-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE SCHMOO LEVEL
This posting is early and wrong.
The problem is not
AN INDECISION TO LIVE OR DIE,
the problem is a
A DECISION TO LIVE AND DIE AT THE SAME TIME.
Humans get stuck in indecisions.
Gods get stuck in ANDS.
3/20/2012
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
THE SCHMOO LEVEL
Session Notes 11/22/94
ACT - 83
23 November 1994
Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
Been running,
"Is there an indecision on whether to live or die?"
"What is the problem with living?"
"What is the problem with dying?"
Spectacular. Life saving.
The basic problem is a conflict caused by a first postulate later
countered by a second postulate. The first postulate is made from a
timeless position of power when a game or goal is first created. The
basic underlying theme of any first postulate is,
"I want to be here."
The second postulate is made during a moment of severe loss, either
physical, emotional, mental or spiritual. These are the engrams,
secondaries and heavy facsimiles of Scientology. They can be moments of
physical impact strong enough to cause death or near death experience,
exteriorizations, etc., or they can be simply moments of losing wherein
the game is no longer worth playing.
(The second postulates that are made during an actual death
incident are the most important. This can be a death of a body, the
death of an fragile-immortal theta body, or the 'death' of a thetan.)
The STOP that is experienced during the inner core of the second
postulate 'incident' as Allen calls it, forces the being back to the
timeless state, the same timeless state in fact that he was in when he
made his first postulate to be here and have the goal or game. During
the enforced timeless state that occurs during the loss, the being makes
the second postulate, and because it is made from the same timeless
state of power, it has the same force and power as the first postulate,
no more, no less. Thus you have a perfect ridge. No one wins, no one
loses. This is the anatomy of a GPM.
The basic underlying theme of the second postulate is,
'I don't want to be here."
Or one might say also it is,
"I want" (first postulate)
"I don't want" ("because I can't have", second postulate).
The second postulate is not an actual negation of the first
postulate, it is only an apparent negation, it is "I don't want BECAUSE
I CAN'T HAVE." That's not the same as simply "I don't want." It is in
fact a case of cosmic sour grapes. Thus the first postulate is still
desired and never given up, but the being no longer wants to want the
first postulate, even though he still wants the first postulate, so
rather than giving up the first postulate utterly, he holds onto it
fiercely and fights it with the second postulate.
"I don't want to want you, but I want you anyway."
This forms a ridge and is "what is wrong with you". Having and
owning such a ridge makes it impossible to think clearly on any of the
major problems of your life, and if you are failing in life, this is
why.
What you are looking for then in auditing is the first moment the
person changed from "I want to be here" to "I don't want to be here."
That will be the key moment that once found will spring his emotion and
goals back to the surface. Watch out if your confront as an auditor is
low, or if your conception of the cosmic all is rather small, better
have your goggles on.
The "I don't want to be here" chain of course has many such moments
that extend all the way to present time, and it has its first serious
occurance in this life, and then again in the 'worst' past life the pc
has suffered, and then the worst past life where the pc has caused
another to "not want to be here" and then even before bodies when
thetans were playing the game of wanting to be here and not wanting to
be here, and making others want to be here and not want to be here.
This is not a small chain, this goes back to the Sovereignty of the
thetan and the first time he considered he wasn't Sovereign, AND HAD
NEVER BEEN.
Beings give birth to themselves with some rather strange realities
in place. "Well lookee here, I was just made by God and my job is to go
out and subjugate all the heathens. Jesus, what a horrible thought, but
hell, it's all I got, it's better than nothing, right? OK, here we go,
"Now Grovel you heathen dog or suffer the flames of Eternity!"
And away we go. The underlying postulate is right there, "This is
horrible, but its better than nothing, I guess I will make the best of
it I can." You see? That's "I want to be here". It's not TOTAL wanting
to be here, but just enough to power the game and get the guy to pick up
his sword and start lopping heads.
The problem of course is there is a hidden postulate in the major
theme which is, "I did not create this universe, I did not put myself
here, I don't REALLY want to be here, I was MADE, I wouldn't have made
things this way if I had had a choice about it, but here I am, I will
make the best of it." So that all adds up to Non Sovereignty, see? He
has started off his very first game with a postulate of total Non
Sovereignty and a very shaky "wanting to be here."
So what happens to this guy? He has a lot of fun nailing people to
crosses, burning people at the stake, doing 'heathen checks' by dunking
people in water, and extorting confessions from people with crowbars
under their spine, until one day it starts to happen to HIM!
Then he is not so pleased any more.
Suddenly he wants out of the game real bad. You see that's what he
has been doing to others, right? "I will make you regret the day you
were created!" is the underlying theme.
So of course now that's what others are doing to him, and suddenly
he gets this twinge of regret, and he wishes the whole thing hadn't
happened or that he at least hadn't partaken in it with quite so much
zeal, and bang! he is stuck in the incident and can't get out.
He is not only not making having been put in the universe in the
first place, he is not making the fact of others putting the crow bar
under his spine, because he is trying to get them to NOT DO THAT,
because he is trying to undo having done it himself! Thus he is not
making more of it, and so of course he gets stuck with it, because you
can't unmake what you are not making (more of).
Thus reality is sort of a chinese finger trap, the more you try to
get out of it being there, without PUTTING IT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE
IN ALL ITS GORY GLORY, the more you get stuck in it.
That's because the underlying theme is "I didn't put this here in
the first place, something else or someone else did, and I didn't know
it would get this bad, and I am sorry for what I did, but I can't undo
it, because once something is done it is done, and these guys aren't
listening to me anyway, oh hell let them torture me, one day it will
happen to them and it will serve them right, just at it serves me
right", and at this point you have abject apathy talking and you are
going to get this guy to give up his engram in session without a fight?
Right.
That engram won't run out without PUTTING in the 'making more of
it' where it should have been in the first place when the incident took
place. Essentially the only way to get rid of a REAL engram is to DO IN
THE ENGRAM WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE WHEN THE ENGRAM WAS HAPPENING THAT
WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THE INCIDENT FROM HAPPENING AND THUS FORMING AN
ENGRAM IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I mean if an OT doesn't like what's going on, he can just change
channels, right? Well the magic is that you can't change FROM a channel
unless you first changed TO that channel. If you lose sight of having
changed TO a channel, you can't change FROM IT ever again.
An engram is the persistence FOREVER of something that you wish
never happened at all. That's irony.
If "you didn't start it", you can never stop it.
If "you didn't stop it", you can never start it.
That is why Hubbard defines insanity as that moment when the being
first becomes totally devoted to stopping something. He has let go of
starting it, and this is a break in responsibility. He is now trying to
stop something he considers he didn't start, and that is insanity. The
joke of course is that the way to stop something is to start it again!
This is the "make more of it" and "The way IN is the way out." of
Adore. The reason is that coming in puts you out so that you CAN come
in. Trying to get out, assumes you are in, so you can't get out.
Trying to COME IN, assumes you are out, so you can come in. To get out
and stay out, just practice coming in, until you get bored with coming
in, and then just don't come in any more.
The way to STAY in, is to assume you didn't COME IN, and then
continue to try like hell to get out. That is the basic way any thetan
keeps anything around, he makes something and then assumes he didn't
make it, which makes him want to get rid of it something terrible, and
that sticks him with it, so he settles for it and makes the best he can
of it, and you have a universe with no Sovereignty.
Any persisting universe works by this rule. And of course any
persisting universe is detested. So it goes on because he is trying to
stop it without the consideration that he started it.
Persisting Time is a subtle nightmare.
The underlying theme of that nightmare is Non Sovereignty.
So here is the point, you start off a game where the very first
postulates are "I didn't make this or put me here, I am not Sovereign,
something else is Sovereign that I can not understand, but it's ok I am
here I suppose", and a long time later you end up with "I don't want to
be here at all, but I can't get out."
You can't leave by choice what you didn't enter by choice.
That is the anatomy of a trap, and the track of the dwindling
spiral from "I want to be here" to "I don't want to be here."
Now there is something very interesting here. There is a little
chart that can be drawn relating danger and safety to disability and
ability.
Danger and Safety are considered to lie on a gradient scale going
from total danger to total safety. Most people find that life is either
much too dangerous for them, or much too safe. They try to optimize
their danger levels without letting things get out of hand.
Disability and Ability are also considered to lie on another
gradient scale that goes from total disability to total ability. Again
people like to optimize their abilities, so that they are not so able
that there is no challenge in life, and not so unable that they they can
barely stagger onto the playing field.
It is the UNCERTAINTY of winning or losing that makes a game a game
and worth playing, AS A GAME. Too much ability and too much disability
alike ruin the uncertainty of winning and losing, and thus ruin the
enjoyability of a game.
CORRUPTION, TEMPTATION AND SEDUCTION
There is an interesting twist which can be added into games, which
ties the ability to play future games to the winning of present games.
In other words if you lose the present game, you don't ever get to
play any games ever again. This twist can ruin the fun of any game,
making it super dangerous to even play the game, lest you lose it. This
tends to skew the person's natural desire to have games that he doesn't
know if he is going to win or lose, towards having only games that he is
absolutely certain he is going to win.
In fact such a person will often force others to play his games for
him if he can, to take the risks of losing and give him the rewards of
winning.
Such games, where the ability to play future games is permanently
linked to whether you win present games or not are uniformly resented by
the players who are forced to play them, and this gives the whole "life
is a game" idea a bad name.
Once you unlink the future playing of games from the winning of
present games, the whole thing straightens out and people become willing
to win, lose and play games again. This is in part what "going eternal"
does to a meatball, as he stops thinking he has only one chance to play
and win every game in existence, in the short span of 70 years if he
lives that long.
Mortality is a classic case of the kind of game where if you lose
the game now, you will never be able to play any game again, and in the
end you are going to lose the game permanently no matter what you do.
And mortals have the audacity to tell you 'life is fine'.
Mortal meatballs, because they firmly believe that the playing of
future games is dependent on the winning of present games, are cess
pools of Corruption, Temptation and Seduction. Their basic game is to
get others to play for them, to take the risks for them, and give them
the rewards of winning. There isn't an upstanding meatball in the lot
of them.
OK, but baring the darker side of life, an eternal being in
relatively sane condition can enjoy games, create games, play games, win
games, lose games, and come through it like it never happened.
It is to this kind of person that I wish to direct the discussion
of the Danger/Safety - Disability/Ability chart.
It is pretty clear that a being who is very unable in a game, is in
great danger IN THE GAME. He has no ability to defend himself or his
friends, and no ability to offend the enemy forces or their friends.
That's a sure formula for losing.
It is also pretty clear that a being who is very able in a game,
has tremendous margins of safety. He has great ability to defend
himself, and his friends, and to offend his enemies and their friends.
So we make a simple chart that shows this relationship.
Safety | /
| / <--- Normal Game
| /
| /
| /
| /
Danger |---------------
Unable Able
So it should be clear that as a being increases his ability in a
game he increases his Safety and as he decreases his ability he
decreases his Safety.
OK, so now let's make it a bit more interesting. Sometimes in
games you get under the thumb of a seriously powerful enemy who really
has no love for you or the game at all in his heart, all he wants to do
is either enslave you, kill you or imprison you, pretty much in that
order.
They don't want to play at all, they just want to win, and they
don't want to have to play to get there.
We call such people SP's, they are terrified of their own existence
even though they have a lot of power, and they don't want to be playing
the game they are in, so they would rather not have any competition or a
good competent opponent.
They prefer to WIN ALL THE TIME to having a good play.
SP's are very often convinced that the continued existence of games
to play depends utterly on winning their present game, therefore they
are not interested in PLAYING their present game, they are interested in
WINNING it, and thus the last thing they want is a challenging opponent
who will give them a good run for their money the way a sane player
would.
This in fact demarks the difference between an SP player and a sane
player. The SP wants to WIN BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO PLAY, the sane
player wants to PLAY FIRST, MAYBE WIN OR NOT SECOND.
The SP thinks that losing a game means not being able to play a
game ever again, the sane player thinks that playing a game means not
being able to lose (the playing of games!) ever again.
Thus the SP is happiest when everyone around them is sick, dead or
dying. The more able you are, the more of a danger the SP considers you
to be to him, because you might win and cause him to lose, which means
he would be out of a game forever, and so the more able you are the more
he tries to be dangerous back to you. The less able you are the more
the SP considers you to be unimportant to his safety, and so the more he
ignores you, which makes things safe for you again.
Kind of like your average Parent and Child relationship, eh?
Ok, so this is how we graph this.
Safety |\
| \
| \ <---- SP Game
| \
| \
| \
Danger |------------\--
Unable Able
This shows that the more able you are, the more danger you are in
from the SP and his police state civilization around you. The less able
you are, the safer you are.
For example if you are strong and healthy, intelligent and
knowledgeable, outspoken and forthright, independent and resourceful,
this SP and his civilization will consider you fair game, because that
is the last kind of being they want in their political slave camp.
So in order to survive, to just stay alive and not get tortured to
death along with all of your friends, you have to tone back some of your
abilities, to make yourself less dangerous to the SP's that surround
you. You become weak, sick, dumb, ignorant, reticent, covert, mute,
dependent, and always at a loss, and you work for the SP and do his
bidding and accept your meager pay no matter how much it hurts you
inside to do this.
But look, didn't we just say that being unable INCREASED the danger
in the game? And so it does, and you will quickly notice that if you
make yourself too weak, too sick, too dumb, too ignorant, too reticent,
too covert, too mute, too dependent and at a loss, you will soon die of
total incapacity to take care of yourself, you won't even be able to
work for the SP let alone piss him off!
I mean who ever heard of these things being survival
characteristics in the wild? Hell you would be eaten before you were
two days old.
So tuning down your powers to make yourself more acceptable to the
SP, puts you in more danger from the normal environment of life around
you, and so the SP kind of puts you between a rock and hard place.
