ACT76 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1







((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))

FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME

ACT - 76
4 September 1994

Copyright (C) 1994 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.


We know that people with overts in search of a justification will
mock up motivators, even ones that don't exist if necessary.

We know that people with motivators will tend to feel guilty and
will mock up overts to explain their guilt, even one's that don't exist
if necessary.

We also know from Electra that when a person HAS a bonifide overt
followed or preceded by a motivator that both overt and motivator will
sink into 'non existence' out of the being's effort to make the whole
thing not have happened.

This is called a CO EXCUSED WITHHOLD, and consists of a WITHHELD
OVERT and a WITHHELD MOTIVATOR excusing each other into unexpression and
apparent non existence.

You see there is an OVERT and a MOTIVATOR and both are WITHHELD and
both are MISSED! They are missed TOGETHER, either as a CLOSE CALLS, a
WONDERS or a STILL KNOWS. (See ADOx.memo in archives.)

The overt and the motivator excuse each other. "If you don't
complain about what I did, am doing or will do, I won't complain about
what you did, are doing, or will do."

Thus there is a NO COMPLAINT on either the overt or the motivator!

Thus you have a NON EVENT usually surrounded by an area of NO
MEMORY or a false memory.

The charge doesn't do this to the being, THE BEING DOES THIS TO THE
CHARGE!

Thus memory per se has come into somewhat of a disrepute, and no
small wonder considering people's propensity for altering it around to
fit how they would have wanted things to happen.

Between putting something where there is nothing, and putting
nothing where there is something, we have a mess.

At the NOTS level this becomes putting SOMEONE where there is NO
ONE, and putting NO ONE where there is SOMEONE.

Remember the Scale of Memory Decay?

The Beauty of Memory (Happy, glad he has a memory)
The Ugly of Memory (Regretful, wishes he could forget)
The Beauty of No Memory (Forgetful, ignorance is bliss)
The Ugly of No Memory (Forlorn, can't remember anymore)

There is a whole class of beings that have fallen down through this
scale of memory decay, to a point where they are dramatizing NO MEMORY
and CAN'T REMEMBER, and EVEN IF I DO REMEMBER I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING
IF ITS RIGHT UNLESS I CAN PROVE IT.

These people generally hold inner Truth in contempt, and demand
external objective proof of past lives even if the past lives were not
on this planet or even in this universe.

Their response is 'Oh Posh!'

Their view comes down to, "If you can't prove it to me that you
have lived before, then you have no right to say you have, or to believe
that you have or to even think you might have, or to even consider the
subject!"

This is of course nonsense born of the non event of screaming agony
and regret.

Unfortunately this PROVE IT syndrome does not only extend to past
lives and the paranormal, but extends even to things that happen in this
life. Especially things that happen to you as a kid, when we all know
that kids can't remember anything, especially before they were 2.

Thus the kid that sees monsters under his bed tells his parents and
they go "Prove it!"

Or the kid says to mommy that Daddy has been doing weird things
behind her back, and everyone, including mommy, daddy, the police and
the courts go 'Prove it!'

One can of course get righteously indignant about all this, but one
also has to ask 'Que fait moi dans cette galere?'

One also has to ask if any healing comes of all of it. Surely if
the incident is real, and the person contacts it and runs out the
charge, the denial, the not-is, the wishing dead on others and self,
then the person will get better, EVEN IF NO ONE AROUND THEM BELIEVES
THEM.

It's pretty hard to be an only one though, that takes enormous
confront and willingness to be the first.

It's nice if at least your auditor or therapist believes you. It's
also nice if your parents actually own up to having done the deed.

But in this gallery, these are luxuries.

The POINT therefore is not whether any particular event happened or
not, but ASSUMING THAT IT DID and that it got not-ised, how do we best
go about unlocking the obsidian glue that gets impacted in the back of
our brains shutting it out, putting nothing where there is something?

You know people ask me what clearing is. I give them a very
straight forward answer that misses 99.9 percent of what its about, but
which they can understand.

Clearing is a procedure that helps people find and contact memories
that have been jammed off since the time they occurred.

They understand instinctively that a mind that has a jammed off
memory can't function properly.

Now this definition indicates like wildfire to most people, but to
perps it scares the hell out of them, as it misses their withhold. So
you get really interesting scenarios like the when President of the
False Memory Syndrome foundation has his daughter come forward and claim
he perp'ed her as a child!

Some one's service fac is in operation here.

The irony of course is that the more LEGAL penalties that you put
on these molestation crimes, the more the perps go 'Prove it!' rather
than talking about it. It becomes a super secret subject fraught with
all the denial and such because the consequences are so grave.

Like many crimes, especially 'secret crimes', the way to bring them
out in the open and get them discussed and healed faster is not
necessarily the righteous and punitive criminal justice route.

Of course it is unthinkable to LESSEN the severity of the laws
against perps, so everyone is going to continue on in a strangle hold of
a chinese finger trap, where the very illegality of the crime makes it
harder to discover and heal from.

But what else is new, right?

One way around this is to make very sure that thorough sex
education starts in kindergarten. Children might be taught from day one
what molestation is all about. A lot of perps might be caught this way.

The problem with this is that you have varying standards of what
constitutes acceptable sexual play between parent and child. Children
are very sexual creatures, and it's a rare family that finds a sane and
comfortable compromise in this area given the rabid suppression on the
subject on the part of the people around them.

Thus the subject has become taboo, because no one is willing to
have it policed by others lest too stringent a moral code is placed on
it, that really has nothing to do with preventing traumatizing the child
and making him forget his memory or wishing that he was dead.

In fact households where sex is totally taboo, and sexual contact
between parent and child are utterly non existent can be just as crazy
as the other extreme. Parents can be SO AFRAID of their own sexual
desires and interests in their children, that they just shut the whole
subject out, and they never talk about it, and never DO anything about
it and that leads to memory loss just as sure as anal rape.

Those who were brutally molested will probably say it would be far
better to be 'brutally unmolested', clearly to never be touched at all
is better than to have a hot branding iron shoved up your ass.

But those who had no sexual or physical contact with their parents
at all will be found in session to be BEGGING to find a 'molestation'
incident as it would mean things were not as bad in their family as they
had thought, 'Mommy really did like my body after all!'

So part of the solution to this on a world wide basis, is to start
discussing just what is and what is not acceptable sexual play between
parent and child.

Children who are denied any sexual play at all with parents, may
tend to over compensate as parents and molest their own children
heavily. Children who are molested heavily may then go into a complete
shut down of their sexual functions and sexual interest in their own
children, raising them in a physically bleak and barren atmosphere.

Of course the opposite happens too. Children who are molested then
go on to molest their own children, and children who are raised barren
and bleak, do the same to theirs. So it goes both ways.

I think over many lives it may flip flop back and forth as each
extreme condition is a solution to the other. Thus you may get a run of
lives as a child who is molested and thus becomes a molester, and then
one day he changes mode and joins a sexually barren and bleak family and
becomes an unmolester for a few life times. Then he gets sick of that
and goes back to the first mode. Its a form of bouncing back and forth
between extremes because the excluded middle which is SANE is not
allowed.

"What is the proper relationship of a mother to her son's penis?"

Homer

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Thu Aug 10 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/act76.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFZjIMDURT1lqxE3HERAlXVAJwJDOadqRbjiuRSLbFCmM+4YlHTaQCcDl4i
oSmyQ5GruIuZ+De105PHB7c=
=KQci
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE353 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


ACTUALITY, REALITY AND OT

(OT means Operating Thetan, it is a being who has restored himself
back to full operating potential in life and after life.

PC means pre clear, this is a being who is not yet clear on various
subjects of pain and unconcsiousness that prevent him from remembering
who he is. After a being goes clear, they can work on becoming full OT.

An auditor is one who asks questions and listens, with the intent
of helping a pc clear some area of charge in his life.

Charge results from not having what you desire, or having to have
what you do not desire.)

Actuality is what is true.

Reality is what your pc thinks is true.

Scientology Axiom 27: ... The anatomy of reality is contained in
Is-ness, which is composed of As-is-ness and Alter-is-ness. Is-ness is
an apparancy, it is not an actuality. The actuality is As-is-ness
[which is then] altered so as to obtain a persistency [i.e. reality]

(Words in []'s are mine.)

(As-is-nesses result in vanishment once let go, Alter-is-nesses
result in persistence in time called an Is-ness. When the lies are
spotted in the Is-ness, the alter-is-ness reverts back to an as-is-ness
at which time it will vanish once let go of.)

Now maybe there is no way to know for sure what actuality is, but
you can for sure find out what the reality of your pc is.

You simply ask him what he thinks actuality is, and he goes yak,
yak, yak, and there you have his reality.

What he has given you is not only what is real to him, but what he
thinks is actual.

There in lies the problem, the pc has "my reality = actuality"
stuck rock solidly in his mind.

Many pc's will get insulted when you indicate to them that their
reality may not be actuality, no one likes to be the fool on the hill,
and this only really clears up completely at Grade IV, willing to be
right or wrong. Until then the being is really not fully ready to look.

So you have to be prepared to deal with this in you pc in early
sessions.

HE IS EXPECTING TO GET BETTER WITHOUT CHANGING HIS WORLD VIEW.

