The GPM and Alan Walters (fwd)
Homer W. Smith
> It's tough to know what to
> take seriously when a "researcher" is also a promoter.
>
> > Then they tell you that running GPMs is late on the chain anyway, and
> >bypasses earlier charge that isn't GPMS.
>
> Could the word "agenda" possibly apply here?
No, this is attribution of negative attention.
It's possible, but I don't think so.
I do think Alan suffers from attribution just as we all do.
This is more a problem in distant communications than anything
else.
The basis of aberration is postulate - counter postulate.
We can all agree on that.
Homer
Kenneth G. Urquhart
The basis of aberration is unknowness of consideration.
{If the writing of The Axioms of Scientology is not an act of an
Operating Thetan, I don't know what is}
alan
>
>Robert:
>> It's tough to know what to
>> take seriously when a "researcher" is also a promoter.
Tsk, tsk anything positive is a promotion. To promote: To Raise or elevate
upward.
>>
>> > Then they tell you that running GPMs is late on the chain anyway, and
>> >bypasses earlier charge that isn't GPMS.
>>
>> Could the word "agenda" possibly apply here?
My not so hidden agenda is world wide co-audits.
Now on the subject of AGENDA'S: You stated you wanted to get the tech out.
Accusing both me and Enid of w/h tech.
Answer the questions I asked.
1. No. of auditors in training on your lines?
2. Amount of posted to the net technology, bulletins, books, R/D's, etc?
3. No. of staff being hatted to deliver and service your tech?
Homer:
>
> No, this is attribution of negative attention.
>
> It's possible, but I don't think so.
>
> I do think Alan suffers from attribution just as we all do.
>
> This is more a problem in distant communications than anything
>else.
Thats right. Nobody loves me, me, me, me, me, me.......
>
> The basis of aberration is postulate - counter postulate.
>
> We can all agree on that.
>
> Homer
>
>Yeah! If we damm well hadn't made that first postulate.
Alan
>
>
>
*******************************************************************************
Alan C. Walter - - - web-page, discussion group, bulletins
wis...@wf.net - - - - - http://www.knowledgism.com
"Truth is what it is - - not what you want it to be."
Homer W. Smith
> > The basis of aberration is postulate - counter postulate.
>
Unknownness of consideration is postulate - counter postulate.
Considerations are at first made knowingly.
To then postulate that you do not know you are making a consideration
is a second counter postulate to the knowing consideration.
First postulate - Second Postulate.
Unknownness of consideration is only one kind of postulate
ridge.
Adore by the way considers that postulates are higher than
considerations and has an interesting definition of both.
"Postulate comes from TO POST, and means a POSTED BEINGNESS".
This means to create a something that exists as itself not
necessarily in relation to another or other posted beingnesses. A
beingness here does not mean identity, but merely that which was created
and thus "Be's" That which Be.
"Consideration comes from CON SIDE, to side together.
A consideration is a FURTHER postulate relating two or more posted
beingnesses, usually pertaining to cause, as in posted beingness A is
cause of posted beingness B. For example, the ashtray holds ashes, the
bulb lights the wall, etc.
Ashtray and ashes are both posted beingnesses. The consideration
of causes is an alteris of their true nature and posits a causal
relationship between the two, or a relationship of USEFULLNESS.
The ashtray IS USED to hold the ashes.
Homer
Homer W. Smith
> My not so hidden agenda is world wide co-audits.
My not so hidden agenda is world wide solo-audits.
Homer
Kenneth G. Urquhart
Homer W. Smith wrote:
>
> > > The basis of aberration is postulate - counter postulate.
> > > No we don't. More fundamental:
> >
> > The basis of aberration is unknowness of consideration.
>
> Unknownness of consideration is postulate - counter postulate.
>
> Considerations are at first made knowingly.
>
> To then postulate that you do not know you are making a consideration
> is a second counter postulate to the knowing consideration.
You are talking theory, Homer. I am not convinced that you are
paralleling experience.
KG
Homer W. Smith
> > To then postulate that you do not know you are making a consideration
> > is a second counter postulate to the knowing consideration.
>
> You are talking theory, Homer. I am not convinced that you are
> paralleling experience.
That's fine.
Tell us what you mean by 'unknownness of consideration.'
and how this is not a postulate counter postulate situation, or
a first postulate - second postulate.
Homer
Homer W. Smith
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 SunOS 4.1.4 Sparc 20 Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com in...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 21:11:41 -0500
From: PScott <ps...@internetmci.com>
To: "Homer W. Smith" <ho...@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: The GPM and Alan Walters (fwd)
-- [ From: PScott * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --
-------- REPLY, Original message follows --------
Date: Friday, 06-Dec-96 12:23 AM
From: Homer W. Smith \ Internet: (ho...@lightlink.com)
To: clear L list to post \ Internet: (cle...@lightlink.com)
Subject: Re: The GPM and Alan Walters (fwd)
> My not so hidden agenda is world wide co-audits.
My not so hidden agenda is world wide solo-audits.
