MCT3 (fwd)

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

INTRO TO LOGIC

Here follows the first broad public issue of the Machine Certainty
Theorem (MCT), one of the deeper theorems in Information Theory.

There are two fundamental aspects to any theorem or proof, the
LOGICAL FORM, and the CONTENT.

The logical form can be expressed with out the content by replacing
the various words and phrases in the proof with variables that have no
meaning. This allows the logical form of the proof to be studied
independent of its actual application.

Once the logical form is verified, then the variables can be
replaced by the meanings they stand for, and application of the proof
with its content can be studied independent of its logical form.

Any proof has at least three parts. The ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC,
and the CONCLUSION.

The logical form of the proof consists of all three parts in
abstract variable form, as described above. The content of the proof
also consists of all three parts in the concrete form where all
variables are replaced by their intended meanings.

The Machine Certainty Theorem states that a space-time machine
can't be certain of anything, yet a Conscious Unit can, therefore a
Conscious Unit is not a space-time machine.

Before I get on with the formal presentation of the Machine
Certainty Theory, I would like to provide a small sample proof to
explain the various parts of what you are about to see to those who have
little training in formal logic.

In this case I will work backwards from an actual argument in
concrete CONTENT FORM, to its abstract LOGICAL FORM so that you can see
how the process will be reversed when we get to the actual proof.

Consider the following argument.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.
3. Therefore, Joe believes in Hell.
Q.E.D.

Q.E.D is Latin for Quite Easily Done this is placed at the end of
the proof to demark where the proof ends and that the conclusion has
been proved. (Actually QED stands for Quod Erat Demonstrandum, 'that
which was to be demonstrated'.)

All proofs contain three parts, the ASSUMPTIONS, the LOGIC and the
CONCLUSION. The conclusion is true if and only if the assumptions are
true AND the logic is valid. If either the assumptions are false or the
logic is invalid, then the conclusion may be false (it could still be
true though, you don't know.)

For example, it is clear from the argument above, that if Joe is
not a Christian, or if some Christians don't believe in Hell, then the
conclusion that Joe necessarily believes in Hell becomes indeterminate,
he may or may not.

A properly presented proof would show all three parts, assumptions,
logic, and conclusion, clearly marked so that no confusion could result.

The purpose of first presenting the proof in logic form devoid of
meaningful content is to verify or validate the LOGIC part of the proof.

Once that is accomplished, then the proof must be presented for a
second time in CONTENT form, so that the assumptions and conclusion can
first be UNDERSTOOD and then their truth verified or argued. One first
verifies each of the assumptions in turn. If all of the assumptions
check out to be true, then the conclusion must be true if the logic is
also valid.

One then looks to see if the conclusion actually fits with
actuality. If it does you are finished for the moment. If it turns out
the conclusion is observably false, then either the logic was invalid or
one or more of the assumptions was false.

In the above example, there are two assumptions.

1. Joe is a Christian.
2. All Christians believe in Hell.

There is one conclusion,

3. Joe believes in Hell.

Normally in a more complex proof there would be more statements
in between 2 and 3 which would be partial conclusions on the way to the
final conclusion, but in this case the logic is so simple we go directly
from lines 1 and 2 to line 3 with a logical form called Modus Ponens.

Modus Ponens is a fancy Latin phrase meaning 'If A implies B, and A
is true, then B is true too.' (Actually Modus Ponens means 'Mode that
affirms')

For example, 'If being a dog implies being an animal, and Joey is a
Dog, then Joey is an animal.

Modus Ponens can be compared to Modus Tolens, another fancy Latin
phrase meaning 'If A implies B and B is false, then A is false.'
(Actually Modus Tolens means 'mode that denies'.)

For example, "If being a dog implies being an animal, and Jane is
not an animal, then Jane is not a dog."

Notice that if Jane IS an animal, one cannot tell if Jane is a dog
or not, because it is NOT true that if A implies B, then B implies A!

1. "Joe is a Christian" can be symbolized as "J -> C" which says
"If it's Joe, then it's a Christian", or "Being Joe implies being a
Christian", or more simply, "Joe implies Christian".

2. "All Christians believe in Hell" can be symbolized as "C -> H"
which says, "If it's a Christian then it believes in Hell", or "Being a
Christian implies Believing in Hell", or just "Christian implies Hell".

3. "Joe believes in Hell" can be symbolized as "J -> H" which
says, "If it's Joe, then it believes in Hell" or "Being Joe implies
Believing in Hell", or "Joe implies Hell".

We can thus symbolize the entire argument as follows, and this is
its logical form.

We explain each part in the section below the proof.

************************************************************************

LOGICAL FORM OF THE PROOF

1. J -> C (Being Joe implies being Christian)
2. C -> H (Being Christian implies Believing in Hell)

(1,2)[A] 3. J -> H (Being Joe implies Believing in Hell)

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. (A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

In the above example there are two assumptions, lines 1 and 2, and
one conclusion, line 3.

The '(1,2)[A]' to the left of line 3 denotes that line 3 was
derived from lines 1 and 2 using Logical Form A which is shown at the
bottom of the proof below the Q.E.D. The particular Logical Form in
this case is Modus Ponens, which is denoted by (M.P.) to the left of the
same line.

Not all logical forms have formal names, and if not, the name or
its abbreviation is left out.

So how does one go about checking this proof out?

1.) Well the first thing that needs to be done is to check out and
verify all the Logical Forms shown below the Q.E.D, as these are the
extracted GENERALIZED statements of the LOGIC part of the proof that
gets you from the assumptions to the conclusion.

2.) The next thing to do is to familiarize yourself with the
assumptions and the conclusion.

3.) The next thing to do is to verify each step between the
assumptions and the conclusion to see that indeed the GENERAL Logical
Forms stated below Q.E.D are used correctly in their SPECIFIC
application to each step of the proof between the assumptions and the
conclusion.

The GENERAL Logical Forms will usually be stated in generic
variables like A, B and C which have nothing to do with the proof.

