-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
If it is an article of my belief, research or religion that physical
disease can be caused or compounded by traumatic, demonic or alien forces,
then I have an inalienable right to state that tenent, proselytise it,
share it with others and loudly proclaim it to the world.
I would think such a right would be protected under the basic
constitutional protections of freedom of congregation, speach and
religious belief and practice.
For the medicos to have ANYTHING legal to say about this is a
violation of separation of Church and State, for the medicos are merely
their own religion with their own beliefs, practices and articles of faith
and they have no right to override the religions, beliefs, practices or
articles of faith of other people.
The medicos have no fundamental validity that others don't have.
Yes science is a very effective religion, it has built civilization
out of the dark ages. But it has shortcomings that are more likely to
destroy civilization in nuclear holocaust than not.
Science does not have all the answers as The Proof clearly shows, and
its basic tenent that consciousness arose out of physical matter, rather
than the other way around, shows it is in fact completely nuts.
Anyhow the Newtonian/Einsteinian view of the universe is quite passe
in educated and enlightened circles.
The world is a much more rich and alive place than the meatball
medicos have any clue.
I wouldn't allow the spiritually blind rule or make laws over
the spiritually sighted, now would you?
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Mar 20 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore37.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)
iD8DBQFasTADURT1lqxE3HERAgP+AJ93/Hd+vZdZA/QwTxhFsaEWToJYNwCeL9bl
Q9Ji3SFhJJj6QQS0XEHkrzY=
=rZlS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Monday, March 19, 2018
LAW (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE LAW OF THE LAND AND THE LAW OF THE SKY
There is the law of the land and the law of the sky.
The law of the sky is what is right and wrong and is guided solely
by our own conscience and our sense of oneness and family with other
people,
'As he is, so am I'.
In our usage, right and wrong, moral and immoral, and ethical and
unethical are taken to mean the same thing.
The law of the sky is NOT the written word of God, for even the
physical written word of God is below the law of the sky.
As each being is taken to be a full instantiation of God in
carnation anyhow, the law of the sky and the UNWRITTEN word of God could
be considered the same thing.
How do we know the "unwritten word of God?"
Via conscience.
Regardless of what we believe, or whether we have experienced a
higher divinity, we all have a conscience.
As sovereign beings, our conscience is the ultimate and sole
arbiter of all things.
God did not give us a conscience so we could use someone
else's conscience to make our decisions for us.
Never give your conscience over to the conscience of another to
determine what is right and wrong for you.
It's ok if you decide that someone else knows more than you, and
you trust them to make decisions for you, but it is YOUR conscious
decision based on YOUR conscience that directs you to do so.
All beings are governed by the law of the sky, and its justice is
swift and absolute as the law of the sky works in the now and can never
be wrong.
This justice however is powered by conscience and regret. In the
absence of either, i.e. insanity, there is no justice.
Thus each being delivers himself up for judgment TO HIM SELF,
during this life and in the many lives before and after this life.
In our yearning to protect ourselves from the criminally insane who
would break the law of the sky to our detriment while in the realm of
the land, we create professional organizations called government to deal
with the criminally insane in a professional and standard manner.
In order to guide and control the government we create the law of
the land.
The law of the land is a human codification of the law of the sky,
as best we see it.
The law of the sky codifies how the sovereign citizen should be
have.
The law of the land does not codify how the sovereign citizen
should behave, the law of the land codiies how the GOVERNMENT should
behave as determined by the sovereign citizens who elected it into
power.
The law of the land delineates the measures the government may take
and the penalties the government may impose on those who break the law
of the land, and thereby, we presume, the law of the sky.
The law of the sky constrains the sovereign citizen.
The law of the land constrains the government, that is it
constrains the civil servants who have sworn to uphold the law of the
land while on duty as the government.
The sovereign citizen has not sworn to uphold the law of the land
and thus is not beholden to it.
The sovereign citizen has no moral mandate to obey the law of the
land right or wrong. Only the sworn civil servant, who has sworn to
uphold the law of the land, right or wrong, has a moral mandate to obey
the law of the land.
The sovereign citizen on the other hand has a moral mandate to do
what is RIGHT, before considering what is LEGAL.
If a government official fails to go after a criminal and impose
authorized sanctions, he is guilty before the law of the land, for he
has sworn to uphold it, and we trust that he will. We voted him into
office for just that purpose after all.
He is also guilty before the law of the sky for violating
the law of the land after swearing before all to not do so.
The only way for a sworn civil servant to morally violate the law
of the land because of a conflict with the law of the sky is to step
down from his post as a civil servant, thus becoming a sovereign citizen
again.
The law of the sky is a law for the sovereign citizen.
The law of the land is a law for the government created by the
sovereign citizen.
Sovereign citizens have a moral duty to do what is right first and
what is legal second.
Civil servants have a moral duty to do what is legal first and what
is right second.
If a civil servant feels that the law of the land is wrong, he may
break the law of the land ONLY after turning in his badge as a civil
servant and going off duty on the matter.
No matter how wrong or unjust a law may be, we do not hire our cops
to determine if a law should be enforced or not. That is not their job,
they are not competent to do so, and they can not be trusted to do so,
as any single human being can turn criminal or become subject to
corruption, temptation and seduction at any time.
Thus where there is sanctioned use of force to enforce or punish,
we have rule by law rather than rule by whim, caprice, greed or fancy,
let alone personal conscience.
However once any transgression comes to court, the law itself can
be put on trial and struck down by the jury, as the law of the land is
never above the law of the sky.
Above the police, the jails, the jury and the judge is CONSCIENCE.
If a country does not allow conscience to ultimately rule, it will
ultimately go criminal through and through, because criminals hate
people who have a conscience, as it reminds the criminal he has or is
violating his own.
Where conscience is not allowed to speak freely, the only people
left speaking will be the criminals.
The idea that there will NEVER be a conflict between conscience and
the law of the land is, on the face of it, absurd.
There are two main reasons for this.
The first is that the law of the land is a human encoding of our
understanding of the law of the sky.
Thus it is at best always behind our understanding of the law of
the sky and law makers may not have recognized or gotten around to
encoding things in the law of the land that are in fact wrong.
Laws can also be written poorly resulting in confusion and prone to
wrong interpretation by others, thus making something illegal which in
fact is not morally wrong.
The main reason though for corruption in the law of the land is
because of the following:
When law makers outlaw criminals, criminals become law makers.
This is because when criminals find it hard to hide and operate out
on the streets, they get themselves elected into positions of power and
trust, where they can operate safely and mold the law in the direction
of their own desires to enslave and rob everyone else.
One criminal in office or position of authority like a police
commissioner, judge, governor, or senator can cause 100's the times of
damage that one criminal in the street can.
Thus government, which should be of the people, by the people, for
the people, becomes government of the people by the government, for the
government which has become infiltrated by criminals.
Laws written by criminals inure to the benefit of criminals.
The law of the land suffers many overwhelming pressures in the
direction of criminality, those of big religion, big science, big
entertainment, big business and big government to name a few.
Those are the influences from the outside.
When criminal influences are entrenched with in the law making body
also, the problem becomes doubly compounded.
A criminal from the outside meets a criminal from the inside and a
deal is made to the detriment of the people.
Thus the law of the land becomes corrupted with laws designed to
benefit criminals in power, rather than the people as a whole.
HIDING BEHIND THE LAW
When someone claims that something which is wrong to do, is right
to do just because it is legal, that is called 'hiding behind the law'.
When someone claims that something which is right to do, is wrong
to do just because it it is illegal, that is also 'hiding behind the
law'.
Hiding being the law means allowing the law to define what is right
or wrong to do.
The law is used to obscure one's conscience which is the ultimate
arbiter of all right and wrong things.
Right and wrong and have nothing at all to do with what is legal or
illegal.
Legal and illegal are mere shadows of the truths of right and
wrong.
The law of the land does not DEFINE right and wrong, but merely
describes our understanding of it, and sets sanction limits on what the
government can do about it.
The law of the sky says 'YOU MUST NOT DO WRONG'.
The moral mandate is on you the sovereign being.
The *MUST* is on you.
The law of the land says "IF you do something illegal, then the
government MAY punish you with sanctions but MUST NOT punish you beyond
the limits set by the law."
The moral mandate is on the government to stay within the limits of
the law of the land or else THEY have done something wrong.
In the dictionary, there are two definitions for the word
'criminal'.
The first means someone who has done something illegal.
This is the criminally corrupted definition of it.
The second means someone who has done something immoral or wrong,
(morally bankrupt).
For our purposes criminality is the second definition, specifically
the intent to violate a fair chosen transaction between two people
either by deceit or force.
We grant the government rights to use force to protect us from the
treasonous intent and use of force by the criminally willed, against our
well being.
Legality (legal and illegal) and Morality (right and wrong) are two
completely different subjects.
Morality hopefully determines legality but legality must never
determine morality.
Governments of the people that are no longer by the people or for
the people, just delight in making people think that the law of the land
DETERMINES right and wrong for the people.
You can always tell a criminal government by this one test.
What determines right and wrong?
The law of the sky or the law of the land?
The law of the land determines right and wrong FOR THE GOVERNMENT,
and its assigns, the SWORN civil servant.
The law of the sky determines right and wrong for everyone else.
When and if there is a conflict between conscience and the law of
the land, one has a moral duty to follow one's conscience and not the
law of the land, or else one is in violation of the law of the sky!
And let me tell you, the punishments of Earth can not hold a candle
to the punishments of the Sky, namely your conscience under the pall of
regret.
When a being dies and gets to the Pearly Gates, Saint Peter will
not be asking you if you did what was legal. He will be asking you if
you did what was right.
If you answer,
"But I could not do what was right because the law forbade it",
or
"I had to do what was wrong because the law insisted on it",
it will not reflect well on you, it will be as if you said nothing.
Or worse, lied to the Lord.
For you will not forgive yourself in any measure for your
transgressions, for the law of the land is no excuse for transgressions
against the law of the sky.
When the court judge asks you 'How do you justify breaking the
law?', the correct answer is
"I am a sovereign citizen, and I have never sworn to uphold the
law, as civil servants and foreign nationals seeking citizen ship have,
and thus I have and need no justification for breaking the law.
