12/11/06 Monday 11:49pm EST
CONSERVATION OF SOMETHING AND NOTHING
An object is that which has qualities.
A quality is that which describes an object.
A something is an object with a non empty quality set, the set of
all qualities that describe the object.
A nothing is an object with an empty quality set.
There can only be one nothing, because if there were two different
nothings, their quality sets would be different and thus they couldn't
both have empty quality sets and thus couldn't both be nothings.
THE FUNDAMENTAL THEOREM OF SOMETHING AND NOTHING.
The fundamental theorem of something and nothing tells us,
Something can not come from nothing, and
Something can not go into nothing.
Therefore if something exists now, something must have always
existed and will always exist.
The justification for this theorem comes from the idea that if a
nothing had the quality of potential ability to give rise to a
something, that quality would render the nothing's quality set non
empty, and thus render the nothing not a nothing.
Thus potential ability to give rise to something is already a
something.
Various somethings however can change form, thus giving the
apparency that something is changing into a different something.
However underlying the various surface forms of somethings that
change into each other will be a common something which is the actual
something which can neither be created nor destroyed.
Change of form of the actual underlying something is not creation
or destruction.
Thus mass which is a something called energy can change into
photons which is also a something called energy. Mass and light have
very different surface qualities, but the actual common something
between them is energy.
THE CONSERVATION OF SOMETHING AND NOTHING.
What this tells us, is that if you have something, then you have
always had that something and will always have it, regardless of what
form it takes.
And if you have a nothing, you have always had that nothing, and
will always have that nothing. Notice a nothing can not change forms as
it has no qualities to change.
The somethings that make a universe can be varied and complex, it
is not true that there is only one kind of something in the world.
The hunt for something, is the hunt for what is conserved, for an
understanding of what is actual in a universe and what is merely real,
(apparently actual to people's sense of reality, but not actually
actual) and allows the beings in that universe to play the game better.
This hunt is the process of science.
For example, in the alleged physical universe of dimensional space
and time, both space and time are generally considered to be conserved,
thus they are considered actual.
As mentioned above, the common somethings underlying the physics of
objects in that space and time, are energy, momentum, spin, charge and a
few other weird ones like baryon number.
Physicists seek that which is conserved, because they hope that
what is conserved is what is actual underlying the apparencies that come
and go.
In other words if all actual somethings must be conserved, then
that which is conserved is probably an actual something.
Notice the word probably.
In the middle of the last few centuries, natural philosophy started
to change from 'God causes everything according to His Will', to every
thing follows mathematical law.
Galileo was imprisoned for suggesting that the tides were caused by
the Moon. The Church said this limited God's will and control over
things and was thus heresy.
Galileo argued back that God was free to create things as he
wished, and if he wanted the tides to march in step with the moon and
its various mathematical laws, that was His prerogative.
The Church didn't buy it as the primary purpose of the Christian
Church at the time was to be a holding pen for idiots.
But now we hear from modern Physicists that there is no need for
God to explain anything any more, we have mathematical natural law
instead.
The earth goes around the Sun in an ellipse 'because' of the forces
of gravity and there is no need for God to explain anything.
The same argument however applies to this new age Church of the
Bomb, they have explained exactly nothing by merely describing HOW the
earth moves around the sun. The have posited forces and masses and
equations between them, but again one is free to ask why is it this way
instead of some other way, and who or what is ultimately responsible for
bringing it about?
And again the Church of the Bomb doesn't seem to want to buy it,
mostly because it too is a sargasso sea for sick, dead, and dying beings
who think they are made of meat.
They believe they can explain everything with their 4 fundamental
forces of nature, they seem to miss that Love and Shame can not of force
and mass be made.
If they ever do unify their 4 fundamental forces of nature
into one grand unified theory of everything, they will find that
the one top level cause is CONSCIOUSNESS.
But at that point they will be in serious trouble because presently
they consider that consciousness is MADE of the 4 fundamental forces,
namely a process in space time mechanics in the brain.
You can't make a non space time entity (consciousness) out of space
time machines, no matter how many you use or how complexly you put them
together.
One thing HAS however come out of the past 2000 years of
religious and scientific barbarism, and that is if God does exist,
then,
"God is apparently a mathematician first, and a purveyor of
damnation second." - Adore
In studying the mathematics of the physical universe one is struck
by the awesome intelligence it must take to understand all the
mathematics behind everything that works, let alone have devised and
designed it this way.
It seems unlikely that such an intelligent being would spend its
time by stooping to such crass and rank behaviors like sending people to
hell forever for the sins of four score and 20.
Unless maybe they were Christians.
But no, I am a sinner and repent of my hatred in dust and ashes,
and so any God as great as the mathematics of the cosmos would be able
to find a better way to deal with even me and them.
This is something to aspire to.
But now we have to ask, why did God create the Sun and Earth such
that it went around in an ellipse? Why not a square?
Surely if God can do anything, he could just as easily make the
Earth hang a louey every 3 months with the same approximate effect.
The answer comes down to conservation of something, and the desire
to create the illusion that the physical universe is a something.
I once had a dream, I was sound asleep and there was a lamp on my
table in the dream that I wanted to turn on because the room was dark.
The lamp had a standard lamp shade and a metal pull string up where the
bulb was.
So I reached over in the dream and pulled the metal string, and the
lamp turned on.
There was a perfect conical ray of light coming down from the
bottom edge of the lamp shade to the table where the lamp was standing,
and the rays made a perfect circle of light on the table as you would
expect such a lamp to do.
But the bulb remained off, the lamp shade itself was dark and the
room was not lit at all even by the light bouncing off the table.
This woke me right up.
Why?
Because in that dream I did not know I was dreaming, and I expected
the lamp to be a something, and I was reaching to it to operate its
cause to increase the light in the room. When I pulled the string, and
light appeared out of nowhere at the bottom edge of the shade down to
the table, I was suddenly hit by the truth that the something I thought
was there, wasn't there at all. How could light appear OUT OF NOTHING,
and the bulb remain off.
This violated something from nothing big time, and the end result
was I woke up.
Of course once awake, I knew that in a dream anything could happen,
even if the bulb had turned on, and the walls had lit up, the light
coming from the bulb wasn't was lighting the walls anyway, as EVERYTHING
in a dream is self luminous.
So I was comfortable again residing in the waking universe of
"true" somethings and I could get on with my day.
Little did I know, eh?