Now this is in part why we don't talk about OT powers early on to a
new pc, because his world view generally doesn't allow for OT power.

So in walks your garden variety Glowballus Carrionus, meatball for
short, and he wants auditing. He wants to get better.

Usually they want to get better at staying worse, they want to be
better able to be not able and survive anyhow. Everyone knows that
being truly able will get you killed instantly along with all your
friends and pets.

So this guy has all his service facs in place in order to control
others into helping him and otherwise leave him alone, and these
facsimiles and their attendant computations are 'killing him.'

He is actually killing himself with them, but we will leave that
for later.

So he wants a better 'solution' that doesn't hurt as much. You see
he doesn't want to get better, he wants a less painful solution to the
problems of his life, namely the suppressiveness of the death directed
universe around him.

A service facsimile is a traumatic memory of pain and
unconsciousness that the being is unknowingly but intentionally keeping
in restimulation in order to harm himself in a way as to gain sympathy
or help, or to get others to leave him alone.

Your preclear is stuck in the Villain, Victim, Hero/Ally triangle,
and the service fac is an effort to keep the Villain at bay by pulling in on
the Hero/Ally via considerations of sympathy and preciousness.

Service facs create the advantage of being disadvantaged.

He does better being a chronic victim with the Heros help,
than in being able to stand alone.

He wants to continue to be unable, but not feel the pain of what
disabled him in the original facsimile or the pain of the future doom
that he is sure awaits him.

Since service facsimiles are death engrams, this guy is keeping
himself alive and SAFE by burying himself in death and near death.

The search for less painful solutions is thus a downward spiral in
life, as numb is BELOW pain on the tone scale, and any snort of cocaine
will do that for him.

Cocaine can put you in a state where 'you have never been hurt',
that's part of its psychological addictiveness, had perfect parents,
kindness and love everywhere, until you come down, and then boy are you
in a basket of razor blades and electrified steel wool.

The basic law here is that case consists of efforts to as-is
by not-ising.

The apparancy (reality) of non existence brought about by
not-isness, is then taken or hoped to be the same as the actuality of
non existence which would have been brought about by a true as-isness,
and the being thinks he has done well for himself, until he runs into
the persisting solid masses he put up in order to make himself think his
problems were no more.

So you talk with him for a while until he understands that he is
'solving' his problems and not vanishing them, and if he gets that, he
will have understood his first OT power.

Someone on your case? Just get the idea 'nothing there' and let it
go (as-isness), without the force or mass to make it so (not-isness),
and they will go away.

That's a lot more useful than moving the marble with your mind, or
bending spoons.

But his reality doesn't allow for such abilities.

He developed and used his service facs BECAUSE he had failed to
deal with others on an OT basis during early childhood.

Failing forthright efforts to effect justice, he will try covert
methods, that is what a service fac is, a covert effort to withdraw from
life in an effort to get others to coax you back into life. It's an
effort to get others to help you survive when they generally are harming
your survival. One does this by 'Ok, I am not surviving already, see?'

So he's sitting there talking to you finally figuring out what kind
of group he has just walked into, a bunch of nut cases, and you start
asking him about his actuality.

And so he tells you about the physical universe, a couple of
billion years old, how evolution created the body and central nervous
system, and how eventually the brain came to be self aware and
conscious, and desirous of being more than it could ever be, and thus he
lives in sorrow and suffering all day long.

A being that wants to live forever but has to die forever one day
is suffering from infinite charge. It is infinite charge because it is
an infinite loss of an infinite future in an infinite number of whiles,
forever for free.

When he is down he may tell you he has had time enough for love,
but the truth is he CAN'T have time enough for love.

Now perhaps the conscious limits of the being himself acts as a
govenor on this charge so that it doesn't really ever become INFINITE
infinite, but we will continue to call it infinite charge because it is
infinite.

Mostly the governor acts by the pc ducking out of the 'facts' of
his own reality and not thinking about anything all day long, he just
lives and does the routine, approaching death without ever thinking
about it. The charge is too great you see?

He lives BELOW his own belief system, it kind of presses in on him
from above.

So you spend some time with him and you get him to see he is doing
this, he WANTS to be immortal, but no way is his reality going to allow
for it, so he lives in INFINITE sorrow all day long, which the govenor
turns into NO SORROW and solidity, which racks his body, sleep, life and
love in pain until the end of time, which isn't that far away when a
glowball is on meat row, I mean death row.

So you start to educate him a bit, you know brainwashing in its
best form, best done by showing him what he already knows.

You tell him that pain and suffering arise from charge, and that
charge arises from thwarted desire, and thwarted desire means not being
able to have what he really and truly wants.

And suddenly he has this cog and he looks at you real cogent like,
and he says "What, you mean I have to be able to have what I want in
order to be happy?"

Now you had better be fast on your feet at this point, because he
is about to blow (leave). He KNOWS he can't have what he wants, as his
reality won't allow it, and if he has to have what he wants in order to
be happy, he had better go back to not knowing what he wants and
forgetting about it all day long, as he was doing better being
comfortably numb not thinking about things, walking around like the
living dead, than talking to you.

So at that exact instant, while his eyes are boring into yours
trying to figure out just how much of a nut case you really are, you lay
it on the line, you deliver the final insult with tone 40 (sovereign)
intention that he really get it.

You say "Yes but your reality is not actuality, and when you find
out where you are wrong about things, you will discover that indeed you
can have everything that you want."

You add the final insult to injury and say "And you will also find
out that you WANTED to not have everything you want for a while, that's
how you got to be where you are, it was fair chosen and its called
MAJESTY for majestic practical joke on the part of the Imp Soul on
himself."

J.O.Y. stands for Jokes On You.
J.O.K.E. stands for Justice of Kindship Excaliper
J.E.S.T stands for Jokes of Eternal Self Treason.
J.E.S.T stands for Justice of Eternal Self Truth.

You tell him about the world of Dura and Sabe, that Dura is the
world of permanence, and Sabe the world of loss. And you explain that
Sabe is like a crazy house mirror on the world of Dura, and was entered
by fair choice, just as one would enter a crazy house of terrors at a
state fair. And no, he doesn't remember that fair choice, by choice,
but if he wants to, some day he will.

But it would ruin his precious fun and put him back into a state of
unending bliss.

At that moment your pc is going to do one of two things.

He is either going to walk out for good, or he is going to say "Oh,
ahem, yes, well, in that case, let's get on with it."

And he will smile at you, like a puppy in love.

He just elected you savior, and expects you to know more about HIS
actuality than he does, and you had better show it to him and fast
because already he can sense his bank account running out and his temper
being tested.

Ok, so you you take up with him two subjects, over and over, back
and forth, until both of you are satisfied that you have found an
opening to the case.

The two subjects are,

"What do you desire?"

"What do you believe?"

Desire and view.

View means his view of the cosmic all, his reality.

The pc is stuck in a solidity born of desire entombed in his
reality of can't have or must have.

His reality won't let him have what he desires, and thus he hates
his reality, he hates his desire, he hates himself, and he hates the
All-That-Is.

If you ever want to see some broiling NO SYMPATHY, take a look at
the core this guy is walking around with, calling it his personality.

This core is a screaming black hole of forevers and nevers, false
certainties and uncertainties, and efforts to make nothing out of
everything forever for free.

Including the core, he will deny it is there, he will say "What
core of no sympathy, why whatever are you talking about? I am a nice
guy!"

If perchance you were irritated that day, you might ask him with
Tone 40 evil intent, if he is such an nice guy, how come he is walking
around on the ball floor of hell?

So your job is cut out for you, you need to get this guy to lay on
the table his DESIRE. No its not to make a lot of money or get laid, I
don't care how young the girls are.

His desire transpans kingdoms, universes, Godhood itself.

Ah well now that's a problem isn't it, for a poor little incipient
carrion dweller. More likely to become a dead worm on a stump than a
sovereign conscious unit eh?

But look he actually desires these things, if you ask him for it,
he WILL give it to you, if you force him to think big enough and have no
patience with the lower dynamic crap he wastes your time with.

In general DESIRE will be the same for everyone, in specific it
will be wildly different.

So now you have what he desires, he's in session, open but
vulnerable as hell, because he still doesn't believe a word of it.

All that's left is to find out what is stopping him from having
what he wants.

What's stopping him is his REALITY.

But that's not HIS reality.

HE thinks what's stopping him is actuality.

And maybe somewhere he is being stopped by some actualities
somewhere, at least for the moment, but mostly he is being stopped by
his incorrect view of that actuality. So firstly we clean up his view
of the Cosmic All, and then if there is anything left over we worry
about that later.

So how do we clean up his reality? Well his desire leads the way.

This is because at the top Desire and Truth are in perfect Accord,
they would have to be, or else he would live forever irritated in
Eternity that they weren't, and it would be a mar on his ultimate
sovereignty.

Sovereignty means 'you want it, you got it', so a top level being
has no problems with WHAT IS.

Thus to find truth, don't find what is really desired, find what is
ACTUALLY desired. Then find what truth would be necessary to provide
it.

Find which of his desired items is the most important and real to
him and run repetitively to completion, fully acknowledging every answer
without evaluation or invalidation:

"What would have to be true in order for you to be able to have
this desire?"

