-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
AGING AND BROKEN DRAMATIZATIONS
Ted Mayett <ars.to.tedmayett@xxmmxxspamgourmet.com> wrote:
> Agreed, if they proved they could look through walls they would
> surrender their lives to the System. But dammit, if wogs can age in a
> stunning fashion, so can an OT. It would unusual, uncommon to be
> robust at 100 years old, but it would *not* be suspicious.
'Aging' as you describe it is a function of broken dramatizations.
One gets pain when one dramatizes and fails.
Some people don't fail, they dramatize freely, and never get a
broken dram, They are thus pain and psychosomatic free, but also empty
in the head except for the dramatizations.
Those who are at least trying to break their dramatizations go
black V, suffer terribly, and have a very hard time of it physically.
Psychosomatic = broken dramatization.
This is because the dramatization is of a valence in
an engram, but the out of valent position feels no pain as
it was the victor. But when the dram is broken the pc falls
back into the in valence of the engram where of course there
is pain and damage.
Homer
Thu Aug 7 22:06:58 EDT 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Nov 10 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore612.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)
iD8DBQFYJKj6URT1lqxE3HERAlv4AKDGnZ2R4CQdLQNCb389nOS5q+mSewCfZYNK
jROJkcv0FJrEsTiWXMf9XOY=
=GCc8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, November 11, 2016
ADORE146 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SHADOWS
"The physical universe is a display of pretty colored lights in
the fabric of God." - Adore
Everyone is familiar with shadows.
If you place a 3 dimensional object in the light of a 3
dimensional sun, you will get a two dimensional shadow.
If you place a 2 dimensional object in the light of a 2
dimensional sun, you will get a 1 dimensional shadow.
O <- 2 dimensional sun
+----+
| | <- 2 dimensional object, a square
| |
---------- +----+
^
|
1 dimensional
shadow
Shadows are always 1 dimension less than the object that casts
the shadow.
So if you place a 4 dimensional object in the light of a 4
dimensional sun, you will get a 3 dimensional shadow!
It has been claimed that the 3 dimensional physical universe and
all its objects is in fact a 3 dimensional shadow cast by the true 4
dimensional universe in the light of the 4 dimensional light of God.
We are condemned to live in the real 3D shadows of the actual 4D
world until we wake up.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Nov 9 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore146.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)
iD8DBQFYI1d7URT1lqxE3HERAuY8AJ9trqwDlBUX3GvGjNqbZxHHO7VuzwCgiQTp
DvonixughhGsBEDK45Nf4PE=
=3aWs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SHADOWS
"The physical universe is a display of pretty colored lights in
the fabric of God." - Adore
Everyone is familiar with shadows.
If you place a 3 dimensional object in the light of a 3
dimensional sun, you will get a two dimensional shadow.
If you place a 2 dimensional object in the light of a 2
dimensional sun, you will get a 1 dimensional shadow.
O <- 2 dimensional sun
+----+
| | <- 2 dimensional object, a square
| |
---------- +----+
^
|
1 dimensional
shadow
Shadows are always 1 dimension less than the object that casts
the shadow.
So if you place a 4 dimensional object in the light of a 4
dimensional sun, you will get a 3 dimensional shadow!
It has been claimed that the 3 dimensional physical universe and
all its objects is in fact a 3 dimensional shadow cast by the true 4
dimensional universe in the light of the 4 dimensional light of God.
We are condemned to live in the real 3D shadows of the actual 4D
world until we wake up.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Nov 9 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore146.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)
iD8DBQFYI1d7URT1lqxE3HERAuY8AJ9trqwDlBUX3GvGjNqbZxHHO7VuzwCgiQTp
DvonixughhGsBEDK45Nf4PE=
=3aWs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ACT9 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
RULES, GAMES AND OT'S
ACT - 9RA
8 July 1993
Revised and Expanded 9 July 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Life is a game.
Games have freedoms, barriers and purposes.
Games also have players.
Players have abilities and limitations that they can use to play
the game.
Games also have rules. Rules delimit what any player or 'piece'
can do in the process of playing the game.
Games have penalties that occur to players who break the rules.
The game of life has players of many different levels and kinds of
ability.
Like Chess, some people are like Pawns, some like Knights, some
like Bishops and Rooks, and some like Queens etc.
Each has its purpose, usefulness, and sphere of control.
A person might be a Lavender Seller on the street. He might be a
Pawn. His options for movement and control are limited, but in a pinch
he can be the winning card, especially when operating in tandem with
another more powerful person.
Another person might be a world leader or President. He might be
more like a Queen who has almost unlimited freedom of movement and
sphere of control.
In some sense, some players are more 'valuable or important' to the
game than others, in that they have more or less effect on the over all
strategy. However a properly placed Pawn can be endlessly more
important than a poorly placed Queen.
Besides, a Queen alone can not win against the opposition no matter
how decimated the other side is. But a Queen with a Pawn can.
However a Queen and a Bishop might be able to do it easier, so if
the Queen had the choice she might sacrifice the Pawn to keep the
Bishop. So a Bishop is more 'important' than a Pawn, but all pieces are
useful. (In chess the Pawn can BECOME a Queen, so it is more
complicated than I have made it out to be.)
Now let's take this analogy one step further. Let's say that
everyone on Earth is a Pawn, no matter what rank or position in life
they hold. As Ron liked to say, everyone on Earth is a Homo Sap.
But there is this higher state of being called Homo Novis or a
Grade IV release. In the game of life this might be like being a Knight
on the Chess board.
And then there is another higher state called CLEAR, and those who
make it to this state become Bishops or Rooks in the game of life.
Further there is an even higher state called OT, and those who are in
that state are Queens.
Now it might be that a Pawn has a very ego centric view of life, he
may not be aware that life is a game, or that there are other players
with other abilities such as Bishops and Queens. He may have the view
that everyone is a Pawn and SHOULD be a Pawn. Or, if he is a more
advanced Pawn, he may be aware that there are other higher players in
the game and he may even chose to serve those players in their efforts
to win the game.
Each piece in fact may have their own dream of becoming a bigger
and better piece, so that they may be more successful in the game of
life.
Just as the lowly Pawn dreams of one day having the power to jump
wildly across the board to the opposing King's position and squash the
enemy in one stroke, the lowly human wishes to become OT and dispense
with his enemies in one stroke too.
But THAT PARTICULAR ROLE AND ABILITY IS NOT AVAILABLE, EITHER IN
THE GAME OF CHESS OR THE GAME OF LIFE, NO MATTER HOW OT YOU ARE!
A Pawn has no hope of becoming an all powerful being who can kill
his opponent in one fell swoop because THAT WOULD BE BREAKING THE RULES
OF THE GAME! But he does have hope of becoming a Bishop or a Queen in
an orderly fashion where he will have more than enough power to keep
himself interested in the game of life, AND IN DUE TIME SQUASH HIS
ENEMIES IF THEY DON'T SQUASH HIM FIRST.
Being a Queen is no guarantee of winning the game of chess, and
being an OT is no guarantee of winning the game of life.
Being an OT is merely a guarantee of being able to play a BIGGER
game. It is a guarantee of getting what you WANT, namely a bigger game.
Your probabilities of winning or losing remain about the same. Of
course the being who can PLAY the bigger game easily will be able to WIN
the lesser games easily, that's why he can play the bigger games. But
beings tend to rise to a level of trouble that keeps them on their toes.
So becoming an OT is no guarantee of safety, unless you decide to become
an OT and yet continue to play a Pawn's game.
In fact ANY absolute guarantee of winning any game is BREAKING THE
RULES!
It isn't a game if you can win just as easy as you please.
Preclears are exactly the same way. They are afraid of losing in
the game of life. The penalties of losing the game of life are
horrible, enough to make anyone not want to play. But the lowly Pawn
has no choice.
Thus such beings want power and ability to scare their enemies away
or crush them out of existence, and so secure a 'better' future for
themselves.
By 'better' they don't mean able to play a BIGGER GAME, but having
a game they can more easily win. They are trying to make the present
game SMALLER by becoming bigger themselves.
This is not itself a problem.
But if you ask them what powers they want and how they would use
them they will invariably give you things that break the rules of life.
They want power to WIN the game of life in one move, not expand
their ability to PLAY the game of life in many moves!
They want power to get rid of the game, to get rid of having to
play.
