SESSION NOTES
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Run,
The magic of no magic.
The power of no power.
The ability of no ability.
The cause of no cause.
For havingness, mockup multitudes of yapping 'Prove It!' cases.
EP: Able and Willing to Be Here.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Dec 11 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/session1.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)
iD8DBQFUiVBqURT1lqxE3HERAkRPAKDAjqpwV7WsmC6I46RRTDDm9HqI7ACfS1HA
/57llWlfEM1C9OyqxBzC5ic=
=OpJG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
ADORE126 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BELIEF AND PERFECT CERTAINTY
Mach777 (mach777@eurosport.com) wrote:
>> I cannot prove the non existence of something. It is possible that
>> these things exist, and that either I did not have the appropriate
>> experiences, or that I don't have the appropriate abilities.
>>
>> But is it not crazy to believe in things we cannot experience or
>> perceive?
Adore would say that depends on how you define belief.
If something can not affect you in any way, then you can not learn
anything about it AT ALL, let alone with certainty.
Certainty comes from experience, because the only certainty there
is, IS experience.
Consciousness-of, experience-of, perception-of IS certainty-of.
From our experiences ('of the world') we then interpret what the
world must be like. We see space, so we think there is space. We
experience out-there-ness, so we assume there is out-there-ness. We see
other beings, so we assume there are other beings.
What is certain is the experience, but in the end experience is
only a symbol for an alleged referent in the external world. The
experience might be considered to be 'evidence' for the external
referent, but there are other models.
It's like looking at a TV set and concluding that because you see a
car on the screen there must be a car somewhere out there.
Adore says that ALL 'belief' is a sin against certainty.
Beings don't need to believe things, they need to confront the
unknown. The effort to escape the 50/50 mark on many subjects leads
them to premature conclusions and convictions just to cover their fear
of not knowing.
Adore says that each being needs to find the perfect certainties of
his life, ones that can not be wrong, for example, I AM and I CARE, and
use them as a standard against which to compare all his other beliefs.
Everything that is not certain then becomes unknown.
It is ok to assign a probability to an unknown, a 'bet' in Adore's
terminology, especially if one has to make a decision or act upon them,
but to then upgrade them to 'beliefs' becomes an error, unless the word
belief is defined to mean merely something that one considers more than
50/50 likely.
Your average meatball is inverted.
He is certain he can't be certain of anything, he doubts that he
doubts, and yet he strongly 'believes' in all kinds of things that one
can easily prove one CAN'T be certain of, like the existence of the
alleged physical universe beyond our virtual experience of it in our
consciousness, or that he is mortal etc.
Out integrity means believing you know more than you do,
or believing you don't know more than you do.
The process of clearing this out integrity then is to bring the pc
back into recognition of actual perfect certainties, then the
reevaluation of all beliefs against the standards of perfect certainty
until they fall into their probabilistic bucket or 'bet' as it were.
The more false certainties are cleared out of the way, (i.e those
things the pc *SAYS* he is certain of but which are either mere theories
or just simply wrong, and which in fact he therefore CAN'T be certain of
them if he would just look), the more the mind is still and free from
these false ideas and can once again be open to what knowable
actualities might remain.
After the false certainties are cleared out, the being usually
finds himself sitting on the 50/50 fence on most of the major questions
of his life, feeling the wind of living fear blowing through him for the
first time on a continuous basis. Then with a mind that is no longer
asserting inanities into the wind to turn it off, it is free again to
see what might appear.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 10 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore126.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)
iD8DBQFUh/7qURT1lqxE3HERAl+kAKCu9tKi+cWUBIRjRR+qFswJLXcIBACfRrNt
KaS3iAB0bFPHdsjZXvkQ0F0=
=oJyc
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Dec 10 16:29:14 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore126.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)
iD8DBQFUiLsqURT1lqxE3HERAg5AAKCu53LveLQKYiVhBPxpj+5SKVVM8ACgxZEx
JmtBslESL6dkHQNHxvFy0EM=
=fatL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
BELIEF AND PERFECT CERTAINTY
Mach777 (mach777@eurosport.com) wrote:
>> I cannot prove the non existence of something. It is possible that
>> these things exist, and that either I did not have the appropriate
>> experiences, or that I don't have the appropriate abilities.
>>
>> But is it not crazy to believe in things we cannot experience or
>> perceive?
Adore would say that depends on how you define belief.
If something can not affect you in any way, then you can not learn
anything about it AT ALL, let alone with certainty.
Certainty comes from experience, because the only certainty there
is, IS experience.
Consciousness-of, experience-of, perception-of IS certainty-of.
From our experiences ('of the world') we then interpret what the
world must be like. We see space, so we think there is space. We
experience out-there-ness, so we assume there is out-there-ness. We see
other beings, so we assume there are other beings.
