-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
LOW REALITY PCS
As the higher reality pcs have left this list for quieter climes,
the remaining people on this list seem to be more and more low reality
pcs.
Past lives don't exist, BT's don't exist, OT powers don't exist,
exteriorization doesn't exist, implants don't exist, personal
responsibility for condition doesn't exist, sovereignty doesn't exist, I
worry I might be a brain, prove it, prove it, prove it...
"I am trying to evolve, not resolve!"
Right.
Doubt is fine, but all this know before you go prove it crap is
not.
Nattering about Hubbard because he dared to tell you what was there
to be had, reflects on you, not him.
If he couldn't deliver and YOU can't deliver, well that's two
strikes and you are out.
If someone has no reality on past lives, then they won't audit why
they can't remember them. An in the absence of auditing past life
charge, either their own, or others, there is no case gain, because real
auditing flat out doesn't work if limited to this life only, the earlier
similars are all ignored as are the earlier others.
*DESIRE IS TO HAVE LIVED BEFORE AND TO LIVE AGAIN.*
If you ain't auditing BT's, you might as well give it up, there are
more of them than there are of you, and man are THEY pissed off and
charged up, mostly at what a dufus their auditor is.
Their auditor is a 'What PC?' case.
The guy who is going 'Prove to me I have lived before' is actually
saying "Prove to me I chose to forget.'
Think about it.
Electra wrote whole tomes about people who think their eyes are bad
because 'it runs in the family gene pool'.
Real nut jobs.
Once a Pre OT starts to be able to see again, he can see damn well
why he can't see and becomes quite happy at NOT being able to see again.
That's how he created it, happy to not see, and that is exactly how
he will uncreate it, happy to not see.
True some people are born blind, but 3 billion eye glass wearers
were not born blind, and anyhow if you were born blind, what are you
doing using a piece of FDA approved meat to see with?
"The hypocrisy on Earth is so thick it is like a wall. You can
hammer nails into it, and hang pictures of smiling faces from them.
FUN stands for Find and UNearthing unearthly hypocrisy." - Adore
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
Sat Aug 18 01:05:46 EDT 2007
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Jul 21 19:13:36 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore.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)
iD8DBQFVrtIgURT1lqxE3HERAnRpAKCntqlX9XWp3kDyjrVAZ2H7c+9flACfaa2L
vF4hJ5VrzmNh3B422mjeXwY=
=1LD8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
ADORE753 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CRITICS AND ASSHOLES
What's the difference between a critic and an asshole?
The critic blows his shit out his mouth.
Now look, I am not opposed to criticism, nor to honest skepticism,
but I am opposed to dangerous idiots and/or dharma criminals who would
destroy the safety of paranormal research whether they know it or not.
It is not in the interest of true critics and skeptics to tolerate
being associated with idiots and mental criminals who claim they are
critics too, but act like jackals and hyenas, motivated by cowardice and
fear, who are only looking out for their own selfish purposes regardless
of the possible consequences to others.
How can you tell an honest skeptic?
They want paranormal abilities to be true.
They can intelligently discuss, implement and enforce a sane prime
directive around the matter to deal with the obvious security issues.
They are not a 'no danger' case.
They can intelligently discuss hypotheticals.
They actually understand science, evidence, theory, prediction,
model, observation and what is verifiable and falsifiable. They know
the difference between existential statements and universal statements,
and which is verifiable and which is falsifiable.
They understand what the point of the argument is, and they never
digress into fighting strawmen.
They understand that the top of the tone scale is the same as the
bottom of the tone scale, the only difference is whether you are
choosing to be there, or think something else is putting you there.
They never engage in bad logic or dharma treason (efforts to cheat
in debate), nor do they ever assert the unassertable, not assert as
proven the unprovable. They never demean or belittle logic or its
absolute description of is and is-not.
They understand that the best way to enable paranormal abilities is
to first understand a theoretical construct, a cosmic world view, in
which they are physically possible.
If they wish they could call it Theory II.
They understand that paranormal abilities come with paranormal
motivations, and that paranormal abilities used with normal motivations
(protection of body, human survival etc) will either not work at all, or
will eventually come a cropper.
They understand that they have no idea whether the world is a dream
or not, and thus no idea whether the physical universe exists including
their eyes and their brain.
They understand they can be perfectly certain of all that they see
and experience in their consciousness, and that a machine can be certain
of nothing. Thus consciousness is not a spacetime gizmo, nor made of a
spacetime gizmo, nor a process in a spacetime gizmo.
They understand that spacetime and its zoo of gizmo's may very well
be a virtualization in a dream shared by many dreamers.
They understand that if the world is a dream, then God is the
dreamers.
They understand that physical materiality is an exquisite theory
killed by an ugly fact, consciousness.
They understand that two different objects can never be certain of
each other. Thus if God and Soul are two different objects, both will
remain forever a theory to the other.
They understand that God and Soul ARE one, that God and Soul do not
BECOME one.
They understand that WHAT THEY WANT TO BE TRUE IN A BEST OF ALL
POSSIBLE WORLDS had better be true, or else if they are eternal beings,
they will suffer their irritation with how things are forever and ever
amen.
Thus they understand that the search for how things are is based on
the search for how they want things to be.
They understand that eternality above space and time is ultimately
perfectly desirable, that immortality down inside time always leads to
hells forever stuck in one time stream, and that delusions of mortality
born of ducking out from a detested immortality.
They understand that the times where we had God power inside the
game all ended up in detested immortalities.
They understand that whiles (time streams) can not last forever,
but must always end one day. Thus there can be no hell forever, nor
heavens forever in time. Hells and heavens however can last a very long
time.
Outside of time there is only unfathomable and unimpingable peace
forever.
Eternality is the ability to enter and leave many different time
whiles forever for free. Once in a time while however, it is usually
all down hill from there.
One can leave any time while by spanning it and putting it there.
They understand that because all time whiles are finite in length,
wishing off or even conceiving of an infinite time while is a violation
of their own sovereign desire, and immediately puts them in the very
hell they are wishing off on others FOREVER.
It reflects on themselves that they hate others.
They understand no hell can outlast a true confession and
repentance. The hells one suffers are those one tried to inflict on
another and still are.
They understand that God and Soul are two different functions of
the same thing, Creator and Creature, God and Soul, Author and
Character, and the being as Creator/God/Author, creates virtual
universes in dreamtime for the ITSELF as Creature/Soul/Character.
They understand that good for an author is not good for a
character.
It is the purpose of the good author to put good and evil there in
grand tapestry and let them have at it.
It is never the purpose of the good character to put evil there,
but it is his resented purpose to have at it anyway.
They understand that because good is unwilling to put evil there,
and is also generally unaware that both good and evil wrote the story as
author, good almost never can win against evil. The way to vanish
anything is to PUT IT THERE, to admit creating it fully, and then do
something else.
If you can author it you can close the book.
They understand that trying hard results from a failure of
postulates.
They understand that the powers to create a universe is in general
used to create games, not play games. Thus if they want the god power
back they need to empower themselves with the correct protocols, which
includes both prime directives and MOTIVATIONS for using the power.
'Helping' people win their games is not one of them. Making a game more
winnable or losable might be. Improving the story of the game always
is.
They understand that proving to someone else that I have power,
will never prove to anyone that THEY can have power too.
They understand that one of the worst fears is that in proving a
power to another, the other will conclude that you do have the power,
but that they never will.
They understand that proving to another that THEY can have power,
is way harder than proving to another that you have power.