They want to win the game in order to end it, not to play it more.
They would rather win and end the game than have a long drawn out
volley.
They don't want to play the game of life, they want to end it, and
never have to play it again.
So they are trying to go OT, not to become more able, but to not
need to have to BE able. They hope by becoming more able they will be
able to wipe out all their enemies for ever and thus have peace. But
such an all powerful move on the chess board would clearly be breaking
the rules of the game.
Some people want to go OT just so that they can LEAVE the game.
That is fine, but most of them want to smash their enemies first, to
teach them one last lesson, and THEN leave the game. They don't want to
leave the game and leave the game still running.
Some fear they might run into the game and get trapped in it again
in the future if they just leave it still running.
So it still adds up to wanting to go OT so that they can DESTROY
the game.
One doesn't win a game by ending the game. One ends the game by
winning or losing the game, within the rules of the game.
You can also leave a game, as long as you are willing to leave the
game running for others to play.
The main thing that gets you stuck IN a game is your desire to
DESTROY the game before you leave it.
But that breaks the rules of the game!
And that includes the game of life.
AN OT IS A BEING WHO HAS MAXIMUM POWER WITHIN THE RULES OF LIFE!
And he depends on the Lavender Seller to do his job just as the
Queen depends on the Pawn.
That is the sum totality of what the Prime Directive is. It is the
rules of life within which you may exercise your OT powers with out
breaking the rules of life.
This implies that life has rules for higher 'pieces' even if no one
is presently occupying those pieces.
It also implies that if you break the Prime Directive you will end
up in the penalty box, as no one will allow you to play and break the
rules. You just don't stand a chance. The game is bigger than any
player while in the game, so if you try to break the rules you will be
canned. End of Story.
A Queen may be powerful, but you will never catch her making an
illegal move. The WHOLE congregation would be down on her in a moment,
good guys and bad guys alike!
In the game of life, the GAME and its RULES are all.
Cheaters are removed instantly. Oh sure, cheating can happen on a
small scale, individuals cheat all the time, ITS PART OF THE RULES THAT
YOU CAN CHEAT IN SOME ARENAS. But try to cheat the rules themselves,
and bang, you're in the penalty box without appeal.
The game is perfect and it doesn't tolerate breaking the rules.
The fact is that no player CAN break the rules, although he can
want to real bad.
Thus any power that you have as an OT must already exist within the
playing rules of the game you are playing. Thus if you have a power as
an OT you can be sure that it is within the rules of the game. And of
course, if the rules of the game set out a certain pattern of power for
a given piece, then that piece must have that entire set of powers.
This means that if you are looking for more power as a piece, you
must first determine what the power package is for the next piece up,
and then step into that role as a whole.
Pieces and power packages are laid out in a very long gradient
scale from human to OT. You needn't go full OT tomorrow in order to
advance in the game of life today.
Thus to audit this, one needs to get the preclear to understand
that there are higher pieces than he is presently being, and that they
have well defined rules of operation. He won't be able to step into
those shoes, those higher rules of operation, as long as he is straining
at the rules trying to operate power in violation of those rules.
If he wants power only so that he can not have any enemies, he will
never get any power. Power is the ability to play against enemies, not
merely not have them. You can do that too, but not IN the game. This
game implies two sides with play between them.
There is a difference between WANTING TO HAVE enemies so that you
can vanquish them, and wanting to vanquish them because you don't want
to have enemies.
In other words you can have more power as long as you want it to be
more able to PLAY the game and not WIN the game. People who have lost
the game too much for too long get sick of playing the game. They want
to WIN for a change.
However the way out is the way in. They will never increase their
ability to WIN the game except by increasing their ability to PLAY the
game. This will lessen how often they lose and thus increase how often
they win up to a point.
An optimum point.
Remember that a being who is winning too much and too often is just
as unhappy as a being who is losing too much and too often. There's no
ACTION in either winning or losing. There is only action in play.
It may not seem that way to someone transfixed by the horror of
losing, he would gladly trade that for the 'horror' of winning. But
this is an aberration that people have developed to make sure that
everyone wants to destroy the game, thus guaranteeing that they
get stuck in it.
So the point is that advancement in the game is always an
advancement into another power package which defines a playing piece.
Your preclear thinks he needs auditing to 'get his powers back', but woe
to him if he ever did, because what he would do with those powers would
break every rule in the book.
No the power is already there. He need merely step into the role
that has that power. A Pawn can become a Queen, but only if it can
fully understand what power package a Queen represents and how to use
it. Usually the Pawn wants the power of the Queen to do something else
besides play a fair game. So of course he gets no power at all.
Thus auditing is ALWAYS in the direction of UNDERSTANDING.
Specifically, understanding of the game you are in, or wish to step
into. This understanding encompasses understanding of the rules of the
game, and the nature or 'beingness' of the combatants. Once you know
completely well what a Queen can do and why, you can then DECIDE to step
into the Queen beingness. If that involves having super Pawn abilities,
why then you will have super Pawn abilities.
Thus you do not get auditing to get powers that you do not now
have, but to get UNDERSTANDING of the game piece that does have those
powers. Once you have that understanding, you can occupy that game
piece or not as you will.
That is why auditing goals and opp goals, terminals and opp
terminals and the various being, doing and havings that go along with a
goal is so important. By specing out the nature of the game that the pc
wants to play or has been playing, he can more accurately determine the
nature and quality of the power packages both he AND HIS OPPOSITION
would have to have in order to HAVE A GOOD GAME.
He actually has to understand both sides, its never a case of 'I
can melt you with my mind and you gotta just stand there and take it',
unless that scenario arises as a proper win state within the game. Its
always a case of vanquishing your enemies AFTER wanting to HAVE enemies
to vanquish, who might be able to vanquish you first. You can have
games in which you always win, but why bother? In any case, THIS game
of life ain't such a game.
So if you want to go OT all you have to do is step into your next
level up OT game shoes. The only catch is that you must understand
completely those game shoes before you do, and also the game shoes of
your elected opposition. If you don't, you just won't be able to make
the move.
This is the purpose of auditing, not to return powers to the pc,
but to return or deliver understanding of higher game positions to the
pc with their attendant powers. The pc is then free to CHOOSE to adopt
that role and power package.
The higher the game piece, the more power is attendant upon it.
But so too does your opponent have more power. Power is therefore not a
way to make life easier.
It is however a way to create more action.
It IS a way to make life more LIVABLE, DESIRABLE and PLAYABLE. You
aren't complaining because you are losing, you are complaining because
ALL YOU DO IS LOSE, and there is little to no self determined action to
boot.
The action is all theirs, and they are squashing you, you see?
You are cowering in the corner and they are slashing you to pieces.
That's not a good sword fight.
Its a case of LOSING TOO MUCH. There is no will to play any more.
Thus good auditing will rehabilitate your present power package so that
you can become a skilled player again at the level you are presently
occupying. You might still lose, but you won't lose ALL THE TIME, and
you will have fun even if you ARE losing, because the action level will
be so high, and it won't be FOREVER.
Then once you can be and play the level of the game you are at, you
can then aspire to the next piece, one game level up. You can leave
your days of being a Pawn behind and become a Knight, etc.
Many people want to become full OT just to solve their problems
with being a Pawn. They want to move mountains so that they don't have
to starve to death for want of a job or money or a girl friend etc.
Or they want to kill the gods for letting their cat die.
Body games are Pawn level games. You don't need to be an OT to
start winning again at the Body game. If you are still worried about
starving to death, AS A CHRONIC LONG TERM THING, and you aren't having
any fun doing it, and you are starving at a low action level, rather
than starving at a high action level, then you need to get auditing on
your PAWN level, not your Queen level.
Once you are a competent player again on the Pawn level, THEN you
can consider stepping up to the Knight level or higher.
The higher you go the more power you have, also the more opponents.
Some of those opponents will be players still at the lower levels of the
game who don't want you to be at the higher level of the game or who
doubt you really are.
Each game level has its power package which you need to master, and
often game pieces of one power level look upon the power packages of
higher game pieces with awe, fear and trepidation. Doubt too.
Like the lowly limited Pawn, the lowly human preclear is not
allowed to move things with his mind (except his body) or kill people at
a distance. But there may be a piece in the game of life who, like the
Queen in Chess, has this ability to move anywhere and kill anyone. Or
dump mountains into oceans.
