dapper

HomerWSmith at lightlink.com HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Mon Feb 9 17:06:03 EST 2015


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


      VALUE FINAL PRODUCT OF BEING AND BECOMING

      This is about the posting below.

      The valuable *FINAL* product of activity can not be BEING
nor even better BEING.

      Instead of BEING maybe you mean BECOMING, better BECOMING.

      BEING is above space and time, and has no better or worse.

      You HAD better BEING, what are you now doing BECOMING down here in 
life?

      Life seems to be mostly of games, games are games of BECOMING, so the 
VFP of BEING might be quality games of BECOMING.

      The VFP of the guy while he is BECOMING some identity or another 
inside a game is what ever the game defines as valuable, food, water and 
shelter say.

      I remind everyone that one can not BE an identity, that's a serious 
alter-is.  One can only BECOME an identity, which means not just the first 
moment of moving into the identity from a state of BEING, but continuing 
the identity from that first moment of assumption to the last moment of 
deassumption.

      English makes this hard, one says "I AM A COP". "I AM BEING A COP".

      No, one is BECOMING A COP in space and time, continuously as long as 
one is a cop, you see?

      If he were BEING a cop, it would be a spaceless and timeless cop.

      Thus BEING can not be improved, but BECOMING can be, and thus
quality BECOMING is the VFP of BEING.

      Homer


- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth, and Peace,  Internet, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask?   http://www.lightlink.com

On Sun, 8 Feb 2015, Clearing Archive Roboposter wrote:

