think Intel and the Military have no interest in each other you
should think again.
In fact one can argue that if the planet were so wealthy that
everyone could just eat and sit around all day long, people would become
like the Eloi in 'The Time Machine', friendly, peaceable, but totally
unable to defend themselves. Thus they become easy targets for those
that would enslave or eat them as the case may be.
Thus you will find people who don't actually want a world without
war, they want a world with OPTIMUM WAR, just enough to keep us all on
our toes and letting necessity be the mother of invention, but not
enough to destroy the place. Besides how is an honest arms dealer going
to turn a profit if there is no war?
SOCIAL JUSTICE. It would be hard to imagine anyone against social
justice, but when you get into justice for animals, which they sorely
need, you will run into people who want the whole world to be
vegetarian. So expect some rancor.
Anyhow I am sure you get the point, the vision held by the greatest
number is the one that has the greatest chance of survival, but don't be
surprised if a backrunner comes forward and takes over, particularly if
YOU are the one who wants the forerunner.
THE MISSION STATEMENT
The mission statement is derived from your vision statement.
To make this clear, I am going to give a very specific example from
our own lives, Lightlink Internet.
When dealing with visions and vision statements you are dealing
with global ideals, desires and goals that you can share with anyone.
Vision statements are goals for the future state of mankind, final
ideal scenes of the form
"A better world through..."
When you start to move into specific mission statements, you are
dealing with your personal enjoyment, feelings, abilities and
involvement in those higher visions.
Mission statements are present time actions and short term goals
directed at the long term future vision.
Everyone can agree on 'peace on earth', but if you are soldier
rescuing the girl, you might find it hard relating to others about the
sweet sound of the breaking of a terrorist's neck. To you it is heaven,
to others, well...
Thus mission statements have to be made in such a way that they
reflect the higher visions from which they came so as to maintain,
affinity, agreement and communication with everyone else. You do want
them to buy your product, even if your monthly stat is 'number of
terrorist necks broken'.
Thus to understand Lightlink's mission statement, to some degree
you have to understand me personally.
HOMER WILSON SMITH
I like others wish for a better world.
I came from a highly regarded, almost famous, medical family, my
father was a leading researcher and teacher in the field of human
physiology. My mother was a nurse who worked at Oak Ridge during the
development of the atomic bomb.
Thus my childhood was full of chemistry, physics, electronics,
motors, explosives, geology, glow in the dark things, math, music and
orange juice, milk and corn flakes.
But alas I did not have an academic mind, not even a musical mind
although I can and do all of the above things with great trouble.
I had the mind of a philosopher, and my main interests were
religion, politics and markets.
I saw a world going to hell in atomic war in the 1st grade, Kennedy
and Kruschev were going at in the 5th grade, and Kennedy was killed in
the 6th.
I saw that Russia and America hated each other at the government
level, mostly born of insane paranoia and no communication.
But I had a Russian Nanny, and later after my parents died in 5th
grade, I had Jewish foster parents, and I saw that people were people.
It just wasn't true that the peasant on the farm in Russia was hateful
or fearful of an American capitalist, except maybe for the propaganda
that the government fed them about our tendency towards preemptive
nuclear strikes, born of WW II.
What I saw was a tremendous lack of FREE communication between the
people of the planet.
At the time, there was not much choice, we had radio, we had news
papers, the first black and white TV's, watched Felix the Cat, but not
even the President had a clue what was up in Russia, they were still
using AMBASSADORS to communicate between Kennedy and Kruschev.
That's nuts don't you see?
I went to Cornell in 1969 as a student in Electrical Engineering.
Now EE is an interesting subject because it spans theoretical physics at
one end, and hard core things like phones, radios, TV's and cell phones
at the other.
Of course EE can also be used to make bombs and guidance systems
for their delivery, but at the height of the Vietnam War in the early
70's I had little interest in that branch of the vision tree.
Too many being killed, too many insane at the helm on all sides,
too many making money off the insanity, and not enough free
communication of the truth.
TV started to change that, we saw not only the count of the dead,
but the dead themselves every night for dinner. This changed how people
thought of the war. It is a never ending disgrace that it took SEEING
war to change how people THOUGHT about war, but there it is.
Later in the 80's, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the revolt at
Tiananmen Square were directly influenced by FAX machines, because now
people could write up what they thought, and get it to many many people
all at once compared to how it had been before.
As more people were able to talk to more people on all sides of the
walls, the walls started to come down. Rather than pointing guns at
each other, they started to point advertisements at each other, to come
visit and have lunch on their side of the bridge (true story).
So an important law was learned, in the presence of communication,
affinity and agreement go up which results in market trade, which
results in peace and prosperity, and in the absence of communication,
affinity and agreement go down until a point of war is started.
Now communication is one part of the highest level of visions
written above, namely freedom to think and speak and congregate.
Prior to the 80's most communication was one way, namely the owners
of the newspapers, radios, TV's or their advertisers pushing their
pablum message to us.