My hidden agenda is permeation of the material universe, by kids and
grandmothers.
Phil
Homer
-------- REPLY, End of original message --------
Homer W. Smith
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith News, Web, Telnet Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 SunOS 4.1.4 Sparc 20 Internet Access, Ithaca NY
ho...@lightlink.com in...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 21:11:32 -0500
From: PScott <ps...@internetmci.com>
To: "Homer W. Smith" <ho...@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: The GPM and Alan Walters
-- [ From: PScott * EMC.Ver #2.3 ] --
I don't think Alan has a hidden agenda, he honestly thinks you are
full of it. I don't think you have a hidden agenda, you honestly think
Alan is full of it.
From my point of view, and having listened to the wins of some of
your pcs, I see that you are both doing the same thing when looked at, at a
high enough level.
Each of you is unable to understand how the other misunderstands you.
The ultimate test is to have Alan's pc's try out Robert, and Robert's
pc's try out Alan. Until then its going to be hard to come to an
agreement.
Homer
There are vast differences beween Allans approach and Roberts
approach..... Allan tells you what games to expect,
and where to look, and in what framework (not totally my favorite thing,
but sometimes unavoidable)...and
Robt just slams you into what he thinks your item is....with great
persistence I might add.... from what I can tell
one ends up with great certainty on goals and problems..... transcending
them often, clear to the void.
In both cases the core fatal bad habit is not even approached.........
one will see a constant regeneration
of the persons unwanted conditions in one form or another. .The bad
habit is just taken for granted, and
bypassed on the way to freedom.... it remains behind as an anchor to the
ongoing snarl up....
Phil
Kenneth G. Urquhart
A postulate is a consideration; it is usually used when the thinking is intended to
cause some start, change, or stop, as would occur, for example in actions that are
part of, or become part of, a GPM.
A consideration can be a belief, a supposition, an opinion; it can also be a
postulate.
A postulate that is intended to cause a start, a change, or a stop, can follow the
consideration that the situation is such-and-such, that the situation should be
such-and-such, and that action should be initiated.
When the consideration and the postulate are arrived at knowingly and with
responsibility they can be easily changed or erased by the originator and will
never bring about aberration.
When the consideration and/or the postulate are arrived at with some unknowingness
(whether it be simply lack of inspection or full unconsciousness) then they cannot
be easily changed, and if the originator cannot duplicate the unknowingness, or
unknowness, at the moment of their adoption then they are ready to become hidden
influences of his or her thoughts, feelings, behaviour, and thus to aberrate them.
It is the unknowness that floats the consideration and/or the postulate through
time. It is the floatingness that opens the door to aberration; the reactive mind
can grab what is floating timelessly and apply it to a new situation, bringing
into being what LRH called in DMSMH the 'held-down five'.
Only when the originator can take full responsibility for the known AND the
unknown in the consideration and/or the postulate do they cease to become liabilities
to him or her.
The fact of postulating something, and then of counter-postulating it, does
automatically introduce the liability; but only because of the unknownness certainly
in the counter-postulating (there doesn't have to have been unknowness in the
primary postulate). We know there has to be unknowness in the counter-postulate
because it IS a counter-postulate. Had the counter-postulator been fully aware,
he would simply have asised his earlier postulate and made a new one, knowingly.
It is the unknowing rather than the postulating that brings about aberration.
KG
Homer W. Smith
> It is the unknowing rather than the postulating that brings about aberration.
Unknowing is caused by postulate to unknown.
Homer W. Smith
> > The ultimate test is to have Alan's pc's try out Robert, and Robert's
> > pc's try out Alan. Until then its going to be hard to come to an
> > agreement.
> >
> Homer,
> This is ludicrous. It will not work.
> Why the insistence on agreement?
Perhaps to counter those who insist on disagreement?
A body of knowledge with no agreements is not a body of knowledge.
Homer
Kenneth G. Urquhart
Homer W. Smith wrote:
>
> > It is the unknowing rather than the postulating that brings about aberration.
>
> Unknowing is caused by postulate to unknown.
Have you ever had your attention distracted?
ladyv
A very good point. Unknowing is not always postulated. It can
simply be that one's focus was elsewhere. However, if an unkown was due
to attention on something else, it will rapidly and easily become known.
The effects of postulated unknowns are much less trivial.
Love,
Enid
Dynamism, 7507 Ohio Place, La Mesa, CA. 91941.
Ph: 619 462-5160 Fax: 619 465-8848
http://www.lightlink.com/dynamism
Homer W. Smith
> Agreed;-) But a body of knowledge may have its detractors, its
> opponents and still maintain a main body of known data. Consider Galileo.
> Consider Hubbard. Consider every man who ever jumped out of his goldfish
> bowl. The quantum leaps in knowledge are always hotly contested by those
> who swim in the old paradigms.
Robert would claim you are hotly contesting his quantum leap.
My original statement stands, until you guys do some cross testing
etc, it's all going to be just words thrown at each other in non
understanding.
