-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
OCCAM'S SHARPENING STRAP
Occam liked to follow the simplest theory first before wasting time
on more complex ones.
There is some complaint that the dreamball theory is more complex
than the meatball theory.
In truth the hybrid theory that says both the physical universe and
the conscious universe are actual and are interfaced together is clearly
a more complex one than either theory alone.
But as for the pure meatball and dreamball theories, they are
pretty much on a par with other, although the dreamball theory is richer
in possibilities as it allows the virtualization of many different kinds
of meatball universes.
The dreamball universe is also way more desirable as it allows for
eternality and time enough for love, along with virtual roller coaster
rides as wild as you could ever want including the goal to seek
spiritual death forever, something you can never win, but spend a long
time trying to get there.
The meatball theory says that consciousness is a process in the
physical universe and the brain. Without the physical universe or
brain, there is no consciousness.
The dreamball theory says the physical universe and the brain are a
process in consciousness. Without the conscious universe, there is no
brain or physical universe, nor virtual renditions of them.
The meatball theory says that the physical universe came first, and
consciousness arose out of its complexity of parts, that consciousness
is chemistry bubbling away at 98.6 Farenheit.
The dreamball theory says that consciousness came first, is in fact
eternal, and that (dreams of) the physical universe arose out of its
simplicity.
Effectively the dreamball theory gets rid of the physical universe
except as illusion, and the meatball theory gets rid of consciousness
except as illusion.
But we do not have a symmetry because the existence of
consciousness can not be questioned, perfect certainty is after all
perfectly self luminous.
But the existence of the physical universe can intelligently be
questioned because we can only know it through renditions of its alleged
likeness in our consciousness.
That is like trying to prove something out there exists when all
you have ever seen is a TV picture of it fed to you by an alleged video
camera out there looking at the object. How do you know there is a
video camera and not just a video tape playing?
Worse it can be stated that it is possible to prove that it is
impossible to prove the existence of the physical universe.
That's a big statement, think about it.
Images on a TV set do not prove the existence of anything rendered
in the TV screen beyond the images so rendered.
Images in consciousness do not prove the existence of anything
rendered in consciousness beyond the images themselves.
Thus we have proven that the existence of anything rendered on a TV
screen is unprovable merely from the data on the TV screen!
Just so, we can prove that the existence of anything rendered in
consciousness is unprovable merely from the data in consciousness.
BUT THAT IS ALL WE HAVE, WHAT WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF.
Therefore the existence of the physical universe is provably
unprovable.
Occam's Razor said follow the simplest theory that explains all the
facts.
But Occam's Sharpening Strap said don't even bother to assert or
follow theories that you can prove can never be proven.
That's a deep one and needs some thought.
Stay away from hypotheses that you can prove up front are
unprovable. That doesn't mean they are wrong, it means you can't prove
them even if they are right.
So Occam said screw it, don't even bother with provably unprovable
stuff, find something else to follow.
Man has been saying for years that the ultimate truths about
consciousness are unknowable.
The truth is that the very existence of the physical universe is
unknowable as long as we are using consciousness to know about it.
Consciousness on the other hand you can know about, with perfect
certainty.
Now the guys who make a living chasing the provably unprovable,
like Scientists of the Rock, won't like this, which is in part why no
one has ever heard of Occam's Sharpening Strap.
But there is it.
There is nothing wrong with present day science, it gives us
virtual truth about a virtual reality, but it does not give us anything
about the actual truth of what creates the virtual reality.
It could though, but they would have to stop looking outward, and
start looking ATward, at their consciousness, perfect certainty, self
luminousness, and find the connection that binds us all together as one
family forever, called source or static.
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
Thu Jan 28 00:11:57 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Mar 12 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore708.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)
iD8DBQFapqQDURT1lqxE3HERAhsoAKCj8arixC69wp07rJFx/yoViTgLTACgrejC
6ToUb1Tu49ZtvcahtEWcVoA=
=RuoI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Monday, March 12, 2018
Sunday, March 11, 2018
ADOR1016 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
AMNESIA AND THE WILL TO DIE.
One does not forget the past.
One forgets the future.
The past reminds us of what the future will look like.
If the future looks bad enough, we will lose our will to live for
real, to work for, consume and produce, and WANT BE DO HAVE and KNOW
into that intolerable future.
In order to maintain any will to live at all, in spite of the
perceived future, we will choose to forget the future, and thus also
forget the past which reminds us of that future.
If knowing the probable future does not enhance our future, then we
will choose to not know it in order to enhance our present for a while.
But we not know that future by not knowing the past from which the
future portends.
Thus amnesia of the past is actually amnesia of the future and is
fair chosen in order to maintain our will to live in the present at all.
Thus we audit amnesia of the past by auditing amnesia of the
future, impending future disaster, and the desireability of oblivion of
the future and the past which portends it.
Amnesia is the actuality of a won't remember hiding under the
apparency of a can't remember.
Do we dare even consider for a moment that can't = won't?
The problem in auditing amnesia then, is our will to live, which
has found a pretended 'safe' solution in not knowing both the past and
the future.
We live instead in a little barely extendable bubble in present
time, as if the context of that bubble does not matter, indeed as if
there is NO context.
Context is the what, where, when and WHY surrounding our present
situation held together by the causal threads that got us here to where
we are or are not.
We wish to remember things in general and resent our amnesia, but
we are up against the very real possibility that if we do remember why
we chose to forget we would lose our will to live again.
It would sag under the weight of our reawakened view of the future,
and we just don't have it in us any more to reconstruct another state of
amnesia to protect us from another bout of a dying will to live.
The amnesia was a one time opportunity, if we break the amnesia now
we may not have another chance to chernobyl ourselves again into a false
sense of OKness.
What future could there be so bad we wouldn't want to live in it
and put it there?
Do you dare remember that future?
Is "putting it there" so impotent that we couldn't perhaps, by
putting it there, change it from an unrecoverable disaster to something
better, even if doing so turned out to be the closest close call of all
time?
And if our amnesia is of our own fair chosen choice, what prior
choices did we make that led us to a forboding future so intense that we
could not keep the fire of life alive in ourselves without blinding
ourselves to the truth of ourselves and the Cosmic All?
Can we find even the tiniest amount of pity for ourselves in this
state of having chosen to not know our own fate so we could love and
laugh in our daze for just a while more?
Does amnesia serve a purpose and what is that purpose?
Are you willing to be the first to find out?
What is a will to live anyhow, and why would anyone want one?
Homer
Fri Jul 1 00:07:15 EDT 2016
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Mar 11 21:13:27 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1016.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)
iD8DBQFapdQ3URT1lqxE3HERAu3zAKC3TCNe93pIj78reoSWnCvMhkrlaACfZ0M2
Cv7dbgQW4v/rrOKIHEfRe6k=
=xgmT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
AMNESIA AND THE WILL TO DIE.
One does not forget the past.
One forgets the future.
The past reminds us of what the future will look like.
If the future looks bad enough, we will lose our will to live for
real, to work for, consume and produce, and WANT BE DO HAVE and KNOW
into that intolerable future.
In order to maintain any will to live at all, in spite of the
perceived future, we will choose to forget the future, and thus also
forget the past which reminds us of that future.
If knowing the probable future does not enhance our future, then we
will choose to not know it in order to enhance our present for a while.
But we not know that future by not knowing the past from which the
future portends.
Thus amnesia of the past is actually amnesia of the future and is
fair chosen in order to maintain our will to live in the present at all.
Thus we audit amnesia of the past by auditing amnesia of the
future, impending future disaster, and the desireability of oblivion of
the future and the past which portends it.
Amnesia is the actuality of a won't remember hiding under the
apparency of a can't remember.
Do we dare even consider for a moment that can't = won't?
The problem in auditing amnesia then, is our will to live, which
has found a pretended 'safe' solution in not knowing both the past and
the future.
We live instead in a little barely extendable bubble in present
time, as if the context of that bubble does not matter, indeed as if
there is NO context.
Context is the what, where, when and WHY surrounding our present
situation held together by the causal threads that got us here to where
we are or are not.
We wish to remember things in general and resent our amnesia, but
we are up against the very real possibility that if we do remember why
we chose to forget we would lose our will to live again.
It would sag under the weight of our reawakened view of the future,
and we just don't have it in us any more to reconstruct another state of
amnesia to protect us from another bout of a dying will to live.
The amnesia was a one time opportunity, if we break the amnesia now
we may not have another chance to chernobyl ourselves again into a false
sense of OKness.
What future could there be so bad we wouldn't want to live in it
and put it there?
Do you dare remember that future?
Is "putting it there" so impotent that we couldn't perhaps, by
putting it there, change it from an unrecoverable disaster to something
better, even if doing so turned out to be the closest close call of all
time?
And if our amnesia is of our own fair chosen choice, what prior
choices did we make that led us to a forboding future so intense that we
could not keep the fire of life alive in ourselves without blinding
ourselves to the truth of ourselves and the Cosmic All?
Can we find even the tiniest amount of pity for ourselves in this
state of having chosen to not know our own fate so we could love and
laugh in our daze for just a while more?
Does amnesia serve a purpose and what is that purpose?
Are you willing to be the first to find out?
What is a will to live anyhow, and why would anyone want one?
Homer
Fri Jul 1 00:07:15 EDT 2016
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Mar 11 21:13:27 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1016.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)
iD8DBQFapdQ3URT1lqxE3HERAu3zAKC3TCNe93pIj78reoSWnCvMhkrlaACfZ0M2
Cv7dbgQW4v/rrOKIHEfRe6k=
=xgmT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, March 8, 2018
ADOR1040 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THERE IS NO GOING BACK.
I AM NO LONGER WILLING NOR ABLE TO ENGAGE IN RECEIVING AUDITING
UNLESS I KNOW BEFORE HAND THAT IT WILL WORK AND PRODUCE GAINS WORTH THE
PRICE I AM PAYING FOR IT.
THE WORST PART OF FLAG AND BEING AUDITED BY THEIR TOP LEVEL CLASS
WHATEVERS, WAS THE MORE AUDITING I RECEIVED THE LESS I WANTED TO BE ABLE
TO DO WHAT THEY WERE DOING, DUE TO THE NEGATIVE RETURN ON INVESTMENT
THAT WAS TAKING PLACE.
I MEAN CHRIST HOW MUCH MONEY CAN YOU THROW AT A STOCK THAT IS GOING
DOWN JUST TO WATCH IT CONTINUE TO GO DOWN FURTHER AND THROW MORE MONEY
AT IT?
AM I GOING TO OFFER THE SAME TO MY PRECLEARS?
THE ORG AT $375/INTENSIVE SENT ME TO FLAG DUE TO NO CASE GAIN AT
THE ORG.
AT $6000/INTENSIVE AT FLAG I LOST ALL HOPE FOR CASE GAIN AND A
FUTURE.
I WAS STIFF UPPER LIP-ING IT, BUT TALK ABOUT AN EMOTIONAL CURVE:
FROM THE HIGH OF THE FIRST MOMENT OF DISCOVERING SCIENTOLOGY TO LEAVING
IN DESPAIR.
I PAID HOW MUCH FOR A LIFE REPAIR, AND SPENT HOW MANY HOURS ON IT,
ONLY TO RESCIND MY FALSE ATTEST?
IT SEEMED RIGHT FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES.
BUT THEN WHAM INTO THE WALL AT 1000 MILES AN HOUR.
BOY THE ORG DIDN'T LIKE THAT, BUT IF I HADN'T RESCINDED MY ATTEST I
WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LIVE WITH THE DECEIT.
SO I WALKED AWAY WITH NOTHING, AND I DID IT AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH
IDIOTS IN THE FREEZONE TOO.
JESUS CHRIST I SIMPLY NEVER LEARN.
I REMEMBER THE EXACT MOMENT AT FLAG, THE EXACT TAPE I WAS LISTENING
TO WHEN I SAID, SCREW THIS, I CAN DO THIS MYSELF, I DON'T NEED ALL THESE
NAZI SHIT HEADS TO MAKE ME WRONG ABOUT BEING AN NCG.
HEY I CAN DO THAT MYSELF!
BUT HUBBARD WAS MAKING THINGS SO CLEAR ON THAT TAPE, I *KNEW* I
COULD SOLO IT FROM THERE ON OUT.
MY PRIMARY ERROR AT THE TIME WAS UNDERESTIMATING THE ENORMITY OF
CASE IN GENERAL AND MINE IN PARTICULAR.
MOST OF THE THOUSANDS OF SOLO HOURS I PUT INTO MY LIFE AFTER FLAG
WENT INTO GETTING REAL ON HOW BIG THE CHARGE IS.
AND HOW BIG *I* WAS.