Once people could start talking freely to EACH OTHER in mass
communication, then the world changed forever for the better.
POLITICS, MARKETS AND COMMUNICATION
So to understand me better, we need to go back to politics, markets
and communication.
A society is a collection of people engaged in survival, sow and
reap cycles, and the markets that arise from them. Thus we could say
that society IS the markets that are spawned by the people trying to
survive.
Those markets consist of religion, science, art and business.
Religion is creation, science is discovery, art is expression, and
business is trade, where the rubber meets the road so to speak, and
where the coin meets the table.
You could also throw government in there, which is the ultimate
manager of the markets and the governor of the mint.
Society is designed by the 'body politic' which are the members of
the designing committee. In a free society the body politic is
everyone.
A free society is the one that everyone wants to be in, unless they
do not desire any personal responsibility for how things turn out.
Usually if you look at the border between two countries the foot
steps will be going towards the freer of the two societies. A balance
of trade in footsteps means both societies are doing pretty well, unless
the footsteps are being dragged one way.
In order for the body politic to function and design their society,
people need to be able to communicate with each other in order to
express their ideal scenes, views, concerns, problems and solutions.
AND THEY MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO SO WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
For example in any group of people trying to form a society, many
will be capitalistic and others will be communistic. Sometimes the
arguments can get heated to a point of war.
Capitalists for example don't like being told that everything they
make must be put in a central lot to be given away to first in liners.
If you are brighter and more valuable to society than someone else,
produce more, consume less, you deserve to be rewarded by the natural
affluence of your production.
For example, say you are an native Indian in a forest, and you
discover how to make a boat out of chopping a big tree trunk into the
shape of a boat. No one else can do this as well as you, and soon a
line is forming bidding for your services, and you end up with a great
big pile of wampum as a result.
Then some big guys come around and tell you that you need to give
them your wampum so they can distribute it to the poor and not quite as
bright, and you have a duty to make your boats for free.
This makes you madder than hell, but there is some validity to it.
The community supports you as best it can, and you should support it the
best you can.
Further who owns the trees you are carving up into boats?
They belong to the community, so you are benefiting from community
assets in your process of getting rich.
The whole subject of ownership of natural resources and land has
probably given rise to more wars and arguments between capitalists and
communists than any other single subject.
So anyhow, there you all are, arguing this out, and it starts to
get violent. Some of the capitalists just sort of disappear in the
night, and some of the communists are found at the bottom of cliffs.
You see how this goes? It is a very serious problem to the body
politic of ANY planet and any social design group. Any time you start
talking about taking the production of he who is brighter or more able,
and giving to the others who are not so bright in the name of 'love for
the people', you have a problem.
So the first requirement for a communication line being used by the
body politic to discuss its agendas in safety, is anonymity. That means
no one knows who is saying what, if they don't want to be known. And no
one can trace them back to where and who they are to punish, silence or
moderate them or their loved ones.
Thus the FIRST and most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is anonymous untraceable communication to anyone else.
This is the right of PUBLIC CONGREGATION. Public congregation
doesn't just mean getting together in a crowd out on a street or in a
church where everyone is identifiable and easy to round up or attack.
More broadly public congregation means the ability to issue a public
communication and feel assured that everyone who wants to receive it can
and does in a timely fashion, ALL OVER THE PLANET.
Internet anonymity provides public congregation in a way that has
never been available before.
But then sometimes you and your cohorts want to be able to talk to
each other, without other hostile elements listening in. This is the
right of PRIVATE CONGREGATION.
Thus the SECOND most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is the right to encryption so only the chosen can understand the
communication even if others intercept it.
Public key encryption now provides people the ability to
communicate privately and securely to anyone they wish, in a way that
has never existed before.
This is the right to privacy, not just in your home, but in your
entire web of communication lines, that you extend to those you wish to
communicate with, and who wish to be communicated to.
Do you really want to give the government access to your e-mail?
Do you really want the vying parties for power to know who you are
going to vote for, before you vote for them?
Now often you find that people actually don't mind being known as
the author of some idea, in fact they WANT to be known. Soon they are
finding that hostile and anonymous forces are posting things in their
name and people are getting confused as to who is saying what.
Thus the THIRD most fundamental right to all people in a free
society is the right to irrefutably sign a document so anyone reading it
can verify for themselves who it came from.
To sum up, the three basic rights in a free society are anonymity,
encryption and non repudiation.
PROBLEMS WITH NON ANONYMITY AND ANONYMITY.
Now there are obvious problems on both sides of the anonymity coin.
If good people speak openly, non anonymously, then criminals can
hunt them down and hurt them and their loved ones. Try speaking out
against the Nazi's in France 1941, or in east Berlin 1970, or in Pol
Pot's Cambodia or Stalin's Russia. Even in America during the
revolution and afterwards, people chose to speak anonymously in order to
protect themselves against those who would silence them.