Homer
ladyv
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Homer W. Smith wrote:
>
> From my point of view, and having listened to the wins of some of
> your pcs, I see that you are both doing the same thing when looked at, at a
> high enough level.
>
> Each of you is unable to understand how the other misunderstands you.
>
> The ultimate test is to have Alan's pc's try out Robert, and Robert's
> pc's try out Alan. Until then its going to be hard to come to an
> agreement.
>
Homer,
This is ludicrous. It will not work.
Why the insistence on agreement?
I detest it when people say "There are two sides to every story."
No there are sides and then there is the truth. This is not a case of two
rams in season protecting their turf.
ladyv
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Homer W. Smith wrote:
>
> > > The ultimate test is to have Alan's pc's try out Robert, and Robert's
> > > pc's try out Alan. Until then its going to be hard to come to an
> > > agreement.
> > >
> > Homer,
> > This is ludicrous. It will not work.
>
> > Why the insistence on agreement?
>
> Perhaps to counter those who insist on disagreement?
>
It is perfectly okay for Robert to not agree. Not agree and
disagree are an interesting study. Not agree is MUCH more powerful then
Disagree which contains resistance.
> A body of knowledge with no agreements is not a body of knowledge.
>
Agreed;-) But a body of knowledge may have its detractors, its
opponents and still maintain a main body of known data. Consider Galileo.
Consider Hubbard. Consider every man who ever jumped out of his goldfish
bowl. The quantum leaps in knowledge are always hotly contested by those
who swim in the old paradigms.
I reckon we all have a note to play in the new chord we are
creating.
Homer W. Smith
> > Unknowing is caused by postulate to unknown.
>
> Have you ever had your attention distracted?
Have you evern created a universe in which your attention
could be distracted.
I am talking a very high level view, you are talking normal
every day life. Both viewpoints are valid.
From the level of Axioms though, which are high level,
aberration is caused by first postulate second postulate.
Homer
>
Kenneth G. Urquhart
ladyv wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Homer W. Smith wrote:
>
> >
> > > > The ultimate test is to have Alan's pc's try out Robert, and Robert's
> > > > pc's try out Alan. Until then its going to be hard to come to an
> > > > agreement.
> > > >
> > > Homer,
> > > This is ludicrous. It will not work.
> >
> > > Why the insistence on agreement?
> >
> > Perhaps to counter those who insist on disagreement?
> >
> It is perfectly okay for Robert to not agree. Not agree and
> disagree are an interesting study. Not agree is MUCH more powerful then
> Disagree which contains resistance.
>
> > A body of knowledge with no agreements is not a body of knowledge.
> >
> Agreed;-) But a body of knowledge may have its detractors, its
> opponents and still maintain a main body of known data. Consider Galileo.
> Consider Hubbard. Consider every man who ever jumped out of his goldfish
> bowl. The quantum leaps in knowledge are always hotly contested by those
> who swim in the old paradigms.
>
> I reckon we all have a note to play in the new chord we are
> creating.
KG
ladyv
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Kenneth G. Urquhart wrote:
> > Enid:
> > A very good point. Unknowing is not always postulated. It can
> > simply be that one's focus was elsewhere. However, if an unkown was due
> > to attention on something else, it will rapidly and easily become known.
> > The effects of postulated unknowns are much less trivial.
>
> KG:
>
> 1. Agreed, in principle. In asking that question I was going to go on, but
> found myself too tired, so I left it, a weak, limp fag end, and got a
> characteristic response from Homer (which I accidentally deleted).(How's that
> for a postulated unknowing???)
No comment;-(
>
> I was going to lead up to the experience of the living lightning, in
> the times when it was very lively; one might have attention yanked by more
> than one thing in succession, and in a state of some confusion (unknowing)
> postulate something. That postulate could result in disaster. The unknowness
> was not postulated. One tripped over one's own feet, as it were.
>
> 2. I can certainly agree that I can postulate that something is or will be
> unknown to me. This has happened millions of times; thanks to auditing and
> training we can undo this, where the effects have remained.
> But to postulate myself knowingly and deliberately into a state of
> unknowness, and to postulate that I will not know how to resolve it or
> never be helped out of it, is an abuse of my powers and myself so stupid I
> can't conceive of doing it, or of anyone else being so unfathomably dumb.
> I just do not believe it.
>
How do you think so many of the inhabitants of Earth became so
dense? A game of not know to have a game, descended into more and more
complexity, with less and less known factors and more and more known
irrelevancies.
> 3. To observe that one can postulate something and have it happen and then
> assume that because something happened to one it must have been postulated
> is to me a lapse in logic. At least you and I agree on that.
>
Yes, it is. If you are saying I fell, therefore I must have
decided to fall. Yet falling must have had some possibility within one's
experience of the rules of the game. This is a more fundamental
consideration and a more indirect causation, yet it enables one to have
the experience of falling. Notice it is a known and understandable
experience, easily categorized because it falls under a basic rule of
this universe.
> So I'm back to my opinion: Homer is talking about
> Homer's theory, and not about Homer's experience of the living lightning.
> If I am wrong and Homer is being true to his own experience of that living
> lightning, then we simply have different experiences.
