faf6.scr

Clearing Archive Roboposter roboposter at lightlink.com
Tue Nov 22 18:06:05 EST 2016


.ll 72
.fo off
.co on
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))

.ce THE REASON FOR GPMS

.ce FAF - 6
.ce 19 March 1990

.ce Copyright (C) Flemming A. Funch
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes


     An all-knowing being who wants to play games is presented with a
couple of problems:

     - How does one make something unknown so that one can have fun
finding it out?

     - How does one make something persist long enough to have fun with
it?

     The solution to both is Alter-Isness.  One has to change the truth,
one has to fabricate some lies.

     The Alter-Is has to be complicated enough to fool the being
himself, at least partially.  ((Just how complicated this needs to be is
possibly also determined by the being's own direct postulate!))  He has
to invent a tricky mechanism that he doesn't immediately see through.
To make a postulate stick he has to make up a sufficient amount of
misdirecting alter-is so that he is comfortable about letting it persist
and so that he has a lie he can work with.

     The GPM structure looks a lot like just such a structure of lies.
At the bottom of a GPM is a postulate, the postulate that one is trying
to cover up or not take responsibility for by having a GPM.
((The Bottom of the GPM is the base root of the GPM, the furthest
away from present time.  The top of the GPM is the latest on the chain,
the closest to present time.  This is where the phrase 'Getting to
the bottom of it' came from.))

     The terminals go through a gradual series of Alter-Is.  At the top
we have a Service Fac which is exactly the workable lie that was needed.
One can use it indefinitely because it's origin is well hidden.  And the
GPM provides a "logical" story of why it came to be like that, if
anybody cares to look.  The top Service Fac might be "All horses sleep
in beds" or it might be the physical universe, there is a wide range of
workable lies.

     ((There is a lot of contention about the nature of Service Facs
in the field.  Hubbard gives the example of 'All horses sleep in beds'.
Filbert says that a SF must have two parts, 'The way to survive is
to be a Free Loader and a Bum'.  Hubbard also mentions postulates
like 'The way to survive is to die.'

      This last one can apply to someone whose GPMS have as one of
its terminals 'A Martyr'.   The being in the martyr phase believes
that the best way to survive, which to him means to have a
better world to live in, in his next life, is to die in this life
and make his cause known and rally people around it.

      Thus a being who might have the goal 'To Live Forever' at the
bottom of his GPM, will have the goal 'To die for a cause' at the
top of his GPM.  He is dying in order to live forever.

     Many a suicide can be handled by asking them what kind of
immortality they hope to gain by killing themselves.  It doesn't
have to be a personal immortality they seek.  They will have long
forgotten the original goal.  Once they spot it, their desperate
effort to get it by killing themselves will cool off.

     It will have come from a postulate that says 'The way to live
forever is to die' or some such thing.))

     The use of beingnesses and opposed forces is a very effective way
of creating a persistent alter-is.  As long as one holds those subjects
as true one can be subjected to such structures.

     To handle the issue for good one would not only have to trace back
the structures and find the postulates behind them.  One would also have
to remove any dependency on beingnesses or double terminals.

     GPMs are only one of many possible structures that could cover up
postulates.  They might or might not have to be handled in a certain
order.

     The structures can of course be other-determined, self-determined,
or pan-determined and they would work differently depending on their
origin.  They would always be intended for Alter-Isness though.

     Beyond handling the structures is the handling of the need to have
an Alter-Is at all.

     The postulates found under alter-is structures don't necessarily
look like truth.  They are actually just as likely to be silly illogical
nonsense.  The being knew the truth from the start.  There would be no
reason to try to get the truth to persist.  What you want to persist is
generally a pack of lies.  But, of course, all lies take their power
from the truth.  And the highest truth is the Static.  And the Static
can make whatever it wants the truth.

     ((Flemming is being figurative here.  Actual Truth is actual truth
and is Absolute and Immutable.  Any being though can descend down into
26.0 'Apparencies are Reality' on the tone scale, and create 'truths'
and realities that are very true for him.

     These created truths and realities are actually lies based on
alter-isness of the original Truth.  As such they persist until the
As-isness is once again regained.

     Hubbard actually turns this into a 3 tiered system.