I FINALLY CAME UP TO FEAR.
JESUS I AM SCARY.
AT SOME POINT ALONG THE WAY I LOST MOST OF MY HATRED FOR THE ORG
AND FLAG BECAUSE *THEY DIDN'T STAND A CHANCE* WITH ME,
NOT A CHANCE.
GOING CLEAR WITH THEM WAS AN ABSURD PROPOSIITION OUT OF THE GATE
BUT I HAD NO REALITY AT THE TIME ABOUT ME OR THEM.
I CAN AT LEAST GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR HAVING TRIED THE BEST THEY
COULD, BUT I WILL TELL YOU SOMETHING.
ANYONE WITH A CERT OR AN AWARD ON HIS WALL JUST SIMPLY IS NOT WORTH
TALKING TO.
AWARDS AND CERTS SIMPLY GIVE THE PERSON THE DELUSION HE KNOWS
SOMETHING IMPORTANT.
ONE DOESN'T AWARD PEOPLE FOR SALVATION OF THE ETERNAL SOUL FROM
RUIN.
I AM SORRY BUT ONE PRODUCES ROBOTS ON AN ORG BOARDED FACTORY LINE,
ONE DOES NOT PRODUCE FREE BEINGS.
NOT LIKE WHAT I AM LOOKING AT.
A LITTLE AMOUNT OF HUMILITY GOES A LONG WAYS WHEN IT COMES TO
DELIVERING ETERNAL FREEDOM FOR REAL TO SOMEONE AND ACTUALLY ARRIVING
THERE.
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ALONG THE WAY, AND SO YEAH HOW TO PAY FOR
SOMETHING WITH NO GUARANTEES IS A PROBLEM STILL TO BE RESOLVED FOR ME.
WHEN I PAY FOR HELP, I EXPECT TO BE HELPED NOT HARMED, DRAINED OR
BLED OUT,
AND I EXPECT AN AUDITOR WHO CAN TAKE WHAT I SAY TO THEM AND NOT DIE
THE NEXT DAY IN THEIR SLEEP.
AND IF I CHOSE TO HELP MYSELF, I EXPECT THEM TO SHUT THE F*CK UP
AND LEARN SOMETHING FROM ME, FOR THEIR CERTS AND AWARDS ARE BUT DUST IN
THE WIND COMPARED TO WHERE THEY WILL ONE DAY WANT TO GO TOO ONCE THEY
GET THE BALLS TO ADMIT WHO AND WHAT THEY ARE IN ETERNITY.
THERE IS JUST IS NO CERT NOR AWARD FOR THAT ABILITY GAINED, AS
HUBRIS, VANITY, ARROGANCE AND CONCEIT CAN NOT SURVIVE THE TRANSITION TO
ETERNALITY.
HUMILIATION IS FINITE OPERATING PRIDE
HUMILITY IS INFINITE OPERATING PRIDE
VANITY IS INFINITE OPERATING PRIDE WASTING AWAY FROM ARROGANCE AND
CONCEIT. - ADORE.COM
HOMER
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 8 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1040.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)
iD8DBQFaoWwTURT1lqxE3HERAqrbAJ0R3wsBx/8WPWGhvgk6+gON81f/IgCgkqR1
UzEj5VqvZgEvT6Wzj5oP9X4=
=hY4G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THERE IS NO GOING BACK.
I AM NO LONGER WILLING NOR ABLE TO ENGAGE IN RECEIVING AUDITING
UNLESS I KNOW BEFORE HAND THAT IT WILL WORK AND PRODUCE GAINS WORTH THE
PRICE I AM PAYING FOR IT.
THE WORST PART OF FLAG AND BEING AUDITED BY THEIR TOP LEVEL CLASS
WHATEVERS, WAS THE MORE AUDITING I RECEIVED THE LESS I WANTED TO BE ABLE
TO DO WHAT THEY WERE DOING, DUE TO THE NEGATIVE RETURN ON INVESTMENT
THAT WAS TAKING PLACE.
I MEAN CHRIST HOW MUCH MONEY CAN YOU THROW AT A STOCK THAT IS GOING
DOWN JUST TO WATCH IT CONTINUE TO GO DOWN FURTHER AND THROW MORE MONEY
AT IT?
AM I GOING TO OFFER THE SAME TO MY PRECLEARS?
THE ORG AT $375/INTENSIVE SENT ME TO FLAG DUE TO NO CASE GAIN AT
THE ORG.
AT $6000/INTENSIVE AT FLAG I LOST ALL HOPE FOR CASE GAIN AND A
FUTURE.
I WAS STIFF UPPER LIP-ING IT, BUT TALK ABOUT AN EMOTIONAL CURVE:
FROM THE HIGH OF THE FIRST MOMENT OF DISCOVERING SCIENTOLOGY TO LEAVING
IN DESPAIR.
I PAID HOW MUCH FOR A LIFE REPAIR, AND SPENT HOW MANY HOURS ON IT,
ONLY TO RESCIND MY FALSE ATTEST?
IT SEEMED RIGHT FOR ABOUT 15 MINUTES.
BUT THEN WHAM INTO THE WALL AT 1000 MILES AN HOUR.
BOY THE ORG DIDN'T LIKE THAT, BUT IF I HADN'T RESCINDED MY ATTEST I
WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LIVE WITH THE DECEIT.
SO I WALKED AWAY WITH NOTHING, AND I DID IT AGAIN AND AGAIN WITH
IDIOTS IN THE FREEZONE TOO.
JESUS CHRIST I SIMPLY NEVER LEARN.
I REMEMBER THE EXACT MOMENT AT FLAG, THE EXACT TAPE I WAS LISTENING
TO WHEN I SAID, SCREW THIS, I CAN DO THIS MYSELF, I DON'T NEED ALL THESE
NAZI SHIT HEADS TO MAKE ME WRONG ABOUT BEING AN NCG.
HEY I CAN DO THAT MYSELF!
BUT HUBBARD WAS MAKING THINGS SO CLEAR ON THAT TAPE, I *KNEW* I
COULD SOLO IT FROM THERE ON OUT.
MY PRIMARY ERROR AT THE TIME WAS UNDERESTIMATING THE ENORMITY OF
CASE IN GENERAL AND MINE IN PARTICULAR.
MOST OF THE THOUSANDS OF SOLO HOURS I PUT INTO MY LIFE AFTER FLAG
WENT INTO GETTING REAL ON HOW BIG THE CHARGE IS.
AND HOW BIG *I* WAS.
I FINALLY CAME UP TO FEAR.
JESUS I AM SCARY.
AT SOME POINT ALONG THE WAY I LOST MOST OF MY HATRED FOR THE ORG
AND FLAG BECAUSE *THEY DIDN'T STAND A CHANCE* WITH ME,
NOT A CHANCE.
GOING CLEAR WITH THEM WAS AN ABSURD PROPOSIITION OUT OF THE GATE
BUT I HAD NO REALITY AT THE TIME ABOUT ME OR THEM.
I CAN AT LEAST GIVE THEM CREDIT FOR HAVING TRIED THE BEST THEY
COULD, BUT I WILL TELL YOU SOMETHING.
ANYONE WITH A CERT OR AN AWARD ON HIS WALL JUST SIMPLY IS NOT WORTH
TALKING TO.
AWARDS AND CERTS SIMPLY GIVE THE PERSON THE DELUSION HE KNOWS
SOMETHING IMPORTANT.
ONE DOESN'T AWARD PEOPLE FOR SALVATION OF THE ETERNAL SOUL FROM
RUIN.
I AM SORRY BUT ONE PRODUCES ROBOTS ON AN ORG BOARDED FACTORY LINE,
ONE DOES NOT PRODUCE FREE BEINGS.
NOT LIKE WHAT I AM LOOKING AT.
A LITTLE AMOUNT OF HUMILITY GOES A LONG WAYS WHEN IT COMES TO
DELIVERING ETERNAL FREEDOM FOR REAL TO SOMEONE AND ACTUALLY ARRIVING
THERE.
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES ALONG THE WAY, AND SO YEAH HOW TO PAY FOR
SOMETHING WITH NO GUARANTEES IS A PROBLEM STILL TO BE RESOLVED FOR ME.
WHEN I PAY FOR HELP, I EXPECT TO BE HELPED NOT HARMED, DRAINED OR
BLED OUT,
AND I EXPECT AN AUDITOR WHO CAN TAKE WHAT I SAY TO THEM AND NOT DIE
THE NEXT DAY IN THEIR SLEEP.
AND IF I CHOSE TO HELP MYSELF, I EXPECT THEM TO SHUT THE F*CK UP
AND LEARN SOMETHING FROM ME, FOR THEIR CERTS AND AWARDS ARE BUT DUST IN
THE WIND COMPARED TO WHERE THEY WILL ONE DAY WANT TO GO TOO ONCE THEY
GET THE BALLS TO ADMIT WHO AND WHAT THEY ARE IN ETERNITY.
THERE IS JUST IS NO CERT NOR AWARD FOR THAT ABILITY GAINED, AS
HUBRIS, VANITY, ARROGANCE AND CONCEIT CAN NOT SURVIVE THE TRANSITION TO
ETERNALITY.
HUMILIATION IS FINITE OPERATING PRIDE
HUMILITY IS INFINITE OPERATING PRIDE
VANITY IS INFINITE OPERATING PRIDE WASTING AWAY FROM ARROGANCE AND
CONCEIT. - ADORE.COM
HOMER
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 8 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1040.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)
iD8DBQFaoWwTURT1lqxE3HERAqrbAJ0R3wsBx/8WPWGhvgk6+gON81f/IgCgkqR1
UzEj5VqvZgEvT6Wzj5oP9X4=
=hY4G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
ADORE629 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
WHAT DREAMS MAY COME
I tend to be a firm believer in the idea that anyone claiming to
know anything about how it all works, assuredly doesn't.
Including me.
Not because it can't be known, but because its a big subject with a
lot of bullshiters throwing very hot bullshit, so I consider anyone
pretending to know something, guilty until proven innocent.
Adore says "As for those who claim to wisdom, let them be crucified
to their crosses, and let us see how close they are to their God now."
That's why I keep saying I may write this stuff, but I am just a
messenger, I don't believe a word of it, any more than anyone else does.
Adore starts off saying that Desire and the AllThatIs are in
perfect accord, meaning the world is as you would want it. One is
merely left with working out how one could want something that was bad,
something one didn't want.
The aesthetics to unaesthetics.
The ability to be unable.
Total responsibility for total irresponsibility.
The 'how' of how self creates a lockdown in hell is becoming
clearer to me, as this life is actually a continuous PART OF the after
life.
Thus taking apart the hells of this life IS taking apart
the hells of the between lives area which has been going for
a very long time.
Thus whatever hells or heavens one has playing out now, will
continue if not finished in the after life, and whatever hells or heavens
are playing out in the after life, if not finished, will continue into
the next life.
Hells and heavens of long duration can be playing out across
hundreds if not thousands of life times.
If one wanted to be cynical about it one might even say that the in
body life is a kind of escape from the between body life, and the hells
going on there.
So the HOW we get locked down in a persisting state is getting
resolved.
It's the WHY that still eludes my grasp.
What's the purpose, the motivation, the enticement to engage in
such enterprises?
The childish view is that the in life is a testing ground and those
that fail the gauntlet are removed by the Creator.
The adolescent view is that the in life is where we SOW, and the
after life is where we REAP.
Or life in a body is a school and lessons need to be learned.
Hubbard talked about these kind of people, they were SO GOOD, the thetan
escaped at first opportunity.
Both of these views kind of imply a higher force or purpose that is
not our own governing why we are here, and doling out lessons and
justice as fits wrongdoers, and generally makes everyone other
determined, "God created me!".
This denies that justice reigns at all times, that the being's
condition is fair chosen
One can not love such a God.
A more mature adult view can be postulated but its still unclear to
me.
This would be based on the idea that 'lessons' are in fact the
problem, and need to be unlearned.
What is clear to me is that any choice can be erased by reoperating
it and letting it go.
Awareness of choice is self erasing.
This is both our salvation, and a curse, for it guarantees that we
don't have to be stuck in any choice forever, but also makes it almost
impossible to get stuck in a choice even for a while, to keep anything
around long enough to make a game of it.
Thus there is a necessity to make choices to be unaware of choices
we have made so we can be stuck with them for a while. Thus the playing
field and ability/disability packages can persist long enough to play a
game.
One way to run the whole problem as a session command would be
something like this.
If you could have designed the AllThatIs yourself, how would you
have designed it?
Having designed the AllThatIs, and now being God, how would you
have designed the world?
Adore says, when one finds the truth of one's desire on the matter,
one finds that the present world and all other created worlds fit the
bill.
