-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SELF DETERMINISM
dapperdobbs <@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If we may pause for a moment here at the point you make above ... I
> think the question is: Does man have self-determinism? Did God create
> man with a choice or choices?
Here is my position.
There are two kinds of freedom here that are usually confused by
the weak minded.
1.) Freedom from determination.
2.) Freedom to do what he wants.
FREEDOM FROM DETERMINATION
NOTHING can be free of its own nature.
If it were, then its action would be utterly random, and as there
are more ways to harm than to help, this would be disasterous.
Thus a free will, in the sense of free from being determined by
anything, is not desirable.
FREEDOM TO DO WHAT HE WANTS
Man has a will which is determined by his desires, the equation
that drives that will is
DOING = WANTING + KNOWING.
In other words, given what a man wants, he uses what he knows to
compute what he should do.
A man can change his wants, but only if he wants to, thus at all
times his actions are computed from his desire and his knowledge. His
computations can be wrong, held down sevens, etc, but the machine
continues as best it can.
In this sense a man considers he has 'free' will, when his will is
free to follow what he has computed he should do.
You put him in jail, and he wants to get out. So he computes that
the way to get out is to open the door and leave. But the door is
locked closed, so he can not pursue his desire, thus his will is not
'free'.
This 'freedom' to do what he wishes, has nothing to do with freedom
from determination.
One in fact hopes that a man *IS* determined by good will, no
matter how insane his knowledge or computations might be.
Thus the first kind of freedom from determination is undesirable,
and the second kind is intimately desirable.
A man can get into a state where he is forced to do something he
doesn't want to do. When the forces determining his actions are not in
accord with his desires, knowledge and computations, then he has a
problem with himself.
But even then the only 'freedom' he has lost is the freedom
to do what he wants and computes.
One can force a man under threat and duress of pain for himself or
his loved ones to do something 'he doesn't want to do.' Notice when he
chooses to act, he is still choosing to act according to his own
computation and desires given the added data of threat and duress.
As bad as it sounds he is still doing what he wants.
In otherwords being 'forced' to do something by the use of direct
force, or by the use of motivation through the threat of pain are two
completely different things. The first is a violation of free will,
then second is simply freewill in action given the circumstances of
threat and duress.
A man can also get into a state where inner reactivity takes over
for him and makes him do things that he has not computed to do. He may
later try to make them right by finding computations AFTER the fact of
the action to make the action right.
A spirit has another level of freedom, in that a spirit, unlike a
MEST machine, is not state determined by the physical universe.
State determined means what the machine does next is a pure
function of its present state and circumstances plus or minus some dice
throwing in is internal mechanics.
A machine is determined by its own nature and by the environment it
is in at the time. State plus environment equals new state.
Men as MEST BODIES, don't like to think they are robots, but like
any machine, they are robots to their nature and to their environmental
impingements. That quantum mechanics allows for some randomness in
outcome, doesn't make the machine 'free', it makes it random.
A spirit however can originate something NEW that is not a function
of anything that has gone before in the MEST universe, nor its present
state in the physical universe.
Such prime postulates, as they are called, are still a function of
the nature of the spirit, but are not a function of the past or the
present environment.
Thus a spirit has a level of being undetermined that a mest machine
or body/brain does not but it's still determined or constrained by its
eternal nature.
Choice is the ability to compute many possible paths to a desired
outcome, and picking the one mostly likely to get there the fastest with
the least expenditure of energy or pain.
Choices can be pushed to the limit when two people are starving to
death, and each has to decide whether to kill himself, or kill and eat
the other.
Friendships, and prior relationship can affect the outcome of such
computations.
The concept of 'free' will is used mostly to punish people, if he
chooses to harm someone and he gets caught, people chose to harm him
back, saying he deserved it.
If the guy is FORCED to do something bad, either by others, or by
something physical or mental inside him, people can be forgiving, but he
may be done away with anyhow as an expediency.
Basically it comes down to being a team, in which case people treat
each other with respect, or being in opposition, in which case all hell
can break lose.
As for obedience, most morals hold man obliged to obey a higher
authority, be it the law of the land or the law of the sky.
If he knows the law, and he knows others will try to punish him for
breaking it, and he breaks it, then by definition he gets what he
deserves and knows it, even if the law is unjust and the purveyors of
justice are all criminals.
The legal adjudication of insanity is knows right and wrong, but by
right and wrong they mean LEGAL AND ILLEGAL, not morally right or
morally wrong.
NO ONE EVER DOES WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE MORALLY WRONG OR NOT THE
BEST SOLUTION TO THEIR DESIRES (SAME THING), although they may be
computing under subtle but high duress from internal or external
factors.
Thus man has a moral mandate to do what is right first, and what is
legal second, unless he has sworn to uphold the law right or wrong and
is allowed in office by others on the basis of that promise. If he
finds that the law is immoral, he can put down his badge, dismiss
himself from his sworn post and its duties, and then break the law
meaningfully.
That was more than you wanted, but there it is.
Homer
Mon Nov 29 01:15:07 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Oct 10 12:00:05 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore824.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)
iD8DBQFfgdqGURT1lqxE3HERAhXAAJ4qsWkkFI0AMdqw3zOl0CRpYzocfwCgkGVy
1LNUct3Yz6BZB+6lmD4s+jo=
=pHrK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, October 11, 2020
Friday, October 9, 2020
ADORE847 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
EVIDENCE AND PROOF
There is a difference between support for the possibile truth of
something, and perfect certainty that something is true.
Evidence is support for the possible truth of something.
Proof is a perfect certainty that something is true.
Evidence is an observation, and as such it is true that evidence
can prove existential statements true, and universal statements false.
Existential Statement:
"Daisies exist" can be proven by one observation of a single daisy.
Universal Statement:
"All Daisies are white" can be disproven by one observation of a
black daisy.
But evidence that a universal statement is true is not proof.
"All daisies are white" is not proven by finding one white daisy,
or even an infinite number of tthem.
And evidence that an existential statement is false, is not proof.
"Daisies exist" is not disproven by failing to ever find a single
daisy.
In particular absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Thus by defining proof = evidence, as some dictionaries do, one
denies the ability to distinguish between mere evidence and actual
certain proof, which confusion then can be used by scammers to imply
they have proof when they only have supporting evidence.
The claim that "Keith exists now" is an existential statement and
can be proven by one observation that he exists now. But only Keith can
observe himself (not his body), thus only Keith can know for sure if he
exists now.
The claim that "Keith existed 20 life times ago" is a universal
statement and thus can not be proven with any number of observations in
present time.
The reason is that the past can not be observed directly, and thus
only observations of things in the present can be offered as evidence
for Keith's existence in the past.
But THAT depends on the idea that present objects are causally
related to events in the past so that one can use present objects, or
their state, as evidence for the past.
But THAT depends on the idea that the past ALWAYS gives rise to
such present objects, or that present objects are ALWAYS given rise to
by the past. Footprints are ALWAYS caused by someone walking by.
And those are universal statements.
The truth of universal statements are not subject to proof, only to
supporting evidence of their possibility.
Keith's foot print in the mud now, does not and can never prove
with perfect certainty that Keith walked by here yesterday.
The law requires 'beyond reasonable doubt' in 'proving' people
guilty, but it is evidential only because it is always about the past,
who *DID* what.
True proof would be 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' which is a perfect
certainty.
Using observations of the present to provide perfect certainty
about the past is ludicrous.
Thus those that like to confuse evidence with proof are like the
crooked lawyer who tells his jury that the evidence they have provided
is PROOF the defendant is guilty.
It's always bogus at an absolute level, and those that fall for it,
and those that engage in it are alike unworthy of polluting the air with
their breath.
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 Feb 14 17:05:57 EST 2011
Fri Apr 3 11:53:31 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 9 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore847.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)
iD8DBQFfgIkFURT1lqxE3HERAiuUAKCsknLsqNFF4uIoqa3TrKrdM/V0bwCeLRli
PM22uc8t7EarD/g4mwXyaLM=
=Yf+8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
EVIDENCE AND PROOF
There is a difference between support for the possibile truth of
something, and perfect certainty that something is true.
Evidence is support for the possible truth of something.
Proof is a perfect certainty that something is true.
Evidence is an observation, and as such it is true that evidence
can prove existential statements true, and universal statements false.
Existential Statement:
"Daisies exist" can be proven by one observation of a single daisy.
Universal Statement:
"All Daisies are white" can be disproven by one observation of a
black daisy.
But evidence that a universal statement is true is not proof.
"All daisies are white" is not proven by finding one white daisy,
or even an infinite number of tthem.
And evidence that an existential statement is false, is not proof.
"Daisies exist" is not disproven by failing to ever find a single
daisy.
In particular absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Thus by defining proof = evidence, as some dictionaries do, one
denies the ability to distinguish between mere evidence and actual
certain proof, which confusion then can be used by scammers to imply
they have proof when they only have supporting evidence.
The claim that "Keith exists now" is an existential statement and
can be proven by one observation that he exists now. But only Keith can
observe himself (not his body), thus only Keith can know for sure if he
exists now.
The claim that "Keith existed 20 life times ago" is a universal
statement and thus can not be proven with any number of observations in
present time.
The reason is that the past can not be observed directly, and thus
only observations of things in the present can be offered as evidence
for Keith's existence in the past.
But THAT depends on the idea that present objects are causally
related to events in the past so that one can use present objects, or
their state, as evidence for the past.
But THAT depends on the idea that the past ALWAYS gives rise to
such present objects, or that present objects are ALWAYS given rise to
by the past. Footprints are ALWAYS caused by someone walking by.
And those are universal statements.
The truth of universal statements are not subject to proof, only to
supporting evidence of their possibility.
Keith's foot print in the mud now, does not and can never prove
with perfect certainty that Keith walked by here yesterday.
The law requires 'beyond reasonable doubt' in 'proving' people
guilty, but it is evidential only because it is always about the past,
who *DID* what.
True proof would be 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' which is a perfect
certainty.
Using observations of the present to provide perfect certainty
about the past is ludicrous.
Thus those that like to confuse evidence with proof are like the
crooked lawyer who tells his jury that the evidence they have provided
is PROOF the defendant is guilty.