>
I would like to hear Homer on this.
> Enlightenment from you is always welcome.
Wow!
ladyv
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Kenneth G. Urquhart wrote:
Enid:
> > Agreed;-) But a body of knowledge may have its detractors, its
> > opponents and still maintain a main body of known data. Consider Galileo.
> > Consider Hubbard. Consider every man who ever jumped out of his goldfish
> > bowl. The quantum leaps in knowledge are always hotly contested by those
> > who swim in the old paradigms.
> >
> > I reckon we all have a note to play in the new chord we are
> > creating.
KG:
> > It wouldn't be an augmented 13th, would it, perhaps in c minor?
>
All musical enquiries are to be routed to LaMont, due to my
profound ignorance on the subject;-)
Damn! I just realized, this means he gets to mock up the
universe!
Kenneth G. Urquhart
> >snips
Enid:
> How do you think so many of the inhabitants of Earth became so
> dense? A game of not know to have a game, descended into more and more
> complexity, with less and less known factors and more and more known
> irrelevancies.
>
> > KG:
I cannot claim to know that. My feeling is that most of them allowed themselves
to be misled in the first place and then found themselves trapped in a situation
that deteriorated.
I once stood in the plaza before the cathedral in a large city. I observed a huge
crowd of ordinary people on their way to wherever they were going. What first
struck me was the idiocy of Clearing the Planet by 1984 (this was in 1981 or
thereabouts). I could not see in that crowd any significant spark of interest
in anything beyond the physical. Then I was struck by how easily so many people
were controlled by so few. I do not feel that this relationship has changed
very much over the eons; I do not see that mass of obedient people as having
come from a background as powerful OTs who postulated their way into their own
ruin. It is just as likely to me that they were misled by powerful OTs who in
their possible greed or other unworthy intentions took advantage of the ease
by which they could be controlled (and that OTs with worthier intentions failed
to handle that misleading).
> Enid:
>
> > So I'm back to my opinion: Homer is talking about
> > Homer's theory, and not about Homer's experience of the living lightning.
> > If I am wrong and Homer is being true to his own experience of that living
> > lightning, then we simply have different experiences.
> >
> I would like to hear Homer on this.KG:
We have; I respect his opinion, and beg to differ from it.
>
> > Love,
KG
>
>
alan
>
>> > The ultimate test is to have Alan's pc's try out Robert, and Robert's
>> > pc's try out Alan. Until then its going to be hard to come to an
>> > agreement.
>> >
>> Homer,
>> This is ludicrous. It will not work.
>
>> Why the insistence on agreement?
>
> Perhaps to counter those who insist on disagreement?
>
>
Ho! Ho! Ho! What stupidity is this?
Truth is senior to agreement.
Agreements are the "gunk" that entrap ALL Beings.
Agreement is what Yellow Zones the Being into his mental box or paradigm.
You can get Beings to step on the pathway to follow a trail of agreements,
but to achieve Mastery over that lower agreed upon level, the Being will
have to leave that pathway of agreement and find the truths. Then and only
then will the Being achieve Mastery.
Then the Being will be capable of origination and creation of expansion of
that body of Knowledge.
Kenneth G. Urquhart
Homer W. Smith wrote:
>
> > I was going to lead up to the experience of the living lightning, in
> > the times when it was very lively; one might have attention yanked by more
> > than one thing in succession, and in a state of some confusion (unknowing)
> > postulate something. That postulate could result in disaster. The unknowness
> > was not postulated. One tripped over one's own feet, as it were.
>
> unpostulated unknownness.
>
> You can not be the effect unless you postulate that you can be.
>
> You may not postulate the exact effect, but you had enough of
> a hand in making it available that you are none the less fully responsible
> for that effect.
>
> Some say that from a higher perspective there are no accidents.
>
> > 2. I can certainly agree that I can postulate that something is or will be
> > unknown to me. This has happened millions of times; thanks to auditing and
> > training we can undo this, where the effects have remained.
>
> > But to postulate myself knowingly and deliberately into a state of
> > unknowness, and to postulate that I will not know how to resolve it or
> > never be helped out of it,
>
>
> A thetan can not, and will not postulate itself dead forever for
> real.
>
> He may make second postulates about death forever or hell forever,
> but they don't stick as truth always wins out, which is always to be not
> sovereign only FOR A WHILE.
>
> > 3. To observe that one can postulate something and have it happen and then
> > assume that because something happened to one it must have been postulated
> > is to me a lapse in logic. At least you and I agree on that.
>
>
> > So I'm back to my opinion: Homer is talking about
> > Homer's theory, and not about Homer's experience of the living lightning.
>
KG:
Of course I don't, Homer, nor you mine. You come across as quite
serious in your viewpoint of the basics of life; I prefer to be
more mobile in my attitude, and this no doubt leads me to be
facile, shallow, inconsequential, immature, irresponsible, dotty,
and shamelessly unOT. How else could one keep up a three-day
thread about kilts? I mean to say! (Pardon me for poluting Planet
Earth for you.)