The assumptions and the conclusion and the SPECIFIC USES of the
General Logical Forms will usually be stated in letters that relate to
their content, such as J, C and H (Joe, Christian and Hell).

Thus one needs to be able to see that the SPECIFIC use of a
particular Logical Form parallels the GENERAL use of the same form to
know that the general form has been used correctly.

For example,

GENERAL ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)
SPECIFIC ((J -> C) and (C -> H)) -> (J -> H)

Where ever there is an A in the general form there had better be a
J in the specific form. Where ever there is a B in the general form
there had better be an C in the specific form. And where ever there is
a C in the general form there had better be an H in the specific form.

Don't get the C in the GENERAL form confused with the C in the
SPECIFIC form. They are unrelated and are the same letter only by
coincidence. In the general form the C doesn't stand for anything, it
is merely a place holder. In the specific form the C stands for
Christian and corresponds to the PLACE HOLDER B in the general form!

Now at this point it should be possible to say with perfect
certainty that the proof is either logically valid or not.

There is no such thing as an uncertain proof. Either it is valid
or it is not valid. This can be determined with perfect certainty
before anything else is known about the meaning of the variables in the
proof.

Remember though that just because a proof has been prooven valid,
this does not mean that the conclusion is necessarily true. This would
also depend on the assumptions being true, and determining the truth of
the assumptions, not the validity of the logic, comprises the main body
of work in verifying the conclusion of a proof.

Verifying the validity of the logic of the proof is the first and
easiest step and by this time in the analysis should be satisfactorily
completed.

So that was a lot of work, no? But, as I said, we are not done
yet.

Once the logic form of the proof has been verified completely as we
have just done, you next need to verify the CONTENT form of the proof.

This is done by replacing each specific variable in the proof with
its English equivalent so that you can see what each of the assumptions
and the conclusion actually say.

This is done first by providing a little table that shows what
each variable means, like so.

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

Then you plug them in and you get the following.

************************************************************************

CONTENT FORM OF THE PROOF

J = Joe
C = Christian
H = Hell

1. Joe -> Christian
2. Christian -> Hell

(1,2)[A] 3. Joe -> Hell

Q.E.D

(M.P.) A. ((A -> B) and (B -> C)) -> (A -> C)

************************************************************************

This provides a rather sparse and pared down version of what the
proof is about, but it serves to convey the meaning of each of the
lines.

The last step would be to take up each line of the proof and expand
it into a grammatically correct full English sentence and discuss it at
length.

Discussion of the assumptions would involve not only their
meaning, but also evidence that they are true.

In general there are 4 kinds of assumptions.

1.) Logical Tautologies.
2.) Definitions
3.) Observations
4.) Intuitions

LOGICAL TAUTOLOGIES are always true because of their inherent
logical structure. An example of a logical tautology would be,

1.) Christian or not Christian

A full english expansion of this might be,

1.) Joe is either a Christian or not a Christian.

You have to be careful when presenting such tautologies to make
sure that your words are defined in such a way that the tautology is
true. If someone has a sloppy or fuzzy definition of what it means to
be a Christian, then it might be possible to be both a Christian and not
a Christian! But really he would be changing meanings in mid sentence,
so its a good idea to set rigorous definitions of your words that
everyone can agree on before you start an argument or proof like this
one.

DEFINITIONS are statements that are true by definition.

An example might be,

1. All Christians believe in Christ, if they don't believe in
Christ then they are not real Christians.

Such a statement is true only because we say it is true, it has no
other basis. There may be other people who don't believe in Christ who
none the less wish to be called Christians. This is not a problem, you
have the right to define your words how ever you wish, just remember
that what you are calling a Christian may not include others who call
themselves Christians. They will no doubt complain, but their
complaints will be irrelevant to your proof, because YOUR proof has to
do with Christians as YOU have defined the word.

If you wish to define your words in some other way, that is fine,
just make sure that everyone knows what YOUR definitions are before you
proceed.

No one can ever say your proof about Christians is wrong because
your DEFINITION of 'Christian' is wrong.

OBSERVATIONS are statements that are true by observation.

1. Some Christians go to Church on Sunday.

It's true because it's true, go out and LOOK for yourself. It's
not true by LOGICAL TAUTOLOGY, and it's not true by definition, it's
true because someone went out and measured the phenomenon and reported
back what he found.

The certainty level of a observation is dependent on how many vias
you use to make that observation, how many levels of symbols referring
to referents before you come to the actual thing being observed. A
person who is using radio telescope data to determine the temperature of
some planet circling a sun 4 galaxies away, is on far less certain
grounds, than someone looking at a thermometer in his back yard.
Someone who goes out and just feels that it is hot outside is in even
more direct contact.

Observations of the external physical universe however can never be
perfectly certain because all observers are using effects in themselves
as observers to make conclusions about what must be out there.

In this sense, 'making an observation' means 'to be the effect of
an external cause' and THEN to logically compute back in time to what
that cause might be like in order to have had the effect that one
received.

The fact that one received an effect might be a certainty, but the
nature of what caused that effect can not be determined from the nature
of the effect alone.

This 'computing back from later effects to earlier causes' is
always an uncertain process, because effects 'here' do not prove
anything about causes 'there'. One can merely create a 'causal model'
and hope for a dependable but uncertain world view.

Observations of one's own conscious color forms, though, CAN be
perfectly certain. If you see a color form mockup of red and green in
front of you, there can be no denying that you see it. Anything it
might be USED TO REPRESENT to you in the external universe might be
uncertain, but the existence of the color form itself is certain.

INTUITIONS are statements which one feels to be true because it
violates some inner sense of propriety to think they aren't. This of
course doesn't mean that they are true, but it does mean that if you can
get agreement among a number of people who have the same sense of
intuition, then you can proceed with your proof as if your intuitions
were true, recognizing that the truth of the conclusion is only as as
certain as the truth of your intuition.

Even if you can't get agreement among others about intuitions, you
can still have your proof to yourself and be satisfied with it as far as
it goes.