Thus God and Soul are in accord, because God and Soul are one.
I saw a movie last night called What Dreams May Come with Robin
Williams, about his wander through the afterlife to save his wife from
hell for committing suicide after the loss of her children and Robin to
car accidents. She was a mortal meatball and didn't have the faith or
insight to carry her through. She 'lost her mind' ended up in the psych
ward and eventually killed herself shortly after Robin's death.
An amazing movie, visually stunning, and not to be missed. It's
world view is a bit simplistic and childish, but way better than the
sickness passing for religion elsewhere on this planet at this time.
Its basic view is that people put themselves in hell for whatever
reason, and no one yet knows how to get them out of it. Thus hell is
growing without bounds, while those in heaven get to reincarnate.
Robin wants to find his wife and wake her up, but is told by
everyone it's impossible, no one has succeeded before, and to give it
up.
Robin is also told it is very dangerous to try, because in so
doing, he could get 'infected' with her hell and end up in his own hell
and become likewise unrecoverable. Insanity, losing one's mind, is
apparently contageous. Thus it is better to not play around in
dangerous waters.
However Robin 'no dog pcs here' Williams takes umbrage at these
warnings, and goes after her anyway.
(A dog PC is a dog pre clear, one who is impossible to audit or
clear, usually blamed on attitude of the client, but is usually the
fault of the practitioner.)
How can you live in heaven while a loved one is in hell?
How many forgotten loved ones in hell are there in your life?
Except for the nonsense about only those in heaven get to
reincarnate, I think this is all pretty close to the truth.
Beings have been coming into this universe and incarnating on Earth
for a long time, even those who are clearly still stuck in prior hells
and ready to cause more. In other words everyone is incarnating
regardless of what heavens or hells they have going in the between
lives.
Many choose incarnation to ESCAPE their heavens and hells!
Everyone follows the dwindling spiral down and finally 'dies in the
rigid apathy of MEST', when they can not incarnate any more - LRH.
(MEST means Matter, Energy, Space and Time, the physical universe
dream we all think we are made of.)
It can be reversed, but we are all just figuring it out now.
"And no Goober, we are not in the good hands of AllState."
We ARE God in carnation.
God did this thing to himself.
Homer
Mickel <mickel1234@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <root@adore2.lightlink.com> wrote in message
> news:20090102000657.44CC655C0D@adore2.lightlink.com...
>> YOU 10
>>
>> NEW AND OLD
>>
>> You are bigger than the world.
>>
>> The basic game then is to bring that part of you to the world that is
>> bigger than the world and not yet in the world.
>>
>> To bring something new to the world.
>>
>> You are bigger than the world in terms of the space and time needed
>> to encompass it. Your consciousness is a zero dimensional rendition of
>> the apparent multidimensional dream reality, called the physical
>> universe.
>>
>> The physical universe is computer graphics, conscious rendition, in
>> the mind of God, the High US.
>>
>> Conscious rendition is a painting of space and time that itself
>> does not take up space or time.
>>
>> Just because there is perspective of space and time in a painting
>> doesn't mean there is space and time between paintings.
>>
>> Just so, conscious renditions of space and time do not themselves
>> take up any space or time.
>>
>> Thus your consciousness may (thankfully) not be immortal, but it
>> certainly is eternal.
>>
>> Immortality, living forever without choice in a single space time
>> game stream, is not desirable.
>>
>> Eternality, coming from, and living above space and time where one
>> can source and join or not join space time game streams at will, for ever
>> for free, is.
>>
>> You do not come from the world.
>>
>> The world comes from you, the conscious High US.
>>
>> You are also bigger than the world in your ability to create and
>> originate things to do.
>>
>> Except for clearable aberrations, anyone can out create the world,
>> as the existing world is merely what everyone has already brought to the
>> table.
>>
>> The universe is not a buffet of all the possible things you can do
>> in the world.
>>
>> It's a pot luck dinner.
>>
>> What is here, is what people have brought here to do.
>>
>> You needn't eat their food, let them eat yours.
>>
>> They need something new to chew on.
>>
>> Many children, first starting out, look to the world to give them
>> an idea of what they want to do in life.
>>
>> They consider the world to be their list of opportunities, the
>> ultimate job listing.
>>
>> They visit all the churches, all the science labs, all the art
>> galleries and music halls, all the market places, all the government
>> halls, all the coffee shops of philosophy, all the places of social
>> concourse, looking, looking, looking for something that interests them,
>> for something they can do for the rest of their lives, to make for
>> themselves that oh so precious living.
>>
>> They are trying to find a preexisting receptor site for themselves
>> where they can fit in and function.
>>
>> But the basic purpose of a child lies not in what others have
>> already done, although the child certainly can learn for a while through
>> mimicry, harmony and counterpoint to others.
>>
>> The basic purpose of a being is to bring something NEW to the
>> world, sourced from that part of himself that is bigger than the world
>> and not yet manifested in the world.
>>
>> Yes there may be some willies.
>>
>> The slave masters do not like anything new, no laws written yet to
>> control, tax, or use it to their own ends.
>>
>> But too much agreement and devotion to what other's have done will
>> lead to an existence of dwindling life, dissatisfaction,
>> meaninglessness, and unfullfillment.
>>
>> For the originators of what already exists were doing something
>> NEW.
>>
>> But their followers are not.
>>
>> Are you happy?
>>
>> Are you doing something meaningful in life?
>>
>> Are you fullfilled and satisfied at the end of every day?
>>
>> Or are you sacrificing yourself to another's cold pot of stew?
>>
>> Happiness, meaning and fullfillment come from ORIGNATION of the
>> new, not from agreement with the old.
>>
>> If everyone does only what already exists, the world becomes old
>> pretty quick.
>>
>> Oldness is death.
>>
>> Newness is life.
>>
>> Anything new is better than nothing new, even if it is just new for
>> you.
>>
>> Homer
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
>> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>>
>> ======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
>> Thu Jan 1 19:06:57 EST 2009
>> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/you10
>> Send mail to archive.com saying help
>>
> Hi Homer
> Excellent messages from you recently, thanks.
>
> My youngest Daughter who works as a keep fit instructor and receptionist and
> knows a little bit about the Spiritual stuff I study said to me the other
> day that She knows someone at her Gym that "sees" what I "see", if you see
> what I mean, (sentence constrution is not my forte).
> Anyway She gets into conversation with this Guy on the internet and She
> keeps asking me questions and I thought to myself that it must be Her time
> to wake up so I was in a bit of a quandary on where I should start.
> I have read so many books, so many ideas, concepts, I had not a clue, the
> Spiritual field can be a bit of a minefield for those that choose to walk
> that path, so what could I show her to start her off.
>
> Then it came to me, On the Ivy list a short time ago someone posted an item
> from 'The Bhagavad Gita' "What is Real never Ceases", that's it I thought,
> that will be good grounding in understanding Spiritual Universe.
> Take care:)
> Mike
>
> 'The Bhagavad Gita'
>
> What Is Real Never Ceases
>
> The Self dwells in the house of the body,
> Which passes through childhood, youth, and old age.
> So passes the Self at the time of death
> Into another body. The wise know this truth
> And are not deceived by it.
>
> When the senses come in contact with sense-objects
> They give rise to feelings of heat and cold,
> Pleasure and pain, which come and go.
> Accept them calmly, as do the wise.
>
> The wise, who live free from pleasure and pain,
> Are worthy of immortality.
>
> What is real never ceases to be.
> The unreal never is. The sages
> Who realize the Self know the secret
> Of what is and what is not.
>
> Know that the Self, the ground of existence,
> Can never be destroyed or diminished.
> For the changeless cannot be changed.
>
> Bodies die, not the Self that dwells therein.
> Know the Self to be beyond change and death.
> Therefore strive to realize this Self.
>
> Those who look upon the Self as slayer
> Or as slain have not realized the Self.
> How can the Self be killed or kill
> When there is only One?
>
> Never was the Self born; never shall it
> Cease to be. Without beginning or end,
> Free from birth, free from death, and free from time,
> How can the Self die when the body dies?
>
> Who knows the Self to be birthless, deathless,
> Not subject to the tyranny of time,
> How can the Self slay or cause to be slain?
>
> Even as we cast off worn-out garments
> And put on new ones, so casts off the Self
> A worn-out body and enters into
> Another that is new.
>
> Not pierced by arrows nor burnt by fire,
> Affected by neither water nor wind,
> The Self is not a physical creature.
>
> Not wounded, not burnt, not wetted, not dried,
> The Self is ever and everywhere,
> Immovable and everlasting.
>
> The Self cannot be known by the senses,
> Nor thought by the mind, nor caught by time.
> If you know this, you will not grieve.
>
> Even if you mistake the Self to be
> Subject to birth and death, you must not grieve.
> For death is certain for those who are born,
> As rebirth is certain for those who die.
> Why grieve over what cannot be avoided?
>
> We perceive creatures only after birth,
> And after they die we perceive them not.
> They are manifest only between birth
> And death. In this there is no cause for grief.
>
> Some there are who have realized the Self
> In all its wonder. Others can speak of it
> As wonderful. But there are many
> Who don't understand even when they hear.
>
> Deathless is the Self in every creature.
> Know this truth, and leave all sorrow behind.
>
>
>
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Sun Jan 4 17:47:26 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Mar 7 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore629.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)
iD8DBQFaoBqTURT1lqxE3HERApQJAJ45gRLPHOH8g0AL2Pc/Ab0/qyNH0gCfZIyK
3OgUDQCw6mqu3TwE6aYeF9s=
=Z1/r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
WHAT DREAMS MAY COME
I tend to be a firm believer in the idea that anyone claiming to
know anything about how it all works, assuredly doesn't.
Including me.
Not because it can't be known, but because its a big subject with a
lot of bullshiters throwing very hot bullshit, so I consider anyone
pretending to know something, guilty until proven innocent.
Adore says "As for those who claim to wisdom, let them be crucified
to their crosses, and let us see how close they are to their God now."
That's why I keep saying I may write this stuff, but I am just a
messenger, I don't believe a word of it, any more than anyone else does.
Adore starts off saying that Desire and the AllThatIs are in
perfect accord, meaning the world is as you would want it. One is
merely left with working out how one could want something that was bad,
something one didn't want.
The aesthetics to unaesthetics.
The ability to be unable.
Total responsibility for total irresponsibility.
The 'how' of how self creates a lockdown in hell is becoming
clearer to me, as this life is actually a continuous PART OF the after
life.
Thus taking apart the hells of this life IS taking apart
the hells of the between lives area which has been going for
a very long time.
Thus whatever hells or heavens one has playing out now, will
continue if not finished in the after life, and whatever hells or heavens
are playing out in the after life, if not finished, will continue into
the next life.
Hells and heavens of long duration can be playing out across
hundreds if not thousands of life times.
If one wanted to be cynical about it one might even say that the in
body life is a kind of escape from the between body life, and the hells
going on there.
So the HOW we get locked down in a persisting state is getting
resolved.
It's the WHY that still eludes my grasp.
What's the purpose, the motivation, the enticement to engage in
such enterprises?
The childish view is that the in life is a testing ground and those
that fail the gauntlet are removed by the Creator.
The adolescent view is that the in life is where we SOW, and the
after life is where we REAP.
Or life in a body is a school and lessons need to be learned.
Hubbard talked about these kind of people, they were SO GOOD, the thetan
escaped at first opportunity.
Both of these views kind of imply a higher force or purpose that is
not our own governing why we are here, and doling out lessons and
justice as fits wrongdoers, and generally makes everyone other
determined, "God created me!".
This denies that justice reigns at all times, that the being's
condition is fair chosen
One can not love such a God.
A more mature adult view can be postulated but its still unclear to
me.
This would be based on the idea that 'lessons' are in fact the
problem, and need to be unlearned.
What is clear to me is that any choice can be erased by reoperating
it and letting it go.
Awareness of choice is self erasing.
This is both our salvation, and a curse, for it guarantees that we
don't have to be stuck in any choice forever, but also makes it almost
impossible to get stuck in a choice even for a while, to keep anything
around long enough to make a game of it.
Thus there is a necessity to make choices to be unaware of choices
we have made so we can be stuck with them for a while. Thus the playing
field and ability/disability packages can persist long enough to play a
game.
One way to run the whole problem as a session command would be
something like this.
If you could have designed the AllThatIs yourself, how would you
have designed it?
Having designed the AllThatIs, and now being God, how would you
have designed the world?
Adore says, when one finds the truth of one's desire on the matter,
one finds that the present world and all other created worlds fit the
bill.
Thus God and Soul are in accord, because God and Soul are one.
