ACT29

ELECTRON LOVE

ACT - 29
28 November 1993

Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.

>I'd still really like to know how thetans influence the particles >they
are attached too.

OK. It's a fair question.

To start with we have to ask 'What is a thetan?' In other words
what properties do thetans (elemental souls) have that might manifest
themselves in an electron which would support the idea that a thetan is
causally connected to the behavior of the electron?

First let's get two things out of the way.

As unpleasant as it might seem, it is not a priori necessary for
something to affect a particle just because it is attached to it. In
such a case though, it may be impossible to demonstrate the existence of
such an attachment, especially if you are dependent upon looking at
purported effects to support the existence of cause. If there are no
effects to observe, there is no support for a cause. So why claim such
a cause exists?

One might assume that existence is not wasteful of its connections,
(Occam's Razor) so that if a thetan is connected to an electron at any
level, then somewhere that connection should manifest or be made to
manifest even if it is not in the normal every day operations of the
electron.

It would be more reasonable to assume however that if a thetan is
connected to an electron, such a connection would manifest in every warp
and woof of the electron's interaction with the world and it is merely
up to us to find it.

Secondly if we ASSUME that a thetan IS merely a composite of
electrons and other 'particles', then asking what evidence is there to
support that a thetan is attached to an electron is meaningless because
that assumes inherently that a thetan is its own thing, not itself made
of electrons.

So those of us who claim that thetans exist and are part and parcel
of many mechanical organizations, such as particles, atoms, molecules,
biological subsystems, and macro systems, are then presented with the
task of clearly delineating what a thetan IS that is not itself merely
an electron or an involved composite of electrons.

This might also include having to indicate what merely mechanical
aspects there are to the system (force and mass alone), and what
'emergent' non mechanical aspects there might be that would require an
extra mechanical entity or even an extra space time process to account
for them.

This not only forces us to say what a thetan IS, but also what an
electron and its composites are NOT.

Once we have done this, then perhaps we can show that models of
organisms and smaller units or cause show behavior that can not be
reduced to things that an electron is, and must per force take into
account what a thetan is too, thus implying that thetan's AND electrons
are involved in the structure of the item in question.

If one assumes that everything in existence can be explained by
already existing fundamental concepts and particles, then such a
division between electron and thetan is impossible.

You comment 'Well beings have such and such a property' and they
respond 'No problem, electrons can do it.'

Their basic party line is that everything that can be done
in existence can be done by force and mass alone, namely systems
of parts operating via cause and effect across a space time distance.

Everything is a machine, a space time gizmo, dominoes falling
because earlier dominoes fell etc, and the only difference between
things we understand with this model and do not yet understand is merely
a matter of complexity of parts.

Fine, all kinds of properties exist, and electrons exist, why not
just say it's a closed system and all properties can be explained by
electrons?

(Please remember that by 'electron' I really mean the entire class
of fundamental particles known to present physics from which all known
complexities are believed to arise.)

The only way that one would have any justification for introducing
a new fundamental particle into the system is if a contradiction or non
understanding would arise by assigning all observed phenomena to the
present class of fundamental particles.

For example, it is easy enough to prove that there are two kinds of
electric charge, positive and negative. Simple experiments with Glass
and Silk, Amber and Wool show clearly the need for two different kinds
of charge.

For those of you who are not familiar with the experiment involved
I present it here for your edification. The rest of you can skip this
section.

Early electrical scientists knew that when glass was rubbed with
silk and amber was rubbed with wool that both took on some sort of
electrical charge, similar to what you get when you walk across a dry
carpet in winter and spark yourself when you touch a door knob.

Or perhaps if you are like me you use acrylic blankets which
develop a veritable lightning storm in the dead of night as you pull
them apart and play around in them. After doing this for a while you
can give yourself quite a shock if you then touch the air conditioner.

One early way of measuring this charge was with a crude device
called an electroscope which was a closed container with a glass plate
that allowed you to see inside it. There were various forms of this
device but the one of interest here had 3 metal terminals on the top
which led through the top of the device to inside the device where three
pith balls were hung from the three terminals by wire equally spaced
from each other.

Pith is a sticky biological substance found in the center of plant
stalks, and in these experiments it was often coated with a thin film of
aluminum so that each ball could hold some electrical charge. They were
very light and allowed people to measure deflection forces on the balls
which would have been impossible had the balls been made of solid metal.

The experiment went as follows. First you rub the glass rod with
silk until it was fully charged and then you touch the rod to the left
and middle terminal of the electroscope. The charge on the silk would
'run down' the two terminals and charge up the pith balls which would
then swing away from each other in repulsion.

This observation gave support to the idea that electricity was some
kind of substance that could run off of one object onto another, and it
'didn't like being with itself.'