As an example of an intuition,

Something can't come from nothing.

Any given proof will have assumptions that consist of mixtures of
the above 4 kinds of 'truths'. It is often enlightening to actually
state next to each assumption which kind of truth it is.

For example,

A something is an object with a non empty quality set. DEFINITION
An nothing is an object with an empty quality set. DEFINITION

0.) An object is either a something or a nothing LOGICAL
1.) Something can't come from nothing INTUITION
2.) Something exists now. OBSERVATION

Q.E.D. 3.) Something must have always existed. (conclusion)

In closing I would like to add that it is not clear that every
argument can be put into such simple terms as I have laid out here, or
that every assumption can be divided into the above 4 categories.
Sometimes its takes an enormous reworking of the WORDING of an argument
to make it conform to the simpler rules of logic. The English language
is very complex and the simple Logical Form is often lost in more poetic
forms of argument.

People in fact will often try to hide bad logic in the complex
nuances of the language, which is why it is important to break arguments
down into raw logical form.

However for the purposes of the Machine Certainty Theorem, the
above discussion is relatively complete and satisfactory.

The Machine Certainty Theory is VERY SIMPLE, so simple in fact that
once you get it, it will be a BIG DOWN, because you will have been
expecting all these fireworks to go off in your brain once you realize
this 'Great Eternal Truth' of the ages.

Your actual reaction will be more like, 'Duh, so what else is new.'

However it is the application of the MCT to consciousness that will
give you something to think about.

Machines can't be certain of anything, consciousness can.

Finally, I would like to remind you of a wise old saying.

"At first they said it wasn't true.
Then they said it wasn't important.
Then they said they knew it all along.
Which was true."

Well, the guy who said that, was talking about the Machine
Certainty Theorem, which is the grand daddy of all truths that people
argue about with you until they convince themselves they showed it to
YOU in the first place!

At that point you know they got it.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 19 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/mct3.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)

iD8DBQFVCnVbURT1lqxE3HERAtOIAKCFeEiVPwmDnsZsCxKnppXdTP4WyQCbBVGd
Wm20aWXz4tgez/TUMM28J+I=
=P1IC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

PROOF11 (fwd)

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


ASSUMPTIONS AND CERTAINTIES

CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Homer, do other living beings exist?
>Your statement now assumes that they do.

1.) I do not know that others exist. I suspect that if they do, it
may yet be impossible for me to know that they do. If I am able to know
that others exist eventually with the same certainty that I know I
exist, then I would bet that it will turn out that they and me are in
some sense one, and that I will actually be certain of a deeper part of
myself in being certain of them.

2.) I prefer to assume that others exist.

3.) The proof shows me that I do not and CAN not know that the
alleged external physical universe exists, which I see in my conscious
colorforms. Other visionary experiences indicate that it is very
unlikely that the external physical universe exists.

Therefore I am pressed to assume for the moment that it does not
exist, that the world is a dream among dreamers, at least one me,
perhaps more.

I am also pressed to assume that the world is a virtual reality of
apparently real but actually nonexistant external objects and causes
projected onto our conscious color form for our amusement, much as an
arcade game projects virtual realities onto the 'conscious color form
screen' of the TV monitor.

4.) I can make mockups, another word for conscious color forms.

5.) I experience mockups that I am clearly not making and can not
make go away.

6.) It is therefore reasonable to presume that maybe others are
making these mockps and I am in resistence to them. The resistance is
clear, that others are making them is not.

7.) If others are making mockups that I am resisting, thus
resulting in stuck mockups that I can not control, then it makes sense
that spotting the correct who, how, what, where, why, when, and which of
the other being or beings who are making the mockups will allow me to
disentagle my self from their power in my universe. My own overts of
like kind would be handled in a similar vein.

Homer

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Mar 18 23:17:12 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof11.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)

iD8DBQFVCj+4URT1lqxE3HERAos2AJ4rRAGTaBXc0F/Fdy5rmfyho5S+pgCgm1gS
M/CibQcNFHEggcGESGslJEs=
=mwNy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

HOM36 (fwd)

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


GOD MAN WOMAN AND CHILD yet again.

Its the same thing between woman and child.

You don't try to help the child by blaming the parents for all the horrible
things they did to the child, you get the child to own up to its own self
covert complicity in its ludicrous demise. NO MATTER WHAT THE PARENTS DID.

Same thing with women, you don't help them by blaming men for all the
horrible things men do to women, you get the woman to spot her complicity in
her own ludicrous demise.

Same thing with men, you don't help them by blaming God for all the
horrible things Gods do to men, you get the man to spot his own complicity in
his own ludicrous demise.

And ludicrous it is.

As the late great philosopher X, who is unfortunately no longer with us
once said, "its not the past that determines the victim, its the present time
benefit that they get from being a victim that keeps them so."

Homer



======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Mar 18 23:14:29 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom36.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)

iD8DBQFVCj8VURT1lqxE3HERAsFFAJ9+XJsZKDrp4a6aOeeo/oi0vPZxYgCgv/Sr
GWs41UPzZZaDo9OIMIhH2Hk=
=MYkM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

HOM36 (fwd)

repost homer miramira hom36

GOD MAN WOMAN AND CHILD yet again.

Its the same thing between woman and child.

You don't try to help the child by blaming the parents for all the
horrible things they did to the child, you get the child to own up to its
own self covert complicity in its ludicrous demise. NO MATTER WHAT THE
PARENTS DID.

Same thing with women, you don't help them by blaming men for all the
horrible things men do to women, you get the woman to spot her complicity
in her own ludicrous demise.

Same thing with men, you don't help them by blaming God for all the
horrible things Gods do to men, you get the man to spot his own complicity
in his own ludicrous demise.

And ludicrous it is.

As the late great philosopher X, who is unfortunately no longer with
us once said, "its not the past that determines the victim, its the
present time benefit that they get from being a victim that keeps them
so."