I saw a movie last night called What Dreams May Come with Robin
Williams, about his wander through the afterlife to save his wife from
hell for committing suicide after the loss of her children and Robin to
car accidents. She was a mortal meatball and didn't have the faith or
insight to carry her through. She 'lost her mind' ended up in the psych
ward and eventually killed herself shortly after Robin's death.
An amazing movie, visually stunning, and not to be missed. It's
world view is a bit simplistic and childish, but way better than the
sickness passing for religion elsewhere on this planet at this time.
Its basic view is that people put themselves in hell for whatever
reason, and no one yet knows how to get them out of it. Thus hell is
growing without bounds, while those in heaven get to reincarnate.
Robin wants to find his wife and wake her up, but is told by
everyone it's impossible, no one has succeeded before, and to give it
up.
Robin is also told it is very dangerous to try, because in so
doing, he could get 'infected' with her hell and end up in his own hell
and become likewise unrecoverable. Insanity, losing one's mind, is
apparently contageous. Thus it is better to not play around in
dangerous waters.
However Robin 'no dog pcs here' Williams takes umbrage at these
warnings, and goes after her anyway.
(A dog PC is a dog pre clear, one who is impossible to audit or
clear, usually blamed on attitude of the client, but is usually the
fault of the practitioner.)
How can you live in heaven while a loved one is in hell?
How many forgotten loved ones in hell are there in your life?
Except for the nonsense about only those in heaven get to
reincarnate, I think this is all pretty close to the truth.
Beings have been coming into this universe and incarnating on Earth
for a long time, even those who are clearly still stuck in prior hells
and ready to cause more. In other words everyone is incarnating
regardless of what heavens or hells they have going in the between
lives.
Many choose incarnation to ESCAPE their heavens and hells!
Everyone follows the dwindling spiral down and finally 'dies in the
rigid apathy of MEST', when they can not incarnate any more - LRH.
(MEST means Matter, Energy, Space and Time, the physical universe
dream we all think we are made of.)
It can be reversed, but we are all just figuring it out now.
"And no Goober, we are not in the good hands of AllState."
We ARE God in carnation.
God did this thing to himself.
Homer
Mickel <mickel1234@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <root@adore2.lightlink.com> wrote in message
> news:20090102000657.44CC655C0D@adore2.lightlink.com...
>> YOU 10
>>
>> NEW AND OLD
>>
>> You are bigger than the world.
>>
>> The basic game then is to bring that part of you to the world that is
>> bigger than the world and not yet in the world.
>>
>> To bring something new to the world.
>>
>> You are bigger than the world in terms of the space and time needed
>> to encompass it. Your consciousness is a zero dimensional rendition of
>> the apparent multidimensional dream reality, called the physical
>> universe.
>>
>> The physical universe is computer graphics, conscious rendition, in
>> the mind of God, the High US.
>>
>> Conscious rendition is a painting of space and time that itself
>> does not take up space or time.
>>
>> Just because there is perspective of space and time in a painting
>> doesn't mean there is space and time between paintings.
>>
>> Just so, conscious renditions of space and time do not themselves
>> take up any space or time.
>>
>> Thus your consciousness may (thankfully) not be immortal, but it
>> certainly is eternal.
>>
>> Immortality, living forever without choice in a single space time
>> game stream, is not desirable.
>>
>> Eternality, coming from, and living above space and time where one
>> can source and join or not join space time game streams at will, for ever
>> for free, is.
>>
>> You do not come from the world.
>>
>> The world comes from you, the conscious High US.
>>
>> You are also bigger than the world in your ability to create and
>> originate things to do.
>>
>> Except for clearable aberrations, anyone can out create the world,
>> as the existing world is merely what everyone has already brought to the
>> table.
>>
>> The universe is not a buffet of all the possible things you can do
>> in the world.
>>
>> It's a pot luck dinner.
>>
>> What is here, is what people have brought here to do.
>>
>> You needn't eat their food, let them eat yours.
>>
>> They need something new to chew on.
>>
>> Many children, first starting out, look to the world to give them
>> an idea of what they want to do in life.
>>
>> They consider the world to be their list of opportunities, the
>> ultimate job listing.
>>
>> They visit all the churches, all the science labs, all the art
>> galleries and music halls, all the market places, all the government
>> halls, all the coffee shops of philosophy, all the places of social
>> concourse, looking, looking, looking for something that interests them,
>> for something they can do for the rest of their lives, to make for
>> themselves that oh so precious living.
>>
>> They are trying to find a preexisting receptor site for themselves
>> where they can fit in and function.
>>
>> But the basic purpose of a child lies not in what others have
>> already done, although the child certainly can learn for a while through
>> mimicry, harmony and counterpoint to others.
>>
>> The basic purpose of a being is to bring something NEW to the
>> world, sourced from that part of himself that is bigger than the world
>> and not yet manifested in the world.
>>
>> Yes there may be some willies.
>>
>> The slave masters do not like anything new, no laws written yet to
>> control, tax, or use it to their own ends.
>>
>> But too much agreement and devotion to what other's have done will
>> lead to an existence of dwindling life, dissatisfaction,
>> meaninglessness, and unfullfillment.
>>
>> For the originators of what already exists were doing something
>> NEW.
>>
>> But their followers are not.
>>
>> Are you happy?
>>
>> Are you doing something meaningful in life?
>>
>> Are you fullfilled and satisfied at the end of every day?
>>
>> Or are you sacrificing yourself to another's cold pot of stew?
>>
>> Happiness, meaning and fullfillment come from ORIGNATION of the
>> new, not from agreement with the old.
>>
>> If everyone does only what already exists, the world becomes old
>> pretty quick.
>>
>> Oldness is death.
>>
>> Newness is life.
>>
>> Anything new is better than nothing new, even if it is just new for
>> you.
>>
>> Homer
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
>> (607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
>>
>> ======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
>> Thu Jan 1 19:06:57 EST 2009
>> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/you10
>> Send mail to archive.com saying help
>>
> Hi Homer
> Excellent messages from you recently, thanks.
>
> My youngest Daughter who works as a keep fit instructor and receptionist and
> knows a little bit about the Spiritual stuff I study said to me the other
> day that She knows someone at her Gym that "sees" what I "see", if you see
> what I mean, (sentence constrution is not my forte).
> Anyway She gets into conversation with this Guy on the internet and She
> keeps asking me questions and I thought to myself that it must be Her time
> to wake up so I was in a bit of a quandary on where I should start.
> I have read so many books, so many ideas, concepts, I had not a clue, the
> Spiritual field can be a bit of a minefield for those that choose to walk
> that path, so what could I show her to start her off.
>
> Then it came to me, On the Ivy list a short time ago someone posted an item
> from 'The Bhagavad Gita' "What is Real never Ceases", that's it I thought,
> that will be good grounding in understanding Spiritual Universe.
> Take care:)
> Mike
>
> 'The Bhagavad Gita'
>
> What Is Real Never Ceases
>
> The Self dwells in the house of the body,
> Which passes through childhood, youth, and old age.
> So passes the Self at the time of death
> Into another body. The wise know this truth
> And are not deceived by it.
>
> When the senses come in contact with sense-objects
> They give rise to feelings of heat and cold,
> Pleasure and pain, which come and go.
> Accept them calmly, as do the wise.
>
> The wise, who live free from pleasure and pain,
> Are worthy of immortality.
>
> What is real never ceases to be.
> The unreal never is. The sages
> Who realize the Self know the secret
> Of what is and what is not.
>
> Know that the Self, the ground of existence,
> Can never be destroyed or diminished.
> For the changeless cannot be changed.
>
> Bodies die, not the Self that dwells therein.
> Know the Self to be beyond change and death.
> Therefore strive to realize this Self.
>
> Those who look upon the Self as slayer
> Or as slain have not realized the Self.
> How can the Self be killed or kill
> When there is only One?
>
> Never was the Self born; never shall it
> Cease to be. Without beginning or end,
> Free from birth, free from death, and free from time,
> How can the Self die when the body dies?
>
> Who knows the Self to be birthless, deathless,
> Not subject to the tyranny of time,
> How can the Self slay or cause to be slain?
>
> Even as we cast off worn-out garments
> And put on new ones, so casts off the Self
> A worn-out body and enters into
> Another that is new.
>
> Not pierced by arrows nor burnt by fire,
> Affected by neither water nor wind,
> The Self is not a physical creature.
>
> Not wounded, not burnt, not wetted, not dried,
> The Self is ever and everywhere,
> Immovable and everlasting.
>
> The Self cannot be known by the senses,
> Nor thought by the mind, nor caught by time.
> If you know this, you will not grieve.
>
> Even if you mistake the Self to be
> Subject to birth and death, you must not grieve.
> For death is certain for those who are born,
> As rebirth is certain for those who die.
> Why grieve over what cannot be avoided?
>
> We perceive creatures only after birth,
> And after they die we perceive them not.
> They are manifest only between birth
> And death. In this there is no cause for grief.
>
> Some there are who have realized the Self
> In all its wonder. Others can speak of it
> As wonderful. But there are many
> Who don't understand even when they hear.
>
> Deathless is the Self in every creature.
> Know this truth, and leave all sorrow behind.
>
>
>
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Sun Jan 4 17:47:26 EST 2009
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Mar 7 12:00:03 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore629.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)
iD8DBQFaoBqTURT1lqxE3HERApQJAJ45gRLPHOH8g0AL2Pc/Ab0/qyNH0gCfZIyK
3OgUDQCw6mqu3TwE6aYeF9s=
=Z1/r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
ADORE880 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
GOD VS GOOD
The below AODRE14 is not clear.
If God is 'good', then God couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't do bad.
If God then creates man who can do 'bad', then it must have been
'good' for God to do so.
But it would be 'bad' of a human to create humans who could do
'bad'.
Thus we have a double standard, and possibly a confusion of
definitions of 'good', for virtue for the Author (God) is not virtue for
the Character.
People like to think of God as a perfect human, something for the
human to aspire to. Yet they never ever want the human to act as a God,
because what God does is scary as hell, namely make humans and dump them
into meat grinders.
So in that sense God is way beyond simply a perfect human, and
humans don't really want to be like God in His entirety at all.
If we take the literal definition of inhuman, not human, then it is
contradictory to claim that humans can act in an inhuman way.
Humans will and can do what humans can do, which includes what we
call 'good' and 'bad/evil', but which really comes down to willingness
to be sensitive to other's pain.
Thus we can properly say that all humans are 'good' but conceive
that other's are evil and thus try to be evil to those they consider
evil in order to teach them a lesson, or vanquish them entirely.
But a God, who can would and should do things that humans never
would, might properly be called inhuman in the wider sense of Authorship
of a good story, which includes human elements of good, bad, evil, and
redemption or not.
No human would write the story of humanness and then force other
humans to play it out.
At the top of the tone scale, there are no mistakes, thus even the
idea of mistakes must be created to give randomity, thus there is only
authorship with no possibility of a negative value judgement, because if
the OT doesn't like something he can veto it in the making of it.
But lower down, the OT has created a dependency condition upon
others, with agreements on rights and duties, mostly geared around
production and consuption of survival assets like food, shelter and
civilization.
Thus it becomes possible to do bad by breaking agreements, or
making mistakes unintentionally (from that lower point of view), or by
outright 'cussedness'.
Thus we have accidental overt acts, unprovoked but intentional
overt acts (DEDs), and provoked overt acts (motivators).
Since the being can feel regret on all 3, he becomes his own
punisher.
The being in these lower conditions has definitely taken sides,
namely the sides of survival for himself, his family, his group,
mankind, life, mest, spirits and infinity.
However he has to act against subsets of these which are acting
against him, viruses, raiding hoardes, etc.
This is a dog eat dog world, and thus various sectors of life form
alliances against other sectors of life.
When he turns against his own fair chosen team mates for whatever
reason, he becomes 'culpable', and his team mates feel justifed in
turning against him as a matter of necessity for their own survival.
A clear will be an optimum game player at these lower levels, but
an OT is a God, a game CREATOR, the OT can move the mountain sideways
because he can MAKE the mountain where ever wants.
Thus which side in any conflict he takes is undetermined, because
his existence is expressed by the existence of the GAME, not the
existence of any particular side.
Thus if human kind were to try to wipe out the mosquito or malaria,
there will be OT's fighting the good fight for the underdog.
To the degree that in this life an OT has a human body, one might
hope that they side with the survival of human life, but free of the
biases of a human body, OT's go back to doing what they do best, defend
the GAME and length of play, and not the side.
To the degree that humans would never defend the game to the
exclusion of the side, in particular games of good vs evil, survival vs
succumb for humanity, one could rightly say that a free OT was inhuman,
or had transcended humanness as we understand it.
The Author is not the Character.