They understand that the first good step to proving to another that
they have or can have power is NOT to prove to them that YOU have or can
have power.
They understand that the present state of powerlessness is either
true powerlessness or the result of power used against itself.
They understand the possibility that Earth is a post armegeddon
spiritual war zone and/or sargasso sea like dumping ground for sick,
dead and dying spirits who have given up being spirits and hope for the
grave as a piece of meat.
They understand that certainty of being a spirit comes first, and
ability to operate spiritual powers comes second. They understand that
those seeking to prove that they are spirits through the exercising of
spiritual powers are wasting their time.
They understand that chase is more desirable than having desirable
things in the mere conception of them.
They understand that the purpose of time it to place chase between
sovereign desire and the final having of what is desired.
Time is sovereign desire mildly turned against itself for a while,
by placing chase between conception and having.
They understand that suffering results from attachment to
suffering, nothing else.
They understand that nothing and no one is handing out justice
except their own postulates. Justice is you get what you postulate.
Since you can't get what you don't postulate, justice reigns at all
times.
They understand that desire is sovereign, and that Majesty is the
sovereign desire to not be sovereign FOR A WHILE.
They understand that,
Sovereignty is you want it you got it.
Sovereignty is you got it, you want it.
They understand that belief is for losers, and perfect certainty is
for those who would operate.
Sometimes faith in SELF is necessary to operate without immediately
forthcoming proof. In the end native state IS proof, and has no
problems with faith or trust in self as NOTHING can happen without its
approval and/or direct say so.
They understand an honest skeptic doesn't need to believe anything
of the above, only understand it and want it to be true enough to seek
diligently whether it is true or not in the end.
An honest skeptic understands above all that shit comes out of his
asshole and not his mouth.
Anyone else violating any of the above should be shunned and
disavowed publicly by both sides.
It would be better to sleep in a bed full of black widows than to
have even one of these septics as a trusted friend.
Homer
04/28/10 Wednesday 6:48pm EST
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Jul 21 18:05:08 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore753.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)
iD8DBQFVrsIVURT1lqxE3HERAp1/AKCEaKHxKKUyp6AyISLWhh8WRXQecwCeO1hL
bFL1tow4EjiGChOEFMdB424=
=SSAh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CRITICS AND ASSHOLES
What's the difference between a critic and an asshole?
The critic blows his shit out his mouth.
Now look, I am not opposed to criticism, nor to honest skepticism,
but I am opposed to dangerous idiots and/or dharma criminals who would
destroy the safety of paranormal research whether they know it or not.
It is not in the interest of true critics and skeptics to tolerate
being associated with idiots and mental criminals who claim they are
critics too, but act like jackals and hyenas, motivated by cowardice and
fear, who are only looking out for their own selfish purposes regardless
of the possible consequences to others.
How can you tell an honest skeptic?
They want paranormal abilities to be true.
They can intelligently discuss, implement and enforce a sane prime
directive around the matter to deal with the obvious security issues.
They are not a 'no danger' case.
They can intelligently discuss hypotheticals.
They actually understand science, evidence, theory, prediction,
model, observation and what is verifiable and falsifiable. They know
the difference between existential statements and universal statements,
and which is verifiable and which is falsifiable.
They understand what the point of the argument is, and they never
digress into fighting strawmen.
They understand that the top of the tone scale is the same as the
bottom of the tone scale, the only difference is whether you are
choosing to be there, or think something else is putting you there.
They never engage in bad logic or dharma treason (efforts to cheat
in debate), nor do they ever assert the unassertable, not assert as
proven the unprovable. They never demean or belittle logic or its
absolute description of is and is-not.
They understand that the best way to enable paranormal abilities is
to first understand a theoretical construct, a cosmic world view, in
which they are physically possible.
If they wish they could call it Theory II.
They understand that paranormal abilities come with paranormal
motivations, and that paranormal abilities used with normal motivations
(protection of body, human survival etc) will either not work at all, or
will eventually come a cropper.
They understand that they have no idea whether the world is a dream
or not, and thus no idea whether the physical universe exists including
their eyes and their brain.
They understand they can be perfectly certain of all that they see
and experience in their consciousness, and that a machine can be certain
of nothing. Thus consciousness is not a spacetime gizmo, nor made of a
spacetime gizmo, nor a process in a spacetime gizmo.
They understand that spacetime and its zoo of gizmo's may very well
be a virtualization in a dream shared by many dreamers.
They understand that if the world is a dream, then God is the
dreamers.
They understand that physical materiality is an exquisite theory
killed by an ugly fact, consciousness.
They understand that two different objects can never be certain of
each other. Thus if God and Soul are two different objects, both will
remain forever a theory to the other.
They understand that God and Soul ARE one, that God and Soul do not
BECOME one.
They understand that WHAT THEY WANT TO BE TRUE IN A BEST OF ALL
POSSIBLE WORLDS had better be true, or else if they are eternal beings,
they will suffer their irritation with how things are forever and ever
amen.
Thus they understand that the search for how things are is based on
the search for how they want things to be.
They understand that eternality above space and time is ultimately
perfectly desirable, that immortality down inside time always leads to
hells forever stuck in one time stream, and that delusions of mortality
born of ducking out from a detested immortality.
They understand that the times where we had God power inside the
game all ended up in detested immortalities.
They understand that whiles (time streams) can not last forever,
but must always end one day. Thus there can be no hell forever, nor
heavens forever in time. Hells and heavens however can last a very long
time.
Outside of time there is only unfathomable and unimpingable peace
forever.
Eternality is the ability to enter and leave many different time
whiles forever for free. Once in a time while however, it is usually
all down hill from there.
One can leave any time while by spanning it and putting it there.
They understand that because all time whiles are finite in length,
wishing off or even conceiving of an infinite time while is a violation
of their own sovereign desire, and immediately puts them in the very
hell they are wishing off on others FOREVER.
It reflects on themselves that they hate others.
They understand no hell can outlast a true confession and
repentance. The hells one suffers are those one tried to inflict on
another and still are.
They understand that God and Soul are two different functions of
the same thing, Creator and Creature, God and Soul, Author and
Character, and the being as Creator/God/Author, creates virtual
universes in dreamtime for the ITSELF as Creature/Soul/Character.
They understand that good for an author is not good for a
character.
It is the purpose of the good author to put good and evil there in
grand tapestry and let them have at it.
It is never the purpose of the good character to put evil there,
but it is his resented purpose to have at it anyway.
They understand that because good is unwilling to put evil there,
and is also generally unaware that both good and evil wrote the story as
author, good almost never can win against evil. The way to vanish
anything is to PUT IT THERE, to admit creating it fully, and then do
something else.
If you can author it you can close the book.
They understand that trying hard results from a failure of
postulates.
They understand that the powers to create a universe is in general
used to create games, not play games. Thus if they want the god power
back they need to empower themselves with the correct protocols, which
includes both prime directives and MOTIVATIONS for using the power.
'Helping' people win their games is not one of them. Making a game more
winnable or losable might be. Improving the story of the game always
is.
They understand that proving to someone else that I have power,
will never prove to anyone that THEY can have power too.
They understand that one of the worst fears is that in proving a
power to another, the other will conclude that you do have the power,
but that they never will.
They understand that proving to another that THEY can have power,
is way harder than proving to another that you have power.
They understand that the first good step to proving to another that
they have or can have power is NOT to prove to them that YOU have or can
have power.
They understand that the present state of powerlessness is either
true powerlessness or the result of power used against itself.