Homer


_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE507 (fwd)

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


THE GAME OF CASES

cockatoo@aussieisp.net.au wrote:
>You can't go it alone. You've got to listen to others. You've
>got to accept others ideas as well as your own. We cover each
>other's weak spots.

>And the real game is to figure it all out and set ourselves
>free. It is not a game of one-upmanship. We shouldn't be
>competing for the staring role in "The Battle of the Service
>Facs".

Correct.

The game of being the first one to crack our case completely assumes
that one HAS a case, and thus commits to that fact and thus makes one's
case persist even harder.

Once our case is cracked, there is no one home any more to
receive the admiration. Scary isn't it?

Trying to get admiration is a sure fire way to get stuck in tar.

Giving admiration on the other hand, is FREE and free of consequences,
(except maybe vanishment of all mechanical conditions of existence) as
long as one isn't giving it BECAUSE...

The second one connects the giving of admiration to some prior cause
or reason why, oh boy...

And that is probably the scariest thing I have ever said.

Homer



======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Mar 15 17:55:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore507.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)

iD8DBQFVBf+3URT1lqxE3HERAvHzAKDFCIX3tW7B0ElYG5+D8Vh1peXRxACcDenI
EYD3l+CeBWUiNgT+UyxsAo0=
=tmif
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE868 (fwd)

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


JUSTICE OF CHOICE

It is pretty clear that most of the psychosomatic stuff people are
walking around with is not of this life, but rather immortal hells of
their own or others they are pulling in on themselves to deal with the
blunt injustices of life that they have suffered and have occasioned on
others, in this life and prior, including inbetween lives.

One might claim that all these restimulations were done in this
life, thus auditing this life alone should be able to key them all out
again, but I would counter that the being was in a highly restimulated
state when he took on the body in the first place, and in fact the
assumption of the body was itself part of those immortal hells he was
stuck in before.

Namely, immortally stuck in the hell of having to suffer mortal
flesh over and over again and not know it.

Thus our lives are in no way benign, we are here to suffer and
eventually perish as spiritual beings at the bottom of the tone scale.

We are not in the good hands of AllState.

However, since the whole thing is based on a stupidity, not a true
deservingness, it can be turned around for everyone.

In looking at our present sufferings then, and possibly recognizing
them to be a cave in of pre existing immortal hells, we need to consider
the possibility of a GOD, similar to the Christian God, from whom only
good flows, and from whom man flowed, but from whom all evil flows.

As an eternal being we are theoretically able to mock up any kind
of nonsense universe we wish, including the above mentioned scenario,
particularly in our lust for such hells that always arise.

It is perfectly conceivable that we mocked up a universe, with a
God who 'created' us, and got involved in the war between good and evil,
and annoyed our God a bit too much and got thrown into an immortal hell,
of one kind or another. Namely the one we are sitting in, in present
time, going to doctors for.

Doctors in this sense are the devil's minions, as they help us to
cover symptoms, but in the end hardly help us undo the source of our
sufferings.

In trying to run this out, one naturally tries to rebuild one's
relationship to that God, hey if he can throw us into a hell, he can
throw us into a heaven too. Maybe with a little humility and awareness
of God's purpose (which WE created), we could realign ourselves with
him, and stop making him wrong, and maybe on a good day he might forgive
us, and set our lives right.

But in trying to do this, one always runs into the problem of
CHOICE.

If God created us in the absolute sense, (assuming we didn't mock
him up to pretend he did so), then we had no CHOICE in being created and
thus no choice in our existing.

For a being conceived in choice, and whose very nature is to make
choices, it would be odd that this being's very existence was based in
NO choice, or SOMEONE ELSE'S CHOICE.

"I exist because someone else wanted me to and created me for their
purposes."

If you didn't have a choice in your very existence, then probably
you would have no choice in needing to choose more choices after you
existed, You know, you gotta make choices just to survive in this
universe.

So once you exist, making choices becomes mandatory whether you
want to make them or not.

Now maybe you didn't have to choose more choices after you were
created, maybe you could have just sat there forever doing nothing.

But could you have chosen to not exist if you had wanted to, to
just end it all forever?

So there may be a God, or a being playing God, or a being elected
to the post of God by the rest of us, but in all cases, the idea that
God CREATED us is problematic, because that starts our existence with no
choice, or the apparency of no choice.

And if God CREATED us, he can UNCREATE us on a bad hair day, and
that forever puts our very existence which we didn't choose in the first
place, in jeopardy.

Some say that this God is a woman, imagine keeping a bitch happy
forever?

Now if we are eternal beings, above, before and outside of time,
then we probably have no choice about existing anyway, and just so do we
also not have any choice about not existing, because we can't not exist.
I don't mean existing in time, I mean existing period.

If there is no time where we exist, there can't be any TIME in
which to CHANGE from existing to non existing, get it?

So a timeless home guarantees eternal existence.

But we as good as have a choice to not exist in that we can choose
sleep and unimpingable unmanifestation for as long as we wish.

We do not need to not exist to be free, we do however need
unimpingable sleep for as long as we wish, to be free.

Sleep at least gives us the option to dream again and get into
trouble only when we want to :)

The problem with God then, is not that we didn't have a choice to
exist or not, but that our existence was dependent on SOMETHING ELSE'S
choice, and thus so is our non existence similarly dependent.

What created us, can destroy us.

As an eternal being nothing created us, we simply existed forever,
and thus nothing can destroy us either.

But with a God, we didn't exist, then by his choice we came to
exist, and by his choice we can come to not exist again, or not, as his
whim determines.

This is an ARC break of magnitude. Most beings are not willing to
admit it, because they are afraid of their God, a petty jealous tyrant,
to say the least, who detests the truth of himself most of all, and the
truth of his creatures who secretly hate him. And he is just vain
enough to miss it on them. Or to hold it against them if he manages to
notice the seething incandescent broil of hatred underneath their
smiling renditions of the hymn "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty".

But the truth is, being created is like being raped, only worse.

You couldn't have been raped until you were created.