>
> On Dec 6, 6:19?am, Keith <ksj... at invalid.tld> wrote:
>>
>> IMO Oatee powers are mostly a plate of wishful thinking with a healthy
>> heaping of "Scientology processing" to unhinge one's perception of
>> what's actually going on. Mass delusion by agreement. Riddle me this -
>> why don't we ever hear Oatees doing something to help mankind. How about
>> postulating some well-fed children for a change. This "yes I can, no you
>> can't" is getting very silly.
>>
>> In the 40+ years Scientology has plagued mankind, no one even came close
>> to proving the validity of "the state of clear", let alone any oatee
>> powers. At least this is the way this wog sees it.
>>
>> If I'm wrong, forget showing off your powers. Feed some starving
>> children - postulate trucks of food; that will show them unbelievers.
>>
>> Personally, I couldn't care if you can move mountains and leap tall
>> buildings. If you have this ability (even though you argue against
>> demonstrating it), help some people who need it.
>>
>> That would impress me. Not useless banter whether they exist or not. And
>> to be honest, if anything is possible in improving the human spirit and
>> aiding in the discovery of possible new abilities, I would seriously
>> doubt that Scientology would fill this bill.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Keith
>> PS Above is only my opinion.
>>
>
> Dapperdobbs said:
>
> IMO, you are a smart and practical guy Keith, and I get this idea you
> help people as you can, when you can, with your rationality and I'm
> sure you have many friends and will do continue to do very well in
> life. It is important, and people do try to do the best they can even
> in the face of a great many very personal reasons to hate and quit and
> destroy. Those trying to do good by making positive statements make
> easy targets for the tiny minority who would ridicule anything
> positive - I wish I knew the entire 'secret' as to why that is, but I
> see it on the internet all the time - 'trolls' who seem to have no
> other purpose than inciting to riot, and the only logical point these
> 'guys' have is to make wrong. I know it's not that hard to make
> someone right, with just a little looking and a little thought. With a
> little practice, it's possible to learn to ask someone a question with
> real personal interest to them, to try to get them to see a bit more
> about themselves or about others. I know someone who is really good at
> asking good questions, and the guy isn't a Scientologist.
>
> My personal experience in this life has not been an easy one - good
> spots and rough spots, but the bad spots almost killed me. I'm sure
> you're used to hearing people tell you stories of their lives. When I
> ran into Sccn, it was still an OK organization. It had just started
> turning bad. So I left. But the brief contact I had with it literally
> saved me by getting me back on track in life. I got a lot of support
> from my family and friends too. When some smarter guys in Scn left the
> CoS, I got in touch with them, and then I made some real progress. For
> literally one-tenth the money the CoS wanted, I got my OT levels in.
> This was not perfect, understand, but it was good enough for me to
> achieve what I set out to get.
>
> This is hard to express or say, and I'm not trying to be an ass or
> make anyone feel guilty, but somehow some people had more solid
> footing in life than I did. Not many, OK, but to do what I wanted, to
> have what I still want, requires a high level of smarts, and I've met
> guys who have a better grip on things. Through my own efforts, and
> through auditing to straighten out some major strictly personal
> roadblocks, I see that the trouble I got into, I created. I got into
> it. Sure there were a minortiy of people there pushing anyone they
> could into trouble, and a lot of people who didn't know what to do or
> didn't care, and too few people to catche me before I screwed up. I
> also see that getting out of trouble is my doing. Scn was there, but I
> took it and used it.
>
> A few months ago, all on my own, and for the first time in my life,
> fully conscious, fully awake, I moved out of my body. I'm sure there
> are some who might read that and laugh, and think about some guy who's
> now really screwed up. OK with me - I try not to tell someone what to
> think. Part of going exterior at will with full perceptics is the
> simple and very real realization that one exists in one's own
> universe, independently of others. Although agreements do exist, these
> are made (agreed on) by an individual, and he's free to unmake them at
> any time. I'm not talking about intentional betrayals, you understand,
> simply the facts that because I agree to meet someone tomorrow doesn't
> mean I can't go on and live my life inbetween now and then. That's
> really obvious, but when one gets into recollections of past lives,
> and the physical world, it takes on a kind of a bigger weight - that
> is my experience, in any case.
>
> Certainty is a funny thing. If one is certain about something, one is
> certain of it. I don't have any "super abilities" (as much as I
> imagine I would like to have some). I can't move ashtrays - or I
> haven't yet, in any case. I'm not sure I would tell, if I did, but
> then again, I'm not what anyone would call a conformist. One thing I
> am absolutely certain of is that if I do move an ashtray, it will seem
> like the most perfectly normal and natural thing in the world to me,
> personally.
>
> If I may ask you to retread back to where I started, many many years
> ago, I would have thought that if I could ask someone a simple natural
> logical question that led the guy to see more about himself and life,
> I'd be some kind of supernatural genius. That's where I was. Today, I
> sometimes get a good question in, and it seems like an obvious thing
> to me when I do. I kick myself for not having seen that question
> sooner than I did. I deplore the current CoS, and I'm not so sure that
> one large organization was a good idea to begin with, but really, it's
> the usual band of idiots who could screw up boiling an egg for
> breakfast. It's going to be that way for some time, the way I see it.
> But this time around, and next time around, I'm going to try to do
> something about it. You know, I''m sure, that making big changes in a
> society is done on a person-by-person basis. Sure we get leaders, but
> the ideas and visions of those leaders are what makes one guy move,
> then another, and another. It's the idea and the clarity of vision.
> One man can defeat an army of a billion men - if the one man is
> fighting on the right side, others will see that. (Too bad that moron
> Rommel missed that one, until the very end. Intimidation is a result
> of lack of certainty. And if one truly sees another, however
> terrifying, the right question will destroy the most evil - sometimes
> all it takes is a chuckle. Don't fight on their side of the court, but
> stay on your own side, and move on your own time. Churchill proved
> that words and will and certainty are more powerful than Tiger tanks -
> so did some guys in Beijing, standing in front of tanks. This is why
> tyrants want to squish free speech, first.)
>
> So that's what I wanted to float in front of you, my thoughts and
> experience. Scientology the study is good. It won't do everything - an
> individual has to take it, seize it, and put in some careful thought.
> The CoS is currently a bust. I haven't had anything to do with any of
> those guys for many years.
>
> This struggle for Knowledge and for a chance for many individuals to
> make better lives for themselves on their own accord, is what
> Scientology the study is about. The individual is first, Scn is
> something he can take and use to great benefit for himself and for
> those around him.
>
> I'll leave you with a question I'm working on. What is a being's
> principal activity? In other words, what is a being's principal
> product, that can be useful to others? Some on a web forum have said
> one after another, that "Being" is a being's principal activity.
> Sounds logical to me, makes sense, and I can see it and feel it. If
> that's a starting point, then it seems to me that "having a viewpoint"
> is a very similar statement. But that principal product isn't entirely
> satisfying, since obviously there are many sub-products, or products
> that stem from that: knowledge, for example. And one can have
> knowledge about many things. I don't know if Hubbard ever asked that
> or phrased that in those particular words, but if you follow that line
> of questioning, you end up with "The Factors" of Scientology (puts it
> all in a nutshell of three or four pages). And you end up with a lot
> of other Scn stuff as well, like Affinity, Reality, and Communication.
> You end up tracing all he way down to the basics of how to audit. From
> there, moving back from specific "how to's" in a very practical sense,
> moving back towards the philosophy of Scn, all the way back up, you
> end up with Being, again. Scn is just about facilitating better being,
> or being better, for one's own pleasure and benefit, as well as for
> others.
>
> It simply could not be more normal and natural. But look at the furor,
> and the mess, this has created, and continues to create. It isn't that
> it is wrong - far from it. It is that too few get it.
>
> Taking my cue from you, a bright guy: All of the above is a reflection
> of my personal viewpoint and opinion and experience, and should not be
> taken as "the truth" by anyone.
>
> Tue Dec  7 23:27:47 EST 2010
>
> ================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
> Sun Feb  8 00:06:01 EST 2015
> ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/misc/dapper
> Send mail to archive at 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.
>
> -- 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,    Art Matrix - Lightlink
> (607) 277-0959       A Green Earth, and Peace,  Internet, Ithaca NY
> homer at lightlink.com  Is that too much to ask?   http://www.lightlink.com
> _______________________________________________
> Clear-L mailing list
> Clear-L at mailman.lightlink.com
> http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/clear-l
>

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Mon Feb  9 17:06:02 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore964.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)

iD8DBQFU2S9LURT1lqxE3HERAuuvAJ4w2cxThaVv19Xrn3rMAz5C2Gj79QCdFfjS
cy7ayJGLaEJItmf+6KcmJ80=
=FtkB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
http://mailman.lightlink.com/mailman/listinfo/homerwsmith-l


More information about the Clear-L mailing list