What is certain is the experience, but in the end experience is
only a symbol for an alleged referent in the external world. The
experience might be considered to be 'evidence' for the external
referent, but there are other models.
It's like looking at a TV set and concluding that because you see a
car on the screen there must be a car somewhere out there.
Adore says that ALL 'belief' is a sin against certainty.
Beings don't need to believe things, they need to confront the
unknown. The effort to escape the 50/50 mark on many subjects leads
them to premature conclusions and convictions just to cover their fear
of not knowing.
Adore says that each being needs to find the perfect certainties of
his life, ones that can not be wrong, for example, I AM and I CARE, and
use them as a standard against which to compare all his other beliefs.
Everything that is not certain then becomes unknown.
It is ok to assign a probability to an unknown, a 'bet' in Adore's
terminology, especially if one has to make a decision or act upon them,
but to then upgrade them to 'beliefs' becomes an error, unless the word
belief is defined to mean merely something that one considers more than
50/50 likely.
Your average meatball is inverted.
He is certain he can't be certain of anything, he doubts that he
doubts, and yet he strongly 'believes' in all kinds of things that one
can easily prove one CAN'T be certain of, like the existence of the
alleged physical universe beyond our virtual experience of it in our
consciousness, or that he is mortal etc.
Out integrity means believing you know more than you do,
or believing you don't know more than you do.
The process of clearing this out integrity then is to bring the pc
back into recognition of actual perfect certainties, then the
reevaluation of all beliefs against the standards of perfect certainty
until they fall into their probabilistic bucket or 'bet' as it were.
The more false certainties are cleared out of the way, (i.e those
things the pc *SAYS* he is certain of but which are either mere theories
or just simply wrong, and which in fact he therefore CAN'T be certain of
them if he would just look), the more the mind is still and free from
these false ideas and can once again be open to what knowable
actualities might remain.
After the false certainties are cleared out, the being usually
finds himself sitting on the 50/50 fence on most of the major questions
of his life, feeling the wind of living fear blowing through him for the
first time on a continuous basis. Then with a mind that is no longer
asserting inanities into the wind to turn it off, it is free again to
see what might appear.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Dec 10 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore126.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)
iD8DBQFUh/7qURT1lqxE3HERAl+kAKCu9tKi+cWUBIRjRR+qFswJLXcIBACfRrNt
KaS3iAB0bFPHdsjZXvkQ0F0=
=oJyc
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Dec 10 16:29:14 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore126.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)
iD8DBQFUiLsqURT1lqxE3HERAg5AAKCu53LveLQKYiVhBPxpj+5SKVVM8ACgxZEx
JmtBslESL6dkHQNHxvFy0EM=
=fatL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
ACT25 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
VIOLATION OF DESIRE
ACT - 25
12 October 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The purpose of auditing is to as-is and blow charge.
Charge arises from violation of desire.
Violation of desire means to want something and not be able to have
it, or to not want something and having to have it.
Thus between WANT and HAVE there are four items of interest.
Wanting and Having.
Wanting but Not Having.
Not Wanting but Having.
Not Wanting and Not Having.
Please note that NOT WANTING means WANTING TO NOT HAVE, it doesn't
just mean not wanting in the sense of being indifferent.
One can run this with,
1. 'Spot something you WANT and HAVE.
2. 'Spot something you WANT but DON'T HAVE.
3. 'Spot something you DON'T WANT but HAVE.
4. 'Spot something you DON'T WANT and DON'T HAVE.
Alternate wording might be,
1. 'Spot something you DO WANT and DO HAVE.
2. 'Spot something you DO WANT but DON'T HAVE.
3. 'Spot something you DON'T WANT but DO HAVE.
4. 'Spot something you DON'T WANT and DON'T HAVE.
Write the above four commands at the top of your auditing sheet.
Then right below as you audit them, write the number of the command as
you give it. This will help you keep track of which one you are on.
Tell your pc to spot the requested item in their past, present or
future track, and tell you about it in as many or as few words as they
want. Acknowledge each answer and give the next command.
Give your pc the R factor (Reality factor) that TO NOT WANT
something means to WANT TO NOT HAVE IT, it doesn't mean being merely
indifferent.
If your pc tells you they can't answer 1 and 4 easily, you may skip
them altogether and alternate on 2 and 3. If they are doing very badly
in life or during the time of the auditing, 1 and 4 merely act to make
them wrong. For someone doing better in life, 1 and 4 act to
intersperse pleasure and havingness into the process.
You won't have to run very many repetitions of these commands on a
pc who is ready for them, maybe 5 to 10 complete sets of 4, until the
well springs of emotion and loss begin to turn on. When they do, let it
run out, don't just blindly keep running the process.
SHUT UP in other words and let the pc run, even if it takes 10
hours or 10 days.