Now this might be a bit rough on a new glowball fresh in from the
streets, you are trying to get him to look into the face of infinite
charge after all.

But by now the guy has lived through finding out what he really
desires at core, and you got him fighting with you rather than against
you, so now he want's to be better for real, er actual.

You have offered him EVERYTHING, and he's in a mood to get it, so
you have his undivided attention.

So you take up a desire and get him to start inventing actualities
that would allow him to have what he wants.

Now here is where the magic is, once he invents an actuality that
allows him to have what he wants, that happens to ALSO match the actual
actuality that actually exists that WILL allow him to have what he
wants, he will KNOW it, and the meter will too, and so will you.

The E-meter is a galvanic skin resistance device that follows
emotional changes in the pc, and let's the auditor know if the pc is
running the process properly or just pretending.

Once the pc cognites an actual actuality that would allow him to
have what he wants (eventually if not now), that's the end of that
desire/reality conflict. Remember it doesn't all have to be done in one
life, or even in any life, having a body is a bit of a nut case in the
first place, it may take a while before he can convert having a body from
being a prison, to being a palace.

Or dispense with bodies altogether once he gets bored with
palatial meat.

So then you pick up the next desire and run it, and the next one,
until the pc doesn't have time for you any more.

He may not yet be able to integrate these new found actualities
into his still existing reality set, but he won't forget them, and
eventually all the new actualities will fall into place and replace his
original outdated reality set.

These new actualities he is building form his Sovereign Throne.
Once he has enough of it in place he will one day suddenly get up and go
sit in it, leaving his old reality behind. At that moment he has become
an OT.

There is nothing like a Sovereign Throne with someone finally at
the controls again, even if it is incomplete.

Pretty soon he's moving the ashtray around on the table and
lighting cigarettes for you with sparks from his eyes.

Figuratively speaking of course. No one really wants those
abilities anyhow. But watch out, if they do want it, they will have it
eventually. The world is a dream after all.

But he won't be a meatball any more, because these abilities do not
exist in the "consciousness arose from MEST" theory of existence.

MEST means Matter, Energy, Space and Time, physical materiality
which is displayed in the dream. MEST doesn't exist, consciousness of
MEST (dream) does exist.

His reality on what arose from what will have to change before OT
powers of any kind start to become evident.

He's still trying to communicate telepathically with others by
directing his attention OUT THERE. You see how nuts that is?

THERE IS NO OUT THERE, its a hologram!

The guy he is trying to communicate with is not out there,
he's right here where your preclear is!

You also don't move the marble that way either, there is no marble
out there, its just a shadow avatar. A color picture on a conscious TV
screen. You don't move a person by pushing on his shadow. Find the
real marble inside you where it really lives, the source of its outward
projection, and then you can put it anywhere.

Find those you love inside you where we are all connected, and you
can talk to them all day long, and they will know it, and talk back, no
matter how many star systems away they are.

And believe me, you got loves, some of them are quite far away.

Not measured in miles, but in universes.

And every secondary is a loss of PRECIOUSNESS.

Mostly as a meatball he wants super powers in order to play games
of defend and offend against his enemies, you know wipe out all the
assholes in the world, and then himself also.

Mockup something that would make you want to make nothing out of
everything. That will give you a good idea what this guy is dramatizing
as a mortal. That is his core of NO SYMPATHY.

As he comes along, he sees he really wants to not have to play
those games any more, way more than he wants to win them, so his
attention moves towards getting free of those games rather than becoming
super human and being able to blow people up a couple of countries away.

And he will form group minds again, and have a lot of fun with life
and love, without disrupting the grave yard for the other glowballs
still in the soup around him.

Super human displays that they are wrong, are not what they need at
this time. Such displays will wake them up to awareness that they are
dreaming, but they won't know which dream it is! And they won't be able
to function, and they will get very sick and very scared, and all their
service facs will turn on as they withdraw from terror hoping YOU will
pull them out of it. Failing that they will take to hanging you from a
tree and your friends and pets with you.

*NO ONE* is OT enough to survive the consequences of disrupting,
missing and bypassing infinite charge in an eternal being on a slow
death directed rampage.

OT's pervade others easily, even mortal glowballs with their
infinite charged cores of dark forevers and nevers, and false
certainties and uncertainties, so if you set off a primal quake in them,
it goes off in yourself also.

There are much better ways to pervade and change people than abrupt
and crass displays of rightness.

Just audit desire and view until the OT quietly comes alive again,
you will be surprised at the softness and quality flow of real power.

Omni Sovereignty is as GENTLE as it comes, GENerous Tender Loving
Excellence.

The E/P of the process is probably too high to contemplate.

(E/P means End Phenomenon when the process need no longer be run.)

Just joking.

E/P is ability to desire and have, not desire and not have.

That's worth a few bucks an hour if you can deliver it.

Homer


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com

Wed Jul 19 15:55:08 EDT 2006

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Aug 9 12:00:03 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore353.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFZizGDURT1lqxE3HERAgakAJ9eT+77Gd0DRds3RC+rKWp29aL6LgCgt0wl
Qv5BZ07SazoNmFZeRm8lMqg=
=gDpd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

exm11.memo (fwd)

((My comments in double parentheses - Homer))

OT'S IN THE FREE ZONE.

EXM - 11
ca. 1992

Copyright (C) 1992 A Voice of the Free Zone (Electra)
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.


>Could anyone comment on how closely this tracks Church teachings?
>(And, at what levels is it taught?)

The Church does not have teachings in the sense that you seem to be
expecting. Do not confuse Scientology with other religions. It is a
scientific technology to help the preclear discover for himself what is
true. Such stories about the whole track come off of people's track
including my own, I am not just rehashing what was taught to me. I tend
not to write unless I have attained some measure of reality on it
myself.

>OK, you won't give me proof. Will you discuss how you proved it
>to yourself, or to your teacher(s) ?

First let's get something straight. I am not a full OT. And again
if I could move mountains I would not broadcast it.

Secondly even in the Church, a person becomes able to leave his
body at will only at OT 6. ((Actually pcs were expected to have attained
expansion type exteriorization at old OV IV. With the development of
NOTS, new OT IV became the OT Drug Rundown (BT's on drugs) and OT V, VI
and VII became the new NOTS rundown. I don't know where exteriorization
was expected to stably occur. By the time OT VII is done though, one
would expect the pc to have exteriorized from the physical universe
itself, let alone his body and bank.))

Certainly he is not going to be able to move even an ashtray quite
yet. However above that level there is a lot of work done (or used to
be) on getting the OT to move things directly with out using his body.
Much more attention is placed on being able to affect other people's
universes, such as ability to project intention at OT 7. As he says in
'A History of Man', crass display of OT power is not desirable at this
time as it will just make it difficult for others to get across the
bridge.

Anyhow your desire for proof is understandable, but you gotta get
real on whether anyone would actually want to give you proof. It
doesn't serve them any. Also imagine someone walking into your room and
actually moving something for you with his mind. Or even lifting you up
and plastering you to the ceiling. How would you feel about this.
Would it make you 'happy' to have such proof? What would happen to you
over the ensuing days after such a display of proof?

OT's are very well versed in the consequences of such displays of
proof as they have had to suffer them all along the whole track. Thus
they will be choosing a wiser quieter route this time around.

>> Churchies have never seen a floating needle. And if a pc dared
>>to crack a smile in session, they would send him to Ethics.

>THAT IS A BOLD FACE LIE.

It is sarcasm, Lenny.

Of course there are floating needles in the church, I produced
quite a few of my own.

Look I happen to love the Church, but I will be damned if I will
let cockroaches kick me out of my own house.

The Church is filled with people whose sole motivation is financial
and POLITICAL monopoly, who allegedly will sue/kill people for
practicing their chosen religion outside of their purview.

OT's are very real, and there are a lot of people who want to be
the only one's to have and control them much as they do the atomic bomb.

This one world dream of some is really someone's one world slave
camp. I'll be damned if I want the double S and triangles be the coat
of arms over that door.

Scientology has existed past track long before Ron Hubbard came
along and made a mess of it here, and Scientology will continue to exist
long after the memory of Ron Hubbard and all of his followers is dust in
the wind.

Scientology in fact transcends LRH or any one person claiming to be
its author. Scientology is what we ALL set up at the beginning of time
to get us out. Thus, as even LRH has said so many times no one has ever
heard it, he is not teaching us something new, but something we already
know and have owned for ourselves.

If it weren't OUR knowledge then it wouldn't be true because we are
personally responsible for the creation of anything that is true about
us and our involvement in this universe.

The church would be totally opposed for example to me posting the
anatomy of the R6 Bank which is after all what all the hullabaloo is all
about. They might scream, 'Copyright, copyright, you are violating our
copyright, you are publishing Church material without our permission!
We will sue/kill you.'

It's MY bank, and they copyright it. Next thing you know they will
want a copyright to my soul and be charging me for a licence to survive.

Possibly the assholes in the Church are the ones who created,
designed and then stuck the bank on people in the first place and so of
course it has their copyright on it, as a weapon of evil. That they
finally fell into their own trap goes unmentioned and unnoticed.

Now they want the copyright to stay with them so that they can make
money making sure people never get out of it.

Or that only their own do.