They understand the possibility that Earth is a post armegeddon
spiritual war zone and/or sargasso sea like dumping ground for sick,
dead and dying spirits who have given up being spirits and hope for the
grave as a piece of meat.
They understand that certainty of being a spirit comes first, and
ability to operate spiritual powers comes second. They understand that
those seeking to prove that they are spirits through the exercising of
spiritual powers are wasting their time.
They understand that chase is more desirable than having desirable
things in the mere conception of them.
They understand that the purpose of time it to place chase between
sovereign desire and the final having of what is desired.
Time is sovereign desire mildly turned against itself for a while,
by placing chase between conception and having.
They understand that suffering results from attachment to
suffering, nothing else.
They understand that nothing and no one is handing out justice
except their own postulates. Justice is you get what you postulate.
Since you can't get what you don't postulate, justice reigns at all
times.
They understand that desire is sovereign, and that Majesty is the
sovereign desire to not be sovereign FOR A WHILE.
They understand that,
Sovereignty is you want it you got it.
Sovereignty is you got it, you want it.
They understand that belief is for losers, and perfect certainty is
for those who would operate.
Sometimes faith in SELF is necessary to operate without immediately
forthcoming proof. In the end native state IS proof, and has no
problems with faith or trust in self as NOTHING can happen without its
approval and/or direct say so.
They understand an honest skeptic doesn't need to believe anything
of the above, only understand it and want it to be true enough to seek
diligently whether it is true or not in the end.
An honest skeptic understands above all that shit comes out of his
asshole and not his mouth.
Anyone else violating any of the above should be shunned and
disavowed publicly by both sides.
It would be better to sleep in a bed full of black widows than to
have even one of these septics as a trusted friend.
Homer
04/28/10 Wednesday 6:48pm EST
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Jul 21 18:05:08 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore753.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)
iD8DBQFVrsIVURT1lqxE3HERAp1/AKCEaKHxKKUyp6AyISLWhh8WRXQecwCeO1hL
bFL1tow4EjiGChOEFMdB424=
=SSAh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, July 16, 2015
ADORE439 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FINAL PROCESS II
This is brilliant with the one exception that "What?" questions
suck rocks.
Run NO and SOME on all items mentioned below.
Oh, and yeah, there is a lot of sorrow on a case, enough to
fill the atlantic ocean, so this process will run for a while.
Ship tears to Japan to cool the nuclear reactors that blew up.
Homer
FINAL PROCESS II
The final process is hardly the final process and makes no claim to
be the one and only needed process. It is just a name. Hey I write
what I am told.
In looking over The Final Process (TFP), it shows many similarities
to UCP, the Universal Clearing Process.
UCP also runs past, present and future, but adds comparisons
which the final process does not.
TFP also runs both sides of the dicom which UCP does not.
The wording of the commands are also subtly different.
UCP: Where have you been? Where are you? Where could you be?
TFP: What has been? What is? What will be?
The greatest difference of significance is in the future set.
What could be is as different from what will be, as what could
have been is from what has been.
UCP's rendition is more creative postulating, while TFP tries to
get at fixed postulates about the future.
It occurs to me that one might as well conceed the difference and
run could, would and should, along with did.
Would has two different meanings in english. The first is the
subjunctive, what would you do if...
The second is the absolute meaning of want or desire, what I would
have be is what I want to have be.
We are trying to run this last one, but the grammer is hard.
Also could can intimate good possibilities, but also other
determined and thus bad possibilities.
TFP II
What was? What is? What will be?
What was not? What is not? What will not be?
What could have been? What could be now? What could be in the future?
What could not have been? What could not be now? What could not be in the future?
What should have been? What should be now? What should be in the future?
What should not have been? What should not be now? What should not be in the future?
What would you have been? What would you have be now? What would you have be in the future.
What would you not have been? What would you have not be now? WHat would you have not be in the future.
The final process asserts that the past will not run, only the
future will run.
This is echoed in the idea that one should not run ARCX processes,
and that running the positive pleasure moments will bring up the
negative painful moments.
Just so, running the future will bring up the past but running the
past alone will produce a jam.
The theory behind these assertions comes directly from Hubbardian
Orthodoxy.
The pc has tried to solve the future by withdrawing into the past.
Specifically he either accidentlly or was provoked into committing
an overt act, but in over doing it, he regretted it, and tried to
withdraw back to before the event happened, in order to make it never
have happened.
Thus the pc is already in the past, prior to the incident he needs
to run out.
That's why he can't remember his anger/regret cycles.
Ostensibly auditing then tries to get the pc to withdraw into his
past again in order to spot the place in his past where he withdrew to,
in order to unmake the postulates he made that being in the past is a
good thing.
This approach might sound good on paper, but the more direct way to
get the pc to spot the past is to get him to walk forward into the
future.
Then he will remember why he wants to hide in the past!
Emotion and all.
Here is the reason why.
The pc is already earlier in the past than he needs to run, and
he is more than happy to withdraw even deeper into the past in order
to 'go looking for' the incident he needs to run, which of course he
will never find. Relative to the pc's position on his own time track,
the incident he needs to run is in his future!
He HAS no existence at or after that incident, so when you ask him
to locate anything in his past, what he finds is always earlier than he
is stuck, and thus produces nothing but missed or bypassed charge from
the incident in his future that he is backing away from.
So the only way out of the past is to walk forward into the future.
Even if that future is still in the past of every one else!
Now it would be nice to ask the pc to mockup a future he would
want, but he no longer has a clue what a future could look like.
Its not that he knows what he wants but thinks he can't have it,
that would be high tone. No, the pc has no clue what he wants, or could
want. Can't even imagine it, no idea what ARC or pleasure really are.
Sometimes a guy just has to spend a few years with a few cats to
learn what love is all over again.
So by running what will be, the pc will be spotting the effects
of his own postulates, and they can be pretty grim, but the EMOTION
will come off it and the effort. He can't cry about past deaths, but
he sure as hell can bawl projectile tears about future deaths.
Sorrow is love in loss.
So by recovering his sorrow for him, you recover his love, then
you can start to build a new future with 'would be' and 'could be'
rather than 'will be.'
Once the pc cognites how this all works, and it won't take long,
they will be able to solo the process with life as the C/S.
Look to your future, and you will find your past.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jul 16 22:07:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore439.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)
iD8DBQFVqGNHURT1lqxE3HERAicyAJ9GTp4b4i1vY5e0grpBSo5RqL30OgCfQ2ia
ZuXUsIIErfTu0/e0Pe7bmnk=
=T7gk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
FINAL PROCESS II
This is brilliant with the one exception that "What?" questions
suck rocks.
Run NO and SOME on all items mentioned below.
Oh, and yeah, there is a lot of sorrow on a case, enough to
fill the atlantic ocean, so this process will run for a while.
Ship tears to Japan to cool the nuclear reactors that blew up.
Homer
FINAL PROCESS II
The final process is hardly the final process and makes no claim to
be the one and only needed process. It is just a name. Hey I write
what I am told.
In looking over The Final Process (TFP), it shows many similarities
to UCP, the Universal Clearing Process.
UCP also runs past, present and future, but adds comparisons
which the final process does not.
TFP also runs both sides of the dicom which UCP does not.
The wording of the commands are also subtly different.
UCP: Where have you been? Where are you? Where could you be?
TFP: What has been? What is? What will be?
The greatest difference of significance is in the future set.