When the law and my conscience come into conflict, I have a moral
MANDATE to do what is right first, and what is legal second, regardless
of consequences to myself on the Earthly plane. I do not give my
conscience over to the conscience of other beings to determine what is
right and wrong for me."
When the court judge asks you "Do you believe you are above the
law?", the correct answer is:
"Yes, of course I am above the law of the land, I am a sovereign
citizen as are we all.
And when the law of the land becomes criminal because it is written
by criminals to inure to the benefit of criminals, of course I am above
the law of the land because I am not a criminal.
I follow the law of the sky, and the law of the sky is above the
law of the land.
If I choose to follow my conscience rather than the law of the
land, I also choose to accept full responsibility for any consequences
that might befall me in the realm of the land for doing so.
As sovereign citizen it is my job to do what is right at all times.
As judge it is your job to enforce the law of the land right or
wrong.
As the jury it is YOUR job to determine if the law IS right or
wrong and then, if right, adjudicate my guilt before the law of the land
accordingly."
Where the jury is not allowed to determine if a law is right or
wrong, moral or immoral, in accordance with the law of the sky or not,
you have a criminal government operating in that area, that is trying to
push the law of the land as the law of the sky.
In such circumstances in the past, termination with prejudice has
been called for by the law of the sky against the law of the land and
the moral criminals that promulgated and enforced it.
From this one might surmise that Truth is a jealous God, a God
whose wrath is hard to countenance or behold.
As we all are God in carnation, and there is no one to judge us but
ourselves, we need to watch it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Dec 8 17:44:56 EST 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Mar 19 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/law
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)
iD8DBQFar96EURT1lqxE3HERAoaaAKCJGhYXqQrzoivz///9UI2hiU4V9ACg0B/F
mEneF36pFnYBbmHSO9oSDyE=
=0sbq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE LAW OF THE LAND AND THE LAW OF THE SKY
There is the law of the land and the law of the sky.
The law of the sky is what is right and wrong and is guided solely
by our own conscience and our sense of oneness and family with other
people,
'As he is, so am I'.
In our usage, right and wrong, moral and immoral, and ethical and
unethical are taken to mean the same thing.
The law of the sky is NOT the written word of God, for even the
physical written word of God is below the law of the sky.
As each being is taken to be a full instantiation of God in
carnation anyhow, the law of the sky and the UNWRITTEN word of God could
be considered the same thing.
How do we know the "unwritten word of God?"
Via conscience.
Regardless of what we believe, or whether we have experienced a
higher divinity, we all have a conscience.
As sovereign beings, our conscience is the ultimate and sole
arbiter of all things.
God did not give us a conscience so we could use someone
else's conscience to make our decisions for us.
Never give your conscience over to the conscience of another to
determine what is right and wrong for you.
It's ok if you decide that someone else knows more than you, and
you trust them to make decisions for you, but it is YOUR conscious
decision based on YOUR conscience that directs you to do so.
All beings are governed by the law of the sky, and its justice is
swift and absolute as the law of the sky works in the now and can never
be wrong.
This justice however is powered by conscience and regret. In the
absence of either, i.e. insanity, there is no justice.
Thus each being delivers himself up for judgment TO HIM SELF,
during this life and in the many lives before and after this life.
In our yearning to protect ourselves from the criminally insane who
would break the law of the sky to our detriment while in the realm of
the land, we create professional organizations called government to deal
with the criminally insane in a professional and standard manner.
In order to guide and control the government we create the law of
the land.
The law of the land is a human codification of the law of the sky,
as best we see it.
The law of the sky codifies how the sovereign citizen should be
have.
The law of the land does not codify how the sovereign citizen
should behave, the law of the land codiies how the GOVERNMENT should
behave as determined by the sovereign citizens who elected it into
power.
The law of the land delineates the measures the government may take
and the penalties the government may impose on those who break the law
of the land, and thereby, we presume, the law of the sky.
The law of the sky constrains the sovereign citizen.
The law of the land constrains the government, that is it
constrains the civil servants who have sworn to uphold the law of the
land while on duty as the government.
The sovereign citizen has not sworn to uphold the law of the land
and thus is not beholden to it.
The sovereign citizen has no moral mandate to obey the law of the
land right or wrong. Only the sworn civil servant, who has sworn to
uphold the law of the land, right or wrong, has a moral mandate to obey
the law of the land.
The sovereign citizen on the other hand has a moral mandate to do
what is RIGHT, before considering what is LEGAL.
If a government official fails to go after a criminal and impose
authorized sanctions, he is guilty before the law of the land, for he
has sworn to uphold it, and we trust that he will. We voted him into
office for just that purpose after all.
He is also guilty before the law of the sky for violating
the law of the land after swearing before all to not do so.
The only way for a sworn civil servant to morally violate the law
of the land because of a conflict with the law of the sky is to step
down from his post as a civil servant, thus becoming a sovereign citizen
again.
The law of the sky is a law for the sovereign citizen.
The law of the land is a law for the government created by the
sovereign citizen.
Sovereign citizens have a moral duty to do what is right first and
what is legal second.
Civil servants have a moral duty to do what is legal first and what
is right second.
If a civil servant feels that the law of the land is wrong, he may
break the law of the land ONLY after turning in his badge as a civil
servant and going off duty on the matter.
No matter how wrong or unjust a law may be, we do not hire our cops
to determine if a law should be enforced or not. That is not their job,
they are not competent to do so, and they can not be trusted to do so,
as any single human being can turn criminal or become subject to
corruption, temptation and seduction at any time.
Thus where there is sanctioned use of force to enforce or punish,
we have rule by law rather than rule by whim, caprice, greed or fancy,
let alone personal conscience.
However once any transgression comes to court, the law itself can
be put on trial and struck down by the jury, as the law of the land is
never above the law of the sky.
Above the police, the jails, the jury and the judge is CONSCIENCE.
If a country does not allow conscience to ultimately rule, it will
ultimately go criminal through and through, because criminals hate
people who have a conscience, as it reminds the criminal he has or is
violating his own.
Where conscience is not allowed to speak freely, the only people
left speaking will be the criminals.
The idea that there will NEVER be a conflict between conscience and
the law of the land is, on the face of it, absurd.
There are two main reasons for this.
The first is that the law of the land is a human encoding of our
understanding of the law of the sky.
Thus it is at best always behind our understanding of the law of
the sky and law makers may not have recognized or gotten around to
encoding things in the law of the land that are in fact wrong.
Laws can also be written poorly resulting in confusion and prone to
wrong interpretation by others, thus making something illegal which in
fact is not morally wrong.
The main reason though for corruption in the law of the land is
because of the following:
When law makers outlaw criminals, criminals become law makers.
This is because when criminals find it hard to hide and operate out
on the streets, they get themselves elected into positions of power and
trust, where they can operate safely and mold the law in the direction
of their own desires to enslave and rob everyone else.
One criminal in office or position of authority like a police
commissioner, judge, governor, or senator can cause 100's the times of
damage that one criminal in the street can.
Thus government, which should be of the people, by the people, for
the people, becomes government of the people by the government, for the
government which has become infiltrated by criminals.
Laws written by criminals inure to the benefit of criminals.
The law of the land suffers many overwhelming pressures in the
direction of criminality, those of big religion, big science, big
entertainment, big business and big government to name a few.
Those are the influences from the outside.
When criminal influences are entrenched with in the law making body
also, the problem becomes doubly compounded.
A criminal from the outside meets a criminal from the inside and a
deal is made to the detriment of the people.
Thus the law of the land becomes corrupted with laws designed to
benefit criminals in power, rather than the people as a whole.
HIDING BEHIND THE LAW
When someone claims that something which is wrong to do, is right
to do just because it is legal, that is called 'hiding behind the law'.
When someone claims that something which is right to do, is wrong
to do just because it it is illegal, that is also 'hiding behind the
law'.
Hiding being the law means allowing the law to define what is right
or wrong to do.
The law is used to obscure one's conscience which is the ultimate
arbiter of all right and wrong things.
Right and wrong and have nothing at all to do with what is legal or
illegal.
Legal and illegal are mere shadows of the truths of right and
wrong.
The law of the land does not DEFINE right and wrong, but merely
describes our understanding of it, and sets sanction limits on what the
government can do about it.
The law of the sky says 'YOU MUST NOT DO WRONG'.
The moral mandate is on you the sovereign being.
The *MUST* is on you.
The law of the land says "IF you do something illegal, then the
government MAY punish you with sanctions but MUST NOT punish you beyond
the limits set by the law."
The moral mandate is on the government to stay within the limits of
the law of the land or else THEY have done something wrong.
In the dictionary, there are two definitions for the word
'criminal'.
The first means someone who has done something illegal.
This is the criminally corrupted definition of it.
The second means someone who has done something immoral or wrong,
(morally bankrupt).
For our purposes criminality is the second definition, specifically
the intent to violate a fair chosen transaction between two people
either by deceit or force.
We grant the government rights to use force to protect us from the
treasonous intent and use of force by the criminally willed, against our
well being.
Legality (legal and illegal) and Morality (right and wrong) are two
completely different subjects.
Morality hopefully determines legality but legality must never
determine morality.
Governments of the people that are no longer by the people or for
the people, just delight in making people think that the law of the land
DETERMINES right and wrong for the people.
You can always tell a criminal government by this one test.
What determines right and wrong?
The law of the sky or the law of the land?
The law of the land determines right and wrong FOR THE GOVERNMENT,
and its assigns, the SWORN civil servant.
The law of the sky determines right and wrong for everyone else.
When and if there is a conflict between conscience and the law of
the land, one has a moral duty to follow one's conscience and not the
law of the land, or else one is in violation of the law of the sky!
And let me tell you, the punishments of Earth can not hold a candle
to the punishments of the Sky, namely your conscience under the pall of
regret.
When a being dies and gets to the Pearly Gates, Saint Peter will
not be asking you if you did what was legal. He will be asking you if
you did what was right.
If you answer,
"But I could not do what was right because the law forbade it",
or
"I had to do what was wrong because the law insisted on it",
it will not reflect well on you, it will be as if you said nothing.
Or worse, lied to the Lord.
For you will not forgive yourself in any measure for your
transgressions, for the law of the land is no excuse for transgressions
against the law of the sky.