There is a limit to how unable you can make yourself to make
yourself safe from the SP's before you make yourself so unable that you
are in catastrophic danger from the everyday forces of life around you.
And this is exactly what happens to some people. They make
themselves so unable just to be acceptable to the SP parents that bring
them up, that they can't live at all, and indeed they don't. They
ultimately die, usually after a prolonged, miserable, agonizing struggle
with life, possibly even long after their parents are dead and gone and
'no longer suppressing them any more'.
But what usually happens to the vast majority of people is that
they find some 'workable' compromise between being so able that the SP
starts to hunt them down, and being so unable that life itself takes
them out.
The SP is constantly pushing them down towards more disability
where they will die from life, and life is constantly pushing them up
towards more ability where they will die from the SP.
That middle ground then, is the happy medium that people call their
'lot in life', their little package of moans and groans, and which they
choose early in life, and is their Service Facsimile Computation on how
to live safely in a dangerous environment BY BEING UNABLE.
It's an effort to be able to survive by being UNABLE.
It's the effort to WIN (stay alive) by not being able to PLAY (big
basic purpose games).
It's the effort to (be allowed to ) continue PLAYING by not being
able to WIN.
It takes great finesse to exactly tune your abilities down so that
you are no longer a danger to those who don't want you to play or exist
at all, without starving yourself to death through total inability to
play or work.
Affluent survival on this planet takes tremendous courage,
enthusiasm, foresight, honesty and outspokenness, all of which are
traits that SP's hate as they mean you are a worthy opponent to them.
But the SP doesn't want to PLAY, they want to just WIN, to get the
risk of loss over with, so they will break the rules of the game and
kill you, simple as that. Imagine a tennis player that won his match by
killing his opponent before the game? Well that's an SP for you, in the
game of life. Now if you couldn't play tennis at all, he would leave
you alone, you see?
So you learn to win (survive) in the game of life by not being able
to play, and you learn to be able (allowed) to play by not being able to
win.
So let's take a look at how this looks on the chart, by combining
the two charts above.
Safety |\ /
| \ / <--- Normal Game
| \ /
| \ /
| x <--- Schmoo Level
| / \
| / \
| / \ <--- SP Game
Danger |/---------------\--
Unable Able
The person starts off in the lower left corner being very unable
and in great danger from normal life itself. He increases his abilities
and thus increases his safety until he hits the 'x' in the middle of the
diagram. At that point if he continues to increase his ability, rather
than increase his safety like in a normal game, he will in fact increase
his danger because the SP will start to take notice of him. Thus the
'x' spot marks the place of ability that maximizes his safety from the
two opposing forces of life itself and the SPs that surround him, and it
is well below optimum challenging play.
This is the Schmoo Level. You ever see someone who is just sort of
schmooing along in life, like a worm on a stump? Well that's a God
playing it safe because there are a few too many SP's in his environment
who don't enjoy having a good game they might lose.
So the first thing you need to do to get yourself out of this mess
is to spot your Schmoo Level, and then take a look at your computations
on the subject of being able by being unable, winning by not being able
to play, and be able to play by not being able to win.
By the way you are going to run into the Qualms running this stuff.
If you don't you aren't running the right thing.
The underlying theme to the Qualms is being terrified of not being
terrified any more.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Aug 8 12:06:02 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act83.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFVxijrURT1lqxE3HERAkklAKCUqdWKG6NskPW6qpBeqY7jQaJXCQCfdchk
VPPSpSzUXIN1bohRsXbsKFM=
=7Tb3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, August 10, 2015
Friday, August 7, 2015
ADORE931 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FUNCTION AND STRUCTURE
> What I wonder about that I hope you can shed light on is:
>
> The original "Dianetics" that I read had no e-meter involved, but rather
> an elaborate means of "Reverie" using the file clerk, etc... This
> method of auditing made a lot of sense to me and even though it claimed
> it was not Hypnosis and explained the differences, it all made sense to
> me. Then enter the e-meter and sitting at a table...
>
> I have a bit of trouble understanding how this is the same process with
> the same results achieved. I do understand what the e-meter measures
> and how easily troubles can be identified, but it seems very different.
> I cannot see how access to the file clerk is made, anymore.
>
> Please help me see what evades me on this matter, if you would not mind
> and have the time.
Structure monitors function.
That means for every observable function or action of something,
there must be some underlying 'structure' to account for it.
That structure may be some space time gizmo, machine, or system of
parts interacting via cause and effect across a space time distance, or
it may be some zero dimensional scalar operating actuality such as
consciousness.
The problem with any scientific investigation of function is that
the function is observable but the structure often is not, or is
completely unknown at the time of first discovery.
Thus one builds THEORETICAL models to account for the observed
function. The models constructed are fantasy but may then lead to
predictable outcomes of new functions that allow one for example to do
things with the original function not otherwise obvious.
In clearing we have anatomy and approach.
Anatomy is a theoretic model for how and why the preclear is
aberrated. From this model we can then possibly surmise an approach to
clear the aberrations.
If you know 'why or how' something is broke, you can often figure
out how to fix it, or at least prevent it in the future.
The approach works until it doesn't work, or some new approach is
found accidentally at which point the model is changed to accommodate
the new approach. Or maybe the model is upgraded first and a new
approach derived from it.
At some point during 1952 Hubbard wrote Advanced Procedure and
Axioms wherein he reported that the preclear is aberrating himself via a
computation, known as the service facsimile computation.
Thus the preclear is holding to himself everything that he is
suffering from and no longer knows it.
The service fac computation involves injustice, blame, guilt and
refusal to 'put it there' or take responsibility for all sides of the
conflict.
Early approach, 1950's, was to get the preclear to look at WHAT he
was holding in place, modeled on the theoretical time track recordings
of pain and unconsciousness, and later approach became to get the
preclear to look at WHY he as holding all this stuff in place, at which
point WHAT the exact nature of the time track was became moot.
Some kind of theoretical model of a time track has continued
through the history of auditing to modern time, the heavy facsimiles
called engrams, the secondaries of death, departure and reversal, and
the locks that restimulate them are all part of present day 'anatomy'
and they are all theoretical but work well if used with understanding.
Basic understanding is that emotion is unencysted through full
feeling of the incident over and over again, and then doing the same to
earlier similar incidents where were not run at the time they happened,
back to basic on the chain where the basic postulates of question
asking, irresponsibility and failure to 'put it there' lie.
Fully running out the death of a loved one, or the impending death
of everyone you love, produces nothing less than a miracle of spiritual
case gain as the whole idea of loss and unique preciousness is
rearranged. It isn't possible to do this and remain a meatball.
Running repeater holders, deniers, forgetters, groupers, derailers,
bouncers and call backs works when it works.
The senior datum is the preclear always has full visio, audio, and
other sensations at the exact point where he is stuck, if no where else.
The problem then is not getting the preclear to MOVE to where he is
stuck, but to get to look AT where he is stuck and feel around for the
thoughts, emotions, efforts, words, sounds and sights of that exact
moment. The action phrases IN the incident will apply TO THE INCIDENT
and block data until the exact action phrase is located, often by simply
listening to the preclear complain about how he can't, won't or
shouldn't run it etc.
One also needs to understand very advanced Theory 2 scientology,
which says that all MEST is beings mocking up particles, atoms,
molecules etc. This includes the time track and all its pictures, which
is actually a christmas tree of living elemental conscious units each
one responsible for mocking up a moment of time and keeping it in
restimulation or not depending on the moment involved.
The time track, its creation and function is not at all a MEST
phenomenon, but a living phenomenon.
Again this is a model of the time track, but it is probably more
correct than the old one of mere pictures being recorded in some who
knows what medium etc.
The point is that being alive and consisting of living elements,
the time track can be commanded by the intention of the auditor, and by
the preclear if he is willing to audit the exact place he is stuck at.
This was all unknown or unreported in early Dianetics, but the
'file clerk' and various somatic strips for each sense, and demon
circuits etc, were all a kind of anthropomorphization of the structures
that allowed for the functions required of them, namely to move on the
time track. You could for example ask of the file clerk for the next
incident necessary to run to resolve the case, and the incident would
appear to the preclear just like that, it would work.
Did the preclear 'move on his time track to that incident?'
Does it matter?
Move is a real bad term for moving on the time track, because move
conjures up ideas of space and linear travel as if the time track is
stretched out in space. It isn't, and 'moving' on the time track is
caused by refocusing on a different cross section of it, in zero
dimensional scalar consciousness.
Given that the time track is a living constellation of attentive
elemental entities, it is no surprise that this early model of file
clerk worked. Hubbard said very clearly, "it works, I have no idea why,
go figure."
So now the meter comes along, and the meter can tell you way in
advance if the auditor and the file clerk are getting along and working
together. Pity the poor preclear whose file clerk always gives out
wrong answers.
Remember the bank obeys the auditor, not the preclear because the
preclear is buried in the bank and is more likely to dramatize bank at
his bank in trying to push it around than audit it properly. You can't
use one part of the bank to move to another :)
The meter will show reads on incidents found properly, rising TA as
the incidents erase until basic is found when the TA cascades back down
again.
Now enter Dianetics today.
At this point depending on the file clerk to present incidents was
replaced with getting the preclear to LIST attitudes, emotions,
sensations and pains that he was bothered by, and running them in order
of greatest read.
"The file clerk will now hand us the next incident necessary to
run" was replaced with "Locate an incident of another causing you grief"
say.
Then the meter was used to know when to go earlier similar, and
again the file clerk was not asked for the next earlier incident, but
the preclear was told "Locate an earlier similar incident".
Hubbard claims that the auditor is always talking to the bank via
the preclear, but its unclear in the preclear's reality who or what is
locating these incidents etc.
Many preclears when commanded to "Move through to the end of the
incident", try to move the bank themselves, not realizing that an engram
should RUN IT SELF AS A MOVING SURROUND SOUND PICTURE and should only do
so when the auditor commands it to and BECAUSE the auditor commands it
to.
These kinds of confusions happen early on in dianetic running
particularly when the preclear isn't really up to running engrams
anyhow.
In the end it doesn't matter HOW you run the bank, file clerk,
listing, e-meter etc, if all incidents are full erased, you get a clear.
Ease of use and repeatability amongst poorly trained auditors of low
reality favor the e-meter over the file clerk. Like a wild horse the
file clerk elementals will not respond well to someone who isn't a horse
whisperer.
Done properly and when ready for it, dianetics is kind of like
sitting back and watching the picture show, letting the auditor run the
bank back and forth until chains and the whole thing is clear.
Its like going to the hair dressers, you pay good money to sit back
and enjoy having your brain washed.
If the preclear is sitting there trying to move through the
incident himself, or worse is running vague nothings or ideas of things,
it isn't being done right and it won't be fun, and the gains will be
questionable although non zero, sometimes even negative.
A preclear can have a charged track but not be stuck in any
particular valence or place in it, meaning he is pretty well
destimulated and F/Ning at session start. Thus the auditor can move him
around to the next thing that needs to be run and everyone has fun, as
the bank and all of its elementals are cooperative as hell about going
free.
But if the preclear is stuck on the track, his TA high, he can only
reach other incidents on his track by REACHING TO THEM, and then he
snaps back to where he is stuck anyhow, and nothing gets run properly.
This kind of person can't be moved on the track and really needs to
be audited directly where he is no matter how black it is. This can be
difficult, because DIANETICS R3R per se won't do it.
He can't locate, he can't go to, he can't move through, he can't
tell you what happened etc.
But you can pester him with the meter for the holders, deniers,
forgetters, groupers, bouncers, call backs, and shutoffs that are
keeping him pinned down.
Remember he isn't pinned to his time track, HE IS PINNING THAT
MOMENT OF THE TIME TRACK TO HIMSELF.
As I remember R3R asks the preclear 'What do you see?', well he may
have more attention on audio or taste, smell, touch or emotion, so
really it needs to be "What are you experiencing?"
Further 'move through to the end of the incident" is terrible, it
is much better to run as 'experience through to the end of the
incident.'
You see, minor adjustments to approach can produce significant
gains in auditing quality and efficiency, but based on what? Some model
or another of what is there. The model mostly serves for the student to
hang his study of approach on, the pro doesn't need the model any more,
he just knows what works and to hell with why.
He merely looks at the elementals and they scramble to comply.
I hope that helped.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Jan 22 20:43:31 EST 2013
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Aug 7 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore931.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFVxNdpURT1lqxE3HERAhwEAKCIC8OSGmodOCygA3uh+gpzIb/t2QCbB7Q3
6/yATQbd4j4HqxLuenHNlaM=
=vb5n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
FUNCTION AND STRUCTURE
> What I wonder about that I hope you can shed light on is:
>
> The original "Dianetics" that I read had no e-meter involved, but rather
> an elaborate means of "Reverie" using the file clerk, etc... This
> method of auditing made a lot of sense to me and even though it claimed
> it was not Hypnosis and explained the differences, it all made sense to
> me. Then enter the e-meter and sitting at a table...
>
> I have a bit of trouble understanding how this is the same process with
> the same results achieved. I do understand what the e-meter measures
> and how easily troubles can be identified, but it seems very different.
> I cannot see how access to the file clerk is made, anymore.
>
> Please help me see what evades me on this matter, if you would not mind
> and have the time.
Structure monitors function.
That means for every observable function or action of something,
there must be some underlying 'structure' to account for it.
That structure may be some space time gizmo, machine, or system of
parts interacting via cause and effect across a space time distance, or
it may be some zero dimensional scalar operating actuality such as
consciousness.
The problem with any scientific investigation of function is that
the function is observable but the structure often is not, or is
completely unknown at the time of first discovery.