Then you discharge the electroscope back to a neutral condition by
touching the two charged terminals to the nearest radiator or ground and
you do the same experiment with the amber rod. Again as the two
terminals are touched with the fully charged amber rod the two pith
balls swing away from each other due to the charge that comes down from
the amber rod onto the pith balls.

Well at first these experimenters were not too bright about what
they observed. They correctly concluded that electricity was a
substance that could flow from one object to another, and further they
concluded that this substance sort of didn't like being with itself and
so it caused a repulsive force on two charged objects.

This idea of repulsiveness also accounted for why the electricity
so readily flowed from the glass or amber rods onto the pith balls,
because the stuff was trying to escape itself on the rods and so would
flow anywhere it could that gave it some solid ground to flow on. This
also explained why touching the rods to the radiator at the end of the
experiment or something else connected to the earth would discharge the
pith balls, because again the electricity wanted to go anywhere but
where it was.

Believe it or not they left it this way for a long time until
someone a little brighter than the rest decided that the third terminal
on the electroscope should be used for something too! So he charged up
both the glass and the amber rods, one with silk and the other with
wool, and applied them both to the electroscope.

The glass rod was applied to the left and middle terminals
producing repelling pith balls, and WHILE the left and middle terminals
remained charged from the glass, the amber rod was applied to the right
hand terminal with full expectations that its pith ball would repel too.
But much to his amazement the right hand pith ball was ATTRACTED to the
middle pith ball that had been charged by the glass.

Now no matter how they did this experiment the results always came
out the same. If they touched the glass rod to all three terminals, all
3 pith balls would repel. If they touched the amber rod to all three
terminals, all 3 pith balls would repel. But any time they touched the
glass rod to one pith ball and the amber rod to the other they would
ATTRACT!

So they had a problem. Their present theory was that electricity
consisted of some fundamental particle that didn't like to be in its own
presence. As long as they did the glass and amber experiments
independently this theory was not invalidated. Glass electricity and
Amber electricity both cause repulsive forces, BUT ONLY ON THEIR OWN
KIND, and that was what was missed.

When they did the glass and amber experiments in tandem they saw
attractive forces too and it became very clear that the particle of
electricity couldn't both attract and repel at the same time, because
that would be a contradiction, so there had to be two fundamental
particles of electricity, which we now know to be the electron and the
proton.

The new theory said that both electrons and protons repel their own
kind, but attract each other. Therefore clearly if protons were on the
glass rod, then electrons had to be on the amber rod.

We now theorize that all matter contains equal measures of
electrons and protons, but the protons are held tightly in the nucleus
of the atom and can not indeed flow anywhere, while the electrons are
held in loose orbits around the protons and can quite easily flow
everywhere.

The ACTUAL difference between the glass and the amber is that the
silk steals electrons from the glass and so the glass becomes positively
charged due to a deficit of electrons. The amber steals electrons from
the wool so the amber becomes negatively charged due to an excess of
electrons.

Thus if there were only ONE fundamental particle, the electron say,
then assigning all these observed phenomena to the sole electron would
give rise to the contradiction that the electron had both positive and
negative charge. It becomes necessary to introduce another fundamental,
the proton in order to account for all observable phenomena, without
creating contradictions in the qualities assigned to the presently
extant fundamental particles.

So the only justification for creating a new fundamental, such as a
'thetan', is if some of the properties in the world that we observe
would create a contradiction if they were assigned to the presently
extant fundamentals that every one is familiar with, such as the
fundamental particles of nuclear physics.

So here is where we begin to walk on hot water, because people are
very adamant about not creating new fundamental particles, they like
their theories the way they are and they don't want to change them. It
takes TREMENDOUS pressure and argument to get these people to even look
at the possibility that their theories are incomplete that they are
missing a fundamental particle or thetan or two.

But such toppling of entrenched theories starts with observations
that can not be explained by the fundamental particle set that already
exists. Of course such observations may be discounted by the theorists
in power whose theories and world views would fall if something new had
to be added, or god forbid, something new erected in its place.

For example if someone COULD get out of their bodies, or even just
perceive things far away in closed rooms, that single datum alone would
destroy the foundation of modern understanding. Nothing would be left.
There would not even be ashes left with which to pick up the pieces.
Physicists would be completely out of a job the next day, except maybe
those good at denial and spin control.

A few perhaps would have the wherewithal to start from scratch and
perhaps build a new theory completely alien to what had gone before, but
which hopefully would reduce to the old theories and the old ideas when
limited to smaller arenas of observation.

A common example of this process is how Einstein's theory of
Special Relativity reduces to Newtonian Mechanics when observations are
limited to the smaller arena of low velocities.