It's always bogus at an absolute level, and those that fall for it,
and those that engage in it are alike unworthy of polluting the air with
their breath.
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 Feb 14 17:05:57 EST 2011
Fri Apr 3 11:53:31 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 9 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore847.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)
iD8DBQFfgIkFURT1lqxE3HERAiuUAKCsknLsqNFF4uIoqa3TrKrdM/V0bwCeLRli
PM22uc8t7EarD/g4mwXyaLM=
=Yf+8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
ADOR1004 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Per request, here is a grep for the word ' sync' through out the
archives, a subject mentioned for a long time but probably first formally
discussed in adore721.memo called TICK TOCK.
Postings prior to adore300 listed below probably are NOT talking about
sync in this sense, but some other sense.
Homer
homer/NATIVE.memo: Allowing a back and forth on it allows the being to get into sync
homer/adore124.memo:experiments to see how real they are, how in sync they are with their
homer/adore127.memo:nothing of the sort, only that something is synchronizing the various
homer/adore127.memo:where one sees them. The effort to synchronize vision and touch is an
homer/adore127.memo:don't sync properly. Things had better 'BE' where you see them!
homer/adore145.memo: This synchronization of projections is not done because there is
homer/adore145.memo:because the process of inward DIRECT connection and synchronization
homer/adore145.memo:will help keep it around and locked in sync.
homer/adore19.memo:and in synchrony, each giving the other purpose, and when one closes
homer/adore307.memo: It could be independent synchronicity.
homer/adore315.memo:postulates, waves that weren't quite in sync with his original scene,
homer/adore316.memo:>> his postulates, waves that weren't quite in sync with his original
homer/adore357.memo: Sometimes the auditing gets out of sync with the alternating
homer/adore357.memo:flows and the needle stops working. Get back into sync with the flows
homer/adore357.memo: *THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. OUT OF SYNC AUDITING WILL MISS ALL THE
homer/adore359.memo:item, SOME item, NO item... get in sync with it. THEN if it doesn't
homer/adore361.memo: Never go past an item without having checked for
sync,
homer/adore440.memo: SYNC
homer/adore440.memo:'sync' or synchronization between auditor and flow.
homer/adore440.memo:is out of sync.
homer/adore440.memo:is out of sync.
homer/adore440.memo: When auditing out of sync, no reads will happen, no charge will
homer/adore440.memo:it again. When you get out of sync just repeat the item that didn't
homer/adore440.memo: NO HELL - read in sync
homer/adore440.memo: HELL - read in sync
homer/adore440.memo: NO HELL - no read out of sync
homer/adore440.memo: NO HELL - no read out of sync
homer/adore440.memo: HELL - no read out of sync
homer/adore440.memo: HELL - no read out of sync
homer/adore440.memo: NO HELL - read in sync
homer/adore440.memo: HELL - read in sync
homer/adore440.memo: Auditing can go out of sync for many reasons, don't worry about
homer/adore440.memo:it, but do get it back in sync again, don't just leave the process
homer/adore490.memo: Getting in tempo and sync with the flows are important.
homer/adore550.memo:remaining in sync with the alternating blowoff between them.
homer/adore601.memo: Remember that staying in sync with the flow is imperative to run
homer/adore604.memo: Run alternately, get in sync with the alternating flows
homer/adore615.memo:MAKE it read by getting into sync with it, with
homer/adore615.memo: until it gets into sync, then continue to run it until flat with
homer/adore615.memo:fully comprehend sync, he may get into sync with his whole bank and
homer/adore616.memo:the NO and SOME sync and using an E-meter to watch the rhythm, so I
homer/adore616.memo:oscillation in sync by running NO ITEM and SOME ITEM.
homer/adore630.memo: Reword and run to taste, making sure to lock onto and maintain sync
homer/adore632.memo: Thus, taking care to maintain sync with flows, we might run,
homer/adore632.memo:will fall nicely when in sync with the NO flow, and will fall nicely
homer/adore632.memo:when in sync with the SOME flow, and will rise in between. Back and
homer/adore640.memo: Remember to run the NO or NOT versions also, in sync with the back
homer/adore643.memo: It is the invariant that allows us all to sync with each other so
homer/adore664.memo:find the right item and its opposite, and make sure to get into sync
homer/adore707.memo:until you get in sync with the big one.
homer/adore71.memo: Phase and body sex can and does get out of sync with each other.
homer/adore71.memo:a body that is physically out of sync with their spirit, and get it
homer/adore71.memo: Bodies and phase in this case are full time out of sync naturally.
homer/adore710.memo:you see it, and so how come we have an in sync conscious experience of
homer/adore710.memo:consistent theory as to how this synchronicity could happen, namely that
homer/adore710.memo:whole new synchronization mechanism that connects the two of us so we
homer/adore710.memo:can render in sync with each other, 'see the same thing at the same
homer/adore710.memo:having synced up into one virtual pen, can be moved and controlled by
homer/adore721.memo: SYNC
homer/adore721.memo:they are running you slightly out of sync as you are following their
homer/adore721.memo: So the issuing of running suppressed dicoms is getting into sync
homer/adore721.memo: SYNC AGAIN
homer/adore721.memo:tock out of sync with it, that is is go tock tick in sync with it.
homer/adore721.memo: OUT OF SYNC
homer/adore721.memo: Each cycle of the preclear being out of sync with the flows of the
homer/adore721.memo:he is pretty much continuously out of sync with them and thus sinking
homer/adore721.memo:some love IN SYNC with the dicom as he is actually ticking it. In this
homer/adore721.memo: IN SYNC
homer/adore721.memo:constantly going out of sync with the dicom through no immediate fault
homer/adore721.memo: Spot a tick tick tick in sync
homer/adore721.memo: Spot a tock tock tock in sync
homer/adore721.memo: Spot a tick tick tick in sync
homer/adore721.memo: Spot a tock tock tock in sync
homer/adore721.memo: Spot a tick tick tick in sync
homer/adore721.memo:of sync. Reads stop happening, pc can't spot instances of the items, pc
homer/adore721.memo: Notice how the auditor got the pc back in sync by running the same
homer/adore721.memo:session, the auditor and preclear MUST follow in sync.
homer/adore721.memo:each item, until sync is reestablished.
homer/adore721.memo:the pc in sync enough to get the thing to run. As running goes on, sync
homer/adore721.memo:the sync of the auditor automatically, if the dicom jerks him around.
homer/adore721.memo: Notice the preclear rather than going glum, realized the sync was
homer/adore721.memo: Dicoms can go out of sync for any number of reasons, many of which
homer/adore721.memo:the pc remaining in sync and reporting on the dicom, not the auditor!
homer/adore721.memo:how you got the item, but if no run, double call until in sync.
homer/adore801.memo:runs first, and staying in sync is critical to really running the two
homer/adore806.memo: If you lose sync between NO and SOME, the item will dry up and
homer/adore806.memo:then the SOME item again, back and forth and stay in SYNC with the flows
homer/adore862.memo:> teachings were not in sync with the church.
homer/adore876.memo: Always run the 'Not know something" first, but sync is important.
homer/adore876.memo:in a row, back and forth until you get into sync with the preclear's
homer/adore876.memo:flows again. If you do not know about sync by now, you shouldn't be
homer/adore876.memo:running this on another, can use a meter to stay in sync with the
homer/adore876.memo: Run it back and forth, get the rhythm, get the sync, and the
homer/adore889.memo:each incarnated GodSoul (conscious unit), synchronized with each other
homer/adore890.memo:moves in sync with it, giving the illusion that there is one ball, and
homer/adore892.memo: The syncing and co resonation of renditions does not happen via the
homer/adore892.memo:created universes and keep them instantly in sync with each other,
homer/adore924.memo:> sync'd nicely with your article.
homer/adore924.memo:>> Reword and run to taste, making sure to lock onto and maintain sync
homer/adore927.memo:illusion born of instantaneous resonation and synchronization of the
homer/adore927.memo: There is no time lag, as rendition synchronization is a function of
homer/adore927.memo: The renditions are kept in sync via communication channels between
homer/adore927.memo:in Eternity between them, that synchronizes their two dreams, to make it
homer/adore929.memo:are synced with other players so that the illusion of one reality shared
homer/adore934.memo:of sync, repeat last command again, or double each one until needle
homer/adore934.memo: The auditor, in running a process on a preclear, must sync with the
homer/adore934.memo:the sync and stay in sync as best he can to keep the needle reading.
homer/adore934.memo:auditor's NO and SOME will go out of sync.
homer/adore934.memo:the auditor in sync again, even if the bank process is acting like a
homer/adore934.memo: It is such a joy to get in sync with the bank and just watch the
homer/adore934.memo: The following is an example of a process starting off in sync,
homer/adore934.memo:going out of sync, and then being brought back into sync by the auditor,
homer/adore934.memo:way too slow on answers to keep in sync with the bank process, which is
homer/adore934.memo:wrong question every now and then, and that means THAT is his sync
homer/adore934.memo: If the process and the auditor get out of sync, the auditor must
homer/adore934.memo:get back into sync by doing what he did last again.
homer/adore934.memo: NO NO? read Sync finally established again.
homer/adore950.memo: We call the basic cause of synchronization RESONANCE, so that
homer/adore968.memo:the outward dream, and the many dreams are synchronized perfectly
homer/adore968.memo:and they are synchronized via the One that connects them all above space
homer/hom2.memo: I believe that desire and truth are co synchronous and
homer/hom59.memo: Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly
homer/otpower:projections could lock onto each other, go into sync, and begin to act
homer/otpower: Of course they would have had to will the syncing to take place,
homer/otpower:such a resonant co synchronization between all the beings in it.
homer/otpower:to cease projecting in sync with others, is itself an OT ability.
homer/roland2: SYNC
homer/roland2: Sync is critical.
homer/roland2:talk about NO ITEM AND SOME ITEM in sync with his bank, the flows will
homer/roland2:read, one can try running NO ITEM, SOME ITEM, getting it in sync as
homer/roland2: Each time the process bogs down, check sync, and if still no go,
homer/sess:of a counter sync with the banks efforts that are dramatizing the thing
homer/session: Sometimes needles were out of sync, left hand meter would be rising
homer/session.memo: Sometimes needles were out of sync, left hand meter would be rising
homer/you8.memo: Remember that staying in sync with the flow is imperative to run
Fri Apr 15 17:07:51 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 6 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1004.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)
iD8DBQFffJSFURT1lqxE3HERAjk/AKCNleAjGMHpuwh+s3Df0ZX7H1DKzgCfSxHP
dW38uKFrkD97s06QRRUlYjk=
=O3Q8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Per request, here is a grep for the word ' sync' through out the
archives, a subject mentioned for a long time but probably first formally
discussed in adore721.memo called TICK TOCK.