((You know its interesting that at $300 to $700 an hour for
auditing, only the very rich and wealthy will go clear. This promises a
power elite of wealthy ruling class clears, with everyone one else
aberrated and sick.

Do you want a spiritual elite based on money and political power in
this world?))

Lastly I would presume that everything written to this list is sent
by Churchies to the RTC (Religious Technology Center) for perusal and
kept in files of each poster so that they can keep track of
'suppressives'. ((Much like East Germany kept dossiers on EVERYONE
before the wall came down.))

If the Churchies are not turning everything posted to this list in
to the Soul Police, then they are suffering from an extreme case of
dereliction of Duty.

"The Religious Technology Center has the purpose TO SAFEGUARD THE
PROPER USE OF TRADEMARKS, TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND TO MAKE SURE THAT
THE POWERFUL TECHNOLOGY OF DIANETICS AND SCIENTOLOGY REMAINS IN GOOD
HANDS AND IS PROPERLY USED."

"Help Keep Scientology Working

Knowledge Reports are an essential part of Keeping Scientology
Working. If you encounter any non-optimum situation or off-policy
occurring in your org, mission or area, write a Knowledge Report to your
local Ethics Officer and send a copy to the Reports Officer RTC if you
feel the RTC should be informed of the matter.

Reports should be sent to:
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
Reports Officer, SP Division
1710 Ivar Avenue, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90028 USA"

I can not abide by their one world, one country, one government,
one religion, one source, one thought mentality.

Can you imagine a world were spiritual help is governmentally
mandated by LAW to be the monopolistic purview of one group and that
those who do not have the money to pay that group are legally unentitled
to spiritual help?

The Churchies should get together with the AMA to plan this one
world take over together.

Imagine people who are PAID with money, girls or auditing to send
knowledge reports along the tattle tale line to the secret Source
Police? Or people who are condemned and assigned a lower ethics
condition for not spying and reporting on their own?

I KNOW it happened, I did it and it was done to me by my best
friends. No, I didn't get paid in girls.

People who are not OT routinely underestimate the power of OT's.
Since the people in the Church do not admit to the presence of working
tech in the Free Zone they presume that there are no OT's in the field
that are opposed to them. Even though many of their own OT's have left
in disgust, something that used to bother me no end until I understood
it.

It HURT, it almost struck me dead when an OT would leave.

Good or bad, the Church was the only thing we had, I KNEW this. I
knew the tech worked even though it wasn't working on me. When I used
it, it worked just fine. My pc's were happy.

So when an OT would leave my heart would just sink. Where the hell
was he going? How could he throw his eternity away like that? What
about his billion year contract?

When I was part of the Church I did not know about the Free Zone.
In fact I did not find out about it until years after I was removed as
NCG (no case gain, no money left). I was ALONE with my case and my
faith in LRH for years without a Meter or any of my tech books because
they had all been taken away from me and reabsorbed back into the
Academies for students to use.

Fortunately I had read everything 5 times, but for this I will
never forgive them.

Well my billion year contract is still in good working order, only
now I am serving the purposes of Scientology and not the god damned
military industrial complex. Or Hollywood.

The Church is in for a very nasty surprise as it soon goes the way
of all communisms.

The OT's in the field are considering the possibility of
rearranging the Church's Akashic Triangles. Look what happened the last
time they did that in Russia. So much for communism in Europe and so
much for communism in Scientology.

There are more OT's in the field than there are in the Church. The
joke is a hefty portion of them are the Church's own. The best ones the
Church had, the ones too good to keep around.

And you can bet they are madder than hell.

If it ever comes to a war between the Church and the Free Zone, the
Church will loose.

Captain David Miscavige is not, never has been and never will be my
superior commanding officer.

My Eternal Destiny does not depend on my following the orders of
LRH or his assigns.

If LRH would like to manifest himself to me perhaps we could talk
about this and come to an agreement.

Electra

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Aug 8 12:06:02 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/electra/exm11.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.

_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

ADORE674 (fwd)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

REMOTE VIEWING

Slarty <thaddeus.slamp@gmail.com> wrote:
> The united states millitary would not have continued the remote
> viewing program for around a decade or longer if it didn't work. I
> say this because I've no intention of talking to dogmatic materialists
> @ this ng.

Well the problem with materialists is they think the 3 or 4 or 11
dimensional physical universe is actual rather than a virtual projection
in a 0 dimensional consciousness.

They believe that consciousness is a process in something that the
consciousness perceives, namely its brain.

That's like thinking a TV set works because of something seen in
the TV show.

In an actual physical universe that could be true if the video
camera were pointed at the TV set's circuit boards, but the point
remains, in general, what is seen IN the TV set picture is not the cause
of the picture.

If you are asleep at night, and you look in the mirror and cut the
top of your dream head off and see your brain, is that brain cause of
anything? No, its a virtual projection.

Same with the waking state, it is just another hallucination.

When you wake up out of a sleep dream, you come back to this world.

When you wake up out of this world, you come back to the next
higher world.

Keep waking up, dream level after dream level, and you come to the
top which is the Big Snooze, no dream at all.

Totally awake means totally sleep.

Everything lower than that is dream state.

It is cute that materialists call the dream state awake.

So people who have faith in the existence of space and time because
they see space and time, and who believe their seeing of space and time
is the result of a process IN space and time (brain), will never be able
to deal with OT powers which are impossible in that model.

The real demand for proof then is demand for proof that the world
is a dream in God's mind, me and thee.

But then we just demand back that they prove that there IS actual
space and time that is NOT just a hallucination in the mind of God.

They claim that the extraordinary claim bears the burden of proof,
well that's like saying that the claim the world is round bears the
burden of proof because everyone else thinks it is flat.

Anyhow it is easy to prove that one CAN NOT prove that the physical
universe exists at all, since all we have contact with is our
consciousness of it. Looking at B can never prove the existence of A no
matter how allegedly causally connected they are.

Occam's sharpening strap says never to assert anything you can
prove you can never prove exists, so from there we work with the idea
that the external world is not in fact actual or external, but only a
dream of externality in a non dimensional consciousness, and see what
follows from that.

Occam's razor itself says never add factors unnecessarily, well we
KNOW consciousness exists, then we go and assert out of whole cloth and
for no reason at all that the stuff we see in consciousness,
representations of space and time and matter and energy also exists,
thus adding 4 other factors.

In other words because the represenation exists, we assert the
represented exists too.

We KNOW cosnciousness exists, and we KNOW that we CAN NEVER KNOW if
the physical universe exists because all we can see is our conscious
representation of it.

So why bother with the physical universe except to play its virtual
games of survive and succumb?

Most people think that when they are dreaming, the dream is actual
but then they wake up. Same for the waking state, it creates a strong
illusion of an external objective actuality that exists independent of
our consciousness of it, but in fact there is no way to prove it is
there.

The materialists have faith that consciousness exists inside the
external universe, but the other idea is that the virtual universe
exists inside of consciousness.

THEY DON'T GET THAT, so talking to them is a waste of time until
that point is gotten across.

*IF* the world is a dream, *THEN* OT powers are obvious.

*IF* the world is a dream, how then might we have lost those
powers, and how then might we reattain them?

You figure out some theory or another on the matter of loss and
regain, design an approach to recovery, and then try out your
experiments and see if they work.

(Part of designing an approach to recovery is a security protocol,
you don't want people messing with the game if they succeed).

A positive result acts as evidence that the world might be a dream,
and a negative result means back to the old drawing board until you get
it right or give up and become a meatball.

If you can see the number on the 3x5 card taped to the back of your
head when you exteriorize during session, materialists are going to have
a fit, because EVERYTHING they think is wrong.

I mean talk about chagrin.

They have had their nose in a dream for a trillion years thinking
it was actual.

Remind me, how exactly dumb can you get?

They weren't wrong actually, but only virtual. Science works well
in the virtual universe using dream tools to measure dream events, but
at some point they have to start studying the DREAM PROJECTOR and how it
works, and that is a whole new ball game.

You can't measure the source of the dream using dream tools, dream
meters etc.

The perfect certainty that consciousness has of itself is not
possible in a multidimensional space and time, and so that perfect
certainty of self existence is very good evidence that space and time
might not exist at all.

How are you going to interface a zero dimensional consciousness
with a 3 or more dimensional space time?

A little thought will show you that a 0 dimensional to 3
dimensional interface coupler is unlikely.

We KNOW the dream exists.

Why postulate further except as a virtual reality?

THE PROOF
See http://www.lightlink.com/theproof

Homer

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Dec 2 17:47:11 EST 2009

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Mon Aug 7 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore674.memo
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===============
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning,
but not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFZiI6DURT1lqxE3HERAsQUAJ9aQLgO2vUV1fQAmY0sY6neF2AWAACgpYAr
8AGcSfVq9evSfBNvBs4P2U4=
=mKVg
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l

val3.txt (fwd)

VALENTINE'S DAY LECTURE III

THE PROOF, A QUICK SUMMARY

Good evening, today is late Sunday evening March 30th, 2009.

This is the third part of the Valentine's Day lecture on the
subject of The Proof.

First we need to summarize where we have been so far and to refresh
our memories of what we are talking about.

So very quickly let's start at the beginning.

OBJECTS AND QUALITY SETS

Objects are states or events in space and time.