THE HISTORY OF MANKIND IS A STORY TOLD OF ONE SIDE OF THE BODY
POLITIC TRYING TO SILENCE AND DESTROY THE OTHER.
On the other hand if you provide anonymity to everyone, then the
criminals can talk among themselves safely to plot the downfall of the
free society.
The upside is that good people, if they find out about such
criminal conspiracies, can blow the whistle on the criminals in safety
using those same anonymous communication lines.
So you have two choices.
A world where there is no anonymity, where everyone can be tracked
and held accountable for what they say. Sounds good for keeping the
criminals under control, but bad for the good who know that criminals
can't be controlled anyhow, and which said criminals will eventually
become the controllers of the good if the good are not allowed to speak
and plan anonymously or privately.
Or you can have a world where everyone has anonymity, where
everyone can speak freely without fear of repercussion. Thus the
criminals can talk safely amongst themselves, but the good can blow the
whistle on them in safety when they can.
The world has been playing the game of body politic ever since we
crawled out of the ocean using the first method, track and kill.
Now we can play it using the second method.
MARKETS
But now we have the markets and boy do we have a problem.
The problem is that the communication lines that have been created
so the body politic can design the market system, ARE THE SAME LINES
USED BY THE MARKET SYSTEM TO CARRY OUT ITS OPERATIONS.
So now someone buys a CD, rips the mp3 onto his hard drive, and
sends it on to everyone he knows for free.
Markets don't like free communication, markets thrive on secrets,
trade secrets, competition secrets, plan secrets, and they thrive on the
inability of just anyone to make the product they are trying to sell.
Intellectual ownership has become the next war between the
capitalists who want to own, and the communists who think everyone owns
everything.
The whole subject of copyrights still has the body politic arguing
with each other, even AFTER the markets were designed and set in motion.
Copyrights were invented in the distant past to protect the
publisher, not the artist. Further, publishers were owned by the King
(who got his cut), and the publisher could only publish what the King
approved of.
At the time it was very hard to publish, so copyright violations by
the reading public were not the problem. The problem were rogue
publishers who may or may not have been loyal to the King.
As time went on, copyrights were considered a good thing for the
authors too, along with patents and the rest, with limitations on time
so that eventually works could belong to the general public, because
after all "everyone owns everything." Even capitalists have a sense of
the public good.
This has given rise to two major problems.
The first is the little kid with the mp3 ripper sending songs to
everyone else for free. Napster caused the biggest scare in the history
of man for the record industry, they thought it was OVER.
Napster was easy to shut down, but using anonymity and encryption,
music sharing continues to this day. The only limiting factor on it, is
people's general ignorance of how to do it, and fear of being caught
anyway. The music industry knows there is nothing they can do about it.
Thus in some sense, ideas of copyright and ownership become moot because
they can't be enforced.
Once a technological war starts on these things, it becomes never
ending. Someone invents an encryption scheme so CD's can't be ripped,
and someone cracks the scheme and posts it to the net anonymously.
The other problem is when various people started to patent things
that were not theirs to patent, such as the genes in your breast that
make you prone to breast cancer. Under some interpretations of the law,
if your breast has that gene, your BREAST belongs to the owner of the
patent. Silly? Think again.
MARKET EFFORTS TO LIMIT THE BODY POLITIC
Because the markets have a very hard time with free communication,
they try to put restraints it. For example by changing the nature of
computers so they can't talk anonymously. That is like putting a cop in
every bedroom to prevent child molestation.
These kind of solutions of watching over everyone to make sure they
don't break market rules, can then be used against them to make sure
they stay silent during political debate.
Market players ARE ALWAYS trying to sacrifice political freedoms of
communication to benefit the profits in the markets. This is either
very short sighted with a firm belief in a benign government, or it is
knowingly selfish or evil.
Thus the body politic wants everyone to have anonymity, strong
encryption, and non repudiation, while the markets want everyone
trackable, moderateable, and plausible deniability.
THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT.
Although we tend to think of politics and government in the same
breath, politics is actually above the government, politics comes first
and in fact creates the the government you get. Thus government
fundamentally has no right whatsoever to say word one about politics or
how it operates or what communication freedoms it needs to operate.
GOVERNMENT IS ON THE SIDE OF THE MARKETS, NOT THE BODY POLITIC, BY
DESIGN OF THE BODY POLITIC!
Once markets are created, we create a government to mange them, and
to enforce the rules of fair trade.
Fair trade means each party enters into the trade willingly and
fully informed.
If a criminal sticks a gun in your face and says give me all your
produce, you are no longer a willing participant in that transaction and
thus it is not a fair trade.
We could leave the problem of criminality to vigilante justice, but
long history has shown that matters of criminal justice need to be left
to objective professionals, who do it full time, and who have a sense of
the society that its members may not have.
This includes the court system, from the Supreme Court on down, the
cops that arrest criminals, and the lawyers that prosecute and defend
them in court. That is an amazing edifice to erect to replace a couple
of guys with a noose and a gun.