As for ethics, as defined by LRH, ethics is REASON applied towards
a known goal in a universe of conditions.
If you have to plant a seed to get some growth, planting stones
instead would be 'unethical' as the conditions of the universe dictate
certain failure.
Out ethics then is a form of mental irrationality or
shortsightedness for the greatest good of the greatest number.
Ethics is thus an issue for game players and not game creators.
Ethics for humans is about how to win and not lose long term, not
about how to extend playing as no one in their right mind would do that.
in a serious survive/succumb scenario. (Hey man, be a sport, give the
deer a head start!)
The ethics of how to win is not the same as the ethics of how to
extend the game, although both may involve reason applied against the
conditions of the universe.
The ethics of CREATING the conditions of the universe in the first
place, might also involve reason towards the goal of having sustainable
games. With wrong conditions, games won't last.
Homer
Clearing Archive Roboposter <roboposter@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>>Let's review, what's the difference between your defn of OT,
>>and inhuman? Or should I say, does your defn of OT preclude inhumanity?
>
> Common usage of inhuman means evil, cruel, heartless TO OTHERS.
>
> And OT is an author, he creates characters of great humanness and
> inhumaness, and then jumps into the game to play the roles HIMSELF.
> Humans can consider this inhuman because it involves creating
> inhumans, they forget it also includes creating humans!
>
>>Does it make sense to say ethical OT or unethical OT, on your view?
>
> Existence has its basic mechanic, that which is not duplicated
> persists. Thus all persistance is of persisting lies.
>
> The very decent into dream time is an act of unethics, because it
> is a creation of persisting lies 'all consciousness is a pock mark on
> the face of God' -old Sufi saying.
>
> The basic mechanism then of out ethics for an OT is to fail to
> recast what has been casted and then return it to the void. Anything
> else but perfect recasting of a casted object is Q&A with it, 'Let's
> see what solutions we can come up with to deal with that!'
>
> So of course he gets stuck with it forever for free.
>
> Since all of existence then is out ethics to an OT, there is no
> should or should not associated with it, because basically
> manifestation is a 'should manifest', ALL OF IT. Including the
> creations of humans and inhumans, and the little dance they do with
> each other.
>
> The purpose of manifestation is to manifest OT out ethics, by
> which we mean manifesting persistent tapestries of human and inhuman.
>
> The out ethics is not related to WHAT is being manifested, only
> that once manifested it is then persisted.
>
> Thus a more sensible definition of out ethics for an OT is
> relative to what he wants to accomplish.
>
> If an OT wants to withdraw back into the void, then out ethics is
> Q&A which causes persistence. If an OT wants to manifest more, then
> out ethics is to recast properly which causes vanishment.
>
> Ethics is optimum reason towards a given goal. The two possible
> goals are persisting manifestation or vanishing manifestation.
>
> It is not possible for an OT to cast something bad or wrong, they
> can only do what comes naturally which is manifest from source the
> outflowing of tapestry of good and evil.
>
> And OT looking upon a human and an inhuman dancing with each
> other, is just as likely to polish up the story line a bit, than take
> sides with one or the other. If he does decide to take sides, he can
> freely take either side.
>
>>Is an unethical OT one who is inhuman?
>
> Domain error. OT's can not act unethically, except relative to
> their desire to manifest or unmanifest.
>
> If an OT desires to manifest, then taking on the good guy or the
> bad guy is an even toss, he is free to create the story, and do with
> it what he will. If one OT takes over the good guy, and the other
> takes over the bad guy, why then they can dance together in love of
> hatred and fear.
>
> Homer
>
>>- CBW
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith Clear Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
> homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
>
> ================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
> Wed Oct 26 12:06:02 EDT 2011
> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore14.memo
> Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
>
- - --
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Oct 26 14:09:55 EDT 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Mar 6 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore880.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)
iD8DBQFanskTURT1lqxE3HERAm8AAJ9cEFQnqhEZo7QpofrA94xmln+qJACgljjq
whR7Eilom1AnqsfumRysQvE=
=8xH4
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Mar 6 14:30:15 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore880.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)
iD8DBQFanuxHURT1lqxE3HERAnQbAJ9S0Jzd/lnNIC0FWHkCmsEFlavxSACfaVqF
3fCjhcbBW+ZOGo7oMg0evVE=
=8bxC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
GOD VS GOOD
The below AODRE14 is not clear.
If God is 'good', then God couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't do bad.
If God then creates man who can do 'bad', then it must have been
'good' for God to do so.
But it would be 'bad' of a human to create humans who could do
'bad'.
Thus we have a double standard, and possibly a confusion of
definitions of 'good', for virtue for the Author (God) is not virtue for
the Character.
People like to think of God as a perfect human, something for the
human to aspire to. Yet they never ever want the human to act as a God,
because what God does is scary as hell, namely make humans and dump them
into meat grinders.
So in that sense God is way beyond simply a perfect human, and
humans don't really want to be like God in His entirety at all.
If we take the literal definition of inhuman, not human, then it is
contradictory to claim that humans can act in an inhuman way.
Humans will and can do what humans can do, which includes what we
call 'good' and 'bad/evil', but which really comes down to willingness
to be sensitive to other's pain.
Thus we can properly say that all humans are 'good' but conceive
that other's are evil and thus try to be evil to those they consider
evil in order to teach them a lesson, or vanquish them entirely.
But a God, who can would and should do things that humans never
would, might properly be called inhuman in the wider sense of Authorship
of a good story, which includes human elements of good, bad, evil, and
redemption or not.
No human would write the story of humanness and then force other
humans to play it out.
At the top of the tone scale, there are no mistakes, thus even the
idea of mistakes must be created to give randomity, thus there is only
authorship with no possibility of a negative value judgement, because if
the OT doesn't like something he can veto it in the making of it.
But lower down, the OT has created a dependency condition upon
others, with agreements on rights and duties, mostly geared around
production and consuption of survival assets like food, shelter and
civilization.
Thus it becomes possible to do bad by breaking agreements, or
making mistakes unintentionally (from that lower point of view), or by
outright 'cussedness'.
Thus we have accidental overt acts, unprovoked but intentional
overt acts (DEDs), and provoked overt acts (motivators).
Since the being can feel regret on all 3, he becomes his own
punisher.
The being in these lower conditions has definitely taken sides,
namely the sides of survival for himself, his family, his group,
mankind, life, mest, spirits and infinity.
However he has to act against subsets of these which are acting
against him, viruses, raiding hoardes, etc.
This is a dog eat dog world, and thus various sectors of life form
alliances against other sectors of life.
When he turns against his own fair chosen team mates for whatever
reason, he becomes 'culpable', and his team mates feel justifed in
turning against him as a matter of necessity for their own survival.
A clear will be an optimum game player at these lower levels, but
an OT is a God, a game CREATOR, the OT can move the mountain sideways
because he can MAKE the mountain where ever wants.
Thus which side in any conflict he takes is undetermined, because
his existence is expressed by the existence of the GAME, not the
existence of any particular side.
Thus if human kind were to try to wipe out the mosquito or malaria,
there will be OT's fighting the good fight for the underdog.
To the degree that in this life an OT has a human body, one might
hope that they side with the survival of human life, but free of the
biases of a human body, OT's go back to doing what they do best, defend
the GAME and length of play, and not the side.
To the degree that humans would never defend the game to the
exclusion of the side, in particular games of good vs evil, survival vs
succumb for humanity, one could rightly say that a free OT was inhuman,
or had transcended humanness as we understand it.
The Author is not the Character.
As for ethics, as defined by LRH, ethics is REASON applied towards
a known goal in a universe of conditions.
If you have to plant a seed to get some growth, planting stones
instead would be 'unethical' as the conditions of the universe dictate
certain failure.
Out ethics then is a form of mental irrationality or
shortsightedness for the greatest good of the greatest number.
Ethics is thus an issue for game players and not game creators.
Ethics for humans is about how to win and not lose long term, not
about how to extend playing as no one in their right mind would do that.
in a serious survive/succumb scenario. (Hey man, be a sport, give the
deer a head start!)
The ethics of how to win is not the same as the ethics of how to
extend the game, although both may involve reason applied against the
conditions of the universe.
The ethics of CREATING the conditions of the universe in the first
place, might also involve reason towards the goal of having sustainable
games. With wrong conditions, games won't last.
Homer
Clearing Archive Roboposter <roboposter@lightlink.com> wrote:
>
> CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>>Let's review, what's the difference between your defn of OT,
>>and inhuman? Or should I say, does your defn of OT preclude inhumanity?
>
> Common usage of inhuman means evil, cruel, heartless TO OTHERS.
>
> And OT is an author, he creates characters of great humanness and
> inhumaness, and then jumps into the game to play the roles HIMSELF.
> Humans can consider this inhuman because it involves creating
> inhumans, they forget it also includes creating humans!
>
>>Does it make sense to say ethical OT or unethical OT, on your view?
>
> Existence has its basic mechanic, that which is not duplicated
> persists. Thus all persistance is of persisting lies.
>
> The very decent into dream time is an act of unethics, because it
> is a creation of persisting lies 'all consciousness is a pock mark on
> the face of God' -old Sufi saying.
>
> The basic mechanism then of out ethics for an OT is to fail to
> recast what has been casted and then return it to the void. Anything
> else but perfect recasting of a casted object is Q&A with it, 'Let's
> see what solutions we can come up with to deal with that!'
>
> So of course he gets stuck with it forever for free.
>
> Since all of existence then is out ethics to an OT, there is no
> should or should not associated with it, because basically
> manifestation is a 'should manifest', ALL OF IT. Including the
> creations of humans and inhumans, and the little dance they do with
> each other.
>
> The purpose of manifestation is to manifest OT out ethics, by
> which we mean manifesting persistent tapestries of human and inhuman.
>
> The out ethics is not related to WHAT is being manifested, only
> that once manifested it is then persisted.
>
> Thus a more sensible definition of out ethics for an OT is
> relative to what he wants to accomplish.
>
> If an OT wants to withdraw back into the void, then out ethics is
> Q&A which causes persistence. If an OT wants to manifest more, then
> out ethics is to recast properly which causes vanishment.
>
> Ethics is optimum reason towards a given goal. The two possible
> goals are persisting manifestation or vanishing manifestation.
>
> It is not possible for an OT to cast something bad or wrong, they
> can only do what comes naturally which is manifest from source the
> outflowing of tapestry of good and evil.
>
> And OT looking upon a human and an inhuman dancing with each
> other, is just as likely to polish up the story line a bit, than take
> sides with one or the other. If he does decide to take sides, he can
> freely take either side.
>
>>Is an unethical OT one who is inhuman?
>
> Domain error. OT's can not act unethically, except relative to
> their desire to manifest or unmanifest.
>
> If an OT desires to manifest, then taking on the good guy or the
> bad guy is an even toss, he is free to create the story, and do with
> it what he will. If one OT takes over the good guy, and the other
> takes over the bad guy, why then they can dance together in love of
> hatred and fear.
>
> Homer
>
>>- CBW
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith Clear Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
> homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
>
> ================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
> Wed Oct 26 12:06:02 EDT 2011
> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore14.memo
> Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
>
- - --
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Oct 26 14:09:55 EDT 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Mar 6 12:00:02 EST 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore880.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)
iD8DBQFanskTURT1lqxE3HERAm8AAJ9cEFQnqhEZo7QpofrA94xmln+qJACgljjq
whR7Eilom1AnqsfumRysQvE=
=8xH4
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Mar 6 14:30:15 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore880.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)
iD8DBQFanuxHURT1lqxE3HERAnQbAJ9S0Jzd/lnNIC0FWHkCmsEFlavxSACfaVqF
3fCjhcbBW+ZOGo7oMg0evVE=
=8bxC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, March 3, 2018
ADOR1033 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
COMPETING FOR SURVIVAL
People say "Life is not a game!"
Of course life is a game, a series of freedoms, barriers and
purposes.
Source, Existence, Conditions (states and limitations on changing
States), Purposes etc on down the awareness characteristic chart.
AWARNESS CHARACTERISTICS CHART
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/acc.memo
But in our parlance life is a serious game.
For example two teams get together to play foot ball, there can be
only one winner and one loser.
But when the game is over, both winner and loser leave free to play
again another day, either the same game or another one.
The losing identities of the game may have lost the game but they
have survived as PLAYERS.
When we say a game is serious, we mean that losing the game means
loss of survival as a player of that game or any other game.
The mortal implant contract says that we live once and only once
and when we die, "that's it bud."
"If I lose this game, I lose ME!"
Thus the survival of the player depends upon winning the game, in
this case the game of survival of the player through eating, shelter
social relationships, help, and teamwork etc.