If there is no choice in our existence, and no choice in the kind
of universe we find ourselves in, that creates a whole hell of a lot of
people walking around in a hot bed of charge on the subject of no
choice.

It's not the rape or the crucifixion that matters, its the prior no
choice in being there.

Even if one didn't choose the crucifixion, even if one wasn't even
vaguely appraised of the possibility of the crucifixion, the mere fact
that one had CHOSEN to be in that arena and could have not chosen, makes
the crucifixion runable, where otherwise it never will be.

That goes for rape too, and any other childhood or adult injustice.

Because nothing will run until basic on the chain is resolved, and
basic on the chain of injustice is EXISTENCE IN THE HANDS OF SOMEONE
ELSE'S CHOICE.

That's the primary DONE TO YOU, you were MADE without a purchase
order.

Being created IMPLIES no purchase order.

No invite.

Thus it is the aim of auditing to spot and run the purchase order
anyhow:

The choice to believe in no choice.

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
Mon May 30 10:58:19 EDT 2011

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Mar 13 03:06:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore868.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)

iD8DBQFVAoxaURT1lqxE3HERAk2rAJ4y1jO9k8kS8l4TpK8S6jjB39cvGgCfS14w
Dd4CmclMJO+0Ix09p+MrV9s=
=uUr5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADO6 (fwd)

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







THE TRUE NATURE OF MISSED WITHHOLDS

ADO - 6
25 May 1993

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

The following is a theoretical underpinning for the discussion on
missed withholds that follows. If you don't buy this particular world
view, that's fine, it is only presented to help you understand the
material on missed withholds.

A being is basically an Operating Intention Unit. His basic action
is to cause things to exist, which amounts to creating knowledge, and
then to not know that he has done so, and then to indulge in the game of
learning what he created.

The being does this in tandem with other beings who are doing the
same, thus any being can create something to know, and other beings,
along with him, can play the game of learning what was created.

Thus the cycle of creation goes:

Create -> Survive -> Destroy
Knowledge -> Question -> Answer

The being creates things to know and then by not knowing that he
has done so turns this knowledge into unknowns or questions. The game
of course is to answer the question. Once he answers a question, that
particular game of answering that particular question is ended.

Actually he doesn't even know what questions there are any more,
so the game is to find (precreated) questions to answer, and then to
find answers to questions.

More technically the cycle looks like this,

Knowing - Looking - Not Knowing - Looking - Knowing again (Learning)

Creating Answers - Creating Questions - Answering Questions

KNOWING:

The being in Creator mode starts off with nothing and then
creatively causes something to come into existence by knowing it. In
this sense, knowing is a creative action because the created thing comes
to be true because the person KNOWS it is true. It is knowing something
into existence, literally.

We are not talking about creating fundmental truths that are true
no matter what, we are talking about creating CREATED truths that are
only true because something created them into existence.

LOOKING:

Once he has known something into existence he can then look at
it, knowing full well he just created it. Looking allows the being to
CHECK-OUT what he just created to make sure it got created exactly as
he originally knowed it into existence.

NOT KNOWING:

The Creator then indulges in NOT knowing about the created
knowledge or object and he hides it from himself or puts it in a far off
galaxy where he can run across it in a million years on some voyage of
discovery.

This is the transition from Creator to Creature.

LOOKING AGAIN:

Later, the person in Creature mode, runs into something he or
others have created in Creator mode, and he finds he doesn't know what
the thing is. Thus he takes to LOOKING at it carefully, inspecting it,
playing with it, experimenting with it, until he again knows what it is.

KNOWING AGAIN:

Thus the being in Creature mode begins to accumulate knowledge on a
vast scale concerning the universe that he is in.

This knowledge is originally created with Looking by Knowing, and
is eventually rediscovered with Knowing by Looking.

Looking by Knowing means the Creator is able to LOOK at something
BECAUSE he has just created it by KNOWING it.

Knowing by Looking means the Creature is able to LEARN about
something BECAUSE he is presently LOOKING at it.

Looking by Knowing and Knowing by Looking define the two basic
operating modes of Creator and Creature.

Creator = Looking by Knowing, or Knowing -> Looking.

Creature = Knowing by Looking, or Looking -> Knowing.

In SUMMARY:

In summary then, the being in Creator mode creates things to look
at by knowing them into existence. This is called Looking by Knowing.

The being in Creature mode rediscovers things to know by looking at
them until he learns about them. This is called Knowing by Looking or
Learning by Looking.

If one graphs this as,

Knowing -> Looking -> Not knowing -> Looking -> Knowing

it can then be said that the shift from Creator mode to Creature
mode is a shift from operating the first 3 items to operating the last 3
items. The middle item, not knowing, it shared by both sides, and is
the shift over point from Creator mode to Creature mode.

This then is the cycle of a game. The cycle of a game involves the
creation of knowledge to learn in Creator mode, followed by the process
of learning it in Creature mode.

From the above discussion it is apparent that a being is inherently
a knower, something that can know, either by creating knowledge and
things to know, or by learning about things already so created. Thus it
can be surmised that anything that fouls up a being's ability to know or
to learn, or to cause others to know or to learn, will be of great upset
to him.

One of the things that beings like to do is to share what they know
with others or to hide what they know from others.

This is all part of the warp and woof of games.

You communicate to your customers that you have a product, you hide
from your competitors how you made it.

Beings use the presence or absence of communication cycles in order
to indulge in sharing or hiding things they know from others.

For example, if a being learns something of value in the struggle
for survival, he will go to some effort to communicate this to his
friends. When they finally get the message they will send back to him
an acknowledgment so that the originating being can know for sure they
got the communication and so end cycle on the effort to communicate with
them, and so proceed to take up something new.

In the same way, if a being knows something that he does NOT want
others to know, he will go to some effort to NOT communicate it to other
people, and he will look for the absence of an acknowledgement from the
other person to verify to himself that in fact they do not know it.

Thus we have these two fundamental cycles of action in this game
universe.

The first cycle of action is the effort to communicate something to
another being, followed by the clear presence of a return
acknowledgement.