What could be is as different from what will be, as what could
have been is from what has been.
UCP's rendition is more creative postulating, while TFP tries to
get at fixed postulates about the future.
It occurs to me that one might as well conceed the difference and
run could, would and should, along with did.
Would has two different meanings in english. The first is the
subjunctive, what would you do if...
The second is the absolute meaning of want or desire, what I would
have be is what I want to have be.
We are trying to run this last one, but the grammer is hard.
Also could can intimate good possibilities, but also other
determined and thus bad possibilities.
TFP II
What was? What is? What will be?
What was not? What is not? What will not be?
What could have been? What could be now? What could be in the future?
What could not have been? What could not be now? What could not be in the future?
What should have been? What should be now? What should be in the future?
What should not have been? What should not be now? What should not be in the future?
What would you have been? What would you have be now? What would you have be in the future.
What would you not have been? What would you have not be now? WHat would you have not be in the future.
The final process asserts that the past will not run, only the
future will run.
This is echoed in the idea that one should not run ARCX processes,
and that running the positive pleasure moments will bring up the
negative painful moments.
Just so, running the future will bring up the past but running the
past alone will produce a jam.
The theory behind these assertions comes directly from Hubbardian
Orthodoxy.
The pc has tried to solve the future by withdrawing into the past.
Specifically he either accidentlly or was provoked into committing
an overt act, but in over doing it, he regretted it, and tried to
withdraw back to before the event happened, in order to make it never
have happened.
Thus the pc is already in the past, prior to the incident he needs
to run out.
That's why he can't remember his anger/regret cycles.
Ostensibly auditing then tries to get the pc to withdraw into his
past again in order to spot the place in his past where he withdrew to,
in order to unmake the postulates he made that being in the past is a
good thing.
This approach might sound good on paper, but the more direct way to
get the pc to spot the past is to get him to walk forward into the
future.
Then he will remember why he wants to hide in the past!
Emotion and all.
Here is the reason why.
The pc is already earlier in the past than he needs to run, and
he is more than happy to withdraw even deeper into the past in order
to 'go looking for' the incident he needs to run, which of course he
will never find. Relative to the pc's position on his own time track,
the incident he needs to run is in his future!
He HAS no existence at or after that incident, so when you ask him
to locate anything in his past, what he finds is always earlier than he
is stuck, and thus produces nothing but missed or bypassed charge from
the incident in his future that he is backing away from.
So the only way out of the past is to walk forward into the future.
Even if that future is still in the past of every one else!
Now it would be nice to ask the pc to mockup a future he would
want, but he no longer has a clue what a future could look like.
Its not that he knows what he wants but thinks he can't have it,
that would be high tone. No, the pc has no clue what he wants, or could
want. Can't even imagine it, no idea what ARC or pleasure really are.
Sometimes a guy just has to spend a few years with a few cats to
learn what love is all over again.
So by running what will be, the pc will be spotting the effects
of his own postulates, and they can be pretty grim, but the EMOTION
will come off it and the effort. He can't cry about past deaths, but
he sure as hell can bawl projectile tears about future deaths.
Sorrow is love in loss.
So by recovering his sorrow for him, you recover his love, then
you can start to build a new future with 'would be' and 'could be'
rather than 'will be.'
Once the pc cognites how this all works, and it won't take long,
they will be able to solo the process with life as the C/S.
Look to your future, and you will find your past.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jul 16 22:07:02 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore439.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)
iD8DBQFVqGNHURT1lqxE3HERAicyAJ9GTp4b4i1vY5e0grpBSo5RqL30OgCfQ2ia
ZuXUsIIErfTu0/e0Pe7bmnk=
=T7gk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
AUDITING TECHNIQUE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
AUDITING TECHNIQUE
> But if you carefully read "Advanced Procedures and Axioms" and evaluate each
> datum as you read it,
Consider advanced procedure a compendium of present time state of the
art technology at that moment of time it was published, which then also
included the Axiohms done much earlier with out correction.
DATE, DATE, DATE, when was APA published, when were the dianetic
axioms first published, when were the Scn axioms first published?
Menken: Consistency is the hob goblin of little minds...
>
> This is what, I would say, for the lack of a better way to express it,Â
> bothers me as for quality of text and data.
I would say probably right, your expectations do not match the
historic context in which all this was first created.
The theory changed and molted as time and experience went on, no
theory of antomy is right, just workable according to the approach it
engenders to fix the anatomy of the problem.
Hubbard was just a guy, when and if you get the red volumes he totally
reverses on a whole lot of things, its only on the tapes does he admit the
inconsistences, like engrams are entities holding a picture in force. He
admits that once all the Dianetic Engrams are gone, 50 percent of the
entities are gone because the engrams were being created by the entites.
Thus what's real is engrams of force and data, but what's actual are
living conscious units, small thetans, blowing mockups of force and mass
your way. Since things persist as long as they aren't granted life,
conscious life, not mest life, the bank never erases except by luck by
running engrams as force and mass. Ask the entity what he wants for
dinner is more productive to get the engram to top being pushed in your
face by the guy.
Thus Dianetics could be run as NOTS if the preclear had the confront
to see that every stitch of his existence is an interweave of LIFE, and
not force and mass, and that life is not biological life, real life has
nothing whatsoever to do with 6th dynamic force and mass.
Real life is spirit 7th dynamic and above. 6th dynamic is dream time.
> > How does being endangered make you safe?
> > How does being safe make you dangerous?
> > How does being safe make you endangered?
>
>
> Here above you give questions to run.
Yes, its a standard way to present, with the caveat that most preclears
can't handle questions. Run by creative conception brings the questions up.
> > Don't run with questions/answers, run with "Get the idea of being
> > safe, dangerous, endangered, etc."
>
>
>
> Here you say, don't run with questions.
>
> Please explain?
Some people can answer questions and get the right answer, mostly
above Grade III. Who or what can be listed to a correct item.
Below that give it up.
'When did you know a dog?'
'Spot a dog'.
'Get the idea of dog.
Its a gradient scale from remembering to creating. Trying to
remember into the black cloud of forgetfulness just doesn't work,
its an effort vs effort game which the preclear will lose.
Get the preclear creating dogs left and right, and he will damn
well remember the one that he's crazy about long ago, you see?
He's creating NOT KNOW on top of overts. So you are wasting your time
asking 'what have you done', he doesn't the fuck know.
Asking 'what are you not knowing' doesn't work because its not
a duplication of the not know!
He isn't asking a question, he's not knowing!
YOu don't want him to ask a question about the not knowing, you
want him to duplicatge his not know and not know he is doing so!
Telling him to 'Not knowing something and don't know what it is, and not
know you are not knowing it!" works wildly.
The not-is will start to blow off and his whole bank will start
to appear in front of him, all of it all at once.
For example there is a soopersecret power process run as questions:
Tell me a condition.
What purpose did it serve?
What you are doing to handle that condition?
Try running that some day and you will get NOWHERE, unless you
are very high tone.
But run it this way and you can run it forever, and the forgotten
conditions will show and the preclear won't get bogged down in 'I can't...'
Get the idea of having a condition.
Get the idea that condition might serve a purpose.
Get the idea you are trying to do something about the condition.
No tell me, no question asking, no who how what where when why which, no
trying to remember, just simple creative commands.
Any and all auditing can, should be and sometimes must be
converted from "What's It?" -> "It's a..." to "Get the idea of."
Rather than run what question are you asking? run Get the idea
of having a question.