But as it is, most damning observations you come up with are going
to be met with the same old same old.

'Love? Electrons can do it, electron love!'

'Free Will? No problem, Heisenberg said it fine with his
uncertainty principle.'

'Ethics? No problem, pure calculation of best return for your
money.'

'Beauty? Well I am sure we will understand it a few years down the
road, besides electrons have charm, that's close.'

"Giving a Damn? Well why do you think like charges repel,
and unalike charges attract, they care!"

You see it's on and on. So you have to start somewhere. First you
have to take a good look at what people have already defined electrons
to be. Once you understand THAT thoroughly then you won't be able to be
fooled so easily once you start to come up with damning observations
that can't be explained in terms of the present model.

For example. There is something called State Determinism. That
means that the evolution of the system is a function of its present
state and the laws that govern what happens next from any given present
state.

I don't know what the present opinion on State Determinism is, but
if people define electrons in a state determined way, such as Maxwell
did with his theory of light, and you manage to show that some things
are not state determined, in other words, what they do next is NOT a
function of their present or their past, well then the reigning theory
which says that the electron is state determine must either go out the
window or else you must introduce ANOTHER fundamental particle (a thetan
perhaps) which is not state determined but which can work in conjunction
with the electron.

Further its pretty obvious that if something which is not state
determined, such as a thetan, is effecting something which is, such as
an electron, then you will be able to measure the UNstate determinedness
of the thetan by looking at the behavior of the electron. In other
words once you introduce any un state determined entity into a system,
the whole system will start to manifest un state determinedness.

Now this whole argument about free will centers around people's
ideas that we are not state determined beings, that we can do things
that are not a function of our past or present, that we are not bound by
mathematical law to do or choose in any one given way according to our
present state.

A lot of people want there to be a free will only because they
enjoy punishing people for their transgressions which wouldn't make a
hell of a lot of sense if people couldn't help themselves.

That is called having a religious bone to grind. 'We went to all
this trouble to build a Hell Forever which serves no purpose except to
make us feel better by giving bad people what's coming to them, and now
you tell me they don't deserve it. Sheesh what a waste of tax payer's
dollars, maybe we ought to just squelch the evidence that everything is
state determined and go ahead and burn the heathen bastards.' This has
actually happened between the Church and various proponents of
mechanical science.

So you start to ask some probing and embarrassing questions, which
begin to bother everyone except those who already have everything
figured out. (Their theses are already written, they can't afford to
have it all proven bunk.)

The primary questions would be on the subject of machines, trying
to figure out what present theory says they are capable of, and
comparing that to what you can observe YOU are capable of. That way you
can come to a better understanding of whether you are just a machine or
not.

For example,

Can a machine hurt? Do machines NEED anesthetics on humane
grounds when damaged, broken or being operated on?

Can a Conscious Unit hurt? Do CU's NEED anesthetics on humane
grounds?

Would it ever be immoral to torture a machine in the sense that it
would be immoral to torture a CU?

There is something people keep forgetting about machines, they have
FUNCTION and STRUCTURE. They are very much like a program and a
computer. The function of the program, what it does, is completely
independent of the kind of computer you run it on or the programming
language you wrote it in, which together form the underlying structure
which implements the function.

The same is true of machines. What they do, like tell time say,
which is a FUNCTION, is completely independent of what MEDIUM you build
the machine in. You can build a clock with wheels and springs, or with
electronics, or with atomic molecules or with biological systems, or
even with planetary systems.

The FUNCTION of a machine is independent of the MEDIUM.

All clocks have an energy storage unit which needs to be refilled
periodically. They all have some escapement mechanism that allows the
stored energy to escape over time in a highly accurate way, and they all
have some method of recording to show the time or a count of how much
energy has escaped.

You can build this with ball bearings, you can build this with
circuits, you can build this with candles, you can build this with water
wheels, you can build this with ANYTHING.

You can even build this with a mountain of scientists spilling over
into the abyss forever more at 3 scientists per second.

We call this the Machine Medium Theorem, which states that a
machine's function is independent of the medium it is built in.

Thus if the brain is a machine, then it can be built out of ball
bearings, wheels, springs, electric circuits with wire and solder, and
even solid state transistors or integrated circuits.

So here is where you get to ask yourself a really deep
philosophical question. Could a brain built out of wheels and gears and
levers and springs, no matter how big it was or how small the parts
were, ever HURT? Or could it merely RESPOND.

If you conclude that such a mechanical brain, wired function for
function like the real brain, could not hurt, then you must conclude
that the real brain can not hurt either. You would also have to
conclude that since we do hurt, the 'we' that hurts is not the brain.