But just as a Queen would not move without good reason, and would
not waste a move, or use her power except in the line of duty, people
who have and have mastered such powers would never use them except in
the playing of their game. It's their move. They will do what they
will with it.
Imagine someone demanding you shoot your side arm just to prove you
can.
You would not expect a Queen to make a move just to PROVE that she
could. It would be a waste of a move and lessen her chances of playing
the game by perhaps forcing an early lose.
In the game of life you can't take back your moves, once you move
you're done. If you don't want to be done for, you have to make the
right move every time. Making a move in a certain direction ONLY to
prove that you can, especially to someone else, is not a good idea and
is not playing the game to win. It's doing something else.
Proving your abilities to yourself or to others MAY be a good move
in the game of life, in which case you would probably do it. But you
would do it because TO YOUR MIND IT WAS A GOOD MOVE IN THE GAME OF LIFE
and not because of the loudness of the yammerer demanding proof.
Some people who don't have special powers doubt those that do.
So the Pawn who can only move forward one square at a time may
doubt the Queen can move in any direction she chooses.
So here's this White Queen and she is supposed to move forward one
square to take a Black Pawn, and the Pawn is saying, 'Prove to me you
can move left or right, or I won't believe you can!'
Poor Pawn. Who cares? The Pawn is Queen food.
So the Queen moves forward one square to take the Pawn and the Pawn
says, 'See I told you, you couldn't move left or right!'
Those seeking proof of OT powers, or that the Queen can move left
and right, need to be there when the Queen DOES move left or right or
even diagonally FOR HER OWN REASONS.
Then they will have their proof.
There is no other way.
08/14/13 Wednesday 3:43pm EST
And finally remember that a REAL OT is not a game player, but a
game CREATOR, and if he can put the game there, surely he can create any
power package he wants for himself. And frankly whatever power package
you are sitting in was created or accepted by you when you WERE a REAL
OT before this game started.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Nov 8 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act9.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)
iD8DBQFYIgX7URT1lqxE3HERAlyqAJoD8g+gajR42qWU0gsE0sKcFvpXfQCfdznV
c/LFHmM13eKl1C/x+3I3NPY=
=HMLO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
RULES, GAMES AND OT'S
ACT - 9RA
8 July 1993
Revised and Expanded 9 July 1993
Copyright (C) 1993 Homer Wilson Smith
Life is a game.
Games have freedoms, barriers and purposes.
Games also have players.
Players have abilities and limitations that they can use to play
the game.
Games also have rules. Rules delimit what any player or 'piece'
can do in the process of playing the game.
Games have penalties that occur to players who break the rules.
The game of life has players of many different levels and kinds of
ability.
Like Chess, some people are like Pawns, some like Knights, some
like Bishops and Rooks, and some like Queens etc.
Each has its purpose, usefulness, and sphere of control.
A person might be a Lavender Seller on the street. He might be a
Pawn. His options for movement and control are limited, but in a pinch
he can be the winning card, especially when operating in tandem with
another more powerful person.
Another person might be a world leader or President. He might be
more like a Queen who has almost unlimited freedom of movement and
sphere of control.
In some sense, some players are more 'valuable or important' to the
game than others, in that they have more or less effect on the over all
strategy. However a properly placed Pawn can be endlessly more
important than a poorly placed Queen.
Besides, a Queen alone can not win against the opposition no matter
how decimated the other side is. But a Queen with a Pawn can.
However a Queen and a Bishop might be able to do it easier, so if
the Queen had the choice she might sacrifice the Pawn to keep the
Bishop. So a Bishop is more 'important' than a Pawn, but all pieces are
useful. (In chess the Pawn can BECOME a Queen, so it is more
complicated than I have made it out to be.)
Now let's take this analogy one step further. Let's say that
everyone on Earth is a Pawn, no matter what rank or position in life
they hold. As Ron liked to say, everyone on Earth is a Homo Sap.
But there is this higher state of being called Homo Novis or a
Grade IV release. In the game of life this might be like being a Knight
on the Chess board.
And then there is another higher state called CLEAR, and those who
make it to this state become Bishops or Rooks in the game of life.
Further there is an even higher state called OT, and those who are in
that state are Queens.
Now it might be that a Pawn has a very ego centric view of life, he
may not be aware that life is a game, or that there are other players
with other abilities such as Bishops and Queens. He may have the view
that everyone is a Pawn and SHOULD be a Pawn. Or, if he is a more
advanced Pawn, he may be aware that there are other higher players in
the game and he may even chose to serve those players in their efforts
to win the game.
Each piece in fact may have their own dream of becoming a bigger
and better piece, so that they may be more successful in the game of
life.
Just as the lowly Pawn dreams of one day having the power to jump
wildly across the board to the opposing King's position and squash the
enemy in one stroke, the lowly human wishes to become OT and dispense
with his enemies in one stroke too.
But THAT PARTICULAR ROLE AND ABILITY IS NOT AVAILABLE, EITHER IN
THE GAME OF CHESS OR THE GAME OF LIFE, NO MATTER HOW OT YOU ARE!
A Pawn has no hope of becoming an all powerful being who can kill
his opponent in one fell swoop because THAT WOULD BE BREAKING THE RULES
OF THE GAME! But he does have hope of becoming a Bishop or a Queen in
an orderly fashion where he will have more than enough power to keep
himself interested in the game of life, AND IN DUE TIME SQUASH HIS
ENEMIES IF THEY DON'T SQUASH HIM FIRST.
Being a Queen is no guarantee of winning the game of chess, and
being an OT is no guarantee of winning the game of life.
Being an OT is merely a guarantee of being able to play a BIGGER
game. It is a guarantee of getting what you WANT, namely a bigger game.
Your probabilities of winning or losing remain about the same. Of
course the being who can PLAY the bigger game easily will be able to WIN
the lesser games easily, that's why he can play the bigger games. But
beings tend to rise to a level of trouble that keeps them on their toes.
So becoming an OT is no guarantee of safety, unless you decide to become
an OT and yet continue to play a Pawn's game.
In fact ANY absolute guarantee of winning any game is BREAKING THE
RULES!
It isn't a game if you can win just as easy as you please.
Preclears are exactly the same way. They are afraid of losing in
the game of life. The penalties of losing the game of life are
horrible, enough to make anyone not want to play. But the lowly Pawn
has no choice.
Thus such beings want power and ability to scare their enemies away
or crush them out of existence, and so secure a 'better' future for
themselves.
By 'better' they don't mean able to play a BIGGER GAME, but having
a game they can more easily win. They are trying to make the present
game SMALLER by becoming bigger themselves.
This is not itself a problem.
But if you ask them what powers they want and how they would use
them they will invariably give you things that break the rules of life.
They want power to WIN the game of life in one move, not expand
their ability to PLAY the game of life in many moves!
They want power to get rid of the game, to get rid of having to
play.
They want to win the game in order to end it, not to play it more.
They would rather win and end the game than have a long drawn out
volley.
They don't want to play the game of life, they want to end it, and
never have to play it again.
So they are trying to go OT, not to become more able, but to not
need to have to BE able. They hope by becoming more able they will be
able to wipe out all their enemies for ever and thus have peace. But
such an all powerful move on the chess board would clearly be breaking
the rules of the game.
Some people want to go OT just so that they can LEAVE the game.
That is fine, but most of them want to smash their enemies first, to
teach them one last lesson, and THEN leave the game. They don't want to
leave the game and leave the game still running.
Some fear they might run into the game and get trapped in it again
in the future if they just leave it still running.
So it still adds up to wanting to go OT so that they can DESTROY
the game.
One doesn't win a game by ending the game. One ends the game by
winning or losing the game, within the rules of the game.
You can also leave a game, as long as you are willing to leave the
game running for others to play.
The main thing that gets you stuck IN a game is your desire to
DESTROY the game before you leave it.
But that breaks the rules of the game!
And that includes the game of life.
AN OT IS A BEING WHO HAS MAXIMUM POWER WITHIN THE RULES OF LIFE!
And he depends on the Lavender Seller to do his job just as the
Queen depends on the Pawn.
That is the sum totality of what the Prime Directive is. It is the
rules of life within which you may exercise your OT powers with out
breaking the rules of life.