Rather than "What wrong indication has there been", run "Get the idea of a
wrong indication.
Rather than run 'What have you forgotten', run 'Forget something!'
He won't be able to remember the wrong indication, but he can out
create in present time, at which point it will come forward.
"The way out from under suppressions of invention, it to invent
suppressions of invention until you are out from under the one you are in."
- -Adore
> But, you are contradicting what you said at first, (run present life, what
> PC has attention on)Â which I commented on to generate this comm.
>
> Please explain?
OK, but not present LIFE, the present across all dynamics some of
which is eternally timeless. His case is a totall ball of charge made up
moments of unconfronted unwillingness in the past, the present and the
future, and the co eternal NOW, it may be mostly about the future but it
is all going on now.
His GOALS (future) stick him to using that charge to defend and
make wrong, to win by losing, gaining sympathy and help, etc.
But his goals may be from his actual past, which he, being
even earlier, he sees as his future.
He wants to be a Star Captain, but has despaired on ever being one.
Well that's a joke you see because 100,000,000 years ago he WAS a star
captain, and 200,000,000 years go he thought he would never be one.
So from his point of view, his past is considered to be his future.
If you feel I am really outright contradicting myself, put the
two sentences together for me. show me.
Also literalness of interpretation is indication of lowness of tone, so
try to understand what I am trying to say, and don't go flying with what I
actually say.
Another thing, you are doing very well with all this, certainly
better than most. but all of the stuff I am going over here has been
written over and over and over again over the past 5 years in the
archives. www.clearing.org
This isn't new, and it's all there, nothing is hidden, nothing.
If you were to be so stupid as to read it all in time order from 1995 to
the present you will see questions being used to audit like nobody's business.
But I eventually realized that would never work for me. So after about 2007
say I started to heavily get into auditing COMMANDS and NO/SOME and ANDS and
PUTTING IT THERE and WHILE-ING IT. It starts to really get interesting around
2012 or so.
The bank is made of mis handled questions and wrong answers,
thus the bank is the LAST thing you want to ask a question of,
including "What question am I ..." type questions.
Even running 'What question do I have?' doesn't work, because ITS A
QUESTION!
Every question you ask retims the entire bank!
The idea is to stop dramatizing asking questions entirely,
native state knows no need to answer questions.
And its a serious trap to think you have to answer a question to
stop asking it.
But WHATS IT? is the worst question of all except maybe WHY IS IT?
and ALL of Scn is based and defined on the WHATS IT? - IT'S A cycle.
So Scn guaranteedly restims the bank, but only by luck is the
preclear able to answer any of them, usually each auditing command
becomes a loss, because HE CAN'T ANSWER THE AUDITING QUESTION.
So they run 3000 hours of CCH's on him, then declear him suppressive
so they have to ask him any more quesitons he can't answer, and he leaves
all relieved that he doesn't have to try to answer any more questions
ever again.
Instead of 3000 hours of CCH's, just run this instead:
"Tell me about your future."
Oh no, having a future is out gradient for him, you see, expecially
one can he PUT IT THERE for a WHILE, so he will gladly pass the book back
and forth to you on CCH's until the cows come home.
And in truth I would run,
Get the idea of a future.
Get the idea of a present.
Get the idea of a past.
For anyone anywhere anywhen.
All he has to do is do it, and say OK. If he wants
to TELL YOU ABOUT IT, that's fine, but the auditing doesn't
demand it.
Believe me he will tell you about it after a few commands
and never shut up again.
Homer
- --8323328-590617400-1437097201=:27754--
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jul 16 21:56:05 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore972.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)
iD8DBQFVqGC1URT1lqxE3HERAgixAJ428PfReUvu50v/B9TZGJ5UxXZaxwCdGuoa
pAlrQo3BBnd3bU5mRdiMk98=
=eQYz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
AUDITING TECHNIQUE
> But if you carefully read "Advanced Procedures and Axioms" and evaluate each
> datum as you read it,
Consider advanced procedure a compendium of present time state of the
art technology at that moment of time it was published, which then also
included the Axiohms done much earlier with out correction.
DATE, DATE, DATE, when was APA published, when were the dianetic
axioms first published, when were the Scn axioms first published?
Menken: Consistency is the hob goblin of little minds...
>
> This is what, I would say, for the lack of a better way to express it,Â
> bothers me as for quality of text and data.
I would say probably right, your expectations do not match the
historic context in which all this was first created.
The theory changed and molted as time and experience went on, no
theory of antomy is right, just workable according to the approach it
engenders to fix the anatomy of the problem.
Hubbard was just a guy, when and if you get the red volumes he totally
reverses on a whole lot of things, its only on the tapes does he admit the
inconsistences, like engrams are entities holding a picture in force. He
admits that once all the Dianetic Engrams are gone, 50 percent of the
entities are gone because the engrams were being created by the entites.
Thus what's real is engrams of force and data, but what's actual are
living conscious units, small thetans, blowing mockups of force and mass
your way. Since things persist as long as they aren't granted life,
conscious life, not mest life, the bank never erases except by luck by
running engrams as force and mass. Ask the entity what he wants for
dinner is more productive to get the engram to top being pushed in your
face by the guy.
Thus Dianetics could be run as NOTS if the preclear had the confront
to see that every stitch of his existence is an interweave of LIFE, and
not force and mass, and that life is not biological life, real life has
nothing whatsoever to do with 6th dynamic force and mass.
Real life is spirit 7th dynamic and above. 6th dynamic is dream time.
> > How does being endangered make you safe?
> > How does being safe make you dangerous?
> > How does being safe make you endangered?
>
>
> Here above you give questions to run.
Yes, its a standard way to present, with the caveat that most preclears
can't handle questions. Run by creative conception brings the questions up.
> > Don't run with questions/answers, run with "Get the idea of being
> > safe, dangerous, endangered, etc."
>
>
>
> Here you say, don't run with questions.
>
> Please explain?
Some people can answer questions and get the right answer, mostly
above Grade III. Who or what can be listed to a correct item.
Below that give it up.
'When did you know a dog?'
'Spot a dog'.
'Get the idea of dog.
Its a gradient scale from remembering to creating. Trying to
remember into the black cloud of forgetfulness just doesn't work,
its an effort vs effort game which the preclear will lose.
Get the preclear creating dogs left and right, and he will damn
well remember the one that he's crazy about long ago, you see?
He's creating NOT KNOW on top of overts. So you are wasting your time
asking 'what have you done', he doesn't the fuck know.
Asking 'what are you not knowing' doesn't work because its not
a duplication of the not know!
He isn't asking a question, he's not knowing!
YOu don't want him to ask a question about the not knowing, you
want him to duplicatge his not know and not know he is doing so!
Telling him to 'Not knowing something and don't know what it is, and not
know you are not knowing it!" works wildly.
The not-is will start to blow off and his whole bank will start
to appear in front of him, all of it all at once.
For example there is a soopersecret power process run as questions:
Tell me a condition.
What purpose did it serve?
What you are doing to handle that condition?
Try running that some day and you will get NOWHERE, unless you
are very high tone.
But run it this way and you can run it forever, and the forgotten
conditions will show and the preclear won't get bogged down in 'I can't...'
Get the idea of having a condition.
Get the idea that condition might serve a purpose.
Get the idea you are trying to do something about the condition.
No tell me, no question asking, no who how what where when why which, no
trying to remember, just simple creative commands.
Any and all auditing can, should be and sometimes must be
converted from "What's It?" -> "It's a..." to "Get the idea of."