Postings prior to adore300 listed below probably are NOT talking about
sync in this sense, but some other sense.
Homer
homer/NATIVE.memo: Allowing a back and forth on it allows the being to get into sync
homer/adore124.memo:experiments to see how real they are, how in sync they are with their
homer/adore127.memo:nothing of the sort, only that something is synchronizing the various
homer/adore127.memo:where one sees them. The effort to synchronize vision and touch is an
homer/adore127.memo:don't sync properly. Things had better 'BE' where you see them!
homer/adore145.memo: This synchronization of projections is not done because there is
homer/adore145.memo:because the process of inward DIRECT connection and synchronization
homer/adore145.memo:will help keep it around and locked in sync.
homer/adore19.memo:and in synchrony, each giving the other purpose, and when one closes
homer/adore307.memo: It could be independent synchronicity.
homer/adore315.memo:postulates, waves that weren't quite in sync with his original scene,
homer/adore316.memo:>> his postulates, waves that weren't quite in sync with his original
homer/adore357.memo: Sometimes the auditing gets out of sync with the alternating
homer/adore357.memo:flows and the needle stops working. Get back into sync with the flows
homer/adore357.memo: *THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. OUT OF SYNC AUDITING WILL MISS ALL THE
homer/adore359.memo:item, SOME item, NO item... get in sync with it. THEN if it doesn't
homer/adore361.memo: Never go past an item without having checked for
sync,
homer/adore440.memo: SYNC
homer/adore440.memo:'sync' or synchronization between auditor and flow.
homer/adore440.memo:is out of sync.
homer/adore440.memo:is out of sync.
homer/adore440.memo: When auditing out of sync, no reads will happen, no charge will
homer/adore440.memo:it again. When you get out of sync just repeat the item that didn't
homer/adore440.memo: NO HELL - read in sync
homer/adore440.memo: HELL - read in sync
homer/adore440.memo: NO HELL - no read out of sync
homer/adore440.memo: NO HELL - no read out of sync
homer/adore440.memo: HELL - no read out of sync
homer/adore440.memo: HELL - no read out of sync
homer/adore440.memo: NO HELL - read in sync
homer/adore440.memo: HELL - read in sync
homer/adore440.memo: Auditing can go out of sync for many reasons, don't worry about
homer/adore440.memo:it, but do get it back in sync again, don't just leave the process
homer/adore490.memo: Getting in tempo and sync with the flows are important.
homer/adore550.memo:remaining in sync with the alternating blowoff between them.
homer/adore601.memo: Remember that staying in sync with the flow is imperative to run
homer/adore604.memo: Run alternately, get in sync with the alternating flows
homer/adore615.memo:MAKE it read by getting into sync with it, with
homer/adore615.memo: until it gets into sync, then continue to run it until flat with
homer/adore615.memo:fully comprehend sync, he may get into sync with his whole bank and
homer/adore616.memo:the NO and SOME sync and using an E-meter to watch the rhythm, so I
homer/adore616.memo:oscillation in sync by running NO ITEM and SOME ITEM.
homer/adore630.memo: Reword and run to taste, making sure to lock onto and maintain sync
homer/adore632.memo: Thus, taking care to maintain sync with flows, we might run,
homer/adore632.memo:will fall nicely when in sync with the NO flow, and will fall nicely
homer/adore632.memo:when in sync with the SOME flow, and will rise in between. Back and
homer/adore640.memo: Remember to run the NO or NOT versions also, in sync with the back
homer/adore643.memo: It is the invariant that allows us all to sync with each other so
homer/adore664.memo:find the right item and its opposite, and make sure to get into sync
homer/adore707.memo:until you get in sync with the big one.
homer/adore71.memo: Phase and body sex can and does get out of sync with each other.
homer/adore71.memo:a body that is physically out of sync with their spirit, and get it
homer/adore71.memo: Bodies and phase in this case are full time out of sync naturally.
homer/adore710.memo:you see it, and so how come we have an in sync conscious experience of
homer/adore710.memo:consistent theory as to how this synchronicity could happen, namely that
homer/adore710.memo:whole new synchronization mechanism that connects the two of us so we
homer/adore710.memo:can render in sync with each other, 'see the same thing at the same
homer/adore710.memo:having synced up into one virtual pen, can be moved and controlled by
homer/adore721.memo: SYNC
homer/adore721.memo:they are running you slightly out of sync as you are following their
homer/adore721.memo: So the issuing of running suppressed dicoms is getting into sync
homer/adore721.memo: SYNC AGAIN
homer/adore721.memo:tock out of sync with it, that is is go tock tick in sync with it.
homer/adore721.memo: OUT OF SYNC
homer/adore721.memo: Each cycle of the preclear being out of sync with the flows of the
homer/adore721.memo:he is pretty much continuously out of sync with them and thus sinking
homer/adore721.memo:some love IN SYNC with the dicom as he is actually ticking it. In this
homer/adore721.memo: IN SYNC
homer/adore721.memo:constantly going out of sync with the dicom through no immediate fault
homer/adore721.memo: Spot a tick tick tick in sync
homer/adore721.memo: Spot a tock tock tock in sync
homer/adore721.memo: Spot a tick tick tick in sync
homer/adore721.memo: Spot a tock tock tock in sync
homer/adore721.memo: Spot a tick tick tick in sync
homer/adore721.memo:of sync. Reads stop happening, pc can't spot instances of the items, pc
homer/adore721.memo: Notice how the auditor got the pc back in sync by running the same
homer/adore721.memo:session, the auditor and preclear MUST follow in sync.
homer/adore721.memo:each item, until sync is reestablished.
homer/adore721.memo:the pc in sync enough to get the thing to run. As running goes on, sync
homer/adore721.memo:the sync of the auditor automatically, if the dicom jerks him around.
homer/adore721.memo: Notice the preclear rather than going glum, realized the sync was
homer/adore721.memo: Dicoms can go out of sync for any number of reasons, many of which
homer/adore721.memo:the pc remaining in sync and reporting on the dicom, not the auditor!
homer/adore721.memo:how you got the item, but if no run, double call until in sync.
homer/adore801.memo:runs first, and staying in sync is critical to really running the two
homer/adore806.memo: If you lose sync between NO and SOME, the item will dry up and
homer/adore806.memo:then the SOME item again, back and forth and stay in SYNC with the flows
homer/adore862.memo:> teachings were not in sync with the church.
homer/adore876.memo: Always run the 'Not know something" first, but sync is important.
homer/adore876.memo:in a row, back and forth until you get into sync with the preclear's
homer/adore876.memo:flows again. If you do not know about sync by now, you shouldn't be
homer/adore876.memo:running this on another, can use a meter to stay in sync with the
homer/adore876.memo: Run it back and forth, get the rhythm, get the sync, and the
homer/adore889.memo:each incarnated GodSoul (conscious unit), synchronized with each other
homer/adore890.memo:moves in sync with it, giving the illusion that there is one ball, and
homer/adore892.memo: The syncing and co resonation of renditions does not happen via the
homer/adore892.memo:created universes and keep them instantly in sync with each other,
homer/adore924.memo:> sync'd nicely with your article.
homer/adore924.memo:>> Reword and run to taste, making sure to lock onto and maintain sync
homer/adore927.memo:illusion born of instantaneous resonation and synchronization of the
homer/adore927.memo: There is no time lag, as rendition synchronization is a function of
homer/adore927.memo: The renditions are kept in sync via communication channels between
homer/adore927.memo:in Eternity between them, that synchronizes their two dreams, to make it
homer/adore929.memo:are synced with other players so that the illusion of one reality shared
homer/adore934.memo:of sync, repeat last command again, or double each one until needle
homer/adore934.memo: The auditor, in running a process on a preclear, must sync with the
homer/adore934.memo:the sync and stay in sync as best he can to keep the needle reading.
homer/adore934.memo:auditor's NO and SOME will go out of sync.
homer/adore934.memo:the auditor in sync again, even if the bank process is acting like a
homer/adore934.memo: It is such a joy to get in sync with the bank and just watch the
homer/adore934.memo: The following is an example of a process starting off in sync,
homer/adore934.memo:going out of sync, and then being brought back into sync by the auditor,
homer/adore934.memo:way too slow on answers to keep in sync with the bank process, which is
homer/adore934.memo:wrong question every now and then, and that means THAT is his sync
homer/adore934.memo: If the process and the auditor get out of sync, the auditor must
homer/adore934.memo:get back into sync by doing what he did last again.
homer/adore934.memo: NO NO? read Sync finally established again.
homer/adore950.memo: We call the basic cause of synchronization RESONANCE, so that
homer/adore968.memo:the outward dream, and the many dreams are synchronized perfectly
homer/adore968.memo:and they are synchronized via the One that connects them all above space
homer/hom2.memo: I believe that desire and truth are co synchronous and
homer/hom59.memo: Synchronicities or meaningful coincidences suddenly
homer/otpower:projections could lock onto each other, go into sync, and begin to act
homer/otpower: Of course they would have had to will the syncing to take place,
homer/otpower:such a resonant co synchronization between all the beings in it.
homer/otpower:to cease projecting in sync with others, is itself an OT ability.
homer/roland2: SYNC
homer/roland2: Sync is critical.
homer/roland2:talk about NO ITEM AND SOME ITEM in sync with his bank, the flows will
homer/roland2:read, one can try running NO ITEM, SOME ITEM, getting it in sync as
homer/roland2: Each time the process bogs down, check sync, and if still no go,
homer/sess:of a counter sync with the banks efforts that are dramatizing the thing
homer/session: Sometimes needles were out of sync, left hand meter would be rising
homer/session.memo: Sometimes needles were out of sync, left hand meter would be rising
homer/you8.memo: Remember that staying in sync with the flow is imperative to run
Fri Apr 15 17:07:51 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Oct 6 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1004.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)
iD8DBQFffJSFURT1lqxE3HERAjk/AKCNleAjGMHpuwh+s3Df0ZX7H1DKzgCfSxHP
dW38uKFrkD97s06QRRUlYjk=
=O3Q8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
exm43.memo (fwd)
((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))
WHAT IS A PSYCHOSOMATIC?