The second cycle of action is the effort to NOT communicate
something to another being, followed by the clear absence of a return
acknowledgement.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF THE RETURN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CAN NOT BE UNDERESTIMATED AS IT HAS TO DO WITH THE
VERIFICATION OF THE COMMUNICATION OR NON COMMUNICATION CYCLE THE BEING
IS INDULGING IN.

Without the clear presence or absence of a return acknowledgement
the being can not end cycle on his intention to communicate or not
communicate. He thus gets stuck in that cycle forever.

1. TRYING TO COMMUNICATE

If a being is trying to communicate something to another, and no
acknowledgement is forthcoming, the originating being will be left in
doubt about whether the other being got the communication or not.

He won't know if they know.

THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO SEND THE COMMUNICATION.

It's constantly LOOKING for the presence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.

He may even take to fabricating acknowledgments where there aren't
any just to end cycle on the deal.

He can't stand not knowing.

Once he gets a clear indication of the presence of a return
acknowledgement he is free to DO other things.

2. TRYING TO NOT COMMUNICATE

If a being is trying to NOT communicate something to another, yet
he is getting constant indications that indeed the other party is
getting the communication anyhow, the withholding being will be left in
a doubt about whether the other party is NOT getting the communication
or not.

He won't know if they know.

THUS HE WILL CONTINUE TO TRY TO STOP THE COMMUNICATION.

It's constantly LOOKING for the absence of a return acknowledgment
that drives the being crazy.

He may even take to NOT-ISing possible acknowledgments where there
may be some, just to end cycle on the deal.

He can't stand not knowing.

Once he gets a clear indication of the absence of any return
acknowledgment, meaning that he has successfully prevented others from
knowing what ever he was hiding, he is free to DO other things.

If the being is ultimately unable to determine whether his
intention has been carried out, whether it be to communicate or to not
communicate, he will suffer a DECISION CYCLE FAILURE. He won't be able
to go on to DO other things, yet he won't know what to do about his
present problem.

He gets stuck instead in a question, 'Do they know? Do they not
know?' Since he can not answer that question, he can not DECIDE what to
do next and so he starts to build up charge.

He is like a man sitting at the fork of a road asking 'Should I go
right? Should I go left?' He's been there for a LONG time.

Eventually he makes a decision about his indecision which is
usually to bury it, where it will fester, continuing to create charge
for the rest of time.

This is like the same man who DECIDES to build his home at the fork
of the road and says 'there is no fork in the road, and there is nowhere
to go, and I have arrived where I wanted to go anyway'.

Thus when the being is unable to reach a CONCLUSION about whether
other's know or not, he is also unable to DECIDE what to do next.

A CONCLUSION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what is true.

A DECISION CYCLE is a question and answer cycle on what to do.

The failure of the conclusion cycle leads to a failure of the
decision cycle.

Now a being in good condition will have a balance of the Creator
and Creature modes within him. He will be creating some new things to
know, and he will be discovering other things already created by himself
and others to learn about.

If such a being gets stuck in a conclusion cycle of the form 'Do
they know? Do they not know?' he will put all of his attention into his
Creature mode trying to determine the answer to the question 'Do they
know or not?'

He is trying to know by learning and loses all interest in knowing
by creating.

He is not willing or able to just CAUSE others to know or not,
which would end his quandary; so he devotes more and more time to
Creature mode where he attempts to learn by looking whether the other
party knows or not.

What he is LOOKING for is the presence or absence of a return
acknowledgment.

The long term end result of this is the being becomes incapable of
Creator modes at all, and is totally swimming in failed Creature modes.

They are failed Creature modes in that he is trying to learn by
looking whether they know or not, but can't, so he is never able to make
a decision as to what to DO next, so he never gets on with this life or
the game.

This is what Hubbard referred to as 'being stuck in a decision in
the past.' He is still there trying to draw a conclusion and make a
decision.

'Do they know or don't they know?'

Since at a high enough state two beings can see each other's
pictures anyway, not knowing whether someone else knows something is
rather silly. Thus strenuous involvement in such efforts to know if
they know, leads to a dwindling spiral of less and less direct
perception of others and what they do and do not know, and eventually to
total aloneness.

This is 'spiritual death' at the bottom of the tone scale.

Such conclusion cycle failures invalidate the being's basic
causativeness over life by invalidating his CREATIVE causative
knowingness, his ability to bring about certain knowledge in others by
creating it so, and also invalidates his ability to learn by looking,
specifically by looking directly into the minds of others.

That's why missed withholds make you DUMB.

A being who is hiding something and yet is wondering if others
know, can always end cycle on his quandary by just outright informing
the other party of what he did. You see that is ending the endless
knowing by looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing
cycle, you just CAUSE them to know, and poof no more doubt. Of course
you might get executed.

But you wouldn't be in doubt any more and you could get on with
your life. Being parked at a fork in the road is a waste of time to an
Immortal Being.

Likewise if a being is trying to get something across to someone
and yet is wondering if they have gotten it or not, he can always end
cycle on his quandary by outright NOT informing the other party of what
he wanted them to know. You see that is ending the endless knowing by
looking cycle by exercising a causative looking by knowing cycle, you
just CAUSE them to NOT know, and poof no more doubt. Of course you
might get executed.

The point is that the correct answer to any endless failure of the
knowing by looking cycle is to exercise a causative looking by knowing
cycle and take your lumps with the consequences.

The consequences are never as bad as staying in a learning by
looking quandary for the rest of time.

THAT'S HELL. It's better to be executed.

Executions end, Hell's don't.

Mortal's by the way can always be counted upon to make the wrong
choice. That's why you always find them parked so far into their
reactive minds (their 'Bank').

Their Bank is the home they built for themselves at the fork in the
road, snarling guard dogs and all.

So there are two kinds of missed withholds when looked at in this
light.

There are those things you wanted others to know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a POSITIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.