This implies that life has rules for higher 'pieces' even if no one
is presently occupying those pieces.
It also implies that if you break the Prime Directive you will end
up in the penalty box, as no one will allow you to play and break the
rules. You just don't stand a chance. The game is bigger than any
player while in the game, so if you try to break the rules you will be
canned. End of Story.
A Queen may be powerful, but you will never catch her making an
illegal move. The WHOLE congregation would be down on her in a moment,
good guys and bad guys alike!
In the game of life, the GAME and its RULES are all.
Cheaters are removed instantly. Oh sure, cheating can happen on a
small scale, individuals cheat all the time, ITS PART OF THE RULES THAT
YOU CAN CHEAT IN SOME ARENAS. But try to cheat the rules themselves,
and bang, you're in the penalty box without appeal.
The game is perfect and it doesn't tolerate breaking the rules.
The fact is that no player CAN break the rules, although he can
want to real bad.
Thus any power that you have as an OT must already exist within the
playing rules of the game you are playing. Thus if you have a power as
an OT you can be sure that it is within the rules of the game. And of
course, if the rules of the game set out a certain pattern of power for
a given piece, then that piece must have that entire set of powers.
This means that if you are looking for more power as a piece, you
must first determine what the power package is for the next piece up,
and then step into that role as a whole.
Pieces and power packages are laid out in a very long gradient
scale from human to OT. You needn't go full OT tomorrow in order to
advance in the game of life today.
Thus to audit this, one needs to get the preclear to understand
that there are higher pieces than he is presently being, and that they
have well defined rules of operation. He won't be able to step into
those shoes, those higher rules of operation, as long as he is straining
at the rules trying to operate power in violation of those rules.
If he wants power only so that he can not have any enemies, he will
never get any power. Power is the ability to play against enemies, not
merely not have them. You can do that too, but not IN the game. This
game implies two sides with play between them.
There is a difference between WANTING TO HAVE enemies so that you
can vanquish them, and wanting to vanquish them because you don't want
to have enemies.
In other words you can have more power as long as you want it to be
more able to PLAY the game and not WIN the game. People who have lost
the game too much for too long get sick of playing the game. They want
to WIN for a change.
However the way out is the way in. They will never increase their
ability to WIN the game except by increasing their ability to PLAY the
game. This will lessen how often they lose and thus increase how often
they win up to a point.
An optimum point.
Remember that a being who is winning too much and too often is just
as unhappy as a being who is losing too much and too often. There's no
ACTION in either winning or losing. There is only action in play.
It may not seem that way to someone transfixed by the horror of
losing, he would gladly trade that for the 'horror' of winning. But
this is an aberration that people have developed to make sure that
everyone wants to destroy the game, thus guaranteeing that they
get stuck in it.
So the point is that advancement in the game is always an
advancement into another power package which defines a playing piece.
Your preclear thinks he needs auditing to 'get his powers back', but woe
to him if he ever did, because what he would do with those powers would
break every rule in the book.
No the power is already there. He need merely step into the role
that has that power. A Pawn can become a Queen, but only if it can
fully understand what power package a Queen represents and how to use
it. Usually the Pawn wants the power of the Queen to do something else
besides play a fair game. So of course he gets no power at all.
Thus auditing is ALWAYS in the direction of UNDERSTANDING.
Specifically, understanding of the game you are in, or wish to step
into. This understanding encompasses understanding of the rules of the
game, and the nature or 'beingness' of the combatants. Once you know
completely well what a Queen can do and why, you can then DECIDE to step
into the Queen beingness. If that involves having super Pawn abilities,
why then you will have super Pawn abilities.
Thus you do not get auditing to get powers that you do not now
have, but to get UNDERSTANDING of the game piece that does have those
powers. Once you have that understanding, you can occupy that game
piece or not as you will.
That is why auditing goals and opp goals, terminals and opp
terminals and the various being, doing and havings that go along with a
goal is so important. By specing out the nature of the game that the pc
wants to play or has been playing, he can more accurately determine the
nature and quality of the power packages both he AND HIS OPPOSITION
would have to have in order to HAVE A GOOD GAME.
He actually has to understand both sides, its never a case of 'I
can melt you with my mind and you gotta just stand there and take it',
unless that scenario arises as a proper win state within the game. Its
always a case of vanquishing your enemies AFTER wanting to HAVE enemies
to vanquish, who might be able to vanquish you first. You can have
games in which you always win, but why bother? In any case, THIS game
of life ain't such a game.
So if you want to go OT all you have to do is step into your next
level up OT game shoes. The only catch is that you must understand
completely those game shoes before you do, and also the game shoes of
your elected opposition. If you don't, you just won't be able to make
the move.
This is the purpose of auditing, not to return powers to the pc,
but to return or deliver understanding of higher game positions to the
pc with their attendant powers. The pc is then free to CHOOSE to adopt
that role and power package.
The higher the game piece, the more power is attendant upon it.
But so too does your opponent have more power. Power is therefore not a
way to make life easier.
It is however a way to create more action.
It IS a way to make life more LIVABLE, DESIRABLE and PLAYABLE. You
aren't complaining because you are losing, you are complaining because
ALL YOU DO IS LOSE, and there is little to no self determined action to
boot.
The action is all theirs, and they are squashing you, you see?
You are cowering in the corner and they are slashing you to pieces.
That's not a good sword fight.
Its a case of LOSING TOO MUCH. There is no will to play any more.
Thus good auditing will rehabilitate your present power package so that
you can become a skilled player again at the level you are presently
occupying. You might still lose, but you won't lose ALL THE TIME, and
you will have fun even if you ARE losing, because the action level will
be so high, and it won't be FOREVER.
Then once you can be and play the level of the game you are at, you
can then aspire to the next piece, one game level up. You can leave
your days of being a Pawn behind and become a Knight, etc.
Many people want to become full OT just to solve their problems
with being a Pawn. They want to move mountains so that they don't have
to starve to death for want of a job or money or a girl friend etc.
Or they want to kill the gods for letting their cat die.
Body games are Pawn level games. You don't need to be an OT to
start winning again at the Body game. If you are still worried about
starving to death, AS A CHRONIC LONG TERM THING, and you aren't having
any fun doing it, and you are starving at a low action level, rather
than starving at a high action level, then you need to get auditing on
your PAWN level, not your Queen level.
Once you are a competent player again on the Pawn level, THEN you
can consider stepping up to the Knight level or higher.
The higher you go the more power you have, also the more opponents.
Some of those opponents will be players still at the lower levels of the
game who don't want you to be at the higher level of the game or who
doubt you really are.
Each game level has its power package which you need to master, and
often game pieces of one power level look upon the power packages of
higher game pieces with awe, fear and trepidation. Doubt too.
Like the lowly limited Pawn, the lowly human preclear is not
allowed to move things with his mind (except his body) or kill people at
a distance. But there may be a piece in the game of life who, like the
Queen in Chess, has this ability to move anywhere and kill anyone. Or
dump mountains into oceans.
But just as a Queen would not move without good reason, and would
not waste a move, or use her power except in the line of duty, people
who have and have mastered such powers would never use them except in
the playing of their game. It's their move. They will do what they
will with it.
Imagine someone demanding you shoot your side arm just to prove you
can.
You would not expect a Queen to make a move just to PROVE that she
could. It would be a waste of a move and lessen her chances of playing
the game by perhaps forcing an early lose.
In the game of life you can't take back your moves, once you move
you're done. If you don't want to be done for, you have to make the
right move every time. Making a move in a certain direction ONLY to
prove that you can, especially to someone else, is not a good idea and
is not playing the game to win. It's doing something else.
Proving your abilities to yourself or to others MAY be a good move
in the game of life, in which case you would probably do it. But you
would do it because TO YOUR MIND IT WAS A GOOD MOVE IN THE GAME OF LIFE
and not because of the loudness of the yammerer demanding proof.
Some people who don't have special powers doubt those that do.
So the Pawn who can only move forward one square at a time may
doubt the Queen can move in any direction she chooses.
So here's this White Queen and she is supposed to move forward one
square to take a Black Pawn, and the Pawn is saying, 'Prove to me you
can move left or right, or I won't believe you can!'
Poor Pawn. Who cares? The Pawn is Queen food.
So the Queen moves forward one square to take the Pawn and the Pawn
says, 'See I told you, you couldn't move left or right!'