If on the other hand you conclude that a mechanical brain could
hurt, then it's fine if you also conclude that the actual brain hurts,
in which case there is no need for further fundamental particles to
'explain' hurt, such as a conscious unit or a thetan.

Similarly you must ask yourselves about other things that humans
can do which machines might not be able to do.

Can a machine learn anything with perfect certainty? The Machine
Certainty Theorem says no.

MACHINE CERTAINTY THEOREM
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof

Can a machine be self aware or is it limited to having one set of
circuits study another set of circuits which study the first set of
circuits? If both circuits are wrong or malfunction what other circuit
would know for sure?

Can a circuit study itself? Is there a limit to how much of itself
a circuit can study? Does a conscious unit have the same limitation?

Can a machine ever feel injustice? Can a machine be moved to anger
and hatred and revenge, or would it be cold and calculating because
really it was only programmed to survive and in fact it couldn't give a
damn if it wanted to?

What survival value is there to anger and real feelings and caring
and desire? Why not just compute, do and survive? Is it possible that
such things as real feelings actually serve no useful survival
potential, they are merely there because they have to be there, because
the thing which is surviving is a conscious unit which happens to be
stuck with CARING about its own survival by virtue of its own nature?

Even the Extropians, the 'Up Loaders' will tell you that pain
serves no useful function. All you really need is a red light going off
in your mind to tell you you are in danger. Of course what would make a
being avoid damage or death if it didn't hurt? Well he would be
programmed to avoid such. Why torture someone with pain to MOTIVATE
them to do something when you can just program them to do it BY FORCE.

And here we come to the real thing that needs the most study, the
difference between FORCE and MOTIVATION.

You can be FORCED to move and you can be MOTIVATED (by pain) to
move. BOTH cause motion, and because of this, some people confuse them
as being the same thing, or they think pain can be reduced to force.

Christians place a big deal on the free will. Certainly if
everything we did was FORCED by programming, then that could hardly be
called free will. So a prerequisite for a free will is to have at least
something that operates on MOTIVATION.

But really, even a person who is pushed and pulled around the
universe by various motivations can hardly be considered to be free or
have a free will. He is still a puppet of his desires.

So then you need some ability to CHOOSE your motivations and to
suppress others. You say to yourself, I won't be motivated by greed and
lust for tender loins, and I will be motivated by the desire to learn
and make better of myself and do the world some good.

It must be noticed however that even these CHOICES to be motivated
by some things and not by others, come from some motivation to make such
a choice.

You can't change a desire or squash a desire or choose a desire
unless you have a desire to do so. Where did THAT desire come from?
You can't even chose to have THAT desire unless you desire to have it.

So ultimately all choices come from desires that exist before the
choices. Some choices can change, add or delete other desires, but
always there is at least one desire that is pre existing to any choice,
and that desire is sovereign in the ruling sense, and guides what that
being will do.

Perhaps that is what the Christians are talking about when they
talk about the choice between good and evil, or between selfishness and
self sacrifice for the greater good. Perhaps they are trying to sort
out those who have the motivation to cooperate with others and enjoy
other's well being, from those who are not motivated by the well being
of others and who see using and abusing others as a fast route to
happiness, wealth and success.

If so, hell then is not a matter of free will, it's a matter of
motivation and sensitivity to other's pain. People are the most
compassionate when other's pain is their pain. That's not free will,
that's an open door of perception. Perhaps people can choose to open
that door, but what would motivate them to?

More likely they are born with an open door of sensitivity to
other's pain and they shut it closed for one reason or another as they
grow up. Understanding this would go far to understanding man's
inhumanity towards man.

Ultimately choice is always ruled by desire, fundamental desire is
never ruled by choice, unless that choice is itself unruled by desire or
motivation of any kind. If a choice is unruled by any desire, then it
is also unruled by the desire to do good, so it can hardly be said that
the choice to be good comes from being good, because you would have
already had to BE good, so your choice to be good would be redundant.

What the choice to be good, cooperative and sensitive comes from
then becomes a good question at best.

LRH by the way says that being good is fundamental to a being and
that any decision to be bad comes from a crazy effort to be good.

The Christians say that being bad is fundamental, that
FUNDAMENTALLY we are all in need of forgiveness, but rarely do they
discuss WHY people do bad things. They say we make this choice between
good and evil and that's the end of it. If we choose to do evil, we
know we are doing wrong, so we DESERVE to go to Hell Forever.

I don't believe it is meaningful to say that 'evil' people know
they are doing 'WRONG'. It might be meaningful to say that they know
they are hurting others and don't care because they are not sensitive to
other's pain and do not take joy in other's well being.

Such evil people might know that other's think what they are doing
is 'wrong' but why would they consider it wrong themselves?

