- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
COLOR WHEEL
Here is the basic color wheel, also the basic rainbow, going
clockwise.
Red
Magenta Yellow
Blue Green
Cyan
Complementary colors are diagonally opposite each other.
Complementary colors make white as light and black as paint.
Red + Cyan = white for light, black for paint
Yellow + Blue = white for light, black for paint
Magenta + Green = white for light, black for paint.
Red, Green and Blue are the light primaries.
Cyan, Magenta and Yellow are the paint primaries.
With Light (additive colors):
Red + Green = Yellow
Red + Blue = Magenta
Blue + Green = Cyan
With Paints (subtractive colors):
Cyan + Magenta = Blue
Cyan + Yellow = Green
Magenta + Yellow = Red
Notice the relationship of these colors to each other on the
color wheel, Blue for example is between Cyan and Magenta, and so it
is for all of them.
Notice that Cyan + Red makes black because Red is already
Magenta + Yellow, so you have Cyan + Yellow + Magenta. The Cyan
absorbs the red, the Yellow absorbs the blue, and Magenta absorbs
the green, that leaves nothing or black.
Kind of like Catherine.
Using Red, Blue and Yellow as primaries in either system, is
mixing both systems together and leaving out parts of each, they
aren't primaries in either system because you can't get *ALL* the
other three colors from them in either system, only some of them.
Homer
- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith Clean Air, Clear Water, Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 A Green Earth and Peace. Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer@lightlink.com Is that too much to ask? http://www.lightlink.com
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Wed Jan 28 03:06:02 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/color
Send mail to archive@lightlink.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning, but
not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFUyJhrURT1lqxE3HERAvP2AKCcwXQxJu3zvVj6QgHwZKnD/7hWnQCff/P1
cnk8jNz4HzBRcD3NOp1v+zU=
=u9G1
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Thu Jan 29 14:26:46 EST 2015
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jul 14 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/color.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)
iD8DBQFbSh4DURT1lqxE3HERAtx9AJ9pq5+Q12vQFpKtx2EeaHNkJIDNBACdEUX3
LHKyRP+tMvWyP4uJSEKcrzY=
=vWK1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Saturday, July 14, 2018
Friday, July 13, 2018
ADORE474 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FREE WILL
Michael (mickel1234@blueyonder.co.uk) wrote:
>And then I imagine going up in a helecopter and looking down on a city do I
>see anything really that different from the ants nest.
>We have choice, someone may say, Do we really have choice, I have read
>somewhere that it is impossible to work out if we have free will or not,
>many Philosophers have tried to work on that one.
>Maybe there is a delay in the mind which gives a person the impression there
>is free will.
OK, here is Adore's answer to free will.
Nothing can be free of its own nature.
Free in the sense of undetermined by ANYTHING would lead to random
activity which would be worse than evil, as there are more ways to harm
than to help.
However the will is not undetermined by anything but is in fact
bound by its desires, both its created desires and its fundamental
desires.
Freedom then is measured by whether a will is able to do what it
wants to do. If you are in a room and you desire to leave, but the door
is locked, you are not free. If the door opens and you can leave, then
your will is free to do what it wants on that particular matter.
The fact that you desired to leave the room in the first place
however absolute, the will is still determined by that desire.
The general equation is then that
DOING = WANTING + KNOWING
What the will does is a function of what it wants and what it knows
about how to get what it wants.
The question arises can a will changes its own desires?
Only if it desires to :) So superficially yes, but ultimately no,
it is always ruled by its ruling desires. which can not be changed,
created nor destroyed, only rendered operable and unoperable during its
manifest and unmanifest cycles.
A will however can do things and originate desires that are NOT a
function of its past in space time, thus it can make prime postulates
and actions that can not be traced to prior determinism IN SPACE TIME.
But anything the will does can always be traced to its true nature.
Thus an undetermined will is not desirable.
A will that is state determined in the physical universe is a game
condition and is desirable as long as the will is happy being a stimulus
response machine. Most people are that way most of the time, and
civilization grows just nicely.
They are playing a game of life just like the computer game called
life.
A will that is not state determined but can produce large
quantities of prime postulates is even better, but this is OT and an OT
is as likely to postulate downwards as upwards. That is what OT is and
does, how do you think you got here?
A will that can do what it wants is happy and as free as free comes
in that sense only.
Homer
Sat Mar 24 01:49:47 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 13 12:00:01 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore474.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)
iD8DBQFbSMyCURT1lqxE3HERAgydAKDYJztyryVcUDKUc+Ch0lRQs7QcngCeNBAc
8SHUjL+wDrBixv4VpEVz5lg=
=zab5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
FREE WILL
Michael (mickel1234@blueyonder.co.uk) wrote:
>And then I imagine going up in a helecopter and looking down on a city do I
>see anything really that different from the ants nest.
>We have choice, someone may say, Do we really have choice, I have read
>somewhere that it is impossible to work out if we have free will or not,
>many Philosophers have tried to work on that one.
>Maybe there is a delay in the mind which gives a person the impression there
>is free will.
OK, here is Adore's answer to free will.
Nothing can be free of its own nature.
Free in the sense of undetermined by ANYTHING would lead to random
activity which would be worse than evil, as there are more ways to harm
than to help.
However the will is not undetermined by anything but is in fact
bound by its desires, both its created desires and its fundamental
desires.
Freedom then is measured by whether a will is able to do what it
wants to do. If you are in a room and you desire to leave, but the door
is locked, you are not free. If the door opens and you can leave, then
your will is free to do what it wants on that particular matter.
The fact that you desired to leave the room in the first place
however absolute, the will is still determined by that desire.
The general equation is then that
DOING = WANTING + KNOWING
What the will does is a function of what it wants and what it knows
about how to get what it wants.
The question arises can a will changes its own desires?
Only if it desires to :) So superficially yes, but ultimately no,
it is always ruled by its ruling desires. which can not be changed,
created nor destroyed, only rendered operable and unoperable during its
manifest and unmanifest cycles.
A will however can do things and originate desires that are NOT a
function of its past in space time, thus it can make prime postulates
and actions that can not be traced to prior determinism IN SPACE TIME.
But anything the will does can always be traced to its true nature.
Thus an undetermined will is not desirable.
A will that is state determined in the physical universe is a game
condition and is desirable as long as the will is happy being a stimulus
response machine. Most people are that way most of the time, and
civilization grows just nicely.
They are playing a game of life just like the computer game called
life.
A will that is not state determined but can produce large
quantities of prime postulates is even better, but this is OT and an OT
is as likely to postulate downwards as upwards. That is what OT is and
does, how do you think you got here?
A will that can do what it wants is happy and as free as free comes
in that sense only.
Homer
Sat Mar 24 01:49:47 EDT 2007
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 13 12:00:01 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore474.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)
iD8DBQFbSMyCURT1lqxE3HERAgydAKDYJztyryVcUDKUc+Ch0lRQs7QcngCeNBAc
8SHUjL+wDrBixv4VpEVz5lg=
=zab5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADOR1044 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS DONE CORRECTLY v2.0
MEN AND WOMEN
A man's interest in women is basically the same as a baby's
interest in a mother.
Once the man grows up, he has about as much need for a woman, as an
ax through the head.