Thus besides governing the mint and the markets, one primary
purpose of the government is to enforce fair trade, USING FORCE WHERE
NECESSARY, in a way we don't want lesser market players doing on their
own.
In other words where a person can not defend themselves, we call on
the government to defend them for them.
Sometimes the government acts poorly, sometimes the government acts
criminally, sometimes the government acts like a tyranny, moved by
personal fancy, whim, greed and caprice, rather than a nation of law.
Sometimes we might feel that anarchy would be better than that
tyranny.
But eventually ANARCHY BECOMES A SEA OF MICRO TYRANNIES.
In the absence of government, people coalesce into thousands of
little groups, each controlled by the biggest, meanest, strongest, most
selfish guy, and thus you have a thousand little absolute tyrannies all
over again. Such groups quickly try to throw their self elected leaders
off as soon as they can, rebuild a democratic power structure again,
including professional police forces, judges, lawyers and armies!
So the war over land and natural resource property rights has now
moved to a war over intellectual property rights that is bad enough to
make both the capitalists and the communists hopping mad.
In the end, although the 3 fundamental communication rights of all
people in a free society, untrackable anonymity, unbreakable encryption,
and irrefutable signature, are controversial and have their collateral
damage IN THE MARKET ARENA, I believe they are necessary to the survival
of the POLITICAL ARENA and thus, in the end, to the very survival of
society itself.
Thus I formed the first part of my personal sub vision statement,
I envision a world where
EVERYONE IS FREE TO COMMUNICATE WITH WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE, ABOUT
ANYTHING WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
Yes that means little kiddies can trade nuclear secrets and naked
pictures of themselves in safety, but the military can use encryption to
make sure the kiddies don't get those secrets in the first place.
I also believe it is wrong for the government and its markets to
wish backdoors on encryption to make sure that its people haven't become
overloaded with criminals, but I do believe it is right for the people,
as the body politic, to wish back door's on the government's encryption
to make sure the government hasn't become overloaded with criminals.
Now there are many many ways to improve the communication abilities
among the people of the planet, from newspapers, radio, TV, faxes all
the way to the internet.
But me personally, I could never understand or get into any of
them, except for the internet which became a natural for me.
The two way nature of the internet made it deliciously subversive,
and it allowed everyone to be come a publisher overnight without
permission of the King or his assigns, and it allowed everyone to speak
freely and anonymously to everyone on the planet, and secretly to
whomever they wished.
For me it was a no brainer that this was the way *I* should go
towards 'making a better world through free communication.'
This is where MY abilities locked onto, I felt "I can do that" and
I can do it better than the other guy, so I had better get a crackin'.
Thus from my vision statement I then formed my mission statement.
Vision statement: A better world through free communication.
Mission statement: To deliver dependable but affordable internet
access to those who are under served.
So you see we have moved from a vision of how I would like the
world to be, to a specific mission of what to do about it.
Now lower down the Vision tree, even below the mission statement,
we get into explicit orders on what exactly to do in order to deploy
that 'dependable but affordable' product. That then becomes all the
technogobble about modems, T1's, wireless, DSL, web hosting, e-mail and
usenet news.
Without the mission statement it is easy to lose my way towards
fulfilling my top level vision statement of a better world through free
and open communication.
The energy to do what I am doing when I am nailing another wire to
a wall, or helping another person online, comes down from the top of the
tree.
"Why exactly am I talking to this idiot on the other end of my
phone line? Oh yeah, a world of free and open communication between all
people in it."
That's why you need a vision statement, and you need a mission
statement, because the two of them give you your marching orders. AND
THE ENERGY AND WILL DO TO THEM.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@Lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.Lightlink.com
Fri Mar 5 20:01:30 EST 2010
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
HOM49
EXTERIOR AND THE SOVEREIGN STATE
This piece references a number written on a 3x5 card taped to the
back of the preclear's head every session. When he exteriorizes, he
should be able to tell the auditor what the number is.
This doesn't mean he can see next door, but it does mean he can see
the back of his own head as it actually is.
Homer
LR1467 (lr1467@aol.com) wrote:
>Ext from body is no guarantee of ext from mind. PC could take occlusions with
>him as well as consids that he needs eyes to see with. So not seeing the
>number wouldn't prove anything anyway.
Yes of course, but with the number there, you could catch those who
have full perceptics. Roland said he could see the back of his head, he
probably has more evidence than he is willing to admit, should run the
incident R3R.
Maybe a speck of dandruff on his back collar he saw, he could have
checked it out later when he stumbled home.
That would be a joke no? See the evidence, bypass it, then
complain forever afterwards that he needs Proof!
I have been auditing Interior-Exterior extensively.
There are many levels of interiorization. One can get out of body
and be in the physical universe, or one can get out of the physical
universe, or one can get out of UNIVERSES, etc.
This physical universe probably has a heavy track of suppression
about getting out of the body, as that gives one immense and dangerous
physical universe powers, to perceive into other people's business and
be invisible yourself etc. Forget moving the marble. No money in that.
