Clearing Archive Roboposter
roboposter at lightlink.com
Sun Aug 2 18:06:03 EDT 2020
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
.ce Copyright (C) Flemming A. Funch
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
Technical Essay # 83 - FAF 28 April 1992
.ce Big Games
The principles of polarization and integration establish a foundation for the subject of games
and for understanding the development of society better.
Let me give a little historical background on this first. The concept of creating and integrating
polarities has been used for a long time to shape the course of history. The principle is that if
you polarize society into different, opposing groups, then you get a lot of action and
confusion. And then later you can re-integrate the opposing groups or causes with each
other, and you get a new situation that none of the two sides expected.
The German philosopher Hegel called this the Dialectic principle. It says that any idea, a
Thesis, evokes its opposite, the Antithesis, and these two combined would result in a unified
whole, the Synthesis, which in turn becomes a new Thesis.
Karl Marx applied this principle to social and economic conditions. Communists in general
have been very aware of it and have deliberately used it expand their territory. This might
account for a great deal of the success communism had in spreading across the planet until
Also, it is widely recognized amongst adherants of the conspiratorial view on history that
Dialectics has been used deliberately to control or guide world history for centuries.
Artificially created conflicts has been the order of the day and has accounted for most major
changes on the planet. Behind wars we can usually find that the same financial institutions
have financed both parties, and we can usually find somebody who created the 3rd partying
that started the war, and so forth. This is all quite well documented, and fairly well known
amongst clearing practitioners, so I don't see any need to go more in detail.
Until recently I regarded the use of that kind of tactics as a purely negative activity that should
be stopped and avoided. However, looking more at it in a more philosophical or spiritual light
it takes on quite a different meaning.
To have any game at all there needs to be some polarities. Polarities are created by
fragmenting something that is whole, or by making a plus and minus something out of
nothing. The hat that engineers this polarization is that of the Games Maker.
A game will continue as long as the polarities exist, and as long as the sides are well
balanced into an optimum randomity game. When a certain game has been explored long
enough, the sides can then be re-integrated, including the added learning from the previous
game playing, and a new game can be generated.
There can be many levels of game playing. Above the actual playing is the making and
unmaking of games. Game Making is polarization, and Game Unmaking is integration. When
one game ends, another must start, so there is a certain art in engineering a sequence of
games where the end of one naturally leads into the start of the next, without anybody
noticing exactly how.
Somebody is obviously engineering a series of games on this planet that leads towards a
one-world government. We can discuss the pros and cons of that, but it isn't necessarily a
thoroughly bad thing. Most planets with any respect for themselves have a one-world
government. The incredible fragmentation of society that we have here is mostly an Earth
Humans have obviously taken part in many of the steps of the historical polarization-
integration scheme. However, it is altogether too brilliant and too consistent to credit some
little humans with the overall design. It has got to be higher order spiritual beings, or at least
somebody off-planet. And I don't think it is as simple as some greedy Marcabians dropping
in, even though they might be there too. Somebody else is designing and playing really big
In any game-playing polarity we can easily label the sides various ways: good/evil,
right/wrong, etc. But it all depends on where we see it from, and if we study the scene from a
neutral viewpoint, then none of the sides have got it right. Each has some qualities or
advantages or truth that the other doesn't have. Only if they were integrated and the game
ended would the qualities be whole.
You can only truly end a game by integrating and dissolving the opposites. None of the sides
could ever completely win. There could be a series of matches where either side might score
points, but nobody is going to totally win. If one side wins a match, then the other side would
certainly want some sort of re-match, they wouldn't just cease to exist.
Same thing with the "eternal" fight between good and evil. "Good" is not going to eradicate
"Evil", and "Evil" isn't going to eradicate "Good" either. That would be like the sound of one
hand clapping, it just doesn't work like that. One side only makes sense in comparison with
the other. The only way of ending a Good/Evil game is to reconcile the two with each other.
Good needs to become more Evil, and Evil needs to become more Good, and we need to
resolve what keeps them apart, and -- PUFF!! -- none of them exist anymore, but
consciousness has learned some new and interesting lessons that it will be all the wiser for.
What I am trying to point out here is that if you can comprehend polarization and integration
on a big scale, a lot of things make sense, and the universe doesn't have to be such a
hopeless and threatening place. It never really was, but you might have gotten myopic by
focusing too hard on one side of a smaller scale polarity.
Obviously these principles could be used for something. Some big thetans somewhere are
already using them for creating and playing big time games. If codified and elaborated on we
too could develop a workable 4D tech.
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sun Aug 2 18:06:02 EDT 2020
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