He is better off leaving the woman upside down in a trash can where
she belongs, to be carried away by a garbage truck to the nearest dump.
Oh yes women can do great things, but imagine how much a man could
do if he hadn't had a mother.
As for men and women being friends to each other, that isn't going
to happen.
Down in the deepest part of her heart, the woman is in seething
hatred for the man.
Born not of fear but of jealousy.
She can't believe she got the short end of the stick.
She starts to feel this when her boobs starts to bloom.
At first she wants to show them to everyone, but then she gets the
feeling that might not be a good idea.
If you are going to be only half a human, you might not want
everyone to know how you feel about it.
Whatever a woman complains about in a man, she is jealous of, no
matter how egregious.
She is jealous that she too can't be that egregious and get away
with it.
You think women are so sweet and light, but while men destroy with
overt violence, women destroy with covert violence.
Any woman who claims she isn't jealous of men is happy living the
protected life of a rip off artist taken care of by men and the
civilization they have built around her, all the while allowed to
continously bitch about how she can do anything a man can do, only
better.
Bitching yes, maybe, anything else no.
Men grow up from being a fetus THROUGH being a female, and then
onto being a man.
Woman grow up to being a female, and then no futher.
Estrogen hasn't a clue how to survive, expecially with a kid
sucking on its boobs.
So evolution invented testosterone which has a clue how to survive
and knows just what to do.
Without testosterone surrounding her, estrogen is a basket case.
As such, women haven't a clue what a man is, not a clue.
Well maybe a very dim clue since she invented testosterone to
protect her and her children.
But really a women's first clue what testosterone is when she has
her first born SON.
Then she finds out with great certainty what testosterone is and
that she doesn't have any.
There is nothing like having a son to remind the women why she
married the man in the first place.
But every time a women finds something in a man she doesn't like,
she tries to effeminize it.
Men on the other hand know through and through what a woman is, as
they grew up through it, but political correctness enforced by 'mother's
love' has effeminized his alpha male nature out of existence leaving a
poor half excuse of a beta male behind to suck up to the women.
Beta males are lower than the women they suck up to, that's why
they follow women around with their noses in her ass, leaving a drooling
trail where ever they go.
Thus while beta males cower and propitiate before the woman's "How
dare you look at me, touch me, want me, see me, you prevert!", what few
remaining real women there are pray for the day a worthy alpha male
comes along and takes them.
Alpha males don't court by asking for permission.
Of course there has to be some responsibility on both sides for
this, if a man takes a women, it is for life.
And the woman?
She loves it.
And if she doesn't then she should push for martial arts instead of
gym to all children starting in kindergarten.
There is no security in the world like the security found in the
arms and devoted attention of an alpha male attending to your needs and
your children.
But because of the broken Y chromosome, most women think of men as
gentically damaged women.
Men however think of women as children.
Children who will never grow up, because they CAN never grow up.
'Girls grow up faster than boys do, but boys grow up, girls never
do.'
Because women don't have the genes TO fully growing up.
To the degree they perenially have children at their tits, or
clutching their skirts, women remain part children themselves.
Because any woman with child is more dependent upon the man than
the man is on her.
And yes men developed superior physical capabilities that the woman
with child is dependent upon, but he has also developed similar
emotional, mental and spiritual capabilities that complement the proper
control and operation of those physical capabilities.
These are things the women thinks she can understand but can't
until she has had a male body and the responsibilities thrown upon it,
and then lived through total war.
We don't just have a physical body, we have a 4 fold body, Body,
Heart, Mind and Soul.
Each of the 4 have evolved in unison to enhance the operation of
the whole.
To claim that men's ONLY superiority over women is physical is
lunicidal.
And yes men hate women for the woman's second rate state of
existence, hate born of the man's unconfrontable pity, sorrow and
sympathy for women for having been created second rate out of the gate.
To pity but never to reveal that pity.
I mean who would want to be a woman?
Men look at women in horror as eternally crippled and deprived.
'Whew that was close! Jesus, I could have been a woman!"
And you know, women KNOW THIS, oh boy do they know this, they smile
at you with that warm come hither look, but all they want is to be
serviced, to have their pussies filled, and their bellies filled with
new life to give them purpose, and a safe garage to live in, one she
couldn't build herself and couldn't possibly invent, discover or figure
out how it worked if her life depended on it.
Oh yeah she can build a hut, but invent, discover, understand and
apply Maxwell's equations to providing it light, heat and electricity,
well she is a rare breed indeed.
Man's exceptionality is in his ability to think under duress.
Under duress, women scream hysterically, all the better to attract
a man to come save her.
So I will let you in on a little secret, any parent who abuses
their child hated their own childhood, any man who abuses a woman, hates
his mother.
I do wonder why.
Mother is the Great Effeminator.
The mother refuses to operate in her son the abilities he has as a
man that she doesn't.
There is nothing like a mother to destroy the real leadership of a
man.
It has become politically incorrect to even consider that such a
thing as leadership exists and is desirable and prized above almost
anything else.
True leadership is rare as rare comes.
Women can bitch about sons that can't lead, but can a women produce
a son that can lead?
Men who have had their leadership suppressed out of them, become
monsters.
"Every monster is some mother's son.
How do women do it?
I mean to have something come out of your cunt, and not know
whether it will kill, rape or suck blood must be really somthing else."
That's from Adore. http://www.adore.com
Which really doesn't like mothers by the way.
It is the man's effort to destroy his mother, that makes him
destroy the planet instead with atomic war.
He can't kill her, so he will kill everyone else instead.
His greatest fear?
He fears most, for all his efforts, that his mother will be the
last one left standing anyhow, with her foot on his head in the mud.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Jul 13 01:26:30 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1044.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbSDgHURT1lqxE3HERAnsEAJ9zz5woyTVISOHqzodmQbMHR5uCYQCgtxkI
8TLHdrT9sV7jWQWG8II7GRs=
=ro/s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS DONE CORRECTLY v2.0
MEN AND WOMEN
A man's interest in women is basically the same as a baby's
interest in a mother.
Once the man grows up, he has about as much need for a woman, as an
ax through the head.
He is better off leaving the woman upside down in a trash can where
she belongs, to be carried away by a garbage truck to the nearest dump.
Oh yes women can do great things, but imagine how much a man could
do if he hadn't had a mother.
As for men and women being friends to each other, that isn't going
to happen.
Down in the deepest part of her heart, the woman is in seething
hatred for the man.
Born not of fear but of jealousy.
She can't believe she got the short end of the stick.
She starts to feel this when her boobs starts to bloom.
At first she wants to show them to everyone, but then she gets the
feeling that might not be a good idea.
If you are going to be only half a human, you might not want
everyone to know how you feel about it.
Whatever a woman complains about in a man, she is jealous of, no
matter how egregious.
She is jealous that she too can't be that egregious and get away
with it.
You think women are so sweet and light, but while men destroy with
overt violence, women destroy with covert violence.
Any woman who claims she isn't jealous of men is happy living the
protected life of a rip off artist taken care of by men and the
civilization they have built around her, all the while allowed to
continously bitch about how she can do anything a man can do, only
better.
Bitching yes, maybe, anything else no.
Men grow up from being a fetus THROUGH being a female, and then
onto being a man.