If he fails to win the game of survival, then he dies and loses the
ability to play any other game ever again.
One cruelty of the mortal implant is that all players ultimately
die no matter how many times they win.
Maybe they can put off the inevitable for a while, but only for a
while.
Used to be on the whole track this wasn't true.
It was a time called Fragile Immortalities.
You could live forever (in time) as a body as long as you kept
winning the various games of survival. You could lose a bit, but not
too much, and still survive, as long as you could heal the damage.
Bodies never grew old and did not have an automatic age limit.
The hell that turned into was so inconceivable people decided it
would be better to just be fair to everyone and have everyone die in the
end no matter what.
Covertly, they are still trying to live forever as a body, but if
they ever managed to do so, everyone else would turn on them and crush
them out of existence permanently.
Thus life, the game of survival, is a serious game because the
survival of the PLAYER himself is at stake.
Not just the survival of any particular identity, but the survival
of the being himself who can invent and take on identities forever for
free, as long a the being himself continues to exist.
The being, the conscious unit, is a player.
Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, teacher, scientist, man, woman,
mother, father, daughter etc are identities.
So what do we mean by serious?
Serious means in violation of sovereign desire.
The player doesn't want to die forever, but has to anyhow.
This is the ultimate in being an effect of other determinism, in
this case his own imagined non fair chosen nature, fragile and mortal.
He thinks he didn't CHOOSE to be mortal, don't you see.
He wasn't cause of not being cause.
Now violation of sovereign desire is an obvious oxymoron, a self
contradiction.
Sovereign means you want it you got it, and if you don't want it
you don't got it.
How can a sovereign desire be violated?
Being violated means having what you don't want, or not having what
you do want.
Neither of which you want!
So we are left with the possibility that a sovereign desire could
DESIRE to be non sovereign in which case it would lose its sovereignty
for all futher desires from there on out.
But for how long?
For how long would a sovereign desire, desire itself to live under
the apparency that it was natively not sovereign and had no choice in
the matter?
Well the answer is for a while. Not forever.
Never forever.
Thus any sovereign desire that is in a state of high violation, and
any violation is a high violation, must one day wake up from its
nightmare of non sovereignty and regain awareness of its free choice and
abilities in these matters.
The awake can choose to dream nightmares FOR A WHILE.
So in that meanwhile, during its long dark mortal night of the
soul, the being looks forward to no future, an end it knows not when,
the loss of everything it has acquired or built, and the sundering of
every relationship it has ever experienced.
"Life is loss."
What good is it to gain for a while, if you just lose it in the end
forever anyhow, no amtter what?
You will find such a being falling down the tone scale to
unfathomable depths and becoming so small that not even an electron
microscope could find him.
He will only formulate purposes that will fit in his available
time, and once he starts to near the end, he will stop formulating new
purposes as they can not be fulfilled in the time left.
A being that is playing its last game, or any game that COULD be
its last game forever if it loses, will play differently.
Normally beings play games at a tone level of Spirit of Play, but a
being whose very survival as a player is on the table will be playing
down arond resentment, no sympathy for his opponents and covert
hostility towards himself and the game.
That's a hard one, because since it is covert, he can't spot it.
Yet there it is, killing him.
He is playing a game he doesn't want to have to play, and he is
caught between trying to win it at all costs and trying to destroy it
forever, and will probably be doing both at the same time.
That's called an AND.
Unfortunately a being playing a game down at resentment of the
game, will be his own greatest handicap, and thus his final loss is
guaranteed ahead of time before it is due.
Worse he will be operating corruption, temptation and seduction at
full bore.
His major game will be how to get others to play for him, and give
him the winnings.
Now help is mostly a matter of team work.
Low tone people often think of help as needing someone to get them
out of a ditch they can't get themselves out of.
But help is really just a number of people digging the ditch
together first place, to irrigate the land with water so that all might
survive better and longer both as identities and players.
You know, its nice to get laid at least once before you die in this
world of eat or be eaten.
But sometimes, people find that their own teammates are their own
worst enemies, with some teammates trying to survive at the other's
expense.
Thus we go out to hunt the deer as a group, but one member gets the
deer and hides it from the others who go home hungry.
This happens between parent and child a lot. The child expects
help surviving from his parents and is eager to return in kind, fair
chosen exchange.
But the parents see the kid as an insufferable problem and regret
he was ever born.
Or the parent sees the kid as an enslaveable asset to solve their
own problems and needs in life, with little or no concern to the needs
and problems of the child.
This can be obviously overt, or very covert.
Only a psychiatrist would notice it.
Such parents have children not because they consider the child will
be helpful to them, but because they consider the child will be USEFUL
to them.
Subtle difference :)
Help implies fair chosen fair exchange.
Being used doesn't.
"Hey children are good for backup, if I get hungry I can eat the
kid!"
The child eventually comes to consider that he can't survive alone,
and that he can't compete for his survival against others, PARTICULARLY
HIS OWN NATURAL TEAM MATES.
Namely team mates who are more busy pecking him to death and trying
to kick him out of the nest, than fostering mature mutual cooperation in
the survival of everyone.
To healthy parents, a child is an investment in the future.
To plague parents a child is an investment in themselves, if that.
Once a child finds himself being sold short, he debonds from the
group and turns against it in resentment, no sympathy, and covert
hostility.
Because the child has lost his help in surviving as a player in the
very serious game of life, he will take to various deceits to get his
teammates to help him anyhow, even to subsidize his survival at their
expense.
Serves them right, right?
Life is a very dangerous game, especially when young, weak and
inexperienced. Every move you make to invest in your future could just
as easily result in loss, ruin, disaster, or catastrophe.
For himself and for others.
Thus he will covertly do what is necessary to get others to PLAY
FOR HIM, to make the moves of life, to take the risk and give him the
winnings and rewards anyhow.
This isn't hard, because in early life this is what parents do for
their children anyhow, play for them, until they can play for their own.
But when the parents have taken to slowly sucking on the child's
blood every day to survive themselves, the child needs to do something
to get some blood back.
Keep the fair exchange in, you know.
These various deceits form the basis of the service facsimile
computation, which are the uncountable ways of preserving being able by
being unable.
In other words, annexing the abilities of others to help oneself
survive by pretending to be unable by oneself, to hedge against parents
continuing efforts to make oneself succumb.
The underlying postulate of the service facsimile is:
"I CAN'T COMPETE FOR SURVIVAL OF MYSELF AS A PLAYER."
"THE WAY TO SURVIVE IS TO SUCCUMB (at least a bit)."
"Thus by being subsidized I won't have to compete as hard, or
beyond my abilities."
You can see that such a computation will reach a kind of free
foating balance or equilibrium.
He can't succumb too much, because then he doesn't survive at all
which is not his intent.
But if he doesn't succumb enough, then everyone else around him
will try to make him succumb more anyhow.
"Mustn't be TOO able around here you know, that's rude."
So he has to succumb just enough to get others to help him survive.
He will never survive as well doing this dance as he would have if
if he had decent team mates who truly appreciated his abilities, but he
will survive better than he would if he didn't use these deceits.
I mean really his existing teammates probably ought to be shot
without a tear, but using his deceits instead, is well, more civilized.
And if he shot them, then he would be stuck with finding new
teammates which can be daunting.
At least with the deceits in full force, even his teammates will
pretend to like him and feel sorry for him, and maybe even help him
survive a bit.
Maybe even give him a glimpse of human warmth and love.
And so he floats for the rest of his life surviving between a rock
and a hard place, between survive and succumb, between true survival and
surviving by succumbing.
How sick do you have to be before others will try to make you
better?
A lot of players don't want other players to exist.
A lot of players don't want the GAME to exist even if some are
having great fun in it. That was the first intimation of evil.
Evil is not the effort to get you to lose instead of win, evil is
the intention to get you to LOSE (NOT HAVE) THE GAME, to destroy it so
no one can play it!
In trying to conceive this kind of evil, beings tend to mock up
something so ugly it makes them want to make nothing out of everything,
which of course aligns perfectly with the overriding intention that
there be no more games which they wish didn't exist.
I would never run this, because its a question, but the basic
question is:
What's involved in being able to compete for your survival as a
player?
Remember all can'ts are won'ts.
Yeah I know, that's sooper secrit OT stuff.
Certainly too dangerous for any human to audit or even know :)
Prior to any inability was an ability to be unable, and a
consideration that this would be a good idea.
Get the creative aesthetic off it and the reason's why, and the
person will regain their ability to survive by surviving again if they
want to.
And never forget the being considers all of the above a motivator,
all of this having to survive by succumbing nonsense, something done to
him that he did not choose and which then justifies before and after
overts.
So you must also run out the being doing it to others, making
others feel they have to succumb to survive, and others doing it to
others.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Mar 3 22:06:45 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1033.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)
iD8DBQFam2LFURT1lqxE3HERAmseAKCIR2fVQWAIL1LUi4d+KM9r91B+4ACg1lyx
Oa4AHN59XtwhiKJbtRKua4w=
=Zq7N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
COMPETING FOR SURVIVAL
People say "Life is not a game!"
Of course life is a game, a series of freedoms, barriers and
purposes.
Source, Existence, Conditions (states and limitations on changing
States), Purposes etc on down the awareness characteristic chart.
AWARNESS CHARACTERISTICS CHART
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/acc.memo
But in our parlance life is a serious game.
For example two teams get together to play foot ball, there can be
only one winner and one loser.
But when the game is over, both winner and loser leave free to play
again another day, either the same game or another one.
The losing identities of the game may have lost the game but they
have survived as PLAYERS.
When we say a game is serious, we mean that losing the game means
loss of survival as a player of that game or any other game.
The mortal implant contract says that we live once and only once
and when we die, "that's it bud."
"If I lose this game, I lose ME!"
Thus the survival of the player depends upon winning the game, in
this case the game of survival of the player through eating, shelter
social relationships, help, and teamwork etc.
If he fails to win the game of survival, then he dies and loses the
ability to play any other game ever again.
One cruelty of the mortal implant is that all players ultimately
die no matter how many times they win.
Maybe they can put off the inevitable for a while, but only for a
while.
Used to be on the whole track this wasn't true.
It was a time called Fragile Immortalities.
You could live forever (in time) as a body as long as you kept
winning the various games of survival. You could lose a bit, but not
too much, and still survive, as long as you could heal the damage.
Bodies never grew old and did not have an automatic age limit.
The hell that turned into was so inconceivable people decided it
would be better to just be fair to everyone and have everyone die in the
end no matter what.
Covertly, they are still trying to live forever as a body, but if
they ever managed to do so, everyone else would turn on them and crush
them out of existence permanently.
Thus life, the game of survival, is a serious game because the
survival of the PLAYER himself is at stake.
Not just the survival of any particular identity, but the survival
of the being himself who can invent and take on identities forever for
free, as long a the being himself continues to exist.
The being, the conscious unit, is a player.
Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, teacher, scientist, man, woman,
mother, father, daughter etc are identities.
So what do we mean by serious?
Serious means in violation of sovereign desire.
The player doesn't want to die forever, but has to anyhow.
This is the ultimate in being an effect of other determinism, in
this case his own imagined non fair chosen nature, fragile and mortal.
He thinks he didn't CHOOSE to be mortal, don't you see.
He wasn't cause of not being cause.
Now violation of sovereign desire is an obvious oxymoron, a self
contradiction.
Sovereign means you want it you got it, and if you don't want it
you don't got it.
How can a sovereign desire be violated?
Being violated means having what you don't want, or not having what
you do want.
Neither of which you want!
So we are left with the possibility that a sovereign desire could
DESIRE to be non sovereign in which case it would lose its sovereignty
for all futher desires from there on out.
But for how long?
For how long would a sovereign desire, desire itself to live under
the apparency that it was natively not sovereign and had no choice in
the matter?
Well the answer is for a while. Not forever.
Never forever.
Thus any sovereign desire that is in a state of high violation, and
any violation is a high violation, must one day wake up from its
nightmare of non sovereignty and regain awareness of its free choice and
abilities in these matters.
The awake can choose to dream nightmares FOR A WHILE.
So in that meanwhile, during its long dark mortal night of the
soul, the being looks forward to no future, an end it knows not when,
the loss of everything it has acquired or built, and the sundering of
every relationship it has ever experienced.
"Life is loss."
What good is it to gain for a while, if you just lose it in the end
forever anyhow, no amtter what?
You will find such a being falling down the tone scale to
unfathomable depths and becoming so small that not even an electron
microscope could find him.
He will only formulate purposes that will fit in his available
time, and once he starts to near the end, he will stop formulating new
purposes as they can not be fulfilled in the time left.
A being that is playing its last game, or any game that COULD be
its last game forever if it loses, will play differently.