Rather than run what question are you asking? run Get the idea
of having a question.
Rather than "What wrong indication has there been", run "Get the idea of a
wrong indication.
Rather than run 'What have you forgotten', run 'Forget something!'
He won't be able to remember the wrong indication, but he can out
create in present time, at which point it will come forward.
"The way out from under suppressions of invention, it to invent
suppressions of invention until you are out from under the one you are in."
- -Adore
> But, you are contradicting what you said at first, (run present life, what
> PC has attention on)Â which I commented on to generate this comm.
>
> Please explain?
OK, but not present LIFE, the present across all dynamics some of
which is eternally timeless. His case is a totall ball of charge made up
moments of unconfronted unwillingness in the past, the present and the
future, and the co eternal NOW, it may be mostly about the future but it
is all going on now.
His GOALS (future) stick him to using that charge to defend and
make wrong, to win by losing, gaining sympathy and help, etc.
But his goals may be from his actual past, which he, being
even earlier, he sees as his future.
He wants to be a Star Captain, but has despaired on ever being one.
Well that's a joke you see because 100,000,000 years ago he WAS a star
captain, and 200,000,000 years go he thought he would never be one.
So from his point of view, his past is considered to be his future.
If you feel I am really outright contradicting myself, put the
two sentences together for me. show me.
Also literalness of interpretation is indication of lowness of tone, so
try to understand what I am trying to say, and don't go flying with what I
actually say.
Another thing, you are doing very well with all this, certainly
better than most. but all of the stuff I am going over here has been
written over and over and over again over the past 5 years in the
archives. www.clearing.org
This isn't new, and it's all there, nothing is hidden, nothing.
If you were to be so stupid as to read it all in time order from 1995 to
the present you will see questions being used to audit like nobody's business.
But I eventually realized that would never work for me. So after about 2007
say I started to heavily get into auditing COMMANDS and NO/SOME and ANDS and
PUTTING IT THERE and WHILE-ING IT. It starts to really get interesting around
2012 or so.
The bank is made of mis handled questions and wrong answers,
thus the bank is the LAST thing you want to ask a question of,
including "What question am I ..." type questions.
Even running 'What question do I have?' doesn't work, because ITS A
QUESTION!
Every question you ask retims the entire bank!
The idea is to stop dramatizing asking questions entirely,
native state knows no need to answer questions.
And its a serious trap to think you have to answer a question to
stop asking it.
But WHATS IT? is the worst question of all except maybe WHY IS IT?
and ALL of Scn is based and defined on the WHATS IT? - IT'S A cycle.
So Scn guaranteedly restims the bank, but only by luck is the
preclear able to answer any of them, usually each auditing command
becomes a loss, because HE CAN'T ANSWER THE AUDITING QUESTION.
So they run 3000 hours of CCH's on him, then declear him suppressive
so they have to ask him any more quesitons he can't answer, and he leaves
all relieved that he doesn't have to try to answer any more questions
ever again.
Instead of 3000 hours of CCH's, just run this instead:
"Tell me about your future."
Oh no, having a future is out gradient for him, you see, expecially
one can he PUT IT THERE for a WHILE, so he will gladly pass the book back
and forth to you on CCH's until the cows come home.
And in truth I would run,
Get the idea of a future.
Get the idea of a present.
Get the idea of a past.
For anyone anywhere anywhen.
All he has to do is do it, and say OK. If he wants
to TELL YOU ABOUT IT, that's fine, but the auditing doesn't
demand it.
Believe me he will tell you about it after a few commands
and never shut up again.
Homer
- --8323328-590617400-1437097201=:27754--
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jul 16 21:56:05 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore972.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)
iD8DBQFVqGC1URT1lqxE3HERAgixAJ428PfReUvu50v/B9TZGJ5UxXZaxwCdGuoa
pAlrQo3BBnd3bU5mRdiMk98=
=eQYz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
PAST, PRESENT FUTURE?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE?
The written word of Scientology is a TRACK of discovery and theory.
Early preclears were most easily audited by getting at the engram,
birth, AA's, dentists, past deaths, muderously marvelous mommy dearest,
because the preclear was HOLDING them in restimulation in present time
to his face, so they were there to be audited.
You can't self audit these because you have to create
them in order to erase them, and the creation is usually from
another valence in one of them!
When engrams are ready to run, they run themselves, they just play
out like a huge block bluster surround sound movie, often in dreams,
with very high very freaky reality. The preclear will be lucky if these
runs are revivs (knows he is returned) and not a relive (thinks it is
actual now.)
Watch the movie 'These final hours' if you need an idea of what a
real engram is like.
Engrams are real, they are first created in the past and continue
on a continuing postulate that they exist unknowingly, they can be
restimulated acutely from present time occurances, again by agreement
that this is a good thing, but are HELD in place chronically by a
decision to do so, first made in the past but continued in present time.
Remember the bank is basically animal in origin, and its a good
thing. Animals restimulate, dramatize and then it all chills out.
Animals never actively keep a restim around into a chronic condition.
Humans do routinely.
Being human in a body IS a chronic condition.
Thus the past is USED in the present to deal with the future.
Auditing the future is way more beneficial than auditing the past.
He will find by auditing the future what he is doing in present time to
pile recorded facsimiles of the past onto him and allow them to run his
life or hurt him.
By auditing the past he will find what was done to him and what he
did and what others did to others, all 5 flows, but he won't find out
WHY its all impinging on him in the present.
Really who cares how many people you ran over accidentally on
purpose because you were drunk.
*THEY* are responsibile for their own condition, and by buying into
the idea that they are poor dear innocent victims, you automatically in
the same breath buy into the idea that YOU aren't fully responsibile for
your own condition too and thus can live in fear of retribution.
You can't elect someone else villain, without electing yourself
victim or ally, and you can't elect someone victim or ally without
electing yourself villain.
Find his service computation in present time which relates to too
much danger or too much safety in the future, and all the past
recordings move away and become just so much pretty but astounding
story.
You won't find the service computation in present time without
auditing the future, which is goals and opp goals and the goal to oppose
all goals in everyone everywhere etc etc.
That last is the war on goals, period.
The war on goals in a big one, and people miss it, because it
collaspes all GPMS into one big mess on the preclear's face until he
can't breath or stand any more.
Once you oppose the goal to oppose all goals, you become
a logical mess rolling down the hill to the tar pit below.
WHAT is in restim is the past.
HOW it is in restim is in the present.
WHY it is in restim is in the future.
Look to the future and you will find the whole causal chain coming
apart in the present because the future is held in fear due to his
PRESENT TIME considerations about the future, which are based in part
upon his experiences in the past.
His two most detested futures are too much danger, loss disaster,
fear, catastophe etc, and too much safety, that is tedium, monotony and
suicidal boredom.
Ask him which is worse, infinite tedium or infinite disaster?
So case is not a ball of one, but a ball of all 3, past, present
and future, which an understanding that postulates may have first been
created in the past, but HE IS POSTULATING THEM NOW either consciously
or implied in his continued quests, or else they wouldn't be affecting
him.
Fear of Worsening, Being an Effect and Ruin are an interesting pass
through, and much is learned watching WHAT HOW and WHY a being does it,
falls down through these 3 apparently never to be seen again.
The preclear is also swapping the order of timed events as fast as
he can create them :)
He will say the reason I hurt you two years ago, is because you
hurt me yesterday. Get it?
His FEAR is shame blame and regret in the FUTURE.