We usually think of events as changes in state, but a single point
in space time IS an event, a 'happening'. Thus space time is a fabric
of events, or objects, each one of which has a quality set including its
location in space and time.

Objects have quality sets which describe them.

Anything that has qualities is an object, and anything that is an
object has a quality set with qualities in it.

Except of course the Nothing which has an empty quality set!

I can hear a bright little Goober ask "But isn't it then a quality
of the Nothing that it has no qualities?"

We will avoid that Godel jail by asking you to apply understanding
rather than rigor.

GODEL JAIL

Godel jails are philosophical black holes that one falls into by
being a little too bright.

They are also the place we send people who are a little too dumb,
and who suffer from proffering logical absurdities as wisdom.

For example the statement 'All generalizations are false' leads to
a Godel Jail for any mind that tries to determine if it is true or
false.

Since the statement IS a generalization, if we assume the statement
is false, then the statement is true, if we assume the statement is
false, then the state is true.

Around and around we go. This arises because the statement is a
self denying statement, and thus forms the basis of a Godel Jail for the
bright mind that can't figure its way out of the logical whirlpool.

But we also send people to Godel Jail who try to make the statement
into a working philosophy.

Godel Jails are filled with the bones of fools and charlatans.

TWO DIFFERENT OBJECTS

Two different objects have two different quality sets, and any
objects with two different quality sets are two different objects.

Since where and when an object exists is part of it's quality set,
a change in position in space or time indicates a new different object.

The parts of you that move in time are a new you from moment to
moment. The parts of you that do not move in time are the same you, as
for them there IS no moment to moment.

Just because everything IN consciousness is made of apparitions of
space and time, doesn't mean that consciousness itself is made of space
and time.

In this case, the TV set (consciousness) is not made of what is
displayed in the TV set screen (space and time, parts and mechanics).

REFERENT AND SYMBOL

A symbol is any object that is used to refer back to another
object.

A referent is any object referred to by a symbol.

Referent and symbol are two different objects with two different
qualities sets.

The symbol of final authority is the last symbol in the causal
chain actually used by the observer to learn about the referent. The
symbol of final authority IS that observer and the changes that take
place in him due to the causal wave reaching and impinging on him from
the referent.

The RENDITION ZONE is the area in the observer that changes state
due to the causal wave, usually that observer's consciousness, and the
RENDITION is the changes that take place in the observer's rendition
zone.

The referent is the rendered, the symbol is the rendition.

ONTOLOGICAL STATUS

Ontology is the study of being or existing.

Ontological status is the status of the existingness of an object.

Either something exists or it doesn't.

Thus ontology is a pretty simple science of what is and what ain't.

Since referent and symbol are both objects which ARE, both have
equal ontological status, they have a parity of (equal) existingness
with each other.

Something might be heavier than another, but something can not
exist more than another.

There is no gradient scale of TO BE or TO EXIST.

Thus it is not true that the referent exists or is more actual than
the symbol. Both exist and both are actual.

Both referent and symbol have their own distinct quality sets, both
of which contain 'exists'.

If the symbol did not exist, it would be impossible to get the idea
that the referent existed by studying the symbol.

Thus claiming that the physical universe exists but that our
consciousness doesn't really exist, is ludicrous.

We like to think that the original referent out there in
space and time is SOMETHING, you know, heavy made of mass,
objective, you can 'prove' it exists etc. (Actually you can't).

But our conscious experience of that referent, the symbol
of final authority for learning about the referent, has no mass,
isn't heavy and therefore probably isn't real.

How heavy is a conscious experience of heaviness?

Thus it is tempting to say the referent exists but the symbol, our
conscious experience, eh, well who knows....

However it is the very glaring existence of our consciousness that
gives us the idea that the physical universe exists also, as we are
using our consciousness to symbolize the alleged physical universe.

Our consciousness, the SYMBOL, certainly exists, so we conclude
rightly or wrongly that the physical universe, the REFERENT, must exist
at least as much as the symbol does.

Existence of the symbol does not imply existence of the referent,
as you could be dreaming, hallucinating or imagining.

Most perceptions in consciousness are a symbol of the alleged
physical universe. When studied as themselves though, conscious
experiences are self symbolizing, self luminous. You don't see them by
looking at SOMETHING ELSE.

One learns about conscious experiences by direct perception, by
looking at them directly, not by looking at something later that was the
effect of them earlier.

One USES one's conscious experiences to learn about the alleged
physical universe through indirect perception, because one is learning
about the physical universe by looking at one's conscious experiences,
and not the physical universe directly. Also the alleged event in the
physical universe exists prior to the event in consciousness, and no
longer exists at the moment the conscious symbol arises.

We say alleged, because the event in the physical universe is a
THEORY to explain the perfectly certain existence of the conscious
experience.

MAPPING

Some qualities in the symbol, MAP back to qualities in the
referent, so one can glean something about the referent by looking at
the symbol.

For example a map of city streets will show the street pattern on
the map which pretty well matches that actual pattern of streets in the
city.

Symbols however will have other qualities that do not map back to
the referent, for example, the map is made of paper, the city isn't.

And the referent will have qualities that are not represented in
some particular symbol, for example Ithaca (the city) has poisonous air
from buses and cars, enough to supply a needy concentration camp for the
length of a war, and the map doesn't.

COLLAPSING REFERENT AND SYMBOL

Collapsing referent and symbol means to look at a symbol and
consider it IS the referent.

Referents and symbols are two different objects with two different
quality sets.

However those quality sets may overlap in some areas where certain
qualities are common to both.

Both referent and symbol 'exist' for example.

Both referent and symbol may be 'square', we call this geometricity
between referent and symbol, or geometric similarity.

There are also a subset of qualities in the symbol that are mapped
back to OTHER very different qualities in the referent because of a
causal connection between them.

Thus visual color in our consciousness is mapped back to various
frequencies of light in the referent physical universe.

Except in the case of geometricity, mapped qualities are NOT
necessarily, and usually are NOT, common qualities of both referent and
symbol.

Conscious experiences have color but do not have frequency.

Photons have frequency but do not have color.

Nonetheless conscious color is mapped back to alleged photon
frequency.

Consider a light in the physical universe that emits 5000 Angstroms
of light. In our consciousness we perceive it as red light, but in the
physical universe there is no red, just frequency and wave length.

Color in the conscious symbol maps back to frequency in the
physical referent.

The mapping between color and frequency is arbitrary but
nonetheless (allegedly) causally related.

THE THREE FORMS OF INSANITY

Collapsing symbol and referent leads to three errors, all of which
are forms of insanity. If a machine were to do any one of these things,
you would throw it out.

INSANITY ONE

First, when qualities in the symbol map back to qualities in the
referent, one gets the idea that the referent has the exact same quality
because the symbol has it.

In the case where conscious color is being used to map back to
physical frequency, when we collapse symbol and referent we consider
that photons are 'red'.

This is a domain error, as redness is not a quality of photons and
CAN NOT be a quality of photons. Photons are outside of the domain of
redness, of red things.

DOMAIN ERRORS

Photons do not belong to the domain of objects which can have
redness as part of their quality sets.

If you ask 'What objects can be red?', photons can never be part of
that group, but conscious experiences can be.

A domain error is when a quality is applied to an inappropriate
object that can not have that quality.

For example asking "what is the square root of a dog?" is a domain
error.

Dogs do not have square roots and photons do not have color.

Consider the case of a color coded image (symbol) of x-ray
emissions of the sun (referent). In this case 'color' in the symbol is
mapped to 'frequency' in the x-ray range rather than the visible light
range.

When referent and symbol are collapsed, one gets the idea that low
frequency x-rays are 'red' and high frequency x-rays are 'violet'. when
in truth the symbolic image has 'red' and 'violet', and the referent
x-rays don't, they have frequency.

Further the exact mapping between color and frequency can change
depending on the situation. A human uses 'red' to mean 5000 Angstroms
of wave length, an X ray telescope uses red to mean much smaller
wavelengths. Birds use red for a range similar to humans but not the
same.

Confusion between conscious color and photon frequency is a common
result of referent and symbol collapsation and is a form of insanity.

INSANITY TWO

Second, when there are qualities in the symbol that DO NOT map back
to the referent, one gets the idea that the referent has those qualities
anyhow because the symbol has them, when in truth the referent may not.

Because the conscious experience of 'red' is self luminous, we then
conclude that photons are self luminous too.

Self luminous means not lit by anything else. Table lamps in a
dream do not light the other objects in the dream.

Symbols are objects in their own sovereign right, and often have
whole ranges of qualities that have nothing to do with the referent that
they are being used to symbolize, at all.

Thus considering that the referent has a quality because the symbol
has the quality, is a second form of insanity.

A worst case of this is when someone is hallucinating conscious
experiences of little green martians on the street. In this case the
referent doesn't exist at all, although the symbol does. Thus ALL of
the symbol's qualities are considered to map back to the referent when
they don't.

Another classic example is when one considers that because one is
capable of perfect certainty of the symbol (conscious picture), one
thinks one is perfectly certain of the referent (physical universe).

Thus people think they are certain the physical universe exists,
when it doesn't.

He is perfectly certain his conscious experience of the physical
universe exists, therefore he assumes the physical universe exists too.