Don't let them choke back and bypass sorrow on themselves. If they
are new to the game of auditing, they will run into depth charges and
say to themselves 'I really don't want to deal with that'. That will
kill the process cold, if you let them get away with it. Notice when
your pc is choking back tears and get them to talk about it. Good free
sobbing is the best medicine there is.
Expect strong somatics to turn on, move around and blow off with
the sorrow and sobbing. Underneath all the sorrow are engrams which
will blow off and run themselves out as the sorrow is released. The
presence of a strong unchanging somatic is a sure sign of still
suppressed sorrow and unexpressed grief.
Write down all postulates that the pc gives you, and any cognitions
that come along. Try not to laugh hysterically, no matter how much you
love the pc or how beautiful they are being. Let the pc laugh when it's
time, and you can laugh with them then.
You should get some serious sorrow and beauty, class and laughter
out of this one.
You may find that your pc starts running out entire times of their
history on the whole track that are gone for good. These won't be
simple single incidents of loss or bereavement, but whole life styles
and epochs that are now gone forever.
The incidents the pc gives you may nonetheless be simple single
incidents of great sorrow and disturbance in this life, and they may go
earlier similar to sad and distraughtful moments in their childhood, but
these incidents will also be acting as windows, as allegories to a
greater loss taking place over the span of 100's of years in as many
civilizations that your pc has been part of.
This process tends to tap into the whole "I used to have it, now I
don't" well of beauty, loss and sorrow.
It should be run to an E/P (End Phenomenon) of Sorrow, Beauty,
Cognition, Laughter and Extroversion.
Expect very high level concepts to show up, Decency, Nobility,
Courage, Preciousness of the Moment, etc., and how decisions and actions
affect these things forever, not always for the good.
"I should have known from the music that someone was doomed", Jane
on 'The Last of the Mohicans'.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 9 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act25.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)
iD8DBQFUhq1qURT1lqxE3HERAhFZAKClqcp2xzaMrdeMQanyV2g5xl0p6gCg1xXH
IUMaCIVbHhMW6/GOMTMmsis=
=V0+W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
VIOLATION OF DESIRE
ACT - 25
12 October 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
The purpose of auditing is to as-is and blow charge.
Charge arises from violation of desire.
Violation of desire means to want something and not be able to have
it, or to not want something and having to have it.
Thus between WANT and HAVE there are four items of interest.
Wanting and Having.
Wanting but Not Having.
Not Wanting but Having.
Not Wanting and Not Having.
Please note that NOT WANTING means WANTING TO NOT HAVE, it doesn't
just mean not wanting in the sense of being indifferent.
One can run this with,
1. 'Spot something you WANT and HAVE.
2. 'Spot something you WANT but DON'T HAVE.
3. 'Spot something you DON'T WANT but HAVE.
4. 'Spot something you DON'T WANT and DON'T HAVE.
Alternate wording might be,
1. 'Spot something you DO WANT and DO HAVE.
2. 'Spot something you DO WANT but DON'T HAVE.
3. 'Spot something you DON'T WANT but DO HAVE.
4. 'Spot something you DON'T WANT and DON'T HAVE.
Write the above four commands at the top of your auditing sheet.
Then right below as you audit them, write the number of the command as
you give it. This will help you keep track of which one you are on.
Tell your pc to spot the requested item in their past, present or
future track, and tell you about it in as many or as few words as they
want. Acknowledge each answer and give the next command.
Give your pc the R factor (Reality factor) that TO NOT WANT
something means to WANT TO NOT HAVE IT, it doesn't mean being merely
indifferent.
If your pc tells you they can't answer 1 and 4 easily, you may skip
them altogether and alternate on 2 and 3. If they are doing very badly
in life or during the time of the auditing, 1 and 4 merely act to make
them wrong. For someone doing better in life, 1 and 4 act to
intersperse pleasure and havingness into the process.
You won't have to run very many repetitions of these commands on a
pc who is ready for them, maybe 5 to 10 complete sets of 4, until the
well springs of emotion and loss begin to turn on. When they do, let it
run out, don't just blindly keep running the process.
SHUT UP in other words and let the pc run, even if it takes 10
hours or 10 days.
Don't let them choke back and bypass sorrow on themselves. If they
are new to the game of auditing, they will run into depth charges and
say to themselves 'I really don't want to deal with that'. That will
kill the process cold, if you let them get away with it. Notice when
your pc is choking back tears and get them to talk about it. Good free
sobbing is the best medicine there is.
Expect strong somatics to turn on, move around and blow off with
the sorrow and sobbing. Underneath all the sorrow are engrams which
will blow off and run themselves out as the sorrow is released. The
presence of a strong unchanging somatic is a sure sign of still
suppressed sorrow and unexpressed grief.