KG
>
> My experience says that everything exists by design.
>
> If something doesn't exist by design, then it only exists that
> way by design.
>
> Accidents are intentional in general if not in specific.
>
> Homer
Homer W. Smith
> KG:
> Of course I don't, Homer, nor you mine. You come across as quite
> serious in your viewpoint of the basics of life; I prefer to be
> more mobile in my attitude, and this no doubt leads me to be
> facile, shallow, inconsequential, immature, irresponsible, dotty,
> and shamelessly unOT. How else could one keep up a three-day
> thread about kilts? I mean to say! (Pardon me for poluting Planet
> Earth for you.)
It wasn't pollution to me.
Homer
Homer W. Smith
> very much over the eons; I do not see that mass of obedient people as having
> come from a background as powerful OTs who postulated their way into their own
> ruin.
Mayo would agree with you. He claims we all started out as little
created nothings, and are ever so slowly working our up to becoming
somethings, big powerful beings, those of us that walk the right path
so to speak.
This involves taking responsibility OVER things as they are, but
denies any responsibility FOR things as they are, except what cause one
added in after the fact of one's injection into the causal time stream.
Homer
Christine Norstrand
With or without underwear, the man in the kilt said:
>> very much over the eons; I do not see that mass of obedient people as having
>> come from a background as powerful OTs who postulated their way into
their own
>> ruin.
>
Christine:
I think some people are *new*. Just a hunch.
Homer said:
> Mayo would agree with you. He claims we all started out as little
>created nothings, and are ever so slowly working our up to becoming
>somethings, big powerful beings, those of us that walk the right path
>so to speak.
>
> This involves taking responsibility OVER things as they are, but
>denies any responsibility FOR things as they are, except what cause one
>added in after the fact of one's injection into the causal time stream.
>
Christine:
Well, I actually like this. What good is FOR as a construct, unless you can
use it to learn from in the future? A lot of this earlier, no earlier, no
even earlier still stuff just seems to me a desperate attempt to explain
something that a being can't or won't confront.
OVER has a certain charm. It's effective. Shoots from the hip.
Love,
Christine
"Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell you what you are!" (Frances
Elizabeth Norstrand)
Homer W. Smith
My experience says that everything exists by design.
ladyv
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Kenneth G. Urquhart wrote:
> > >snips
>
> Enid:
> > How do you think so many of the inhabitants of Earth became so
> > dense? A game of not know to have a game, descended into more and more
> > complexity, with less and less known factors and more and more known
> > irrelevancies.
> >
> > > KG:
>
> I cannot claim to know that. My feeling is that most of them allowed themselves
> to be misled in the first place and then found themselves trapped in a situation
> that deteriorated.
Different words, same tune.
>
> I once stood in the plaza before the cathedral in a large city. I observed a huge
> crowd of ordinary people on their way to wherever they were going. What first
> struck me was the idiocy of Clearing the Planet by 1984 (this was in 1981 or
> thereabouts). I could not see in that crowd any significant spark of interest
> in anything beyond the physical. Then I was struck by how easily so many people
> were controlled by so few. I do not feel that this relationship has changed
> very much over the eons; I do not see that mass of obedient people as having
> come from a background as powerful OTs who postulated their way into their own
> ruin. It is just as likely to me that they were misled by powerful OTs who in
> their possible greed or other unworthy intentions took advantage of the ease
> by which they could be controlled (and that OTs with worthier intentions failed
> to handle that misleading).
Evolution and Devolution. How does an all knowing being become
misled? Are there in fact classes of being? Are there fallen Gods
attempting to storm the Gates of Heaven, and WannaBe God's who never have
been? Is my dog really Zeus in disguise? Or are there truly beings who
can never aspire to be more than animated eating machines?
In short, your speculation would lead us into considering these
possibilities.
It is not inconsiderable to me that all the above can simultaneously
exist.
Kenneth G. Urquhart
You're a real sweetie-pie, Homer.
Actually I typo'ed. I meant "you all", not 'you' singular at all.
KG
Homer W. Smith
> Evolution and Devolution. How does an all knowing being become
> misled? Are there in fact classes of being? Are there fallen Gods
> attempting to storm the Gates of Heaven, and WannaBe God's who never have
> been? Is my dog really Zeus in disguise? Or are there truly beings who
> can never aspire to be more than animated eating machines?
Filbert says there are 4 classes of beings.
Individuals
All-ers
Life-ers
Mest-ers
Each is known by what they consider theirs that can never
be taken away from them.
Mest-ers in particular are created beings, created by higher
level beings. They will never reach OT in the sense of God Hood,
as they were themselves a created being by a God.
Individuals are self created, and came into this universe and
collided with the God of this universe. Filbert says there are only a few
hundred thousand individuals at most.
Adore says that all beings are sovereign self manifesting beings,
however some, if not all beings, manifest themselves AS created beings.
They seek out and elect a pre manifested God with a universe, and jump
into a sub snooze state until the God spawns them as evolving beings in
His Universe.