Those seeking proof of OT powers, or that the Queen can move left
and right, need to be there when the Queen DOES move left or right or
even diagonally FOR HER OWN REASONS.
Then they will have their proof.
There is no other way.
08/14/13 Wednesday 3:43pm EST
And finally remember that a REAL OT is not a game player, but a
game CREATOR, and if he can put the game there, surely he can create any
power package he wants for himself. And frankly whatever power package
you are sitting in was created or accepted by you when you WERE a REAL
OT before this game started.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Nov 8 12:06:02 EST 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act9.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)
iD8DBQFYIgX7URT1lqxE3HERAlyqAJoD8g+gajR42qWU0gsE0sKcFvpXfQCfdznV
c/LFHmM13eKl1C/x+3I3NPY=
=HMLO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE859 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
BASIC BASIC ON EVIL INTENTIONS
> Just to clarify, what is the purpose of:
>
> Going to sleep at night?
> Waking up n the morning?
> Making breakfast (and eating it)?
> Washing dishes before going to work?
> Going to work?
> Smiling when saying, "Good morning"?
> Cleaning a room?
> Tidying up a desk?
>
> These simple purposes have elements in common which give insight into
> more consistent and general purposes.
>
> Simple inspection or a moment's consideration of one's purpose in
> issuing a communication to another, or in receiving a communication
> from another, is an interesting little bit of observation.
The intrinsic purpose is pleasure and avoidance of pain, the
instrumental purpose is survival of manifestation forms on all 8 dynamics,
to which success pleasure and pain have been (perhaps arbitrarily)
attached.
The purpose of the choice to PLAY such a game, the higher purpose
of why the game exists in the first place, is a different matter.
Why would a being want a game of pleasure and pain?
Most humans would deny they would have created such world for
themselves or anyone else if they had been God.
In fact the underlying tone of most beings in bodies pretending
to have a good time at it, is the goal to make nothing of everything,
even their loved ones to put them out of their misery.
There is a hurry to this, to end the universe for all before he can no
longer do so, because the universe has ended him.
There is also a stickiness to the goal, because the being can not
leave the universe until he is sure it no longer exists, so he gets stuck
here to be the last thing standing, then he is free to do away with
himself.
Only after FAILING that goal to make nothing out of everything, does
the thetan/body composite try to take sides and take care of the few
things it loves that it can. To lessen their misery as much as possible
before the inevitable end that befalls all being born on death row.
But he hates the game with all the power of his being.
Thus to audit the being out of the deceit of his human condition, one
needs to audit that goal to make nothing of everything. This will begin to
resolve all of his somatics, horror at life, and case conditions.
Beauty and Ugly smashed together make boredom.
Spot NO Horror.
Spot SOME Horror.
Spot NO Gorgeousness.
Spot SOME Gorgeourness.
From the point of view of the thetan/body composite below death on the
tone scale, his Nemesis One is the guy who wants to make something out of
everything FOREVER (in time). Anything forever is a hell forever.
From the point of view of a higher toned thetan free from a body, his
Nemesis One is the guy who wants to make nothing out of everything, which
your thetan has then become.
Seperating your thetan from the valence of the guy who wants to make
nothing out of everything, then presents your thetan with the problem of
confronting the being who wants to make nothing out of everything.
Oh no anything but that.
Your thetan would rather work for him, than look at him.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Mar 29 14:16:59 EDT 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Nov 5 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore859.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)
iD8DBQFYHgNqURT1lqxE3HERAtVRAJ9/gjiFoHsrmTqk0g48DYrQ3qSRegCfXX0L
AWNle912nTk0clLY5H7yEW8=
=XYs7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
BASIC BASIC ON EVIL INTENTIONS
> Just to clarify, what is the purpose of:
>
> Going to sleep at night?
> Waking up n the morning?
> Making breakfast (and eating it)?
> Washing dishes before going to work?
> Going to work?
> Smiling when saying, "Good morning"?
> Cleaning a room?
> Tidying up a desk?
>
> These simple purposes have elements in common which give insight into
> more consistent and general purposes.
>
> Simple inspection or a moment's consideration of one's purpose in
> issuing a communication to another, or in receiving a communication
> from another, is an interesting little bit of observation.
The intrinsic purpose is pleasure and avoidance of pain, the
instrumental purpose is survival of manifestation forms on all 8 dynamics,
to which success pleasure and pain have been (perhaps arbitrarily)
attached.
The purpose of the choice to PLAY such a game, the higher purpose
of why the game exists in the first place, is a different matter.
Why would a being want a game of pleasure and pain?
Most humans would deny they would have created such world for
themselves or anyone else if they had been God.
In fact the underlying tone of most beings in bodies pretending
to have a good time at it, is the goal to make nothing of everything,
even their loved ones to put them out of their misery.
There is a hurry to this, to end the universe for all before he can no
longer do so, because the universe has ended him.
There is also a stickiness to the goal, because the being can not
leave the universe until he is sure it no longer exists, so he gets stuck
here to be the last thing standing, then he is free to do away with
himself.
Only after FAILING that goal to make nothing out of everything, does
the thetan/body composite try to take sides and take care of the few
things it loves that it can. To lessen their misery as much as possible
before the inevitable end that befalls all being born on death row.
But he hates the game with all the power of his being.
Thus to audit the being out of the deceit of his human condition, one
needs to audit that goal to make nothing of everything. This will begin to
resolve all of his somatics, horror at life, and case conditions.
Beauty and Ugly smashed together make boredom.
Spot NO Horror.
Spot SOME Horror.
Spot NO Gorgeousness.
Spot SOME Gorgeourness.
From the point of view of the thetan/body composite below death on the
tone scale, his Nemesis One is the guy who wants to make something out of
everything FOREVER (in time). Anything forever is a hell forever.
From the point of view of a higher toned thetan free from a body, his
Nemesis One is the guy who wants to make nothing out of everything, which
your thetan has then become.
Seperating your thetan from the valence of the guy who wants to make
nothing out of everything, then presents your thetan with the problem of
confronting the being who wants to make nothing out of everything.
Oh no anything but that.
Your thetan would rather work for him, than look at him.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Mar 29 14:16:59 EDT 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Nov 5 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore859.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)
iD8DBQFYHgNqURT1lqxE3HERAtVRAJ9/gjiFoHsrmTqk0g48DYrQ3qSRegCfXX0L
AWNle912nTk0clLY5H7yEW8=
=XYs7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, November 4, 2016
NEMESISONE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NEMESIS ONE
Lightning:
> I'm not sure what Nemesis One [is...]
NEMESIS: Greek Mythology: The goddess of retributive justice
or vengence. [Greek, "retribution," from nemien, to allot]
Nemesis: An inflicter of retribution; avenger. 2.) One that inflicts
relentless vengence or destruction. 3.) An unbeatable rival, as in
sports: The team met its Nemesis. 4.) Retributive justice in its execution
or outcome: invite nemesis. 5.) An unavoidable result.
The goal to inflict retribution on leads to closing terminals with,
leads to fixated ridging with if the terminal in question is
equal to or more powerful than you.
You are actually its nemesis by definition 1.) in that you are trying
to inflict eternal retribution on it for something that it did or is, but
it becomes your nemesis by definition 3.) in that it is unbeatable and you
continue to lose to it forever.
The Nemesis Conflict is the core of the case.
Nemesis One is the first set of items on both sides of the ridge.
Everyone and everything later is perceived and interpreted as
part of the Nemesis One Conflict.
"Who or what are you trying to put out of your misery."
Notice the twist at the end.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Nov 4 18:09:10 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/nemesisone
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)
iD8DBQFYHQcHURT1lqxE3HERAlK0AJ9EbsN4LoWaWRZCRgQ7KBfFVwL8GACfWsRu
iFWvfGFeLYriK8lHh6TXGk0=
=PCKy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
NEMESIS ONE
Lightning:
> I'm not sure what Nemesis One [is...]
NEMESIS: Greek Mythology: The goddess of retributive justice
or vengence. [Greek, "retribution," from nemien, to allot]
Nemesis: An inflicter of retribution; avenger. 2.) One that inflicts
relentless vengence or destruction. 3.) An unbeatable rival, as in
sports: The team met its Nemesis. 4.) Retributive justice in its execution
or outcome: invite nemesis. 5.) An unavoidable result.