Thus one builds THEORETICAL models to account for the observed
function. The models constructed are fantasy but may then lead to
predictable outcomes of new functions that allow one for example to do
things with the original function not otherwise obvious.
In clearing we have anatomy and approach.
Anatomy is a theoretic model for how and why the preclear is
aberrated. From this model we can then possibly surmise an approach to
clear the aberrations.
If you know 'why or how' something is broke, you can often figure
out how to fix it, or at least prevent it in the future.
The approach works until it doesn't work, or some new approach is
found accidentally at which point the model is changed to accommodate
the new approach. Or maybe the model is upgraded first and a new
approach derived from it.
At some point during 1952 Hubbard wrote Advanced Procedure and
Axioms wherein he reported that the preclear is aberrating himself via a
computation, known as the service facsimile computation.
Thus the preclear is holding to himself everything that he is
suffering from and no longer knows it.
The service fac computation involves injustice, blame, guilt and
refusal to 'put it there' or take responsibility for all sides of the
conflict.
Early approach, 1950's, was to get the preclear to look at WHAT he
was holding in place, modeled on the theoretical time track recordings
of pain and unconsciousness, and later approach became to get the
preclear to look at WHY he as holding all this stuff in place, at which
point WHAT the exact nature of the time track was became moot.
Some kind of theoretical model of a time track has continued
through the history of auditing to modern time, the heavy facsimiles
called engrams, the secondaries of death, departure and reversal, and
the locks that restimulate them are all part of present day 'anatomy'
and they are all theoretical but work well if used with understanding.
Basic understanding is that emotion is unencysted through full
feeling of the incident over and over again, and then doing the same to
earlier similar incidents where were not run at the time they happened,
back to basic on the chain where the basic postulates of question
asking, irresponsibility and failure to 'put it there' lie.
Fully running out the death of a loved one, or the impending death
of everyone you love, produces nothing less than a miracle of spiritual
case gain as the whole idea of loss and unique preciousness is
rearranged. It isn't possible to do this and remain a meatball.
Running repeater holders, deniers, forgetters, groupers, derailers,
bouncers and call backs works when it works.
The senior datum is the preclear always has full visio, audio, and
other sensations at the exact point where he is stuck, if no where else.
The problem then is not getting the preclear to MOVE to where he is
stuck, but to get to look AT where he is stuck and feel around for the
thoughts, emotions, efforts, words, sounds and sights of that exact
moment. The action phrases IN the incident will apply TO THE INCIDENT
and block data until the exact action phrase is located, often by simply
listening to the preclear complain about how he can't, won't or
shouldn't run it etc.
One also needs to understand very advanced Theory 2 scientology,
which says that all MEST is beings mocking up particles, atoms,
molecules etc. This includes the time track and all its pictures, which
is actually a christmas tree of living elemental conscious units each
one responsible for mocking up a moment of time and keeping it in
restimulation or not depending on the moment involved.
The time track, its creation and function is not at all a MEST
phenomenon, but a living phenomenon.
Again this is a model of the time track, but it is probably more
correct than the old one of mere pictures being recorded in some who
knows what medium etc.
The point is that being alive and consisting of living elements,
the time track can be commanded by the intention of the auditor, and by
the preclear if he is willing to audit the exact place he is stuck at.
This was all unknown or unreported in early Dianetics, but the
'file clerk' and various somatic strips for each sense, and demon
circuits etc, were all a kind of anthropomorphization of the structures
that allowed for the functions required of them, namely to move on the
time track. You could for example ask of the file clerk for the next
incident necessary to run to resolve the case, and the incident would
appear to the preclear just like that, it would work.
Did the preclear 'move on his time track to that incident?'
Does it matter?
Move is a real bad term for moving on the time track, because move
conjures up ideas of space and linear travel as if the time track is
stretched out in space. It isn't, and 'moving' on the time track is
caused by refocusing on a different cross section of it, in zero
dimensional scalar consciousness.
Given that the time track is a living constellation of attentive
elemental entities, it is no surprise that this early model of file
clerk worked. Hubbard said very clearly, "it works, I have no idea why,
go figure."
So now the meter comes along, and the meter can tell you way in
advance if the auditor and the file clerk are getting along and working
together. Pity the poor preclear whose file clerk always gives out
wrong answers.
Remember the bank obeys the auditor, not the preclear because the
preclear is buried in the bank and is more likely to dramatize bank at
his bank in trying to push it around than audit it properly. You can't
use one part of the bank to move to another :)
The meter will show reads on incidents found properly, rising TA as
the incidents erase until basic is found when the TA cascades back down
again.
Now enter Dianetics today.
At this point depending on the file clerk to present incidents was
replaced with getting the preclear to LIST attitudes, emotions,
sensations and pains that he was bothered by, and running them in order
of greatest read.
"The file clerk will now hand us the next incident necessary to
run" was replaced with "Locate an incident of another causing you grief"
say.
Then the meter was used to know when to go earlier similar, and
again the file clerk was not asked for the next earlier incident, but
the preclear was told "Locate an earlier similar incident".
Hubbard claims that the auditor is always talking to the bank via
the preclear, but its unclear in the preclear's reality who or what is
locating these incidents etc.
Many preclears when commanded to "Move through to the end of the
incident", try to move the bank themselves, not realizing that an engram
should RUN IT SELF AS A MOVING SURROUND SOUND PICTURE and should only do
so when the auditor commands it to and BECAUSE the auditor commands it
to.
These kinds of confusions happen early on in dianetic running
particularly when the preclear isn't really up to running engrams
anyhow.
In the end it doesn't matter HOW you run the bank, file clerk,
listing, e-meter etc, if all incidents are full erased, you get a clear.
Ease of use and repeatability amongst poorly trained auditors of low
reality favor the e-meter over the file clerk. Like a wild horse the
file clerk elementals will not respond well to someone who isn't a horse
whisperer.
Done properly and when ready for it, dianetics is kind of like
sitting back and watching the picture show, letting the auditor run the
bank back and forth until chains and the whole thing is clear.
Its like going to the hair dressers, you pay good money to sit back
and enjoy having your brain washed.
If the preclear is sitting there trying to move through the
incident himself, or worse is running vague nothings or ideas of things,
it isn't being done right and it won't be fun, and the gains will be
questionable although non zero, sometimes even negative.
A preclear can have a charged track but not be stuck in any
particular valence or place in it, meaning he is pretty well
destimulated and F/Ning at session start. Thus the auditor can move him
around to the next thing that needs to be run and everyone has fun, as
the bank and all of its elementals are cooperative as hell about going
free.
But if the preclear is stuck on the track, his TA high, he can only
reach other incidents on his track by REACHING TO THEM, and then he
snaps back to where he is stuck anyhow, and nothing gets run properly.
This kind of person can't be moved on the track and really needs to
be audited directly where he is no matter how black it is. This can be
difficult, because DIANETICS R3R per se won't do it.
He can't locate, he can't go to, he can't move through, he can't
tell you what happened etc.
But you can pester him with the meter for the holders, deniers,
forgetters, groupers, bouncers, call backs, and shutoffs that are
keeping him pinned down.
Remember he isn't pinned to his time track, HE IS PINNING THAT
MOMENT OF THE TIME TRACK TO HIMSELF.
As I remember R3R asks the preclear 'What do you see?', well he may
have more attention on audio or taste, smell, touch or emotion, so
really it needs to be "What are you experiencing?"
Further 'move through to the end of the incident" is terrible, it
is much better to run as 'experience through to the end of the
incident.'
You see, minor adjustments to approach can produce significant
gains in auditing quality and efficiency, but based on what? Some model
or another of what is there. The model mostly serves for the student to
hang his study of approach on, the pro doesn't need the model any more,
he just knows what works and to hell with why.
He merely looks at the elementals and they scramble to comply.
I hope that helped.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Jan 22 20:43:31 EST 2013
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Aug 7 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore931.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFVxNdpURT1lqxE3HERAhwEAKCIC8OSGmodOCygA3uh+gpzIb/t2QCbB7Q3
6/yATQbd4j4HqxLuenHNlaM=
=vb5n
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE406 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TO DUPLICATE OR NOT TO DUPLICATE
mearvk (mearvk@gmail.com) wrote:
>Native state isn't about laughing or any other action. It's total
>Being. Just being, zero complexity. The charge you talk about is a lie.
Correct.
>Having to consider it before attaining native state is a
>non-duplication of native state. It's just a clever via you keep
>putting up.
Uh well, so much for Scientology. Hubbard said one could not just
change one's mind about postulates, one had to review them and as-isness
them, returning each one to native state.
Maybe that was just a gradient, but native state is not an
as-isness of a lie, it is the result of the as-isness of the lie.
The persisting isness is a creation between native state and the
being, and he can't just bypass that isness and go directly to native
state, without getting the as-isness of the isness.
Once the as-isness vanishes then native state is resumed.
Native state -> created as-isness -> alter-isness -> isness.
One can't just go back to native state and leave the isness to be,
the being must as-isness the persisting object in order for it to
vanish.
Otherwise once he comes back out of native state, all his isnesses
will still be there.
Hubbard called that kind of operation 'up the pole'.
Now maybe some can audit 'Return to Native State!' but I would bet
good money this would be unworkable on the vast majority of your pc's no
matter how much you word cleared the command.
Return to static.
Return to kinetic.
Return to non manifestation.
Return to manifestation.
Now that I could handle.
On the way back in he would start to as-is all the crap he left in
place on the way out.
>Considering that there is a via to native state is unethical. Native
>state is a 'vialess' transition. One simply assumes unthinkingness.
Yes, in theory you can't become cause by being an effect.
However in practice, never work without operating the opposite
flow.
Assume a thinkingness.
Assume unthinkingness.
Present theory tells me that assume a thinkingness will work better
because the guy has to be the unthinkingness to create the thinkingness.
But every inflow demands an outflow, and every outflow demands an
inflow, thus running assume an unthinkingness for a while will create a
screaming need to create a thinkingness, and visa versa. Once the guy
has the flow going both ways at 200 amps, then perhaps he can let go of
the dichotomy and end up in peace.
Yes the above are mechanics, if you can bypass mechanics in your
journey of going free all the more power to you.
Homer
Sat Nov 25 18:58:46 EST 2006
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Aug 7 16:59:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore406.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)
iD8DBQFVxRwVURT1lqxE3HERAsK0AJ9esVF0QhmIrmMQiT7svbr0mTEC9gCeIM6C
tb5YTcQgpDauX8WluaRz0Ao=
=XmqS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
TO DUPLICATE OR NOT TO DUPLICATE
mearvk (mearvk@gmail.com) wrote:
>Native state isn't about laughing or any other action. It's total
>Being. Just being, zero complexity. The charge you talk about is a lie.
Correct.
>Having to consider it before attaining native state is a
>non-duplication of native state. It's just a clever via you keep
>putting up.
Uh well, so much for Scientology. Hubbard said one could not just
change one's mind about postulates, one had to review them and as-isness
them, returning each one to native state.
Maybe that was just a gradient, but native state is not an
as-isness of a lie, it is the result of the as-isness of the lie.
The persisting isness is a creation between native state and the
being, and he can't just bypass that isness and go directly to native
state, without getting the as-isness of the isness.
Once the as-isness vanishes then native state is resumed.
Native state -> created as-isness -> alter-isness -> isness.
One can't just go back to native state and leave the isness to be,
the being must as-isness the persisting object in order for it to
vanish.
Otherwise once he comes back out of native state, all his isnesses
will still be there.
Hubbard called that kind of operation 'up the pole'.
Now maybe some can audit 'Return to Native State!' but I would bet
good money this would be unworkable on the vast majority of your pc's no
matter how much you word cleared the command.
Return to static.
Return to kinetic.
Return to non manifestation.
Return to manifestation.
Now that I could handle.
On the way back in he would start to as-is all the crap he left in
place on the way out.
>Considering that there is a via to native state is unethical. Native
>state is a 'vialess' transition. One simply assumes unthinkingness.
Yes, in theory you can't become cause by being an effect.
However in practice, never work without operating the opposite
flow.
Assume a thinkingness.
Assume unthinkingness.
Present theory tells me that assume a thinkingness will work better
because the guy has to be the unthinkingness to create the thinkingness.
But every inflow demands an outflow, and every outflow demands an
inflow, thus running assume an unthinkingness for a while will create a
screaming need to create a thinkingness, and visa versa. Once the guy
has the flow going both ways at 200 amps, then perhaps he can let go of
the dichotomy and end up in peace.
Yes the above are mechanics, if you can bypass mechanics in your
journey of going free all the more power to you.
Homer
Sat Nov 25 18:58:46 EST 2006
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Aug 7 16:59:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore406.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)
iD8DBQFVxRwVURT1lqxE3HERAsK0AJ9esVF0QhmIrmMQiT7svbr0mTEC9gCeIM6C
tb5YTcQgpDauX8WluaRz0Ao=
=XmqS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE731 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE BASIC PURPOSE RUNDOWN
The following posting was originally written for a business class,
but it turns out that vision and mission apply across all the dynamics,
to every goal or purpose your preclear has ever had or ever will have.
Every goal consists of vision, what you want to accomplish, and
mission, how to get there.
At a lower level we are trying to rehabilitate your preclear's
ability to know his own goals and go after them.
At a higher level we are trying to find the preclear's top oppterm
on his present time personal GPM, which poisons his entire relationship
with the 8 dyanmics and the universe at large.
A GPM or Goals Problem Mass is what is left over after a thetan has
lost every possible fork of a major multi lifetime game he was playing,
even after he switched sides and lost there too.
The top oppterm (opposition terminal) is the most recent present
time opposing terminal to what the preclear is seeking, it is here that
all the super overts, forevers and nevers, murders and hells, are
created and wished off on the oppterm, only to kick back on the preclear
when he regrets it or is overwhelemed by raw force.