When the court judge asks you 'How do you justify breaking the
law?', the correct answer is
"I am a sovereign citizen, and I have never sworn to uphold the
law, as civil servants and foreign nationals seeking citizen ship have,
and thus I have and need no justification for breaking the law.
When the law and my conscience come into conflict, I have a moral
MANDATE to do what is right first, and what is legal second, regardless
of consequences to myself on the Earthly plane. I do not give my
conscience over to the conscience of other beings to determine what is
right and wrong for me."
When the court judge asks you "Do you believe you are above the
law?", the correct answer is:
"Yes, of course I am above the law of the land, I am a sovereign
citizen as are we all.
And when the law of the land becomes criminal because it is written
by criminals to inure to the benefit of criminals, of course I am above
the law of the land because I am not a criminal.
I follow the law of the sky, and the law of the sky is above the
law of the land.
If I choose to follow my conscience rather than the law of the
land, I also choose to accept full responsibility for any consequences
that might befall me in the realm of the land for doing so.
As sovereign citizen it is my job to do what is right at all times.
As judge it is your job to enforce the law of the land right or
wrong.
As the jury it is YOUR job to determine if the law IS right or
wrong and then, if right, adjudicate my guilt before the law of the land
accordingly."
Where the jury is not allowed to determine if a law is right or
wrong, moral or immoral, in accordance with the law of the sky or not,
you have a criminal government operating in that area, that is trying to
push the law of the land as the law of the sky.
In such circumstances in the past, termination with prejudice has
been called for by the law of the sky against the law of the land and
the moral criminals that promulgated and enforced it.
From this one might surmise that Truth is a jealous God, a God
whose wrath is hard to countenance or behold.
As we all are God in carnation, and there is no one to judge us but
ourselves, we need to watch it.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Mon Dec 8 17:44:56 EST 2008
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Mar 19 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/law
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)
iD8DBQFar96EURT1lqxE3HERAoaaAKCJGhYXqQrzoivz///9UI2hiU4V9ACg0B/F
mEneF36pFnYBbmHSO9oSDyE=
=0sbq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, March 18, 2018
ADORE256 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
> Dramatizing psycho....
> Dangerous.
No real OT would ever act this way.
Actually a good demonstration of someone who is overwhelmed by
the beingness of LRH, and who doesn't have a dataum of comparable
magnitude to LRH, anywhere, let alone in himself, so his evaluation
machinery goes into feed back saturation trying to place it somewhere,
either all good or all bad.
He probably hated his father as much as he loves LRH.
Get him to spot differences between his father and LRH.
Get him to spot similarities between his father and LRH.
EP: Father and LRH no longer at infinite ends of the good/bad
scale.
Then we can have a reasonable discussion of what a world running
on Scn standard ethics, tech and admin would be like.
In his present state he would justify ANYTHING to bring about Scn
Standard ethics tech and admin including out-ethics, out-tech, and
out-admin!
As for what the world would be like, notice that there is no
democratic voting machinery in the church, elders elect not so elders
to become elders. One can complain but only at great risk.
The kind of government necessary run a religion is not the same
kind of government necessary to run a world wide interstellar
civilization.
When lawmakers outlaw criminals, criminals become lawmakers.
Criminals bubble up to the highest levels of power where they can
be safe to be criminals unless the people under them have a mechanism
to take them out.
*THERE ARE NO GREEN ON WHITES ABOUT HOW TO RUN AN ELECTION!*
The next thing Bush is going after, once he is done with Iraq,
Iran and Korea, is the Church of Scientology.
Well it ain't a democracy now is it? It kind of floats down
there around a fascism or a communism.
BY LRH'S DESIGN.
And it seems to like to use terror to get its ways.
And "competition is a trick of the weak to fetter the strong."
HCOPL 19 March 1968 New OEC Vol. 0, pg 193
I wonder if David Miscavige would actually survive an *ELECTION*.
Homer
> Homer
>LRH-SALVATION (FreedomIssues1012@comhem.se) wrote:
>>As you know the EXPANSION of Scientology is phenomenal.
>>Sanity will soon rule the world.
>>There will be a time when EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and ALL THE TIME will BE, DO,
>>HAVE and PERCEIVE the LRH STANDARD ETHICS, TECH and ADMIN way.
>>When KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING will be the number one guide for EVERYONE.
>>All actions and decisions will bear the mark of LRH STANDARD TECH STANDARD
>>ADMIN.
>>There is NO OTHER WAY to do something TRULY CORRECT - than THE LRH STANDARD
>>WAY.
>>Look at his life, what he did and how!
>>LRH never ever said or wrote ANYTHING that wasn't TRUE and WORKABLE.
>>There is BUT ONE TECH ONLY - that is LRH STANDARD TECH.
>>I dedicate all my time, all my effort, all my money, every day to help LRH
>>and Mr DAVID MISCAVIGE to EXPAND into every corner possible and to make
>>EVERY HUMAN BEING on planet earth fully and totally ABSORB - STANDARD
>>ETHICS, LRH STANDARD TECH and LRH STANDARD ADMIN.
>>DO YOUR A to E STEPS NOW!
>>Stop pretending there is any other way to be,do or have anything than THE
>>LRH STANDARD WAY.
>>THE SUPER POWER PROJECT WILL SWEEP YOU AWAY ANYWAY
>>I can't help you guys more than this, at this time. I'm very, very, very
>>busy CONTRIBUTING TO THE EXPANSION OF SCIENTOLOGY.
>>And I am very, very, very HAPPY DOING IT :)))))))))))))))
>>GetWins
>>Putting the ****** on the road to total Freedom
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Mar 18 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore256.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)
iD8DBQFaro0DURT1lqxE3HERAq8vAKDLy1SCsB5moVcRmgIz7fXXvHwyuACgxnZ8
qwgkds4TAqq2jbNpstley9E=
=8oBu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Homer Wilson Smith (homer@lightlink.com) wrote:
> Dramatizing psycho....
> Dangerous.
No real OT would ever act this way.
Actually a good demonstration of someone who is overwhelmed by
the beingness of LRH, and who doesn't have a dataum of comparable
magnitude to LRH, anywhere, let alone in himself, so his evaluation
machinery goes into feed back saturation trying to place it somewhere,
either all good or all bad.
He probably hated his father as much as he loves LRH.
Get him to spot differences between his father and LRH.
Get him to spot similarities between his father and LRH.
EP: Father and LRH no longer at infinite ends of the good/bad
scale.
Then we can have a reasonable discussion of what a world running
on Scn standard ethics, tech and admin would be like.
In his present state he would justify ANYTHING to bring about Scn
Standard ethics tech and admin including out-ethics, out-tech, and
out-admin!
As for what the world would be like, notice that there is no
democratic voting machinery in the church, elders elect not so elders
to become elders. One can complain but only at great risk.
The kind of government necessary run a religion is not the same
kind of government necessary to run a world wide interstellar
civilization.
When lawmakers outlaw criminals, criminals become lawmakers.
Criminals bubble up to the highest levels of power where they can
be safe to be criminals unless the people under them have a mechanism
to take them out.
*THERE ARE NO GREEN ON WHITES ABOUT HOW TO RUN AN ELECTION!*
The next thing Bush is going after, once he is done with Iraq,
Iran and Korea, is the Church of Scientology.
Well it ain't a democracy now is it? It kind of floats down
there around a fascism or a communism.
BY LRH'S DESIGN.
And it seems to like to use terror to get its ways.
And "competition is a trick of the weak to fetter the strong."
HCOPL 19 March 1968 New OEC Vol. 0, pg 193
I wonder if David Miscavige would actually survive an *ELECTION*.
Homer
> Homer
>LRH-SALVATION (FreedomIssues1012@comhem.se) wrote:
>>As you know the EXPANSION of Scientology is phenomenal.
>>Sanity will soon rule the world.
>>There will be a time when EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE and ALL THE TIME will BE, DO,
>>HAVE and PERCEIVE the LRH STANDARD ETHICS, TECH and ADMIN way.
>>When KEEPING SCIENTOLOGY WORKING will be the number one guide for EVERYONE.
>>All actions and decisions will bear the mark of LRH STANDARD TECH STANDARD
>>ADMIN.
>>There is NO OTHER WAY to do something TRULY CORRECT - than THE LRH STANDARD
>>WAY.
>>Look at his life, what he did and how!
>>LRH never ever said or wrote ANYTHING that wasn't TRUE and WORKABLE.
>>There is BUT ONE TECH ONLY - that is LRH STANDARD TECH.
>>I dedicate all my time, all my effort, all my money, every day to help LRH
>>and Mr DAVID MISCAVIGE to EXPAND into every corner possible and to make
>>EVERY HUMAN BEING on planet earth fully and totally ABSORB - STANDARD
>>ETHICS, LRH STANDARD TECH and LRH STANDARD ADMIN.
>>DO YOUR A to E STEPS NOW!
>>Stop pretending there is any other way to be,do or have anything than THE
>>LRH STANDARD WAY.
>>THE SUPER POWER PROJECT WILL SWEEP YOU AWAY ANYWAY
>>I can't help you guys more than this, at this time. I'm very, very, very
>>busy CONTRIBUTING TO THE EXPANSION OF SCIENTOLOGY.
>>And I am very, very, very HAPPY DOING IT :)))))))))))))))
>>GetWins
>>Putting the ****** on the road to total Freedom
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Mar 18 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore256.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)
iD8DBQFaro0DURT1lqxE3HERAq8vAKDLy1SCsB5moVcRmgIz7fXXvHwyuACgxnZ8
qwgkds4TAqq2jbNpstley9E=
=8oBu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE318 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
THE THREE GREAT TRUTHS OF ADORE
Over the years, Adore has grown through three great truths.
THE PROOF
The first truth is, in the physical universe of space and time, the
only way one object can learn about another object across a space/time
distance, is through being the effect of the other object. You can't
learn about something that donsn't effect you in any way. Since effects
do not prove cause, this lead to "The Machine Certainty Theorem"
otherwise known as The Proof, which states that certainty of cause
across a space time distance is impossible.
LAW OF NOBILITY
The second great truth was the Law of Nobility, which said that a
man will never strive to a higher level of nobility than the nobility of
the universe he conceived created him. That may be a hard one to
swallow, but it says that nobility can not exist on the first dynamic
alone and if it is missing on the 8th, it will decay on the 7th through
1st. This lead to the idea that if one finds greater nobility in one
self than in the universe around him, one must continue to seek that
same nobility in one's conception of the Cosmic All, or else that
nobility will ultimately go to waste.