The goal to inflict retribution on leads to closing terminals with,
leads to fixated ridging with if the terminal in question is
equal to or more powerful than you.
You are actually its nemesis by definition 1.) in that you are trying
to inflict eternal retribution on it for something that it did or is, but
it becomes your nemesis by definition 3.) in that it is unbeatable and you
continue to lose to it forever.
The Nemesis Conflict is the core of the case.
Nemesis One is the first set of items on both sides of the ridge.
Everyone and everything later is perceived and interpreted as
part of the Nemesis One Conflict.
"Who or what are you trying to put out of your misery."
Notice the twist at the end.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Nov 4 18:09:10 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/nemesisone
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)
iD8DBQFYHQcHURT1lqxE3HERAlK0AJ9EbsN4LoWaWRZCRgQ7KBfFVwL8GACfWsRu
iFWvfGFeLYriK8lHh6TXGk0=
=PCKy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
ADORE790 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
09/01/10 Wednesday 01:35am EST
ENVESSELMENT
The static mockups the kinetic.
The kinetic cannot mockup, because a mockup can't mock up!
The static envessels itself in its mockups.
The envesselment contains all of the beingnesses, identities and
dramatizations the static has mocked up for itself.
The envesselment is not just the being's body, but the entire
spacetime continuum around it and everything in it.
Every envesseled static mocks up its own copy of the kinetic around
it. Where different statics share common kinetic objects in their
vessels, like a common MEST universe, the co resonance between the
objects, makes them act as one object. Thus statics can come to effect
each other via their mocked up kinetics.
The co resonance does not causally take place directly between the
two copies of the kinetic objects themselves, but via an inner backplane
that connects two or more statics together in the underlying fabric of
the cosmic all.
There is no cross cause between objects in the apparent out there.
There is only cause between a static and its own kinetic, and
between two statics, so they can share the illusion of one kinetic.
The static is like a chameleon, it can change the 'color' of its
'body' from nothing to something. When it does, the result is self
luminous consciousness of that something. This is (the apparency of)
the kinetic.
The apparency is actual, the represented kinetic is virtual.
Thus nothing of substance is ever created or destroyed. only the
static, which is the true something of substance, changes state.
The 'substance' of the static is not like the substance of the
kinetic, mass, energy, space or time. In fact to the kinetic the
substance of the static looks like nothing. But in fact it is the
kinetic that is nothing except a chameleon coat on the static changing
from off to glow in the dark.
The kinetic is the body of the GodSoul itself luminescing in the
dark night of the void.
Thus the static 'adorns itself with', 'dresses it self up with' or
'dons' the kinetic.
The kinetic is a 'skin' to the static, but its a change in the
static's own skin, no new skin is added or deleted.
But really the skin never comes off, as the skin IS the static, the
s
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Nov 2 12:06:02 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/spickler/ScienceAsReligionPart41.PJS
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
kes place by mere recognition that permeation has
already taken place and seeing it that way.
The static natively sees itself AS a clear space with objects in
it.
The kinetic vessel itself can try to mockup, but at no time is
anything but the static doing the mockup.
The issue is always mocking up, because what ever you are suffering
from is always a mock up!
If your preclear is a Black V, can't mockup anything, it is because
he is being his kinetic rather than his static.
The kinetic can not mockup!
His inability to be the static is mostly one of consideration of
alienation from the static, he can't duplicate what the creative intent
of himself as the static might be.
And he is a little upset with it, whatever it is.
Thus you might do well to run
"Who or what would a static mockup?"
"Who or what would a kinetic mockup?"
The second question is questionable, because a kinetic CAN'T
mockup, but your preclear as a kinetic (body) is trying anyhow. If your
preclear wants to mockup, he will have to do it as the static.
In any case, each answer will be swamped with guardian dicoms,
preposterous, impossible, don't believe it, incredible, can't be, too
dangerous to know etc.
Each dicom is powered and mocked up by an entity or cluster of
entities specific to that guardian dicom
These need to be run as themselves, with
"What are you, who are you, how many are you, you are real people!"
Notice however, "Who or what would a static mockup" is a question,
and if you are asking questions, you are being the kinetic and not the
static, which is why question asking in session does not work in the
long run, only commands to item or not item.
Statics do not ask questions.
Statics mockup questions.
A static doesn't have any questions.
Particularly in the sense of needing to know answers.
ORIENTATION POINT AND SYMBOL
A static is an orientation point not a symbol.
Orientation points create space, time and symbols.
Symbols have mass, meaning and mobility and exist in space and
time, and move around in space and time.
Orientation points exist above and before Q1.
Q1 is: Theta has the ability to create space and locate objects in
it. - LRH Axioms and Logics
Orientation points operate from Q1 as their sole mode of operation.
Symbols ask questions and seek answers, mostly as to their own
meaning or point in life, seeking the why to their ultimate demise.
The fate of a symbol, continuing to be a symbol forever, without
respite or clearing or reclaiming itself as an orientation point, is
mystery, unknowableness and unconsciousness.
The static which has no choice about living forever outside of time
relishes engaging in trying to die forever inside of time.
Contacting that relish will go a long ways towards erasing this
cycle's dive into the apparent abyss of no return.
The dive is just too beautiful to contemplate, so you have your
work cut out for you.
An eternal God's effort to die forever is the hysterical
tragi-comedy of the century.
If you do free the static, and well you should try when the time is
right, the static will eventually just go do it again after some rest,
and man he's back to the drawing board, this time he's going to make
sure no one gets him to spot anything about no relish. Of course he
will fail and go free again, just to do it again, each time more grand
than the time before.
Eternity is a long time to play trying to die forever and failing.
The static dives by mocking up a composite of questions and answers
with the question seeking the answer.
Basic goals on questions and answers might be something like:
To know, to look for, to see where, to seek, to search for, to
find.
There are more, I am sure you can find, er, uh, spot your own :)
For a being who can look by knowing, knowing by looking is a
primary mechanism for sinking himself forever in time.
The game is 'This time, time has to last forever no matter what!'
Fat chance.
Each goal powers a question.
Thus asking a lot of questions of the preclear gets him to mock
himself up more as a symbol rather than as an orientation point, thus he
gets massier, more full of meaning and significance, and more mobility,
which manifests as LESS ability to move anywhere other than where he is.
The static is unmovable because it is zero dimensional, there is no
where to move.
A kinetic that can't move is imprisoned in its own considerations
of counter kinetics. Too much mobility therefore leads to not being
able to go anywhere. Stuck forever in a prison of motion.
Thus a kinetic seeking to become the static by being a kinetic,
using more and more effort and try harder etc, will become more and more
imprisoned in the APPARENCY of a static, a kinetic with so much motion
that it can not move.
A straight jacketed bug in amber.
On the other hand asking the preclear to become the static doesn't
work either, because the static is a nothing there.
But the static is a nothing there whose sole purpose, aside from
doing nothing for unfathomable eons, is to put something there.
Or worse the preclear tries to approach the static as a kinetic,
big efforts to be or conceive a static.
Talk about a total waste of time, why would you ever use time to
approach or recover timelessness?
Doing so, he runs into huge barriers of kinetics that are 'bigger'
than him, things he wouldn't couldn't, shouldn't mockup.
As a kinetic, he can't really mockup anything of import anyhow, so
when he runs into something bigger than he is, he can't mock it up again
to duplicate it, because it's got more stuff (space time motion) than he
does.
This is overwhelm.
On the other hand if the preclear would simply flip over to the
static side of the overwhelming barrier, then he is suddenly bigger than
anything that could ever be, and he can come back into the kinetic
mocking up the barrier with full power. Then he can let go of that, and
the barrier will cease.
This is how to get out of an overwhelm.
All overwhelms are kinetics that are bigger or more powerful than
the kinetic the preclear is presently being. If the preclear approaches
the overwhelm as a kinetic, he will lose. If the preclear approaches
the overwhelm as a static, he will be able to recreate the overwhelm in
its full glory, and glory it is, and then vanish it if he wants to.
Glory and humility are the flow from static to kinetic because it
always succeeds.
Shame and humiliation are the flow trying to get from kinetic back
to static because it always fails.
The way out is the way in.
Trying to get out, puts you in.
Trying to come in, puts you out.
It couldn't ever be any other way.