Woman grow up to being a female, and then no futher.
Estrogen hasn't a clue how to survive, expecially with a kid
sucking on its boobs.
So evolution invented testosterone which has a clue how to survive
and knows just what to do.
Without testosterone surrounding her, estrogen is a basket case.
As such, women haven't a clue what a man is, not a clue.
Well maybe a very dim clue since she invented testosterone to
protect her and her children.
But really a women's first clue what testosterone is when she has
her first born SON.
Then she finds out with great certainty what testosterone is and
that she doesn't have any.
There is nothing like having a son to remind the women why she
married the man in the first place.
But every time a women finds something in a man she doesn't like,
she tries to effeminize it.
Men on the other hand know through and through what a woman is, as
they grew up through it, but political correctness enforced by 'mother's
love' has effeminized his alpha male nature out of existence leaving a
poor half excuse of a beta male behind to suck up to the women.
Beta males are lower than the women they suck up to, that's why
they follow women around with their noses in her ass, leaving a drooling
trail where ever they go.
Thus while beta males cower and propitiate before the woman's "How
dare you look at me, touch me, want me, see me, you prevert!", what few
remaining real women there are pray for the day a worthy alpha male
comes along and takes them.
Alpha males don't court by asking for permission.
Of course there has to be some responsibility on both sides for
this, if a man takes a women, it is for life.
And the woman?
She loves it.
And if she doesn't then she should push for martial arts instead of
gym to all children starting in kindergarten.
There is no security in the world like the security found in the
arms and devoted attention of an alpha male attending to your needs and
your children.
But because of the broken Y chromosome, most women think of men as
gentically damaged women.
Men however think of women as children.
Children who will never grow up, because they CAN never grow up.
'Girls grow up faster than boys do, but boys grow up, girls never
do.'
Because women don't have the genes TO fully growing up.
To the degree they perenially have children at their tits, or
clutching their skirts, women remain part children themselves.
Because any woman with child is more dependent upon the man than
the man is on her.
And yes men developed superior physical capabilities that the woman
with child is dependent upon, but he has also developed similar
emotional, mental and spiritual capabilities that complement the proper
control and operation of those physical capabilities.
These are things the women thinks she can understand but can't
until she has had a male body and the responsibilities thrown upon it,
and then lived through total war.
We don't just have a physical body, we have a 4 fold body, Body,
Heart, Mind and Soul.
Each of the 4 have evolved in unison to enhance the operation of
the whole.
To claim that men's ONLY superiority over women is physical is
lunicidal.
And yes men hate women for the woman's second rate state of
existence, hate born of the man's unconfrontable pity, sorrow and
sympathy for women for having been created second rate out of the gate.
To pity but never to reveal that pity.
I mean who would want to be a woman?
Men look at women in horror as eternally crippled and deprived.
'Whew that was close! Jesus, I could have been a woman!"
And you know, women KNOW THIS, oh boy do they know this, they smile
at you with that warm come hither look, but all they want is to be
serviced, to have their pussies filled, and their bellies filled with
new life to give them purpose, and a safe garage to live in, one she
couldn't build herself and couldn't possibly invent, discover or figure
out how it worked if her life depended on it.
Oh yeah she can build a hut, but invent, discover, understand and
apply Maxwell's equations to providing it light, heat and electricity,
well she is a rare breed indeed.
Man's exceptionality is in his ability to think under duress.
Under duress, women scream hysterically, all the better to attract
a man to come save her.
So I will let you in on a little secret, any parent who abuses
their child hated their own childhood, any man who abuses a woman, hates
his mother.
I do wonder why.
Mother is the Great Effeminator.
The mother refuses to operate in her son the abilities he has as a
man that she doesn't.
There is nothing like a mother to destroy the real leadership of a
man.
It has become politically incorrect to even consider that such a
thing as leadership exists and is desirable and prized above almost
anything else.
True leadership is rare as rare comes.
Women can bitch about sons that can't lead, but can a women produce
a son that can lead?
Men who have had their leadership suppressed out of them, become
monsters.
"Every monster is some mother's son.
How do women do it?
I mean to have something come out of your cunt, and not know
whether it will kill, rape or suck blood must be really somthing else."
That's from Adore. http://www.adore.com
Which really doesn't like mothers by the way.
It is the man's effort to destroy his mother, that makes him
destroy the planet instead with atomic war.
He can't kill her, so he will kill everyone else instead.
His greatest fear?
He fears most, for all his efforts, that his mother will be the
last one left standing anyhow, with her foot on his head in the mud.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Jul 13 01:26:30 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1044.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbSDgHURT1lqxE3HERAnsEAJ9zz5woyTVISOHqzodmQbMHR5uCYQCgtxkI
8TLHdrT9sV7jWQWG8II7GRs=
=ro/s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Thursday, July 12, 2018
ADOR1044 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS DONE RIGHT
MEN AND WOMEN
A man's interest in women is basically the same as a baby's
interest in a mother.
Once the man grows up, he has about as much need for a woman, as an
ax through the head.
He is better off leaving the woman upside down in a trash can where
she belongs, to be carried away by a garbage truck to the nearest dump.
Oh yes women can do great things, but imagine how much a man could
do if he hadn't had a mother.
As for men and women being friends to each other, that isn't going
to happen.
Down in the deepest part of her heart, the woman is in seething
hatred for the man.
Born not of fear but of jealousy.
She can't believe she got the short end of the stick.
She starts to feel this when her boobs starts to bloom.
At first she wants to show them to everyone, but then she gets the
feeling that might not be a good idea.
If you are going to be only half a human, you might not want
everyone to know how you feel about it.
Whatever a woman complains about in a man, she is jealous of, no
matter how egregious.
She is jealous that she too can't be that egregious and get away
with it.
You think women are so sweet and light, but while men destroy with
overt violence, women destroy with covert violence.
Any woman who claims she isn't jealous of men is happy living the
protected life of a rip off artist taken care of by men and the
civilization they have built around her, all the while allowed to
continously bitch about how she can do anything a man can do, only
better.
Bitching yes, maybe, anything else no.
Men grow up from being a fetus THROUGH being a female, and then
onto being a man.
Woman grow up to being a female, and then no futher.
Estrogen hasn't a clue how to survive, expecially with a kid
sucking on its boobs.
So evolution invented testosterone which has a clue how to survive
and knows just what to do.
Without testosterone surrounding her, estrogen is a basket case.
As such, women haven't a clue what a man is, not a clue.
Well maybe a very dim clue since she invented testosterone to
protect her and her children.
But really a women's first clue what testosterone is when she has
her first born SON.
Then she finds out with great certainty what testosterone is and
that she doesn't have any.
There is nothing like having a son to remind the women why she
married the man in the first place.
But every time a women finds something in a man she doesn't like,
she tries to effeminize it.
Men on the other hand know through and through what a woman is, as
they grew up through it, but political correctness enforced by 'nother's
love' has effeminized his alpha male nature out of existence leaving a
poor half excuse of a beta male behind to suck up to the women.
Beta males are lower than the women they suck up to, that's why
they follow women around with their noses in her ass, leaving a drooling
trail where ever they go.
Thus while beta males cower and propitiate before the woman's "How
dare you look at me, touch me, want me, see me, you prevert!", what few
remaining real women there are pray for the day a worthy alpha male
comes along and takes them.