Write down all postulates that the pc gives you, and any cognitions
that come along. Try not to laugh hysterically, no matter how much you
love the pc or how beautiful they are being. Let the pc laugh when it's
time, and you can laugh with them then.
You should get some serious sorrow and beauty, class and laughter
out of this one.
You may find that your pc starts running out entire times of their
history on the whole track that are gone for good. These won't be
simple single incidents of loss or bereavement, but whole life styles
and epochs that are now gone forever.
The incidents the pc gives you may nonetheless be simple single
incidents of great sorrow and disturbance in this life, and they may go
earlier similar to sad and distraughtful moments in their childhood, but
these incidents will also be acting as windows, as allegories to a
greater loss taking place over the span of 100's of years in as many
civilizations that your pc has been part of.
This process tends to tap into the whole "I used to have it, now I
don't" well of beauty, loss and sorrow.
It should be run to an E/P (End Phenomenon) of Sorrow, Beauty,
Cognition, Laughter and Extroversion.
Expect very high level concepts to show up, Decency, Nobility,
Courage, Preciousness of the Moment, etc., and how decisions and actions
affect these things forever, not always for the good.
"I should have known from the music that someone was doomed", Jane
on 'The Last of the Mohicans'.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 9 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act25.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)
iD8DBQFUhq1qURT1lqxE3HERAhFZAKClqcp2xzaMrdeMQanyV2g5xl0p6gCg1xXH
IUMaCIVbHhMW6/GOMTMmsis=
=V0+W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 8, 2014
ADORE21 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
>Michael Reuss <michaelreuss@home.com> wrote in message
>> If the mind is not made of meat, why do mood altering drugs alter
>> people's moods?
Meat does not exist, drugs do not exist. DREAMS of meat and
drugs exist projected into virtual reality of consciousness. Ever
toke up in a dream and get high? Many times, much better shit than
found here on Earth.
Same when 'awake'. Its just another dream shared with others.
*OF COURSE* telepathy exists, you couldn't dream together if it
didn't.
The conscious unit exists, the dreams projected into that
conscious unit as virtual realities exist, but the actual external
implied actuality does not.
Life is a holodeck.
Drugs work, but drugs are a dream. Dream drugs working on dream
machines. You don't need drugs to get high.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 6 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore21.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)
iD8DBQFUgrjqURT1lqxE3HERAkKNAKC+ciLnLteROeWR2aEuXB6qvoQqugCfV8xE
5v5C/5n9ltxpkvqO1IgpT0g=
=eh76
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
>Michael Reuss <michaelreuss@home.com> wrote in message
>> If the mind is not made of meat, why do mood altering drugs alter
>> people's moods?
Meat does not exist, drugs do not exist. DREAMS of meat and
drugs exist projected into virtual reality of consciousness. Ever
toke up in a dream and get high? Many times, much better shit than
found here on Earth.
Same when 'awake'. Its just another dream shared with others.
*OF COURSE* telepathy exists, you couldn't dream together if it
didn't.
The conscious unit exists, the dreams projected into that
conscious unit as virtual realities exist, but the actual external
implied actuality does not.
Life is a holodeck.
Drugs work, but drugs are a dream. Dream drugs working on dream
machines. You don't need drugs to get high.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 6 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore21.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)
iD8DBQFUgrjqURT1lqxE3HERAkKNAKC+ciLnLteROeWR2aEuXB6qvoQqugCfV8xE
5v5C/5n9ltxpkvqO1IgpT0g=
=eh76
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
SESSIO22 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Here is another amazing process, can run solo or dual.
Have pc spot area of greatest interest, non sovereignty and
unauditability.
Run,
"What's it NOT?"
Now this is important, the pc will avoid all the well trained
answers that he "believes" it *IS*, he's gotta be willing to throw all
the righteous training out the door and say "Nope its not that either!"
Engrams, secondaries, locks, GPMS, BT's, masses, charge, whatever his
favorite "But it *MUST* be" is, he's finally got say "It's not that!"
If he goes by the actual correct item, he will come back to it fast
enough. Mostly lots of relief and loosening up happens and its starts
to run in a new unit of time.
There are indications that, at the very top of the tone scale, one
of the first games the thetan plays with his mind is creating know about
- -> not know, then questions, then answers.
Thus his whole existence consists of "What's It?"
Since this is denying total responsibility for not knowing and
having to ask the question in the first place, it builds mass and
eventually sinks the thetan.
Since most of auditing is just more "What's It?" on a massive
scale, one can see how this might be a bad thing. It's a limited
process in any case, run for a while but not forever at a time.
Now down below the thetan gets into conflicts with himself and he
asks "What's It?" knowing full well he doesn't want to know the answer
to the question.
This is an AND, wanting to know and not wanting to know at the same
time forever, for free.