This is the Creator becoming the Creature.
All is fair chosen with full knowing willing cause and full awareness
of the consequences, in general if not in specific.
"The way to become the Creator (again) is to BE the Creator becoming
the Creature."
Homer
Jazzl...@aol.com
In a message dated 96-12-07 18:35:57 EST, you write:
<< "The way to become the Creator (again) is to BE the Creator becoming
the Creature."
Homer >>
Not that it really matters, because, after all, the Old, egotistical,
cult-leading, fart busting, elitist, out-techer, red-headed, bully-boy,
science fiction writing Wind Bag is dead, torched, ground up and dispersed,
but apparently he did have a way with words -
"Eighth Dynamic Inversion" is twelve less words than the above.
Almost as efficient as what I wear under me kilt.
LaMont
Homer W. Smith
> KG:
> Let Mayo speak for himself, please, Homer.
Mayo is not presently on clear-l being engaged in other matters.
No doubt he would be able to clarify my paraphrase of his
stated position.
His position was stated in no uncertain terms in an Article in Ivy or
Free Spirit about 4 years ago, and enflamed a number of people, myself and
Bob Ross included.
His position, again paraphrasing, was that life was not a static, but
a kinetic wiggle, born from nothing to grow and mature across many
lifetimes, learning as it went along perhaps attaining a high state,
perhaps descending back into obliteration if it failed.
This is a common view among many people, clearing practitioners and
others alike. Larry Wollersheim for example holds this view as far as I
can tell.
Mayo in particular disparaged the devolving God theory saying (again
my words) "if a being could choose to do this to itself once, then it
could and might do it again, that's a depressing thought now isn't it?
Why rehabilitate a being if he is just going to do himself in again?"
He felt that auditing a being back to a state where it could and thus
would simply high dive into the Abyss once more was too depressing
to accept, as it made for an Eternally grim future.
Adore asserts that this in fact is what is true, that there is no
problem with the high dive into the Abyss because it is fair chosen with
full awarness of the consequences and it is done for a reason, namely to
share Eternal Havingness with others via the apparency of Eternal Loss.
It's an effort to make others laugh by playing a practical joke on your
self, a Gift of Love.
Anyhow in response to his original letter, I got really
fuming mad and wrote the following response.
Homer
IS LIFE A STATIC?
SCI - 34
Copyright (C) 1992 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
This is my view on the 'is life a static' question.
You all know that I prefer the 'world is a dream' theory.
Technically speaking that means existence is a 0 dimensional scalar
operating actuality called Source with an infinite number of Sovereign
viewports called souls or conscious units.
In plain english, there IS no space.
So of course life is a static.
When a thetan first creates space to view, he is aware, very aware
in fact, that he is eternally stationary and that space is
holographically projected around him with all of its objects, within the
fabric of his own conscious unit.
In other words there is no space, but there are pictures of space
which themselves do not take up space.
In this state the thetan is called an 'orientation point', and
everything else that is being projected is called a 'symbol', something
with space, mass, meaning and mobility.
While the thetan is connected to this truth of being an absolute
eternally stationary orientation point, he can command absolute power
over the creation of space, time, matter and energy, and the placement
of other beingnesses and lookers in his space.
It is during this phase that other thetans, also in the sovereign
orientation point state, join up with the first thetan to make a co
shared dream world.
Thus Ron has said, 'Power stems from the ability to maintain your
position in space.'
This is a joke of course, as the thetan can not move in actuality,
but can only move space around him, refreshing the drawing as he goes so
to speak. But it is none the less true, in the sense that as long as
the thetan can remain connected to the orientation point state, he does
have absolute power.
But then a thetan can do something really strange, and he does it
mainly for fun.
He can change his consideration about his relationship to space, by
claiming that SPACE IS STATIONARY AND HE IS MOVING. Thus he gives
orientation power over to space itself, and becomes himself a symbol or
an object within that space.
Thus he takes on mass, meaning and mobility, otherwise called
BEINGNESS.
Now that the thetan can 'move', or can view the world as if he is
moving and space is stationary and fixed, he can get into a lot of
trouble.
He can BE MOVED by other objects, thetans and forces in the space
around him to places where he does not want to be. Since he is no
longer connected to Sovereign power as an orientation point, he has only
the power he assigned to himself as a symbol. If he runs into something
as a symbol that has more power than he does, well he can be effected by
that thing to his benefit or detriment.
In other words other things can move him around to places he either
wants to be or doesn't want to be. In fact he comes to DEPEND on things
to move him to where he wants to be, and he comes to EXPECT things to
move him to places he doesn't want to be.
Thus when you become a baby body, you become a symbol that can be
moved around by your parents, and you come to depend on them to move you
properly, feed you, bathe you, take care of you etc, and you also come
to expect them to not move you properly, as they use you, abuse you and
throw you away.
Thus the need for auditing to address these early issues of power
and being or not being moved properly.