Alpha males don't court by asking for permission.
Of course there has to be some responsibility on both sides for
this, if a man takes a women, it is for life.
And the woman?
She loves it.
And if she doesn't then she should push for martial arts
instead of gym to all children starting in kindergarten.
There is no security in the world like the security found the arms
and devoted attention of an alpha male attending to your needs and your
children.
But because of the broken Y chromosome, most women think of men as
gentically damaged women.
Men however think of women as children.
Children who will never grow up, because they CAN never grow up.
Because women don't have the genes TO fully growing up.
To the degree they perenially have children at their tits,
or clutching their skirts, women remain part children themselves.
Because any woman with child is more dependent upon the
man than the man is on her.
And yes men developed superior physical capabilities that the woman
with child is dependent upon, but he has also developed similar
emotional, mental and spiritual capabilities that complement the proper
control and operation of those physical capabilities.
These are things the women thinks she can understand but
can't until she has had a male body and the responsibilities
thrown upon it, and then lived through total war.
We don't just have a physical body, we have a 4 fold body, Body,
Heart, Mind and Soul.
Each of the 4 have evolved in unison to enhance the operation of
the whole.
To claim that men's ONLY superiority over women is physical is
lunicidal.
And yes men hate women for their second rate state of existence,
hate born of the man's unconfrontable sorrow and sympathy for women for
having been created second rate out of the gate.
I mean who would want to be a woman?
Men look at women in horror as eternally crippled.
To pity but never to reveal that pity.
'Whew that was close! Jesus, I could have been a woman!"
And you know, women KNOW THIS, oh boy do they know this, they smile
at you with that warm come hither look, but all they want is to be
serviced, to have their pussies filled, their bellies filled with new
life to give them purpose, and a safe garage to live in, one she
couldn't build herself and couldn't possibly invent, discover or figure
out how it worked if her life depended on it.
Oh yeah she can build a hut, but invent, discover, understand and
apply Maxwell's equations to providing it light, heat and electricity,
well she is a rare breed indeed.
So I will let you in on a little secret, any parent who abuses
their child hated their own childhood, any man who abuses a woman, hates
his mother.
The Great Effeminator.
I do wonder why.
There is nothing like a mother to destroy the real leadership of a
man.
It has become politically incorrect to even consider that such a
thing as leadership exists and is desirable and prized above almost
anything else.
Women can bitch about sons that can't lead, but can a women produce
a son that can lead?
Men who have had their leadership suppressed out of them, become
monsters.
"Every monster is some mother's son.
How do women do it?
I mean to have something come out of your cunt, and not know
whether it will kill, rape or suck blood must be really somthing else."
That's from Adore. http://www.adore.com
Which really doesn't like mothers by the way.
It is the man's effort to destroy his mother, that makes him
destroy the planet instead with atomic war.
He can't kill her, so he will kill everyone else instead.
His greatest fear?
He fears most, for all his efforts, that nevertheless his mother
will still be the last one left standing anyhow, with her foot on his
head in the mud.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jul 12 22:58:47 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore1044.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbSBVoURT1lqxE3HERAtWEAKCCJDi4tZkY6BzHoZ8HnIOzzZ9uTACgkbpg
vxmj+yv+RwL1gIyyNm42Ks8=
=P2bw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
POLITICAL CORRECTNESS DONE RIGHT
MEN AND WOMEN
A man's interest in women is basically the same as a baby's
interest in a mother.
Once the man grows up, he has about as much need for a woman, as an
ax through the head.
He is better off leaving the woman upside down in a trash can where
she belongs, to be carried away by a garbage truck to the nearest dump.
Oh yes women can do great things, but imagine how much a man could
do if he hadn't had a mother.
As for men and women being friends to each other, that isn't going
to happen.
Down in the deepest part of her heart, the woman is in seething
hatred for the man.
Born not of fear but of jealousy.
She can't believe she got the short end of the stick.
She starts to feel this when her boobs starts to bloom.
At first she wants to show them to everyone, but then she gets the
feeling that might not be a good idea.
If you are going to be only half a human, you might not want
everyone to know how you feel about it.
Whatever a woman complains about in a man, she is jealous of, no
matter how egregious.
She is jealous that she too can't be that egregious and get away
with it.
You think women are so sweet and light, but while men destroy with
overt violence, women destroy with covert violence.
Any woman who claims she isn't jealous of men is happy living the
protected life of a rip off artist taken care of by men and the
civilization they have built around her, all the while allowed to
continously bitch about how she can do anything a man can do, only
better.
Bitching yes, maybe, anything else no.
Men grow up from being a fetus THROUGH being a female, and then
onto being a man.
Woman grow up to being a female, and then no futher.
Estrogen hasn't a clue how to survive, expecially with a kid
sucking on its boobs.
So evolution invented testosterone which has a clue how to survive
and knows just what to do.
Without testosterone surrounding her, estrogen is a basket case.
As such, women haven't a clue what a man is, not a clue.
Well maybe a very dim clue since she invented testosterone to
protect her and her children.
But really a women's first clue what testosterone is when she has
her first born SON.
Then she finds out with great certainty what testosterone is and
that she doesn't have any.
There is nothing like having a son to remind the women why she
married the man in the first place.
But every time a women finds something in a man she doesn't like,
she tries to effeminize it.
Men on the other hand know through and through what a woman is, as
they grew up through it, but political correctness enforced by 'nother's
love' has effeminized his alpha male nature out of existence leaving a
poor half excuse of a beta male behind to suck up to the women.
Beta males are lower than the women they suck up to, that's why
they follow women around with their noses in her ass, leaving a drooling
trail where ever they go.
Thus while beta males cower and propitiate before the woman's "How
dare you look at me, touch me, want me, see me, you prevert!", what few
remaining real women there are pray for the day a worthy alpha male
comes along and takes them.
Alpha males don't court by asking for permission.
Of course there has to be some responsibility on both sides for
this, if a man takes a women, it is for life.
And the woman?
She loves it.
And if she doesn't then she should push for martial arts
instead of gym to all children starting in kindergarten.
There is no security in the world like the security found the arms
and devoted attention of an alpha male attending to your needs and your
children.
But because of the broken Y chromosome, most women think of men as
gentically damaged women.
Men however think of women as children.
Children who will never grow up, because they CAN never grow up.
Because women don't have the genes TO fully growing up.
To the degree they perenially have children at their tits,
or clutching their skirts, women remain part children themselves.
Because any woman with child is more dependent upon the
man than the man is on her.
And yes men developed superior physical capabilities that the woman
with child is dependent upon, but he has also developed similar
emotional, mental and spiritual capabilities that complement the proper
control and operation of those physical capabilities.
These are things the women thinks she can understand but
can't until she has had a male body and the responsibilities
thrown upon it, and then lived through total war.
We don't just have a physical body, we have a 4 fold body, Body,
Heart, Mind and Soul.
Each of the 4 have evolved in unison to enhance the operation of
the whole.
To claim that men's ONLY superiority over women is physical is
lunicidal.
And yes men hate women for their second rate state of existence,
hate born of the man's unconfrontable sorrow and sympathy for women for
having been created second rate out of the gate.