He can't do just one, he HAS to do both at the same time, he is
reaching with a ridge of do and don't do at the same time.
So lower level auditing that brings his confront back up to where
he DOES in fact get the correct "What's It?" on all the stuff he second
guessed himself into the ground purposefully, will in fact help him
immeasurably.
A second guesser is someone who almost always get the right answer
to a question the first time, but then says, no wait a minute, and goes
off into a a whole littany of wrong answers and finally settles on the
worst wrong answer they can.
With good AND handling he will stop thinking by "reaching with his
elbow".
Reaching by not reaching.
A person who has had all his AND's cleared is willing to know
and/or not know again, and so he usually gets the right answer the first
time, and doesn't second guess it for long.
However at some point all his "What's It?" will bog down because
the original mental mass created by asking questions in the first place
will key in and *THAT* stuff is unauditable with "What's It?" because
the answer is *TOO MUCH "WHAT'S IT?"!*
At the top of the tone scale one answers questions by not knowing
the answer until the not know blows and the prior created answer
appears again.
That's the definition of magic.
So running "What's it NOT?" can lead to great relief on this
matter.
Any answer will do, even right answers, especially sacred cow
answers.
Sacred cow answers are "MUST BEs", "MUST BE TRUEs".
Right answers of course are the most sacred cow answers there are,
so right into the thrashing bin with them along with the rest.
The pc will come up with a lot of 'thinking the unthinkable
thought' on this. "Oh my God I don't dare *SAY* that!" Eventually he
will see even right answers turn out to be garbage because ultimately
what it is, is not a "What's it?" nor an answer to a "What's it?"
The pc who hasn't gotten word one of this posting will then say
"Well if it's not a "What's it?", WHAT IS IT THEN?"
What's the sound of one answer questioning?
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 Dec 3 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sessio22.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)
iD8DBQFUfsRpURT1lqxE3HERAgpsAJ47lPhVFFTn+cBPJepj/25PgeEjaQCdE+ET
RFTPgXxmdBjjqzzM0wSCEH8=
=sQjf
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Dec 8 16:42:34 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sessio22.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)
iD8DBQFUhhtKURT1lqxE3HERAtuTAKDGHnnCnQ8/T9/rGdIuDNIXzVLHOwCfaFBc
Y9eGPPtafueLzcaIDCk/mS0=
=ofxz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Here is another amazing process, can run solo or dual.
Have pc spot area of greatest interest, non sovereignty and
unauditability.
Run,
"What's it NOT?"
Now this is important, the pc will avoid all the well trained
answers that he "believes" it *IS*, he's gotta be willing to throw all
the righteous training out the door and say "Nope its not that either!"
Engrams, secondaries, locks, GPMS, BT's, masses, charge, whatever his
favorite "But it *MUST* be" is, he's finally got say "It's not that!"
If he goes by the actual correct item, he will come back to it fast
enough. Mostly lots of relief and loosening up happens and its starts
to run in a new unit of time.
There are indications that, at the very top of the tone scale, one
of the first games the thetan plays with his mind is creating know about
- -> not know, then questions, then answers.
Thus his whole existence consists of "What's It?"
Since this is denying total responsibility for not knowing and
having to ask the question in the first place, it builds mass and
eventually sinks the thetan.
Since most of auditing is just more "What's It?" on a massive
scale, one can see how this might be a bad thing. It's a limited
process in any case, run for a while but not forever at a time.
Now down below the thetan gets into conflicts with himself and he
asks "What's It?" knowing full well he doesn't want to know the answer
to the question.
This is an AND, wanting to know and not wanting to know at the same
time forever, for free.
He can't do just one, he HAS to do both at the same time, he is
reaching with a ridge of do and don't do at the same time.
So lower level auditing that brings his confront back up to where
he DOES in fact get the correct "What's It?" on all the stuff he second
guessed himself into the ground purposefully, will in fact help him
immeasurably.
A second guesser is someone who almost always get the right answer
to a question the first time, but then says, no wait a minute, and goes
off into a a whole littany of wrong answers and finally settles on the
worst wrong answer they can.
With good AND handling he will stop thinking by "reaching with his
elbow".
Reaching by not reaching.
A person who has had all his AND's cleared is willing to know
and/or not know again, and so he usually gets the right answer the first
time, and doesn't second guess it for long.
However at some point all his "What's It?" will bog down because
the original mental mass created by asking questions in the first place
will key in and *THAT* stuff is unauditable with "What's It?" because
the answer is *TOO MUCH "WHAT'S IT?"!*
At the top of the tone scale one answers questions by not knowing
the answer until the not know blows and the prior created answer
appears again.
That's the definition of magic.
So running "What's it NOT?" can lead to great relief on this
matter.
Any answer will do, even right answers, especially sacred cow
answers.