EXM - 43
Copyright (C) 1992 A Voice of the Free Zone (Electra)
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
A psychosomatic is any chronic unwanted condition in your body,
heart, mind or soul caused by chronic restimulation of engrams.
Psychosomatic conditions are caused by engrams brought into play to
justify and restrain regretted DEDS or dramatizations. A DED is an
unprovoked or accidental overt act you committed against another. A
dramatization is acting out what someone else did to you in an earlier
engram.
A person with no regret will have no psychosomatic conditions. A
person without any psychosomatic conditions is either Clear or in the
middle of a full blown dramatization without any restraint or regret.
In this case, since he is doing to others what was done to him, he
is as far from clear self determinism as he can get and probably could
be labeled psychotic. He is perfectly happy and comfortable murdering
people overtly or covertly and being very smug and self satisfied about
it.
Therefore watch out for the being who has no chronic unwanted
physical, emotional, mental or spiritual conditions. They are either
clear or gone.
Some Churchie Clears are Gones. They usually apply for
management positions in the Church. Often they are dramatizing OT
III. Anyone who isn't an OT III is certainly dramatizing OT III
somewhere. Such a being's intention is to overwhelm others as they
themselves have been overwhelmed. Unless of course you align with
them in their efforts to overwhelm others, in which case they treat
you like a king. Thus they act like huge vacuum cleaners collecting
to themselves vast congregations of overwhelmed beings whose only
escape from overwhelm is to overwhelm others or else convert them to
their own methods of overwhelming others.
Sort of a growing cesspool of overt acts with a whirlpool at the
center of the Church.
A Clear has no engrams to dramatize, or perhaps they have kept
their engrams around as a conversation piece. The point is they are
not dramatizing them. They can not be provoked into doing to others
what was done to them. Further their engrams are not charged and
remain as fully inspectable analytical memories to cherish.
Initially all engrams are bad in that they lay down an area of
the memory filled with pain and unconsciousness. The unconsciousness
in the memory prevents it from being easily analytically inspected.
Once an engram is pulled into play, the being no longer is aware of it
and the pain and unconsciousness in the engram can cause the being to
dramatize it unwillingly. The engram kind of pokes you until you act
it out. If you can take on any valence in the engram but your own
(pain) you can then feel what they felt rather than what you felt
during the incident. This helps you escape the pain of the engram
poking you.
That usually means getting murderously mad or some such thing,
because that is what they did to you when you received the engram you
are now dramatizing.
For example, someone gets murderously mad at you for taking his
girl friend. He storms in one night and runs you through with a
sword. The engram contains three valences. You who are suffering
death, he who is feeling rage, and the girl who is weeping over in the
corner.
If you use this engram for what ever reason, if you pull it into
play, you will be constantly feeling the pain and unconsciousness of
dying impinging on you. To avoid this, all you have to do is go into
one of the other valences in the engram. If you become the guy who
killed you, you will feel murderous rage all day long and will probably
take up killing people who look at your girl wrong. But at least you
won't feel like you are dying, get it?
So pulling engrams in on yourself is a very dangerous proposition,
and usually causes more trouble in the long run than it is worth.
Since most engrams of importance are death engrams, dramatizing one
of these out of valence can get you electrocuted for murder.
Ever wonder how you made it this far in this life without getting
put on death row? Well, you are doing an excellent job of holding a
whole bank full of death engrams at bay.
Death engrams in bodies lie on top of earlier whole track
electronic and electric shock engrams, so you can see what the
psychiatric and legal bozos are dramatizing with their electroshock and
electrocution therapies for the insane and the criminal.
They used to take bodies blind folded and beaten, and wrap them
around tightly in rope and tie them on all four limbs with chains 2
inches thick and hang them like a crucifix from the walls and ceilings.
Then they would pump amperes of current into the body for DAYS, never
quite letting it die, all the while SAYING things to it like 'you will
obey, Jesus died for your sins, praise God almighty, you will go to hell
if you are bad etc.'
Somewhere around day two the body went into a permanent slow
murderous rage and finally quieted down into an apathy so sad to see,
hoping to die. Starving and beaten, they would take the being off his
electronic cross and let him back into society to function as a 'normal
being'.
Often he would take up religion immediately or apply for work at
the state offices and become one of the people who did these things to
others.
Most people in this society have been through his kind of
punishment, sometimes for many lifetimes in a row, and now that they are
on Earth, they are happy to live once and die once and perhaps go to
Heaven if they are good.
Their basic feeling about life is they can't wait to die, so they
create wars to help them get to Heaven forthwith.
Or they become people who torture people and animals for Religion
or Science, or sometimes just for fun. Have you ever tortured anything
for fun? Why?
This mechanism of valences explains why the worst thing you can do
to a person who is dramatizing is to break his dramatization. That
means stop it cold. By using the engram and dramatizing it out of
valence he is bringing it into full restimulation. But he is not
feeling his side of it. If you break the dramatization and force him
back into his own valence by stopping all dramatized action, he will
suddenly and precipitously suffer his own pain in the incident. This
can kill him, because in the incident he died or worse.
Thus parents are very bent on not letting the child stop their
murderous little dramatizations. They might die and they know it, and
they have to 'stay alive for the kids'.
When a being regrets a dramatization he tries to stop it mid cycle.
Thus 1/2 of the psychosomatic condition is caused by the in-valence pain
of the engram halted in mid dramatization. The other 1/2 of the
psychosomatic pain is caused by the further engrams the being drags in
to justify and restrain his dramatization.
Thus all psychosomatics contain two pains in one.
His error is as follows. He gets provoked and dramatizes an engram
in punishment and vengeance and then feels sorry for it. That's the
regret following the anger. Rather than just put it away, he JUSTIFIES
what he did by pulling in another painful incident that makes it more
right that he dramatized in the first place. The more bad things he can
show were done to him, the less regret he needs to feel for his anger
even if those bad things had nothing to do with his anger.
He then further uses these new incidents to limit himself and
restrain himself from getting angry again because he knows it was wrong
even though he is pretending it is right.
Not all anger is wrong. But he is very concerned about a moment
when he thought his anger WAS wrong. In fact he may consider that it
ruined his career as a human being.
People often get murderously mad at people they love deeply,
because the other party is acting criminal at the time. Thus children
wish off the most brutal things on their parents and then regret them a
moment or years later when they see how bad off their parents really
are.
So a being who has gone through one of these anger/regret cycles is
in the following conundrum. He has admitted he was wrong and wants to
stop doing it. But rather than just be done with it, he makes the error
of trying to make what he did RIGHT, and THEN STOP doing it so he
doesn't have to live with having been wrong for the rest of time.
He says to himself 'I will make what I did right just this once, but
then I will NEVER do it again!'
Unfortunately by making what he did right, he has to sort of keep
doing it, because by never doing it again he is admitting it was wrong
to do. Thus he keeps in chronic restimulation what provoked him in the
first place to remind him that what he did was right, which constantly
pokes him into doing it again. But he doesn't want to do it again
because he knows it IS wrong to do. So he is constantly on the verge of
doing it and yet always restraining it. And THAT is the anatomy of
chronic restimulation of the bank.
The way out of this mess is to admit what you did was wrong and be
willing to live with that for the rest of time. Not all anger is wrong,
it's ok to make a mistake, even if it's with anger. You are not the
only one, and any memory can be as-ised once you see you set it up to
have a fall.
Thus willingness to have been wrong is a being's only saving grace.
This puts the present dramatization out of self restimulation for
good, and thus the need for the remaining engrams to justify and
restrain the dramatization also vanishes.
This is called a RELEASE in Scientology. Once you release a being,
you can then proceed to erase his engram bank so that he is never prone
to dramatize it again and get himself back into the same mess. And
THAT's a Clear.
THE NO SYMPATHY SANDWICH
NO SYMPATHY, 1.2 on the tone scale, is the last overt attack tone
before the being goes quiet on his rage into Unexpressed Resentment at
1.15.
There is something called the No Sympathy Sandwich. You dramatize
No Sympathy at someone. You regret it, recognizing you were wrong. You
can't stand the thought of living with this error for the rest of time.
So you find something MORE they did to you that justifies your No
Sympathy. You go back to feeling No Sympathy for them.
Thus the No Sympathy Sandwich has the following anatomy.
No Sympathy - Regret - Justification - No Sympathy
The record of this is contained in clear detail in the being's time
track. There is definitely a moment of deep regret there, even if it's
only for a millisecond, those sad eyes of who he ruined are looking
right at him and are recorded in total detail and crystal clarity in his
time track, but then he pulls in the false justifier and snaps back into
No Sympathy as if nothing ever happened to break the continuity.
He is trying to pretend that the regret and justification part of
the sandwich never happened, thus he will be hell bent on hiding that
part of his track from others. This is a withhold.
It is also the reason he looses his telepathy.
He doesn't want others to see his pictures or his mind, all those
sad eyes you know, because then they would know the truth about what a
cad he had been.
So he separates himself off from others on the thetan plane, and
walls himself in with a big wall of hideous blackness so others can't
see in. If they try to see his pictures they will just find a wall of
appalling No Sympathy looking back out at them! 'How DARE you invade my
privacy!' So no one will dare look in. Of course he can't see out
through his own blackness either! So no one can read minds any more and
auditing is hard as hell.
When you finally get over this stuff, you can see other thetans
again directly because you are willing to have other's look into your
pictures, so you can look out to their pictures. You may see only
blackness covering their pictures though because they are still doing
the same thing you were.