I mean who would want to be a woman?
Men look at women in horror as eternally crippled.
To pity but never to reveal that pity.
'Whew that was close! Jesus, I could have been a woman!"
And you know, women KNOW THIS, oh boy do they know this, they smile
at you with that warm come hither look, but all they want is to be
serviced, to have their pussies filled, their bellies filled with new
life to give them purpose, and a safe garage to live in, one she
couldn't build herself and couldn't possibly invent, discover or figure
out how it worked if her life depended on it.
Oh yeah she can build a hut, but invent, discover, understand and
apply Maxwell's equations to providing it light, heat and electricity,
well she is a rare breed indeed.
So I will let you in on a little secret, any parent who abuses
their child hated their own childhood, any man who abuses a woman, hates
his mother.
The Great Effeminator.
I do wonder why.
There is nothing like a mother to destroy the real leadership of a
man.
It has become politically incorrect to even consider that such a
thing as leadership exists and is desirable and prized above almost
anything else.
Women can bitch about sons that can't lead, but can a women produce
a son that can lead?
Men who have had their leadership suppressed out of them, become
monsters.
"Every monster is some mother's son.
How do women do it?
I mean to have something come out of your cunt, and not know
whether it will kill, rape or suck blood must be really somthing else."
That's from Adore. http://www.adore.com
Which really doesn't like mothers by the way.
It is the man's effort to destroy his mother, that makes him
destroy the planet instead with atomic war.
He can't kill her, so he will kill everyone else instead.
His greatest fear?
He fears most, for all his efforts, that nevertheless his mother
will still be the last one left standing anyhow, with her foot on his
head in the mud.
Homer
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Thu Jul 12 22:58:47 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore1044.memo
Send mail to archive.com saying help
================== http://www.lightlink.com/theproof ===================
Learning implies Learning with Certainty or Learning without Certainty.
Learning across a Distance implies Learning by Being an Effect.
Learning by Being an Effect implies Learning without Certainty.
Therefore, Learning with Certainty implies Learning but
Not by Being an Effect, and not across a Distance.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFbSBVoURT1lqxE3HERAtWEAKCCJDi4tZkY6BzHoZ8HnIOzzZ9uTACgkbpg
vxmj+yv+RwL1gIyyNm42Ks8=
=P2bw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Tuesday, July 10, 2018
ador1034.memo (fwd)
THE GOAL TO CREATE A FUTURE
(Originally posted to facebook FREE SCIENTOLOGY CHAT.
The top level GPM game at spirit of play is the goal to create a
future.
Creating a future involves being able to put things there and make
them persist, and being able to unput things there and make them
vanish, in the direction of creating the greatest amount of good and
pleasure born of survival and persistence in time, for the greatest
number during the finite time-while that the game lasts.
The tone scale is a measure of one's being able to create a future
as described above. Down at DISASTER the being has lost the ability
to create a desirable future, which means he can't make desirable
things persist, and undesirable things vanish. At inactuality he has
not-ised the situation, making nothing there, at delusion he has put
something else there than the actual problem and failure, and at
hysteria, shock, catatonia and oblivion he suffers failed crazy
efforts to die forever. He is throwing a fit in other words.
It is this failure to create a future according to his desires that
leads to the being finally 'going out' at non existence as a apirit at
the bottom of the awareness chart, and becoming something that will
live for him (human body) as a last ditch effort to do something even
if he isn't doing any of it himself.
Run,
Get the idea of NO future.
Get the idea of SOME future.
Get the idea of NO FUTURE AND SOME FUTURE AT THE SAME TIME FOREVER
FOR FREE.
(The FOREVER invokes the charge on immortality in time, in
particular DETESTED immortalities, and the FOR FREE invokes the power
of timeless eternality from which all this static -> kinetic nonsense
arises in the first place. Creation is never done from the point of
view of mortality or immorality, creation can only happen from the
point of view of static eternality above time. This is in part why
conceive a static doesn't work, a static can not conceive a static,
the static CREATES via conception and the only thing that a static can
conceive and create are apparencies of the kinetic. So running
conceive a kinetic is actually the correct process. Creating the
kinetic recovers the static because one has to BE the static to create
the kinetic. The static is beingness, the kinetic is becomingness.
Thus get the idea of NO static and SOME static will get you nowhere
except a train wreck of kinetic. But
Get the idea of NO kinetic
Get the idea of SOME kinetc
will get you a lot of desirable kinetic and eventually take you
back to the static.)
THE STEP 5 is a BLACK V (See SOP 1, PDC)
The black V has no future.
*THAT* is what he can not see, as the only reason to make a mockup
or something like it, is to put it into the future :) And notice the =
present consists of objects in CHANGING MOTION due to an array of
FORCES/EFFORTS, so to create a different future one must apply one's own
array of forces to existing systems in order to redirect them to =
something better. EVERYTHING is done on the fly. So in making mockups,
one can mockup still objects to little avail, and mockup moving
objects to better results, but mocking up ACCELERATING or
DEACCELERATING objects due to mocked up forces produces the best
results. Mocking up FORCE is WAY more important than mocking up
masses or masses in simple motion.
Hubbard by the way called this stuff conception running, but he
left out the dicom, and the no some and and.
REHABBING VISION AND MISSION.
Your preclear will be found at the bottom (beginning earliest in
time) of the GPM to be operating both a VISION STATEMENT and a MISSION
STATEMENT.
A vision statement is a statement of what the preclear would like
to see for his future, and is based on a disatisfaction with the here
and now, and hope to produce a better satisfaction in the there then,
namely the future.
A mission statement is a specific plan on how he is going to bring
about all or part of his vision statement.
The basic most general vision statement is "To create a better
future through enhancing productivity."
It will be subseted in each life by a subset of of productivity
such as 'though education, communication, politics, art, science,
religion' etc. So in one life he is a teacher, and in another a
politician, or scientist, but all are just subsets of general
productivity, producing more than you consume.
In the physical universe, productivity is solely and only positive
return on investment resulting from sow and reap cycles, also called =
investment and return on investment, or expenditure and revenue (to see
again).
In the physical universe of matter, energy, space, time and force,
the sole cause of any change is force. Notice motion between bodies
is not caused, but just is. But CHANGE in motion between bodies is
always caused by force producing an acceleration relative to the mass
of the bodies whose relative velocities are being changed.
OT"s like to think they can move objects with postulates, but a
posulate can only put an object there, or unput it there and put it
somewhere else, causing the illusion of motion. If the OT really
wants to move something he needs to postulate some force and apply it
:) Thus we have source, existence and conditions at the top of the
scale, the most important one being conditions. Condition means the
state things are in, but the most important conditions are the
limitations placed on changing the state of objects that exist in that
space and time.
The OT can not longer just change things with a thought, he has to
PUSH, you see?
The ability to create in the mere conception of things has come
down tone to the ability to create via chase. Chase is the
application of force to move things around until you have a bridge
say. He creates the initial universe with pure causal conception, but
leaves the bridge out, then he conceives of chasing a bridge, and
proceeds with building the bridge around the conditions and
limitations he created by pure conception just prior. That's called A
chase B, or the Roebling effect who built the Brooklyn Bridge. 'A' is
not chasing 'B', A is the universe minus the bridge. Its a sequence
of 3 acts.
