THE FIRST OVERT
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Tue Oct 16 12:09:12 EDT 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
THE FIRST OVERT
At tone 30.0 (postulates) each I-AM of the multi being source is
100 percent responsible for his own creations but also those of everyone
else. All are responsible for all.
This is a fair chosen connectedness between the beings of the
operational group as they descend from Native state at tone 400.
The being later may have the idea there are things he is creating
knowingly, and things he is creating unknowingly (other's creations),
but they are all his. But at the top, each being replicates entirely
the creation of any other I-AM, including the idea 'I am causing this.'
Since each being is aware of the others, every creation then becomes a
'WE are creating this', or a "US is creating this."
By taking full responsibility FOR any creation at its moment of
appearance in his space, the being can thus own it and has 100 percent
control over it, just as he does over his 'own' creations, because even
other's creations are his own at this level.
Thus we have the KRC triangle, Knowledge, Responsibility and
Control, where Responsibility equals Control over. What one can take
full responsibility for and over, one can control, and what one refuses
responsibility for or over, one can not control directly.
Thus by taking responsibility for anything that appears he
maintains complete control over it, meaning he can create it, or
uncreate it, that is start, change or stop it.
So at tone 30.0, it doesn't matter who creates what, anyone can
start, change or stop it as if it is theirs, because it is, the multi
being has an US kind of attitude towards everything.
US created it, so US can change or stop it.
You might think this would lead to wars of creation and
discreation, when one being wants it and another being doesn't, but if A
creates it and B decides to uncreate it, A, as one of the US, will
simply take responsibility for its UNCREATION, and may or may not put it
In other words if B decides to uncreate something, A will ALSO
decide to uncreate it, as will everyone else, because a decision to
uncreate something is a creation, an act of causation, that is then
shared by all.
As far as A or B is concerned, each being is essentially playing a
multi being game of US solitair with themselves, all of them.
As long as US put it there, US can change or stop it, it doesn't
matter which being of the multi being US does it, because they are not
thinking in those highly individuated terms at that level.
US includes ME and YOU, but at tone 30.0 it is US, not yet ME and
YOU without the US.
Now, one of the things the US can do is blame something that is
created on someone else.
It's fine for A to say B created this thing, no matter who did,
because of course it is true, B can take full responsibility for
anything created by anybody.
A saying that B created it does NOT imply that A did not also
create it. Thus full responsibility around the table continues to
But it is not fine for A to say "B created this thing and I
A's operative postulate is not that B created it, but that A
didn't, so A has now elected himself an effect and has claimed by his
own creation that something can appear in his space that he had nothing
to do with, AND THUS CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT.
A can pull a sly trick, trying to maintain the illusion of 'total
responsibility' after it is long gone, by saying that indeed A chose to
let B into A's space so that B could create, but then B went and made a
mess, and A will say he 'didn't sign up for this', and so he points the
finger at B for creating it. That is not full responsibility.
Blame is simply saying I did not create this, YOU did.
Now you see we have a real ME and YOU, because YOU created it and
Now B can say to A, "Yes I created it," and that would be the end
of it, because B could get rid of it. Notice A can't get rid of it any
more because A has denied creating it, refused TAKING full
responsibility for it from the US as his own.
B however might just decide to not get rid of it, just to piss off
A for being irresponsible. It would serve A right for giving away all
his powers to deal with anything, just so he could point the finger at
However as long as B takes full responsibility for A's
irresponsibility, B can uncreate A's irresponsibility and return A to a
fully responsible state!
As long as each being takes full responsibility for shunting off
responsibility from themselves to another, the full US continues or is
restored quickly and nothing much happens from it.
This is true no matter who has done what to who, because since
anyone can end another's irresponsibility, and in fact CAUSED the
other's irresponsibility, it is just the US playing the beginnings of
the game of NOT US, but still playing NOT US as the US anyhow.
But if being A shunts responsibility over to B, and B says no way I
didn't create it, YOU did, and A says, well er, yes I did create it, but
I only created it because C caused me to, then A can get into an
infinite regression of shunting responsibility for shunting
A first shunts responsibility to B, who refuses it, but
then A shunts responsibility to C for having shunted to B.
If A shunts responsibility to B, but A takes full responsibility
for shunting to B, then nothing much happens, as A remains in total
control of what A is creating.
But if A shunts responsibility to B, and B doesn't accept that
responsibility and shunts it back to A, and A then shunts responsibility
to C for having for shunted responsibility to B, then A has started to
hand away all his responsibility for handing away all his
A can stop it any time by taking full responsibility for the last
shunt in the line of shunts, but if A makes an infinite regression out
of shunting shunting, then A no longer has control over his creations
made by others.
"I am not responsible for making it, and I am not responsible for
making myself not responsible, and I am not responsible for that
either," ad infinitum...