Worse once a thetan shifts over to being a symbol he can now be
nailed, or caged or PREVENTED from moving. He can be held still against
his will by superior forces, which is a real joke, because the thetan in
actuality is already Eternally still. But since he is playing being a
symbol who wants to move, he will struggle against the forces pinning
him down until he goes into apathy and gives up. Then he 'wants to
die'.
This is what crucifixion is about.
You are trying to move, and other things are trying to nail you
still.
If the thetan could only wake up during such incidents, which means
re operate the flip in viewpoint from being a symbol back to being an
orientation point, then he would be connected to total power again and
do what he willed with those attacking him.
Thus processes addressed to this problem of orientation point and
symbol and the thetan's ability to shift his viewpoint at will from
orientation point to symbol and back again could possibly be of great
benefit to his case.
A case is merely that conflict between the thetan's desire to be a
Sovereign orientation point, and his desire to be a non Sovereign
symbol, and the various solutions that he has piled on himself to solve
that conflict.
The purpose of auditing is to reoptimize in the thetan's own
estimation the balance of these two conditions.
Homer
Christine Norstrand
At 08:44 PM 12/7/96 -0500, Homer W. Smith wrote:
>
> Not all of us are latin scholars. Please translate latin quotes,
>in line.
>
Sorry, I'm not either. "in illo tempore" means "outside of time".
Love,
The girl Alan Walter stood up
ladyv
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996, Homer W. Smith wrote:
Re Mayo's Theorem:
> His position was stated in no uncertain terms in an Article in Ivy or
> Free Spirit about 4 years ago, and enflamed a number of people, myself and
> Bob Ross included.
>
> His position, again paraphrasing, was that life was not a static, but
> a kinetic wiggle, born from nothing to grow and mature across many
> lifetimes, learning as it went along perhaps attaining a high state,
> perhaps descending back into obliteration if it failed.
>
Holy Cow! No wonder I have trouble relating to him. As you think
it; so it is. I thought I was talking to a being, at last I see my
error, I NEVER speak with kinetic wiggles, to do so is against my
religion;-)
> Mayo in particular disparaged the devolving God theory saying (again
> my words) "if a being could choose to do this to itself once, then it
> could and might do it again, that's a depressing thought now isn't it?
> Why rehabilitate a being if he is just going to do himself in again?"
>
> He felt that auditing a being back to a state where it could and thus
> would simply high dive into the Abyss once more was too depressing
> to accept, as it made for an Eternally grim future.
Oh Posh! (If ever there was a place for an Oh Posh, this is IT!)
>
> Adore asserts that this in fact is what is true, that there is no
> problem with the high dive into the Abyss because it is fair chosen with
> full awarness of the consequences and it is done for a reason, namely to
> share Eternal Havingness with others via the apparency of Eternal Loss.
> It's an effort to make others laugh by playing a practical joke on your
> self, a Gift of Love.
>
Idiotic Perfection. I love it!!!!!!!
Christine Norstrand
At 06:33 PM 12/7/96 -0500, Homer W. Smith wrote:
> Mest-ers in particular are created beings, created by higher
>level beings. They will never reach OT in the sense of God Hood,
>as they were themselves a created being by a God.
>
Or unless they act *as if* they are a god. Even if infinity has a beginning
but no end, it's just as infinite, no?
> Individuals are self created, and came into this universe and
>collided with the God of this universe. Filbert says there are only a few
>hundred thousand individuals at most.
>
More than my fingers and toes.
> Adore says that all beings are sovereign self manifesting beings,
>however some, if not all beings, manifest themselves AS created beings.
>They seek out and elect a pre manifested God with a universe, and jump
>into a sub snooze state until the God spawns them as evolving beings in
>His Universe.
>
> This is the Creator becoming the Creature.
>
I think so, too. Mircea Eliade in _Myth and Reality_:
It is a living world -- inhabited and used by creatures of flesh and blood,
subject to the law of becoming, of old age and death. Hence it requires a
periodical repairing, a renewing, a strengthening. But the only way to
renew the World is to repeat what the Immortals did in illo tempore, is to
reiterate the creation.
Christine
Kenneth G. Urquhart
ladyv wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Kenneth G. Urquhart wrote:
>
> > Homer W. Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is the unknowing rather than the postulating that brings about aberration.
> > >
> > Have you ever had your attention distracted?
> >
> A very good point. Unknowing is not always postulated. It can
> simply be that one's focus was elsewhere. However, if an unkown was due
> to attention on something else, it will rapidly and easily become known.
> The effects of postulated unknowns are much less trivial.
KG:
1. Agreed, in principle. In asking that question I was going to go on, but
found myself too tired, so I left it, a weak, limp fag end, and got a
characteristic response from Homer (which I accidentally deleted).(How's that
for a postulated unknowing???)
I was going to lead up to the experience of the living lightning, in
the times when it was very lively; one might have attention yanked by more
than one thing in succession, and in a state of some confusion (unknowing)
postulate something. That postulate could result in disaster. The unknowness
was not postulated. One tripped over one's own feet, as it were.
2. I can certainly agree that I can postulate that something is or will be
unknown to me. This has happened millions of times; thanks to auditing and
training we can undo this, where the effects have remained.