The bank is made of a series of layers of disaster going back into
antiquity, containing force and violence of a kind that most people
can't stomach which is in part why it is 'nothing there' for them.
GPMS are serious game playing at its best.
Any series of goals that a preclear has had, have provided a ladder
of failure at that goal followed by substitution with another sub goal,
both within the main goal, and then finally down to later and other main
goals which form new GPMS of their own, all of which we call
substitutes.
Thus we have a chain of GPMS, each of which of is made of a chain
of sub goals, all leading ultimately down the drain of the kitchen sink.
Taking the old GPM example of the temple priest who is opposed to
the temple virgins, he will engage in many different shades of the goal
to be a temple priest, and then finally give up and become a temple
virgin.
There again he will engage in a long sashay down the various game
roles available to a temple virgin, until finally he drops that GPM
entirely and becomes an anarchist opposing a tyrant which is an entirely
new and different GPM.
The more new and different a GPM he falls into, the better off he
will be at the start of it, because he isn't involving any of the
baggage he accumulated from the first one. Until he gets into the
murder and deceit again :)
In the middle of any GPM he is thinking, "I wish to drown in the
blood of my enemies".
A little later he is thinking "The only true satisfaction in life
is sweet revenge."
Near the bottom of any GPM he is thinking "The purpose of life
is kamikaze."
At the bottom he is thinking "Life sucks Rocks, and then you die."
Over the course of a GPM across many lifetimes, he goes from
killing as his basic thrust to being killed.
Thus he is practically DYING out of the old GPM, and getting a new
life in the new one, so he won't remember the old one at all. This is
in part why we do not remember our past lives, we refuse to span who and
what we were and hated during those lives. Those memories are there
though to be spanned with some daring and imagination and willingness to
admit you failed miserably and took a lot of good people with you, and a
lot of bad people who finally took you with them.
Don't worry, be happy, every one else was doing the same.
It is very easy to assess for how many levels of substitutes down
he is within his present time goal. The pristine beginning level is
level 0. The first substitute is level 1 etc,
The number found will not be huge, probably less than 200, and on
easy cases more like less than 20.
Once the preclear has a clear idea of HOW MANY substitutes he is
sitting in, he will be in a better position to correctly assess his
feelings and reactions to getting up in the morning, and better able to
see his way towards making correct indictions that bring him up tone
rather than down tone.
Usually when he gets up in the morning, he is still tring to fight
his (losing) battle with his present time substitute position within the
over all goal. Once he knows this, he can chill out on winning at the
substitute, and eventually the earlier beginnings to this goal will come
back to him with some shock.
He has copped out, and forgotten that he did so, and lost track of
how far south he has gone and how lost he has become on his original
desires.
SASHAYS (VISION) and FORAYS (MISSION)
Remember each goal has a number of levels of sashays (substitute
goal variations), and each sashay has many different forays, attempts to
win the fight.
When your preclear gives up on forays at a particular goal
variation, he will sashay down to the next one, and start over again
trying to win that position instead.
The forays contain high action, force, mis communications, problems
both internal to himself and external, hideous super overts, withholds,
breaking of his own affinity, reality and communication, and
computations to the effect that the oppterm of that particular sashay
should be wiped out forever regardless of personal or collateral costs.
Many forays over time eventually build up regret, ORS
(indecisions), ANDS (decisions to do BOTH), and eventually desperate
lunacy before taking relief in the next sashay down.
Thus for each over arching goal, there will be a number of
different sashays carried out through a declining history of many
forays.
The rundown goes something like this.
Each goal consists of numerous sashays, each sashay contains a
vision of accomplishment.
The vision statement is where we want to go, what future state we
want to be in.
Each vision leads to many forays or missions.
The mission statement is how to get there.
Vision statement: A better world through communication.
Mission statement: Provide everyone with internet.
1.) Assess for how many levels of substitute the preclear is from
his present time main goal. It is NOT necessary to know what the goal
is, and DO NOT list for it.
Try to clarify if this number is levels of substitute GOALS down
from some earlier possibly first ever goal, in which case you are taking
about a very very long period of time, or simply the number of
substitutes he has fallen down in this life time goal while still
remaining in the goal structure as a whole.
This last is what you want, but take what you get.
Do not confuse him with the above complexities, but you as an
auditor should have a good grasp on the possibilities and have some idea
of the nature of the answer you finally agree upon with the preclear.
The answer should read well on the meter and produce VGI's or Very Good
Indicators, preclear smiling, laughing, and VERY interested in running
the materail coming up to him.
You will find his present time goal is a 'reliable item' in that if
you check it again periodically it will release and read again and
again, although the read may dry up until some auditing takes place
between checking it.
2.) Find the various visions that are involved with his present
time goals, whether subsitutes or not.
"Tell me a vision you might like to bring about in the future."
DO NOT USE REMEMBER, or any form of what question.
If he can't answer the above command, run something softer like
"Get the idea of wanting to bring something about in the future."
As his vision statements get closer to the core, they will become
easier to mockup for a short while in full 3D surround sound visio. If
he is still getting flat pictures in front of his face, he is still not
there.
3.) For each vision he gives you ask him
"Tell me how you might get there."
or if that is too rought, no answer etcs,
"Get the idea of getting there."
You want DOINGs, action.
Passive answers are fine, but if no active answers, watch out.
Make sure you allow him to answer, and keep answering until no more
come up. The go back to 2.
Allow him to tell you the woe that happened, mis communications,
problems, overts, withholds, computations, regrets, indecisions and
ANDS.
Run to major insight. This will produce spectacular relief.
The pain, depression, tension, suicidal and homocidal ideations,
comes from ANDS.
Wanting something *AND* not wanting it at the same time FOREVER.
BE AND NOT BE
DO AND NOT DO
HAVE AND NOT HAVE
WANT AND NOT WANT
KNOW AND NOT KNOW
etc, etc, etc.
Every item in existence can form an AND.
Expect any and all of them.
These happen at the end of long strings of failed missions.
Every time an AND comes off, the needle will stop and drop, and
loosen up and the TA should come down a bit for a while, and the body
will go through spasms of shooting and slowlymoving pain like lava
flowing back to source, ending in lasting relief, humor and tears. The
tears may take a bit, but he will be bawling from laughter and sorrow in
a while.
You know, glad to have been in hell for a while.
If you want, have your preclear star rate the following posting to
make sure he gets what its all about.
Make sure you do or you won't know what you are handling when
he brings it up.
Homer
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VISION AND MISSION
Every business must have strong vision and mission statements in
order to survive.
Without these no one knows in the general sense what they are
producing or why. Life and work are more than the immediate widget in
front of your nose.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VISION AND MISSION?
Take the example of the young man who decides to become a Green
Beret.
One day he is sent on a mission to recover a kidnapped girl and her
scientist father and to kill the terrorists who are intending to use the
father's secret formula to destroy the world.
When that mission is over, he is then sent on another mission, and
another and another. These missions can be and usually are very
different.
Did he join the military because he wanted to save that particular
girl and father, no of course not, he didn't even know about them.
So why did he join the military?
Well that was part of his vision, perhaps 'To make the world safe
for democracy.'
GENERAL VISIONS AND SUB VISIONS
"To make the world safe for democracy' would be a specific sub
vision, above that would be a more general vision, something like 'the
world at peace no longer living in terror.'
And above that would be the most general vision of all, long term
survival or the greatest good for the greatest number, which is common
to everyone who is sane.
By survival we do not mean mere survival or hand to mouth
subsistence, for that is not survival and those living on the edge that
way do not survive for long.
Things can never stay the same, so a person is either expanding in
their affluence of survival or contracting. Contraction is not long
term survival either, so by survival we mean expanding long term
affluence for self and for others. Affluence of survival is necessary
to provide margin of safety during downturns, but what is sufficient and
comfortable affluence will depend on the being involved and the size of
his goals and his commitments to life and those that depend on him.
Thus to survive means to prosper and flourish relative to the needs
of the being.
THE VISION -> MISSION TREE
Missions are derived from visions and the various existing
situations that one finds in present time.
A 'situation' is the furthest deviation from an ideal scene.
An ideal scene is how you would like the world to be.
Thus visions trickle down into sub visions which give rise to
overall missions which finally give rise to micro missions, specific
orders to DO something right now to get something done.
This trickle down forms an inverted tree with SURVIVE at the top,
and the myriad ways we could all be surviving better form the branches
leading down from the top, and the missions that arise out of these main
branches then are the little branches and leaves at the bottom of the
tree.
For example even for the soldier, there are many ways to 'bring
peace and prosperity to a world without terror' that have nothing to do
with joining the military. In fact all these other ways to accomplish
this vision are necessary to the final outcome and none of them are
sufficient alone.
Thus it may be true that 'having a strong military' is a necessary
goal to bringing peace to the world, but so is 'having enough to eat for
everyone'. But the soldier doesn't know anything about growing food, so
that's not up his alley. But he knows a lot about having a strong
military, and he ENJOYS being part of making it so, so he chooses that
branch of the vision-mission tree to guide his life.
So the geneticist who is trying to make golden rice with vitamin A
in it and the solider who is trying to knock off the terrorists, are
BOTH working for the exact same vision 'a world of peace, prosperity and
without terror' but through completely different ways.
VISIONS OF THE WORLD
Vision statements right below that absolute top level are of the
form
"A BETTER WORLD THROUGH..."
Everyone walking around has an idea of their ideal scene, of what
they would like the world to be.
If you were to get people to write down every single thing they
could think of for a better world and compare them all, you would find
almost 100 percent agreement with some exceptions.
More interesting if Joe wrote one thing, and Sue another, both
would agree with the other's goals too, and quickly add them into their
own list.
Let's take some concrete examples.
Almost everyone would agree that 'A world without war, criminality
or insanity' would be a good thing. That happens to be the vision
statement of a Church I know. Notice it is a sub vision, one of the
main branches coming down from survive or greatest long term good for
the greatest number.
A world without hunger would probably be the another one.
A world without disease, or barring that with affordable medical
care for all would be another.
A world where everyone was educated, 'no child left behind' is in
fact a vision statement of one such group working towards this end.
A world where there was social justice, that includes no religious,
racial or ethnic bigotry or racism, and equal opportunity for all to
take advantage of, according to their God given abilities.
Social justice includes human rights for both adults and children
and even for animals.
Then there are the subjects of politics and markets. Politics is
the process by which people design a society, and in particular the
markets of that society, as without sow and reap, buy and sell, there is
no society. As we shall see the needs of politics are sometimes opposed
to and outweigh the desires of markets, so we need to be very careful
not to sacrifice the needs of politics to the desires of markets, lest
the social planners end up in a police state run by market criminals.
Then there are basic freedoms, freedom to think and speak, freedom
to congregate, freedom to privacy, freedom to practice religion, freedom
to vote, and freedom to bear and carry arms in case some wise acre
thinks he is going to get rid of the first 5.
So there are a lot of situations in the world today that need a lot
of hard work.
Let's summarize the various highest level visions that a person
might have, and you should take the time now to add any of your own that
might have been left out and if you have a chance see if you can get
agreement on them from others.
Vision statement:
"A better world through..."
1.) No WAR
2.) No CRIMINALITY
3.) No INSANITY
4.) FOOD AND SHELTER
5.) PHYSICAL HEALTH
6.) MENTAL HEALTH
7.) EDUCATION
7.) SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR ADULTS, CHILDREN AND ANIMALS
8.) FREEDOM TO THINK SPEAK AND CONGREGATE
9.) FREEDOM TO PRIVACY
10.) FREEDOM TO PRACTICE RELIGION
11.) FREEDOM TO VOTE
12.) FREEDOM TO SELF DEFENSE
13.) FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN POLITICS AND MARKETS"
DISAGREEMENTS
You will find as you walk this planet that there will be people,
sometimes lots of people, that will strongly disagree with your estimate
of what a better world might look like.
For example vast areas of the globe believe that the freedoms to
engage in capitalism (a market) is not showing 'love of the people', and
they will fight you to the death to get rid of you.
CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM
Although capitalism is often associated with democracy, and
communism is associated with tyranny, we need to keep the two separated
in our minds in order to understand business.
Democracy and Tyranny are two forms of GOVERNMENT, along with
Monarchies, Oligarchies, Kingships, and other forms of rule.
Capitalism, socialism, and communism are forms of MARKETS, how we
consume, produce, buy and sell.
It is quite possible for a communism to be a democracy, and a
capitalism to be a tyranny.
For example in a true democracy a person is welcome to vote for the
communist party, as long as the communist sticks to market issues, and
doesn't try to undermine the DEMOCRACY OF VOTING otherwise he is a
tyrant commie rather than a democratic one.
You see?
OK, so what is the basic difference between a capitalism and a
communism?. This is important, because if you are going to start a
business of your own, you are being a capitalist for the duration of
that business.
The basic difference lies in the following questions.
1.) What are you going to produce?
2.) Who are you going to sell it to?
3.) How much are you going to charge for it.
4.) WHO is going to produce it?
5.) WHO gets to own the rights of control over the profits?
In a capitalism you make those decisions.
In a communism someone else makes those decisions for you, a
centrally planned committee that oversees all production, and sale of
products.
A communism believes that a very few, very bright minds, can
determine all the GLOBAL actions of a market as defined in those three
questions above.
A capitalism believes that no single mind can handle the global
equations, and thus the problem must be distributed to each and every
local entrepreneur to make those decisions for himself.
In an ideal communism, all property belongs to the state, which
then becomes the Grand Business of the country, and everyone else is an
employee of the state.
Everyone is paid according to their need, and everyone is expected
to produce as much as they can. 'From each according to his ability,
and to each according to his need.'
Since your need is about 3000 calories a day, that's what you get,
and you work all day long for love of the people.