He is also parking himself in the past recordings, thus he is BEING
Joe Blow in 1587 suffering at the hands of the king, all the while
actually being in 2015.
However the REASON he is stuck in the past is because it is safer
than to experience what happened in 1588, you see? That's where who did
what to whom becomes critical to clearing.
If you ask him when all the black stuff is about, he will say 1
year in the future. He doesn't mean 2016, HIS future is 1588! So
sometimes to audit someone's 'future' you need to audit what THEY
consider their future is, which is in their actual past.
Remember the difference between reality and actuality.
You are addressing realities, not the truth.
So yes you want to audit the future, but it may be a future
relative to where he is stuck in a past reality and calling it present
time.
But pretty soon they come to present time, which means they aren't
parking themselves with regret in the past 1587, in order to stop
something from happening in the future 1588.
You will still find them in stark raving mad fear about the future
ahead of 2015 and that will still be carrying a lot of safe solutions
with him in present that are patterned after injuries, sicknesses and
disabilities from his actual past.
He is trying to be safe by being both dangerous and endangered at
the same time.
How does being dangerous make you safe?
How does being endangered make you safe?
How does being safe make you dangerous?
How does being safe make you endangered?
Don't run with questions/answers, run with "Get the idea of being
safe, dangerous, endangered, etc." until he A-Ha!'s himself out using
power to have and not have power.ot have power.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Jul 15 17:13:29 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore971.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)
iD8DBQFVpsz5URT1lqxE3HERAvgLAJ9KdbyWrrDDTXApoOFDbAqDynKw5wCfamyj
7vfAkw1GitjRzLzKWYt1B6Q=
=7lAz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE?
The written word of Scientology is a TRACK of discovery and theory.
Early preclears were most easily audited by getting at the engram,
birth, AA's, dentists, past deaths, muderously marvelous mommy dearest,
because the preclear was HOLDING them in restimulation in present time
to his face, so they were there to be audited.
You can't self audit these because you have to create
them in order to erase them, and the creation is usually from
another valence in one of them!
When engrams are ready to run, they run themselves, they just play
out like a huge block bluster surround sound movie, often in dreams,
with very high very freaky reality. The preclear will be lucky if these
runs are revivs (knows he is returned) and not a relive (thinks it is
actual now.)
Watch the movie 'These final hours' if you need an idea of what a
real engram is like.
Engrams are real, they are first created in the past and continue
on a continuing postulate that they exist unknowingly, they can be
restimulated acutely from present time occurances, again by agreement
that this is a good thing, but are HELD in place chronically by a
decision to do so, first made in the past but continued in present time.
Remember the bank is basically animal in origin, and its a good
thing. Animals restimulate, dramatize and then it all chills out.
Animals never actively keep a restim around into a chronic condition.
Humans do routinely.
Being human in a body IS a chronic condition.
Thus the past is USED in the present to deal with the future.
Auditing the future is way more beneficial than auditing the past.
He will find by auditing the future what he is doing in present time to
pile recorded facsimiles of the past onto him and allow them to run his
life or hurt him.
By auditing the past he will find what was done to him and what he
did and what others did to others, all 5 flows, but he won't find out
WHY its all impinging on him in the present.
Really who cares how many people you ran over accidentally on
purpose because you were drunk.
*THEY* are responsibile for their own condition, and by buying into
the idea that they are poor dear innocent victims, you automatically in
the same breath buy into the idea that YOU aren't fully responsibile for
your own condition too and thus can live in fear of retribution.
You can't elect someone else villain, without electing yourself
victim or ally, and you can't elect someone victim or ally without
electing yourself villain.
Find his service computation in present time which relates to too
much danger or too much safety in the future, and all the past
recordings move away and become just so much pretty but astounding
story.
You won't find the service computation in present time without
auditing the future, which is goals and opp goals and the goal to oppose
all goals in everyone everywhere etc etc.
That last is the war on goals, period.
The war on goals in a big one, and people miss it, because it
collaspes all GPMS into one big mess on the preclear's face until he
can't breath or stand any more.
Once you oppose the goal to oppose all goals, you become
a logical mess rolling down the hill to the tar pit below.
WHAT is in restim is the past.
HOW it is in restim is in the present.
WHY it is in restim is in the future.
Look to the future and you will find the whole causal chain coming
apart in the present because the future is held in fear due to his
PRESENT TIME considerations about the future, which are based in part
upon his experiences in the past.
His two most detested futures are too much danger, loss disaster,
fear, catastophe etc, and too much safety, that is tedium, monotony and
suicidal boredom.
Ask him which is worse, infinite tedium or infinite disaster?
So case is not a ball of one, but a ball of all 3, past, present
and future, which an understanding that postulates may have first been
created in the past, but HE IS POSTULATING THEM NOW either consciously
or implied in his continued quests, or else they wouldn't be affecting
him.
Fear of Worsening, Being an Effect and Ruin are an interesting pass
through, and much is learned watching WHAT HOW and WHY a being does it,
falls down through these 3 apparently never to be seen again.
The preclear is also swapping the order of timed events as fast as
he can create them :)
He will say the reason I hurt you two years ago, is because you
hurt me yesterday. Get it?
His FEAR is shame blame and regret in the FUTURE.
He is also parking himself in the past recordings, thus he is BEING
Joe Blow in 1587 suffering at the hands of the king, all the while
actually being in 2015.
However the REASON he is stuck in the past is because it is safer
than to experience what happened in 1588, you see? That's where who did
what to whom becomes critical to clearing.
If you ask him when all the black stuff is about, he will say 1
year in the future. He doesn't mean 2016, HIS future is 1588! So
sometimes to audit someone's 'future' you need to audit what THEY
consider their future is, which is in their actual past.
Remember the difference between reality and actuality.
You are addressing realities, not the truth.
So yes you want to audit the future, but it may be a future
relative to where he is stuck in a past reality and calling it present
time.
But pretty soon they come to present time, which means they aren't
parking themselves with regret in the past 1587, in order to stop
something from happening in the future 1588.
You will still find them in stark raving mad fear about the future
ahead of 2015 and that will still be carrying a lot of safe solutions
with him in present that are patterned after injuries, sicknesses and
disabilities from his actual past.
He is trying to be safe by being both dangerous and endangered at
the same time.
How does being dangerous make you safe?
How does being endangered make you safe?
How does being safe make you dangerous?
How does being safe make you endangered?
Don't run with questions/answers, run with "Get the idea of being
safe, dangerous, endangered, etc." until he A-Ha!'s himself out using
power to have and not have power.ot have power.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Wed Jul 15 17:13:29 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore971.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)
iD8DBQFVpsz5URT1lqxE3HERAvgLAJ9KdbyWrrDDTXApoOFDbAqDynKw5wCfamyj
7vfAkw1GitjRzLzKWYt1B6Q=
=7lAz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE531 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
CHOICE TO NOT KNOW PAST CHOICES
Correct. Choice operates in present time.
But some of that choice is directed at not knowing past choices.
However Adore says one does not need to know the past to resolve
the present or the future. For example lack of direct certainty about
eternality of the soul, might have been created in the past, but would
recovering that memory undo the choice to not know?
Some say yes, and it becomes tempting to ransack one's memory to
find the past original moment of not know.
But there is also a choice to CONTINUE a choice in present time.
Thus access to present time is probably more important than
access to the past.
This tends to invalidate much of Dn auditing, and is probably why
so many people are so mad at Dn.
They want to look into the now, someone keeps telling them to
look into the then.