If they put up a picture for you to see though, you can see it too.
If you are willing to have others look in, you can look out.
Anyhow once you can do this you can audit others telepathically
without an E-meter. That's what OT III and BT's are all about.
You get to audit a thousand pesky little and not so little body
thetans out of THEIR No Sympathy Sandwiches!
Electra
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Oct 3 18:06:02 EDT 2020
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm43.memo
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
WHAT IS A PSYCHOSOMATIC?
EXM - 43
Copyright (C) 1992 A Voice of the Free Zone (Electra)
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
A psychosomatic is any chronic unwanted condition in your body,
heart, mind or soul caused by chronic restimulation of engrams.
Psychosomatic conditions are caused by engrams brought into play to
justify and restrain regretted DEDS or dramatizations. A DED is an
unprovoked or accidental overt act you committed against another. A
dramatization is acting out what someone else did to you in an earlier
engram.
A person with no regret will have no psychosomatic conditions. A
person without any psychosomatic conditions is either Clear or in the
middle of a full blown dramatization without any restraint or regret.
In this case, since he is doing to others what was done to him, he
is as far from clear self determinism as he can get and probably could
be labeled psychotic. He is perfectly happy and comfortable murdering
people overtly or covertly and being very smug and self satisfied about
it.
Therefore watch out for the being who has no chronic unwanted
physical, emotional, mental or spiritual conditions. They are either
clear or gone.
Some Churchie Clears are Gones. They usually apply for
management positions in the Church. Often they are dramatizing OT
III. Anyone who isn't an OT III is certainly dramatizing OT III
somewhere. Such a being's intention is to overwhelm others as they
themselves have been overwhelmed. Unless of course you align with
them in their efforts to overwhelm others, in which case they treat
you like a king. Thus they act like huge vacuum cleaners collecting
to themselves vast congregations of overwhelmed beings whose only
escape from overwhelm is to overwhelm others or else convert them to
their own methods of overwhelming others.
Sort of a growing cesspool of overt acts with a whirlpool at the
center of the Church.
A Clear has no engrams to dramatize, or perhaps they have kept
their engrams around as a conversation piece. The point is they are
not dramatizing them. They can not be provoked into doing to others
what was done to them. Further their engrams are not charged and
remain as fully inspectable analytical memories to cherish.
Initially all engrams are bad in that they lay down an area of
the memory filled with pain and unconsciousness. The unconsciousness
in the memory prevents it from being easily analytically inspected.
Once an engram is pulled into play, the being no longer is aware of it
and the pain and unconsciousness in the engram can cause the being to
dramatize it unwillingly. The engram kind of pokes you until you act
it out. If you can take on any valence in the engram but your own
(pain) you can then feel what they felt rather than what you felt
during the incident. This helps you escape the pain of the engram
poking you.
That usually means getting murderously mad or some such thing,
because that is what they did to you when you received the engram you
are now dramatizing.
For example, someone gets murderously mad at you for taking his
girl friend. He storms in one night and runs you through with a
sword. The engram contains three valences. You who are suffering
death, he who is feeling rage, and the girl who is weeping over in the
corner.
If you use this engram for what ever reason, if you pull it into
play, you will be constantly feeling the pain and unconsciousness of
dying impinging on you. To avoid this, all you have to do is go into
one of the other valences in the engram. If you become the guy who
killed you, you will feel murderous rage all day long and will probably
take up killing people who look at your girl wrong. But at least you
won't feel like you are dying, get it?
So pulling engrams in on yourself is a very dangerous proposition,
and usually causes more trouble in the long run than it is worth.
Since most engrams of importance are death engrams, dramatizing one
of these out of valence can get you electrocuted for murder.
Ever wonder how you made it this far in this life without getting
put on death row? Well, you are doing an excellent job of holding a
whole bank full of death engrams at bay.
Death engrams in bodies lie on top of earlier whole track
electronic and electric shock engrams, so you can see what the
psychiatric and legal bozos are dramatizing with their electroshock and
electrocution therapies for the insane and the criminal.
They used to take bodies blind folded and beaten, and wrap them
around tightly in rope and tie them on all four limbs with chains 2
inches thick and hang them like a crucifix from the walls and ceilings.
Then they would pump amperes of current into the body for DAYS, never
quite letting it die, all the while SAYING things to it like 'you will
obey, Jesus died for your sins, praise God almighty, you will go to hell
if you are bad etc.'
Somewhere around day two the body went into a permanent slow
murderous rage and finally quieted down into an apathy so sad to see,
hoping to die. Starving and beaten, they would take the being off his
electronic cross and let him back into society to function as a 'normal
being'.
Often he would take up religion immediately or apply for work at
the state offices and become one of the people who did these things to
others.
Most people in this society have been through his kind of
punishment, sometimes for many lifetimes in a row, and now that they are
on Earth, they are happy to live once and die once and perhaps go to
Heaven if they are good.
Their basic feeling about life is they can't wait to die, so they
create wars to help them get to Heaven forthwith.
Or they become people who torture people and animals for Religion
or Science, or sometimes just for fun. Have you ever tortured anything
for fun? Why?
This mechanism of valences explains why the worst thing you can do
to a person who is dramatizing is to break his dramatization. That
means stop it cold. By using the engram and dramatizing it out of
valence he is bringing it into full restimulation. But he is not
feeling his side of it. If you break the dramatization and force him
back into his own valence by stopping all dramatized action, he will
suddenly and precipitously suffer his own pain in the incident. This
can kill him, because in the incident he died or worse.
Thus parents are very bent on not letting the child stop their
murderous little dramatizations. They might die and they know it, and
they have to 'stay alive for the kids'.
When a being regrets a dramatization he tries to stop it mid cycle.
Thus 1/2 of the psychosomatic condition is caused by the in-valence pain
of the engram halted in mid dramatization. The other 1/2 of the
psychosomatic pain is caused by the further engrams the being drags in
to justify and restrain his dramatization.
Thus all psychosomatics contain two pains in one.
His error is as follows. He gets provoked and dramatizes an engram
in punishment and vengeance and then feels sorry for it. That's the
regret following the anger. Rather than just put it away, he JUSTIFIES
what he did by pulling in another painful incident that makes it more
right that he dramatized in the first place. The more bad things he can
show were done to him, the less regret he needs to feel for his anger
even if those bad things had nothing to do with his anger.
He then further uses these new incidents to limit himself and
restrain himself from getting angry again because he knows it was wrong
even though he is pretending it is right.
Not all anger is wrong. But he is very concerned about a moment
when he thought his anger WAS wrong. In fact he may consider that it
ruined his career as a human being.
People often get murderously mad at people they love deeply,
because the other party is acting criminal at the time. Thus children
wish off the most brutal things on their parents and then regret them a
moment or years later when they see how bad off their parents really
are.
So a being who has gone through one of these anger/regret cycles is
in the following conundrum. He has admitted he was wrong and wants to
stop doing it. But rather than just be done with it, he makes the error
of trying to make what he did RIGHT, and THEN STOP doing it so he
doesn't have to live with having been wrong for the rest of time.
He says to himself 'I will make what I did right just this once, but
then I will NEVER do it again!'
Unfortunately by making what he did right, he has to sort of keep
doing it, because by never doing it again he is admitting it was wrong
to do. Thus he keeps in chronic restimulation what provoked him in the
first place to remind him that what he did was right, which constantly
pokes him into doing it again. But he doesn't want to do it again
because he knows it IS wrong to do. So he is constantly on the verge of
doing it and yet always restraining it. And THAT is the anatomy of
chronic restimulation of the bank.
The way out of this mess is to admit what you did was wrong and be
willing to live with that for the rest of time. Not all anger is wrong,
it's ok to make a mistake, even if it's with anger. You are not the
only one, and any memory can be as-ised once you see you set it up to
have a fall.
Thus willingness to have been wrong is a being's only saving grace.
This puts the present dramatization out of self restimulation for
good, and thus the need for the remaining engrams to justify and
restrain the dramatization also vanishes.
This is called a RELEASE in Scientology. Once you release a being,
you can then proceed to erase his engram bank so that he is never prone
to dramatize it again and get himself back into the same mess. And
THAT's a Clear.
THE NO SYMPATHY SANDWICH
NO SYMPATHY, 1.2 on the tone scale, is the last overt attack tone
before the being goes quiet on his rage into Unexpressed Resentment at
1.15.
There is something called the No Sympathy Sandwich. You dramatize
No Sympathy at someone. You regret it, recognizing you were wrong. You
can't stand the thought of living with this error for the rest of time.
So you find something MORE they did to you that justifies your No
Sympathy. You go back to feeling No Sympathy for them.
Thus the No Sympathy Sandwich has the following anatomy.
No Sympathy - Regret - Justification - No Sympathy
The record of this is contained in clear detail in the being's time
track. There is definitely a moment of deep regret there, even if it's
only for a millisecond, those sad eyes of who he ruined are looking
right at him and are recorded in total detail and crystal clarity in his
time track, but then he pulls in the false justifier and snaps back into
No Sympathy as if nothing ever happened to break the continuity.
He is trying to pretend that the regret and justification part of
the sandwich never happened, thus he will be hell bent on hiding that
part of his track from others. This is a withhold.
It is also the reason he looses his telepathy.
He doesn't want others to see his pictures or his mind, all those
sad eyes you know, because then they would know the truth about what a
cad he had been.
So he separates himself off from others on the thetan plane, and
walls himself in with a big wall of hideous blackness so others can't
see in. If they try to see his pictures they will just find a wall of
appalling No Sympathy looking back out at them! 'How DARE you invade my
privacy!' So no one will dare look in. Of course he can't see out
through his own blackness either! So no one can read minds any more and
auditing is hard as hell.
When you finally get over this stuff, you can see other thetans
again directly because you are willing to have other's look into your
pictures, so you can look out to their pictures. You may see only
blackness covering their pictures though because they are still doing
the same thing you were.
If they put up a picture for you to see though, you can see it too.
If you are willing to have others look in, you can look out.
Anyhow once you can do this you can audit others telepathically
without an E-meter. That's what OT III and BT's are all about.