Normally beings play games at a tone level of Spirit of Play, but a
being whose very survival as a player is on the table will be playing
down arond resentment, no sympathy for his opponents and covert
hostility towards himself and the game.
That's a hard one, because since it is covert, he can't spot it.
Yet there it is, killing him.
He is playing a game he doesn't want to have to play, and he is
caught between trying to win it at all costs and trying to destroy it
forever, and will probably be doing both at the same time.
That's called an AND.
Unfortunately a being playing a game down at resentment of the
game, will be his own greatest handicap, and thus his final loss is
guaranteed ahead of time before it is due.
Worse he will be operating corruption, temptation and seduction at
full bore.
His major game will be how to get others to play for him, and give
him the winnings.
Now help is mostly a matter of team work.
Low tone people often think of help as needing someone to get them
out of a ditch they can't get themselves out of.
But help is really just a number of people digging the ditch
together first place, to irrigate the land with water so that all might
survive better and longer both as identities and players.
You know, its nice to get laid at least once before you die in this
world of eat or be eaten.
But sometimes, people find that their own teammates are their own
worst enemies, with some teammates trying to survive at the other's
expense.
Thus we go out to hunt the deer as a group, but one member gets the
deer and hides it from the others who go home hungry.
This happens between parent and child a lot. The child expects
help surviving from his parents and is eager to return in kind, fair
chosen exchange.
But the parents see the kid as an insufferable problem and regret
he was ever born.
Or the parent sees the kid as an enslaveable asset to solve their
own problems and needs in life, with little or no concern to the needs
and problems of the child.
This can be obviously overt, or very covert.
Only a psychiatrist would notice it.
Such parents have children not because they consider the child will
be helpful to them, but because they consider the child will be USEFUL
to them.
Subtle difference :)
Help implies fair chosen fair exchange.
Being used doesn't.
"Hey children are good for backup, if I get hungry I can eat the
kid!"
The child eventually comes to consider that he can't survive alone,
and that he can't compete for his survival against others, PARTICULARLY
HIS OWN NATURAL TEAM MATES.
Namely team mates who are more busy pecking him to death and trying
to kick him out of the nest, than fostering mature mutual cooperation in
the survival of everyone.
To healthy parents, a child is an investment in the future.
To plague parents a child is an investment in themselves, if that.
Once a child finds himself being sold short, he debonds from the
group and turns against it in resentment, no sympathy, and covert
hostility.
Because the child has lost his help in surviving as a player in the
very serious game of life, he will take to various deceits to get his
teammates to help him anyhow, even to subsidize his survival at their
expense.
Serves them right, right?
Life is a very dangerous game, especially when young, weak and
inexperienced. Every move you make to invest in your future could just
as easily result in loss, ruin, disaster, or catastrophe.
For himself and for others.
Thus he will covertly do what is necessary to get others to PLAY
FOR HIM, to make the moves of life, to take the risk and give him the
winnings and rewards anyhow.
This isn't hard, because in early life this is what parents do for
their children anyhow, play for them, until they can play for their own.
But when the parents have taken to slowly sucking on the child's
blood every day to survive themselves, the child needs to do something
to get some blood back.
Keep the fair exchange in, you know.
These various deceits form the basis of the service facsimile
computation, which are the uncountable ways of preserving being able by
being unable.
In other words, annexing the abilities of others to help oneself
survive by pretending to be unable by oneself, to hedge against parents
continuing efforts to make oneself succumb.
The underlying postulate of the service facsimile is:
"I CAN'T COMPETE FOR SURVIVAL OF MYSELF AS A PLAYER."
"THE WAY TO SURVIVE IS TO SUCCUMB (at least a bit)."
"Thus by being subsidized I won't have to compete as hard, or
beyond my abilities."
You can see that such a computation will reach a kind of free
foating balance or equilibrium.
He can't succumb too much, because then he doesn't survive at all
which is not his intent.
But if he doesn't succumb enough, then everyone else around him
will try to make him succumb more anyhow.
"Mustn't be TOO able around here you know, that's rude."
So he has to succumb just enough to get others to help him survive.
He will never survive as well doing this dance as he would have if
if he had decent team mates who truly appreciated his abilities, but he
will survive better than he would if he didn't use these deceits.
I mean really his existing teammates probably ought to be shot
without a tear, but using his deceits instead, is well, more civilized.
And if he shot them, then he would be stuck with finding new
teammates which can be daunting.
At least with the deceits in full force, even his teammates will
pretend to like him and feel sorry for him, and maybe even help him
survive a bit.
Maybe even give him a glimpse of human warmth and love.
And so he floats for the rest of his life surviving between a rock
and a hard place, between survive and succumb, between true survival and
surviving by succumbing.
How sick do you have to be before others will try to make you
better?
A lot of players don't want other players to exist.
A lot of players don't want the GAME to exist even if some are
having great fun in it. That was the first intimation of evil.
Evil is not the effort to get you to lose instead of win, evil is
the intention to get you to LOSE (NOT HAVE) THE GAME, to destroy it so
no one can play it!
In trying to conceive this kind of evil, beings tend to mock up
something so ugly it makes them want to make nothing out of everything,
which of course aligns perfectly with the overriding intention that
there be no more games which they wish didn't exist.
I would never run this, because its a question, but the basic
question is:
What's involved in being able to compete for your survival as a
player?
Remember all can'ts are won'ts.
Yeah I know, that's sooper secrit OT stuff.
Certainly too dangerous for any human to audit or even know :)
Prior to any inability was an ability to be unable, and a
consideration that this would be a good idea.
Get the creative aesthetic off it and the reason's why, and the
person will regain their ability to survive by surviving again if they
want to.
And never forget the being considers all of the above a motivator,
all of this having to survive by succumbing nonsense, something done to
him that he did not choose and which then justifies before and after
overts.
So you must also run out the being doing it to others, making
others feel they have to succumb to survive, and others doing it to
others.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Mar 3 22:06:45 EST 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1033.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)
iD8DBQFam2LFURT1lqxE3HERAmseAKCIR2fVQWAIL1LUi4d+KM9r91B+4ACg1lyx
Oa4AHN59XtwhiKJbtRKua4w=
=Zq7N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADOR1033 (fwd)
repost homer imissmira ador1033
COMPETING FOR SURVIVAL
People say "Life is not a game!"
Of course life is a game, a series of freedoms, barriers and
purposes.
Source, Existence, Conditions (states and limitations on changing
States), Purposes etc on down the awareness characteristic chart.
AWARNESS CHARACTERISTICS CHART
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/acc.memo
But in our parlance life is a serious game.
For example two teams get together to play foot ball, there can be
only one winner and one loser.
But when the game is over, both winner and loser leave free to play
again another day, either the same game or another one.
The losing identities of the game may have lost the game but they
have survived as PLAYERS.
When we say a game is serious, we mean that losing the game means
loss of survival as a player of that game or any other game.
The mortal implant contract says that we live once and only once
and when we die, "that's it bud."
"If I lose this game, I lose ME!"
Thus the survival of the player depends upon winning the game, in
this case the game of survival of the player through eating, shelter
social relationships, help, and teamwork etc.
If he fails to win the game of survival, then he dies and loses the
ability to play any other game ever again.
One cruelty of the mortal implant is that all players ultimately
die no matter how many times they win.
Maybe they can put off the inevitable for a while, but only for a
while.
Used to be on the whole track this wasn't true.
It was a time called Fragile Immortalities.
You could live forever (in time) as a body as long as you kept
winning the various games of survival. You could lose a bit, but not
too much, and still survive, as long as you could heal the damage.
Bodies never grew old and did not have an automatic age limit.
The hell that turned into was so inconceivable people decided it
would be better to just be fair to everyone and have everyone die in the
end no matter what.
Covertly, they are still trying to live forever as a body, but if
they ever managed to do so, everyone else would turn on them and crush
them out of existence permanently.
Thus life, the game of survival, is a serious game because the
survival of the PLAYER himself is at stake.
Not just the survival of any particular identity, but the survival
of the being himself who can invent and take on identities forever for
free, as long a the being himself continues to exist.
The being, the conscious unit, is a player.
Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, teacher, scientist, man, woman,
mother, father, daughter etc are identities.
So what do we mean by serious?
Serious means in violation of sovereign desire.
The player doesn't want to die forever, but has to anyhow.
This is the ultimate in being an effect of other determinism, in
this case his own imagined non fair chosen nature, fragile and mortal.
He thinks he didn't CHOOSE to be mortal, don't you see.
He wasn't cause of not being cause.
Now violation of sovereign desire is an obvious oxymoron, a self
contradiction.
Sovereign means you want it you got it, and if you don't want it
you don't got it.
How can a sovereign desire be violated?
Being violated means having what you don't want, or not having what
you do want.
Neither of which you want!
So we are left with the possibility that a sovereign desire could
DESIRE to be non sovereign in which case it would lose its sovereignty
for all futher desires from there on out.
But for how long?
For how long would a sovereign desire, desire itself to live under
the apparency that it was natively not sovereign and had no choice in
the matter?
Well the answer is for a while. Not forever.
Never forever.
Thus any sovereign desire that is in a state of high violation, and
any violation is a high violation, must one day wake up from its
nightmare of non sovereignty and regain awareness of its free choice and
abilities in these matters.
The awake can choose to dream nightmares FOR A WHILE.
So in that meanwhile, during its long dark mortal night of the
soul, the being looks forward to no future, an end it knows not when,
the loss of everything it has acquired or built, and the sundering of
every relationship it has ever experienced.
"Life is loss."
What good is it to gain for a while, if you just lose it in the end
forever anyhow, no amtter what?
You will find such a being falling down the tone scale to
unfathomable depths and becoming so small that not even an electron
microscope could find him.
He will only formulate purposes that will fit in his available
time, and once he starts to near the end, he will stop formulating new
purposes as they can not be fulfilled in the time left.
A being that is playing its last game, or any game that COULD be
its last game forever if it loses, will play differently.
Normally beings play games at a tone level of Spirit of Play, but a
being whose very survival as a player is on the table will be playing
down arond resentment, no sympathy for his opponents and covert
hostility towards himself and the game.
That's a hard one, because since it is covert, he can't spot it.
Yet there it is, killing him.
He is playing a game he doesn't want to have to play, and he is
caught between trying to win it at all costs and trying to destroy it
forever, and will probably be doing both at the same time.
That's called an AND.
Unfortunately a being playing a game down at resentment of the
game, will be his own greatest handicap, and thus his final loss is
guaranteed ahead of time before it is due.
Worse he will be operating corruption, temptation and seduction at
full bore.
His major game will be how to get others to play for him, and give
him the winnings.
Now help is mostly a matter of team work.
Low tone people often think of help as needing someone to get them
out of a ditch they can't get themselves out of.
But help is really just a number of people digging the ditch
together first place, to irrigate the land with water so that all might
survive better and longer both as identities and players.
You know, its nice to get laid at least once before you die in this
world of eat or be eaten.
But sometimes, people find that their own teammates are their own
worst enemies, with some teammates trying to survive at the other's
expense.
Thus we go out to hunt the deer as a group, but one member gets the
deer and hides it from the others who go home hungry.
This happens between parent and child a lot. The child expects
help surviving from his parents and is eager to return in kind, fair
chosen exchange.
But the parents see the kid as an insufferable problem and regret
he was ever born.
Or the parent sees the kid as an enslaveable asset to solve their
own problems and needs in life, with little or no concern to the needs
and problems of the child.
This can be obviously overt, or very covert.
Only a psychiatrist would notice it.
Such parents have children not because they consider the child will
be helpful to them, but because they consider the child will be USEFUL
to them.
Subtle difference :)
Help implies fair chosen fair exchange.
Being used doesn't.
"Hey children are good for backup, if I get hungry I can eat the
kid!"
The child eventually comes to consider that he can't survive alone,
and that he can't compete for his survival against others, PARTICULARLY
HIS OWN NATURAL TEAM MATES.
Namely team mates who are more busy pecking him to death and trying
to kick him out of the nest, than fostering mature mutual cooperation in
the survival of everyone.
To healthy parents, a child is an investment in the future.
To plague parents a child is an investment in themselves, if that.
Once a child finds himself being sold short, he debonds from the
group and turns against it in resentment, no sympathy, and covert
hostility.
Because the child has lost his help in surviving as a player in the
very serious game of life, he will take to various deceits to get his
teammates to help him anyhow, even to subsidize his survival at their
expense.
Serves them right, right?
Life is a very dangerous game, especially when young, weak and
inexperienced. Every move you make to invest in your future could just
as easily result in loss, ruin, disaster, or catastrophe.
For himself and for others.
Thus he will covertly do what is necessary to get others to PLAY
FOR HIM, to make the moves of life, to take the risk and give him the
winnings and rewards anyhow.