No wonder they are pissed off.
Homer
Pip (pip1010@sbcglobal.net) wrote:
>A few years ago I met and spoke briefly with Mr. Newton and found him to
>be very guarded and protective of his "technique". He wouldn't share
>with me anything about it that is not in his books. His technique is of
>course hypnosis with his own "secret" ingredient or guidance. I used
>hypnosis with some clients and was interested in anything new. Now,
>while the between lives area is interesting, I have no interest in
>specifically looking more into it for myself. Maybe I've seen enough of
>it. Parts of my own between lives experience came up naturally as part
>of working on other things and I didn't have to be in a trance. But I
>found no important choices made there. Those choices were made just
>after my previous death. However, I aparently wasn't allowed to enter
>this lifetime without going through "proper channels". Probably why I
>don't like crowds or lines. But I had already decided "when, where,
>how, and why".
>There are an infinite number of past experiences I could look into and I
>used to do that when I subscribed to the idea of "chains" and "earlier
>similar to basic" and mostly it was a waste of time. What is important
>are the choices that are operating automatically right now, and these
>could have been created anywhere and got activated and restimulated at
>any time, perhaps in this life, and there's your case. While looking
>into a specific area suggested by someone else could reveal what one
>needs to see to be free of some aspect of one's case, there is always a
>thread of that garment present to tug on to unravel it. You start where
>you are. I look into specific areas when I have interest or I'm
>experimenting, but when I'm working on clearing myself, I start with the
>threads that are already hanging out, or actually strangling me. I call
>them unwanted conditions, but sometimes they are so familiar you don't
>see them as such unless you take a step back from yourself. You think
>they are you.
>Pip
>> Heidrun Beer (hBeer@sgmt.at) wrote:
>>
>>>>>Homer, I repeat, there is a man called Michael Newton who
>>>>has specialized in a process that gets his clients to
>>>>re-experience their pre-incarnation life planning session.
>>
>>
>>>>It is forgotten at birth, but can be recovered in trance
>>>>with the proper guidance. His two books tell about 100 case
>>>>histories that reveal a typical pattern.
>>
>>
>>>>If you are serious about wanting to know about your moment
>>>>of choice, there is a chance for you to recover the memory
>>>>of it while still incarnated.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Jul 4 02:48:08 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 15 03:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore531.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)
iD8DBQFVpgZZURT1lqxE3HERAqKlAKC3UznTo5U0ZUS+/+5NRv7Rx3PqjQCgkMAm
PboMFltlKwe5N5q3hHIqkEY=
=n7j/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
CHOICE TO NOT KNOW PAST CHOICES
Correct. Choice operates in present time.
But some of that choice is directed at not knowing past choices.
However Adore says one does not need to know the past to resolve
the present or the future. For example lack of direct certainty about
eternality of the soul, might have been created in the past, but would
recovering that memory undo the choice to not know?
Some say yes, and it becomes tempting to ransack one's memory to
find the past original moment of not know.
But there is also a choice to CONTINUE a choice in present time.
Thus access to present time is probably more important than
access to the past.
This tends to invalidate much of Dn auditing, and is probably why
so many people are so mad at Dn.
They want to look into the now, someone keeps telling them to
look into the then.
No wonder they are pissed off.
Homer
Pip (pip1010@sbcglobal.net) wrote:
>A few years ago I met and spoke briefly with Mr. Newton and found him to
>be very guarded and protective of his "technique". He wouldn't share
>with me anything about it that is not in his books. His technique is of
>course hypnosis with his own "secret" ingredient or guidance. I used
>hypnosis with some clients and was interested in anything new. Now,
>while the between lives area is interesting, I have no interest in
>specifically looking more into it for myself. Maybe I've seen enough of
>it. Parts of my own between lives experience came up naturally as part
>of working on other things and I didn't have to be in a trance. But I
>found no important choices made there. Those choices were made just
>after my previous death. However, I aparently wasn't allowed to enter
>this lifetime without going through "proper channels". Probably why I
>don't like crowds or lines. But I had already decided "when, where,
>how, and why".
>There are an infinite number of past experiences I could look into and I
>used to do that when I subscribed to the idea of "chains" and "earlier
>similar to basic" and mostly it was a waste of time. What is important
>are the choices that are operating automatically right now, and these
>could have been created anywhere and got activated and restimulated at
>any time, perhaps in this life, and there's your case. While looking
>into a specific area suggested by someone else could reveal what one
>needs to see to be free of some aspect of one's case, there is always a
>thread of that garment present to tug on to unravel it. You start where
>you are. I look into specific areas when I have interest or I'm
>experimenting, but when I'm working on clearing myself, I start with the
>threads that are already hanging out, or actually strangling me. I call
>them unwanted conditions, but sometimes they are so familiar you don't
>see them as such unless you take a step back from yourself. You think
>they are you.
>Pip
>> Heidrun Beer (hBeer@sgmt.at) wrote:
>>
>>>>>Homer, I repeat, there is a man called Michael Newton who
>>>>has specialized in a process that gets his clients to
>>>>re-experience their pre-incarnation life planning session.
>>
>>
>>>>It is forgotten at birth, but can be recovered in trance
>>>>with the proper guidance. His two books tell about 100 case
>>>>histories that reveal a typical pattern.
>>
>>
>>>>If you are serious about wanting to know about your moment
>>>>of choice, there is a chance for you to recover the memory
>>>>of it while still incarnated.
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Jul 4 02:48:08 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jul 15 03:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore531.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)
iD8DBQFVpgZZURT1lqxE3HERAqKlAKC3UznTo5U0ZUS+/+5NRv7Rx3PqjQCgkMAm
PboMFltlKwe5N5q3hHIqkEY=
=n7j/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
SESSIO12 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Run,
"Get the effort to Love."
"Get the effort to Not Love."
"Get the effort to Hate."
"Get the effort to Not Hate."
"Get the effort to Love and Hate."
"Get the effort to Love and Not Hate."
"Get the effort to Hate and Not Love."
"Get the effort to Not Hate and Not love."
Also run on Laugh and Cry.
Run Determinism:
"Who or what are you bound and determined to Create at all costs?"
"Who or what are you bound and determined to Destroy at all costs?"
Run on other items of choice, start, stop, continue, survive etc.
These are all late on the chain but will unravel the taffy to a
new level.
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
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 14 03:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sessio12.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)
iD8DBQFVpLTZURT1lqxE3HERAn7qAJ9tGR7aDfhS51iv6r04GZzfiO314wCgxGBq
VjiRuObDEpuO3c1yAyp7hxU=
=PNcT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
Run,
"Get the effort to Love."
"Get the effort to Not Love."
"Get the effort to Hate."
"Get the effort to Not Hate."
"Get the effort to Love and Hate."
"Get the effort to Love and Not Hate."
"Get the effort to Hate and Not Love."
"Get the effort to Not Hate and Not love."
Also run on Laugh and Cry.
Run Determinism:
"Who or what are you bound and determined to Create at all costs?"
"Who or what are you bound and determined to Destroy at all costs?"
Run on other items of choice, start, stop, continue, survive etc.
These are all late on the chain but will unravel the taffy to a
new level.
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
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 14 03:06:01 EDT 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/sessio12.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)
iD8DBQFVpLTZURT1lqxE3HERAn7qAJ9tGR7aDfhS51iv6r04GZzfiO314wCgxGBq
VjiRuObDEpuO3c1yAyp7hxU=
=PNcT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)