If they don't think it is wrong, why do they deserve punishment
FOREVER for what they do? Punishment for a while might be corrective,
at least it might teach them that OTHER's think what they are doing is
wrong and that they had better stop if they want to be left alone. But
punishment forever? What does it serve except to make the good feel
better about the abuse they received at the hands of the bad? In which
case how just good are these good?

One doesn't usually picture vengeful bitterness as the embodiment
of 'good'.

More likely the 'good' wish the bad to go to hell forever to make
up to the good for all the pain the good had to suffer obeying God's
rules, all the while the 'evil' where having a ball of it.

What good is being good, if the evil get off scott free. This
implies that there is much suffering to being good, almost an unnatural
form of self restraint, and the good damn well want some payment in
return for their efforts.

Is a being who forces himself to be 'good' and follow God's laws
only because he fears Eternal Punishment, really all that good?

Is it really possible that beings who believe in God behave
themselves better because of this fear of reprisal than other beings who
are just naturally good but think that this God and Hell thing is a lot
of bunk?

Would a being who obeyed God perfectly only because of his fear of
punishment hold a higher place in Heaven than a being who was just good
naturally but may have broken a few rules in some areas because he
ignored the nonsensical and capricious rules of a bitter and jealous
God?

Does the person who propitiated God properly only because he feared
Hell deserve to go to Heaven? Does the person who was good naturally
but who rejects the existence of God deserve to go to Hell?

I don't think so.

Compassion doesn't demand Eternal Punishment for anything.

If evil people thought what they were doing was wrong in their own
hearts, they wouldn't do it. If they DID do it, even though they
thought it was wrong in their own hearts, then clearly they are not in
control and so they don't deserve punishment.

Punishment must always serve a purpose to the PUNISHED! Punishing
someone FOREVER can only serve a purpose to the PUNISHER.

If someone is hell bent on doing wrong, you are well within your
rights to level pain at him to teach him a lesson, or merely to get him
to stop doing what he is doing. But you gotta at least give him a
chance to respond to the corrective or constraining action of the
punishment. If the guy is intractable and won't change and won't
restrain himself no matter what you do, why waste your time punishing
him forever, just destroy him. End of story, end of problem.

The only possible reason that any God would punish someone bad
forever was because it satisfied the good that He do so. In other words
Hell is not payment to the wicked, it is payment to the righteous, for
having remained righteous. It's a fulfillment of a promised contract,
'I will hurt your enemies bad if you but remain righteous.' So putting
the wicked in hell is where the righteous come to get their full measure
of satisfaction for having fulfilled their part of the bargain of
staying righteous. In which case the righteous are worse than the
wicked, feeding at the trough of the suffering of the wicked.

'What would I do if I didn't have someone bad to torture for the
rest of time, life would be so empty, it's hard being good.'

The only possible SANE justification for some sort of ongoing
punishment is if the person being punished may some day change his mind
and become tractable or better yet civilized. So you throw him in the
lake of fire until he cries uncle. Maybe some never cry uncle, so they
stay there. At least they have the chance to cry uncle and get out and
become part of the GNP again. And they have this chance FOREVER.

But throwing someone into a lake of fire forever, GIVING HIM NO
CHANCE TO CRY UNCLE AND KEEPING HIM THERE EVEN IF HE DOES CRY UNCLE
BECAUSE 'IT'S TOO LATE, YOU HAD YOUR CHANCE', just means you belong in
that lake of fire yourself until YOU cry uncle.

YAHWEH, hear me, I am coming after you. You gotta stop lying to
your children man. It ain't right.

Anyway, if you KNOW that someone will never cry uncle and will
continue to do bad forever, then you have a problem.

Fine, so you destroy them as defective. You don't punish them in
hell forever where the good can come look into the screaming pits for
the rest of time taking in and admiring the beauty of it all.

"Ah, those satisfying screams, now I KNOW God is good!"

So the subject of free will, pain and motivation etc. is very
important to what makes something a living conscious unit and what makes
a machine.

If a machine decides to follow the dark side of the force, do you
punish it in hell forever, or do you pull its plug?

Would it make any sense to punish a machine in hell forever? Even
if this satisfied your benighted craving for punishment, would the
machine give a damn? Would it beg to die and feel sorry for what it had
done? Would it promise to love you forever if you would only end its
misery in the peace of death or disassemblement?

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

MOCKUP JUNKIES

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


MOCKUP JUNKIES

OK, tell your Trommie friends to try this.

Get get a good full color detailed book on human anatomy, something
with a detailed drawing of the central nervous system, every nerve,
where it starts, where it goes and what it controls, outgo and income.

Then start mocking up each and every nerve and your self as the
whole nervous system without a body or a spine, just pretend you are a
brain and the nervous system, without any physical armor, like spine,
bone, or muscle or skin.