This goes lower south into an inversion where the being thinks he
is certain of the physical universe, but isn't sure he exists as a
conscious unit.

Sanity is recognizing that the symbol is certain and the referent
is not.

Insanity is thinking the referent is certain and the symbol doesn't
exist, meaning thinking you are seeing the referent distant from you.

INSANITY THREE

The third kind of insanity is when the referent has qualities that
the symbol does not have, and thus one gets the idea that the referent
does not have them either because the symbol doesn't have them.

Collapsing referent and symbol is always a form of insanity when it
is out of volitional control, because it puts one permanently out of
contact with actuality as it truly is.

THE THREE KINDS OF INSANITY SUMMARIZED

The three kinds of insanity arise from collapsing referent and
symbol into one and the same object, because referent and symbol are two
different objects with two different quality sets, yet collapsation
considers they are one and the same object with only one quality set
between them.

The three kinds of insanity are:

1.) considering that because two different qualities in a referent
and symbol are mapped to each other, that they are instead one and the
same quality. Thus 'frequency' (referent) *IS* 'red' (symbol).

The insanity then would be considering that red = frequency = red.

2.) considering the referent has qualities that rightly belong only
to the symbol. Thus self luminousness in consciousness (symbol) means
self luminousness in the physical universe (referent).

The insanity then would be to attribute self luminous certainty to
the physical universe just and only because one is self luminously
certain of one's own conscious image of the physical universe.

In fact self luminosity CAN NOT exist in the physical universe
because it is a form of learning by looking at cause directly rather
than the effect, and that is impossible across a distance.

3.) Considering the referent does not have qualities only because
the symbol does not have them. We can't see x-rays (symbol), therefore
there are no x-rays (referent). Our inability to be conscious of
radioactivity, the way we can of visible light, can be very dangerous to
us when traveling through a radioactive field.

Another example would be a belief that the city does not have cars
and buses, because the map doesn't show them.

CAUSATION

There is FOLLOWINGNESS.

That means event B followed event A at least once.

There is DEPENDABLE followingness.

That means B always follows A every time we have observed A.

There is NECESSARY dependable followingness.

That means B MUST follow A because A causes B.

Causation is DEFINED as necessary dependable followingness.

Defining causation as necessity may seem weak, as there may be more
to causation than mere necessity, but necessity is both necessary and
sufficient to causation.

Thus if there is cause, there must be necessity, and if there is
necessity there must be cause.

That alone is enough to allow us to get away with claiming

CAUSE = NECESSITY = CAUSE

Formally,

There is causation if and only if there is necessity.

There is necessity if and only if there is causation.

Notice the following relationships.

Necessary dependable followingness implies dependable
followingness.

Dependable followingness does not imply necessary dependable
followingness.

Thus,

Necessity implies dependability.

Dependability does not imply necessity.

Thus,

Cause implies dependability.

Dependability does not imply cause.

In the popular voice we say 'Correlation does not imply causation.'

Dependability of followingness between two events is 'correlation'.

SCIENTIFIC METHOD

The scientific method is the process of science, of coming to know
about the universe around us.

Because some of the alleged universe around us is a universe of
separations in space and time, the physical universe, all that can be
known of the physical universe are qualities of causal relation via
learning by being an effect.

That's a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.

All we can know of the physical universe IS HOW IT AFFECTS US AS
CONSCIOUS OBSERVER. We never see the physical universe directly, only
its rendition in our conscious rendition zone.

Any quality in a physical universe object OR ANY OTHER KIND OF
OBJECT, that does not have a cause and effect relation to us can not be
known by us, as we can only learn by looking directly at cause (self
luminosity of consciousness ) or indirectly by looking at effect.

Thus ALL we can know about things distant from us are cause and
effect, and none of what we can know about those things can ever be more
than a theory because distance implies learning by looking only at the
effect and effect does not prove cause.

MODELS AND EVIDENCE

The valuable final product of science are models of cause and
effect to account for evidence, i.e. conscious observations which are
data gleaned from symbols about referents which are 'things out there'.

The observations (conscious symbols) are perfectly certain, the
theories about the alleged referents, created to account for the
observations, are never perfectly certain, only workable or not.

Claiming perfect certainty about a theory of cause is a DOMAIN
ERROR.

Perfect certainty can not be part of the quality set of any theory
of cause.

Theories of cause gleaned indirectly by looking at effects can only
be workable or unworkable. We say the theory is wrong, but we mean
unworkable.

Statements of fact gleaned directly by looking at cause can only be
true or false.

Evidence is always observation of dependable followingness.

Theory is model of necessary dependable followingness.

Thus all models are models of cause and effect.

If something is not cause and effect, science has no interest in
it.

THEORY BALLS

Theories consist of model and evidence.

Evidence is data born of observations.

Observations are data gleaned from symbols about referents, via
learning by being an effect.

Thus the scientific method consists of the following:

Observations -> evidence -> models -> predictions -> observations.

Notice the above process is circular, the end feeds back into the
beginning. New observations lead to corrections of the model, which
lead to new predictions which lead to new observations, which are new
evidence, and around and around we go.

This process refines the model into a complete theory ball.

A complete (round) theory ball obtains when all evidence is modeled
(explained), and all predictions are evidenced (observed).

TRUTH AND CERTAINTY

Truth is a quality of relation between a statement of fact and a
given specified actuality.

"The house is red' is a statement of fact, whether right or wrong.

Certainty is a quality of relation between a knower of truth, and a
given stated truth value of the given specified statement of fact.

Having now observed the house, the knower is now certain of the
truth or falsity of the statement that the house is red or at least his
conscious rendition of it is :) He could be dreaming, imagining or
hallucinating, but WHAT HE SEES IS RED WITHOUT QUESTION.

Statements of fact are always of the form

'Quality belongs to object' (The house is red)

or

'Object belongs to class.' (Joey my pet is a dog.)

or

'Class belongs to bigger Class.' (All dogs are animals.)

Truth is a quality of relation between the statement and the
actualities it refers to.

Certainty is another quality of relation between the conscious unit
and the truth value of the statement under scrutiny.

Thus we have in order:

'The house is red' which is a statement.

'It is true that the house is red' which is the statement's
asserted truth value.

'I am certain it is true that the house is red.' which is my
conscious relationship to the asserted truth value of the statement.

CERTAINTY AND SCIENTIFIC THEORY

There are two kinds of theories, existential theories or
specifications, and universal theories, or generalizations.

EXISTENTIAL THEORIES

'Daisies exist' is an existential theory or specification.

Science can prove it true by having a clear specification of what a
daisy is, and then finding one instance of a daisy, namely an object
that meets that specification. A specification is essentially a
delineation of the quality set of the object.

Science can never prove the above theory false, for the absence of
evidence for a daisy is not proof of its non existence.

In the popular voice we say 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.'

This is because science can not observe all space and time looking
for a daisy. The best science can say is 'Right here and right now,
there is not a daisy.'

Thus the absence of evidence for unicorns, does not prove that
unicorns do not exist, never have existed, nor never will exist.

UNIVERSAL THEORIES

'All daisies are white' is a universal theory or generalization.

Science can prove it false by finding one non white (black) daisy.

Science can never prove it true, because the presence of one or a
billion white daisies is not proof that all daisies are white.

Again in the popular voice we say 'Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence (of the black daisey)'.

This is because science can not observe all space and time looking
for a non white daisy. The best science can say is 'Right here and
right now, there is a white daisy'.

CAUSAL MODELS ARE UNIVERSAL THEORIES

Causal models attempt to explain DEPENDABLE followingness, which
means for all space and time A will always be followed by B, and B is
always preceded by A. Thus causation is a universal theory.

The very statement that B ALWAYS follows A is a universal theory, a
generalization, and thus fits into the category of theories that can
never be proven right, but can be proven wrong (unworkable) with one
counter example.

Theories may 'stand the test of time', but in the end, everything
that lives inside of time, is dust in the wind.

Science is interested in what will happen, but can only observe
what did happen.

What did happen does not imply what will happen, thus science is at
a disadvantage.

The reason that science can never prove a causal theory true is
because all such theories are theories of cause and effect, theories of
NECESSITY, and science can never directly observe a necessity, but can
only observe a dependability.

In other words science can observe A and then B following, but
never observe the necessity that they do so. This is because the EVENTS
are observable but never the CAUSE between them.

So dependability of followingness does not imply necessity of
followingness.

Thus science can never prove a causal theory true (permanently
workable).

But science CAN observe an UNdependability, which would immediately
imply a lack of necessity and thus imply that the theory of necessity
was false (unworkable).

Thus science can prove a causal theory false with one observation
that denies a dependability.

Science can only observe the weaker (right hand) side of the
equation:

Necessity implies Dependability.

In the presence of dependability there may be necessity (cause),
but this remains forever a theory.

However in the absence of dependability there certainly is no
cause. At least as it was modeled in the theory.

Thus if one observes a dependability there MAY BE cause.

But if one observes an undependability, there CERTAINLY is no
cause.

Since all causal theories are theories of cause and effect, which
model evidential dependability via theoretical necessity, science can
only prove a causal theory false and never prove it true, depending on
whether it observes an UNdependability or not.

Necessity is an anthropomorphization of directly perceived self
luminous causal agency within the conscious unit.

"I DO AND I KNOW IT."