You get to audit a thousand pesky little and not so little body
thetans out of THEIR No Sympathy Sandwiches!
Electra
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Oct 3 18:06:02 EDT 2020
FTP://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm43.memo
WWW://www.clearing.org
BLOG://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Friday, October 2, 2020
GOD (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Andrea (andrea22_uk@yahoo.com) wrote:
>I have read a reasonable amount of Scientology stuff, but never been an
>active Scientologist. Visited Saint Hil though, lovely place. Any ways, I
>often get a fairly instinctive feel with Scientology processes as to just
>what effect they are likely to have and how/why they work... but I'm still a
>little unsure about UCP. Is there some straight-forward and to-the-point way
>of clarifying what it does/how/why?
The real question you should be asking (I know you know this), is
what do you want out of auditing?
Then you need to look into a process or try it out to see if it
does what you want it to do.
I can only give you the Adorian view on this.
The end goal of any processing is the recovery and flip flop of a
'God Postulate'.
God Postulates are those postulates the being thinks are true
because he has observed them to be true, when in fact they are true
solely and only because he has considered them to be true.
Consideration and Observation are dicoms, much as being
cause and being effect are dicoms.
Consideration is looking by knowing, and creates in the moment
what is known.
Observation is knowing by looking, and creats in the moment
the illusion of learning.
Notice that Knowing by Looking is ass backwards on the Know to
Mystery Scale, yet all beings will be found to be doing this almost
exclusively until they start waking up.
God Postulates are what are sinking the pc, as they present to
the pc a world already created, that he had nothing to do with,
and can at best fight, usually a losing battle.
When you find the area of ruination on a pc, you will find the
burial ground for his many God Postulates. It is called a burial
ground because each God Postulate was treated with a 'I can't do
anything about that, that's just the way things are' and so they are
forgotten as useless to think about further.
A good process will get the being to look in present time at what
he is DOING. This is because when he ran into a God Postulate, and
buried it as a given, he took the failure and changed course and
started doing something different.
One could say that almost all of a pc's present time life is the
result of 'doing something different' than what he originally set out
to do. And each turn away from his correct course was marked by a God
Postulate that wasn't spotted as such.
As the process gets the being to LOOK at what he is DOING and WHY
in present time, the God Postulates will surface again. When they do
the pc gets a glum sinking feeling, "Oh yeah right, now I remember why
I don't want to remember/be alive/do/have etc., it's *IMPOSSIBLE*.
His tendency while running the process will be to blow the
process at that point because he needs to blow from his awareness of
the God Postulate. A God Postulate can't be gotten around, it can't
be solved, it can't be substituted, its a total ruin and the pc knows
it.
The God Postulate is a 100 percent absolute total stop to the pc
without chance of mercy.
The God Postulate is so bad the pc actually considers it a waste
of time keeping it around in his awareness or contemplating it at all.
Why hurt himself with other determined losses when he can pretend
it isn't there?
However a God Postulate CAN be reversed! And easily. But the
pc has to have the balls to say "This ship will stop sinking because
I say so!" and have it work. God Postulates are in fact the ruinous
postulates of a God being, the pc, who in the making of the postulate
created the condition he now believes in.
Just so by recovering
the pure moment of looking at what the postulate created, and reversing
his idea that it isn't being created by the postulate, the pc will
get back into CREATING THE POSTULATE AGAIN.
When he is creating the postulate again he is admitting
that the postulate is causal consideration rather than learned
observation.
Then he can let go of it, change his mind, and whatever was
sinking him will suddenly vanish into thin air.
And yes the pc will feel the God power again flowing through him.
because only a God could have created the condition in the first
place, and only a God could have vanished it into thin air.
So any process that gets the pc to look and see how what he is
doing, knowing, wanting is the result of changes in course he made due
to ruinous but fully active and responsible postulates, will raise the
pc WAY up tone, blow that particular condition completely, and open
the grave yard to finding the next earlier God Postulate.
On the other hand Adore is so much slosh....
:)
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 2 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/god
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)
iD8DBQFfd06FURT1lqxE3HERAuprAJ9ciBpyLzn053QxyamLlHsi/Cca4ACfaAdP
eBgg/TdxB9fnWE839qCX95s=
=jzGk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Andrea (andrea22_uk@yahoo.com) wrote:
>I have read a reasonable amount of Scientology stuff, but never been an
>active Scientologist. Visited Saint Hil though, lovely place. Any ways, I
>often get a fairly instinctive feel with Scientology processes as to just
>what effect they are likely to have and how/why they work... but I'm still a
>little unsure about UCP. Is there some straight-forward and to-the-point way
>of clarifying what it does/how/why?
The real question you should be asking (I know you know this), is
what do you want out of auditing?
Then you need to look into a process or try it out to see if it
does what you want it to do.
I can only give you the Adorian view on this.
The end goal of any processing is the recovery and flip flop of a
'God Postulate'.
God Postulates are those postulates the being thinks are true
because he has observed them to be true, when in fact they are true
solely and only because he has considered them to be true.
Consideration and Observation are dicoms, much as being
cause and being effect are dicoms.
Consideration is looking by knowing, and creates in the moment
what is known.
Observation is knowing by looking, and creats in the moment
the illusion of learning.
Notice that Knowing by Looking is ass backwards on the Know to
Mystery Scale, yet all beings will be found to be doing this almost
exclusively until they start waking up.
God Postulates are what are sinking the pc, as they present to
the pc a world already created, that he had nothing to do with,
and can at best fight, usually a losing battle.
When you find the area of ruination on a pc, you will find the
burial ground for his many God Postulates. It is called a burial
ground because each God Postulate was treated with a 'I can't do
anything about that, that's just the way things are' and so they are
forgotten as useless to think about further.
A good process will get the being to look in present time at what
he is DOING. This is because when he ran into a God Postulate, and
buried it as a given, he took the failure and changed course and
started doing something different.
One could say that almost all of a pc's present time life is the
result of 'doing something different' than what he originally set out
to do. And each turn away from his correct course was marked by a God
Postulate that wasn't spotted as such.
As the process gets the being to LOOK at what he is DOING and WHY
in present time, the God Postulates will surface again. When they do
the pc gets a glum sinking feeling, "Oh yeah right, now I remember why
I don't want to remember/be alive/do/have etc., it's *IMPOSSIBLE*.
His tendency while running the process will be to blow the
process at that point because he needs to blow from his awareness of
the God Postulate. A God Postulate can't be gotten around, it can't
be solved, it can't be substituted, its a total ruin and the pc knows
it.
The God Postulate is a 100 percent absolute total stop to the pc
without chance of mercy.
The God Postulate is so bad the pc actually considers it a waste
of time keeping it around in his awareness or contemplating it at all.
Why hurt himself with other determined losses when he can pretend
it isn't there?
However a God Postulate CAN be reversed! And easily. But the
pc has to have the balls to say "This ship will stop sinking because
I say so!" and have it work. God Postulates are in fact the ruinous
postulates of a God being, the pc, who in the making of the postulate
created the condition he now believes in.
Just so by recovering
the pure moment of looking at what the postulate created, and reversing
his idea that it isn't being created by the postulate, the pc will
get back into CREATING THE POSTULATE AGAIN.
When he is creating the postulate again he is admitting
that the postulate is causal consideration rather than learned
observation.
Then he can let go of it, change his mind, and whatever was
sinking him will suddenly vanish into thin air.
And yes the pc will feel the God power again flowing through him.
because only a God could have created the condition in the first
place, and only a God could have vanished it into thin air.
So any process that gets the pc to look and see how what he is
doing, knowing, wanting is the result of changes in course he made due
to ruinous but fully active and responsible postulates, will raise the
pc WAY up tone, blow that particular condition completely, and open
the grave yard to finding the next earlier God Postulate.
On the other hand Adore is so much slosh....
:)
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Oct 2 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/god
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)
iD8DBQFfd06FURT1lqxE3HERAuprAJ9ciBpyLzn053QxyamLlHsi/Cca4ACfaAdP
eBgg/TdxB9fnWE839qCX95s=
=jzGk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, October 1, 2020
ADORE899 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PRINCIPLES OF DREAM MAGIC.
The rules of dream magic are pretty simple, they are all based on
the idea that questions prepostulate conditions, problems, and/or
failures and continue them.
Since dream magic is the ability to get what you want in a dream
dependably, it is important to know these rules.
For example, say you are in a dream, and you get a glimpse of one
of those impossibly beautiful girls whose genes meld with yours
perfectly, and when your eyes meet, they 'fit' perfectly, and the power
from infinity starts to flow between you two.
But she averts her eyes and goes running off and you are left
crushed and wondering:
"WHY IS SHE AVOIDING ME?"
Wondering is question asking, using questions which are their own
answers.
Being crushed is the result of the heavy efforts you put into
asking the question and failing to come up with the correct answer, in
particular one which opens the door to getting the girl to come back.
Instead, feeling crushed from your why asking, you will probably
pick a hallucinatory reason that makes you feel the worst, and you will
give up in sorrow, self abasement and permanent malaise.
Any wrong answer will make you feel bad, as that is what wrong
answers do, particularly wrong why's which ask about cause, and to a
being who is natively cause, asking questions about cause is a killer.
But let's take a look at this, and apply the first rule of dream
magic.
QUESTIONS PRE POSTULATE CONDITIONS, PROBLEMS OR FAILURES, AND
CONTINUE THEM.
What is the question?
WHY IS SHE AVOIDING ME?
So we reword that into standard Adorian dream magic form which
states the prepostulate first and the question second.
SHE IS AVOIDING ME. WHY?
Now for a GodSoul, who can create in the mere conception of things,
that would be a very dangerous sequence to engage in.
First you issue a CAUSAL postulate that she is and will avoid you,
so of course she does, THEN you issue a wonderment, a question, asking
who or what is cause around here and why is it such an asshole.
The why question is looking for an answer other than the postulate
that preceded the question. Since that postulate would fade and vanish
on its own if not followed by the why question, the why question is
CONTINUING the postulate in time or causing a persistence.