This mandates that we rewrite our conception of the Cosmic All
until it becomes worthy of the nobility we find inside ourselves.
Hubbard said it in other words, that one becomes what one fears if
one loses to it. Trying to be more noble than the apparently 'ignoble'
universe that created one is a losing game, thus ultimately all such
people go into the valence of the ignoble universe and begin to act
accordingly. One audits this by auditing one's conception of the Cosmic
All to restore nobility on all 8 dynamics.
Only then can one rise to one's own native worth.
"Cancerous views of reality lead to cancerous conditions in body,
heart, mind and soul. What grows in your life like a cancer?" - Adore
LAW OF DISSATISFACTION or THE WAY IN IS THE WAY OUT
The third and most subtle truth of Adore was that no further truth
could ever make you satisfied with a truth that you were dissatisfied
with now, otherwise known as the 'make up for' law.
For example the religiously insane will tell you that when you get
to Heaven God will make up for all the pain you suffered in this life.
You see, that's a later good resolving a prior bad. It will never
happen. NO MATTER WHAT GOD DOES FOR YOU. Certain things can not be
'made up for'.
Having looked at my pain for 30 years I have determined that no
further ANYTHING will ever make up for my pain in this life, and thus
the existence of God and heaven and hell becomes moot. Going to heaven
or hell just becomes another incident in a long line of incidents that
need to be resolved.
The odd idea that comes out of this is that each incident of pain,
MUST contain within it an unspotted truth that will resolve that pain
and make it worthwhile. Note this does not mean 'make up for the pain'.
The incident ITSELF BECOME WORTHWHILE AND JUSTIFIED EXPERIENCING. It
means once the true truth of the incident becomes known, the pain ITSELF
BECOMES BEAUTIFUL, turns into humor, and blows off as joy/sorrow and
peace.
Not only is one GLAD it happened, but one is willing to have it
happen again. No lesson learned. Lessons are alter-is to make sure
something doesn't happen again. Lessons are trauma scaring.
Thus each incident contains within it the seed of its own
resolution, one need not and MUST not look elsewhere, to some OTHER
later, bigger or stronger truth, to make up for the 'truth' of the pain
that one suffered.
No FURTHER truth will ever make you satisfied with a TRUTH that you
are dissatisfied with now. Thus what you are dissatisfied with now can
not be the truth. From this one can conclude that once the total truth
is known, total satisfaction with all things everywhere will result.
Total OKness.
This renders a God who purveys heavens or hells even less relevant,
as the whole solution to my existence and suffering is an issue between
me and myself and my awareness of truth at the time.
It has nothing to do with anyone or anything else!
"As for God, who hired him a and what are we paying him for?" -
Adore.
One can draw from this, that the Cosmic All is the best of all
possible universes, that we have exactly what we wanted at one time or
another. Perhaps it is time to change our minds about what we want, but
WE CAN NEVER GET RID OF ANYTHING BAD, something we couldn't have,
wouldn't have, shouldn't have wanted or created.
One can only get rid of something that one appreciated in the
creation of it, and see that appreciation now.
Thus justice reigns at all times. Justice is, you get what you
postulate.
Just as God created the light and saw it was good, just so we
created any condition we are in and saw it was good at the time. Only
by seeing how it was and still may be good, can we then get rid of it,
as-is it. Just because it no longer serves a good purpose to have the
condition, doesn't mean it isn't a good ability to be able to create and
destroy that condition at will! It is an EXCELLENT ability in fact, one
can't survive long term without it. So don't eschew disability just
because it is not presently useful. Pack it up instead for a later day.
IT WAS GOOD AT THE TIME OF CREATION AND MUST BE GOOD AGAIN AT THE
TIME OF DESTRUCTION, THROUGH AS-ISNESS.
Just remember being good doesn't mean the disability should
still be in play in present time, only that it was considered a good
idea at the time, and may have been necessary to your survival. It may
STILL BE necessary to your survival, so watch out, if you regain
awareness of a disability is good, it will start to as-is on you
whether you want it to or not.
One only uses force to destroy 'bad' things, which results in
eternal persistence of parts of bad things.
Thus one can only really get rid of something that is good!
As long as one considers various conditions unconditionally bad
they will persist forever because that isn't the truth of their
creation.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Feb 22 15:16:49 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Mar 17 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore318.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)
iD8DBQFarTuCURT1lqxE3HERAoZcAKCyKrsePnyQiDI74/xG9+4YGwXRaQCgq649
Y5+1mn2wvX8xwBQrtbmf8Ew=
=9D9x
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Mar 18 13:33:48 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore318.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)
iD8DBQFarqL9URT1lqxE3HERAguIAJoCoLuQzsYK0TKT5ASbA28XDsXwpACgthTH
ywQaIvk/QPGOwfO1Uy1OejY=
=JUyz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
THE THREE GREAT TRUTHS OF ADORE
Over the years, Adore has grown through three great truths.
THE PROOF
The first truth is, in the physical universe of space and time, the
only way one object can learn about another object across a space/time
distance, is through being the effect of the other object. You can't
learn about something that donsn't effect you in any way. Since effects
do not prove cause, this lead to "The Machine Certainty Theorem"
otherwise known as The Proof, which states that certainty of cause
across a space time distance is impossible.
LAW OF NOBILITY
The second great truth was the Law of Nobility, which said that a
man will never strive to a higher level of nobility than the nobility of
the universe he conceived created him. That may be a hard one to
swallow, but it says that nobility can not exist on the first dynamic
alone and if it is missing on the 8th, it will decay on the 7th through
1st. This lead to the idea that if one finds greater nobility in one
self than in the universe around him, one must continue to seek that
same nobility in one's conception of the Cosmic All, or else that
nobility will ultimately go to waste.
This mandates that we rewrite our conception of the Cosmic All
until it becomes worthy of the nobility we find inside ourselves.
Hubbard said it in other words, that one becomes what one fears if
one loses to it. Trying to be more noble than the apparently 'ignoble'
universe that created one is a losing game, thus ultimately all such
people go into the valence of the ignoble universe and begin to act
accordingly. One audits this by auditing one's conception of the Cosmic
All to restore nobility on all 8 dynamics.
Only then can one rise to one's own native worth.
"Cancerous views of reality lead to cancerous conditions in body,
heart, mind and soul. What grows in your life like a cancer?" - Adore
LAW OF DISSATISFACTION or THE WAY IN IS THE WAY OUT
The third and most subtle truth of Adore was that no further truth
could ever make you satisfied with a truth that you were dissatisfied
with now, otherwise known as the 'make up for' law.
For example the religiously insane will tell you that when you get
to Heaven God will make up for all the pain you suffered in this life.
You see, that's a later good resolving a prior bad. It will never
happen. NO MATTER WHAT GOD DOES FOR YOU. Certain things can not be
'made up for'.
Having looked at my pain for 30 years I have determined that no
further ANYTHING will ever make up for my pain in this life, and thus
the existence of God and heaven and hell becomes moot. Going to heaven
or hell just becomes another incident in a long line of incidents that
need to be resolved.
The odd idea that comes out of this is that each incident of pain,
MUST contain within it an unspotted truth that will resolve that pain
and make it worthwhile. Note this does not mean 'make up for the pain'.
The incident ITSELF BECOME WORTHWHILE AND JUSTIFIED EXPERIENCING. It
means once the true truth of the incident becomes known, the pain ITSELF
BECOMES BEAUTIFUL, turns into humor, and blows off as joy/sorrow and
peace.
Not only is one GLAD it happened, but one is willing to have it
happen again. No lesson learned. Lessons are alter-is to make sure
something doesn't happen again. Lessons are trauma scaring.
Thus each incident contains within it the seed of its own
resolution, one need not and MUST not look elsewhere, to some OTHER
later, bigger or stronger truth, to make up for the 'truth' of the pain
that one suffered.
No FURTHER truth will ever make you satisfied with a TRUTH that you
are dissatisfied with now. Thus what you are dissatisfied with now can
not be the truth. From this one can conclude that once the total truth
is known, total satisfaction with all things everywhere will result.
Total OKness.
This renders a God who purveys heavens or hells even less relevant,
as the whole solution to my existence and suffering is an issue between
me and myself and my awareness of truth at the time.
It has nothing to do with anyone or anything else!
"As for God, who hired him a and what are we paying him for?" -
Adore.
One can draw from this, that the Cosmic All is the best of all
possible universes, that we have exactly what we wanted at one time or
another. Perhaps it is time to change our minds about what we want, but
WE CAN NEVER GET RID OF ANYTHING BAD, something we couldn't have,
wouldn't have, shouldn't have wanted or created.
One can only get rid of something that one appreciated in the
creation of it, and see that appreciation now.
Thus justice reigns at all times. Justice is, you get what you
postulate.
Just as God created the light and saw it was good, just so we
created any condition we are in and saw it was good at the time. Only
by seeing how it was and still may be good, can we then get rid of it,
as-is it. Just because it no longer serves a good purpose to have the
condition, doesn't mean it isn't a good ability to be able to create and
destroy that condition at will! It is an EXCELLENT ability in fact, one
can't survive long term without it. So don't eschew disability just
because it is not presently useful. Pack it up instead for a later day.
IT WAS GOOD AT THE TIME OF CREATION AND MUST BE GOOD AGAIN AT THE
TIME OF DESTRUCTION, THROUGH AS-ISNESS.
Just remember being good doesn't mean the disability should
still be in play in present time, only that it was considered a good
idea at the time, and may have been necessary to your survival. It may
STILL BE necessary to your survival, so watch out, if you regain
awareness of a disability is good, it will start to as-is on you
whether you want it to or not.
One only uses force to destroy 'bad' things, which results in
eternal persistence of parts of bad things.
Thus one can only really get rid of something that is good!