Science can not observe cause in the external space time universe,
because science is limited to the indirect observation of cause only via
the followingness between two different events, but consciousness can
perceive cause directly within itself.

The miraculousness of that statement will be left for another time.

Direct perception of cause, and in fact direct perception of
anything, is what the proof and consciousness is all about.

ANTHROPOMORPHIZATION

Anthropomorphization is assigning qualities that rightly belong
only to consciousness, to the physical universe. It is insanity number
two: because the symbol has the quality, we believe the alleged referent
must have the quality also.

As such there may in fact be no necessity in the outward physical
universe at all. Just because we see causal agency within our conscious
unit, doesn't mean there is any causal agency between any two different
objects out in the alleged physical universe.

It is possible that what the conscious unit perceives as cause
between things in the physical universe, is actually the cause of the
conscious unit itself being projected out on to the things displayed IN
consciousness (apparitions of space and time) in order to make it look
like there is cause between them directly out there in the physical
universe.

We call this the THIRD PARTY LAW and will get into it later in
detail.

As absurd as the above may sound to sophomoric minds, there is no
*SCIENTIFIC* ground to reject the possibility out of hand, AND CAN NEVER
BE, as

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN WITH PERFECT CERTAINTY ABOUT CAUSATION
BETWEEN REFERENTS BY LOOKING AT CAUSATION BETWEEN SYMBOLS.

IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN WITH PERFECT CERTAINTY IF THE
REFERENT EVEN EXISTS MY LOOKING AT THE EXISTENCE OF THE SYMBOL.

IF ONE CAN NOT PROVE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THE REFERENT EXISTS, HOW
THEN CAN ONE PROVE WITH CERTAINTY THAT CAUSE BETWEEN REFERENTS EXISTS?


SEEING THE WORLD THROUGH THEORY COLORED GLASSES

People tend to see the world through theory colored glasses.

If they have a theory that says consciousness is a process in a
machine (a brain), and a theorem that says machines can't be certain of
anything, they will conclude that consciousness can't be certain of
anything either, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE LOOKING DIRECTLY AT PERFECT
CERTAINTIES ALL DAY LONG (any two conscious colors around them, notice
the perfect certainty of their difference and their existence.)

Thus theory, in the hands of incompetent proponents, can obscure
observation and corrupt interpretation.

CAUSAL PATHWAYS

Objects communicate with each other via cause and effect.

That means that some quality in one object causes a change in state
in the quality set of another object.

A CAUSAL PATHWAY is a series of cause and effect events that
propagate out through space and time from an original source.

More broadly we DEFINE referent and symbol as any two objects that
have a causal pathway between them, meaning the symbol's state is a
function of the prior referent's state.

Therefore there has to be a causal pathway between any referent and
any of its later symbols.

Any two objects which are related to each other by cause and
effect, are referent and symbol to each other.

Any two objects which are referent and symbol to each other, are
related by a causal pathway between them.

If A and B are referent and symbol, then there is a causal pathway
from A to B.

If there is a causal pathway from A to B, then A and B are referent
and symbol.

CAUSAL MESSENGER WAVES.

The procession of changes in state emanating from an original
referent along a causal pathway out into space and time is called a
causal messenger wave.

It is called a WAVE because it moves continuously out into space
and time like a wave, at the speed of cause.

Different kinds of causes can travel at different speeds, but the
maximum speed of cause in the physical universe, is apparently the speed
of light in a vacuum.

Light is one kind of causal messenger wave.

It is called a MESSENGER wave because the wave of changes that
occur carry data about the nature of the various referents that
originally emanated it, and the other referents the wave later
encountered and passed through.

It is called a CAUSAL messenger wave, because it is a wave of
causation traveling through the universe and the data it carries is data
solely about the causal relations between the referents and symbols that
it encounters along the way.

THE REFERENT AND SYMBOL CONTINUUM

Because the causal messenger wave travels along its causal pathway
in a continuous manner, every point in space time along that path
becomes first a symbol to prior referents, and then a referent to later
symbols.

Thus we say that the causal messenger wave creates a referent and
symbol continuum as it propagates through space and time.

Quantum mechanics will want to argue about just how continuous this
continuum really is.

So noted.

We are not arguing against quantum mechanics here, but neither are
we bringing quantum mechanics into the discussion.

ORIGINAL REFERENT AND SYMBOL OF FINAL AUTHORITY

The original referent is DEFINED as the event we wish to learn
about.

The symbol of final authority is DEFINED as the event we will study
to learn about the original referent.

Thus a causal pathway is a series of referents and symbols
following each other in space and time starting at the original
referent, and ending at the symbol of final authority.

The original referent is probably not the first referent in the
causal pathway, because in this universe anyhow every change HAS to come
from some thing else. Changes don't just happen with out something else
changing first, even atomic decay. At the very least time is changing
before the decay.

The symbol of final authority is not necessarily the last symbol in
the causal pathway, most of which never end; it is however the chosen
symbol under scrutiny to learn about the original referent by studying
the state of the symbol.

Any point in a referent and symbol continuum can be assigned as the
original referent we want to know about, or the symbol of final
authority we are going to use to learn about earlier referents from.

Probably the first original referent is at the beginning of time,
and the last symbol of final authority will be at the end of time. Thus
note that the 'original referent' under study is rarely the first
referent in the chain, just as the symbol of final authority is never
the last symbol in the chain (unless the universe has ended.)

However note that the original referent under study is ALWAYS in
the past, and the symbol of final authority is in the NOW.

Thus learning can take place between any two points in the referent
and symbol continuum, the earlier point is the original referent and the
later point is the symbol of final authority.

Thus causal messenger waves pass THROUGH original referents and
symbols of final authority, and eventually referent and symbol both
become part of the causal messenger wave's wake as it moves on into the
future, leaving them behind. And as each new symbol is created, a data
imprint is left on it about the causal nature of all the referents
behind it.

TRACKING

Tracking means a symbol is under the continuous causal influence of
the referent at all times so that the symbol's state is an ongoing
function of the referent's state albeit delayed in time by the speed of
cause and the distance between referent and symbol.

Tracking ends when the symbol's state is no longer a causal
function of the referent's state.

In this case we say the state of the symbol is no longer tracking
the state of the referent.

There is a subtle but important change in definition here that
needs to be kept track of lest it lead to confusions.

Take a light bulb and a light meter on the other side of the room.

A referent is an object in ONE moment of space and time, because in
the next moment its a whole new object. So when we talk about the light
bulb, technically we have to ask which light bulb, meaning where and
when.

So the light bulb at 12 noon emits a photon which travels to the
light meter and the meter dial reads.

That is a single causal pathway between light bulb and meter.

The meter for that one event 'tracked' the light bulb.

But then a second later, the NEW light bulb emits a NEW photon that
heads over to the NEW light meter, and again it reads. Thus the new
meter is tracking the new light bulb.

If we consider that the succession of events in time called light
bulb is in fact one single light bulb moving through time, and the same
for the meter, we can then say that the meter is tracking the light bulb
across time, because the meter's state is a function of the light bulb's
state minus the travel time distance between them.

Notice that although we may claim it is one light bulb moving
through time and one meter moving through time, the photons being
emitted by the light bulb at each moment of time are CLEARLY new photons
with each one emitted.

Thus we can get get sloppy and consider that the same old light
bulb is emitting different new photons at the same old meter, and thus
the meter is tracking the light bulb from moment to moment.

Conveniences of conversation are ok as long as we keep track of
them, otherwise confusions will arise, as in fact the light bulb is a
brand new light bulb every new moment of time and so is the meter.

DATA CONTENT

A symbol can have many qualities that do not causally map back to
the referent.

DATA is the subset of qualities in the symbol that do causally map
back to the referent and thus represent qualities in the referent.

A symbol can have either high DATA CONTENT or low DATA CONTENT.

A causal pathway is the means by which data propagates from it's
original referent through space and time to an endless series of
symbols.

Each symbol in turn becomes its own referent as it passes on the
causal messenger wave to the next symbol in line. Thus the next symbol
in line is affected by both the many symbols before it and the original
referent.

DATA INTEGRITY

Data integrity is the conformance of the data contained in the
symbol to the original referent. The longer the causal pathway between
referent and symbol, i.e. the greater the number of referent to symbol
'hops', the lower the data integrity.

DATA IMPRINT

A data imprint is the changes in state incurred in a symbol by
virtue of a causal wave originating from a referent.

A data imprint is a rendering in the rendition zone of a symbol, a
rendition of the causal nature of the original referent.

Since every symbol along the way between original referent and the
symbol of final authority adds its own causal influence into the
traveling causal messenger wave, the data imprint on the final symbol
contains data about ALL of the symbols back to the original referent and
even before.

Separating out the data from a given symbol and knowing which prior
referent to apply it to can be daunting.

GEOMETRICITY OR GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY (SIMILARITY)

The FORM of a symbol's data content can have either high GEOMETRIC
CONGRUENCY or low GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY to the referent.

Geometric congruency means that the symbol 'looks similar to' the
referent. There is a one to one space and time correspondence between
the referent and the symbol.

Purists will complain that we really want to call this geometric
similarity, as congruency demands absolute equality of geometric form.

So noted. So ignored :)

However for the purposes of this lecture, geometric congruency,
similarity, conformance, and commensurateness mean the same thing.