THE SUN AND THE EARTH
Now let's say that the Earth did manage to move in a square around
the Sun. This now needs an explanation, how come it moves in a straight
line for 3 months, and then suddenly turns left, and then follows a
straight line for 3 months more.
This can't happen for no reason because that violates SOMETHING
FROM NOTHING.
We expect, and in fact need, that if a change takes place, then
something prior must have caused the change, and if there is no change
in anything prior to the Earth taking a left, then that's something
coming from nothing.
Something must always come from something!
Changes must always be preceeded by other changes, either internal
or external to the object even if it is just time!
Now God could have created all kinds of 'somethings' to account for
why the Earth changes course suddenly in its orbit to form a square. If
he doesn't, then everyone will be stuck with the non understanding that
comes from things coming from nothing and happening for no reason, and
they would wake up!
Every being naturally seeks the lowest common denominator of the
universe where something and nothing are comfortably conserved.
So what He did do is create a very simple system of conservation.
In this system there are forces and masses, forces and masses are
related by simply mathematical rules whereby forces, which are
something, are allowed to impart motion to or change the courses of
masses, which are ANOTHER COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SOMETHING.
He further said that the force the sun exerts on the Earth is a
function of the sun's mass, and since the sun's mass isn't changing
significantly over time, neither can the force the Sun exerts on the
Earth. Further since the Sun's mass is spherical and there is no
preferred direction, the Sun's force must act equally in all directions
at all times on the Earth, depending only on how far the Earth is from
the sun.
Given the above, the mathematics of the situation inexorably
computes out to an ellipse. Thus if left to their own devices,
celestial objects like to orbit in ellipses, and the apparent somethings
or force and mass are all conserved.
In this case, the apparent somethings are cause and effect, namely
force and mass. Effects with out cause, and causes without effects both
violate something from nothing, and if this actually happened in any
dream universe, the beings in it would wake up to the next universe out
where something and nothing were properly conserved.
Now we already know that there is no mandatory reason that impels a
God to create a dream universe where something and nothing are
conserved.
He can just as easily make the Earth go around in random zig zags,
and let everyone down below know he is doing it out of caprice. There
ARE no actual somethings or nothing to be conserved in any dreamtime, so
the God can do what he wants. But the beings in the dream, including
the God himself when he jumps into his own creation, will have a very
hard time figuring out the rules, and eventually say "Oh screw it" and
wake up on purpose, because they KNOW the universe isn't actual.
You see for a universe to persist for any length of time the beings
in it must think the universe is more actual than they are. It is best
if the beings think they are MADE OF the universe somethings, like being
a brain or some such.
So The God creates dreamtimes that conserve something and nothing
purely out of a practical need, namely to make sure he doesn't wake up
when inside the dream universe.
If his created universe is going persist it's somethings have to be
more conserved than he is!
He can be incipient carrion or dust in the wind, but the oceans and
the rocks will out live him forever.
He won't ever wake up out of that dream!
His dream has to act as if it is actual right down to the last
quark, so he can continue to think he IS an actual machine operating in
an actual space time continuum.
If one single quark doesn't burp in just the right way, and the
dreaming being gets the faintest idea that something is no longer
conserved in an irreconcilable way, he will wake up and lose his dream.
This is why OT powers in the physical universe are really bad for
beings, it wakes them up like a meteor hitting their house.
Some people claim they really want it to happen, but once it does
they wish they could enter the dream again and can't.
The dream's cover has been blow, conservation of something and
nothing.
Homer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Tue Dec 12 01:09:09 EST 2006
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Wednesday, August 20, 2014
ADORE846 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
DEATH ROW
To be fair, I do understand Keith's doubt and frustrations.
It is fine if someone has chosen to be a meatball and thus has NO
evidence of any kind of a trans life existence.
Get the idea there is NO evidence.
Get the idea there is SOME evidence.
Run that for an hour, if you get some evidence you didn't
have before, that will be $10 bucks.
Me, I am rolling in evidence, but its still personal and not
immediately demonstrable to others, all prime directives aside.
I used to be the King of meatballs, but over the years I have had
so many ascension and descension experiences both awake and in dreams,
that the probability that the world itself is not a dream, and that I
have lived only once, fades away into ludicrous improbability.
The point is that IF we are trans life, and Keith may not be, then
not knowing we are trans life implies almost to a certainty that we
chose our own ignorance.
So if Keith is truly a meatball, then there is no proof for him
that he is trans life because he isn't.
If Keith is actually a dreamball dreaming that he is a meatball,
then I have to assume that he chose such ignorance and is making very
sure with that choice, which he does not remember, to exclude any possible
evidence or proof from his waking or dreaming life.
If a being chooses to have amnesia, including amnesia of that
choice, what proof did he leave behind him now?
In either case there is nothing I can or should do about it,
as it would violate his fair chosen choice.
Proving to a non trans life being that I or others might be trans
life beings, would be VERY dangerous to us, as mortals hate eternals.
Mortals hate themselves for being mortal, of course they hate eternals.
Proving to a trans life being in hiding, that he is a trans life
being in hiding, would be very dangerous to him. Maybe not, but I can't
live with maybe's, and in any case I don't OWE him anything, and the
return on investment is in doubt.
Unless he begs for my help and pays my way in time.
And even through the cover of meatball darkness, he had better show
me he is a high return on investment individual, or I won't waste my time.
Wasting my time on him detracts from me wasting my time on me, you
see :)
Mortals tend to sell themselves as a great investment, but you
spend everything you got waking them up, they go eternal for a short
moment, realize why they are in hiding and immediately go back to being
mortal with no thanks and a lot for resentment for the wake up call.
I have presented the proof as the only proof anyone will
ever get out of me except what they might find in an auditing session.
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
"There is only one proof.
Read it, love it, learn it, teach it, all can, but for some it will
be a long time between now and then. You can't move your house around
town if you have locked yourself inside it and thrown away the key.
In Excelsis Deo."
Auditable people in session don't seem to have any problem
understanding they are an instantiation of a multi I-am conscious
Intelligence in carnation, and that the world is a dream.
Whether they believe it or not is a different matter :)
When they do believe it, they feel better, and can look forward to
a long and beautiful future.
When they doubt it, they crash into mortality on death row.
Where is that on the tone scale, and what does it do to the body
waiting for the final end?
It's fine if the brain is secreting crazy glue rather than
intelligent thoughts during its last days, but it is still the life long
result of the being's absolute determination to never be aware of
something ever again at any cost.
Not everyone gets Alzies, but most everyone gets something, without
unburdening the charge of being on death row their entire life.