Power lies in PERCEIVING. This universe, other universes, co
universes, higher universes, lower universes, other beings, melded
beings, spiritual teammates etc.
If you look out there and all you see is a wall, there is something
you are not perceiving.
Run,
"Get the idea of perceiving."
"Get the idea of not perceiving."
So the being exteriorizes from the body and suddenly is faced with
overwhelming fear, fear of finding out, fear of being found out, mustn't
perceive lest they come and do it to him again, etc.
The being has an ARC break about having been in a body and
believing he was mortal, but he's too scared of being out to find out
why he is in! So he tries to find out without getting out!
If he does get out, he takes a quick non look around so to speak
and jams back in again, usually on sympathy for the body etc, and then
can't be gotten out again.
That may be the next higher exteriorization kicking in and needing
to be run. He just got out of his body and it was too scary, so he went
back in and now he's trying to ext from the physical universe completely
while still inside his body.
Well that's workable, and may fool the THEY he is so scared of who
are outside the body just waiting for him to get out again, but he's
gotta spot that is what's going on, he's trying to get out of the
physical universe without getting out of the body first.
So each universe had a reason for interiorizing into the universe
within it, and finally into a body, and that's a lot of pressure to stay
in and not get out. But if you exteriorize to the Sovereign Universe
before universes, then its just peace and yourself and your desire to
engage space time for thrill and romance.
Its SAFE there, because no one is forcing you to come in, no one is
chasing you, no one is punishing you, executing you forever and ever,
burying you, entombing you etc. All there is, is you and a whole hell
of a lot of Class, universal friendliness.
Now you take this poor meatball and exteriorize him from his body,
and suddenly his whole world view changes, whaddya know the world is a
dream and I didn't know it!.
But he starts asking questions, questions can kill you, what am I
doing here, what did I *DO* to get here, what should I *DO* to get out,
you see querying cause, cause, cause...
Along with who, how, what, where, when, why, which, and he also
runs into his ridge about perceiving the answers to the questions, very
deadly consequences to answering any of them, and so he is stuck
exterior wanting to know and not daring to know lest THEY pick up that
he has found out and knock him out again for another trillion years of
suffering thinking he is made of meat.
So he goes back in and won't come out again.
But that means he now needs to exteriorize at the next level up,
ext from the physical universe, the next dream up, where maybe the same
thing will happen, and then he exts the next dream up, until finally he
exts to his Sovereign state, at which point the *FEAR* goes away. He
still doesn't know, but he finds one safe place in all of existence,
namely himself, and that provides the infinite confidence to start
facing all the reasons he shouldn't be exterior lower down.
So later he is auditing again, and starts to get lose in his body,
and the fear turns on and he says "Oh to hell with this!, Come get me
you big over blown asswipes."
Joke is, when the fear ridge is gone, they can't grab him, he's
just a ghost to them!
So I would surmise that the process of ext with full perceptics,
involves ext from all known and unknown universes all the way back up to
Sovereign state, and then he has the confidence to come back down and
start getting out of each layer one by one.
You know Sovereign State doesn't have to be this huge super nova
explosion, you can just touch it for a second, total beauty, humor,
peace and healing etc, and suddenly you KNOW what you can do and how to
do it, even if you don't know who you are or where you are.
Probably many people have touched this state and bypassed it, it
needs to be rehabbed and recognized or else the rest will stick.
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
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
This piece references a number written on a 3x5 card taped to the
back of the preclear's head every session. When he exteriorizes, he
should be able to tell the auditor what the number is.
This doesn't mean he can see next door, but it does mean he can see
the back of his own head as it actually is.
Homer
LR1467 (lr1467@aol.com) wrote:
>Ext from body is no guarantee of ext from mind. PC could take occlusions with
>him as well as consids that he needs eyes to see with. So not seeing the
>number wouldn't prove anything anyway.
Yes of course, but with the number there, you could catch those who
have full perceptics. Roland said he could see the back of his head, he
probably has more evidence than he is willing to admit, should run the
incident R3R.
Maybe a speck of dandruff on his back collar he saw, he could have
checked it out later when he stumbled home.
That would be a joke no? See the evidence, bypass it, then
complain forever afterwards that he needs Proof!
I have been auditing Interior-Exterior extensively.
There are many levels of interiorization. One can get out of body
and be in the physical universe, or one can get out of the physical
universe, or one can get out of UNIVERSES, etc.
This physical universe probably has a heavy track of suppression
about getting out of the body, as that gives one immense and dangerous
physical universe powers, to perceive into other people's business and
be invisible yourself etc. Forget moving the marble. No money in that.
Power lies in PERCEIVING. This universe, other universes, co
universes, higher universes, lower universes, other beings, melded
beings, spiritual teammates etc.
If you look out there and all you see is a wall, there is something
you are not perceiving.
Run,
"Get the idea of perceiving."
"Get the idea of not perceiving."