If there are places you can't see or get dull ness or blackness,
concentrate along the center of the nerves that go through the area, you
want LINES of deadness not just points of deadness.

Pain off away from a nerve is often caused where the nerve is,
masses in the front of the face are often caused by terrible deadness in
the center of the spine in the BACK of the neck you see?

Tensions in the center of the back can cause pains way down in your
heels.

Tensions in one area are caused by deadness in another.

Where you FEEL the pain or phenomenon is not where it is
originating, find the DEAD spot and watch all the fireworks blow off
everywhere else.

This is part of the trap, paying attention to the pain locks one
into making the remote dead area more dead, so the pain continues. Its a
MECHANICAL feed back loop, one is actually hurting the nerve feeding the area
that hurts, but the NERVE damage ain't there.

Nerves run the whole body and be damaged anywhere along the route,
but will report in as 'pain at the end point' of the nerve.

Stupid preclears will often create physical symptoms at the end
pain points to prove their point.

Mock up your full nervous system, voluntary and involuntary, until
there are no more black or dull spots and the nerve system can be seen
as flows of energy without stoppage up and down the spine, limbs and
inside the head.

If parts of your spine look like they are broken like a pencil and
no longer line up properly, run the are until its straight and clean
again, and stop breaking with dumb dramatizations through out the day.

Mostly question asking about what to DO to survive, with intent to
murder along the way.

:)

That's enough to turn a beautiful body into an ugly body almost over
night.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Sep 5 01:43:00 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore957.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFUCU1kURT1lqxE3HERAnu3AJ9U3yoQtNdvqlSEKjZQIxlkCKTgeACgoZvh
c8wf/33zJFZB6g0yIhGROAU=
=h16l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

DIANETICS (fwd)

-----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

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Sep 4 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/dianetics
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)

iD8DBQFUCA9aURT1lqxE3HERAiTWAKCH0zKZBhh+GiH6JFaoCwq7pni8ogCfYx2U
DPyLbc2zEBb9rN5aJE4RffM=
=T4s1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE20 (fwd)

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


The INTENT of the Creator is not GOODNESS, it is Mischief and
Majesty (Master of Jest).

The purpose of the Imp Soul is to create a practical joke for itself
and then spend a very long time resolving it, until he gets the joke
and laughs himself back into Static.

The universe is not GOOD, it serves no good purpose, it is a JOKE,
its purpose is to get the joke and retire in humor forever for free.

The war between good and evil is the fabric of the Joke.

The purpose of the universe is to scare the living daylights out
of the being, and then give him a good laugh in the end.

Homer

- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Sep 3 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore20.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)

iD8DBQFUBr3aURT1lqxE3HERAlnTAJ9bjr9auatbCJUHGt8JoaBBsLdl0ACeJD39
q76fKMyYS8npscOq3KQh/Ew=
=Cbgh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ACT34 (fwd)

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







CIRCLE OF LIGHT

ACT - 34
26 December 1993

Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.


I had a dream last night.

I was on a dark and smelly planet, the skies were black and red
from volcanic fire.

In the middle of the planet was a tall mountain surrounded by dark
and unhospitable plains below.

On the mountain was a small band of people who were throwing rocks
taken from their mountain at the people below. They had contempt for
the people below and didn't want them to come up on their mountain.

The people below cowered as the rocks came down upon them, and they
hid themselves alone in their holes in the ground where they could not
be hurt.

Then out of the blue a brilliant point of light flashed out amongst
the people below. It grew strong and steady and people tried to gather
to it to become connected to it.

The light began to elongate and it slowly traced out a solid white
line in the darkness, meandering almost willfully among the people
below.

As it wandered and grew in length, the people who were close to it
became connected immediately, and others, who were farther way,
struggled through great hardship to become connected to the line of
light too.

Those who became connected found that they could talk to each other
effortlessly who were also on the line, and you could see the ebb and
flow of their thoughts and feelings sparkle and flow along the corridor
of white power connecting them.

Soon the line of light became so long it started to bend around the
mountain and take in people on the other side too. As it circled around
the mountain more and more people became connected to it who had never
even known that each other existed.

The communication between them was as the flow of a mighty river
straining the very nature of the line itself.

During all this time the people on the mountain were still throwing
rocks at the people below, almost oblivious to the white line and its
growth around the mountain.

Only the people connected to the line knew what was happening.

And then the white line finally came full circle, back to where it
had started, and it connected up with itself, completely surrounding the
mountain.

At that moment a quiet hush fell over the line, as everyone knew in
that moment something had changed forever.

Suddenly someone picked up a rock that had been thrown at him, by
the people on the mountain, and he looked at it long and hard. Then he
looked up at the mountain thoughtfully, and then again at the rock in
his hand, and then HE THREW IT BACK!