But to postulate myself knowingly and deliberately into a state of
unknowness, and to postulate that I will not know how to resolve it or
never be helped out of it, is an abuse of my powers and myself so stupid I
can't conceive of doing it, or of anyone else being so unfathomably dumb.
I just do not believe it.
3. To observe that one can postulate something and have it happen and then
assume that because something happened to one it must have been postulated
is to me a lapse in logic. At least you and I agree on that.
So I'm back to my opinion: Homer is talking about
Homer's theory, and not about Homer's experience of the living lightning.
If I am wrong and Homer is being true to his own experience of that living
lightning, then we simply have different experiences.
Enlightenment from you is always welcome.
KG
>
>
ladyv
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, Homer W. Smith wrote:
> > Agreed;-) But a body of knowledge may have its detractors, its
> > opponents and still maintain a main body of known data. Consider Galileo.
> > Consider Hubbard. Consider every man who ever jumped out of his goldfish
> > bowl. The quantum leaps in knowledge are always hotly contested by those
> > who swim in the old paradigms.
>
> Robert would claim you are hotly contesting his quantum leap.
>
I am sure he would.
Jumping out of the goldfish bowl and expiring on the carpet
doesn't count;-)
> My original statement stands, until you guys do some cross testing
> etc, it's all going to be just words thrown at each other in non
> understanding.
>
I would be more than happy to work WITH anyone, but not in an
adversarial position where someone has to be right or wrong. In other
words I care more about "What's Right?" than "Who's Right."
Kenneth G. Urquhart
ladyv wrote:
>
>
>
> (I think this should be on clear-l, did you take it off line on purpose?)
KU: No, accident.
> >
> > Enid,
> > You have a habit of raising interesting questions in an interesting
> > way. You must be a very interested person.
> >Enid:
> Thank-you! Philosophy is my first love, my Passion. I am
> intensely curious about that which makes us tick.
> KG:
> > I too have walked the edge, and sometimes it was a razor's edge,
> > precipice on both sides.
> >
> E: Somehow I got that.
> KG:
> > I have no system to offer. I don't believe there can be a system that
> > offers a complete answer; the only answer is total duplication, and
> > total duplication causes vanishment. Ergo, no system, since a system
> > must continue.Enid:
> >
> Ultimately, your viewpoint must prevail. Meanwhile, back in the
> trenches, systems and methods are essential if one wishes, as I do, to
> awaken the slumbering giants.KG:
Can't say you are wrong! A question: Are you supposing that systems and
methods are needed, or have you observed what the slumbering giants need
in order to be awakened and have been thus led to the need for systems
and methods?
>
> > I don't believe that any answer is available to human intelligence, which
> > is much too puny to even correctly pose the relevant questions. We are
> > working on becoming more than human, we're different.
> >Enid:
> There is something odd about this statement, I do hope we are not
> back to Mayo's kinetic wiggles.
KG: My fault. I should have said "humanoid intelligence", or, actually, any
intellectualizing by any individual. The profoundest answers are beyond
thought, I believe,--that is closer to what I was fumbling around. No, I do
not believe in kinetic wiggles.
>
> > I believe Hubbard to be very correct in his statement: "The degree of
> > simplicity is proportional to the degree of confront". The ultimate
> > simplicity is the ultimate confront, TR0 on the entirety of all
> > existences, past, present, future, and on TR0 itself. The ultimate TR0
> > is the total duplication of all. I can't conceive of what the ultimate
> > complexity might be. Planet Earth must be pretty close.....
> >
> > So I would say that the difference between individuals and their
> > various endowments has to do with how much simplicity (a) one wants
> > and (b) can handle, or how much complexity one feels he or she has
> > to have. And how interested one is.
> >
> Enid: Simplicity and complexity are a dichotomy. The pendulum swings,
> ideally we find the balance point.
> KG: Well, the simplest you can get, as an individual is Static (to keep toconvenient nomenclature). This is also the greatest truth as an individual.
In such a simplicity I do not see the need for, or the inclination to mock up,
or the relevance of, any dichotomy; on the contrary, one can permeate any
dichotomy if one wishes, and is still Static.
> > As to WHY individuals have these differences, again I don't want a
> > system, but feel that we are allowed freedom to choose between
> > simplicity and complexity, and to choose a focus for our interest.
> > Whatever we choose, the Ultimate TR0 just goes on confronting, and
> > without eval or inval. We are invited to manifest our full potential
> > and we respond as we respond.
> >
> > I believe we are truest to ourselves when in simplicity, and that
> > the most effective way of being in simplicity is to be always true
> > to our own uniquely personal integrity. ALWAYS.
> >
> And you find this simple?
Simpler and simpler; I'm getting there. It's where I want to be. It's where
I encourage anybody to be. It's central to my personal integrity that you
should be true to yours too. When you (second pers. plural) are, you make me
very happy indeed. Not much else does.
Love,
KG
>
> > If I wanted a system, I could go with Alan's posting today on War.
> >
> I have yet to find that post.