It is possible that someone can get too far gone to audit, in which
case they are beyond the point of no return in this life, and it is best
to let them go.
They will have another chance, as many as they can stand.
But they will be the worse off for it in their next lives for not
having run out any of the death row charge in this life.
So accessibility diminishes from deceit to deceit.
Homer
In alt.clearing.technology homer@lightlink.com wrote:
> Mea Culpa,
>
> Apparently Earthlings use prove to mean provide evidence.
>
> Such a definition is not in the America Heritage Dictionary of 1976
> and such usage would not be valid in any rigorous field of knowledge or
> law.
>
> Smoking guns with your finger prints on them do not prove you
> pulled the trigger.
>
> English or not, my statement stands, those who confuse proof with
> evidence are unworthy of serious dharma battle.
>
> Homer
>
> In alt.clearing.technology Keith <ksjude@invalid.tld> wrote:
>> Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> People who ask for proof when they mean evidence are not
>>> worth talking to.
>>>
>>> Prove to me you exist.
>>>
>>> Homer
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your powers of word clearing are failing you. Check the dictionary once
>> again.
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Definitions of proof (n.) on the Web:
>>
>> * any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of
>> something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to
>> produce it"
>>
>> -----
>>
>> proof (proof)
>> n.
>> 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion
>> as true.
>> 2.
>> a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as
>> of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially
>> derived conclusions.
>> b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
>> 3.
>> a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his
>> identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
>> b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
>>
>>
>> ----
>>
>>
>> When someone asks for proof, they ARE asking for evidence.
>>
>>
>> I take gross exception to your lofty and rather simplistic assertions
>> regarding Alzheimer's disease. Scientology has been advanced on many
>> occasions as the cure for one physical ailment or another. Unless I'm
>> seriously mistaken, many of these claims have been firmly rebutted.
>>
>> Delude yourself if you wish, I won't stand in your way. Cheers.
>>
>
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 16:36:31 EST 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Aug 20 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore846.memo
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT9EjaURT1lqxE3HERAijZAKCTZQ72Vot9AQr2+I4N72T7aMWfdQCfQzBb
W0e2f9nxSBM2hFUATr06kvA=
=vN2v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
DEATH ROW
To be fair, I do understand Keith's doubt and frustrations.
It is fine if someone has chosen to be a meatball and thus has NO
evidence of any kind of a trans life existence.
Get the idea there is NO evidence.
Get the idea there is SOME evidence.
Run that for an hour, if you get some evidence you didn't
have before, that will be $10 bucks.
Me, I am rolling in evidence, but its still personal and not
immediately demonstrable to others, all prime directives aside.
I used to be the King of meatballs, but over the years I have had
so many ascension and descension experiences both awake and in dreams,
that the probability that the world itself is not a dream, and that I
have lived only once, fades away into ludicrous improbability.
The point is that IF we are trans life, and Keith may not be, then
not knowing we are trans life implies almost to a certainty that we
chose our own ignorance.
So if Keith is truly a meatball, then there is no proof for him
that he is trans life because he isn't.
If Keith is actually a dreamball dreaming that he is a meatball,
then I have to assume that he chose such ignorance and is making very
sure with that choice, which he does not remember, to exclude any possible
evidence or proof from his waking or dreaming life.
If a being chooses to have amnesia, including amnesia of that
choice, what proof did he leave behind him now?
In either case there is nothing I can or should do about it,
as it would violate his fair chosen choice.
Proving to a non trans life being that I or others might be trans
life beings, would be VERY dangerous to us, as mortals hate eternals.
Mortals hate themselves for being mortal, of course they hate eternals.
Proving to a trans life being in hiding, that he is a trans life
being in hiding, would be very dangerous to him. Maybe not, but I can't
live with maybe's, and in any case I don't OWE him anything, and the
return on investment is in doubt.
Unless he begs for my help and pays my way in time.
And even through the cover of meatball darkness, he had better show
me he is a high return on investment individual, or I won't waste my time.
Wasting my time on him detracts from me wasting my time on me, you
see :)
Mortals tend to sell themselves as a great investment, but you
spend everything you got waking them up, they go eternal for a short
moment, realize why they are in hiding and immediately go back to being
mortal with no thanks and a lot for resentment for the wake up call.
I have presented the proof as the only proof anyone will
ever get out of me except what they might find in an auditing session.
http://www.lightlink.com/theproof
"There is only one proof.
Read it, love it, learn it, teach it, all can, but for some it will
be a long time between now and then. You can't move your house around
town if you have locked yourself inside it and thrown away the key.
In Excelsis Deo."
Auditable people in session don't seem to have any problem
understanding they are an instantiation of a multi I-am conscious
Intelligence in carnation, and that the world is a dream.
Whether they believe it or not is a different matter :)
When they do believe it, they feel better, and can look forward to
a long and beautiful future.
When they doubt it, they crash into mortality on death row.
Where is that on the tone scale, and what does it do to the body
waiting for the final end?
It's fine if the brain is secreting crazy glue rather than
intelligent thoughts during its last days, but it is still the life long
result of the being's absolute determination to never be aware of
something ever again at any cost.
Not everyone gets Alzies, but most everyone gets something, without
unburdening the charge of being on death row their entire life.
It is possible that someone can get too far gone to audit, in which
case they are beyond the point of no return in this life, and it is best
to let them go.
They will have another chance, as many as they can stand.
But they will be the worse off for it in their next lives for not
having run out any of the death row charge in this life.
So accessibility diminishes from deceit to deceit.
Homer
In alt.clearing.technology homer@lightlink.com wrote:
> Mea Culpa,
>
> Apparently Earthlings use prove to mean provide evidence.
>
> Such a definition is not in the America Heritage Dictionary of 1976
> and such usage would not be valid in any rigorous field of knowledge or
> law.
>
> Smoking guns with your finger prints on them do not prove you
> pulled the trigger.
>
> English or not, my statement stands, those who confuse proof with
> evidence are unworthy of serious dharma battle.
>
> Homer
>
> In alt.clearing.technology Keith <ksjude@invalid.tld> wrote:
>> Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
>>>
>>> People who ask for proof when they mean evidence are not
>>> worth talking to.
>>>
>>> Prove to me you exist.
>>>
>>> Homer
>>>
>>
>>
>> Your powers of word clearing are failing you. Check the dictionary once
>> again.
>>
>>
>> -----
>> Definitions of proof (n.) on the Web:
>>
>> * any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of
>> something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to
>> produce it"
>>
>> -----
>>
>> proof (proof)
>> n.