Sacred cow answers are "MUST BEs", "MUST BE TRUEs".
Right answers of course are the most sacred cow answers there are,
so right into the thrashing bin with them along with the rest.
The pc will come up with a lot of 'thinking the unthinkable
thought' on this. "Oh my God I don't dare *SAY* that!" Eventually he
will see even right answers turn out to be garbage because ultimately
what it is, is not a "What's it?" nor an answer to a "What's it?"
The pc who hasn't gotten word one of this posting will then say
"Well if it's not a "What's it?", WHAT IS IT THEN?"
What's the sound of one answer questioning?
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 Dec 3 03:06:01 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sessio22.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)
iD8DBQFUfsRpURT1lqxE3HERAgpsAJ47lPhVFFTn+cBPJepj/25PgeEjaQCdE+ET
RFTPgXxmdBjjqzzM0wSCEH8=
=sQjf
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Dec 8 16:42:34 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sessio22.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)
iD8DBQFUhhtKURT1lqxE3HERAtuTAKDGHnnCnQ8/T9/rGdIuDNIXzVLHOwCfaFBc
Y9eGPPtafueLzcaIDCk/mS0=
=ofxz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE338 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
CB Willis (cbwillis@lightlink.com) wrote:
>2. The stronger claim (i.e., wider in scope), also the popularized
>view, holds that there is an individual substance (usually called a
>soul) that acquires and sheds by turns bodies throughout many
>centuries (even eons). All of this is toward the end of gaining
>some sort of knowledge via experience in a physical body. When the
>requisite knowledge is gained and competency is demonstrated, then
>the soul is "liberated" from the necessity to reincarnate into a
>physical body.
The spin on this is the usual garbage offered by apologists for
being in a body that it is somehow good for one, that one needs to
learn life lessons to be become worthwhile of those already so
ascended.
The truth is that a being needs to UNLEARN all the lessons he
ever learned as they are what are sinking him, (gotta remember this
forever, never forget etc.) and that his existence in a body is a last
ditch effort to remain conscious on his way to sinking forever beneath
the Sasgasso Sea of other sick, dead and dying thetans.
The sweetness and light brigade can't confront their true
position in the drain of existence, so they make a virtue out of a
horrible necessity.
Now the necessity of it is illusory, a thetan doesn't HAVE to
dwindle but he does have to start UNlearning lessons real fast to
remain afloat.
>Note that the weaker claim has all of the practical (that is,
>potentially edifying) advantages of the stronger claim -- perhaps
>more. At the same time, it has none of the philosophical
>drawbacks: 1) the problem of whether there are individual souls as
>opposed to no souls at all or a universal soul instead, 2) the
>problem of whether, if there are individual souls, they reincarnate
>in the same way that the stronger claim asserts, 3) the problem of
>determining veridicality ("objective truth") of the impressions--that
>is, determining with certainty whether an impression refers to an
>historical fact, and is not just a psychological quirk, a mistake
>or a delusion; and if it _is_ an historical fact, is it a fact about
>me rather than about someone else, all of us, or none of us (that
>is, the impression was only about a _possible_ event), 4) the problem
>of that sort of non-progressive reminiscing that "I was ... in a
>previous incarnation," 5) the problem of stating that souls have a
>history (i.e., precision of language, and noetic language*),
>to enumerate a few.
The weaker claim however suffers an extreme and damaging
downside, the being WANTS to be immortal and have the stronger claim
be true.
No being can remain high tone with such a violation of his desire
operating in his world view.
Here's a magic formula. Find out what you want, what you HAVE to
have to be happy, then assume that happiness is possible, and that
will give you some idea of what to look for in truth.
>4. The weaker claim, although smaller in scope, turns out to be
>the stronger claim philosophically. All of this is not to say that
>reincarnation (the stronger view) _couldn`t_ be the case, or _isn`t
>actually_ the case; rather, we cannot know with certainty _whether or
>not_ it is the case, despite a sense of certainty of _another_ kind
>regarding "reincarnation _impressions_."
This is silly. Why not? One exteriorization, one memory, and
one has the stronger claim.
The implied idea in this idiocy is that one has to have the body
die to know that one is not a body, that one is not made of space/time
mechanics, that in fact space/time mechanics are an illusion of
magnitude in consciousness.
One can know all these things without having the body die.
The idea that the weaker claim is the stronger claim
philosophically is just nuts.
Homer
Sun Jun 18 00:46:56 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 2 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore338.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)
iD8DBQFUfXLqURT1lqxE3HERAqtVAKCbcqOgaI2NO2bQUuBrTpiWNU6PVwCfVwGG
iKjrIDeHaSZqbk5vBKpi+gI=
=5z8P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
CB Willis (cbwillis@lightlink.com) wrote:
>2. The stronger claim (i.e., wider in scope), also the popularized
>view, holds that there is an individual substance (usually called a
>soul) that acquires and sheds by turns bodies throughout many
>centuries (even eons). All of this is toward the end of gaining
>some sort of knowledge via experience in a physical body. When the
>requisite knowledge is gained and competency is demonstrated, then
>the soul is "liberated" from the necessity to reincarnate into a
>physical body.