Notice that data conformance, how well the symbol is tracking the
referent, and geometric conformance, how much the symbol 'looks like'
the referent are related but not quite the same thing. Data conformance
can be very high, but geometric congruency very low, as we shall see.

In general we will call data conformance simply data content.

For example the word COW refers back to a particular kind of
animal. Therefore 'COW' is a symbol.

But the symbol itself has very little data in its structure to give
us a hint as to what it is referring back to. Thus we say it's DATA
CONTENT (conformance) is low.

And yes the word cow doesn't look at all like a cow so its
geometric congruency is also low.

Notice there must have been a causal pathway between some cow
somewhere and the being who first created the symbol 'cow' or the word
would never have been invented, so 'cow' remains a proper symbol to the
animal in question even if very indirectly causally related to any cow.

On the other hand a picture of a cow taken by a camera is also a
symbol for the cow, but this symbol has a high degree of data content,
so we can tell much about the referent by looking at the symbol.

The picture of a cow also 'looks like' a cow, thus the data content
contained in the symbol has a high degree of GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY with
the original referent.

However if we scan the picture into an encrypted data stream of 1's
and 0's, that data stream still has high data content about the cow, but
very low geometric congruency indeed.

High data content does not necessarily mean RECOVERABLE data
content. It is possible to have a symbol with high data content, but
non recoverable.

EXAMPLE:

The unix cleartext password is the referent and the encrypted
password is the symbol. It is generally not possible to determine the
original password from the encrypted symbol. The data content of the
symbol remains high, uniquely rendering the referent, but the
recoverability from symbol back to referent, remains zero, as intended.
That means you can't learn about the referent from the symbol at all
even though the data is there!

The way passwords work, is the user types in his referent password,
and it is RE ENCRYPTED, and if the new symbol matches the old symbol,
then its a pass.

Thus although one can not learn about the referent via the symbol,
one can learn about two referents from their two symbols. If the
symbols are the same, the referents must have been the same, but what
the referent was forever is lost.

The reason passwords work, is if you re encrypt the same password,
you will get the same symbol. If there were no data content left in the
symbol, this would not happen.

ACCIDENTAL LEARNING

A symbol can contain data that matches the nature of the referent,
but not BECAUSE the referent causally impinged on the symbol and
imprinted or rendered that data there.

If there is no causal pathway between referent and symbol, any
'data' in the symbol about the referent is unrelated to a causal
connection between them and thus is coincidental.

Thus the symbol's state accidentally describes the referent.

Accidental data conformance between uncausally related objects, can
not be counted upon to provide dependable results, and in fact must not
be called LEARNING at all.

In fact if there is no causal pathway between the two objects, they
can't be called referent and symbol either!

Thus we say that learning implies learning by being an effect of a
cause, or by looking at cause directly (self luminous direct
perception). In the absence of cause there can be no learning even if
the symbol is 'right' about the referent.

RELATION BETWEEN DATA CONTENT AND GEOMETRIC CONGRUENCY.

With the above caveat in mind about accidental data conformance, in
general geometric congruency IS one form of data content.

In the popular voice we call geometric congruency HIGH PICTURENESS,
or high picture content. Hieroglyphs of birds that look like birds or
are similar to birds have a high data content and high geometric
congruency.

Thus, ignoring instances of accidental data conformance, we can
state:

High geometric congruency implies high data content.

Low data content implies low geometric congruency.

However,

High data content does not necessarily imply high geometric
congruency.

Low geometric congruency does not necessarily imply low data
content.

INTERPRETATION AND RENDITION

Some will tell you that your conscious experience is your brain's
interpretation of the physical universe.

That is ass backwards with emphasis on the word ass.

Your consciousness is your brain's RENDITION of the physical
universe, and the physical universe is your interpretation of the
rendition you see in your consciousness.

Let's get this straight.

The physical universe is the referent.

Your conscious experience is the symbol.

Interpretation is the process of extracting data about a referent
from a symbol.

Oui?

Rendition is the process of encoding data about a referent into a
symbol.

Rendition means encode.

Interpretation means decode.

Referent -> rendition -> symbol.

Referent <- interpretation <- symbol.

From the referent state one renders a symbol state.

From the symbol state, one interprets the referent state.

In mathematical terms consider rendition (to render), and
interpretation (to interpret) to be functions over a domain like f(x).

Then:

Symbol = rendition(referent).

Referent = interpretation(symbol).

The domain of rendition are referents and the range of
renditions are symbols.

The domain of interpretation are symbols, and the range
of interpretations are referents.

Your conscious experience is a symbol for the physical
universe referent, therefore your conscious experience is a
rendition.

The alleged physical universe is the referent for your conscious
experience symbol, thus the physical universe is an interpretation of
your conscious experience.

DO NOT GET THESE BACKWARDS.

Hell doesn't care and will not help you disentangle your
confusions.

COLLAPSING REFERENT AND SYMBOL REVISITED.

If you look up interpretation in a dictionary it will say
rendition.

If you look up rendition it will say interpretation.

Considering that

interpretation = rendition

is the same as considering that

referent = symbol.

This is all three forms of insanity rolled into one.

Those three insanities ARE the fabric of Hell.

There are a lot of dictionaries in hell.

One in the hands of every Medusa running around turning people to
stone.

Fire and Brim Stone.

Omni good work, and Omni Amen.

Some would say these words are inappropriate.

Let me apologize by saying that neither religion nor science are
worthy to breath the ashes of this work.

Let them read and suffer until they have done penance for the
damage they have wrought upon mankind over the millenia.

And when they have lived through hell and returned to tell the
tale, then perhaps they may criticize our approach and delivery.

But I assure you, when they return from the sticky dark bottom of
the abyss, they WILL know the difference between interpretation and
rendition, because that is the only way out.

And they will also know how to confuse the hell out of the two,
because that is the way in.

Studied expertise on how to come in is the way out.

That's because trying to come in, puts you out, as you can't come
in unless you ARE out.

LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT

Learning by being an effect is the process of gleaning data about
the nature of an original referent by BEING a symbol of final authority.

Notice we say BEING.

If the symbol of final authority is not you yourself, then it is
separate from you, and you can never know about it at all without
looking at a later symbol, thus you need to find a later symbol closer
to you to study.

But 'closer' is never enough, the only way you can ever know
anything by being an effect, is TO BE THE EFFECT! Thus *YOU* become the
symbol of final authority and the changes in your own state become the
data by which you judge the referent.

Thus consciousness, as the symbol of final authority, becomes the
final collapser of quantum wave functions. But that is for another
time.

DEPENDABILITY OF TRACKING

The dependability of learning by being an effect depends on the
dependability of tracking between alleged referent and symbol.

In the absence of dependable tracking, in the absence of a
dependable causal pathway between referent and symbol, there can be no
confidence in the data gleaned from the symbol about the referent as the
two will be causally unrelated (and thus are not actually referent and
symbol to each other any more).

Thus learning by being an effect depends upon a dependable causal
pathway between referent and symbol.

Dependable causal pathways leads to dependable tracking.

VERIFICATION

Verification is the verification of tracking, the verification of
the causal pathway between referent and symbol.

However cause is not sufficient to witness cause. (Jane's law.)

Translation:

Witnessing effects is not sufficient to witness or prove cause.

One can perhaps witness dependability, but never necessity between
events in the physical universe.

Dependability and necessity are not the same thing.

Only by witnessing necessity between events could one truly verify
a casual pathway.

Therefore verification of causal pathways can not be done by using
causal pathways.

Just because the meter is reading, does that mean the light is on?

What other meter are you going to use to measure the causal pathway
between the light bulb and the first meter? How do you know your second
meter is working as theorized?

CAUSAL PATHWAYS CAN NOT BE VERIFIED BY OTHER CAUSAL PATHWAYS.

MORE CAUSAL PATHWAYS DO NOT A MORE CERTAIN CAUSAL PATHWAY MAKE.

ALL CAUSAL PATHWAYS THROUGH A NON ZERO, MULTI DIMENSIONAL SYSTEM
FOREVER REMAIN UNVERIFIED AND THUS REMAIN THEORY, EVIDENCE AND MODEL AT
BEST.

Thus an object that is limited to learning by being an effect, that
is by looking at symbols to determine the nature of referents, can never
be certain of its results, neither certain of the nature of the
referent, nor certain that the referent even exists.

Thus we have the third line of The Proof:

3.) LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT IMPLIES NOT LEARNING WITH
CERTAINTY.

So now we are in a position to draw a partial conclusion from lines
2.) and 3.) of The Proof:

2.) DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT.

3.) LEARNING BY BEING AN EFFECT IMPLIES NOT LEARNING WITH
CERTAINTY.

from this we can conclude:

DISTANCE AND LEARNING IMPLIES NOT LEARNING WITH CERTAINTY.

Or to make it easier:

LEARNING WITH CERTAINTY ACROSS A DISTANCE IS IMPOSSIBLE.

OK, let's take a break.

Homer

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The Paths of Lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF Cross Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com In the Line of Duty http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Apr 1 00:55:59 EDT 2009

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Aug 6 12:06:01 EDT 2017
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/val/val3.txt
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.

_______________________________________________
Clear-L mailing list
Clear-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l