As long as one considers various conditions unconditionally bad
they will persist forever because that isn't the truth of their
creation.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Feb 22 15:16:49 EST 2006
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Mar 17 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore318.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)
iD8DBQFarTuCURT1lqxE3HERAoZcAKCyKrsePnyQiDI74/xG9+4YGwXRaQCgq649
Y5+1mn2wvX8xwBQrtbmf8Ew=
=9D9x
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Mar 18 13:33:48 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore318.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)
iD8DBQFarqL9URT1lqxE3HERAguIAJoCoLuQzsYK0TKT5ASbA28XDsXwpACgthTH
ywQaIvk/QPGOwfO1Uy1OejY=
=JUyz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, March 15, 2018
PROOF29 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
DELUSION ABOUT ILLUSION
The primary delusion is that something exists independent of what
we perceive. He sees a car and thinks it is a *CAR*, rather than a
colorform picture of a car in his conscious unit.
Say someone gets out of his body with full perception. Chances are
he will be seeing more than the usual physical universe around him.
This universe seems to be a composite universe, with perhaps multiple
universes intersecting and interacting, and higher and lower levels of
each universes interplaying like a layer cake.
With body's eyes we see the lowest layer of one of the universes,
the one we call the physical universe. Go exterior and perhaps you
start seeing higher levels of the physical universe, and perhaps
intersecting areas of other universe.
So say this guy goes exterior and he sees a shadowy figure off in
the distance through the wall etc and his first reaction is "I see a
Ghost!" Ok that's fine. But now he says "It *IS* a Ghost!", or "It
ISN'T a Ghost!" or "I'm not going to believe you are a Ghost until
someone else proves to me you are a Ghost!"
This is going to dry up his perceptions. Why? Because it is
evaluation. He is evaluating for the experience and like evaluating for
a pc, it is death to the experience. He is trying to overlay a frame
work of *TRUTH* on this experience, its an add on, and an alter-is.
The truth is "I perceive a ghost", anything more is evaluation.
There are people who don't want to perceive anything that isn't
real. Perhaps they consider it impolite to the God of Reality.
This presumes that things exist independent of their own
perceptions, and if they don't, they aren't real!
This also puts the person into the problem of determining what is
real or not. It's easy to determine what you perceive, if you perceive
it, you perceive it. But how do you determine if something is 'real'?
Unfortunately most people determine if something is real by
whether other people perceive it also or not. But how did THEY
determine it was real? It's sort of a catch 22 endless regression.
What they don't realize is that ultimately reality had to start
with someone who said "It's real because I perceive it." That allows
everyone else to say "Well its ok for me to perceive it because its
real, and I know its real because Goober says so!"
This is the framework upon which the science of proving reality
stands.
Notice that science itself has little to do with proving the
reality of things, thats an alter-is twist that certain meatballs put on
it. The scientific method of observation, theory, prediction,
verification and peer revue, really has nothing to do with establishing
the 'reality' of anything, only the dependability of it. Its a further
alter-is of things that if things are dependable, they must be REAL.
Now the proof has an underlying principle that is usually left out
of the discussions. By far the most important line in the proof is
number 2.
2.) Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Looking at
Effects.
It's simple enough to model, put a video camera out there attached
to a TV screen, and look at the world through the TV screen as your only
mode of access. If the video camera is pointed at a red car say, light
waves come in and bounce off the car and head for the camera lens.
The change in the direction of the light waves records the
existence of an external cause out there called the red car. The car
is cause and it EFFECTS the light waves by causing them to bounce.
The light waves go to the video camera and now THEY cause the
retina of the camera to emit electrical signals, which travel to the TV
set which cause the scanning electron gun to change its intensity, which
causes the phosphors on the screen to light up, which causes light waves
to be emitted yet again from the TV screen towards your eyes, which
causes YOUR retina to emit eletronic signals to head for your brain,
which causes activity in the visual cortex, which causes conscious
picturs to appear and you see them.
YOU end up looking at effects, namely the pictures in your
consciousness, in order to learn about cause, namely the car many levels
of cause and effect back. Notice that at no time is the video camera in
contact with the car out there, it is only ever in contact with light
waves that were caused to change course from the sun to the video
camera, by the car. The video camera doesn't even really know if the
car is out there because the light waves could have been bent by God to
make it look like there was a car out there. The video camera only
knows about the effects in itself and those effects do not prove cause.
OK, so this is Learning across a Distance by Looking at Effects,
and does not produce certainty of cause.
Now what's left out is a deeper analysis of why learning across a
distance implies learning by looking at effects.
Here is what the proof has to say on it.
The primary assertion is if A and B are two different objects, then
the only way B can learn about A is if A is cause and has an effect on
B. B must change state because of A in order for B to learn about A.
This implies that if A has no effect on B, then B can never learn
about A no matter what B does or how much cause B has on A.
This also implies that the ONLY thing B can learn about A, is how
A's cause affected B, in other words the only qualities that two objects
can learn about each other are causal relations.
The Proof further says if A and B are separated by a real distance,
then A and B are two different objects.
So we have
2a.) If A and B are separated by a distance, then A and B are two
different objects.
2b.) If A and B are two different objects, then the only way B can
learn about A is by looking at effects in itself caused by A.
Therefore
If B is learning about A across a distance, then B must be learning
by looking at effects.
So you see how 2.) is derived?
Ok now notice that the proof says if A and B are two different
objects, they must learn about each other by looking at effects and
therefore can't have certainty of each other at all.
Notice this is true even if A and B are NOT separated by a
distance. Even if A and B are on the same point, but are nonetheless
two different objects, they must learn by looking at effects in
themselves, and therefore may never enjoy certainty of each other's
existence or cause.
Thus the only way for A and B to learn with certainty about each
other, they must be one and the same object!
Since the conscious self is able to learn with certainty about the
existence and cause in its conscious picture color forms, one therefore
has to conclude that the self IS the same object as its perceived color
forms.
In other words you ARE what you perceive.
Now a meatball will start saying "Homer is saying I am a tree!"
No, trees do not exist, only your perception of the tree exists as
a colorform picture in your conscious unit. Yes you are the colorform
when you perceive the tree, that is why you can perceive the existence
and cause of that colorform, because you are learning by looking AT
CAUSE, and not learning by looking at effects.
But looking at CAUSE is not possible across a distance,
nor between two different objects.
B can never see A's cause even if A DOES have an effect on B. B
can only see the effect of A on itself, that A caused that effect is a
THEORY.
Even if we believe that trees exist, its still not true that you
are the tree, you are however the colorform you see of the tree, even
though holographically the colorform looks like it is 'out there' where
you fancy the tree to be.
The virtual reality theory however claims that trees do not exist
at all, nor does space of any kind, only colorform pictures of such in
the eye of each conscious unit.
Each person has his own colorform of the tree, we aren't all seeing
the same actual conscious picture. The pictures may look alike, but are
individual pictures for each being. Each being sees only his own
colorforms at all times.
Since space itself is an illusion, all observers are on the same
point/place, and the idea that someone else is 'over there' in your
picture is just plain wrong. Everyone is 'here' where you are.
So if you take a look at Quantum Mechanics, its primary departure
from Newtonian mechanics is that 'what reality is' depends on the
process of observation itself. They say that reality doesn't really
exist until it is observed, and that the process of observation
'precipitates' pre reality into real reality via the process of
observation itself. This means that different events of observation
might precipitate slightly different final realities.
Now personally I believe the quantum boys are still lost in
delusion about illusion, but if you take a look at what they are saying
in the context of the proof and the idea that the entire external
universe is a hologram of colorforms, then you can see where they might
be leading. Observation IS reality.
The proof says that the perceiver and the perceived are one and the
same thing because certainty flows between them.
The virtual reality theory says that all there is are perceivers
and perceiveds and that therefore things are only as real as they are
perceived, no more and no less.
Thus of course the process of observation 'precipitates' reality,
as observation IS reality.
Hopefully some day the Quantum Boys will wake up, and hopefully
we have made a few meatballs roll over in the graves they call their
life.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 15 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof29.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)
iD8DBQFaqpiDURT1lqxE3HERAmUkAJ416A0feCg8LsuKFH8MIGI0JDIJJwCgyJtR
mvxUH9VsOpZgfpk7CTyE0uc=
=I6jV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
DELUSION ABOUT ILLUSION
The primary delusion is that something exists independent of what
we perceive. He sees a car and thinks it is a *CAR*, rather than a
colorform picture of a car in his conscious unit.
Say someone gets out of his body with full perception. Chances are
he will be seeing more than the usual physical universe around him.
This universe seems to be a composite universe, with perhaps multiple
universes intersecting and interacting, and higher and lower levels of
each universes interplaying like a layer cake.
With body's eyes we see the lowest layer of one of the universes,
the one we call the physical universe. Go exterior and perhaps you
start seeing higher levels of the physical universe, and perhaps
intersecting areas of other universe.
So say this guy goes exterior and he sees a shadowy figure off in
the distance through the wall etc and his first reaction is "I see a
Ghost!" Ok that's fine. But now he says "It *IS* a Ghost!", or "It
ISN'T a Ghost!" or "I'm not going to believe you are a Ghost until
someone else proves to me you are a Ghost!"
This is going to dry up his perceptions. Why? Because it is
evaluation. He is evaluating for the experience and like evaluating for
a pc, it is death to the experience. He is trying to overlay a frame
work of *TRUTH* on this experience, its an add on, and an alter-is.
The truth is "I perceive a ghost", anything more is evaluation.
There are people who don't want to perceive anything that isn't
real. Perhaps they consider it impolite to the God of Reality.
This presumes that things exist independent of their own
perceptions, and if they don't, they aren't real!
This also puts the person into the problem of determining what is
real or not. It's easy to determine what you perceive, if you perceive
it, you perceive it. But how do you determine if something is 'real'?
Unfortunately most people determine if something is real by
whether other people perceive it also or not. But how did THEY
determine it was real? It's sort of a catch 22 endless regression.
What they don't realize is that ultimately reality had to start
with someone who said "It's real because I perceive it." That allows
everyone else to say "Well its ok for me to perceive it because its
real, and I know its real because Goober says so!"
This is the framework upon which the science of proving reality
stands.
Notice that science itself has little to do with proving the
reality of things, thats an alter-is twist that certain meatballs put on
it. The scientific method of observation, theory, prediction,
verification and peer revue, really has nothing to do with establishing
the 'reality' of anything, only the dependability of it. Its a further
alter-is of things that if things are dependable, they must be REAL.
Now the proof has an underlying principle that is usually left out
of the discussions. By far the most important line in the proof is
number 2.