Instantly everyone around the mountain knew what had been done, and
they picked up rocks that had been raining on them and they too threw
them back.

The people high up on the mountain were stunned, this had never
happened before. They dove back into hiding and there was peace on the
mountain, and no more rocks were ever thrown.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Sep 2 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act34.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)

iD8DBQFUBWxZURT1lqxE3HERAq/uAKCQWbmjrWe1YRTP9MDOGuMhPw+LigCgzGbl
LJ4DTqd978qubUduX28hLis=
=cj+S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ACT (fwd)

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


THIS FORUM

This forum is intended to be a scientific forum for the
discussion and advancement of clearing.

Scientific forums demand a certain amount of scientific decorum
in their proceedings.

Things don't have to be utterly dry and formal here, every good
scientist jokes around, gets sarcastic, engages in hyperbole, but
always to the advancement of the science, not to the end of tearing it
down.

There are 4 high crimes that I want to see eradicated from the
forum.

1.) Ad hominem, A is false because B is a drunk and C uses it to
torture people.

2.) Attribution of Intention, A is false because B's intention
was evil before, during or after he said A. Or D's intention is evil
because he asserts E.

3.) Attribution of Source, you believe A because B told you to.

4.) Attribution of identity, A is not A but B posting as A. Or A
is a covert OP of B.

People who engage in such forms of debate are engaged in
destructive out ethics and do not belong in a serious scientific
forum.

That said, anyone posting to the forum is fair game on the forum,
you don't get respect just and only because you breath. If you post
stupidity, illogic, or low tone death directedness, then expect to get
your sorry ass flamed off its scrawny bones.

But saying someone is wrong because they are stupid or illogical
is not the same as saying they are wrong because they do drugs, or are
planning a con on people, are brainwashed, or a church op.

The only other person who has been removed to date was KP, and he
had a lot more positive to say about clearing than Phil does.

Homer

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

Sat Jul 22 00:18:04 EDT 2006

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Sep 1 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act
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)

iD8DBQFUBBraURT1lqxE3HERArG1AJ9yY48bXIpPEJdFZOdhX4NiBkd4AQCeOGiR
mW3ANOPGho9eRI/1fQdL95M=
=lkGA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

PROOF31 (fwd)

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


SYMBOLS AND REFERENTS II

One way to tell that the symbol and referent are two different
objects, is if the symbol has qualities that the referent doesn't have.

For example you are in a car on a road at an intersection, looking
at a map of the area. You see the intersection on the map labeled with
the names of the roads, and you know where you are.

In this case the map is the symbol and the actual roadways are the
referent.

The symbolic map is made of paper with color and ink denoting the
roadways, the referent roads themselves are made of tar and asphalt.
Clearly in this case no one could ever mistake the map for the
territory, or the symbol for the referent.

However let's take a subtler example.

Find yourself a small coffee table and a red plastic ball like the
ones kids like to play with in pools.

First check the ball out all over, push it, poke it, bite into it,
blecch, yep made of plastic all right, then put the ball on the table
and sit down facing it.

Now the first thing one might think is that one is looking at a red
plastic ball. But that's a confusion between symbol and referent. The
two have been smushed together into one object.

So let's notice something.

If you close your eyes, the red ball disappears from your field
of view, but the plastic ball is still out there on the table right?

"If A and B are objects, and A changes and B doesn't, then A is
not B, i.e. A and B are two *DIFFERENT* objects."

So immediately we can conclude that the 'red ball' and the
'plastic ball' are two different objects.

The 'red ball' that we see is a conscious color form projected in our
consciousness. It is much like the picture of the Empire State Building
projected on the plasma display of the cockpit. The "plastic ball" that
remains even after the 'red ball' is gone, is a whole nother object out
there on the table which exists whether we see it or not.

So its pretty clear here that the 'red ball' which we see in our
consciousness when our eyes are open is its own object that is different
from the 'plastic ball' out on the table, which exists whether we see it
or not.

TWO different objects, both actual.

The red ball is in fact being used as a symbol for the plastic ball
on the table. We can change the symbol, make it come and go, by opening
and closing our eyes, or looking away, but the plastic ball remains
unchanged. Thus the symbol and the referent are not the same object. We
have two different objects, one used to represent the other.

Notice also that the red ball is RED. Now we tend to associate
redness in consciousness with a certain frequency of light, but clearly
there is nothing about light that is 'red'.

Redness in consciousness is a symbol for the external referent of
light of a particular frequency.

Light has qualities such as energy, speed, direction, amplitude and
frequency, which do not apply to conscious color forms.