So the being exteriorizes from the body and suddenly is faced with
overwhelming fear, fear of finding out, fear of being found out, mustn't
perceive lest they come and do it to him again, etc.
The being has an ARC break about having been in a body and
believing he was mortal, but he's too scared of being out to find out
why he is in! So he tries to find out without getting out!
If he does get out, he takes a quick non look around so to speak
and jams back in again, usually on sympathy for the body etc, and then
can't be gotten out again.
That may be the next higher exteriorization kicking in and needing
to be run. He just got out of his body and it was too scary, so he went
back in and now he's trying to ext from the physical universe completely
while still inside his body.
Well that's workable, and may fool the THEY he is so scared of who
are outside the body just waiting for him to get out again, but he's
gotta spot that is what's going on, he's trying to get out of the
physical universe without getting out of the body first.
So each universe had a reason for interiorizing into the universe
within it, and finally into a body, and that's a lot of pressure to stay
in and not get out. But if you exteriorize to the Sovereign Universe
before universes, then its just peace and yourself and your desire to
engage space time for thrill and romance.
Its SAFE there, because no one is forcing you to come in, no one is
chasing you, no one is punishing you, executing you forever and ever,
burying you, entombing you etc. All there is, is you and a whole hell
of a lot of Class, universal friendliness.
Now you take this poor meatball and exteriorize him from his body,
and suddenly his whole world view changes, whaddya know the world is a
dream and I didn't know it!.
But he starts asking questions, questions can kill you, what am I
doing here, what did I *DO* to get here, what should I *DO* to get out,
you see querying cause, cause, cause...
Along with who, how, what, where, when, why, which, and he also
runs into his ridge about perceiving the answers to the questions, very
deadly consequences to answering any of them, and so he is stuck
exterior wanting to know and not daring to know lest THEY pick up that
he has found out and knock him out again for another trillion years of
suffering thinking he is made of meat.
So he goes back in and won't come out again.
But that means he now needs to exteriorize at the next level up,
ext from the physical universe, the next dream up, where maybe the same
thing will happen, and then he exts the next dream up, until finally he
exts to his Sovereign state, at which point the *FEAR* goes away. He
still doesn't know, but he finds one safe place in all of existence,
namely himself, and that provides the infinite confidence to start
facing all the reasons he shouldn't be exterior lower down.
So later he is auditing again, and starts to get lose in his body,
and the fear turns on and he says "Oh to hell with this!, Come get me
you big over blown asswipes."
Joke is, when the fear ridge is gone, they can't grab him, he's
just a ghost to them!
So I would surmise that the process of ext with full perceptics,
involves ext from all known and unknown universes all the way back up to
Sovereign state, and then he has the confidence to come back down and
start getting out of each layer one by one.
You know Sovereign State doesn't have to be this huge super nova
explosion, you can just touch it for a second, total beauty, humor,
peace and healing etc, and suddenly you KNOW what you can do and how to
do it, even if you don't know who you are or where you are.
Probably many people have touched this state and bypassed it, it
needs to be rehabbed and recognized or else the rest will stick.
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
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
ADORE377 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
STRONGER CLAIM, WEAKER CLAIM
You see you are trying to restore a being's freedom of choice,
not only to give them more options to choose, but to make their
choices agent, so they work.
Now the weak claim is that we have no idea why a being's state of
choice is so bad, but we are going to try and improve it anyhow.
The strong claim is that the being MADE A CHOICE that his choice
should no longer work, and by duplicating the who, how, what, where,
when, why and which of that choice, he can undo that choice and then
his choice will work again naturally.
Sure, use a gradient scale if you just have to :)
Now if the stronger claim is true, do you see why it is hopeless
trying to rehab a being's ability to choose without getting him to
erase the God postulate that his choices don't work?
You got him fighting himself.
HE WANTS TO BE SICK, so you are going to make him better by
auditing something other than his desire to be sick?
I don't think so.
"What who me, take responsibility?"
That's why they had the A-J check in the Church to catch the 'not
responsible for condition cases'. But that's a strong claim position
don't you see.
Run,
PURPOSE -> NO PURPOSE -> NO NO-PURPOSE
CHOICE -> NO CHOICE -> NO NO-CHOICE
Until freedom of choice is restored.
At purpose the being is aware he has a purpose and what it is.
At NO purpose, the being is aware he has no purpose.
At NO NO purpose, the being is no longer aware he has no purpose.
NO purpose is inactuality.
NO NO purpose is oblivion.
When the being starts to go 360 (perceive all around), pictures
turning on, they will be of disaster.
The point is that the weaker claim approach to clearing will only
produce results if the stronger claim ALLOWS it to. In this case the
weaker claim approach is doomed.
The weaker claim is the being is an innocent victim.
The stronger claim is the being is an imp soul playing villain.
The postulate that postulates don't work, works.
Until that postulate is cleared or approached, no amount of other
auditing will make postulates work.
Thus a top down look at why the being is suffering is necessary
to restoring his good humor.