2.) Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Looking at
Effects.
It's simple enough to model, put a video camera out there attached
to a TV screen, and look at the world through the TV screen as your only
mode of access. If the video camera is pointed at a red car say, light
waves come in and bounce off the car and head for the camera lens.
The change in the direction of the light waves records the
existence of an external cause out there called the red car. The car
is cause and it EFFECTS the light waves by causing them to bounce.
The light waves go to the video camera and now THEY cause the
retina of the camera to emit electrical signals, which travel to the TV
set which cause the scanning electron gun to change its intensity, which
causes the phosphors on the screen to light up, which causes light waves
to be emitted yet again from the TV screen towards your eyes, which
causes YOUR retina to emit eletronic signals to head for your brain,
which causes activity in the visual cortex, which causes conscious
picturs to appear and you see them.
YOU end up looking at effects, namely the pictures in your
consciousness, in order to learn about cause, namely the car many levels
of cause and effect back. Notice that at no time is the video camera in
contact with the car out there, it is only ever in contact with light
waves that were caused to change course from the sun to the video
camera, by the car. The video camera doesn't even really know if the
car is out there because the light waves could have been bent by God to
make it look like there was a car out there. The video camera only
knows about the effects in itself and those effects do not prove cause.
OK, so this is Learning across a Distance by Looking at Effects,
and does not produce certainty of cause.
Now what's left out is a deeper analysis of why learning across a
distance implies learning by looking at effects.
Here is what the proof has to say on it.
The primary assertion is if A and B are two different objects, then
the only way B can learn about A is if A is cause and has an effect on
B. B must change state because of A in order for B to learn about A.
This implies that if A has no effect on B, then B can never learn
about A no matter what B does or how much cause B has on A.
This also implies that the ONLY thing B can learn about A, is how
A's cause affected B, in other words the only qualities that two objects
can learn about each other are causal relations.
The Proof further says if A and B are separated by a real distance,
then A and B are two different objects.
So we have
2a.) If A and B are separated by a distance, then A and B are two
different objects.
2b.) If A and B are two different objects, then the only way B can
learn about A is by looking at effects in itself caused by A.
Therefore
If B is learning about A across a distance, then B must be learning
by looking at effects.
So you see how 2.) is derived?
Ok now notice that the proof says if A and B are two different
objects, they must learn about each other by looking at effects and
therefore can't have certainty of each other at all.
Notice this is true even if A and B are NOT separated by a
distance. Even if A and B are on the same point, but are nonetheless
two different objects, they must learn by looking at effects in
themselves, and therefore may never enjoy certainty of each other's
existence or cause.
Thus the only way for A and B to learn with certainty about each
other, they must be one and the same object!
Since the conscious self is able to learn with certainty about the
existence and cause in its conscious picture color forms, one therefore
has to conclude that the self IS the same object as its perceived color
forms.
In other words you ARE what you perceive.
Now a meatball will start saying "Homer is saying I am a tree!"
No, trees do not exist, only your perception of the tree exists as
a colorform picture in your conscious unit. Yes you are the colorform
when you perceive the tree, that is why you can perceive the existence
and cause of that colorform, because you are learning by looking AT
CAUSE, and not learning by looking at effects.
But looking at CAUSE is not possible across a distance,
nor between two different objects.
B can never see A's cause even if A DOES have an effect on B. B
can only see the effect of A on itself, that A caused that effect is a
THEORY.
Even if we believe that trees exist, its still not true that you
are the tree, you are however the colorform you see of the tree, even
though holographically the colorform looks like it is 'out there' where
you fancy the tree to be.
The virtual reality theory however claims that trees do not exist
at all, nor does space of any kind, only colorform pictures of such in
the eye of each conscious unit.
Each person has his own colorform of the tree, we aren't all seeing
the same actual conscious picture. The pictures may look alike, but are
individual pictures for each being. Each being sees only his own
colorforms at all times.
Since space itself is an illusion, all observers are on the same
point/place, and the idea that someone else is 'over there' in your
picture is just plain wrong. Everyone is 'here' where you are.
So if you take a look at Quantum Mechanics, its primary departure
from Newtonian mechanics is that 'what reality is' depends on the
process of observation itself. They say that reality doesn't really
exist until it is observed, and that the process of observation
'precipitates' pre reality into real reality via the process of
observation itself. This means that different events of observation
might precipitate slightly different final realities.
Now personally I believe the quantum boys are still lost in
delusion about illusion, but if you take a look at what they are saying
in the context of the proof and the idea that the entire external
universe is a hologram of colorforms, then you can see where they might
be leading. Observation IS reality.
The proof says that the perceiver and the perceived are one and the
same thing because certainty flows between them.
The virtual reality theory says that all there is are perceivers
and perceiveds and that therefore things are only as real as they are
perceived, no more and no less.
Thus of course the process of observation 'precipitates' reality,
as observation IS reality.
Hopefully some day the Quantum Boys will wake up, and hopefully
we have made a few meatballs roll over in the graves they call their
life.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Mar 15 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/proof29.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)
iD8DBQFaqpiDURT1lqxE3HERAmUkAJ416A0feCg8LsuKFH8MIGI0JDIJJwCgyJtR
mvxUH9VsOpZgfpk7CTyE0uc=
=I6jV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
POLITICS2 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
POLITICS AND MARKETS
Politics is the meta design of society.
Markets are the operation of that society as designed.
Society consists of producers and consumers engaging in free trade,
negotiations for duties and rights, and a government with force and laws
to protect those negotiations and free trade. This is 'the market'.
Society and its markets depends on communication lines and
restrictions on those communication lines for the society to take place
properly.
But the process of politics also depends on those same
communication lines, because while people are part of society and
engaging in their markets, they are also the designers of that society
looking at it from outside of society and must be able to speak freely
and anonymously with each other if necessary in order to engage in that
process of design.
Any changes made to the communication lines in society for the sake
of the markets MUST be gauged against the effects they have on the meta
design process of politics as both politics and markets depend on the
same communication lines.
*BOTH POLITICS AND MARKETS DEPEND ON THE SAME COMMUNICATION LINES*
When changes are made to the communication lines that benefit the
markets at the expense of politics then you have a police state
aborning.
Politics for example depend upon untraceable anonymous
communication lines, so that people can speak freely about their
political ideas with out the political goon squads of the opposing
parties coming in the night and making them disappear.
But if you can communicate about politics anonymously to everyone
and anyone, you can also send mp3's of copyrighted works, and no one can
trace you to stop you. And so too can the subversives or terrorists
talk freely to the people, not to mention the pedophiles posting
pictures of naked kids to public forums without recourse, and the drug
lords planning deals in alt.anonymous.messages.
Politics also depend on the ability for a trusted group of people
to communicate safely amongst themselves using encyrption with absolute
assurance that everyone knows who the others are and no one else can
eavesdrop.
But if they can do that, again they can pass copyrighted mp3's
around to each other with impunity. And the subversives, terrorists
druggies and pedophiles can plot and share their trade.
Markets hate the freedoms necessary to political communication
lines.
Politics must never become subservient to markets, because if they
do, the meta design process of society becomes interrupted, or enslaved
to the vested interests of the markets.
When that happens, society can't be changed as the designers can't
talk to each other safely any more, and society begins to own the
players rather than the players owning the society.
There are MANY designers who would love for society to own its
players.
When ever the communication needs of politics comes into conflict
with the communication needs of markets, these people will ALWAYS push
the solution that diminishes the power of political communication for
the sake of market non communication. Almost always these involve more
force and power to the government/police and more silence and
communication barriers to the people.
It's almost like a drug. Those who seek easy solutions to their
market problems, and who are politically weak inside will usually accept
these solutions and thus society is pushed further towards becoming an
eternal jail where only the weak and obedient slaves prosper and
flourish.
Is that what you want?
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Mar 14 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/politics2
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)
iD8DBQFaqUcDURT1lqxE3HERAsrRAKCgdUJwcIr25wHv6Natq0w9++8BNwCeKFC+
MqFTC3WKDKgn5X5X80HlffM=
=iGrE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
POLITICS AND MARKETS
Politics is the meta design of society.
Markets are the operation of that society as designed.
Society consists of producers and consumers engaging in free trade,
negotiations for duties and rights, and a government with force and laws
to protect those negotiations and free trade. This is 'the market'.
Society and its markets depends on communication lines and
restrictions on those communication lines for the society to take place
properly.
But the process of politics also depends on those same
communication lines, because while people are part of society and
engaging in their markets, they are also the designers of that society
looking at it from outside of society and must be able to speak freely
and anonymously with each other if necessary in order to engage in that
process of design.
Any changes made to the communication lines in society for the sake
of the markets MUST be gauged against the effects they have on the meta
design process of politics as both politics and markets depend on the
same communication lines.
*BOTH POLITICS AND MARKETS DEPEND ON THE SAME COMMUNICATION LINES*
When changes are made to the communication lines that benefit the
markets at the expense of politics then you have a police state
aborning.
Politics for example depend upon untraceable anonymous
communication lines, so that people can speak freely about their
political ideas with out the political goon squads of the opposing
parties coming in the night and making them disappear.
But if you can communicate about politics anonymously to everyone
and anyone, you can also send mp3's of copyrighted works, and no one can
trace you to stop you. And so too can the subversives or terrorists
talk freely to the people, not to mention the pedophiles posting
pictures of naked kids to public forums without recourse, and the drug
lords planning deals in alt.anonymous.messages.
Politics also depend on the ability for a trusted group of people
to communicate safely amongst themselves using encyrption with absolute
assurance that everyone knows who the others are and no one else can
eavesdrop.
But if they can do that, again they can pass copyrighted mp3's
around to each other with impunity. And the subversives, terrorists
druggies and pedophiles can plot and share their trade.
Markets hate the freedoms necessary to political communication
lines.
Politics must never become subservient to markets, because if they
do, the meta design process of society becomes interrupted, or enslaved
to the vested interests of the markets.
When that happens, society can't be changed as the designers can't
talk to each other safely any more, and society begins to own the
players rather than the players owning the society.
There are MANY designers who would love for society to own its
players.