The downside is you don't own anything that is truly yours, and the
upside is you get your 3000 calories whether or not you produce
anything. That means you can fail and continue on, because you are
protected from Darwinian selection by the Committee. You get paid for
trying, not succeeding. Of course if you don't try, they will take you
out back and shoot you.
In a capitalism you get to keep what you own as yours.
By OWNERSHIP we mean the rights to control.
Thus you take out a loan, you invent toilet paper, you sell to
millions of people at a penny a roll, you pay back your loan, and you
get to keep the rest as YOURS.
That's the upside.
The downside is, if people don't like your toilet paper because it
sticks to their butt, you don't sell any, the bank forecloses on your
means of production and you are left with nothing.
There is no one to take you out back to end your misery, except
Darwinian starvation.
This by the way is one reason why we have politics, no one wants to
support a welfare state, but everyone wants a safety net, so you find
that the optimum market is actually a mixture of of capitalism,
socialism and communism, although few will agree to that.
Politics is where people argue it out.
DISAGREEMENTS AGAIN.
OK, so let's get back to disagreements with your vision of an ideal
scene again.
WAR. Some people think that war is good for the planet, it prunes
the population, it makes people work under dire necessity to find better
ways of doing things, knowledge about how the physical universe works
increases exponentially etc. Most of the computer technology you use
today came out of World War II, as did the interest in radar and
encryption. Although we use encryption for commercial transactions, it
was actually developed by people concerned for national security. And
even when things are invented in the civilian arena, the military gets
interested in it very fast and pours millions of dollars into it. If
you think Intel and the Military have no interest in each other you
should think again.
In fact one can argue that if the planet were so wealthy that
everyone could just eat and sit around all day long, people would become
like the Eloi in 'The Time Machine', friendly, peaceable, but totally
unable to defend themselves. Thus they become easy targets for those
that would enslave or eat them as the case may be.
Thus you will find people who don't actually want a world without
war, they want a world with OPTIMUM WAR, just enough to keep us all on
our toes and letting necessity be the mother of invention, but not
enough to destroy the place. Besides how is an honest arms dealer going
to turn a profit if there is no war?
SOCIAL JUSTICE. It would be hard to imagine anyone against social
justice, but when you get into justice for animals, which they sorely
need, you will run into people who want the whole world to be
vegetarian. So expect some rancor.
Anyhow I am sure you get the point, the vision held by the greatest
number is the one that has the greatest chance of survival, but don't be
surprised if a backrunner comes forward and takes over, particularly if
YOU are the one who wants the forerunner.
THE MISSION STATEMENT
The mission statement is derived from your vision statement.
To make this clear, I am going to give a very specific example from
our own lives, Lightlink Internet.
When dealing with visions and vision statements you are dealing
with global ideals, desires and goals that you can share with anyone.
Vision statements are goals for the future state of mankind, final
ideal scenes of the form
"A better world through..."
When you start to move into specific mission statements, you are
dealing with your personal enjoyment, feelings, abilities and
involvement in those higher visions.
Mission statements are present time actions and short term goals
directed at the long term future vision.
Everyone can agree on 'peace on earth', but if you are soldier
rescuing the girl, you might find it hard relating to others about the
sweet sound of the breaking of a terrorist's neck. To you it is heaven,
to others, well...
Thus mission statements have to be made in such a way that they
reflect the higher visions from which they came so as to maintain,
affinity, agreement and communication with everyone else. You do want
them to buy your product, even if your monthly stat is 'number of
terrorist necks broken'.
Thus to understand Lightlink's mission statement, to some degree
you have to understand me personally.
HOMER WILSON SMITH
I like others wish for a better world.
I came from a highly regarded, almost famous, medical family, my
father was a leading researcher and teacher in the field of human
physiology. My mother was a nurse who worked at Oak Ridge during the
development of the atomic bomb.
Thus my childhood was full of chemistry, physics, electronics,
motors, explosives, geology, glow in the dark things, math, music and
orange juice, milk and corn flakes.
But alas I did not have an academic mind, not even a musical mind
although I can and do all of the above things with great trouble.
I had the mind of a philosopher, and my main interests were
religion, politics and markets.
I saw a world going to hell in atomic war in the 1st grade, Kennedy
and Kruschev were going at in the 5th grade, and Kennedy was killed in
the 6th.
I saw that Russia and America hated each other at the government
level, mostly born of insane paranoia and no communication.
But I had a Russian Nanny, and later after my parents died in 5th
grade, I had Jewish foster parents, and I saw that people were people.
It just wasn't true that the peasant on the farm in Russia was hateful
or fearful of an American capitalist, except maybe for the propaganda
that the government fed them about our tendency towards preemptive
nuclear strikes, born of WW II.
What I saw was a tremendous lack of FREE communication between the
people of the planet.
At the time, there was not much choice, we had radio, we had news
papers, the first black and white TV's, watched Felix the Cat, but not
even the President had a clue what was up in Russia, they were still
using AMBASSADORS to communicate between Kennedy and Kruschev.
That's nuts don't you see?
I went to Cornell in 1969 as a student in Electrical Engineering.
Now EE is an interesting subject because it spans theoretical physics at
one end, and hard core things like phones, radios, TV's and cell phones
at the other.
Of course EE can also be used to make bombs and guidance systems
for their delivery, but at the height of the Vietnam War in the early
70's I had little interest in that branch of the vision tree.
Too many being killed, too many insane at the helm on all sides,
too many making money off the insanity, and not enough free
communication of the truth.
TV started to change that, we saw not only the count of the dead,
but the dead themselves every night for dinner. This changed how people
thought of the war. It is a never ending disgrace that it took SEEING
war to change how people THOUGHT about war, but there it is.
Later in the 80's, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the revolt at
Tiananmen Square were directly influenced by FAX machines, because now
people could write up what they thought, and get it to many many people
all at once compared to how it had been before.
As more people were able to talk to more people on all sides of the
walls, the walls started to come down. Rather than pointing guns at
each other, they started to point advertisements at each other, to come
visit and have lunch on their side of the bridge (true story).
So an important law was learned, in the presence of communication,
affinity and agreement go up which results in market trade, which
results in peace and prosperity, and in the absence of communication,
affinity and agreement go down until a point of war is started.
Now communication is one part of the highest level of visions
written above, namely freedom to think and speak and congregate.
Prior to the 80's most communication was one way, namely the owners
of the newspapers, radios, TV's or their advertisers pushing their
pablum message to us.
Once people could start talking freely to EACH OTHER in mass
communication, then the world changed forever for the better.
POLITICS, MARKETS AND COMMUNICATION
So to understand me better, we need to go back to politics, markets
and communication.
A society is a collection of people engaged in survival, sow and
reap cycles, and the markets that arise from them. Thus we could say
that society IS the markets that are spawned by the people trying to
survive.
Those markets consist of religion, science, art and business.
Religion is creation, science is discovery, art is expression, and
business is trade, where the rubber meets the road so to speak, and
where the coin meets the table.
You could also throw government in there, which is the ultimate
manager of the markets and the governor of the mint.
Society is designed by the 'body politic' which are the members of
the designing committee. In a free society the body politic is
everyone.
A free society is the one that everyone wants to be in, unless they
do not desire any personal responsibility for how things turn out.
Usually if you look at the border between two countries the foot
steps will be going towards the freer of the two societies. A balance
of trade in footsteps means both societies are doing pretty well, unless
the footsteps are being dragged one way.
In order for the body politic to function and design their society,
people need to be able to communicate with each other in order to
express their ideal scenes, views, concerns, problems and solutions.
AND THEY MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO SO WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
For example in any group of people trying to form a society, many
will be capitalistic and others will be communistic. Sometimes the
arguments can get heated to a point of war.
Capitalists for example don't like being told that everything they
make must be put in a central lot to be given away to first in liners.
If you are brighter and more valuable to society than someone else,
produce more, consume less, you deserve to be rewarded by the natural
affluence of your production.
For example, say you are an native Indian in a forest, and you
discover how to make a boat out of chopping a big tree trunk into the
shape of a boat. No one else can do this as well as you, and soon a
line is forming bidding for your services, and you end up with a great
big pile of wampum as a result.
Then some big guys come around and tell you that you need to give
them your wampum so they can distribute it to the poor and not quite as
bright, and you have a duty to make your boats for free.
This makes you madder than hell, but there is some validity to it.
The community supports you as best it can, and you should support it the
best you can.
Further who owns the trees you are carving up into boats?
They belong to the community, so you are benefiting from community
assets in your process of getting rich.
The whole subject of ownership of natural resources and land has
probably given rise to more wars and arguments between capitalists and
communists than any other single subject.
So anyhow, there you all are, arguing this out, and it starts to
get violent. Some of the capitalists just sort of disappear in the
night, and some of the communists are found at the bottom of cliffs.
You see how this goes? It is a very serious problem to the body
politic of ANY planet and any social design group. Any time you start
talking about taking the production of he who is brighter or more able,
and giving to the others who are not so bright in the name of 'love for
the people', you have a problem.
So the first requirement for a communication line being used by the
body politic to discuss its agendas in safety, is anonymity. That means
no one knows who is saying what, if they don't want to be known. And no
one can trace them back to where and who they are to punish, silence or
moderate them or their loved ones.
Thus the FIRST and most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is anonymous untraceable communication to anyone else.
This is the right of PUBLIC CONGREGATION. Public congregation
doesn't just mean getting together in a crowd out on a street or in a
church where everyone is identifiable and easy to round up or attack.
More broadly public congregation means the ability to issue a public
communication and feel assured that everyone who wants to receive it can
and does in a timely fashion, ALL OVER THE PLANET.
Internet anonymity provides public congregation in a way that has
never been available before.
But then sometimes you and your cohorts want to be able to talk to
each other, without other hostile elements listening in. This is the
right of PRIVATE CONGREGATION.
Thus the SECOND most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is the right to encryption so only the chosen can understand the
communication even if others intercept it.
Public key encryption now provides people the ability to
communicate privately and securely to anyone they wish, in a way that
has never existed before.
This is the right to privacy, not just in your home, but in your
entire web of communication lines, that you extend to those you wish to
communicate with, and who wish to be communicated to.
Do you really want to give the government access to your e-mail?
Do you really want the vying parties for power to know who you are
going to vote for, before you vote for them?
Now often you find that people actually don't mind being known as
the author of some idea, in fact they WANT to be known. Soon they are
finding that hostile and anonymous forces are posting things in their
name and people are getting confused as to who is saying what.
Thus the THIRD most fundamental right to all people in a free
society is the right to irrefutably sign a document so anyone reading it
can verify for themselves who it came from.
To sum up, the three basic rights in a free society are anonymity,
encryption and non repudiation.
PROBLEMS WITH NON ANONYMITY AND ANONYMITY.
Now there are obvious problems on both sides of the anonymity coin.
If good people speak openly, non anonymously, then criminals can
hunt them down and hurt them and their loved ones. Try speaking out
against the Nazi's in France 1941, or in east Berlin 1970, or in Pol
Pot's Cambodia or Stalin's Russia. Even in America during the
revolution and afterwards, people chose to speak anonymously in order to
protect themselves against those who would silence them.
THE HISTORY OF MANKIND IS A STORY TOLD OF ONE SIDE OF THE BODY
POLITIC TRYING TO SILENCE AND DESTROY THE OTHER.
On the other hand if you provide anonymity to everyone, then the
criminals can talk among themselves safely to plot the downfall of the
free society.
The upside is that good people, if they find out about such
criminal conspiracies, can blow the whistle on the criminals in safety
using those same anonymous communication lines.
So you have two choices.
A world where there is no anonymity, where everyone can be tracked
and held accountable for what they say. Sounds good for keeping the
criminals under control, but bad for the good who know that criminals
can't be controlled anyhow, and which said criminals will eventually
become the controllers of the good if the good are not allowed to speak
and plan anonymously or privately.
Or you can have a world where everyone has anonymity, where
everyone can speak freely without fear of repercussion. Thus the
criminals can talk safely amongst themselves, but the good can blow the
whistle on them in safety when they can.
The world has been playing the game of body politic ever since we
crawled out of the ocean using the first method, track and kill.
Now we can play it using the second method.
MARKETS
But now we have the markets and boy do we have a problem.
The problem is that the communication lines that have been created
so the body politic can design the market system, ARE THE SAME LINES
USED BY THE MARKET SYSTEM TO CARRY OUT ITS OPERATIONS.
So now someone buys a CD, rips the mp3 onto his hard drive, and
sends it on to everyone he knows for free.
Markets don't like free communication, markets thrive on secrets,
trade secrets, competition secrets, plan secrets, and they thrive on the
inability of just anyone to make the product they are trying to sell.
Intellectual ownership has become the next war between the
capitalists who want to own, and the communists who think everyone owns
everything.
The whole subject of copyrights still has the body politic arguing
with each other, even AFTER the markets were designed and set in motion.
Copyrights were invented in the distant past to protect the
publisher, not the artist. Further, publishers were owned by the King
(who got his cut), and the publisher could only publish what the King
approved of.
At the time it was very hard to publish, so copyright violations by
the reading public were not the problem. The problem were rogue
publishers who may or may not have been loyal to the King.
As time went on, copyrights were considered a good thing for the
authors too, along with patents and the rest, with limitations on time
so that eventually works could belong to the general public, because
after all "everyone owns everything." Even capitalists have a sense of
the public good.
This has given rise to two major problems.
The first is the little kid with the mp3 ripper sending songs to
everyone else for free. Napster caused the biggest scare in the history
of man for the record industry, they thought it was OVER.
Napster was easy to shut down, but using anonymity and encryption,
music sharing continues to this day. The only limiting factor on it, is
people's general ignorance of how to do it, and fear of being caught
anyway. The music industry knows there is nothing they can do about it.
Thus in some sense, ideas of copyright and ownership become moot because
they can't be enforced.