Without sovereignty for condition, there is no good humor.
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 Aug 29 01:13:40 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Apr 2 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore377.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFTO7baURT1lqxE3HERAh6AAKCW5dns05uy9LOhBuUtImx4X0vLZQCeIvV5
S8eXXOC3i8j90TsaJlfq7zE=
=DDfN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
STRONGER CLAIM, WEAKER CLAIM
You see you are trying to restore a being's freedom of choice,
not only to give them more options to choose, but to make their
choices agent, so they work.
Now the weak claim is that we have no idea why a being's state of
choice is so bad, but we are going to try and improve it anyhow.
The strong claim is that the being MADE A CHOICE that his choice
should no longer work, and by duplicating the who, how, what, where,
when, why and which of that choice, he can undo that choice and then
his choice will work again naturally.
Sure, use a gradient scale if you just have to :)
Now if the stronger claim is true, do you see why it is hopeless
trying to rehab a being's ability to choose without getting him to
erase the God postulate that his choices don't work?
You got him fighting himself.
HE WANTS TO BE SICK, so you are going to make him better by
auditing something other than his desire to be sick?
I don't think so.
"What who me, take responsibility?"
That's why they had the A-J check in the Church to catch the 'not
responsible for condition cases'. But that's a strong claim position
don't you see.
Run,
PURPOSE -> NO PURPOSE -> NO NO-PURPOSE
CHOICE -> NO CHOICE -> NO NO-CHOICE
Until freedom of choice is restored.
At purpose the being is aware he has a purpose and what it is.
At NO purpose, the being is aware he has no purpose.
At NO NO purpose, the being is no longer aware he has no purpose.
NO purpose is inactuality.
NO NO purpose is oblivion.
When the being starts to go 360 (perceive all around), pictures
turning on, they will be of disaster.
The point is that the weaker claim approach to clearing will only
produce results if the stronger claim ALLOWS it to. In this case the
weaker claim approach is doomed.
The weaker claim is the being is an innocent victim.
The stronger claim is the being is an imp soul playing villain.
The postulate that postulates don't work, works.
Until that postulate is cleared or approached, no amount of other
auditing will make postulates work.
Thus a top down look at why the being is suffering is necessary
to restoring his good humor.
Without sovereignty for condition, there is no good humor.
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 Aug 29 01:13:40 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Apr 2 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore377.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFTO7baURT1lqxE3HERAh6AAKCW5dns05uy9LOhBuUtImx4X0vLZQCeIvV5
S8eXXOC3i8j90TsaJlfq7zE=
=DDfN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
ADORE808 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PROBLEMS OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE
> The preclear is then asked to invent a problem of comparable
> magnitude to that person. He is asked to do this many many times.
The person is a terminal not a problem.
The preclear has a problem WITH that terminal.
The preclear may say mother is a problem, but mother is a terminal
with whom they HAVE a problem.
Mother probably also has a problem back with the preclear.
So problems are usually two way ridges.
An example of a problem might be lack of desired co operation.
Thus inventing a problem of comparable magnitude involves first
inventing terminals of comparable magnitude, and then inventing problems
WITH those terminals of comparable magnitude (seriousness, difficulty
etc).
Also inventing problems the other terminal could have with the
preclear as problems are a two way flow.
Concentration on inventing problems without first inventing terminals
to have the problem with, or at least indicating existing terminals one is
inventing the problem about, will not work, as one can not confront a
problem, one can only confront a terminal with whom one has a problem.
It is mocking up the MASS and living energy of the TERMINAL that makes
the process work. One doesn't want to experience the mass and living
energy of the terminal one has a problem with, thus these unconfronted
masses and energies become bigger than the preclear. He sees the pretty
girl, his spine lights up and he has to run.
Mocking up the mass and living energy of the terminal brings the
preclear's confront and ability to create mass and living energy back up
to a par with the terminal he is having problems confronting. You can't be
scared of a pretty girl if YOU can mock her up 10 times bigger and 100
times prettier than she really is.
The preclear is stuck in a 'nothing could be prettier'. Bang, girl
wins.
Looking for earlier similar problems, as in running rudiments at
start of session, won't work either for the same reason unless one
first looks for earlier TERMINALS with which one had earlier similar
problems.
You want to start session but the preclear's parking meter is about to
run out of time and he needs to go put another quarter in it. His problem
is not with the meter, but the POLICE FORCE, you see? Running that
earlier similar can get interesting. Running parking meters earlier
similar will miss the point and the charge on his case.
Without mocking up the terminal the problem will not run out.
Time spent mocking up the present, past, future or invented terminal
in good detail, is more important than time spent mocking up the problem
in detail.
Homer
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Must do and must not happen again form the basic dicom of
this universe of entrapment.
DIANETICS TODAY
Page 144
"Unfortunately for the world of action, it will be discovered that
one who can confront everything, does not have to handle anything. In
support of this is offered that Scientology process "Problems of
Comparable Magnitude".