Since the question ITSELF is continuing the problem, ANY POSSIBLE
answer to the question other than the question itself MUST be a wrong
answer, and thus MUST make you feel bad even before you have found it.
Thus even LOOKING for the answer to a self answering question gives
rise to this feeling of doom, the qualms, in that you know it will be a
supreme downer once you find it, and you know this BEFORE you find it,
if you ever do.
But since the question is its own answer, you never will find some
other correct answer, and thus you will instead settle on a false answer
that makes you feel the worst, and know that this answer must be the
correct answer because it makes you feed so bad.
One thus judges the truth of the answer by its correlation with the
intensity of the qualms you felt while starting to seek it, and before
you find it. THAT sets the standard for how miserable the answer must
make you feel in order for it to be true. You will reject any other
(also false) answers that do not make you feel as bad because the
pecursor qualms during the search have not yet been matched.
However using the rules of dream magic, the question is its own
answer to the problem, so nuke the question, run the postulate, and the
postulate won't continue.
You have to get BEFORE the question in time, to BE in the postulate
in order to run it. The question asking acts as an escape from the bad
feelings of the postulate, by removing you from the exact moment of time
in which the postulate exists in its first creation. But then, not
realizing the question is CAUSE of persistence, seeking the answer to
the question starts the qualms and away you go down the time stream
feeling worse and worse until you fall into the garbage pail at the end,
and that is your wrong answer which you are sure is true because it
feels so bad.
Notice the question is not the cause of the postulate, you are, but
the question IS committing effort to the continuance of the postulate
while denying that the question asking has anything to do with anything.
So instead of going down the tubes on this simple trap, we rewrite
the dream as follows.
You see the girl, she averts her eyes and runs away, you go stupid
for a moment and ask 'Why is she avoiding me?';
Then you go lucid, you stop asking the question and you say "She is
not avoiding me, she is off to powder her nose, and in a few seconds she
will slink around behind me and put her arms around me, all warm and
heavenly.
And she does, as long as you are not dramatizing some other
wondering that would prepostulate that she won't.
A clear can make this work in his own universe and his dreams.
And OT can make it work period.
The basic questions are:
Why is this happening/not happening?
Who or what is causing it and how.
What should I *DO* about it?
Do = effort.
Stupidity then comes in these 3 simple questions and their many
variants, and the sum totality of stupidity consists of continuing a
postulate by asking a question about it, because asking a question about
causal postulate reasserts that the postulate is true totally bypassing
the fact that the postulate is also CAUSAL, that is results in what the
postulate is about.
It is. Why?
It is. Why?
It is. Why?
It is. Why?
It is. Why?
You see all day long of this will assuredly end up in IT IS!
It is easy to make this stuff work in your dreams, and you will
quickly see how damaging the efforts to wonder about cause are to your
body, your health and your future.
Wonder is asking why questions.
Why questions kill.
Therefore wonder kills.
When you finally find where you been playing this game in the awake
state and have been creating a tanking future with a question about a
prepostulate, you will have found your first God Postulate, and your
life will change immediately without further effort.
You don't get better by exerting an effort, you get better
naturally once you cease the efforts that make you worse.
A God Postulate is that postulate which the preclear thinks is true
because he has observed it to be true, when in fact the postulate is
true because he considers it is true.
Consideration and Observation are dicoms.
Persistence in time arises from converting a causal consideration
or postulate into a self proving observation, and then questioning what
to DO about it.
Persistence continues by trying to solve a creation by creating
something MORE that is not the original creation.
Thus basic OT power is the ability to ruin your own future with a
postulate/question pair.
Running just one of these out provides all the proof anyone will
ever need of OT 'powers', and certainly all the proof they will ever
deserve.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Fri May 4 22:54:21 EDT 2012
06/29/16 Wednesday 7:40pm EST
Wed Jun 29 19:41:50 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Oct 1 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore899.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)
iD8DBQFfdf0FURT1lqxE3HERAtS7AJ93pzS2PTP5Upj/rS/nZS822Px/eQCg1AT3
1kcQdLoN7VKjbfG+95Jrjyw=
=V4gG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PRINCIPLES OF DREAM MAGIC.
The rules of dream magic are pretty simple, they are all based on
the idea that questions prepostulate conditions, problems, and/or
failures and continue them.
Since dream magic is the ability to get what you want in a dream
dependably, it is important to know these rules.
For example, say you are in a dream, and you get a glimpse of one
of those impossibly beautiful girls whose genes meld with yours
perfectly, and when your eyes meet, they 'fit' perfectly, and the power
from infinity starts to flow between you two.
But she averts her eyes and goes running off and you are left
crushed and wondering:
"WHY IS SHE AVOIDING ME?"
Wondering is question asking, using questions which are their own
answers.
Being crushed is the result of the heavy efforts you put into
asking the question and failing to come up with the correct answer, in
particular one which opens the door to getting the girl to come back.
Instead, feeling crushed from your why asking, you will probably
pick a hallucinatory reason that makes you feel the worst, and you will
give up in sorrow, self abasement and permanent malaise.
Any wrong answer will make you feel bad, as that is what wrong
answers do, particularly wrong why's which ask about cause, and to a
being who is natively cause, asking questions about cause is a killer.
But let's take a look at this, and apply the first rule of dream
magic.
QUESTIONS PRE POSTULATE CONDITIONS, PROBLEMS OR FAILURES, AND
CONTINUE THEM.
What is the question?
WHY IS SHE AVOIDING ME?
So we reword that into standard Adorian dream magic form which
states the prepostulate first and the question second.
SHE IS AVOIDING ME. WHY?
Now for a GodSoul, who can create in the mere conception of things,
that would be a very dangerous sequence to engage in.
First you issue a CAUSAL postulate that she is and will avoid you,
so of course she does, THEN you issue a wonderment, a question, asking
who or what is cause around here and why is it such an asshole.
The why question is looking for an answer other than the postulate
that preceded the question. Since that postulate would fade and vanish
on its own if not followed by the why question, the why question is
CONTINUING the postulate in time or causing a persistence.
Since the question ITSELF is continuing the problem, ANY POSSIBLE
answer to the question other than the question itself MUST be a wrong
answer, and thus MUST make you feel bad even before you have found it.
Thus even LOOKING for the answer to a self answering question gives
rise to this feeling of doom, the qualms, in that you know it will be a
supreme downer once you find it, and you know this BEFORE you find it,
if you ever do.
But since the question is its own answer, you never will find some
other correct answer, and thus you will instead settle on a false answer
that makes you feel the worst, and know that this answer must be the
correct answer because it makes you feed so bad.
One thus judges the truth of the answer by its correlation with the
intensity of the qualms you felt while starting to seek it, and before
you find it. THAT sets the standard for how miserable the answer must
make you feel in order for it to be true. You will reject any other
(also false) answers that do not make you feel as bad because the
pecursor qualms during the search have not yet been matched.
However using the rules of dream magic, the question is its own
answer to the problem, so nuke the question, run the postulate, and the
postulate won't continue.
You have to get BEFORE the question in time, to BE in the postulate
in order to run it. The question asking acts as an escape from the bad
feelings of the postulate, by removing you from the exact moment of time
in which the postulate exists in its first creation. But then, not
realizing the question is CAUSE of persistence, seeking the answer to
the question starts the qualms and away you go down the time stream
feeling worse and worse until you fall into the garbage pail at the end,
and that is your wrong answer which you are sure is true because it
feels so bad.
Notice the question is not the cause of the postulate, you are, but
the question IS committing effort to the continuance of the postulate
while denying that the question asking has anything to do with anything.
So instead of going down the tubes on this simple trap, we rewrite
the dream as follows.
You see the girl, she averts her eyes and runs away, you go stupid
for a moment and ask 'Why is she avoiding me?';
Then you go lucid, you stop asking the question and you say "She is
not avoiding me, she is off to powder her nose, and in a few seconds she
will slink around behind me and put her arms around me, all warm and
heavenly.
And she does, as long as you are not dramatizing some other
wondering that would prepostulate that she won't.
A clear can make this work in his own universe and his dreams.
And OT can make it work period.
The basic questions are:
Why is this happening/not happening?
Who or what is causing it and how.
What should I *DO* about it?
Do = effort.
Stupidity then comes in these 3 simple questions and their many
variants, and the sum totality of stupidity consists of continuing a
postulate by asking a question about it, because asking a question about
causal postulate reasserts that the postulate is true totally bypassing
the fact that the postulate is also CAUSAL, that is results in what the
postulate is about.
It is. Why?
It is. Why?
It is. Why?
It is. Why?
It is. Why?
You see all day long of this will assuredly end up in IT IS!
It is easy to make this stuff work in your dreams, and you will
quickly see how damaging the efforts to wonder about cause are to your
body, your health and your future.
Wonder is asking why questions.
Why questions kill.
Therefore wonder kills.
When you finally find where you been playing this game in the awake
state and have been creating a tanking future with a question about a
prepostulate, you will have found your first God Postulate, and your
life will change immediately without further effort.
You don't get better by exerting an effort, you get better
naturally once you cease the efforts that make you worse.
A God Postulate is that postulate which the preclear thinks is true
because he has observed it to be true, when in fact the postulate is
true because he considers it is true.
Consideration and Observation are dicoms.
Persistence in time arises from converting a causal consideration
or postulate into a self proving observation, and then questioning what
to DO about it.
Persistence continues by trying to solve a creation by creating
something MORE that is not the original creation.
Thus basic OT power is the ability to ruin your own future with a
postulate/question pair.
Running just one of these out provides all the proof anyone will
ever need of OT 'powers', and certainly all the proof they will ever
deserve.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth, and Peace, Internet, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
Fri May 4 22:54:21 EDT 2012
06/29/16 Wednesday 7:40pm EST
Wed Jun 29 19:41:50 EDT 2016
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Oct 1 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore899.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)
iD8DBQFfdf0FURT1lqxE3HERAtS7AJ93pzS2PTP5Upj/rS/nZS822Px/eQCg1AT3
1kcQdLoN7VKjbfG+95Jrjyw=
=V4gG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ECO9 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NEGATIVE WORTH PEOPLE
> Reply to your posting on hourslist about the negative economic people.