There are those things you wanted others to NOT know but you still
don't know if they know. We call that a NEGATIVE MISSED WITHHOLD.

It is this last one that most people consider the missed withhold.

You do something bad, someone almost finds out, you are left unsure
if they did or not.

One day you are smoking in your bedroom, and you know you are not
supposed to be smoking. You hear your mother coming up the stairs and
you quickly throw the cigarette out the window. She comes in the room,
and looks around, sniffing the air, and says 'boy does it smell in here,
your sneakers need washing?'

So here is something that you wanted to NOT communicate to your
mother, namely that you were smoking a cigarette. Surely she couldn't
have possibly missed the smell or misidentified it. Yet she would have
had your hide if she thought you were smoking. So what's going on?
Does she know, or doesn't she know?

Positive missed withholds are important too.

You try to communicate something to someone, and you just never can
figure out if they got it or not.

One day you go up to your boy friend, and you tell him that you
love him and want to marry him. He says, 'Oh sure dear, that's fine.'

Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside you or is he missing the enormity of your
statement?

Wonder, wonder, wonder...

Positive missed withholds can also happen when people are trying to
confess negative withholds.

You go up to a minister on the street one night wringing your hands
and looking really distraught and you say, 'I killed my wife last night,
what should I do?' and he says, 'Thank you for telling me that, why
don't you get some sleep?'

Did he get the communication or didn't he? Does he really know
what's going on inside YOU or did he miss significance of the
communication?

Wonder, wonder, wonder...

So withholds can get missed even when people are desperately trying
to confess them. You say 'I feel like killing myself' and someone says
'Yeah, I know EXACTLY what you mean, life can do that to you. Don't
worry about it, I read in Psychology Today that we all feel that way
sometimes.'

Bang. The withhold was not communicated. This is deadly.

This can be particularly bad in session where bad auditing can
cause the preclear to have a DOUBLE missed withhold.

PC = Pre Clear, one who is not yet clear.

AUDITOR = One who is applying clearing to a pre clear to help
them become more clear.

Pc: 'You know you haven't been very warm to me recently, I guess I
have something to confess, and I have been wondering for a few days
whether or not you already know, so here it is... I have been sleeping
with your girl friend.'

Auditor: 'Ok, now we are going to take up your relationship with
your mother...'

Double Bang. The PC has a clearly missed severe negative
withhold from the Auditor, and he brings himself to tell the Auditor,
and the Auditor acts like he didn't even hear it, so now its a
positive missed withhold too!

'Did he know, didn't he know?' (negative missed withhold)

'DOES he know, DOESN'T he know?' (Positive missed withhold)

'Yipes!'

So in auditing you are looking for those moments of WONDER when the
person was unable to DETERMINE if the other person knows or not.

You see even the word 'determine' has this two tiered meaning.

To determine can mean to CAUSE to come into being.

"The ability to determine one's own future."

To determine can also mean to LEARN about what has already been
caused to come into being.

"The ability to determine the past."

So this whole Creator mode - Creature mode thing is built into the
very fabric of our language.

Determination can mean being determined to CAUSE, or it can mean a
determination, what was gleaned through learning by looking.

The first kind of determination is Creator mode and the second kind
of determination is Creature mode.

Creator determination is Creation arising from from Knowing,
Creature determination is Knowing arising from Creation, learning by
looking at what was already created.

Thus the being gets caught up in his failure to determine (find
out) whether others know or not, and he also fails to causatively
determine them into knowing or not knowing, and so he slowly goes crazy,
as BOTH Creature mode AND Creator mode are on hold in an inconclusion,
followed by an indecision.

So what you are looking for are those times your preclear tried to
communicate something to someone but is still wondering whether they
know or not, and also those times your preclear tried to NOT communicate
something to someone and is still wondering if they know or not.

Watch out for the can't believe its: 'I can't believe they don't
know' or 'I can't believe they found out', as these leave him in an
incredibility which stops his mind cold.

The anatomy of an incredibility is:

Certainty something is true, and
Certainty something is impossible.

Each one of these conclusion failures will be followed by a
decision failure, because being unable to determine whether they know or
not, your preclear was then unable to determine what to DO next in his
life.

He is still sitting there swimming in not know and unable to know,
and UNWILLING TO CAUSE KNOWING OR NOT KNOWING IN OTHERS outright to end
his conclusion failure.

So of course his life goes nowhere, either in parts or en masse.

So here is one way that this could be run.

Positive Missed Withholds:

'Who or what are you wondering might NOT know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might not know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might not know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'

Negative Missed Withholds:

'Who or what are you wondering might know something about you?'
'What makes you think they might know?'
'What is it you are wondering they might know?'
'What conclusion failures were there?'
'What conclusions did you draw?'
'What conclusions about inconclusions are there?'
'What decision failures have this led to?'
'What decisions have this led to?
'What decisions about indecision are there?'

Instead of 'wondering' you can use 'worried' or 'concerned' or what
ever else indicates to your preclear.

'Who are you worried might know something about you?'
'Who are you worried might NOT know something about you?'

'Who are you concerned might know something about you?'
'Who are you concerned might NOT know something about you?'
etc.

Does she know how much you hate her?

Does she know how much you love her?

For a wider run, you can leave off the 'about you?'

'Who are you wondering might know something?'
etc.

There is no rote way to run this, run which ever questions bite and
your PC is interested in. Switch back and forth between positive and
negative missed withholds as needed.

Remember you the auditor and your preclear don't make case gain
together by doing it RIGHT, you make case gain by DOING it.

Run this alternately and repetitively, until the PC has spotted all
of his missed withholds. He will come up with more later, so this can
be run over and over again as needed.

This will turn on a LOT of anxiety. That means its biting.

As long a there is anxiety on the case, chances are there is more
to find.

Don't expect to get it all in one day.

Expect it to get pretty fantastical. Mundane human life ain't the
source of your case.

If you are co-auditing, run it back and forth on each other.

Running this on someone will open up your own case so that when
they run it on you there will be stuff to find, and visa versa. Many
processes are dead ends when audited in only one direction, but continue
to run forever when run back and forth between two people.