The creature can become the creator by BEING the creator becoming
the creature.
The kinetic can become the static by BEING the static becoming the
kinetic.
There is being and there is becoming.
The static is being, the kinetic is becoming.
Practice creating becoming (entering into time), creates not
becoming (being out of time), because you have to not be becoming (be
out of time) before you can create becoming (enter into time).
The static is always at its best when it is creating the kinetic,
thus the way to become the static, is to be the static becoming the
kinetic.
It's the TRANSITION that counts, because it gives you both sides of
the transition at once.
And that is power, ability and flow.
Wanting just the kinetic won't work.
Wanting just the static won't work.
Wanting the static to become the kinetic will work.
This is where desire is sovereign.
When the kinetic tries to command the static, things come a
cropper.
Thus the being has to decide to be the static and not the kinetic
in order to mockup.
But he won't simply be the static and that's it bud.
He doesn't WANT to be the static.
He WANTS the kinetic, but he wants NEW kinetic. Thus you have to
get him to be the static that is mocking up new kinetic.
Watch out, you get this working on a preclear, and everything he
looks at will have all kinds of new stuff all over it. If you don't
want to change, make sure he doesn't look at you!
But who or what would a static mockup?
Notice however that by asking the question you are being the
kinetic.
But you can ask the preclear to BE the static BECOMING the kinetic.
That will give him both, in equal balance, under his control.
The static already knows who or what a static would mockup, not as
an answer to the question, but as a basic native ability to mock it up.
If he is still thinking about it, or wanting to know what he will
mockup as a static once he gets there, he is being a kinetic 'need to
know before he goes' case.
Shoot him, it's probably less painful.
So if you are still asking the question, you are being the kinetic
rather than being the static.
This is a straight forward application of Q1:
Theta has the ability to create space and locate objects in it.
More to the point is to place objects IN MOTION in space and time,
in particular objects that are moving in 'causal' relation to each
other.
Don't just mock up a ball in motion, have the pitcher throw the
ball, have the player hit it with the bat, have the ball go flying out
over the park etc. Mocking up objects and motion without apparent
causation between them, makes it way too obvious the static is
orchestrating the whole thing, and all the kinetic goes poof back into
vanishment.
To really keep it there, there has to be cause postulated between
the objects that make them move in space and time.
To vanish the whole thing, simply take the postulation of causation
back and notice the orientation point orchestrating the whole thing as
if there is cause between the kinetic objects.
Poof, what kinetics?
The static HATES that.
Kinetics without postulated cross cause between objects just won't
persist long enough to play a game with.
The meatball theory considers that mocking up is a secondary
function or result of, whatever originally created things.
"God or chemistry made me and he gave me the ability to mockup!"
Whereas the dreamball theory says that the original act of creation
was itself the act of mocking up.
And therefore down in the world of the kinetic, when you are
mocking up, you are engaging in creation all over again as the static.
How do you know if its the static or the kinetic making a mockup?
The kinetic can only mockup something that is old.
The static can only mockup something that is new.
Spot what a static would mock up.
Spot what a static wouldn't mock up.
E/P Mockups turning on again.
Fasten seatbelts.
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
Wed Sep 1 01:39:10 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Nov 2 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore790.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)
iD8DBQFYGg7rURT1lqxE3HERAu3dAJ0dAXCTniA3fX9XO8ElLsDnpNdUoACeOZW5
WMj36+q/CxV2Ol6yd29O/zw=
=vBjJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
09/01/10 Wednesday 01:35am EST
ENVESSELMENT
The static mockups the kinetic.
The kinetic cannot mockup, because a mockup can't mock up!
The static envessels itself in its mockups.
The envesselment contains all of the beingnesses, identities and
dramatizations the static has mocked up for itself.
The envesselment is not just the being's body, but the entire
spacetime continuum around it and everything in it.
Every envesseled static mocks up its own copy of the kinetic around
it. Where different statics share common kinetic objects in their
vessels, like a common MEST universe, the co resonance between the
objects, makes them act as one object. Thus statics can come to effect
each other via their mocked up kinetics.
The co resonance does not causally take place directly between the
two copies of the kinetic objects themselves, but via an inner backplane
that connects two or more statics together in the underlying fabric of
the cosmic all.
There is no cross cause between objects in the apparent out there.
There is only cause between a static and its own kinetic, and
between two statics, so they can share the illusion of one kinetic.
The static is like a chameleon, it can change the 'color' of its
'body' from nothing to something. When it does, the result is self
luminous consciousness of that something. This is (the apparency of)
the kinetic.
The apparency is actual, the represented kinetic is virtual.
Thus nothing of substance is ever created or destroyed. only the
static, which is the true something of substance, changes state.
The 'substance' of the static is not like the substance of the
kinetic, mass, energy, space or time. In fact to the kinetic the
substance of the static looks like nothing. But in fact it is the
kinetic that is nothing except a chameleon coat on the static changing
from off to glow in the dark.
The kinetic is the body of the GodSoul itself luminescing in the
dark night of the void.
Thus the static 'adorns itself with', 'dresses it self up with' or
'dons' the kinetic.
The kinetic is a 'skin' to the static, but its a change in the
static's own skin, no new skin is added or deleted.
But really the skin never comes off, as the skin IS the static, the
s
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Nov 2 12:06:02 EDT 2016
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/spickler/ScienceAsReligionPart41.PJS
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
kes place by mere recognition that permeation has
already taken place and seeing it that way.
The static natively sees itself AS a clear space with objects in
it.
The kinetic vessel itself can try to mockup, but at no time is
anything but the static doing the mockup.
The issue is always mocking up, because what ever you are suffering
from is always a mock up!
If your preclear is a Black V, can't mockup anything, it is because
he is being his kinetic rather than his static.
The kinetic can not mockup!
His inability to be the static is mostly one of consideration of
alienation from the static, he can't duplicate what the creative intent
of himself as the static might be.
And he is a little upset with it, whatever it is.
Thus you might do well to run
"Who or what would a static mockup?"
"Who or what would a kinetic mockup?"
The second question is questionable, because a kinetic CAN'T
mockup, but your preclear as a kinetic (body) is trying anyhow. If your
preclear wants to mockup, he will have to do it as the static.
In any case, each answer will be swamped with guardian dicoms,
preposterous, impossible, don't believe it, incredible, can't be, too
dangerous to know etc.
Each dicom is powered and mocked up by an entity or cluster of
entities specific to that guardian dicom
These need to be run as themselves, with
"What are you, who are you, how many are you, you are real people!"
Notice however, "Who or what would a static mockup" is a question,
and if you are asking questions, you are being the kinetic and not the
static, which is why question asking in session does not work in the
long run, only commands to item or not item.
Statics do not ask questions.
Statics mockup questions.
A static doesn't have any questions.
Particularly in the sense of needing to know answers.
ORIENTATION POINT AND SYMBOL
A static is an orientation point not a symbol.
Orientation points create space, time and symbols.
Symbols have mass, meaning and mobility and exist in space and
time, and move around in space and time.
Orientation points exist above and before Q1.
Q1 is: Theta has the ability to create space and locate objects in
it. - LRH Axioms and Logics
Orientation points operate from Q1 as their sole mode of operation.
Symbols ask questions and seek answers, mostly as to their own
meaning or point in life, seeking the why to their ultimate demise.
The fate of a symbol, continuing to be a symbol forever, without
respite or clearing or reclaiming itself as an orientation point, is
mystery, unknowableness and unconsciousness.
The static which has no choice about living forever outside of time
relishes engaging in trying to die forever inside of time.
Contacting that relish will go a long ways towards erasing this
cycle's dive into the apparent abyss of no return.
The dive is just too beautiful to contemplate, so you have your
work cut out for you.
An eternal God's effort to die forever is the hysterical
tragi-comedy of the century.
If you do free the static, and well you should try when the time is
right, the static will eventually just go do it again after some rest,
and man he's back to the drawing board, this time he's going to make
sure no one gets him to spot anything about no relish. Of course he
will fail and go free again, just to do it again, each time more grand
than the time before.
Eternity is a long time to play trying to die forever and failing.
The static dives by mocking up a composite of questions and answers
with the question seeking the answer.
Basic goals on questions and answers might be something like:
To know, to look for, to see where, to seek, to search for, to
find.