     At the top is Native State or Truth with a capital T. It is the
state of no creation, and no persistance, and probably no awareness
either.  Although you will find contention on this matter from various
people.

     In the next state down the being is aware and has created a mockup
of something.  This is the state of original creation, the first
postulate, the first posted beingness on the color form wall, and it is
an as-isness and so does not persist if left to itself.  This state is
called NOT KNOW, because the being doesn't know anything ABOUT the
mockup yet, he hasn't invented any significance to assign to the mockup.

     The third state down, the being ASSIGNS to his created mockup a
significance, for example that it is an ASHTRAY and that it is USED to
hold the ashes of cigarettes.  This action of assigning significances to
mockups lowers the being from NOT KNOW to KNOW ABOUT, and is it self the
act of alter-ising the orignal mockup which was originally created
significance free.  This alter-isness is enough to cause the mockup to
persist, because in truth it is not an ashtray it is just a mockup.

     This is what a lot of beings don't get.  Mockups are made FIRST
(AS-ISness) and significances are assigned to the SECOND (ALTER-ISness).

     Thus you get the following scale,

     NATIVE STATE       TOTAL KNOWING
     AS-IS              NOT KNOW
     ALTER-IS           KNOW ABOUT
     NOT-IS             NOT KNOW ABOUT

     Total knowing at the top is not meant to mean the guy knows
everything in the sense of know about.  It means he is ABLE and WILLING,
he KNOWS HOW TO create things, but it is all potential and completely
unmanifest.  It's like you know how to drive a car, even if you aren't
driving one and aren't even thinking about it.

     He doesn't know ABOUT anything yet, because he hasn't created
anything to know about!

     The being descends from Native State and potential creation into
actual creation of a mockup, a mockup which he doesn't yet know anything
about.  It is just a color form with shape and size, but no
significance, purpose, or use has been assigned to it.  This is an
AS-ISness.  If he leaves it here, and does nothing more, the mockup will
vanish and he will return to Native State.

     If he doesn't leave it there, the being can then place on the
mockup the various ideas and significances that falsify what it really
is, namely his mockup.  He says, 'Oh yes, I know what that is, it is an
ashtray given to me by my Uncle Milton, and I use it to hold my ashes,
and as a paper weight, and it is fragile and made of glass that comes
from South Africa and it cost him a lot of money so I ought to take care
of it', and so forth.  You see, it's total nonsense.  It's a MOCKUP!

     Postulates are AS-ISnesses.  They are posted beingnesses, just
color forms we put up on the color form screen.  They fade or vanish
unless assigned false significances to give them USE.

     The primary false significances that we assign to mockups have to
do with ORIGINATION, where they came from, CAUSAL RELATION, how they
effect others things and are themselves effected by other things, and
USE, what purpose they serve.

     Considerations are the significances that are assigned to posted
beingnesses.

     You post two mockups, one looks like an ashtray and the other like
a cigarette.  If you leave it there, both will vanish.

     So you then CONSIDER that the first mockup IS an ashtray and that
it is USED to hold your cigarettes.  You see you are assigning causal
relation to two objects that actually have no causal relation at all
because color form can't effect anything, except your ability to see it.
That is all color form can do, make you see it!

     A color form of an ashtray can not hold ashes, color form is not
solid.

     Even when you have the whole thing mocked up and persisting quite
well, the ashtray still isn't really holding the ashes or the cigarette
even though the ashtray feels solid and the cigarette clearly doesn't
fall through the ashtray.

     Even if you hit yourself over your head with the ashtray and give
yourself a bump and a pain, that doesn't prove anything!  You can do the
same in a dream.

     It is all just hooked together very conveniently to make it look
like there is external cause and solidity and other beingness.  The
whole idea is to get your color forms to look like they have some sort
of real independent existence outside of their mere color formness.

     The TRUTH is that the ashtray is NOT actually solid, any more than
an image of an ashtray is solid in a dream.  It is just a mockup, but as
long as we consider these things to have solidity and their own cause,
why then we can continue to have them have effects on each other and
ourselves, and we can have a game.))

     Flemming

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Tue Nov 22 18:06:04 EST 2016 
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/flemming/faf6.scr
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.



More information about the Clear-L mailing list