>> 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion
>> as true.
>> 2.
>> a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as
>> of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially
>> derived conclusions.
>> b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
>> 3.
>> a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his
>> identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
>> b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
>>
>>
>> ----
>>
>>
>> When someone asks for proof, they ARE asking for evidence.
>>
>>
>> I take gross exception to your lofty and rather simplistic assertions
>> regarding Alzheimer's disease. Scientology has been advanced on many
>> occasions as the cure for one physical ailment or another. Unless I'm
>> seriously mistaken, many of these claims have been firmly rebutted.
>>
>> Delude yourself if you wish, I won't stand in your way. Cheers.
>>
>
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 16:36:31 EST 2011
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Aug 20 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore846.memo
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT9EjaURT1lqxE3HERAijZAKCTZQ72Vot9AQr2+I4N72T7aMWfdQCfQzBb
W0e2f9nxSBM2hFUATr06kvA=
=vN2v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Sunday, August 17, 2014
ADORE10 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
UNIVERSAL AND INDIVIDUAL
Carol, I agree with your Universal/Individual thing, what I am
saying is that each individual has all of the universal in him, thus
there is nothing that another individual can manifest that you can't
grok, because the universal can grok anything it manifests.
Thus being 'rigtheously surprised' for very long about what
another does, either good or bad, is actually missing out on an
opportunity to re integrate that misowned part of one self back into
one's repertoire of ability, willingness and expectations.
If one has an unwillingness about what other's are manifestating,
that is an issue with you, not with them.
If you continue the issue, and make your separation and unwillingness
'right', you will become monster food.
The universal has no such unwillingness, and you will not take
your own unwillingness back into the Universal when you decide to
remerge. It is in fact necessary to eradicate all such
unwillingnesses through humor and understanding in order to remerge
with the Universal and attain enlightenment.
There are no bad guys to the enlightened, only clowns.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clear Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clear Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Aug 17 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore10.memo
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT8FRaURT1lqxE3HERArlrAKCeL53YsZu+df24DZfweuDQkBiuLgCeIMCI
KjOu8UoWhlmZNXVL344CLM4=
=xcpv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
UNIVERSAL AND INDIVIDUAL
Carol, I agree with your Universal/Individual thing, what I am
saying is that each individual has all of the universal in him, thus
there is nothing that another individual can manifest that you can't
grok, because the universal can grok anything it manifests.
Thus being 'rigtheously surprised' for very long about what
another does, either good or bad, is actually missing out on an
opportunity to re integrate that misowned part of one self back into
one's repertoire of ability, willingness and expectations.
If one has an unwillingness about what other's are manifestating,
that is an issue with you, not with them.
If you continue the issue, and make your separation and unwillingness
'right', you will become monster food.
The universal has no such unwillingness, and you will not take
your own unwillingness back into the Universal when you decide to
remerge. It is in fact necessary to eradicate all such
unwillingnesses through humor and understanding in order to remerge
with the Universal and attain enlightenment.
There are no bad guys to the enlightened, only clowns.
Homer
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clear Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clear Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Aug 17 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore10.memo
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT8FRaURT1lqxE3HERArlrAKCeL53YsZu+df24DZfweuDQkBiuLgCeIMCI
KjOu8UoWhlmZNXVL344CLM4=
=xcpv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
SYMPATHY ENGRAMS
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SYMPATHY ENGRAMS
> At 9:33 PM -0500 5/10/98, Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
When the present time is causing the pc to dramatize the
computation that holds his bank in place, he can't move anywhere, and he
can't run where he is on the track cuz he is out of valence DOING IT, or
being in valence benefiting from it.
On Sun, 10 May 1998, Ted Crammer wrote:
> I almost grok this. I don't grok "being in valence benefiting from it."
Contra survival engrams are dramatized out of valence, doing to
others what others did to you.
'Pro' survival engrams (sympathy engrams) are dramatized in
valence, doing what you did and being what you were when you got hurt
but then also received sympathy for it, followed by the emotional
upcurve following the arrival of the golden ally.
The computation is basically some form of 'the way to survive is to
succumb', which pulls in the non survival of the sympathy engram in an
attempt to get the emotional upcurve that follows it. It is this effort
to get up tone by going down tone that is possibly the basic addiction.
The service fac is an action method of withdrawing into a state of
non beingness in the effort to get others to coax one back into a state
of beingness. AP&A
The withdrawing into non beingness is the state the pc was in
during the sympathy incident which elicted the sympathy response from
the golden ally. This withdrawing into a state of non beingness is
dramatizing the engram in valence.
The desired coaxing back into beingness is what the golden ally did
in the original sympathy engram incident and is what caused the later
emotional upcurve, to which the pc is addicted and which the pc is
trying to realize again.
The ally computation is the last to be given up on the case.
With it goes the addiction to doing well by not doing well.
Everything else prior to giving up the ally computation is a waste
of time except to the degree that it empowers the pc to dramatize in
valence more and elicit more accurate duplicates of the sympathy and
help that he craves, and/or disengage from the arenas of life that
endanger him, namely his own basic goals.
Both will create the apparency of 'doing better in life'. It's a
form of climbing the mountain while the continent sinks.
He is surviving by not playing his most important games.
One wins by reaching, he is trying to by withdrawing and getting
others to coax him back into reaching and to reach FOR HIM.
He survies by recruiting others to play for him.
This is why long term continuous auditing is actually bad for
people unless the central computation is blown. They merely become
better dramatizers and recruiters, and/or substituters.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Aug 16 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom22.memo
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.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT7wLaURT1lqxE3HERAkIvAKCGrV9bP7RJhHhiwT8qrBfXqVmU1QCgqFhq
qC1XHxfvjwtIQ6aKfxXd1ug=
=F/oK
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Aug 17 21:43:06 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom22.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT8VorURT1lqxE3HERArx3AKDYXXyjb2/g6El2gZrA1blPQDdwFwCgkxPi
5IyIPU4h3xnfnwCuok0eXWo=
=R8xV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SYMPATHY ENGRAMS
> At 9:33 PM -0500 5/10/98, Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
When the present time is causing the pc to dramatize the
computation that holds his bank in place, he can't move anywhere, and he
can't run where he is on the track cuz he is out of valence DOING IT, or
being in valence benefiting from it.
On Sun, 10 May 1998, Ted Crammer wrote:
> I almost grok this. I don't grok "being in valence benefiting from it."
Contra survival engrams are dramatized out of valence, doing to
others what others did to you.