There are more, I am sure you can find, er, uh, spot your own :)
For a being who can look by knowing, knowing by looking is a
primary mechanism for sinking himself forever in time.
The game is 'This time, time has to last forever no matter what!'
Fat chance.
Each goal powers a question.
Thus asking a lot of questions of the preclear gets him to mock
himself up more as a symbol rather than as an orientation point, thus he
gets massier, more full of meaning and significance, and more mobility,
which manifests as LESS ability to move anywhere other than where he is.
The static is unmovable because it is zero dimensional, there is no
where to move.
A kinetic that can't move is imprisoned in its own considerations
of counter kinetics. Too much mobility therefore leads to not being
able to go anywhere. Stuck forever in a prison of motion.
Thus a kinetic seeking to become the static by being a kinetic,
using more and more effort and try harder etc, will become more and more
imprisoned in the APPARENCY of a static, a kinetic with so much motion
that it can not move.
A straight jacketed bug in amber.
On the other hand asking the preclear to become the static doesn't
work either, because the static is a nothing there.
But the static is a nothing there whose sole purpose, aside from
doing nothing for unfathomable eons, is to put something there.
Or worse the preclear tries to approach the static as a kinetic,
big efforts to be or conceive a static.
Talk about a total waste of time, why would you ever use time to
approach or recover timelessness?
Doing so, he runs into huge barriers of kinetics that are 'bigger'
than him, things he wouldn't couldn't, shouldn't mockup.
As a kinetic, he can't really mockup anything of import anyhow, so
when he runs into something bigger than he is, he can't mock it up again
to duplicate it, because it's got more stuff (space time motion) than he
does.
This is overwhelm.
On the other hand if the preclear would simply flip over to the
static side of the overwhelming barrier, then he is suddenly bigger than
anything that could ever be, and he can come back into the kinetic
mocking up the barrier with full power. Then he can let go of that, and
the barrier will cease.
This is how to get out of an overwhelm.
All overwhelms are kinetics that are bigger or more powerful than
the kinetic the preclear is presently being. If the preclear approaches
the overwhelm as a kinetic, he will lose. If the preclear approaches
the overwhelm as a static, he will be able to recreate the overwhelm in
its full glory, and glory it is, and then vanish it if he wants to.
Glory and humility are the flow from static to kinetic because it
always succeeds.
Shame and humiliation are the flow trying to get from kinetic back
to static because it always fails.
The way out is the way in.
Trying to get out, puts you in.
Trying to come in, puts you out.
It couldn't ever be any other way.
The creature can become the creator by BEING the creator becoming
the creature.
The kinetic can become the static by BEING the static becoming the
kinetic.
There is being and there is becoming.
The static is being, the kinetic is becoming.
Practice creating becoming (entering into time), creates not
becoming (being out of time), because you have to not be becoming (be
out of time) before you can create becoming (enter into time).
The static is always at its best when it is creating the kinetic,
thus the way to become the static, is to be the static becoming the
kinetic.
It's the TRANSITION that counts, because it gives you both sides of
the transition at once.
And that is power, ability and flow.
Wanting just the kinetic won't work.
Wanting just the static won't work.
Wanting the static to become the kinetic will work.
This is where desire is sovereign.
When the kinetic tries to command the static, things come a
cropper.
Thus the being has to decide to be the static and not the kinetic
in order to mockup.
But he won't simply be the static and that's it bud.
He doesn't WANT to be the static.
He WANTS the kinetic, but he wants NEW kinetic. Thus you have to
get him to be the static that is mocking up new kinetic.
Watch out, you get this working on a preclear, and everything he
looks at will have all kinds of new stuff all over it. If you don't
want to change, make sure he doesn't look at you!
But who or what would a static mockup?
Notice however that by asking the question you are being the
kinetic.
But you can ask the preclear to BE the static BECOMING the kinetic.
That will give him both, in equal balance, under his control.
The static already knows who or what a static would mockup, not as
an answer to the question, but as a basic native ability to mock it up.
If he is still thinking about it, or wanting to know what he will
mockup as a static once he gets there, he is being a kinetic 'need to
know before he goes' case.
Shoot him, it's probably less painful.
So if you are still asking the question, you are being the kinetic
rather than being the static.
This is a straight forward application of Q1:
Theta has the ability to create space and locate objects in it.
More to the point is to place objects IN MOTION in space and time,
in particular objects that are moving in 'causal' relation to each
other.
Don't just mock up a ball in motion, have the pitcher throw the
ball, have the player hit it with the bat, have the ball go flying out
over the park etc. Mocking up objects and motion without apparent
causation between them, makes it way too obvious the static is
orchestrating the whole thing, and all the kinetic goes poof back into
vanishment.
To really keep it there, there has to be cause postulated between
the objects that make them move in space and time.
To vanish the whole thing, simply take the postulation of causation
back and notice the orientation point orchestrating the whole thing as
if there is cause between the kinetic objects.
Poof, what kinetics?
The static HATES that.
Kinetics without postulated cross cause between objects just won't
persist long enough to play a game with.
The meatball theory considers that mocking up is a secondary
function or result of, whatever originally created things.
"God or chemistry made me and he gave me the ability to mockup!"
Whereas the dreamball theory says that the original act of creation
was itself the act of mocking up.
And therefore down in the world of the kinetic, when you are
mocking up, you are engaging in creation all over again as the static.
How do you know if its the static or the kinetic making a mockup?
The kinetic can only mockup something that is old.
The static can only mockup something that is new.
Spot what a static would mock up.
Spot what a static wouldn't mock up.
E/P Mockups turning on again.
Fasten seatbelts.
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
Wed Sep 1 01:39:10 EDT 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Nov 2 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore790.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)
iD8DBQFYGg7rURT1lqxE3HERAu3dAJ0dAXCTniA3fX9XO8ElLsDnpNdUoACeOZW5
WMj36+q/CxV2Ol6yd29O/zw=
=vBjJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, November 1, 2016
ADORE182 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
psychic warrior (Cant_Touch_this) wrote:
>> Men build civilizations so women can sit back and bitch
>>about it.
>>
>... Then the men fight about it and blow eachother up.
Correct, Boys and their Toys.
The question is WHY.
Adore says the answer is because mortal women, being
jealous of men, hate their sons and try to make them other
than what a man should be. The man, also mortal, becomes
victim to this, and desires to kill his mother but can not.
So he kills her indirectly via killing civilization.
There is no implication that all men are in this boat, but
it is firmly stated that if you want to fix atomic war and man's
generally destructive nature towards each other, you must audit
the woman's relationship to her son, in particular for those men
who became totally suppressive and who benefit most from the
destruction of civilization.
"Every monster is some mother's son.
Any mother can turn her son into a monster.
Men are monsters.
How do women do it?
I mean to have something come out of your cunt and not know if it
is going to rape, kill or suck blood, must be really something else."
From Adore.
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Nov 1 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore182.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)
iD8DBQFYGL1qURT1lqxE3HERAn20AJ9DSjRlW5NPOjHxyeqKuqSq0KKlMgCeMX9t
C2lLly8aewxuDcklfQRtB3s=
=8wv/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
psychic warrior (Cant_Touch_this) wrote:
>> Men build civilizations so women can sit back and bitch
>>about it.
>>
>... Then the men fight about it and blow eachother up.
Correct, Boys and their Toys.
The question is WHY.
Adore says the answer is because mortal women, being
jealous of men, hate their sons and try to make them other
than what a man should be. The man, also mortal, becomes
victim to this, and desires to kill his mother but can not.
So he kills her indirectly via killing civilization.
There is no implication that all men are in this boat, but
it is firmly stated that if you want to fix atomic war and man's
generally destructive nature towards each other, you must audit
the woman's relationship to her son, in particular for those men
who became totally suppressive and who benefit most from the
destruction of civilization.
"Every monster is some mother's son.
Any mother can turn her son into a monster.
Men are monsters.
How do women do it?
I mean to have something come out of your cunt and not know if it
is going to rape, kill or suck blood, must be really something else."
From Adore.
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Nov 1 12:06:02 EDT 2016
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore182.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)
iD8DBQFYGL1qURT1lqxE3HERAn20AJ9DSjRlW5NPOjHxyeqKuqSq0KKlMgCeMX9t
C2lLly8aewxuDcklfQRtB3s=
=8wv/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)