>
> I just asked whether you were willing to kill these
> excess persons with your own hands, and whether you had noticed that 250
> people kicked off welfare in Arkansas had attacked the governor-- that they
> hadn't been able to find jobs and were pissed.
As I had said, I am not on hourslist any more.
What we should DO about negative worth people is a difficult
question, just as what we should DO about criminals is a difficult
question.
I am not talking about those who by circumstance are presently out
of work but who are otherwise able and interested in producing.
By negative worth people I mean those who are unwilling or unable
to produce more than they consume. Negative worth is evidenced by the
fact that other people have to be FORCED to pay their way. If people
can elicit WILLING charity from other more productive people, enough to
survive, then they must have enough positive worth to make their own way
in the world, by definition. What ever another person willingly pays
you for, is enough to call positive worth if its enough to survive
without forced handouts from others.
Some people will consider you worthwhile enough, just because you
are alive, to give you what they can. If this is enough for you to
survive, then you are positive worth enough to survive.
Lucky you for having such a valuable smile, eh?
But such charity can only go on until affluent reserves are
spent, then EVERYONE will start to look for a return for their
investment more solid than a thankyou and a God Bless.
So back to the question of what we should DO about truely
negative worth people, those who can only survive through handouts
forced out of the reserves of producers at the point of a gun.
We have to ask what obligation we have to do anything about them.
It's not about killing them off, as you suggest, its about hand
feeding them.
Before we ask if we should 'kill' them, we should ask if we
should be supporting them, particularly on their own terms. If we
just left them alone, the worst cases would starve or turn criminal
anyhow.
Turning the argument towards the problems of proactively DOING
something about them avoids the issue that we already are doing
something about them, namely enslaving ourselves to support them, and
we need to discuss that matter first.
Although in a rich world we can support non producers for a
while, if we give them better breeding grounds than the producers,
they will in fact out breed the producers, teach their children
nothing except how to suck off the producers, and eventually sink a
charitable society under its own addiction to sympathy, propitiation,
and weight of total non production.
My first response as a devil's advocate might be we shouldn't do
ANYTHING about them, and let nature take care of its own failures and
let charity be freely given to those who can solicit investment in
themselves.
But then the worst cases turn criminal and put the rest of us on
the spot. So by kind of a back door extortion, they get us to support
them 'willingly' anyhow. It's basically "Either you feed me or we
will revolt and burn the place down. If we gotta die from our own non
production, we are going to at least take you producers with us."
It's a kind of back door criminality that society gives into.
It's at least better than the kind that says "I am going to rob you
even if you do feed me!", so we have a certain amount of sympathy for
them, or propitiation, depending on how you look at it.
Practically speaking, although I hate bureacracy's, efficiencies of
scale tell us it is more efficient to have a mass charity through a well
distributed and funded welfare bureaucracy than to depend on individual
giving during time of need.
The down side of this choice is that many non producers get the
welfare who don't deserve it, because the individual charitable decision
making process is removed, anyone who wants it gets it,
And also eventually corruption, temptation and seduction begins to
settle in when the negative worth people go to work for the charity
bureaucracy department and make sure the police come to our doors to
force us to tithe to their parasitism lest they lose a job.
In general this downside is a price most of us are willing to pay
for the timely disbursement of funds to the worthy in need. Nothing
would get done if we all had to depend on individual charity for every
worthy need.
As I have said, my religion DEMANDS that duties and rights be
balanced. If I have a duty to feed them, then I have a right to fair
exchange in return. If they have a right to be fed, then they have a
DUTY to give fair exchange in return.
The basic fair exchange is work of course, but before work must
come training. So rather than force all the negative worth people into
gas chambers, I would force all of them into classrooms. In an ideal
world run by God, I would also limit their ability to breed until they
could show a positive return in life, and demonstrate before a court of
competency that they will not spawn more welfare cases, murderers and
covert criminals, but that ain't going to happen on Earth at this time.
As inalienable as it seems to all of us, the idea that just ANYONE
can breed and bring up their children just ANYWAY they want is actually
kind of weird. It's very natural of course, but nature takes care of
its own. In this society we are no longer allowed to let nature take
care of its own, so we need to think about the consequences of letting
nature breed on its own without the preening function in place.
It's not fair exchange that nature can breed at will but not be
burdened with taking care of its own, you know what I mean?
I wouldn't want humans at the head of the license to breed
department though.
So until God comes back to Earth we have a serious problem.
And in the meanwhile society sinks lower and lower under its
mandate to keep everyone alive no matter how unworthy of life they are,
or how much they consume and waste the worthiness of others who carry
them on their back.
Nature has a very austere definition of 'worthiness.'
"Can you reap more useful energy than you sow?"
Alone or in tendem with others.
Humans are not above Nature.
Homer
Mon Jun 22 16:36:57 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Sep 30 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco9.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)
iD8DBQFfdKuEURT1lqxE3HERAutOAJ43KfecD5hM6SQ0pG+NsDrAzOlFEgCdFAUC
IJNs+KOM9QWOippJbSvjQPo=
=sWGv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
NEGATIVE WORTH PEOPLE
> Reply to your posting on hourslist about the negative economic people.
>
> I just asked whether you were willing to kill these
> excess persons with your own hands, and whether you had noticed that 250
> people kicked off welfare in Arkansas had attacked the governor-- that they
> hadn't been able to find jobs and were pissed.
As I had said, I am not on hourslist any more.
What we should DO about negative worth people is a difficult
question, just as what we should DO about criminals is a difficult
question.
I am not talking about those who by circumstance are presently out
of work but who are otherwise able and interested in producing.
By negative worth people I mean those who are unwilling or unable
to produce more than they consume. Negative worth is evidenced by the
fact that other people have to be FORCED to pay their way. If people
can elicit WILLING charity from other more productive people, enough to
survive, then they must have enough positive worth to make their own way
in the world, by definition. What ever another person willingly pays
you for, is enough to call positive worth if its enough to survive
without forced handouts from others.
Some people will consider you worthwhile enough, just because you
are alive, to give you what they can. If this is enough for you to
survive, then you are positive worth enough to survive.
Lucky you for having such a valuable smile, eh?
But such charity can only go on until affluent reserves are
spent, then EVERYONE will start to look for a return for their
investment more solid than a thankyou and a God Bless.
So back to the question of what we should DO about truely
negative worth people, those who can only survive through handouts
forced out of the reserves of producers at the point of a gun.
We have to ask what obligation we have to do anything about them.
It's not about killing them off, as you suggest, its about hand
feeding them.
Before we ask if we should 'kill' them, we should ask if we
should be supporting them, particularly on their own terms. If we
just left them alone, the worst cases would starve or turn criminal
anyhow.
Turning the argument towards the problems of proactively DOING
something about them avoids the issue that we already are doing
something about them, namely enslaving ourselves to support them, and
we need to discuss that matter first.
Although in a rich world we can support non producers for a
while, if we give them better breeding grounds than the producers,
they will in fact out breed the producers, teach their children
nothing except how to suck off the producers, and eventually sink a
charitable society under its own addiction to sympathy, propitiation,
and weight of total non production.
My first response as a devil's advocate might be we shouldn't do
ANYTHING about them, and let nature take care of its own failures and
let charity be freely given to those who can solicit investment in
themselves.
But then the worst cases turn criminal and put the rest of us on
the spot. So by kind of a back door extortion, they get us to support
them 'willingly' anyhow. It's basically "Either you feed me or we
will revolt and burn the place down. If we gotta die from our own non
production, we are going to at least take you producers with us."
It's a kind of back door criminality that society gives into.
It's at least better than the kind that says "I am going to rob you
even if you do feed me!", so we have a certain amount of sympathy for
them, or propitiation, depending on how you look at it.
Practically speaking, although I hate bureacracy's, efficiencies of
scale tell us it is more efficient to have a mass charity through a well
distributed and funded welfare bureaucracy than to depend on individual
giving during time of need.
The down side of this choice is that many non producers get the
welfare who don't deserve it, because the individual charitable decision
making process is removed, anyone who wants it gets it,
And also eventually corruption, temptation and seduction begins to
settle in when the negative worth people go to work for the charity
bureaucracy department and make sure the police come to our doors to
force us to tithe to their parasitism lest they lose a job.
In general this downside is a price most of us are willing to pay
for the timely disbursement of funds to the worthy in need. Nothing
would get done if we all had to depend on individual charity for every
worthy need.
As I have said, my religion DEMANDS that duties and rights be
balanced. If I have a duty to feed them, then I have a right to fair
exchange in return. If they have a right to be fed, then they have a
DUTY to give fair exchange in return.
The basic fair exchange is work of course, but before work must
come training. So rather than force all the negative worth people into
gas chambers, I would force all of them into classrooms. In an ideal
world run by God, I would also limit their ability to breed until they
could show a positive return in life, and demonstrate before a court of
competency that they will not spawn more welfare cases, murderers and
covert criminals, but that ain't going to happen on Earth at this time.
As inalienable as it seems to all of us, the idea that just ANYONE
can breed and bring up their children just ANYWAY they want is actually
kind of weird. It's very natural of course, but nature takes care of
its own. In this society we are no longer allowed to let nature take
care of its own, so we need to think about the consequences of letting
nature breed on its own without the preening function in place.
It's not fair exchange that nature can breed at will but not be
burdened with taking care of its own, you know what I mean?
I wouldn't want humans at the head of the license to breed
department though.
So until God comes back to Earth we have a serious problem.
And in the meanwhile society sinks lower and lower under its
mandate to keep everyone alive no matter how unworthy of life they are,
or how much they consume and waste the worthiness of others who carry
them on their back.
Nature has a very austere definition of 'worthiness.'
"Can you reap more useful energy than you sow?"
Alone or in tendem with others.
Humans are not above Nature.
Homer
Mon Jun 22 16:36:57 EDT 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Sep 30 12:00:04 EDT 2020
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.com
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/eco9.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)
iD8DBQFfdKuEURT1lqxE3HERAutOAJ43KfecD5hM6SQ0pG+NsDrAzOlFEgCdFAUC
IJNs+KOM9QWOippJbSvjQPo=
=sWGv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)