'Pro' survival engrams (sympathy engrams) are dramatized in
valence, doing what you did and being what you were when you got hurt
but then also received sympathy for it, followed by the emotional
upcurve following the arrival of the golden ally.
The computation is basically some form of 'the way to survive is to
succumb', which pulls in the non survival of the sympathy engram in an
attempt to get the emotional upcurve that follows it. It is this effort
to get up tone by going down tone that is possibly the basic addiction.
The service fac is an action method of withdrawing into a state of
non beingness in the effort to get others to coax one back into a state
of beingness. AP&A
The withdrawing into non beingness is the state the pc was in
during the sympathy incident which elicted the sympathy response from
the golden ally. This withdrawing into a state of non beingness is
dramatizing the engram in valence.
The desired coaxing back into beingness is what the golden ally did
in the original sympathy engram incident and is what caused the later
emotional upcurve, to which the pc is addicted and which the pc is
trying to realize again.
The ally computation is the last to be given up on the case.
With it goes the addiction to doing well by not doing well.
Everything else prior to giving up the ally computation is a waste
of time except to the degree that it empowers the pc to dramatize in
valence more and elicit more accurate duplicates of the sympathy and
help that he craves, and/or disengage from the arenas of life that
endanger him, namely his own basic goals.
Both will create the apparency of 'doing better in life'. It's a
form of climbing the mountain while the continent sinks.
He is surviving by not playing his most important games.
One wins by reaching, he is trying to by withdrawing and getting
others to coax him back into reaching and to reach FOR HIM.
He survies by recruiting others to play for him.
This is why long term continuous auditing is actually bad for
people unless the central computation is blown. They merely become
better dramatizers and recruiters, and/or substituters.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Aug 16 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom22.memo
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.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT7wLaURT1lqxE3HERAkIvAKCGrV9bP7RJhHhiwT8qrBfXqVmU1QCgqFhq
qC1XHxfvjwtIQ6aKfxXd1ug=
=F/oK
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sun Aug 17 21:43:06 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom22.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT8VorURT1lqxE3HERArx3AKDYXXyjb2/g6El2gZrA1blPQDdwFwCgkxPi
5IyIPU4h3xnfnwCuok0eXWo=
=R8xV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
HOM22 (fwd)
repost homer ilovemira hom22
SYMPATHY ENGRAMS
> At 9:33 PM -0500 5/10/98, Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
When the present time is causing the pc to dramatize the
computation that holds his bank in place, he can't move anywhere, and he
can't run where he is on the track cuz he is out of valence DOING IT, or
being in valence benefiting from it.
On Sun, 10 May 1998, Ted Crammer wrote:
> I almost grok this. I don't grok "being in valence benefiting from it."
Contra survival engrams are dramatized out of valence, doing to
others what others did to you.
'Pro' survival engrams (sympathy engrams) are dramatized in
valence, doing what you did and being what you were when you got hurt
but then also received sympathy for it, followed by the emotional
upcurve following the arrival of the golden ally.
The computation is basically some form of 'the way to survive is to
succumb', which pulls in the non survival of the sympathy engram in an
attempt to get the emotional upcurve that follows it. It is this effort
to get up tone by going down tone that is possibly the basic addiction.
The service fac is an action method of withdrawing into a state of
non beingness in the effort to get others to coax one back into a state
of beingness. AP&A
The withdrawing into non beingness is the state the pc was in
during the sympathy incident which elicted the sympathy response from
the golden ally. This withdrawing into a state of non beingness is
dramatizing the engram in valence.
The desired coaxing back into beingness is what the golden ally did
in the original sympathy engram incident and is what caused the later
emotional upcurve, to which the pc is addicted and which the pc is
trying to realize again.
The ally computation is the last to be given up on the case.
With it goes the addiction to doing well by not doing well.
Everything else prior to giving up the ally computation is a waste
of time except to the degree that it empowers the pc to dramatize in
valence more and elicit more accurate duplicates of the sympathy and
help that he craves, and/or disengage from the arenas of life that
endanger him, namely his own basic goals.
Both will create the apparency of 'doing better in life'. It's a
form of climbing the mountain while the continent sinks.
He is surviving by not playing his most important games.
One wins by reaching, he is trying to by withdrawing and getting
others to coax him back into reaching and to reach FOR HIM.
He survies by recruiting others to play for him.
This is why long term continuous auditing is actually bad for
people unless the central computation is blown. They merely become
better dramatizers and recruiters, and/or substituters.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Aug 16 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom22.memo
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT7wLaURT1lqxE3HERAkIvAKCGrV9bP7RJhHhiwT8qrBfXqVmU1QCgqFhq
qC1XHxfvjwtIQ6aKfxXd1ug=
=F/oK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
SYMPATHY ENGRAMS
> At 9:33 PM -0500 5/10/98, Homer Wilson Smith wrote:
When the present time is causing the pc to dramatize the
computation that holds his bank in place, he can't move anywhere, and he
can't run where he is on the track cuz he is out of valence DOING IT, or
being in valence benefiting from it.
On Sun, 10 May 1998, Ted Crammer wrote:
> I almost grok this. I don't grok "being in valence benefiting from it."
Contra survival engrams are dramatized out of valence, doing to
others what others did to you.
'Pro' survival engrams (sympathy engrams) are dramatized in
valence, doing what you did and being what you were when you got hurt
but then also received sympathy for it, followed by the emotional
upcurve following the arrival of the golden ally.
The computation is basically some form of 'the way to survive is to
succumb', which pulls in the non survival of the sympathy engram in an
attempt to get the emotional upcurve that follows it. It is this effort
to get up tone by going down tone that is possibly the basic addiction.
The service fac is an action method of withdrawing into a state of
non beingness in the effort to get others to coax one back into a state
of beingness. AP&A
The withdrawing into non beingness is the state the pc was in
during the sympathy incident which elicted the sympathy response from
the golden ally. This withdrawing into a state of non beingness is
dramatizing the engram in valence.
The desired coaxing back into beingness is what the golden ally did
in the original sympathy engram incident and is what caused the later
emotional upcurve, to which the pc is addicted and which the pc is
trying to realize again.
The ally computation is the last to be given up on the case.
With it goes the addiction to doing well by not doing well.
Everything else prior to giving up the ally computation is a waste
of time except to the degree that it empowers the pc to dramatize in
valence more and elicit more accurate duplicates of the sympathy and
help that he craves, and/or disengage from the arenas of life that
endanger him, namely his own basic goals.