Once a technological war starts on these things, it becomes never
ending. Someone invents an encryption scheme so CD's can't be ripped,
and someone cracks the scheme and posts it to the net anonymously.
The other problem is when various people started to patent things
that were not theirs to patent, such as the genes in your breast that
make you prone to breast cancer. Under some interpretations of the law,
if your breast has that gene, your BREAST belongs to the owner of the
patent. Silly? Think again.
MARKET EFFORTS TO LIMIT THE BODY POLITIC
Because the markets have a very hard time with free communication,
they try to put restraints it. For example by changing the nature of
computers so they can't talk anonymously. That is like putting a cop in
every bedroom to prevent child molestation.
These kind of solutions of watching over everyone to make sure they
don't break market rules, can then be used against them to make sure
they stay silent during political debate.
Market players ARE ALWAYS trying to sacrifice political freedoms of
communication to benefit the profits in the markets. This is either
very short sighted with a firm belief in a benign government, or it is
knowingly selfish or evil.
Thus the body politic wants everyone to have anonymity, strong
encryption, and non repudiation, while the markets want everyone
trackable, moderateable, and plausible deniability.
THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT.
Although we tend to think of politics and government in the same
breath, politics is actually above the government, politics comes first
and in fact creates the the government you get. Thus government
fundamentally has no right whatsoever to say word one about politics or
how it operates or what communication freedoms it needs to operate.
GOVERNMENT IS ON THE SIDE OF THE MARKETS, NOT THE BODY POLITIC, BY
DESIGN OF THE BODY POLITIC!
Once markets are created, we create a government to mange them, and
to enforce the rules of fair trade.
Fair trade means each party enters into the trade willingly and
fully informed.
If a criminal sticks a gun in your face and says give me all your
produce, you are no longer a willing participant in that transaction and
thus it is not a fair trade.
We could leave the problem of criminality to vigilante justice, but
long history has shown that matters of criminal justice need to be left
to objective professionals, who do it full time, and who have a sense of
the society that its members may not have.
This includes the court system, from the Supreme Court on down, the
cops that arrest criminals, and the lawyers that prosecute and defend
them in court. That is an amazing edifice to erect to replace a couple
of guys with a noose and a gun.
Thus besides governing the mint and the markets, one primary
purpose of the government is to enforce fair trade, USING FORCE WHERE
NECESSARY, in a way we don't want lesser market players doing on their
own.
In other words where a person can not defend themselves, we call on
the government to defend them for them.
Sometimes the government acts poorly, sometimes the government acts
criminally, sometimes the government acts like a tyranny, moved by
personal fancy, whim, greed and caprice, rather than a nation of law.
Sometimes we might feel that anarchy would be better than that
tyranny.
But eventually ANARCHY BECOMES A SEA OF MICRO TYRANNIES.
In the absence of government, people coalesce into thousands of
little groups, each controlled by the biggest, meanest, strongest, most
selfish guy, and thus you have a thousand little absolute tyrannies all
over again. Such groups quickly try to throw their self elected leaders
off as soon as they can, rebuild a democratic power structure again,
including professional police forces, judges, lawyers and armies!
So the war over land and natural resource property rights has now
moved to a war over intellectual property rights that is bad enough to
make both the capitalists and the communists hopping mad.
In the end, although the 3 fundamental communication rights of all
people in a free society, untrackable anonymity, unbreakable encryption,
and irrefutable signature, are controversial and have their collateral
damage IN THE MARKET ARENA, I believe they are necessary to the survival
of the POLITICAL ARENA and thus, in the end, to the very survival of
society itself.
Thus I formed the first part of my personal sub vision statement,
I envision a world where
EVERYONE IS FREE TO COMMUNICATE WITH WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE, ABOUT
ANYTHING WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
Yes that means little kiddies can trade nuclear secrets and naked
pictures of themselves in safety, but the military can use encryption to
make sure the kiddies don't get those secrets in the first place.
I also believe it is wrong for the government and its markets to
wish backdoors on encryption to make sure that its people haven't become
overloaded with criminals, but I do believe it is right for the people,
as the body politic, to wish back door's on the government's encryption
to make sure the government hasn't become overloaded with criminals.
Now there are many many ways to improve the communication abilities
among the people of the planet, from newspapers, radio, TV, faxes all
the way to the internet.
But me personally, I could never understand or get into any of
them, except for the internet which became a natural for me.
The two way nature of the internet made it deliciously subversive,
and it allowed everyone to be come a publisher overnight without
permission of the King or his assigns, and it allowed everyone to speak
freely and anonymously to everyone on the planet, and secretly to
whomever they wished.
For me it was a no brainer that this was the way *I* should go
towards 'making a better world through free communication.'
This is where MY abilities locked onto, I felt "I can do that" and
I can do it better than the other guy, so I had better get a crackin'.
Thus from my vision statement I then formed my mission statement.
Vision statement: A better world through free communication.
Mission statement: To deliver dependable but affordable internet
access to those who are under served.
So you see we have moved from a vision of how I would like the
world to be, to a specific mission of what to do about it.
Now lower down the Vision tree, even below the mission statement,
we get into explicit orders on what exactly to do in order to deploy
that 'dependable but affordable' product. That then becomes all the
technogobble about modems, T1's, wireless, DSL, web hosting, e-mail and
usenet news.
Without the mission statement it is easy to lose my way towards
fulfilling my top level vision statement of a better world through free
and open communication.
The energy to do what I am doing when I am nailing another wire to
a wall, or helping another person online, comes down from the top of the
tree.
"Why exactly am I talking to this idiot on the other end of my
phone line? Oh yeah, a world of free and open communication between all
people in it."
That's why you need a vision statement, and you need a mission
statement, because the two of them give you your marching orders. AND
THE ENERGY AND WILL DO TO THEM.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@Lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.Lightlink.com
Fri Mar 5 20:01:30 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Aug 5 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore731.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFVwjRqURT1lqxE3HERAn01AKDMhThvj1Xpu7/M/vme/tODMWz3UwCfatb5
acNVFn+P59AHMbGyztqcgtk=
=9Dwa
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Aug 7 16:37:20 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore731.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)
iD8DBQFVxRcAURT1lqxE3HERAu/KAKCWADo7WrzEnsxfD3GK16q4oL+43QCgiv8A
sve7qfnCbbJ414bh/VE3e7g=
=Qxqt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE BASIC PURPOSE RUNDOWN
The following posting was originally written for a business class,
but it turns out that vision and mission apply across all the dynamics,
to every goal or purpose your preclear has ever had or ever will have.
Every goal consists of vision, what you want to accomplish, and
mission, how to get there.
At a lower level we are trying to rehabilitate your preclear's
ability to know his own goals and go after them.
At a higher level we are trying to find the preclear's top oppterm
on his present time personal GPM, which poisons his entire relationship
with the 8 dyanmics and the universe at large.
A GPM or Goals Problem Mass is what is left over after a thetan has
lost every possible fork of a major multi lifetime game he was playing,
even after he switched sides and lost there too.
The top oppterm (opposition terminal) is the most recent present
time opposing terminal to what the preclear is seeking, it is here that
all the super overts, forevers and nevers, murders and hells, are
created and wished off on the oppterm, only to kick back on the preclear
when he regrets it or is overwhelemed by raw force.
The bank is made of a series of layers of disaster going back into
antiquity, containing force and violence of a kind that most people
can't stomach which is in part why it is 'nothing there' for them.
GPMS are serious game playing at its best.
Any series of goals that a preclear has had, have provided a ladder
of failure at that goal followed by substitution with another sub goal,
both within the main goal, and then finally down to later and other main
goals which form new GPMS of their own, all of which we call
substitutes.
Thus we have a chain of GPMS, each of which of is made of a chain
of sub goals, all leading ultimately down the drain of the kitchen sink.
Taking the old GPM example of the temple priest who is opposed to
the temple virgins, he will engage in many different shades of the goal
to be a temple priest, and then finally give up and become a temple
virgin.
There again he will engage in a long sashay down the various game
roles available to a temple virgin, until finally he drops that GPM
entirely and becomes an anarchist opposing a tyrant which is an entirely
new and different GPM.
The more new and different a GPM he falls into, the better off he
will be at the start of it, because he isn't involving any of the
baggage he accumulated from the first one. Until he gets into the
murder and deceit again :)
In the middle of any GPM he is thinking, "I wish to drown in the
blood of my enemies".
A little later he is thinking "The only true satisfaction in life
is sweet revenge."
Near the bottom of any GPM he is thinking "The purpose of life
is kamikaze."
At the bottom he is thinking "Life sucks Rocks, and then you die."
Over the course of a GPM across many lifetimes, he goes from
killing as his basic thrust to being killed.
Thus he is practically DYING out of the old GPM, and getting a new
life in the new one, so he won't remember the old one at all. This is
in part why we do not remember our past lives, we refuse to span who and
what we were and hated during those lives. Those memories are there
though to be spanned with some daring and imagination and willingness to
admit you failed miserably and took a lot of good people with you, and a
lot of bad people who finally took you with them.
Don't worry, be happy, every one else was doing the same.
It is very easy to assess for how many levels of substitutes down
he is within his present time goal. The pristine beginning level is
level 0. The first substitute is level 1 etc,
The number found will not be huge, probably less than 200, and on
easy cases more like less than 20.
Once the preclear has a clear idea of HOW MANY substitutes he is
sitting in, he will be in a better position to correctly assess his
feelings and reactions to getting up in the morning, and better able to
see his way towards making correct indictions that bring him up tone
rather than down tone.
Usually when he gets up in the morning, he is still tring to fight
his (losing) battle with his present time substitute position within the
over all goal. Once he knows this, he can chill out on winning at the
substitute, and eventually the earlier beginnings to this goal will come
back to him with some shock.
He has copped out, and forgotten that he did so, and lost track of
how far south he has gone and how lost he has become on his original
desires.
SASHAYS (VISION) and FORAYS (MISSION)
Remember each goal has a number of levels of sashays (substitute
goal variations), and each sashay has many different forays, attempts to
win the fight.
When your preclear gives up on forays at a particular goal
variation, he will sashay down to the next one, and start over again
trying to win that position instead.
The forays contain high action, force, mis communications, problems
both internal to himself and external, hideous super overts, withholds,
breaking of his own affinity, reality and communication, and
computations to the effect that the oppterm of that particular sashay
should be wiped out forever regardless of personal or collateral costs.
Many forays over time eventually build up regret, ORS
(indecisions), ANDS (decisions to do BOTH), and eventually desperate
lunacy before taking relief in the next sashay down.
Thus for each over arching goal, there will be a number of
different sashays carried out through a declining history of many
forays.
The rundown goes something like this.
Each goal consists of numerous sashays, each sashay contains a
vision of accomplishment.
The vision statement is where we want to go, what future state we
want to be in.
Each vision leads to many forays or missions.
The mission statement is how to get there.
Vision statement: A better world through communication.
Mission statement: Provide everyone with internet.
1.) Assess for how many levels of substitute the preclear is from
his present time main goal. It is NOT necessary to know what the goal
is, and DO NOT list for it.
Try to clarify if this number is levels of substitute GOALS down
from some earlier possibly first ever goal, in which case you are taking
about a very very long period of time, or simply the number of
substitutes he has fallen down in this life time goal while still
remaining in the goal structure as a whole.
This last is what you want, but take what you get.
Do not confuse him with the above complexities, but you as an
auditor should have a good grasp on the possibilities and have some idea
of the nature of the answer you finally agree upon with the preclear.
The answer should read well on the meter and produce VGI's or Very Good
Indicators, preclear smiling, laughing, and VERY interested in running
the materail coming up to him.
You will find his present time goal is a 'reliable item' in that if
you check it again periodically it will release and read again and
again, although the read may dry up until some auditing takes place
between checking it.
2.) Find the various visions that are involved with his present
time goals, whether subsitutes or not.
"Tell me a vision you might like to bring about in the future."
DO NOT USE REMEMBER, or any form of what question.
If he can't answer the above command, run something softer like
"Get the idea of wanting to bring something about in the future."
As his vision statements get closer to the core, they will become
easier to mockup for a short while in full 3D surround sound visio. If
he is still getting flat pictures in front of his face, he is still not
there.
3.) For each vision he gives you ask him
"Tell me how you might get there."
or if that is too rought, no answer etcs,
"Get the idea of getting there."
You want DOINGs, action.
Passive answers are fine, but if no active answers, watch out.
Make sure you allow him to answer, and keep answering until no more
come up. The go back to 2.
Allow him to tell you the woe that happened, mis communications,
problems, overts, withholds, computations, regrets, indecisions and
ANDS.
Run to major insight. This will produce spectacular relief.
The pain, depression, tension, suicidal and homocidal ideations,
comes from ANDS.
Wanting something *AND* not wanting it at the same time FOREVER.
BE AND NOT BE
DO AND NOT DO
HAVE AND NOT HAVE
WANT AND NOT WANT
KNOW AND NOT KNOW
etc, etc, etc.
Every item in existence can form an AND.
Expect any and all of them.
These happen at the end of long strings of failed missions.
Every time an AND comes off, the needle will stop and drop, and
loosen up and the TA should come down a bit for a while, and the body
will go through spasms of shooting and slowlymoving pain like lava
flowing back to source, ending in lasting relief, humor and tears. The
tears may take a bit, but he will be bawling from laughter and sorrow in
a while.
You know, glad to have been in hell for a while.
If you want, have your preclear star rate the following posting to
make sure he gets what its all about.
Make sure you do or you won't know what you are handling when
he brings it up.
Homer
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------
VISION AND MISSION
Every business must have strong vision and mission statements in
order to survive.
Without these no one knows in the general sense what they are
producing or why. Life and work are more than the immediate widget in
front of your nose.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VISION AND MISSION?