1.) Put the universe there by mere conception, A 2.) Put the
conditions and limitations there (chase) 3.) Build the bridge, B
A chase B is written up in tremendous detail at:
http://clearing.org/archive?%2Fhomer%2Fadore892.memo
http://clearing.org/archive/?homer%2Fadore897.memo
http://clearing.org/archive/?homer%2Fadore900.memo
Click on any one and search for 'A chase B'.
The thetan as orientation point creates a space and time and
locates objects in it. That's Q1. To locate doesn't mean to find, it
means to put there. Such objects are called symbols they have mass,
meaning and mobility. Then the thetan shifts his viewpoint from being a
creative orientation point to being a symbol He then considers other
symbols which have relative unmovability compared to him to be his
orientation points. He then plays the game of chasing symbols and being
chased by symbols in order to eat them or be eaten. This is his or
other's sow and reap cycles, by which energy is moved from others to
himself or from himself to others.
SUNGOD
http://www.clearing.org/archive?%2Fhomer%2Fsungod.memo
All this activity costs energy in the sowing and reaps energy in
the reaping. Energy only moves between objects via force acting as
cause in the physical universe. Thus force, be it light or heavy, is
the means by which the mission statement is carried out to move things
around and change their motions to make the here and now more acceptable
to the thetan looking for a better there and then (future). The auditor
needs to understand force as EFFORT, as in thought, emotion effort,
remember that stuff?
Engrams and losses are times when the counter-forces exceeded the
forces of the being, either through outright power, or through
unexpected and surprising results. As long as the being can continue to
play the game with ARC, he will not get into too much trouble. Worst
case he can drop the game and start another, its a simple flip from
being symbol in a universe, to being the orientation point creating that
universe. Then he can make the SP's dance. :) But the being as the Imp
Soul also engages in Majesty, which is the tendency to engage in
overwhleming lies of anti sovereignty interweaving absolute total
irresponsibility (I didn't create this), forevers, nevers and permanent
loss into his games. Things become precious, fragile and unique. Oh
God do they. Thus the game and loss become serious.
Thus comes dramatization. Drama is seriousness, importance,
permanence and pain. Mostly dramatization is out of valence, doing to
others what was done to you, being one's Nemesis One, or in valence,
trying to get sympthy again from a Golden Ally. "Oh you poor dear, did
that mean old God Monster do you in?"
God's like to pretend to other God's that they have been harmed
irrecoverably, and so they also fall for it when other's play the same
trick back. Some God's started it, other God's got the idea from the
first set and then improved on it.
There is an aesthetic to this choice to create the apparency of
final and irrevokable doom forever, and only a God could understand it,
let alone enjoy it, as no human would ever engage in such a thing
willingly. Its a God's gift of self love to other Gods in return for
their similar gift of self love to him. Everyone's hanging on crosses,
and secretly marveling at the beauty of the tragi-comedy with others.
The only thing more beautiful than a God's self love is this ability and
willingness he has to lose it in apparency forever and ever amen. Look
at how gorgeous I am when I am done for!
Once a being has crossed this threshold lunacy, and high
appreciation for ludicrous demise, he loses sight of the aesthetic
INTENTIONALY, and so comes to consider that he never had anything to do
with creating a universe that he couldn't wouldn't shouldn't EVER
create.
You could audit a being on that alone. Find out what he wouldn't
shouldn't, couldn't ever create no matter what, and get him to mock it
up.
Once he understands causal conception, creating in the mere
conception of things, just run "Conceive something you should never
conceive of lest it become real" :) It is the purpose of auditing to
change his mind on these matters, until he contacts the aesthetic of
putting antisovereign forevers where there are only, and only could ever
be, sovereign whiles.
Majesty is the sovereign desire that desire not be sovereign for a
while. Thus the being creates the APPARENCY of forevers in time, but
suffers them only for a while anyhow, by his own design. The forever is
very real though while he is in the while.
Thus ALL heavens and Hells and the endless cycling between them,
must end one day at the end of their while, returning the being back to
eternality which is sleep, absolute unimpingable peace, until his next
cycle of creation from the static into the kinetic, from the unmanifest
to the manifest.
Wheeeee!
Homer Wilson Smith
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 10 12:06:01 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1034.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
(Originally posted to facebook FREE SCIENTOLOGY CHAT.
The top level GPM game at spirit of play is the goal to create a
future.
Creating a future involves being able to put things there and make
them persist, and being able to unput things there and make them
vanish, in the direction of creating the greatest amount of good and
pleasure born of survival and persistence in time, for the greatest
number during the finite time-while that the game lasts.
The tone scale is a measure of one's being able to create a future
as described above. Down at DISASTER the being has lost the ability
to create a desirable future, which means he can't make desirable
things persist, and undesirable things vanish. At inactuality he has
not-ised the situation, making nothing there, at delusion he has put
something else there than the actual problem and failure, and at
hysteria, shock, catatonia and oblivion he suffers failed crazy
efforts to die forever. He is throwing a fit in other words.
It is this failure to create a future according to his desires that
leads to the being finally 'going out' at non existence as a apirit at
the bottom of the awareness chart, and becoming something that will
live for him (human body) as a last ditch effort to do something even
if he isn't doing any of it himself.
Run,
Get the idea of NO future.
Get the idea of SOME future.
Get the idea of NO FUTURE AND SOME FUTURE AT THE SAME TIME FOREVER
FOR FREE.
(The FOREVER invokes the charge on immortality in time, in
particular DETESTED immortalities, and the FOR FREE invokes the power
of timeless eternality from which all this static -> kinetic nonsense
arises in the first place. Creation is never done from the point of
view of mortality or immorality, creation can only happen from the
point of view of static eternality above time. This is in part why
conceive a static doesn't work, a static can not conceive a static,
the static CREATES via conception and the only thing that a static can
conceive and create are apparencies of the kinetic. So running
conceive a kinetic is actually the correct process. Creating the
kinetic recovers the static because one has to BE the static to create
the kinetic. The static is beingness, the kinetic is becomingness.
Thus get the idea of NO static and SOME static will get you nowhere
except a train wreck of kinetic. But
Get the idea of NO kinetic
Get the idea of SOME kinetc
will get you a lot of desirable kinetic and eventually take you
back to the static.)
THE STEP 5 is a BLACK V (See SOP 1, PDC)
The black V has no future.
*THAT* is what he can not see, as the only reason to make a mockup
or something like it, is to put it into the future :) And notice the =
present consists of objects in CHANGING MOTION due to an array of
FORCES/EFFORTS, so to create a different future one must apply one's own
array of forces to existing systems in order to redirect them to =
something better. EVERYTHING is done on the fly. So in making mockups,
one can mockup still objects to little avail, and mockup moving
objects to better results, but mocking up ACCELERATING or
DEACCELERATING objects due to mocked up forces produces the best
results. Mocking up FORCE is WAY more important than mocking up
masses or masses in simple motion.
Hubbard by the way called this stuff conception running, but he
left out the dicom, and the no some and and.
REHABBING VISION AND MISSION.
Your preclear will be found at the bottom (beginning earliest in
time) of the GPM to be operating both a VISION STATEMENT and a MISSION
STATEMENT.