Both will create the apparency of 'doing better in life'. It's a
form of climbing the mountain while the continent sinks.
He is surviving by not playing his most important games.
One wins by reaching, he is trying to by withdrawing and getting
others to coax him back into reaching and to reach FOR HIM.
He survies by recruiting others to play for him.
This is why long term continuous auditing is actually bad for
people unless the central computation is blown. They merely become
better dramatizers and recruiters, and/or substituters.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Aug 16 03:06:01 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom22.memo
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT7wLaURT1lqxE3HERAkIvAKCGrV9bP7RJhHhiwT8qrBfXqVmU1QCgqFhq
qC1XHxfvjwtIQ6aKfxXd1ug=
=F/oK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE109
PSYCHOSIS
Homer:
>> But Adore says it ain't forever really, only as long as the
>> thetan can stand being wrong. The only way a thetan can end up in
>> hell is to wish something or someone else into hell forever. The
>> being doing so, ends up in hell forever himself or until he gives up
>> wishing it off onto others.
Neal Pardoe (neal.pardoe@clara.co.uk) wrote:
>So does this apply to you when you wish the UCPeony to burn forever?
Yes.
It applies to everyone.
It's actually a problem in technics, all manifestation exists in a
space/time game stream called a 'WHILE'. It has a beginning and an end.
Thus ALL heavens, hells, lives etc MUST end one day with return of all
theta back to Native State. There is no choice in this matter. Or more
accurately there is choice but there can be no other choice, because
theta could not, would not and should not choose it any other way.
Once back in Native State with all prior record erased, a theta
group can choose to manifest again for a WHILE. But its a new while.
Thetan's like to play games for a WHILE.
So the minute a thetan gets into dramatizing destroying or harming
another FOREVER you have a lie, for the forever can not exist. It also
means he has lost his last shred of affinity for his opponent, 'you
should never have existed and I will make sure you never exist again.'
That defines psychosis.
Psychosis is the exact moment a being becomes totally devoted to
stopping something he considers he never started.
The way to stop anything is to start it again, the perfect
duplicate.
So if someone is refusing to restart something he doesn't want any
more, he will get stuck with it forever (or as long as he continues in
that lunacy).
By starting it again, the being is taking full responsibility for
the thing existing, including WILLINGNESS and appreciation for it having
existed, and thus restablishes sovereign affinity over its existence,
"Hey I may want to destroy you, but I WANT YOU TO BE THERE SO I CAN PLAY
THE GAME OF DESTROYING YOU!", so he can end it any time by merely
letting go.
As long as the being maintains full control over and responsibility
for the START -> CHANGE -> STOP part of the cycle on any object, he can
re START it and thus stop it.
But the moment he lets go of the start part of the cycle and ONLY
wants to change or stop it, and refuses to re START it, and denies that
he started it in the first place, or says it was a mistake, or he didn't
know the consequences etc, and swears he will never do that again, he
thus loses control over the item and can no longer stop it.
The only way to stop something is to re start it. If you are
unwilling to restart something, you can't stop it.
Being stuck with an object forever IS hell forever. That might not
seem obvious, but ANY forever (in time) existence, any Eternally On
state is the definition of Hell even if its with 40 dripping virgins.
Beings stuck in hell, or an eternally On state end up wishing death
on themselves which is eternally off. That's doubly buried you see.
So dramatization is any effort to have or not have something
FOREVER as it violates the fundamental nature of manifestation which is
FOR A WHILE.
You can have anything you want for a while, you can't have
anything at all forever.
As long a the being remains in control of and willing to START
AND STOP something, he remains sane on that subject and can start and
stop it.
The second he wants to stop something forever and NEVER start it
again, or even start something forever and never stop it again, he is
psycho and will get stuck with the opposite of what he is trying to
do.
You see if he starts something he doesn't want stopped forever,
and it stops, then he refuses responsibility and willingness to have
stopped it, he is refusing control over what did stop it, so that
remains out of his control. So he parks himself in starting something,
(gotta have peace, gotta hvae peace forever and ever amen!), but
this other thing keeps stopping peace and making war, so he can't
do anything about it.
If he parks himself in start forever, he can't stop any more, so
he can't start what's stopping him, so he can't stop what's stopping
him, so he can't stop it from stopping him!
If he parks himself in stop forever, he can't start any more, so
he can't start what he wants to stop, so he can't stop it, as the only
way to stop something is to re start it.
This is why OT's may take sides in a game, but they don't take it
seriously. They prefer the game, they don't prefer that the good guys
win, you see?
The good guys on the other hand, they don't WANT to be playing
this game of fighting evil, they would rather everyone were good!
So they are unwilling to START the game of good and evil, they
are trying to stop evil FOREVER, with no admittance of having started
it with full knowing willing cause in the first place, so of course
the good guys get stuck with the evil forever and eventually get eaten
by evil.
To the degree that good is unwilling to LOCATE the evil where it is,
TO PUT IT THERE before fighting it, good will lose.
It's like any foot ball game, right up front both the good guys
and the bad guys come out on the playing field and shake hands, slap
each other on the back, may the best man win sort of thing, and way
we go into the game. That's a form of ritutal taking full responsibility
for putting the playing field there, putting yourself there, putting
the other opposing team there, and WANTING TO PLAY and then playing.
Audit a 'good' person on the above with evil as the opposing team
and you will find a shivering mass of total irresponsibility
underneath.
The evil guys on the other hand are quite happy chasing good guys
around and eating them, so the evil guys still have their finger on
the START part of creating good guys so there are always more good
guys to eat, so of course the good guys always lose and the evil guys
always win. No other way around it.
This may sound nuts, but evil guys are one level of failure
closer to TRUTH than the good guys. Beings become fixatedly good
AFTER being evil and finally regretting it.
Being good is a solution to having been evil.
Of course below that the good guy, once he sees he is lost and
about to be eaten, will go out of valence and become an evil guy
again. But this time this lower evil guy doesn't really want good
guys to exist, he HATES them and wants them dead forever, so now HE
starts to lose, and eventually becomes a good guy again. Around and
around we go until all become marbles on the thetan plane.
But the original evil was quite willing to be there, and have the
other side there too, in fact it could be said that BOTH sides were
evil, each one trying to eat the other and relishing it.
Above that evil is Authorship, game creation.
So in history you find that the course of nations is to be
predatory on each other, French decide they are poor so they will just
plain TAKE it from Egypt and wipe out Britain in the process.
It's all very cricket and honorable at that level. Everyone
understands even as they are reaming swords through each other.
