HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Sat Jul 25 17:31:36 EDT 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
HOW TO END UNWANTED GAMES
>> This flip flop from creating and orchestrating virtual realities
>> into believing those virtual realities to be actualities is how beings
>> create and play games in space/time game streams.
WILKA (freesolo at freenet.de) wrote:
>...how to END those Games, which Individual I-AMs and/or Groups of, found
I can only give you the answer that both Hubbard and Adore give:
"The way out, is the way in." -Adore
"The creature can become the creator at will. The way for the
creature to become the creator is to BE the creator becoming the
By recreating coming into a game, you put yourself out, because you
have to be out to come in.
Trying to get out, puts you in, because you have to be in to try to
Trying to get in, puts you out, because you have to be out to get
Thus ending a game involves recreating the moment of creating the
game, which includes the intention and aesthetics and the fore-knowing
if there was any, and the postulates that made the game, and then the
effort and intention to jump into the game by operating the various
consideration/observation flip flops we have been discussing here.
This is hardest when a being has created a game that he "couldn't
have, shouldn't have, wouldn't have" ever created. That sticks him in a
"I didn't start it," so he becomes stuck at trying to stop it. He can't
stop what he can't start, because the way to stop anything is to
practice starting it thus perfectly duplicating the original moment of
Trying to start something assumes it is stopped etc.
Once one is at the start point, one can simply changing one's mind
and not continue it.
Thus Hubbard said the being goes psycho at the exact moment he
becomes totally devoted to stopping something. He no longer has his
finger on start, so he can't stop, and thus gets stuck in must stop,
can't stop forever.
Or at least until he wakes up to his error.
It's like a chinese finger trap, the way in is the way out. Trying
to get out sticks you in. Pushing in, allows you to get out.
This forms a kind of catch-22 with games, namely that the moment a
being tries to back out of a game, he gets stuck in it, but the moment
he tries to get into the game, he tends to wake up out of it.
Thus beings had the problem of how to stay in the game, they kept
waking up. So they made the game unpleasant so that once they were in
it, they would be DEVOTED to getting out, and thus guaranteeing they
would stay in.
This was all as intended.
Look for the "couldn't, wouldn't, shouldn't" point of any stuck
game to find the lock the being left beind him to make sure he stayed in
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Sat Jul 25 17:31:36 EDT 2015
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)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
HomerWSmith-L mailing list
HomerWSmith-L at mailman.lightlink.com
More information about the Clear-L