A vision statement is a statement of what the preclear would like
to see for his future, and is based on a disatisfaction with the here
and now, and hope to produce a better satisfaction in the there then,
namely the future.
A mission statement is a specific plan on how he is going to bring
about all or part of his vision statement.
The basic most general vision statement is "To create a better
future through enhancing productivity."
It will be subseted in each life by a subset of of productivity
such as 'though education, communication, politics, art, science,
religion' etc. So in one life he is a teacher, and in another a
politician, or scientist, but all are just subsets of general
productivity, producing more than you consume.
In the physical universe, productivity is solely and only positive
return on investment resulting from sow and reap cycles, also called =
investment and return on investment, or expenditure and revenue (to see
again).
In the physical universe of matter, energy, space, time and force,
the sole cause of any change is force. Notice motion between bodies
is not caused, but just is. But CHANGE in motion between bodies is
always caused by force producing an acceleration relative to the mass
of the bodies whose relative velocities are being changed.
OT"s like to think they can move objects with postulates, but a
posulate can only put an object there, or unput it there and put it
somewhere else, causing the illusion of motion. If the OT really
wants to move something he needs to postulate some force and apply it
:) Thus we have source, existence and conditions at the top of the
scale, the most important one being conditions. Condition means the
state things are in, but the most important conditions are the
limitations placed on changing the state of objects that exist in that
space and time.
The OT can not longer just change things with a thought, he has to
PUSH, you see?
The ability to create in the mere conception of things has come
down tone to the ability to create via chase. Chase is the
application of force to move things around until you have a bridge
say. He creates the initial universe with pure causal conception, but
leaves the bridge out, then he conceives of chasing a bridge, and
proceeds with building the bridge around the conditions and
limitations he created by pure conception just prior. That's called A
chase B, or the Roebling effect who built the Brooklyn Bridge. 'A' is
not chasing 'B', A is the universe minus the bridge. Its a sequence
of 3 acts.
1.) Put the universe there by mere conception, A 2.) Put the
conditions and limitations there (chase) 3.) Build the bridge, B
A chase B is written up in tremendous detail at:
http://clearing.org/archive?%2Fhomer%2Fadore892.memo
http://clearing.org/archive/?homer%2Fadore897.memo
http://clearing.org/archive/?homer%2Fadore900.memo
Click on any one and search for 'A chase B'.
The thetan as orientation point creates a space and time and
locates objects in it. That's Q1. To locate doesn't mean to find, it
means to put there. Such objects are called symbols they have mass,
meaning and mobility. Then the thetan shifts his viewpoint from being a
creative orientation point to being a symbol He then considers other
symbols which have relative unmovability compared to him to be his
orientation points. He then plays the game of chasing symbols and being
chased by symbols in order to eat them or be eaten. This is his or
other's sow and reap cycles, by which energy is moved from others to
himself or from himself to others.
SUNGOD
http://www.clearing.org/archive?%2Fhomer%2Fsungod.memo
All this activity costs energy in the sowing and reaps energy in
the reaping. Energy only moves between objects via force acting as
cause in the physical universe. Thus force, be it light or heavy, is
the means by which the mission statement is carried out to move things
around and change their motions to make the here and now more acceptable
to the thetan looking for a better there and then (future). The auditor
needs to understand force as EFFORT, as in thought, emotion effort,
remember that stuff?
Engrams and losses are times when the counter-forces exceeded the
forces of the being, either through outright power, or through
unexpected and surprising results. As long as the being can continue to
play the game with ARC, he will not get into too much trouble. Worst
case he can drop the game and start another, its a simple flip from
being symbol in a universe, to being the orientation point creating that
universe. Then he can make the SP's dance. :) But the being as the Imp
Soul also engages in Majesty, which is the tendency to engage in
overwhleming lies of anti sovereignty interweaving absolute total
irresponsibility (I didn't create this), forevers, nevers and permanent
loss into his games. Things become precious, fragile and unique. Oh
God do they. Thus the game and loss become serious.
Thus comes dramatization. Drama is seriousness, importance,
permanence and pain. Mostly dramatization is out of valence, doing to
others what was done to you, being one's Nemesis One, or in valence,
trying to get sympthy again from a Golden Ally. "Oh you poor dear, did
that mean old God Monster do you in?"
God's like to pretend to other God's that they have been harmed
irrecoverably, and so they also fall for it when other's play the same
trick back. Some God's started it, other God's got the idea from the
first set and then improved on it.
There is an aesthetic to this choice to create the apparency of
final and irrevokable doom forever, and only a God could understand it,
let alone enjoy it, as no human would ever engage in such a thing
willingly. Its a God's gift of self love to other Gods in return for
their similar gift of self love to him. Everyone's hanging on crosses,
and secretly marveling at the beauty of the tragi-comedy with others.
The only thing more beautiful than a God's self love is this ability and
willingness he has to lose it in apparency forever and ever amen. Look
at how gorgeous I am when I am done for!
Once a being has crossed this threshold lunacy, and high
appreciation for ludicrous demise, he loses sight of the aesthetic
INTENTIONALY, and so comes to consider that he never had anything to do
with creating a universe that he couldn't wouldn't shouldn't EVER
create.
You could audit a being on that alone. Find out what he wouldn't
shouldn't, couldn't ever create no matter what, and get him to mock it
up.
Once he understands causal conception, creating in the mere
conception of things, just run "Conceive something you should never
conceive of lest it become real" :) It is the purpose of auditing to
change his mind on these matters, until he contacts the aesthetic of
putting antisovereign forevers where there are only, and only could ever
be, sovereign whiles.
Majesty is the sovereign desire that desire not be sovereign for a
while. Thus the being creates the APPARENCY of forevers in time, but
suffers them only for a while anyhow, by his own design. The forever is
very real though while he is in the while.
Thus ALL heavens and Hells and the endless cycling between them,
must end one day at the end of their while, returning the being back to
eternality which is sleep, absolute unimpingable peace, until his next
cycle of creation from the static into the kinetic, from the unmanifest
to the manifest.
Wheeeee!
Homer Wilson Smith
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Jul 10 12:06:01 EDT 2018
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/ador1034.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
Sunday, July 8, 2018
THRUME (fwd)
From ADORE-L 7/4/89.
I am sorry, but this has to be said. For all you Christians on
board who are just terminally offended by this, well maybe the Good Lord
will find it in His heart to forgive me.
Christianity has nothing to do with accepting Jesus Christ into
your life as your Savior.
This is just a lot of ego oriented poppycock added into the
religion at a later date to confuse the masses and lead them away from a
workable Truth.
JESUS never said any such thing even though the Bible SAYS he said
so.
I can just see it now, 500 years from now, a whole bunch of
Adorians (losers, one and all) will be saying that when Homer said 'The
Way In is the Way Out' what He REALLY meant was
'THE WAY OUT IS THROUGH ME.'
All hail Homer Christ.
And so it goes...
I will make sure this page is in ADORE, but when it is reprinted in
its King James Version 500 years from now, it won't be.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jul 8 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/thrume.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)
iD8DBQFbQjUEURT1lqxE3HERAmQOAJ0VqP5WHGB0GrZZicDmgfjqCLRruQCgjKFm
TSAsGotPMlL6sx9M0Mv5ItU=
=Lrrv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
I am sorry, but this has to be said. For all you Christians on
board who are just terminally offended by this, well maybe the Good Lord
will find it in His heart to forgive me.