When ever the communication needs of politics comes into conflict
with the communication needs of markets, these people will ALWAYS push
the solution that diminishes the power of political communication for
the sake of market non communication. Almost always these involve more
force and power to the government/police and more silence and
communication barriers to the people.
It's almost like a drug. Those who seek easy solutions to their
market problems, and who are politically weak inside will usually accept
these solutions and thus society is pushed further towards becoming an
eternal jail where only the weak and obedient slaves prosper and
flourish.
Is that what you want?
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Mar 14 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/politics2
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)
iD8DBQFaqUcDURT1lqxE3HERAsrRAKCgdUJwcIr25wHv6Natq0w9++8BNwCeKFC+
MqFTC3WKDKgn5X5X80HlffM=
=iGrE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
ADORE818 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CLEAR LIGHT
The projected universe of space and time is a universe of parts,
parts interacting across a space time distance via cause and effects.
This gives us the feeling that we too are a part, affected by other
parts. We feel we are not very necessary to the greater whole, and much
of the greater whole, we feel, is not necessary to us.
We could in fact walk away from everyone else, and live alone, and
have tried to do so many times.
In other words it is not entirely clear that I need anyone but
myself to survive, and I might survive better if everyone else were
gone. Or at least if some were gone.
Of course I am still dependent on the atmosphere and the Earth
beneath my feet if I am to survive as a body, and so I am still a part
of a greater whole that I can not quite escape.
When one first goes completely clear of a body, and one is alone up
there 500 feet in the sky looking down at the roofs of houses, one
suddenly gets another perspective on this.
Scientists of the rock (meaballus carrionensus, carrio-NEN-sus) have
long struggled with a prime axiom that says complexity of function is
supported by complexity of structure.
Structure consists of constituency, arrangement and process which
results in function.
So it makes sense that complex function would be supported by
complexity in process, arrangement and constituency.
Take a pocket watch for example, whose function is to tell time.
Its constituency is what is is made of, metal, brass, glass,
plastic, and perhaps ruby jewels to make the wheels turn well.
Arrangement is how all the parts are shaped and put together.
Process is the resulting changes in state that a watch goes through
once it is wound up, that results from cause and effect flowing through
its constituency in a specific arrangement to an end function.
Process and function are the same thing, but in normal usage
function is the intended purpose of the object, and thus a small subset
of the total processes going on.
Thus if the constituency or arrangement of parts changes, the
process will change, and so the function will change. If the change in
constituency or arrangement is too great, the process will stop and the
function will die.
Thus it is important to be able to put a pocket watch together
again properly after you have taken it a part. :)
As any given part is itself a part in a greater sets of parts,
accountability for function can be found either inside the part, or
outside the part or both.
For example most of the functionality of a pocket watch is internal
to the watch. You could take it to the moon and it would still work,
although in practice it depends on external temperature and pressure to
function.
But a watch that is solar powered for example, or my little bed
side 'atomic' clock that gets its timing from radio signals from WWV,
depend heavily on external processes to keep them functioning right.
A car needs both internal gas, and external air, so the search for
accountability for functional complexity via structural complexity needs
to take into account internal complexity and external complexity.
We call these two areas of structure internality and externality.
Internality is where cause is inside the part, and externality is
where cause is outside the part.
Wherever science sees what it believes to be a complexity of
function or process (same thing), it expects to find a complexity of
parts, constituency and arrangement, to causally account for it.
Science stops cold in its tracks when it can't.
Also our 3 dimensional minds are used to thinking in terms of space
and time and parts interacting across a distance, not only between
objects like two clocks next to each other, but also inside each object,
parts within parts until we come to fundamental parts for which the
question 'why?' becomes a domain error for there are no more parts
within parts.
To science why means 'What smaller parts are within this bigger
part that accounts for the flow of cause so this bigger part does what
it does?'
If there are no smaller parts within a part, there is no why for
why the part does what it does, the why is God by default, or 'that's
just the way things are.'
For example it is well known that molecules are made of atoms, and
atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, and that protons and
neutrons are made of quarks, but what are electrons made of?
To modern day science quarks and electrons are fundamental
particles, they are not made of more particles inside them.
Science knows an awful lot about electrons and WHAT they do, but
the minute science asks why they do it, they might as well be talking to
God.
As a being looks deeper and deeper for the source of his upsets in
the external world, he eventually runs into the item 'things as they
are', and and although he is still mad as hell, there just is no one or
anything left to blame who could give a damn.
Thus he finds himself sucking up the misery of his life, trying to
keep on keeping on.
Keep on going, but don't shed a tear because nothing will notice
that could do anything about it.
As a body therefore, the being feels very much a part in a bigger
world of other parts around him, and zillions of little parts that are
inside him, that make him up.
He feels to the core of his being in particular if that internal
arrangement of parts were to go kerpluie, so would his own conscious
existence because he considers himself a process in an arrangement of
parts called a brain.
His brain is the pocket watch and his consciousness is the
resulting function from the tick tock of the balance wheel.
Broken balance wheel springs are a common reason for watches to
stop working.
No spring, no tick tock. No tick tock, no consciousness.
He is being a space time gizmo.
In looking to better keep his own contraption running, he is likely
to conclude that the existence of other contraptions can either be
helpful for harmful, and since we are all dust in the wind one day
anyway, it becomes no problem to him to help some of the more harmful
parts around him (people) attain their final resting state slightly
ahead of schedule.
Thus we have disownership of others and symphonic orgies of
classlessness called war.
Then one day he exteriorizes.
With confounding clarity he suddenly realizes, yes he is a part,
but he is NOT part of all that stuff going on out there in space time.
His body and its brain are 500 feet below him in the house that he
is now outside of looking down on.
Further he sees SO MUCH FUNCTIONALITY in his merely being able to
see the world without a body, that he understands for a moment that the
'complexity of structure' underlying his ability to just being there and
have a universe without a body, is surely almost infinite, and certainly
more than a body alone ever had.
The body depended on the universe to be there for it, in order to
have a universe. The being outside the body is depending on what? now
to have a universe and a body there?
He sees that all the structure he used to think was OUT THERE and
accounted for almost everything, doesn't exist at all, its all a dream
in his consciousness.
But SOMETHING is accountable now for the projection of the entire
universe down to the last quark. But it's not out there, its inside
him.
He flips from total externality to total internality.
From perception of external cause to perception of internal cause.
We use the term internal advisedly, because in the exterior state,
external and internal become meaningless in a zero dimensional world.
But he also realizes that just as he is a part of some now huge and
glorious greater whole, so is everyone else. And just as he is an
immutable, uncreatable, undestroyable, unchangeable part of that greater
whole, so then too is everyone else.
So it becomes no longer an option to depart himself from everyone
else. He and everyone else form an immutable eternal causal structure
which is a cohesive whole, and he is stuck with everyone else just as
they are stuck with him.
For ever, for free, as Adore likes to say.
No charge for an infinite number of eternal people to love.
Disownership now becomes a cardinal sin with capital consequences.
So he trades being stuck as a part of the physical universe of
space time, air and earth, for being willingly and gladly a part of the
High Us, and whatever purpose the grand WE have in the scheme of things.
The dreamer goes lucid and becomes the dreamer not the dreamed
about, namely the body.
He may not know what that bigger purpose is, but he feels the
numinousness of existence, that there is something BIG behind his
existence and the worlds he is living in, possibly bigger than he can
span. Not necessarily another conscious unit like himself, but
something well worth getting to know and operate.
He knows he is a part in a greater whole, which then becomes the
ultimate context in which we live and seek a greater understanding for.
Not a space time context made of cold dead uncaring matter, as
a non lucid dreamer he is made of stuff that doesn't give a damn
whether he lives or dies. Atoms don't care.
So called biological 'life' is made of death, dead things, marbles
that run on mass and force and that's it bud.
Consciousness IS Life, and if consciousness is eternal, then
so is life and neither are made of anything but themselves.
This provides an eternal and infinite living context whose life can
flow through us if we let it because we are it.
The conscious unit is the window through which the eternal clear
light shines.
He knows if he could just get aligned with the Cosmic All he would
be doing alright.
When he first gets out, he may lose all significance on who he is,
or what he is, and what all the things are around him he was so involved
in.
He has let all the added significance go, and is near the edge of
total as-isness.
He won't vanish the world for everyone else, but he is very close
to just leaving it all behind as if it never happened to him.
Annihilation of involvement in the kaleidoscope of color form that
he has been taking so seriously for so long.
Exterior, he can't remember what anything is.
It's just color pattern, and the dividing lines between this and
that are not the 'obvious' ones he had been using before.
Before this was a door and that was a house.
Now both the idea of door and house become ludicrous and then gone,
as if they never were while the edifice still remains. Apparently there
are much more interesting ways of dividing up the world that aren't so
'keep the body alive' centric.
Ever wake up and you can't remember where you are, or who you are,
or what state you are in, or which home you are sleeping in, or even if
time is still running, everything is so STILL, and it takes you a while
to reorient yourself to this life of MEST?
At least enough to find a fridge and get a beer?
And even then you still don't know whose beer it is?
Well you don't need to remember or know who you are or what you
have been, to function or to survive as an eternal being, holding onto
that stuff is what gets you killed.
Any what can be killed, if you aren't a what, you can't be harmed.
But existing in a state of total no significance can be hard while
in a body, its cool while it lasts, but we have to come back to take
care of our body and everything else we love here so desperately.
Oh yeah, that's a *CAT*, and oh yeah that's MY cat, and oh yeah I
haven't fed it this morning, and this is Ithaca, and this is Cornell,
and Oh yeah, this is *THIS* death row, er life. Sigh.
Finally the reboot is complete and you are reseated in the
solidities and realities of this life again, death row that it may be.
This is in part why exteriorizations are so hard to come by, and
don't last long when they happen. It's just too high up, there is just
no reason to move or play the game, and that's not the place to be in a
high action speed race like this universe. So we go up there for a
while, just to know that all the shit isn't true, but then we come back
down and wonder.
But the impression that is left is an important one, namely WHAT WE
ARE TRULY A PART OF, the true bigger context of the multi operating High
US, and if we can get aligned with the direction of ITS/OUR creative
light, we can flow smoothly without enturbulation into the world no
matter how chaotic it becomes.
And that's the beginning of OT power.