The spin on this is the usual garbage offered by apologists for
being in a body that it is somehow good for one, that one needs to
learn life lessons to be become worthwhile of those already so
ascended.
The truth is that a being needs to UNLEARN all the lessons he
ever learned as they are what are sinking him, (gotta remember this
forever, never forget etc.) and that his existence in a body is a last
ditch effort to remain conscious on his way to sinking forever beneath
the Sasgasso Sea of other sick, dead and dying thetans.
The sweetness and light brigade can't confront their true
position in the drain of existence, so they make a virtue out of a
horrible necessity.
Now the necessity of it is illusory, a thetan doesn't HAVE to
dwindle but he does have to start UNlearning lessons real fast to
remain afloat.
>Note that the weaker claim has all of the practical (that is,
>potentially edifying) advantages of the stronger claim -- perhaps
>more. At the same time, it has none of the philosophical
>drawbacks: 1) the problem of whether there are individual souls as
>opposed to no souls at all or a universal soul instead, 2) the
>problem of whether, if there are individual souls, they reincarnate
>in the same way that the stronger claim asserts, 3) the problem of
>determining veridicality ("objective truth") of the impressions--that
>is, determining with certainty whether an impression refers to an
>historical fact, and is not just a psychological quirk, a mistake
>or a delusion; and if it _is_ an historical fact, is it a fact about
>me rather than about someone else, all of us, or none of us (that
>is, the impression was only about a _possible_ event), 4) the problem
>of that sort of non-progressive reminiscing that "I was ... in a
>previous incarnation," 5) the problem of stating that souls have a
>history (i.e., precision of language, and noetic language*),
>to enumerate a few.
The weaker claim however suffers an extreme and damaging
downside, the being WANTS to be immortal and have the stronger claim
be true.
No being can remain high tone with such a violation of his desire
operating in his world view.
Here's a magic formula. Find out what you want, what you HAVE to
have to be happy, then assume that happiness is possible, and that
will give you some idea of what to look for in truth.
>4. The weaker claim, although smaller in scope, turns out to be
>the stronger claim philosophically. All of this is not to say that
>reincarnation (the stronger view) _couldn`t_ be the case, or _isn`t
>actually_ the case; rather, we cannot know with certainty _whether or
>not_ it is the case, despite a sense of certainty of _another_ kind
>regarding "reincarnation _impressions_."
This is silly. Why not? One exteriorization, one memory, and
one has the stronger claim.
The implied idea in this idiocy is that one has to have the body
die to know that one is not a body, that one is not made of space/time
mechanics, that in fact space/time mechanics are an illusion of
magnitude in consciousness.
One can know all these things without having the body die.
The idea that the weaker claim is the stronger claim
philosophically is just nuts.
Homer
Sun Jun 18 00:46:56 EDT 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Dec 2 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore338.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)
iD8DBQFUfXLqURT1lqxE3HERAqtVAKCbcqOgaI2NO2bQUuBrTpiWNU6PVwCfVwGG
iKjrIDeHaSZqbk5vBKpi+gI=
=5z8P
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, December 1, 2014
LOGIC18 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GOOD AND BAD
Good and bad most directly relate to what is or is not desirable
to beings. Most generally good is pleasure and bad is pain.
One can temper this with considerations about what is best in the
long term as opposed to short term, but basically good and bad come
down to desirable and undesirable and that comes down to pleasure and
pain.
One can also temper this further with considerations about
sensitivity to other's pleasure and pain, so that we try to maximize
the greatest good for the greatest number including ourselves etc.
'Ethics' then, rather than being obedience to an arbitrary set of
rules, would be the use of observation and reason towards the
attainment of maximal good and bad.
Observation is bringing our understanding into concordance with
things as they are.
Reason is sound logic.
Logic is the consistent definition of words.
If one defines 'animal' and 'dog' as "All dogs are animals", then
it MUST be true that if Joey is a dog, he is also an animal.
The definition of words comes from the objectification of
experience, dividing the AllThatIs into objects, assigning them
qualities and grouping them into classes according to qualities that
are common and unique to those objects.
For example 'A Square is any object with 4 equal sides and 90
degrees between each side'.
Commonness says that all squares have that quality, and
uniqueness says that any object that has that quality is a square.
"A Square" forms a class of objects and the above quality is
called the 'pertinent quality' of the class of squares.
To the degree that existence can not be objectified, broken into
objects, qualities and classes, then language, reason and logic will
not apply.