Christianity has nothing to do with accepting Jesus Christ into
your life as your Savior.
This is just a lot of ego oriented poppycock added into the
religion at a later date to confuse the masses and lead them away from a
workable Truth.
JESUS never said any such thing even though the Bible SAYS he said
so.
I can just see it now, 500 years from now, a whole bunch of
Adorians (losers, one and all) will be saying that when Homer said 'The
Way In is the Way Out' what He REALLY meant was
'THE WAY OUT IS THROUGH ME.'
All hail Homer Christ.
And so it goes...
I will make sure this page is in ADORE, but when it is reprinted in
its King James Version 500 years from now, it won't be.
Homer
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Jul 8 12:00:03 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/thrume.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)
iD8DBQFbQjUEURT1lqxE3HERAmQOAJ0VqP5WHGB0GrZZicDmgfjqCLRruQCgjKFm
TSAsGotPMlL6sx9M0Mv5ItU=
=Lrrv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
ADORE706 (fwd)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
COMPLEXITY OF DREAMBALL vs MEATBALL THEORIES
Dennis,
I am interested in all this complexity you claim you see in the
dreamball model.
Your physical universe is where all the complexity lies, the static
of our theory is very simple, mechanically at least, no moving parts.
All our static is saying is that your physical universe of endless
kinetic complexity is a virtual universe projected in the mind of God.
That God creates the world as static, and then jumps into it as
kinetic to become parts of his own creation. Thus only he suffers what
he created. There are no ultimate cosmic victims.
The world is projected as a graphics rendition in the static body
of God, a glow in the dark display in the night of the void.
The 'jumping in' is not physical, but a consideration change as to
who or what is cause and who or what is effect.
Something static pretending to be something kinetic.
The theory is lacking in exact understanding of HOW any of this
could happen, but science has no clue HOW anything ultimate happens
either.
But the dreamball theory immediately suggests a way out, so it can
be tested.
The virtual universe as real as people want it to be as long as
they are in the virtual reality, but the actuality of it is, that the
phyiscal universe doesn't really exist any more than an arcade game
world really exists.
Sort of like second life on the internet with avatars and
everything. Your bod is a graphics rendition avatar in your mind's eye.
Very simple.
And allows for OT powers in their proper place and form because OT
powers are used to make the virtual reality by definition.
If someone or thing can put a mountain there, he can cast it
sideways etc.
What is the problem really Dennis?
Besides the absurdity, ridiculousness, preposterousness, and
insanity of it? (Guardian dicoms)
WHAT SCIENTIFIC MEASURABLE DO YOU HAVE THAT INDICATES THE VIRTUAL
PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS NOT VIRTUAL BUT ACTUAL?
Have you ever seen any part of the actual physical universe except
through the virtual helmet of your consciousness?
Homer
In article <jc9vl51655iqniv99bhnd121rc6oo7bemm@4ax.com> you wrote:
>homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>
>> Not asking for agreement, but do you understand Dennis?
>
>I understood for many years. But this construct requires too much,
>assumption upon assumption, upon assumption for me to go along with
>these day.
>
>I prefer the simple direct approach. If it's not quantifiable, it's a
>guess. Now I don't mind guessing about the nature of existence and
>consciousness.
>
>But that's all it is. If you find comfort in the complexity of it. If
>all the whirring, spinning and laddered parts fitting together so
>snugly in your mind help you get to sleep.
>
>Then that is a benefit of your belief. I won't call it delusion
>unless you claim it's real. Which I guess by your own admission you
>most certainly don't.
>
>Anyway, yah. I see where you're coming from.
>
>D
>
>-----------------
>
>"I was one of those." - Leonard Cohen
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Jan 27 13:58:10 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jul 7 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore706.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)
iD8DBQFbQOODURT1lqxE3HERAg3CAJ9A79P+egOfk8dF1hCM+Vy2oI+I9QCfQOG+
p5fevgw8bHDeakXGv6Zmd1Q=
=nQSb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Hash: SHA1
COMPLEXITY OF DREAMBALL vs MEATBALL THEORIES
Dennis,
I am interested in all this complexity you claim you see in the
dreamball model.
Your physical universe is where all the complexity lies, the static
of our theory is very simple, mechanically at least, no moving parts.
All our static is saying is that your physical universe of endless
kinetic complexity is a virtual universe projected in the mind of God.
That God creates the world as static, and then jumps into it as
kinetic to become parts of his own creation. Thus only he suffers what
he created. There are no ultimate cosmic victims.
The world is projected as a graphics rendition in the static body
of God, a glow in the dark display in the night of the void.
The 'jumping in' is not physical, but a consideration change as to
who or what is cause and who or what is effect.
Something static pretending to be something kinetic.
The theory is lacking in exact understanding of HOW any of this
could happen, but science has no clue HOW anything ultimate happens
either.
But the dreamball theory immediately suggests a way out, so it can
be tested.
The virtual universe as real as people want it to be as long as
they are in the virtual reality, but the actuality of it is, that the
phyiscal universe doesn't really exist any more than an arcade game
world really exists.
Sort of like second life on the internet with avatars and
everything. Your bod is a graphics rendition avatar in your mind's eye.
Very simple.
And allows for OT powers in their proper place and form because OT
powers are used to make the virtual reality by definition.
If someone or thing can put a mountain there, he can cast it
sideways etc.
What is the problem really Dennis?
Besides the absurdity, ridiculousness, preposterousness, and
insanity of it? (Guardian dicoms)
WHAT SCIENTIFIC MEASURABLE DO YOU HAVE THAT INDICATES THE VIRTUAL
PHYSICAL UNIVERSE IS NOT VIRTUAL BUT ACTUAL?
Have you ever seen any part of the actual physical universe except
through the virtual helmet of your consciousness?
Homer
In article <jc9vl51655iqniv99bhnd121rc6oo7bemm@4ax.com> you wrote:
>homer@lightlink.com wrote:
>
>> Not asking for agreement, but do you understand Dennis?
>
>I understood for many years. But this construct requires too much,
>assumption upon assumption, upon assumption for me to go along with
>these day.
>
>I prefer the simple direct approach. If it's not quantifiable, it's a
>guess. Now I don't mind guessing about the nature of existence and
>consciousness.
>
>But that's all it is. If you find comfort in the complexity of it. If
>all the whirring, spinning and laddered parts fitting together so
>snugly in your mind help you get to sleep.
>
>Then that is a benefit of your belief. I won't call it delusion
>unless you claim it's real. Which I guess by your own admission you
>most certainly don't.
>
>Anyway, yah. I see where you're coming from.
>
>D
>
>-----------------
>
>"I was one of those." - Leonard Cohen
- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Jan 27 13:58:10 EST 2010
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jul 7 12:00:02 EDT 2018
WEB: http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP: ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore706.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)
iD8DBQFbQOODURT1lqxE3HERAg3CAJ9A79P+egOfk8dF1hCM+Vy2oI+I9QCfQOG+
p5fevgw8bHDeakXGv6Zmd1Q=
=nQSb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L@mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)