Animal predation is the natural course of things in human
affairs, each side calls the other side evil, because it is. But then
people grow up, the sight of blood begins to bother them, they begin
to get the feeling this ain't right, so they convert to God or some
such stupid thing and become good. But now they are wishing all the
evil guys into hell forever, so guess who ends up in hell forever?
The evil guys aren't wishing the good into hell forever, just for
a while, to roast them a light brown to make them more yummy to eat.
So the evil guys go off scott free.
You see it is one thing to become good and to decide to no longer
play in the games of evil vs evil. It is quite another to become
'good' and condem evil and wish evil off on evil forever and ever etc.
Then they are cooked forever.
The first is the being rising above the game, he can still
appreciate it, take bets on which side will eat the other side first, be
a spectator, eat pop corn at the games, even help design and continue
the games.
The second is the being falling below the game, "I didn't choose
this, I wouldn't choose this, I shouldn't choose this, I hate evil
forever and my God will send evil to hell forever!"
Take any pc and run,
"Who or what are you wishing to create FOREVER"
"Who or what are you wishing to survive FOREVER"
"Who or what are you wishing to destroy FOREVER"
Also run couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't.
Actually don't run questions, questions kill.
Run instead 'Get the idea of...'
And if you want to really start making some headway against
your covert murderous intent, try the following:
5 WAY BRACKET ON CARING ABOUT OTHERS
"Get the idea of NOT caring about others."
"Get the idea of caring about others."
"Get the idea of others NOT caring about you."
"Get the idea of others caring about you."
"Get the idea of others NOT caring about others."
"Get the idea of others caring about others."
"Get the idea of NOT caring about yourself."
"Get the idea of caring about yourself."
"Get the idea of others NOT caring about themselves."
"Get the idea of others caring about themselves."
The above is future tech not yet written at this time,
so you will have to wait a few years for the rest of it to
be published, but I will give you a hint...
5 WAY BRACKET ON HELP AND HARM
"Get the idea of NOT helping others."
"Get the idea of helping others."
"Get the idea of NOT harming others."
"Get the idea of harming others."
I trust you can reconstruct the remaining flows.
You will start heading towards their core dramatization of
overwhelming others forever as they have been overwhelmed forever.
You see evil guys don't want to overwhelm anyone forever. They
just want a meal. They are quite happy if you come back to feed them
yet again.
The good guys don't want any evil guys around at all forever end of
story. Good guys don't want evil guys coming back again period. So the
good guy gets what he deserves, which is stuck with bad guys forever
more, which is the natural result of denying total responsibility for
his condition (living amongst evil guys) and the original desirability
of that condition (good game).
So the more I wish KP and his asshole coterie into hell forever,
the more I will end up there myself and KP and his shithead friends will
go scott free.
God damn it, foiled again by the laws of persistence!
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
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Homer:
>> But Adore says it ain't forever really, only as long as the
>> thetan can stand being wrong. The only way a thetan can end up in
>> hell is to wish something or someone else into hell forever. The
>> being doing so, ends up in hell forever himself or until he gives up
>> wishing it off onto others.
Neal Pardoe (neal.pardoe@clara.co.uk) wrote:
>So does this apply to you when you wish the UCPeony to burn forever?
Yes.
It applies to everyone.
It's actually a problem in technics, all manifestation exists in a
space/time game stream called a 'WHILE'. It has a beginning and an end.
Thus ALL heavens, hells, lives etc MUST end one day with return of all
theta back to Native State. There is no choice in this matter. Or more
accurately there is choice but there can be no other choice, because
theta could not, would not and should not choose it any other way.
Once back in Native State with all prior record erased, a theta
group can choose to manifest again for a WHILE. But its a new while.
Thetan's like to play games for a WHILE.
So the minute a thetan gets into dramatizing destroying or harming
another FOREVER you have a lie, for the forever can not exist. It also
means he has lost his last shred of affinity for his opponent, 'you
should never have existed and I will make sure you never exist again.'
That defines psychosis.
Psychosis is the exact moment a being becomes totally devoted to
stopping something he considers he never started.
The way to stop anything is to start it again, the perfect
duplicate.
So if someone is refusing to restart something he doesn't want any
more, he will get stuck with it forever (or as long as he continues in
that lunacy).
By starting it again, the being is taking full responsibility for
the thing existing, including WILLINGNESS and appreciation for it having
existed, and thus restablishes sovereign affinity over its existence,
"Hey I may want to destroy you, but I WANT YOU TO BE THERE SO I CAN PLAY
THE GAME OF DESTROYING YOU!", so he can end it any time by merely
letting go.
As long as the being maintains full control over and responsibility
for the START -> CHANGE -> STOP part of the cycle on any object, he can
re START it and thus stop it.
But the moment he lets go of the start part of the cycle and ONLY
wants to change or stop it, and refuses to re START it, and denies that
he started it in the first place, or says it was a mistake, or he didn't
know the consequences etc, and swears he will never do that again, he
thus loses control over the item and can no longer stop it.
The only way to stop something is to re start it. If you are
unwilling to restart something, you can't stop it.
Being stuck with an object forever IS hell forever. That might not
seem obvious, but ANY forever (in time) existence, any Eternally On
state is the definition of Hell even if its with 40 dripping virgins.
Beings stuck in hell, or an eternally On state end up wishing death
on themselves which is eternally off. That's doubly buried you see.
So dramatization is any effort to have or not have something
FOREVER as it violates the fundamental nature of manifestation which is
FOR A WHILE.
You can have anything you want for a while, you can't have
anything at all forever.
As long a the being remains in control of and willing to START
AND STOP something, he remains sane on that subject and can start and
stop it.
The second he wants to stop something forever and NEVER start it
again, or even start something forever and never stop it again, he is
psycho and will get stuck with the opposite of what he is trying to
do.
You see if he starts something he doesn't want stopped forever,
and it stops, then he refuses responsibility and willingness to have
stopped it, he is refusing control over what did stop it, so that
remains out of his control. So he parks himself in starting something,
(gotta have peace, gotta hvae peace forever and ever amen!), but
this other thing keeps stopping peace and making war, so he can't
do anything about it.
If he parks himself in start forever, he can't stop any more, so
he can't start what's stopping him, so he can't stop what's stopping
him, so he can't stop it from stopping him!
If he parks himself in stop forever, he can't start any more, so
he can't start what he wants to stop, so he can't stop it, as the only
way to stop something is to re start it.
This is why OT's may take sides in a game, but they don't take it
seriously. They prefer the game, they don't prefer that the good guys
win, you see?