To the degree that existence can be objectified, then language,
reason and logic MUST apply.
Saying that "All dogs are animals" *IS THE SAME THING AS SAYING*
"If Joey is a dog, then Joey is an Animal".
There are many different ways of stating the groupings of
objects.
"All dogs are animals."
"If it is a dog, then it is an animal."
"Being a dog is sufficient to being an animal."
"Being an animal is necessary to being a dog."
The groupings that one makes in the search for pleasure should
demonstrate concordance with things as they are observed.
Once one has made such groupings, logic is merely the requirement
that all descriptions of these groupings be consistent with each other
and with the groupings themselves!
"All dogs are animals."
"It is not necessary to be an animal to be a dog."
That's illogic, inconsistency between descriptions of the
groupings.
One can tell an object most easily by picking any point in the
AllThatIs and pulling on it. Anything that follows in the motion is
probably part of the same object. :)
For example, grab on to one part of God and pull, everything else
that moves is also part of God.
Within the context of good and bad, pleasure and pain, and moral
and unmoral action, we are dealing with actions within the AllThatIs
that have consequences. Those consequences are the good and bad that
make any particular action moral or immoral.
In the absence of a fullness of knowledge or wisdom, one can do
things that have unexpected results. One can also become punitive or
even preemptive and do 'bad' things to others before they do bad
things to us. From the local perspective this is still a being's
efforts to be good and moral, although he may change his mind later
once he gets a wider view of things.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 1 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic18.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)
iD8DBQFUfCFqURT1lqxE3HERAmctAKCYOs9NZPbryFbeqy5LjtfuH8y2BACeNvg2
SVZ3q2R19AxDEqHI1KG6PJI=
=eOdt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
GOOD AND BAD
Good and bad most directly relate to what is or is not desirable
to beings. Most generally good is pleasure and bad is pain.
One can temper this with considerations about what is best in the
long term as opposed to short term, but basically good and bad come
down to desirable and undesirable and that comes down to pleasure and
pain.
One can also temper this further with considerations about
sensitivity to other's pleasure and pain, so that we try to maximize
the greatest good for the greatest number including ourselves etc.
'Ethics' then, rather than being obedience to an arbitrary set of
rules, would be the use of observation and reason towards the
attainment of maximal good and bad.
Observation is bringing our understanding into concordance with
things as they are.
Reason is sound logic.
Logic is the consistent definition of words.
If one defines 'animal' and 'dog' as "All dogs are animals", then
it MUST be true that if Joey is a dog, he is also an animal.
The definition of words comes from the objectification of
experience, dividing the AllThatIs into objects, assigning them
qualities and grouping them into classes according to qualities that
are common and unique to those objects.
For example 'A Square is any object with 4 equal sides and 90
degrees between each side'.
Commonness says that all squares have that quality, and
uniqueness says that any object that has that quality is a square.
"A Square" forms a class of objects and the above quality is
called the 'pertinent quality' of the class of squares.
To the degree that existence can not be objectified, broken into
objects, qualities and classes, then language, reason and logic will
not apply.
To the degree that existence can be objectified, then language,
reason and logic MUST apply.
Saying that "All dogs are animals" *IS THE SAME THING AS SAYING*
"If Joey is a dog, then Joey is an Animal".
There are many different ways of stating the groupings of
objects.
"All dogs are animals."
"If it is a dog, then it is an animal."
"Being a dog is sufficient to being an animal."
"Being an animal is necessary to being a dog."
The groupings that one makes in the search for pleasure should
demonstrate concordance with things as they are observed.
Once one has made such groupings, logic is merely the requirement
that all descriptions of these groupings be consistent with each other
and with the groupings themselves!
"All dogs are animals."
"It is not necessary to be an animal to be a dog."
That's illogic, inconsistency between descriptions of the
groupings.
One can tell an object most easily by picking any point in the
AllThatIs and pulling on it. Anything that follows in the motion is
probably part of the same object. :)
For example, grab on to one part of God and pull, everything else
that moves is also part of God.
Within the context of good and bad, pleasure and pain, and moral
and unmoral action, we are dealing with actions within the AllThatIs
that have consequences. Those consequences are the good and bad that
make any particular action moral or immoral.
In the absence of a fullness of knowledge or wisdom, one can do
things that have unexpected results. One can also become punitive or
even preemptive and do 'bad' things to others before they do bad
things to us. From the local perspective this is still a being's
efforts to be good and moral, although he may change his mind later
once he gets a wider view of things.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Dec 1 03:06:02 EST 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/logic18.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)
iD8DBQFUfCFqURT1lqxE3HERAmctAKCYOs9NZPbryFbeqy5LjtfuH8y2BACeNvg2
SVZ3q2R19AxDEqHI1KG6PJI=
=eOdt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)