In this particular process the individual being processed is asked to
select a terminal with which he has had difficulty. In that the
definition of a terminal is a 'live mass' or something that is capable of
causing, receiving or relaying communication, it will be seen that
terminals are quite ordinary people in the problem category of anyone's
bank.
The person is then asked to invent a problem of comparable
magnitude to that person. He is asked to do this many many times.
It is found midway in the process that he is willing to do something
now about the problems he is having with that person. But at the end
of the process a new and strange thing is found to occur. The individual
no longer feels that he MUST do something about the problem.
Indeed, he can simply confront or regard or view the problem with
complete equanimity. Now an almost mystic quality enters this when it is
discovered that the problem in the physical universe about which he has
been worried often ceases to exist out there. In other words, the
handling of a problem seems to be simply the increase of ability to
confront the problem, and when the problem can be totally confronted it no
longer exists. This is strange and miraculous."
Has anyone ever attained Grade I?
For real?
Lot of phoney certs out there hanging on walls....
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Oct 22 13:46:28 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Apr 1 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore808.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFTOmVaURT1lqxE3HERAm7iAJ91dWDqgyefp+Dh5D+OAJY9ixJVoACcDoWW
smT6A5DNB3yzIgpMgJ2CUXU=
=q7Gk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PROBLEMS OF COMPARABLE MAGNITUDE
> The preclear is then asked to invent a problem of comparable
> magnitude to that person. He is asked to do this many many times.
The person is a terminal not a problem.
The preclear has a problem WITH that terminal.
The preclear may say mother is a problem, but mother is a terminal
with whom they HAVE a problem.
Mother probably also has a problem back with the preclear.
So problems are usually two way ridges.
An example of a problem might be lack of desired co operation.
Thus inventing a problem of comparable magnitude involves first
inventing terminals of comparable magnitude, and then inventing problems
WITH those terminals of comparable magnitude (seriousness, difficulty
etc).
Also inventing problems the other terminal could have with the
preclear as problems are a two way flow.
Concentration on inventing problems without first inventing terminals
to have the problem with, or at least indicating existing terminals one is
inventing the problem about, will not work, as one can not confront a
problem, one can only confront a terminal with whom one has a problem.
It is mocking up the MASS and living energy of the TERMINAL that makes
the process work. One doesn't want to experience the mass and living
energy of the terminal one has a problem with, thus these unconfronted
masses and energies become bigger than the preclear. He sees the pretty
girl, his spine lights up and he has to run.
Mocking up the mass and living energy of the terminal brings the
preclear's confront and ability to create mass and living energy back up
to a par with the terminal he is having problems confronting. You can't be
scared of a pretty girl if YOU can mock her up 10 times bigger and 100
times prettier than she really is.
The preclear is stuck in a 'nothing could be prettier'. Bang, girl
wins.
Looking for earlier similar problems, as in running rudiments at
start of session, won't work either for the same reason unless one
first looks for earlier TERMINALS with which one had earlier similar
problems.
You want to start session but the preclear's parking meter is about to
run out of time and he needs to go put another quarter in it. His problem
is not with the meter, but the POLICE FORCE, you see? Running that
earlier similar can get interesting. Running parking meters earlier
similar will miss the point and the charge on his case.
Without mocking up the terminal the problem will not run out.
Time spent mocking up the present, past, future or invented terminal
in good detail, is more important than time spent mocking up the problem
in detail.
Homer
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Must do and must not happen again form the basic dicom of
this universe of entrapment.
DIANETICS TODAY
Page 144
"Unfortunately for the world of action, it will be discovered that
one who can confront everything, does not have to handle anything. In
support of this is offered that Scientology process "Problems of
Comparable Magnitude".
In this particular process the individual being processed is asked to
select a terminal with which he has had difficulty. In that the
definition of a terminal is a 'live mass' or something that is capable of
causing, receiving or relaying communication, it will be seen that
terminals are quite ordinary people in the problem category of anyone's
bank.
The person is then asked to invent a problem of comparable
magnitude to that person. He is asked to do this many many times.
It is found midway in the process that he is willing to do something
now about the problems he is having with that person. But at the end
of the process a new and strange thing is found to occur. The individual
no longer feels that he MUST do something about the problem.
Indeed, he can simply confront or regard or view the problem with
complete equanimity. Now an almost mystic quality enters this when it is
discovered that the problem in the physical universe about which he has
been worried often ceases to exist out there. In other words, the
handling of a problem seems to be simply the increase of ability to
confront the problem, and when the problem can be totally confronted it no
longer exists. This is strange and miraculous."
Has anyone ever attained Grade I?
For real?
Lot of phoney certs out there hanging on walls....
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Fri Oct 22 13:46:28 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Apr 1 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore808.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFTOmVaURT1lqxE3HERAm7iAJ91dWDqgyefp+Dh5D+OAJY9ixJVoACcDoWW
smT6A5DNB3yzIgpMgJ2CUXU=
=q7Gk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)