The good guys on the other hand, they don't WANT to be playing
this game of fighting evil, they would rather everyone were good!
So they are unwilling to START the game of good and evil, they
are trying to stop evil FOREVER, with no admittance of having started
it with full knowing willing cause in the first place, so of course
the good guys get stuck with the evil forever and eventually get eaten
by evil.
To the degree that good is unwilling to LOCATE the evil where it is,
TO PUT IT THERE before fighting it, good will lose.
It's like any foot ball game, right up front both the good guys
and the bad guys come out on the playing field and shake hands, slap
each other on the back, may the best man win sort of thing, and way
we go into the game. That's a form of ritutal taking full responsibility
for putting the playing field there, putting yourself there, putting
the other opposing team there, and WANTING TO PLAY and then playing.
Audit a 'good' person on the above with evil as the opposing team
and you will find a shivering mass of total irresponsibility
underneath.
The evil guys on the other hand are quite happy chasing good guys
around and eating them, so the evil guys still have their finger on
the START part of creating good guys so there are always more good
guys to eat, so of course the good guys always lose and the evil guys
always win. No other way around it.
This may sound nuts, but evil guys are one level of failure
closer to TRUTH than the good guys. Beings become fixatedly good
AFTER being evil and finally regretting it.
Being good is a solution to having been evil.
Of course below that the good guy, once he sees he is lost and
about to be eaten, will go out of valence and become an evil guy
again. But this time this lower evil guy doesn't really want good
guys to exist, he HATES them and wants them dead forever, so now HE
starts to lose, and eventually becomes a good guy again. Around and
around we go until all become marbles on the thetan plane.
But the original evil was quite willing to be there, and have the
other side there too, in fact it could be said that BOTH sides were
evil, each one trying to eat the other and relishing it.
Above that evil is Authorship, game creation.
So in history you find that the course of nations is to be
predatory on each other, French decide they are poor so they will just
plain TAKE it from Egypt and wipe out Britain in the process.
It's all very cricket and honorable at that level. Everyone
understands even as they are reaming swords through each other.
Animal predation is the natural course of things in human
affairs, each side calls the other side evil, because it is. But then
people grow up, the sight of blood begins to bother them, they begin
to get the feeling this ain't right, so they convert to God or some
such stupid thing and become good. But now they are wishing all the
evil guys into hell forever, so guess who ends up in hell forever?
The evil guys aren't wishing the good into hell forever, just for
a while, to roast them a light brown to make them more yummy to eat.
So the evil guys go off scott free.
You see it is one thing to become good and to decide to no longer
play in the games of evil vs evil. It is quite another to become
'good' and condem evil and wish evil off on evil forever and ever etc.
Then they are cooked forever.
The first is the being rising above the game, he can still
appreciate it, take bets on which side will eat the other side first, be
a spectator, eat pop corn at the games, even help design and continue
the games.
The second is the being falling below the game, "I didn't choose
this, I wouldn't choose this, I shouldn't choose this, I hate evil
forever and my God will send evil to hell forever!"
Take any pc and run,
"Who or what are you wishing to create FOREVER"
"Who or what are you wishing to survive FOREVER"
"Who or what are you wishing to destroy FOREVER"
Also run couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't.
Actually don't run questions, questions kill.
Run instead 'Get the idea of...'
And if you want to really start making some headway against
your covert murderous intent, try the following:
5 WAY BRACKET ON CARING ABOUT OTHERS
"Get the idea of NOT caring about others."
"Get the idea of caring about others."
"Get the idea of others NOT caring about you."
"Get the idea of others caring about you."
"Get the idea of others NOT caring about others."
"Get the idea of others caring about others."
"Get the idea of NOT caring about yourself."
"Get the idea of caring about yourself."
"Get the idea of others NOT caring about themselves."
"Get the idea of others caring about themselves."
The above is future tech not yet written at this time,
so you will have to wait a few years for the rest of it to
be published, but I will give you a hint...
5 WAY BRACKET ON HELP AND HARM
"Get the idea of NOT helping others."
"Get the idea of helping others."
"Get the idea of NOT harming others."
"Get the idea of harming others."
I trust you can reconstruct the remaining flows.
You will start heading towards their core dramatization of
overwhelming others forever as they have been overwhelmed forever.
You see evil guys don't want to overwhelm anyone forever. They
just want a meal. They are quite happy if you come back to feed them
yet again.
The good guys don't want any evil guys around at all forever end of
story. Good guys don't want evil guys coming back again period. So the
good guy gets what he deserves, which is stuck with bad guys forever
more, which is the natural result of denying total responsibility for
his condition (living amongst evil guys) and the original desirability
of that condition (good game).
So the more I wish KP and his asshole coterie into hell forever,
the more I will end up there myself and KP and his shithead friends will
go scott free.
God damn it, foiled again by the laws of persistence!
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
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, August 14, 2014
SANDR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
SEPARATION AND RESISTANCE
The good guy tries to change the bad guy but does not want to be the
bad guy. Thus the good guy separates off from being the bad guy into
being only the good guy.
The bad guy wants to harm the good guy but not harm himself, so he
separates off from the good guy into being only the bad guy.
The OT is able to set up both a good guy and a bad guy and let them
go at it with each other, all the while being both.
In being both there is no pain, as pain comes from separation and
resistence.
This is a miraculous state, way beyond most people at this time.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 E-mail, FTP, Shell Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com info@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 14 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sandr
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT7F/aURT1lqxE3HERAuEPAJ0auNJmCtCyuY6KcWpkQYDvwuqHpwCg1Y8s
eIR7GzM1IxV6AkGRjjq+gxE=
=aKeQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
SEPARATION AND RESISTANCE
The good guy tries to change the bad guy but does not want to be the
bad guy. Thus the good guy separates off from being the bad guy into
being only the good guy.
The bad guy wants to harm the good guy but not harm himself, so he
separates off from the good guy into being only the bad guy.
The OT is able to set up both a good guy and a bad guy and let them
go at it with each other, all the while being both.
In being both there is no pain, as pain comes from separation and
resistence.
This is a miraculous state, way beyond most people at this time.
Homer
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 E-mail, FTP, Shell Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com info@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 14 03:06:02 EDT 2014
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sandr
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFT7F/aURT1lqxE3HERAuEPAJ0auNJmCtCyuY6KcWpkQYDvwuqHpwCg1Y8s
eIR7GzM1IxV6AkGRjjq+gxE=
=aKeQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)