Auditing others and being audited are BOTH auditing.

If you miss a positive or negative withhold on your PC, if you put
them into doubt about whether you know or not, they will ARC break on
you, get pissed off in other words. You can run any ARC break at any
time with something like,

ARC = Affinity, Reality, Communication, Understanding.
ARC break = a sudden sundering of such.

'What didn't I know about you that I should have?'
'What should I have known?'
'What weren't you sure I knew?'
'What wasn't known?'
'What don't I have any idea of that you wish I did?'
'What would you like me to know about you?'

Remember an ARC break is ALWAYS caused by the MISSING of a positive
or negative withhold. The ARC break IS their wondering if you know or
not. It is an ARC break with themselves for no longer being able to
just cause you to know or not know, and know that they have.

So asking the PC 'What are you wondering if I know or not?' will
nail it.

Once the ARC break is clean, the PC will forgive you and be able to
go back into session easily. If the PC is still hedging inside, they
still have something they wish you knew but aren't sure you do, or wish
you didn't know but think you might.

When a pc is afraid there is something you might know about him,
it's usually because the pc is afraid there is something you DON'T know
about him.

In other words he doesn't want to let you know about him, until he
is sure you know something else about him!

"What would I have to know about you to let you be willing to let
me know everything about you?"

Thus negative missed withholds become difficult to pull to the
degree that the pc has positive missed withholds too.

IT IS THE PC'S RESPONSIBILITY TO TELL THE AUDITOR IF THEY ARE ARC
BROKEN, AND IT IS A HIGH CRIME FOR THE PC TO CONTINUE TO PRETEND TO RUN
A PROCESS WHEN REALLY THEY ARE WISHING THE AUDITOR KNEW SOMETHING.

It is the Auditor's responsibility to make sure that the PC lives
up to his or her own Preclear Code. And it is the Preclear's
responsibility to make sure that the Auditor lives up to his or her own
Auditor's Code.

The Auditor's Code and the Preclear's Code are contracts that both
parties enter into willingly and with full responsibility. Each is a
bargaining tool for the other. The Auditor offers to follow the
Auditor's Code as set out by the Preclear, and in exchange the Preclear
offers to follow the Preclear's Code as set out by the Auditor.

Remember any PC WANTS to confess all their negative withholds, but
they are unsure you are a safe space, so really they only become
recalcitrant to discuss what they are hiding once they become unsure
that you don't know something that you should.

You can run,

'What would I need to know for you to feel good about my auditing
you?'

'What would I need to be, do, have or know for you to be willing to
communicate to me on this subject?'

or some such variant. You will surely figure out your own
questions once the understanding of all this bites on you.

You know a hefty portion of this material is just to get the
Auditor and PC in session with each other. This doesn't mean that this
stuff isn't deep auditing or won't blow your case to Kingdom come, but
if the Auditor and PC are chary of each other, they will have to go
through these little trials by fire in the beginning no matter what.

Auditing safe or polite material is a waste of time.

No auditing process known to man will stay safe or polite for long,
and if you aren't willing to communicate when the withholds start
showing up and the going gets hot, the process will stop dead in its
tracks. You can continue to pretend to give answers, but you will lose
what case gain you made, as each false answer after the withhold is an
overt act, and becomes another MISSED withhold.

As the PC, you will be looking at your Auditor thinking to
yourself, 'What a dumb turkey, how come he doesn't know I just stopped
myself from taking about something? How could he NOT know!?"

Although the auditor will often do something that makes the
preclear think they auditor might know, truth is, if the preclear thinks
the auditor SHOULD know or have found out, the PRECLEAR will miss the
withhold on himself out of the blue just by starting to wonder on it.

You know sessionability is not just a matter of the PC. Sure if
the PC is unhappy or unwilling to talk to the Auditor, then of course no
auditing will take place. But if the Auditor doesn't like the PC, or if
the Auditor is afraid the PC will bring up the Auditor's recent affair
with the neighbor's dog, then no auditing will take place either.

It is vitally important that the Auditor be as willing to talk to
be PC as the PC is willing to talk to the Auditor.

Auditing is not a one way confession.

Especially during a co audit, where both will be PC and both will
be Auditor.

If the person who is doing the auditing develops a withhold that
they will have to give up to the PC when the tables are turned, then
that withhold will prevent the Auditor from auditing the PC as well as
he could while he is still being the auditor.

His attention will be in the future when he must face his own
session and not on the PC in present time. Thus the acknowledgments
that the Auditor gives will all be lacking, as he won't be completely
there for the PC.

Thus it is just as important that the Auditor be able to talk to
the PC as it is that the PC be able to talk to the Auditor.

No one is really even asking you to give up having affairs with the
neighbor's dog, just so long as you can TALK about it freely to your PC
or Auditor.

If you can't talk about it freely with your PC or Auditor, don't do
it. You gotta have a full disclosure relationship with at least ONE
living human being on Earth to remain sane.

Auditing is a walk towards a group mind, where each being
intimately knows immediately everything about everyone in the group.

This is a form of telepathic co union.

The minute two people don't want to share every detail of
themselves, they are walking towards some other goal AND CASE GAIN WILL
CEASE, for there is no freedom in hiing in telepathic isolation.

Sometimes its just too much to expect auditor and pc to swap back
and forth this way, so you get a three some going, each one auditing the
other, and that way everyone's secrets remain secure.

If two people can run these withhold processes totally flat on each
other to a point where there is NO ANXIETY about communicating about any
subject to each other, they will have attained a new and totally
brilliant state in the history of the human race.

It's worth dreaming of, and striving for, even if there is a whole
mess of human emotion and reaction in between.

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 12 03:06:16 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ado6.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

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

iD8DBQFVATroURT1lqxE3HERArO0AJ9aYR/2P75X/qj+eke8rzs71XekmQCcCUQV
sqpctmCQ7xFU4pRhYvzt0yQ=
=EOzU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l