Conscious color forms have qualities like redness and an implied
viewpoint which do not apply to light. An implied viewpoint means the
symbol includes in it where it is being viewed from.

So we have two different objects, red color form, and light, which
have very different qualities from each other, almost none of which
overlap except that they both exist, yet one can be used very effectively
as a symbol for the other with little confusion.

So from this we can conclude that symbols don't have to be all that
similar in nature to what they symbolize in order to be useful as symbols.
Words are a perfect example, the word 'ball' is VERY different than a
ball, yet we do just fine using one to symbolize the other.

Another thing we need to notice is that the symbols we use to refer
to referents can pretty well be chosen arbitrarily. For example the word
'blog' could just as easily be used to refer to ball, as long as we all
agree to the relationship. Since its an arbitrary assignment between
symbol and referent, its just a matter of agreement between people to use
symbols and referents the way they do.

As another example of this, there is clearly nothing RED about light
of any frequency. Thus we could just as easily see green or blue where we
now see red, and we would never know the difference.

In fact what I see when looking at the ball may be what you would
call green and what you see may be what I would call blue, but we both
call it red by agreement.

As long as we see the same color in ourselves when we see the same
frequency, and as long as we both call it the same word when we talk to
each other about it, it doesn't matter if you or I see the same color when
looking at the same frequency!

There is no way to know if someone else sees the same color that we
do, because no one can see into anyone else's consciousness than their
own.

OK, so now let's do this same experiment in a sleep dream.

We are sound asleep and lo and behold we find a red plastic ball on
the floor next to a small coffee table.

Again we pick it up, push it, poke it, bite it, blecch sure tastes
like plastic to me, and put it on the table.

Then we sit down and we look at it.

Now having done this experiment while wake, we study the red ball on
the table for any differences between what we see now and what we saw when
we were awake.

And there are none. Looks just like the other red ball down to the
last detail.

But what of the plastic ball?

In the waking state we say there is a red ball acting as a symbol for
a plastic ball acting as the referent.

But in the dream, is there a plastic ball?

No of course not, if there were, when we woke up, the plastic ball
would go poof and that would violate the laws of conservation of energy
and momentum.

You see red conscious color forms can come and go at the will of the
conscious unit, but plastic can't.

Besides there is no plastic in sleep dreams, because there is no
ANYTHING in sleep dreams except the symbols in conscious color form
pretending that there is.

The symbols are actual in the dream, but the implied referents
aren't. They just aren't there in the dream. In the dream the plasma
display shows the city in complete detail, but there is no city down
below.

So the non lucid dreamer doesn't realize he is dreaming and he
worries about the plastic ball implied by the red ball in his conscious
picture.

The lucid dreamer, realizes that the red ball in his conscious
picture is all there is, and there is no plastic ball at all in the dream.

The lucid dreamer realizes that the symbols in his conscious pictures
are more important than the implied referents because the implied
referents don't exist at all! They never did.

Notice this has nothing to do with other dreamers being in the dream
with him. Any number of conscious dream units can get together and share
a co dream, a shared virtualization, a panoply of symbols with non
existent referents.

For these co dreamers the symbol IS the referent, the symbol is used
to symbolize itself! The symbol is what is important.

The map hasn't become confused with the territory, the map IS the
territory for real as there IS no other territory!

Now some non lucid dreamer still fixated on non existent referents
like the plastic ball, could come along in the dream and say "Well what
difference does it make whether this is a dream or not, I still have to go
to school, eat, sleep, fight war, die etc."

Why?

Well he thinks he has to do all these things because he still
believes in the referents that don't exist. The kind of referents he is
worried about are external physical universe objects that he didn't ask
for, didn't make, can't get rid of, and certainly can't control.

They in fact control him, in fact he is MADE OF THEM, if he thinks he
is a body!

Talk about inverted. The conscious unit that perceives the conscious
symbol thinks it is made of the referent! That's like the pilot looking
at the plasma display and thinking HE IS THE CITY!

So you try to wake him up a bit, you don't want him to leave the
dream, but you do want him to know it IS a dream, namely a world of
symbols with non existing referents.

Then he can stop worrying about all those dangerous referents and
perhaps try his hand at casting some symbols around by force of will
alone, rearrange the dream to suit his needs, instead of it rearranging
him.

Pretty soon illegally pretty girls are popping out of the walls and
falling all over him, each vying for his attention, "touch me! touch me!"

You see, the world is a better place for being lucid.

So this material is important, as the 'waking' state is a dream
state also.

Homer

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

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Aug 31 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof31.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)

iD8DBQFUAslaURT1lqxE3HERAlgdAJkBX+vp3P4jpnds+8kS29/YqkF+CwCcC54O
f0UECbRoF4EhNs5K3VnZ4qE=
=+F4i
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l