This isn't hard, because in early life this is what parents do for
their children anyhow, play for them, until they can play for their own.
But when the parents have taken to slowly sucking on the child's
blood every day to survive themselves, the child needs to do something
to get some blood back.
Keep the fair exchange in, you know.
These various deceits form the basis of the service facsimile
computation, which are the uncountable ways of preserving being able by
being unable.
In other words, annexing the abilities of others to help oneself
survive by pretending to be unable by oneself, to hedge against parents
continuing efforts to make oneself succumb.
The underlying postulate of the service facsimile is:
"I CAN'T COMPETE FOR SURVIVAL OF MYSELF AS A PLAYER."
"THE WAY TO SURVIVE IS TO SUCCUMB (at least a bit)."
"Thus by being subsidized I won't have to compete as hard, or
beyond my abilities."
You can see that such a computation will reach a kind of free
foating balance or equilibrium.
He can't succumb too much, because then he doesn't survive at all
which is not his intent.
But if he doesn't succumb enough, then everyone else around him
will try to make him succumb more anyhow.
"Mustn't be TOO able around here you know, that's rude."
So he has to succumb just enough to get others to help him survive.
He will never survive as well doing this dance as he would have if
if he had decent team mates who truly appreciated his abilities, but he
will survive better than he would if he didn't use these deceits.
I mean really his existing teammates probably ought to be shot
without a tear, but using his deceits instead, is well, more civilized.
And if he shot them, then he would be stuck with finding new
teammates which can be daunting.
At least with the deceits in full force, even his teammates will
pretend to like him and feel sorry for him, and maybe even help him
survive a bit.
Maybe even give him a glimpse of human warmth and love.
And so he floats for the rest of his life surviving between a rock
and a hard place, between survive and succumb, between true survival and
surviving by succumbing.
How sick do you have to be before others will try to make you
better?
A lot of players don't want other players to exist.
A lot of players don't want the GAME to exist even if some are
having great fun in it. That was the first intimation of evil.
Evil is not the effort to get you to lose instead of win, evil is
the intention to get you to LOSE (NOT HAVE) THE GAME, to destroy it so
no one can play it!
In trying to conceive this kind of evil, beings tend to mock up
something so ugly it makes them want to make nothing out of everything,
which of course aligns perfectly with the overriding intention that
there be no more games which they wish didn't exist.
I would never run this, because its a question, but the basic
question is:
What's involved in being able to compete for your survival as a
player?
Remember all can'ts are won'ts.
Yeah I know, that's sooper secrit OT stuff.
Certainly too dangerous for any human to audit or even know :)
Prior to any inability was an ability to be unable, and a
consideration that this would be a good idea.
Get the creative aesthetic off it and the reason's why, and the
person will regain their ability to survive by surviving again if they
want to.
And never forget the being considers all of the above a motivator,
all of this having to survive by succumbing nonsense, something done to
him that he did not choose and which then justifies before and after
overts.
So you must also run out the being doing it to others, making
others feel they have to succumb to survive, and others doing it to
others.
Homer
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
COMPETING FOR SURVIVAL
People say "Life is not a game!"
Of course life is a game, a series of freedoms, barriers and
purposes.
Source, Existence, Conditions (states and limitations on changing
States), Purposes etc on down the awareness characteristic chart.
AWARNESS CHARACTERISTICS CHART
http://www.clearing.org/cgi/archive.cgi?/electra/acc.memo
But in our parlance life is a serious game.
For example two teams get together to play foot ball, there can be
only one winner and one loser.
But when the game is over, both winner and loser leave free to play
again another day, either the same game or another one.
The losing identities of the game may have lost the game but they
have survived as PLAYERS.
When we say a game is serious, we mean that losing the game means
loss of survival as a player of that game or any other game.
The mortal implant contract says that we live once and only once
and when we die, "that's it bud."
"If I lose this game, I lose ME!"
Thus the survival of the player depends upon winning the game, in
this case the game of survival of the player through eating, shelter
social relationships, help, and teamwork etc.
If he fails to win the game of survival, then he dies and loses the
ability to play any other game ever again.
One cruelty of the mortal implant is that all players ultimately
die no matter how many times they win.
Maybe they can put off the inevitable for a while, but only for a
while.
Used to be on the whole track this wasn't true.
It was a time called Fragile Immortalities.
You could live forever (in time) as a body as long as you kept
winning the various games of survival. You could lose a bit, but not
too much, and still survive, as long as you could heal the damage.
Bodies never grew old and did not have an automatic age limit.
The hell that turned into was so inconceivable people decided it
would be better to just be fair to everyone and have everyone die in the
end no matter what.
Covertly, they are still trying to live forever as a body, but if
they ever managed to do so, everyone else would turn on them and crush
them out of existence permanently.
Thus life, the game of survival, is a serious game because the
survival of the PLAYER himself is at stake.
Not just the survival of any particular identity, but the survival
of the being himself who can invent and take on identities forever for
free, as long a the being himself continues to exist.
The being, the conscious unit, is a player.
Tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor, teacher, scientist, man, woman,
mother, father, daughter etc are identities.
So what do we mean by serious?
Serious means in violation of sovereign desire.
The player doesn't want to die forever, but has to anyhow.
This is the ultimate in being an effect of other determinism, in
this case his own imagined non fair chosen nature, fragile and mortal.
He thinks he didn't CHOOSE to be mortal, don't you see.
He wasn't cause of not being cause.
Now violation of sovereign desire is an obvious oxymoron, a self
contradiction.
Sovereign means you want it you got it, and if you don't want it
you don't got it.
How can a sovereign desire be violated?
Being violated means having what you don't want, or not having what
you do want.
Neither of which you want!
So we are left with the possibility that a sovereign desire could
DESIRE to be non sovereign in which case it would lose its sovereignty
for all futher desires from there on out.
But for how long?
For how long would a sovereign desire, desire itself to live under
the apparency that it was natively not sovereign and had no choice in
the matter?
Well the answer is for a while. Not forever.
Never forever.
Thus any sovereign desire that is in a state of high violation, and
any violation is a high violation, must one day wake up from its
nightmare of non sovereignty and regain awareness of its free choice and
abilities in these matters.
The awake can choose to dream nightmares FOR A WHILE.
So in that meanwhile, during its long dark mortal night of the
soul, the being looks forward to no future, an end it knows not when,
the loss of everything it has acquired or built, and the sundering of
every relationship it has ever experienced.
"Life is loss."
What good is it to gain for a while, if you just lose it in the end
forever anyhow, no amtter what?
You will find such a being falling down the tone scale to
unfathomable depths and becoming so small that not even an electron
microscope could find him.
He will only formulate purposes that will fit in his available
time, and once he starts to near the end, he will stop formulating new
purposes as they can not be fulfilled in the time left.
A being that is playing its last game, or any game that COULD be
its last game forever if it loses, will play differently.
Normally beings play games at a tone level of Spirit of Play, but a
being whose very survival as a player is on the table will be playing
down arond resentment, no sympathy for his opponents and covert
hostility towards himself and the game.
That's a hard one, because since it is covert, he can't spot it.
Yet there it is, killing him.
He is playing a game he doesn't want to have to play, and he is
caught between trying to win it at all costs and trying to destroy it
forever, and will probably be doing both at the same time.
That's called an AND.
Unfortunately a being playing a game down at resentment of the
game, will be his own greatest handicap, and thus his final loss is
guaranteed ahead of time before it is due.
Worse he will be operating corruption, temptation and seduction at
full bore.
His major game will be how to get others to play for him, and give
him the winnings.
Now help is mostly a matter of team work.
Low tone people often think of help as needing someone to get them
out of a ditch they can't get themselves out of.
But help is really just a number of people digging the ditch
together first place, to irrigate the land with water so that all might
survive better and longer both as identities and players.
You know, its nice to get laid at least once before you die in this
world of eat or be eaten.
But sometimes, people find that their own teammates are their own
worst enemies, with some teammates trying to survive at the other's
expense.
Thus we go out to hunt the deer as a group, but one member gets the
deer and hides it from the others who go home hungry.
This happens between parent and child a lot. The child expects
help surviving from his parents and is eager to return in kind, fair
chosen exchange.
But the parents see the kid as an insufferable problem and regret
he was ever born.
Or the parent sees the kid as an enslaveable asset to solve their
own problems and needs in life, with little or no concern to the needs
and problems of the child.
This can be obviously overt, or very covert.
Only a psychiatrist would notice it.
Such parents have children not because they consider the child will
be helpful to them, but because they consider the child will be USEFUL
to them.
Subtle difference :)
Help implies fair chosen fair exchange.
Being used doesn't.
"Hey children are good for backup, if I get hungry I can eat the
kid!"
The child eventually comes to consider that he can't survive alone,
and that he can't compete for his survival against others, PARTICULARLY
HIS OWN NATURAL TEAM MATES.
Namely team mates who are more busy pecking him to death and trying
to kick him out of the nest, than fostering mature mutual cooperation in
the survival of everyone.
To healthy parents, a child is an investment in the future.
To plague parents a child is an investment in themselves, if that.
Once a child finds himself being sold short, he debonds from the
group and turns against it in resentment, no sympathy, and covert
hostility.
Because the child has lost his help in surviving as a player in the
very serious game of life, he will take to various deceits to get his
teammates to help him anyhow, even to subsidize his survival at their
expense.
Serves them right, right?
Life is a very dangerous game, especially when young, weak and
inexperienced. Every move you make to invest in your future could just
as easily result in loss, ruin, disaster, or catastrophe.
For himself and for others.
Thus he will covertly do what is necessary to get others to PLAY
FOR HIM, to make the moves of life, to take the risk and give him the
winnings and rewards anyhow.
This isn't hard, because in early life this is what parents do for
their children anyhow, play for them, until they can play for their own.
But when the parents have taken to slowly sucking on the child's
blood every day to survive themselves, the child needs to do something
to get some blood back.
Keep the fair exchange in, you know.
These various deceits form the basis of the service facsimile
computation, which are the uncountable ways of preserving being able by
being unable.
In other words, annexing the abilities of others to help oneself
survive by pretending to be unable by oneself, to hedge against parents
continuing efforts to make oneself succumb.
The underlying postulate of the service facsimile is:
"I CAN'T COMPETE FOR SURVIVAL OF MYSELF AS A PLAYER."
"THE WAY TO SURVIVE IS TO SUCCUMB (at least a bit)."
"Thus by being subsidized I won't have to compete as hard, or
beyond my abilities."
You can see that such a computation will reach a kind of free
foating balance or equilibrium.
He can't succumb too much, because then he doesn't survive at all
which is not his intent.
But if he doesn't succumb enough, then everyone else around him
will try to make him succumb more anyhow.
"Mustn't be TOO able around here you know, that's rude."
So he has to succumb just enough to get others to help him survive.
He will never survive as well doing this dance as he would have if
if he had decent team mates who truly appreciated his abilities, but he
will survive better than he would if he didn't use these deceits.
I mean really his existing teammates probably ought to be shot
without a tear, but using his deceits instead, is well, more civilized.
And if he shot them, then he would be stuck with finding new
teammates which can be daunting.
At least with the deceits in full force, even his teammates will
pretend to like him and feel sorry for him, and maybe even help him
survive a bit.
Maybe even give him a glimpse of human warmth and love.
And so he floats for the rest of his life surviving between a rock
and a hard place, between survive and succumb, between true survival and
surviving by succumbing.
How sick do you have to be before others will try to make you
better?
A lot of players don't want other players to exist.
A lot of players don't want the GAME to exist even if some are
having great fun in it. That was the first intimation of evil.
Evil is not the effort to get you to lose instead of win, evil is
the intention to get you to LOSE (NOT HAVE) THE GAME, to destroy it so
no one can play it!
In trying to conceive this kind of evil, beings tend to mock up
something so ugly it makes them want to make nothing out of everything,
which of course aligns perfectly with the overriding intention that
there be no more games which they wish didn't exist.
I would never run this, because its a question, but the basic
question is:
What's involved in being able to compete for your survival as a
player?
Remember all can'ts are won'ts.
Yeah I know, that's sooper secrit OT stuff.
Certainly too dangerous for any human to audit or even know :)
Prior to any inability was an ability to be unable, and a
consideration that this would be a good idea.
Get the creative aesthetic off it and the reason's why, and the
person will regain their ability to survive by surviving again if they
want to.
And never forget the being considers all of the above a motivator,
all of this having to survive by succumbing nonsense, something done to
him that he did not choose and which then justifies before and after
overts.
So you must also run out the being doing it to others, making
others feel they have to succumb to survive, and others doing it to
others.
Homer
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)