TO ACCEPT OR RESIGN?

HomerWSmith at lightlink.com HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Fri Feb 27 18:42:27 EST 2015


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


      TO ACCEPT OR TO RESIGN?

      Below is a very difficult posting on the subject of acceptance as a 
method of vanishment.  It came about during discussions, more like fire 
fights, between myself and Allan Hacker, Speaker for Acceptance Services, 
Inc.  an off shoot of clearing.

      It is similar to 'you get what you resist', and Hubbard's 'as you
can accept and be content with things as they are, they won't exsit,
that is absolute' - PXL

      One's personal experience of acceptance is that acceptance does NOT
in general cause vanishment, and thus the wars with Hacker and others on
the matter were full of unacceptance on the matter of the efficacy of
acceptance.

      To make things worse acceptance has a lower harmonic at
resignation, thus sometimes people talk about how acceptance is low
tone, and a bad sign or indicator of a person's case condition, even
Hubbard who insisted that high tone people DON'T merely accept their
environment, but act to change it.

      Thus we have a clarification which goes like this:

      Acceptence is acceptance with expectation of vanishment.

     Resignation is acceptance with expectation of persistence.

      It is EXPECTATION that is causal therefore and determines what
happens, not acceptance or resignation per se which are results.

     But we still have the problem that if you want to get rid of
something, surely you aren't accepting it completely, or you wouldn't
be interested in getting rid of it.  This results in a 'jerk', meaning
if you want to change something you can't, and if you don't want
to change something its going to change away on you anyhow.

     If you like it, it will vanish on you, if you don't like it,
you are stuck with it, unless you can force yourself to like it etc.

     The issue is wondering why we created it in the first place,
absent awareness of willingness and aesthetic motivation to
create something we wouldn't like a moment after it is created,
we remain fully not liking it, and thus can't vanish it.

      But recovery of the willingness and motivation to put it there in
the first place and then forget we did so and why, immediately puts us
putting it there again and appreciating as a form of ludicrous demise
(since we put it there :) ) And thus we can just as easily let go of it.

      If we consider we are not or did not or would not put it there,
then clearly we have nothing to do with it being there, thus we
can't just let go of it and it will vanish, as something ELSE
is putting it there.  Thus we try to create something MORE ELSE to
induce the other ELSE to stop creating if for us.  Since there
IS no other else creating it, this never works and we get stuck
with it.

      But what are we stuck with?  SOMETHING WE DID NOT PUT THERE, OR DID
BUT NOW ARE REGRETTING SO *NOW* WE ARE NOT PUTTING IT THERE!

      Well if we aren't putting there, who or what is, and what
are you going to do about it (create something more.)

      You can see that if the only way to vanish something is to be
putting it there and then cease putting it there, all this other
irresponsibility for its existence right now is just going to make it
persist harder.

      Surely we understand that if we want to get rid of something we
have to be putting it there first, thus wanting to get rid of smomething
prepostulates that you have it, and this creates a feedback trap of
having the thing first by mere conception, and then trying to get rid of
it by postulating something MORE.

      Got a bug?  Don't like the bug?  Make some bug spray!

      Wrongo!

      We deal with this by understanding that feedback loop, and showing
at least that the way to get rid of something is NOT to create something
MORE, you can't get rid of A by creating B.

      Thus any effort to deal with a persistence by throwing mass or
effort or even concentration at it, or efforts to duplicate it etc will
invoke the trap and you won't succeed.

      If you don't want something to persist, stop putting it there.

      If you are putting it there, you will never get rid of it by
putting something MORE there to get rid of the first thing, and now
worse you are postulating a causal relation between the second thing you
put there as the vanquisher of the first thing.

      I can't kill the bug I made, but the bug spray that I made can!

      That's total insanity of causation.

      We still have to deal with the problem of convulsive or compulsive
putting it theres, to really handle the compulsion you will have to put
the compulsion there too!

      But there are so many layers of putting things there on top of
putting things there, to stop us from putting things there, that pretty
soon the mountain PUTS US THERE, and stomps us out of existence!

      So you have to put THAT there.  "Whoa, you mean I can do that, put
a mountain there, that will put me there, and then stomp me out of
existence, by putting MORE stuff there on me?"

      Look around you at the physical universe, who or what is putting
who or what where?

      Lower tone in the world of flows, acceptance is very related to
flinch and cringe, which are NON acceptance of a flow coming in, or
going out or cross wise, and which flinch or cringe enturbulate the flow
and make it very hard to confront it and let it be enough so it will
FLOW and run out.

      Imagine being in a huge smooth flowing river, flowing around you
smooth as silk.  Then stick your hands out and try to stop the flow,
what will happen?  The water will enturbulate and YOU will get washed
away in the turbulance.

      Enturbulated flows are the cause of pain, and thus flinch and
cringe ABOUT pain, CREATE pain and thus for sure are a feed back trap.

      Certainly doubt about being able to easily confront something bad
leads directly to protective finch and cringe and thus create the
overwhelming pain they are intended to protect against.

      For sure one finds that various bank flows turn to pleasure once
one tends to dive into them rather than flinch or cringe and trying to
run away.  One has to try it to see it, and that's a real barrier to
learning it is true.  The "gotta know before you go" crowd are kind of
doomed on this one.