Take the example of the young man who decides to become a Green
Beret.
One day he is sent on a mission to recover a kidnapped girl and her
scientist father and to kill the terrorists who are intending to use the
father's secret formula to destroy the world.
When that mission is over, he is then sent on another mission, and
another and another. These missions can be and usually are very
different.
Did he join the military because he wanted to save that particular
girl and father, no of course not, he didn't even know about them.
So why did he join the military?
Well that was part of his vision, perhaps 'To make the world safe
for democracy.'
GENERAL VISIONS AND SUB VISIONS
"To make the world safe for democracy' would be a specific sub
vision, above that would be a more general vision, something like 'the
world at peace no longer living in terror.'
And above that would be the most general vision of all, long term
survival or the greatest good for the greatest number, which is common
to everyone who is sane.
By survival we do not mean mere survival or hand to mouth
subsistence, for that is not survival and those living on the edge that
way do not survive for long.
Things can never stay the same, so a person is either expanding in
their affluence of survival or contracting. Contraction is not long
term survival either, so by survival we mean expanding long term
affluence for self and for others. Affluence of survival is necessary
to provide margin of safety during downturns, but what is sufficient and
comfortable affluence will depend on the being involved and the size of
his goals and his commitments to life and those that depend on him.
Thus to survive means to prosper and flourish relative to the needs
of the being.
THE VISION -> MISSION TREE
Missions are derived from visions and the various existing
situations that one finds in present time.
A 'situation' is the furthest deviation from an ideal scene.
An ideal scene is how you would like the world to be.
Thus visions trickle down into sub visions which give rise to
overall missions which finally give rise to micro missions, specific
orders to DO something right now to get something done.
This trickle down forms an inverted tree with SURVIVE at the top,
and the myriad ways we could all be surviving better form the branches
leading down from the top, and the missions that arise out of these main
branches then are the little branches and leaves at the bottom of the
tree.
For example even for the soldier, there are many ways to 'bring
peace and prosperity to a world without terror' that have nothing to do
with joining the military. In fact all these other ways to accomplish
this vision are necessary to the final outcome and none of them are
sufficient alone.
Thus it may be true that 'having a strong military' is a necessary
goal to bringing peace to the world, but so is 'having enough to eat for
everyone'. But the soldier doesn't know anything about growing food, so
that's not up his alley. But he knows a lot about having a strong
military, and he ENJOYS being part of making it so, so he chooses that
branch of the vision-mission tree to guide his life.
So the geneticist who is trying to make golden rice with vitamin A
in it and the solider who is trying to knock off the terrorists, are
BOTH working for the exact same vision 'a world of peace, prosperity and
without terror' but through completely different ways.
VISIONS OF THE WORLD
Vision statements right below that absolute top level are of the
form
"A BETTER WORLD THROUGH..."
Everyone walking around has an idea of their ideal scene, of what
they would like the world to be.
If you were to get people to write down every single thing they
could think of for a better world and compare them all, you would find
almost 100 percent agreement with some exceptions.
More interesting if Joe wrote one thing, and Sue another, both
would agree with the other's goals too, and quickly add them into their
own list.
Let's take some concrete examples.
Almost everyone would agree that 'A world without war, criminality
or insanity' would be a good thing. That happens to be the vision
statement of a Church I know. Notice it is a sub vision, one of the
main branches coming down from survive or greatest long term good for
the greatest number.
A world without hunger would probably be the another one.
A world without disease, or barring that with affordable medical
care for all would be another.
A world where everyone was educated, 'no child left behind' is in
fact a vision statement of one such group working towards this end.
A world where there was social justice, that includes no religious,
racial or ethnic bigotry or racism, and equal opportunity for all to
take advantage of, according to their God given abilities.
Social justice includes human rights for both adults and children
and even for animals.
Then there are the subjects of politics and markets. Politics is
the process by which people design a society, and in particular the
markets of that society, as without sow and reap, buy and sell, there is
no society. As we shall see the needs of politics are sometimes opposed
to and outweigh the desires of markets, so we need to be very careful
not to sacrifice the needs of politics to the desires of markets, lest
the social planners end up in a police state run by market criminals.
Then there are basic freedoms, freedom to think and speak, freedom
to congregate, freedom to privacy, freedom to practice religion, freedom
to vote, and freedom to bear and carry arms in case some wise acre
thinks he is going to get rid of the first 5.
So there are a lot of situations in the world today that need a lot
of hard work.
Let's summarize the various highest level visions that a person
might have, and you should take the time now to add any of your own that
might have been left out and if you have a chance see if you can get
agreement on them from others.
Vision statement:
"A better world through..."
1.) No WAR
2.) No CRIMINALITY
3.) No INSANITY
4.) FOOD AND SHELTER
5.) PHYSICAL HEALTH
6.) MENTAL HEALTH
7.) EDUCATION
7.) SOCIAL JUSTICE FOR ADULTS, CHILDREN AND ANIMALS
8.) FREEDOM TO THINK SPEAK AND CONGREGATE
9.) FREEDOM TO PRIVACY
10.) FREEDOM TO PRACTICE RELIGION
11.) FREEDOM TO VOTE
12.) FREEDOM TO SELF DEFENSE
13.) FREEDOM TO ENGAGE IN POLITICS AND MARKETS"
DISAGREEMENTS
You will find as you walk this planet that there will be people,
sometimes lots of people, that will strongly disagree with your estimate
of what a better world might look like.
For example vast areas of the globe believe that the freedoms to
engage in capitalism (a market) is not showing 'love of the people', and
they will fight you to the death to get rid of you.
CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM
Although capitalism is often associated with democracy, and
communism is associated with tyranny, we need to keep the two separated
in our minds in order to understand business.
Democracy and Tyranny are two forms of GOVERNMENT, along with
Monarchies, Oligarchies, Kingships, and other forms of rule.
Capitalism, socialism, and communism are forms of MARKETS, how we
consume, produce, buy and sell.
It is quite possible for a communism to be a democracy, and a
capitalism to be a tyranny.
For example in a true democracy a person is welcome to vote for the
communist party, as long as the communist sticks to market issues, and
doesn't try to undermine the DEMOCRACY OF VOTING otherwise he is a
tyrant commie rather than a democratic one.
You see?
OK, so what is the basic difference between a capitalism and a
communism?. This is important, because if you are going to start a
business of your own, you are being a capitalist for the duration of
that business.
The basic difference lies in the following questions.
1.) What are you going to produce?
2.) Who are you going to sell it to?
3.) How much are you going to charge for it.
4.) WHO is going to produce it?
5.) WHO gets to own the rights of control over the profits?
In a capitalism you make those decisions.
In a communism someone else makes those decisions for you, a
centrally planned committee that oversees all production, and sale of
products.
A communism believes that a very few, very bright minds, can
determine all the GLOBAL actions of a market as defined in those three
questions above.
A capitalism believes that no single mind can handle the global
equations, and thus the problem must be distributed to each and every
local entrepreneur to make those decisions for himself.
In an ideal communism, all property belongs to the state, which
then becomes the Grand Business of the country, and everyone else is an
employee of the state.
Everyone is paid according to their need, and everyone is expected
to produce as much as they can. 'From each according to his ability,
and to each according to his need.'
Since your need is about 3000 calories a day, that's what you get,
and you work all day long for love of the people.
The downside is you don't own anything that is truly yours, and the
upside is you get your 3000 calories whether or not you produce
anything. That means you can fail and continue on, because you are
protected from Darwinian selection by the Committee. You get paid for
trying, not succeeding. Of course if you don't try, they will take you
out back and shoot you.
In a capitalism you get to keep what you own as yours.
By OWNERSHIP we mean the rights to control.
Thus you take out a loan, you invent toilet paper, you sell to
millions of people at a penny a roll, you pay back your loan, and you
get to keep the rest as YOURS.
That's the upside.
The downside is, if people don't like your toilet paper because it
sticks to their butt, you don't sell any, the bank forecloses on your
means of production and you are left with nothing.
There is no one to take you out back to end your misery, except
Darwinian starvation.
This by the way is one reason why we have politics, no one wants to
support a welfare state, but everyone wants a safety net, so you find
that the optimum market is actually a mixture of of capitalism,
socialism and communism, although few will agree to that.
Politics is where people argue it out.
DISAGREEMENTS AGAIN.
OK, so let's get back to disagreements with your vision of an ideal
scene again.
WAR. Some people think that war is good for the planet, it prunes
the population, it makes people work under dire necessity to find better
ways of doing things, knowledge about how the physical universe works
increases exponentially etc. Most of the computer technology you use
today came out of World War II, as did the interest in radar and
encryption. Although we use encryption for commercial transactions, it
was actually developed by people concerned for national security. And
even when things are invented in the civilian arena, the military gets
interested in it very fast and pours millions of dollars into it. If
you think Intel and the Military have no interest in each other you
should think again.
In fact one can argue that if the planet were so wealthy that
everyone could just eat and sit around all day long, people would become
like the Eloi in 'The Time Machine', friendly, peaceable, but totally
unable to defend themselves. Thus they become easy targets for those
that would enslave or eat them as the case may be.
Thus you will find people who don't actually want a world without
war, they want a world with OPTIMUM WAR, just enough to keep us all on
our toes and letting necessity be the mother of invention, but not
enough to destroy the place. Besides how is an honest arms dealer going
to turn a profit if there is no war?
SOCIAL JUSTICE. It would be hard to imagine anyone against social
justice, but when you get into justice for animals, which they sorely
need, you will run into people who want the whole world to be
vegetarian. So expect some rancor.
Anyhow I am sure you get the point, the vision held by the greatest
number is the one that has the greatest chance of survival, but don't be
surprised if a backrunner comes forward and takes over, particularly if
YOU are the one who wants the forerunner.
THE MISSION STATEMENT
The mission statement is derived from your vision statement.
To make this clear, I am going to give a very specific example from
our own lives, Lightlink Internet.
When dealing with visions and vision statements you are dealing
with global ideals, desires and goals that you can share with anyone.
Vision statements are goals for the future state of mankind, final
ideal scenes of the form
"A better world through..."
When you start to move into specific mission statements, you are
dealing with your personal enjoyment, feelings, abilities and
involvement in those higher visions.
Mission statements are present time actions and short term goals
directed at the long term future vision.
Everyone can agree on 'peace on earth', but if you are soldier
rescuing the girl, you might find it hard relating to others about the
sweet sound of the breaking of a terrorist's neck. To you it is heaven,
to others, well...
Thus mission statements have to be made in such a way that they
reflect the higher visions from which they came so as to maintain,
affinity, agreement and communication with everyone else. You do want
them to buy your product, even if your monthly stat is 'number of
terrorist necks broken'.
Thus to understand Lightlink's mission statement, to some degree
you have to understand me personally.
HOMER WILSON SMITH
I like others wish for a better world.
I came from a highly regarded, almost famous, medical family, my
father was a leading researcher and teacher in the field of human
physiology. My mother was a nurse who worked at Oak Ridge during the
development of the atomic bomb.
Thus my childhood was full of chemistry, physics, electronics,
motors, explosives, geology, glow in the dark things, math, music and
orange juice, milk and corn flakes.
But alas I did not have an academic mind, not even a musical mind
although I can and do all of the above things with great trouble.
I had the mind of a philosopher, and my main interests were
religion, politics and markets.
I saw a world going to hell in atomic war in the 1st grade, Kennedy
and Kruschev were going at in the 5th grade, and Kennedy was killed in
the 6th.
I saw that Russia and America hated each other at the government
level, mostly born of insane paranoia and no communication.
But I had a Russian Nanny, and later after my parents died in 5th
grade, I had Jewish foster parents, and I saw that people were people.
It just wasn't true that the peasant on the farm in Russia was hateful
or fearful of an American capitalist, except maybe for the propaganda
that the government fed them about our tendency towards preemptive
nuclear strikes, born of WW II.
What I saw was a tremendous lack of FREE communication between the
people of the planet.
At the time, there was not much choice, we had radio, we had news
papers, the first black and white TV's, watched Felix the Cat, but not
even the President had a clue what was up in Russia, they were still
using AMBASSADORS to communicate between Kennedy and Kruschev.
That's nuts don't you see?
I went to Cornell in 1969 as a student in Electrical Engineering.
Now EE is an interesting subject because it spans theoretical physics at
one end, and hard core things like phones, radios, TV's and cell phones
at the other.
Of course EE can also be used to make bombs and guidance systems
for their delivery, but at the height of the Vietnam War in the early
70's I had little interest in that branch of the vision tree.
Too many being killed, too many insane at the helm on all sides,
too many making money off the insanity, and not enough free
communication of the truth.
TV started to change that, we saw not only the count of the dead,
but the dead themselves every night for dinner. This changed how people
thought of the war. It is a never ending disgrace that it took SEEING
war to change how people THOUGHT about war, but there it is.
Later in the 80's, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the revolt at
Tiananmen Square were directly influenced by FAX machines, because now
people could write up what they thought, and get it to many many people
all at once compared to how it had been before.
As more people were able to talk to more people on all sides of the
walls, the walls started to come down. Rather than pointing guns at
each other, they started to point advertisements at each other, to come
visit and have lunch on their side of the bridge (true story).
So an important law was learned, in the presence of communication,
affinity and agreement go up which results in market trade, which
results in peace and prosperity, and in the absence of communication,
affinity and agreement go down until a point of war is started.
Now communication is one part of the highest level of visions
written above, namely freedom to think and speak and congregate.
Prior to the 80's most communication was one way, namely the owners
of the newspapers, radios, TV's or their advertisers pushing their
pablum message to us.
Once people could start talking freely to EACH OTHER in mass
communication, then the world changed forever for the better.
POLITICS, MARKETS AND COMMUNICATION
So to understand me better, we need to go back to politics, markets
and communication.