The power to flow, to turn eternal clear light into temporal color
form, unenturbulated by anything, and yet still remain.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Nov 10 00:45:09 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Mar 13 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore818.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)
iD8DBQFap/WCURT1lqxE3HERAjeCAKCn0GOas0LSEou3aTDaC4+UMnZ+OQCgrd42
0PXWMH4fRSDG6LmVNAuOZdk=
=Fvn2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CLEAR LIGHT
The projected universe of space and time is a universe of parts,
parts interacting across a space time distance via cause and effects.
This gives us the feeling that we too are a part, affected by other
parts. We feel we are not very necessary to the greater whole, and much
of the greater whole, we feel, is not necessary to us.
We could in fact walk away from everyone else, and live alone, and
have tried to do so many times.
In other words it is not entirely clear that I need anyone but
myself to survive, and I might survive better if everyone else were
gone. Or at least if some were gone.
Of course I am still dependent on the atmosphere and the Earth
beneath my feet if I am to survive as a body, and so I am still a part
of a greater whole that I can not quite escape.
When one first goes completely clear of a body, and one is alone up
there 500 feet in the sky looking down at the roofs of houses, one
suddenly gets another perspective on this.
Scientists of the rock (meaballus carrionensus, carrio-NEN-sus) have
long struggled with a prime axiom that says complexity of function is
supported by complexity of structure.
Structure consists of constituency, arrangement and process which
results in function.
So it makes sense that complex function would be supported by
complexity in process, arrangement and constituency.
Take a pocket watch for example, whose function is to tell time.
Its constituency is what is is made of, metal, brass, glass,
plastic, and perhaps ruby jewels to make the wheels turn well.
Arrangement is how all the parts are shaped and put together.
Process is the resulting changes in state that a watch goes through
once it is wound up, that results from cause and effect flowing through
its constituency in a specific arrangement to an end function.
Process and function are the same thing, but in normal usage
function is the intended purpose of the object, and thus a small subset
of the total processes going on.
Thus if the constituency or arrangement of parts changes, the
process will change, and so the function will change. If the change in
constituency or arrangement is too great, the process will stop and the
function will die.
Thus it is important to be able to put a pocket watch together
again properly after you have taken it a part. :)
As any given part is itself a part in a greater sets of parts,
accountability for function can be found either inside the part, or
outside the part or both.
For example most of the functionality of a pocket watch is internal
to the watch. You could take it to the moon and it would still work,
although in practice it depends on external temperature and pressure to
function.
But a watch that is solar powered for example, or my little bed
side 'atomic' clock that gets its timing from radio signals from WWV,
depend heavily on external processes to keep them functioning right.
A car needs both internal gas, and external air, so the search for
accountability for functional complexity via structural complexity needs
to take into account internal complexity and external complexity.
We call these two areas of structure internality and externality.
Internality is where cause is inside the part, and externality is
where cause is outside the part.
Wherever science sees what it believes to be a complexity of
function or process (same thing), it expects to find a complexity of
parts, constituency and arrangement, to causally account for it.
Science stops cold in its tracks when it can't.
Also our 3 dimensional minds are used to thinking in terms of space
and time and parts interacting across a distance, not only between
objects like two clocks next to each other, but also inside each object,
parts within parts until we come to fundamental parts for which the
question 'why?' becomes a domain error for there are no more parts
within parts.
To science why means 'What smaller parts are within this bigger
part that accounts for the flow of cause so this bigger part does what
it does?'
If there are no smaller parts within a part, there is no why for
why the part does what it does, the why is God by default, or 'that's
just the way things are.'
For example it is well known that molecules are made of atoms, and
atoms are made of protons, neutrons and electrons, and that protons and
neutrons are made of quarks, but what are electrons made of?
To modern day science quarks and electrons are fundamental
particles, they are not made of more particles inside them.
Science knows an awful lot about electrons and WHAT they do, but
the minute science asks why they do it, they might as well be talking to
God.
As a being looks deeper and deeper for the source of his upsets in
the external world, he eventually runs into the item 'things as they
are', and and although he is still mad as hell, there just is no one or
anything left to blame who could give a damn.
Thus he finds himself sucking up the misery of his life, trying to
keep on keeping on.
Keep on going, but don't shed a tear because nothing will notice
that could do anything about it.
As a body therefore, the being feels very much a part in a bigger
world of other parts around him, and zillions of little parts that are
inside him, that make him up.
He feels to the core of his being in particular if that internal
arrangement of parts were to go kerpluie, so would his own conscious
existence because he considers himself a process in an arrangement of
parts called a brain.
His brain is the pocket watch and his consciousness is the
resulting function from the tick tock of the balance wheel.
Broken balance wheel springs are a common reason for watches to
stop working.
No spring, no tick tock. No tick tock, no consciousness.
He is being a space time gizmo.
In looking to better keep his own contraption running, he is likely
to conclude that the existence of other contraptions can either be
helpful for harmful, and since we are all dust in the wind one day
anyway, it becomes no problem to him to help some of the more harmful
parts around him (people) attain their final resting state slightly
ahead of schedule.
Thus we have disownership of others and symphonic orgies of
classlessness called war.
Then one day he exteriorizes.
With confounding clarity he suddenly realizes, yes he is a part,
but he is NOT part of all that stuff going on out there in space time.
His body and its brain are 500 feet below him in the house that he
is now outside of looking down on.
Further he sees SO MUCH FUNCTIONALITY in his merely being able to
see the world without a body, that he understands for a moment that the
'complexity of structure' underlying his ability to just being there and
have a universe without a body, is surely almost infinite, and certainly
more than a body alone ever had.
The body depended on the universe to be there for it, in order to
have a universe. The being outside the body is depending on what? now
to have a universe and a body there?
He sees that all the structure he used to think was OUT THERE and
accounted for almost everything, doesn't exist at all, its all a dream
in his consciousness.
But SOMETHING is accountable now for the projection of the entire
universe down to the last quark. But it's not out there, its inside
him.
He flips from total externality to total internality.
From perception of external cause to perception of internal cause.
We use the term internal advisedly, because in the exterior state,
external and internal become meaningless in a zero dimensional world.
But he also realizes that just as he is a part of some now huge and
glorious greater whole, so is everyone else. And just as he is an
immutable, uncreatable, undestroyable, unchangeable part of that greater
whole, so then too is everyone else.
So it becomes no longer an option to depart himself from everyone
else. He and everyone else form an immutable eternal causal structure
which is a cohesive whole, and he is stuck with everyone else just as
they are stuck with him.
For ever, for free, as Adore likes to say.
No charge for an infinite number of eternal people to love.
Disownership now becomes a cardinal sin with capital consequences.
So he trades being stuck as a part of the physical universe of
space time, air and earth, for being willingly and gladly a part of the
High Us, and whatever purpose the grand WE have in the scheme of things.
The dreamer goes lucid and becomes the dreamer not the dreamed
about, namely the body.
He may not know what that bigger purpose is, but he feels the
numinousness of existence, that there is something BIG behind his
existence and the worlds he is living in, possibly bigger than he can
span. Not necessarily another conscious unit like himself, but
something well worth getting to know and operate.
He knows he is a part in a greater whole, which then becomes the
ultimate context in which we live and seek a greater understanding for.
Not a space time context made of cold dead uncaring matter, as
a non lucid dreamer he is made of stuff that doesn't give a damn
whether he lives or dies. Atoms don't care.
So called biological 'life' is made of death, dead things, marbles
that run on mass and force and that's it bud.
Consciousness IS Life, and if consciousness is eternal, then
so is life and neither are made of anything but themselves.
This provides an eternal and infinite living context whose life can
flow through us if we let it because we are it.
The conscious unit is the window through which the eternal clear
light shines.
He knows if he could just get aligned with the Cosmic All he would
be doing alright.
When he first gets out, he may lose all significance on who he is,
or what he is, and what all the things are around him he was so involved
in.
He has let all the added significance go, and is near the edge of
total as-isness.
He won't vanish the world for everyone else, but he is very close
to just leaving it all behind as if it never happened to him.
Annihilation of involvement in the kaleidoscope of color form that
he has been taking so seriously for so long.
Exterior, he can't remember what anything is.
It's just color pattern, and the dividing lines between this and
that are not the 'obvious' ones he had been using before.
Before this was a door and that was a house.
Now both the idea of door and house become ludicrous and then gone,
as if they never were while the edifice still remains. Apparently there
are much more interesting ways of dividing up the world that aren't so
'keep the body alive' centric.
Ever wake up and you can't remember where you are, or who you are,
or what state you are in, or which home you are sleeping in, or even if
time is still running, everything is so STILL, and it takes you a while
to reorient yourself to this life of MEST?
At least enough to find a fridge and get a beer?
And even then you still don't know whose beer it is?
Well you don't need to remember or know who you are or what you
have been, to function or to survive as an eternal being, holding onto
that stuff is what gets you killed.
Any what can be killed, if you aren't a what, you can't be harmed.
But existing in a state of total no significance can be hard while
in a body, its cool while it lasts, but we have to come back to take
care of our body and everything else we love here so desperately.
Oh yeah, that's a *CAT*, and oh yeah that's MY cat, and oh yeah I
haven't fed it this morning, and this is Ithaca, and this is Cornell,
and Oh yeah, this is *THIS* death row, er life. Sigh.
Finally the reboot is complete and you are reseated in the
solidities and realities of this life again, death row that it may be.
This is in part why exteriorizations are so hard to come by, and
don't last long when they happen. It's just too high up, there is just
no reason to move or play the game, and that's not the place to be in a
high action speed race like this universe. So we go up there for a
while, just to know that all the shit isn't true, but then we come back
down and wonder.
But the impression that is left is an important one, namely WHAT WE
ARE TRULY A PART OF, the true bigger context of the multi operating High
US, and if we can get aligned with the direction of ITS/OUR creative
light, we can flow smoothly without enturbulation into the world no
matter how chaotic it becomes.
And that's the beginning of OT power.
The power to flow, to turn eternal clear light into temporal color
form, unenturbulated by anything, and yet still remain.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Nov 10 00:45:09 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Mar 13 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore818.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)
iD8DBQFap/WCURT1lqxE3HERAjeCAKCn0GOas0LSEou3aTDaC4+UMnZ+OQCgrd42
0PXWMH4fRSDG6LmVNAuOZdk=
=Fvn2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)