      AS are the prove it cases.

      You see the door is stuck closed, you shut it for a good reason, 10
hurricanes are going on outside.

      You try to open the door and it won't budge.

      I say, push it closed again, and it will open.

      Well it took you forever to push it closed so it would stay closed
on its own.  Whew!  What a relief!  You see?

      So now I am telling you to push on it again and it will open?

      You say 'Prove it!'.

      I say "Do it, you will see for yourself."

      When it comes to your own hurricanes and how to turn them on again
and let them run out for good, telling you that Goober did the 'push it
again' trick and it worked for him, will not wash very well with you.

      You are totally alone with your as-isness of your condition,
no one can prove squat to you, as you aren't sure others eexist
at all, let alone have confronted anything.

      If someone else had confronted this thing you are scared of, YOU
wouldn't be having such a hard time of it, because you are all one on
the flip side of your soul, so you KNOW that if its still there to be
confronted, NO ONE else has!

      Thus you are alone with your devils and the hells you and
they occupy.

      But even real nasty anger, fear and sorrow flows turn to pleasure
and beauty if one even lets up a little at the flinch and cringe and
'accepts' them, meaning receives them, at their full intensity.  This is
a matter of smooth controlled effort to open the lip but not let it fly
off from pressure, and relaxing a bit to let the stuff out, rather than
a total philosophical total acceptance of loss and suffering which
doesn't happen until one can create suffering and loss freely.

      That brings us to the core of the matter, all ugly is created from
a viewpoint of beauty, humor and class.

      Excaliper and Grand Design.

      Excaliper means without measure, worth beyond measure.

      Your existence, a masterpiece of disharmony and harmony, dischord
and resolve.

      With continued contact with the source point (self) and motivation
(art) of the creation of bad things, the suffering is acceptable because
its enjoyable.  But once one drops down into apparencies are reality,
then awareness of source point and motivation is lost, and thus
suffering becomes simply and only suffering, and that is no longer
acceptable.

      Above apparencies are reality the beauty of consciousness
surpasses anything that might displayed in consciousness.

      Imagine the most horrific war scence painted on the finest
gold and silk lace.

      THE FABRIC or canvas of creation is more beautiful than
anything that could be painted on it, and thus any ugly or
suffering that is painted on it, fades in the light of the
fabric of the painting.

      No one is looking at the depiction, everyone is enjoying the fabric
too much.

      But put such a painting on old dirty paper, and boy will the
dipiction of misery hit home.

      There is no higher beauty to assuage it or ameliorate it, let alone
adorne the suffering with purpose and motivation in the grand tapestry
of things.

      The way to get someone to really buy into the depiction of
suffering and misery is to paint it on a fabric so abominable that the
ugly of the *FABRIC* pulls the ugly of the depiction on the fabric down
to unconfrontable ugliness.

      Once one loses sight of the ART to the suffering, the pleasure of
suffering is lost and so one is left suffering without reason to
continue it.

      This is where mere 'acceptance' does not vanish things and becomes
eventually resignation to having a mirgraine for the rest of your life
or being in solitary confinement in a universe of quadzillions of beings
you can no longer see or communicate with.

      Your prison cell is MADE of life, God incarnate, and you think its
made of cold dead stone that doesn't give a damn and wouldn't be aware
of it, if it did.

      The only way to be alone inside of time, is to be 100 percent non
telepathic or only telepathic to negative beings.

      So the kind of acceptance that causes vanishment is the state with
slightly more awareness and hope of artistic resolve, slightly less
flinch and cringe, and more willingness to look and experience the
suffering to its fullest.

      CONSCIOUSNESS begins to light up again, and what's going on
in consciousness, death and damnation mostly, begins to become
irrelevant, or actually add to the beauty once the lies, illogics
and jokes of ludicrous demise become apparent.

      First it GLOWS then it BLOWS.

      Sometimes it takes an almost suicidal intent to experience the
sorrow so loud and so hard it kills you finally and for ever more, and
in surprise you find love, light and pleasure waves where you were just
sure you were going to find crushing loss, injustice and hatred for the
cosmic all forever for free.

      This is a kind of waking up, you LEARN that if you dive into the
pit of fear, it turns to pleasure, then you start layer after layer
running them out by appling the rules of cringlessness and
flinchlessness that you have gleaned.  Each win leads to the next level
of terror and horror until you pass those exams too.

      Really its about pulling a higher view point of you putting it
there along with the complete while in which the experience exists.
Spanning the duration of an event pops you out of any while there is or
could be, because you are bigger than it, and YOU ARE PUTTING IT THERE.

      Looking at an unknown while from inside the while is hell.

      Looking at a known while from outside the while is heaven.

      Just getting the idea you are putting it there, whether you believe
it or not, will often open the door to the higher viewpoint.  Especially
if you include in your putting it there, that you don't believe a word
of this.