A society is a collection of people engaged in survival, sow and
reap cycles, and the markets that arise from them. Thus we could say
that society IS the markets that are spawned by the people trying to
survive.
Those markets consist of religion, science, art and business.
Religion is creation, science is discovery, art is expression, and
business is trade, where the rubber meets the road so to speak, and
where the coin meets the table.
You could also throw government in there, which is the ultimate
manager of the markets and the governor of the mint.
Society is designed by the 'body politic' which are the members of
the designing committee. In a free society the body politic is
everyone.
A free society is the one that everyone wants to be in, unless they
do not desire any personal responsibility for how things turn out.
Usually if you look at the border between two countries the foot
steps will be going towards the freer of the two societies. A balance
of trade in footsteps means both societies are doing pretty well, unless
the footsteps are being dragged one way.
In order for the body politic to function and design their society,
people need to be able to communicate with each other in order to
express their ideal scenes, views, concerns, problems and solutions.
AND THEY MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO SO WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
For example in any group of people trying to form a society, many
will be capitalistic and others will be communistic. Sometimes the
arguments can get heated to a point of war.
Capitalists for example don't like being told that everything they
make must be put in a central lot to be given away to first in liners.
If you are brighter and more valuable to society than someone else,
produce more, consume less, you deserve to be rewarded by the natural
affluence of your production.
For example, say you are an native Indian in a forest, and you
discover how to make a boat out of chopping a big tree trunk into the
shape of a boat. No one else can do this as well as you, and soon a
line is forming bidding for your services, and you end up with a great
big pile of wampum as a result.
Then some big guys come around and tell you that you need to give
them your wampum so they can distribute it to the poor and not quite as
bright, and you have a duty to make your boats for free.
This makes you madder than hell, but there is some validity to it.
The community supports you as best it can, and you should support it the
best you can.
Further who owns the trees you are carving up into boats?
They belong to the community, so you are benefiting from community
assets in your process of getting rich.
The whole subject of ownership of natural resources and land has
probably given rise to more wars and arguments between capitalists and
communists than any other single subject.
So anyhow, there you all are, arguing this out, and it starts to
get violent. Some of the capitalists just sort of disappear in the
night, and some of the communists are found at the bottom of cliffs.
You see how this goes? It is a very serious problem to the body
politic of ANY planet and any social design group. Any time you start
talking about taking the production of he who is brighter or more able,
and giving to the others who are not so bright in the name of 'love for
the people', you have a problem.
So the first requirement for a communication line being used by the
body politic to discuss its agendas in safety, is anonymity. That means
no one knows who is saying what, if they don't want to be known. And no
one can trace them back to where and who they are to punish, silence or
moderate them or their loved ones.
Thus the FIRST and most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is anonymous untraceable communication to anyone else.
This is the right of PUBLIC CONGREGATION. Public congregation
doesn't just mean getting together in a crowd out on a street or in a
church where everyone is identifiable and easy to round up or attack.
More broadly public congregation means the ability to issue a public
communication and feel assured that everyone who wants to receive it can
and does in a timely fashion, ALL OVER THE PLANET.
Internet anonymity provides public congregation in a way that has
never been available before.
But then sometimes you and your cohorts want to be able to talk to
each other, without other hostile elements listening in. This is the
right of PRIVATE CONGREGATION.
Thus the SECOND most fundamental right of all people in a free
society is the right to encryption so only the chosen can understand the
communication even if others intercept it.
Public key encryption now provides people the ability to
communicate privately and securely to anyone they wish, in a way that
has never existed before.
This is the right to privacy, not just in your home, but in your
entire web of communication lines, that you extend to those you wish to
communicate with, and who wish to be communicated to.
Do you really want to give the government access to your e-mail?
Do you really want the vying parties for power to know who you are
going to vote for, before you vote for them?
Now often you find that people actually don't mind being known as
the author of some idea, in fact they WANT to be known. Soon they are
finding that hostile and anonymous forces are posting things in their
name and people are getting confused as to who is saying what.
Thus the THIRD most fundamental right to all people in a free
society is the right to irrefutably sign a document so anyone reading it
can verify for themselves who it came from.
To sum up, the three basic rights in a free society are anonymity,
encryption and non repudiation.
PROBLEMS WITH NON ANONYMITY AND ANONYMITY.
Now there are obvious problems on both sides of the anonymity coin.
If good people speak openly, non anonymously, then criminals can
hunt them down and hurt them and their loved ones. Try speaking out
against the Nazi's in France 1941, or in east Berlin 1970, or in Pol
Pot's Cambodia or Stalin's Russia. Even in America during the
revolution and afterwards, people chose to speak anonymously in order to
protect themselves against those who would silence them.
THE HISTORY OF MANKIND IS A STORY TOLD OF ONE SIDE OF THE BODY
POLITIC TRYING TO SILENCE AND DESTROY THE OTHER.
On the other hand if you provide anonymity to everyone, then the
criminals can talk among themselves safely to plot the downfall of the
free society.
The upside is that good people, if they find out about such
criminal conspiracies, can blow the whistle on the criminals in safety
using those same anonymous communication lines.
So you have two choices.
A world where there is no anonymity, where everyone can be tracked
and held accountable for what they say. Sounds good for keeping the
criminals under control, but bad for the good who know that criminals
can't be controlled anyhow, and which said criminals will eventually
become the controllers of the good if the good are not allowed to speak
and plan anonymously or privately.
Or you can have a world where everyone has anonymity, where
everyone can speak freely without fear of repercussion. Thus the
criminals can talk safely amongst themselves, but the good can blow the
whistle on them in safety when they can.
The world has been playing the game of body politic ever since we
crawled out of the ocean using the first method, track and kill.
Now we can play it using the second method.
MARKETS
But now we have the markets and boy do we have a problem.
The problem is that the communication lines that have been created
so the body politic can design the market system, ARE THE SAME LINES
USED BY THE MARKET SYSTEM TO CARRY OUT ITS OPERATIONS.
So now someone buys a CD, rips the mp3 onto his hard drive, and
sends it on to everyone he knows for free.
Markets don't like free communication, markets thrive on secrets,
trade secrets, competition secrets, plan secrets, and they thrive on the
inability of just anyone to make the product they are trying to sell.
Intellectual ownership has become the next war between the
capitalists who want to own, and the communists who think everyone owns
everything.
The whole subject of copyrights still has the body politic arguing
with each other, even AFTER the markets were designed and set in motion.
Copyrights were invented in the distant past to protect the
publisher, not the artist. Further, publishers were owned by the King
(who got his cut), and the publisher could only publish what the King
approved of.
At the time it was very hard to publish, so copyright violations by
the reading public were not the problem. The problem were rogue
publishers who may or may not have been loyal to the King.
As time went on, copyrights were considered a good thing for the
authors too, along with patents and the rest, with limitations on time
so that eventually works could belong to the general public, because
after all "everyone owns everything." Even capitalists have a sense of
the public good.
This has given rise to two major problems.
The first is the little kid with the mp3 ripper sending songs to
everyone else for free. Napster caused the biggest scare in the history
of man for the record industry, they thought it was OVER.
Napster was easy to shut down, but using anonymity and encryption,
music sharing continues to this day. The only limiting factor on it, is
people's general ignorance of how to do it, and fear of being caught
anyway. The music industry knows there is nothing they can do about it.
Thus in some sense, ideas of copyright and ownership become moot because
they can't be enforced.
Once a technological war starts on these things, it becomes never
ending. Someone invents an encryption scheme so CD's can't be ripped,
and someone cracks the scheme and posts it to the net anonymously.
The other problem is when various people started to patent things
that were not theirs to patent, such as the genes in your breast that
make you prone to breast cancer. Under some interpretations of the law,
if your breast has that gene, your BREAST belongs to the owner of the
patent. Silly? Think again.
MARKET EFFORTS TO LIMIT THE BODY POLITIC
Because the markets have a very hard time with free communication,
they try to put restraints it. For example by changing the nature of
computers so they can't talk anonymously. That is like putting a cop in
every bedroom to prevent child molestation.
These kind of solutions of watching over everyone to make sure they
don't break market rules, can then be used against them to make sure
they stay silent during political debate.
Market players ARE ALWAYS trying to sacrifice political freedoms of
communication to benefit the profits in the markets. This is either
very short sighted with a firm belief in a benign government, or it is
knowingly selfish or evil.
Thus the body politic wants everyone to have anonymity, strong
encryption, and non repudiation, while the markets want everyone
trackable, moderateable, and plausible deniability.
THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT.
Although we tend to think of politics and government in the same
breath, politics is actually above the government, politics comes first
and in fact creates the the government you get. Thus government
fundamentally has no right whatsoever to say word one about politics or
how it operates or what communication freedoms it needs to operate.
GOVERNMENT IS ON THE SIDE OF THE MARKETS, NOT THE BODY POLITIC, BY
DESIGN OF THE BODY POLITIC!
Once markets are created, we create a government to mange them, and
to enforce the rules of fair trade.
Fair trade means each party enters into the trade willingly and
fully informed.
If a criminal sticks a gun in your face and says give me all your
produce, you are no longer a willing participant in that transaction and
thus it is not a fair trade.
We could leave the problem of criminality to vigilante justice, but
long history has shown that matters of criminal justice need to be left
to objective professionals, who do it full time, and who have a sense of
the society that its members may not have.
This includes the court system, from the Supreme Court on down, the
cops that arrest criminals, and the lawyers that prosecute and defend
them in court. That is an amazing edifice to erect to replace a couple
of guys with a noose and a gun.
Thus besides governing the mint and the markets, one primary
purpose of the government is to enforce fair trade, USING FORCE WHERE
NECESSARY, in a way we don't want lesser market players doing on their
own.
In other words where a person can not defend themselves, we call on
the government to defend them for them.
Sometimes the government acts poorly, sometimes the government acts
criminally, sometimes the government acts like a tyranny, moved by
personal fancy, whim, greed and caprice, rather than a nation of law.
Sometimes we might feel that anarchy would be better than that
tyranny.
But eventually ANARCHY BECOMES A SEA OF MICRO TYRANNIES.
In the absence of government, people coalesce into thousands of
little groups, each controlled by the biggest, meanest, strongest, most
selfish guy, and thus you have a thousand little absolute tyrannies all
over again. Such groups quickly try to throw their self elected leaders
off as soon as they can, rebuild a democratic power structure again,
including professional police forces, judges, lawyers and armies!
So the war over land and natural resource property rights has now
moved to a war over intellectual property rights that is bad enough to
make both the capitalists and the communists hopping mad.
In the end, although the 3 fundamental communication rights of all
people in a free society, untrackable anonymity, unbreakable encryption,
and irrefutable signature, are controversial and have their collateral
damage IN THE MARKET ARENA, I believe they are necessary to the survival
of the POLITICAL ARENA and thus, in the end, to the very survival of
society itself.
Thus I formed the first part of my personal sub vision statement,
I envision a world where
EVERYONE IS FREE TO COMMUNICATE WITH WHOMEVER THEY CHOOSE, ABOUT
ANYTHING WITHOUT FEAR OF REPERCUSSION.
Yes that means little kiddies can trade nuclear secrets and naked
pictures of themselves in safety, but the military can use encryption to
make sure the kiddies don't get those secrets in the first place.
I also believe it is wrong for the government and its markets to
wish backdoors on encryption to make sure that its people haven't become
overloaded with criminals, but I do believe it is right for the people,
as the body politic, to wish back door's on the government's encryption
to make sure the government hasn't become overloaded with criminals.
Now there are many many ways to improve the communication abilities
among the people of the planet, from newspapers, radio, TV, faxes all
the way to the internet.
But me personally, I could never understand or get into any of
them, except for the internet which became a natural for me.
The two way nature of the internet made it deliciously subversive,
and it allowed everyone to be come a publisher overnight without
permission of the King or his assigns, and it allowed everyone to speak
freely and anonymously to everyone on the planet, and secretly to
whomever they wished.
For me it was a no brainer that this was the way *I* should go
towards 'making a better world through free communication.'
This is where MY abilities locked onto, I felt "I can do that" and
I can do it better than the other guy, so I had better get a crackin'.
Thus from my vision statement I then formed my mission statement.
Vision statement: A better world through free communication.
Mission statement: To deliver dependable but affordable internet
access to those who are under served.
So you see we have moved from a vision of how I would like the
world to be, to a specific mission of what to do about it.
Now lower down the Vision tree, even below the mission statement,
we get into explicit orders on what exactly to do in order to deploy
that 'dependable but affordable' product. That then becomes all the
technogobble about modems, T1's, wireless, DSL, web hosting, e-mail and
usenet news.
Without the mission statement it is easy to lose my way towards
fulfilling my top level vision statement of a better world through free
and open communication.
The energy to do what I am doing when I am nailing another wire to
a wall, or helping another person online, comes down from the top of the
tree.
"Why exactly am I talking to this idiot on the other end of my
phone line? Oh yeah, a world of free and open communication between all
people in it."
That's why you need a vision statement, and you need a mission
statement, because the two of them give you your marching orders. AND
THE ENERGY AND WILL DO TO THEM.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@Lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.Lightlink.com
Fri Mar 5 20:01:30 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Aug 5 12:06:01 EDT 2015
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore731.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)
iD8DBQFVwjRqURT1lqxE3HERAn01AKDMhThvj1Xpu7/M/vme/tODMWz3UwCfatb5
acNVFn+P59AHMbGyztqcgtk=
=9Dwa
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Aug 7 16:37:20 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore731.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)
iD8DBQFVxRcAURT1lqxE3HERAu/KAKCWADo7WrzEnsxfD3GK16q4oL+43QCgiv8A
sve7qfnCbbJ414bh/VE3e7g=
=Qxqt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)