      So none of the above was really clear to me at the time of the
acceptance wars on a.c.t.  with Hacker,

      My first cognition leading me the way out is written in another
posting to the effect that if you are suffering some physical condition,
and efforts to accept it do not make it flow and run out and turn into
pleasure waves, then there is something MUCH BIGGER and earlier that you
are not accepting, which then results in the later symptoms being
unaditable.

      Find the real flinch and cringe about life and death, existence,
mortality, immortality and eternality, and you will find too much case
gain too fast.  Blinded by the light and the beauty.

      We have come to a point that eternal freedom to have what
we want is unacceptable, either we don't deserve it any more,
or its just too good to be true.

      We have accepted that some things can never be 'fixed' and so we
have accepted them into resignation until we are at the bottom of the
sea no longer even aware of what we wanted and what despair and ruin we
last left them in.

      We forget what we were thinking about, "Let's see, what was I just
thinking about, was I worried about something, dunno, may be no, how
come I *FEEL* so bad?  Maybe I am getting sick, let's go get high..."

      Thus the idea might seem offensively ludicrous that a mere change
in attitude at the moment of acceptance born of willingness to put it
there, would have caused the crushing forces of our loss to unlock and
dissolve into humor, beauty, deliciousness and peace forever and ever
amen.

      Thus a being whose life is MADE of the acceptances of resignation
is wary of the acceptances of vanishment, he wonders how could he have
been so WRONG and how can he live this down, and make this up to
himself.

      WHO OR WHAT BETRAYED HIM, and who will pay for the damage he caused
in the aftermath of the fit he threw?

      THE WRONG is the gift, it is self vanishing because it is self
beautiful, it won't be something ELSE that makes the ugly of the wrong
up to him, the BEAUTY of the wrong will be self justifying.

      Thus there is nothing to live down, the wrong was a wonderful
masterpiece, and nothing to make up for, for you just can't lose
anything without HAVING the beauty of what you lost in the mechanisms of
the loss of it.

      Resignation cases will love to prove you wrong on that one, until
they see it for themselves, so don't go throwing pigs before pearls,
until you have cleaned up your own act to a point where others can't
throw you into eternal acceptance and resignation again.

      Homer

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

     ACCEPTANCE AND VANISHMENT

     It would seem to me that the tiniest slightest desire to change or get
rid of something would entail just that much non acceptance of the thing
one wants to change, and that would be enough to cause its persistence.

     I find it unworkable to use the word acceptance as the operative
function of vanishment.  I would prefer to use cessation of resistence or
unacceptance.  Cessation of resistence and unacceptance does not equate to
acceptance.

     Ron said it well in the Phoenix Lectures.

     Things persist because the pc is trying to make them not exist
BY THROWING EFFORT, FORCE AND PARTICLES at it.

     It's ok to want something to not exist, to not accept its continued
existence forever and ever, but its the way you go about making it not
exist that determines whether it continues to persist or not.

     The idea that you can accept something that is vanished is not
coherent and in fact gets the pc to recreate what he is trying to vanish
in the effort to accept it!

     The idea that it takes time between the acceptance of something
and its vanishment is an arbitrary, and leads to, "well you have
to accept it long enough for it to vanish."

     "No one is asking you to accept it forever, just for a while, at which
point it will fade away."  One begins to ask "OK, how long already?!"

     Acceptance is the RESULT of a reality change, a change from wanting it
never to have been there, to wanting it to have been there for a while.
One can then let go.  Things that "should never have been but were anyhow"
are a death trap to the thetan.

     He's not accepting that it ever was.  So it persists.

     If he can reach an acceptance that IT WAS, it will be gone now.

     Acceptance that something was, comes from understanding why and how it
was created and the purpose and *mechanism* of its continuance.

     The beauty of the purpose and mechanism makes it OK that NOT OK
existed for a while.  That's humor, the universal solvent of all
injustice.

     Unacceptance comes from the violation of resonance brought about
by incorrect understandings of purpose and mechanism of creation and
continuance.

     Vanishment is vanishment.  Acceptance itself is a persistence of
accepting something that is persisting.  That's not a vanishment!  Thats
a persisting!

     Correcting the misreality that causes the dissonance removes
the UNacceptance which creates a vanishment.  It does not create
an acceptance.

     It's *GONE*, as gone as never was.

     Thus I conclude that acceptance as an auditing tool is a trap,
although a subtle one that leads utlimately towards accepting a
persistance forever.

     Its fine to get the pc to look at his unacceptance of things, but
its just going to grind him in if you get him to try to 'accept'
the things he wants to get rid of.

     Dig it and don't leave it.

     Homer

- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The paths of lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959               cross in         Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com     the line of duty.     http://www.lightlink.com

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Feb 27 03:06:01 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom26.memo
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.

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

iD8DBQFU8CVrURT1lqxE3HERAg3rAKC9ICxzyOnVHpb4LEkXrGhFTTMdZACgj29L
T+JAxO5MyTgypvWFHeAJFrg=
=dR6u
- -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Fri Feb 27 18:42:25 EST 2015
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/hom26
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)

iD8DBQFU8QDiURT1lqxE3HERArQbAKCWui+SKbjjgHlUXWYlNUMrOmt+IwCcCJp9
5YQWpZYjr5Gi5d1Rrvb8jJc=
=PxrH
-----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