Shunt, shunt, shunt, shunt...
20 trillion years later A is still going
... shunt, shunt, nope not responsible for that either, shunt!
At any time A can simple take full responsibility for that last
shunt in line, which then presents him with the immediate prior shunt.
If A continues to take responsibility for each prior shunt as they show
up, A can unravel the whole thing back to Shunt One, at which point A
recovers his full responsibility and CONTROL of his own experience as is
his native right and state.
PUTTING IT THERE = FULL RESPONSIBLE CONTROL
If B puts something there, and A *TAKES* full responsibility for B
putting it there, by A putting it there too, then it becomes A's ALSO,
and so A can UNput it there if A doesn't like it.
That's responsibility equals control, you see?
But if A refuses to PUT IT THERE, and claims it is being forced
upon him by another, then A isn't operating responsibility for it, and
thus can't CEASE operating responsibility for it, and thus unput it
there any more. Instead he has to blame B and threaten B to get B to
remove it for A.
This creates a serious condition where A himself no longer believes
he is really an US, and A in fact believes himself to not be responsible
for his shunting control to B, that A HAD to shunt, or was made to shunt
by another such as C, or simply that calling it shunting was not valid,
that another, namely B, was in fact responsible for it and A wasn't.
You might think this would be worse if A had in fact originally
created the thing instead of B.
Blaming others for one's own acts is clearly a no no, but at these
high levels, there no "I created it and you didn't," so A blaming ANYONE
FOR ANYTHING no matter who created it starts the cycle of postulating
that A didn't create something and yet could be the effect of someone
So the cycle starts with A and B co creating something, it doesn't
matter who 'started it', and A blames B for the creation, "you did it
and I didn't."
Then B makes another mistake, rather than taking full
responsibility for A's shunt over to him, he denies responsibility for
what A created and shunts it back to A.
A now feels at fault and this stirs the emotion of guilt.
The guilt is a creation of *B* put onto A, and A has no choice but
to accept it, because A has already made the general postulate that B
can create something for A that A didn't create, and so A has to suffer
it rather than just vanish it.
Fault is defined, by responsible multi beings, as not taking
responsibility for something you or anyone else is responsible for.
Fault is NOT a result of what was created, that is simply
responsibility. A says, "Yep I created that there holocaust" and
everyone agrees that A and everyone else created it too, and that's the
end of it.
You see there is no fault in creating, NO MATTER WHAT IS CREATED,
as long as the creator takes full responsibility for creating it, and
also takes full responsibility for everyone else denying responsibility
for it, should that happen.
That's a big statement, dig it and don't leave it.
Others may try to make A guilty by saying A created it and they
didn't, but if A takes full responsibility for it, even if others
created it too, AND if A takes full responsibility for other's blame of
A, then A is not at fault and there is no guilt or consequence to A, as
A can vanish anything he is putting there with full responsibility,
including everyone else's intended blame and guilt.
If A is really good at it, this will include returning everyone
ELSE who is blaming him to a fully responsibility state.
These principles of what is or is not fault apply to any part of
the create, survive, destroy cycle.
*FAULT* doesn't have to do with WHAT is created, fault has to do
with failing to take responsibility for its creation, regardless of who
Yes the creation of blame and fault is a creation just like any
other creation, but if you take full responsibility for blaming then you
aren't at FAULT! You only end up at fault if you blame and mean it.
BLAME IS FAULT, FAULT IS BLAME, PERIOD.
If you blame B, *YOU* are at fault for blaming B!
Do you see now the difference between a human and a God?
Taking responsibility doesn't mean you claim you created it, it
means TAKING the act of creation as your own once it is created.
Taking responsibility means PUTTING IT THERE.
You can't change what you are not putting there, no matter who
Fault to a society of totally responsible beings lies only in
refusing to take total responsibility for anything.
Joke is you only get to FEEL the fault as guilt when OTHERS refuse
to take responsibility too and shunt it back to you. Your failed shunt
to another, then causes you to feel guilt and the other's do not. Now
we have a true ME (guilty) and YOU (not guilty).
GOOBER AND DUFUS
So Goober and Dufus are part of the multi being community, and
Goober creates a big evil mess in the middle of the AllThatIS.
There used to be a game between infinite multi beings of who could
mockup the worst evil amongst them. It was great fun, and each took
full responsibility for anyone's presentation. So of course everyone
won the 'worst evil mockup' award every time.
But on this day, Goober creates this evil mess, and the police come
up to him and say, "Sir, you created this evil mess, we need to take you
to jail to punish you for this." This is accountability on the tone
scale. Notice the police didn't deny that they also created it, so
there is no blame yet.
Goober then makes a mistake (on purpose to create randomity) and he
says "Oh dear Sirs, you are quite right it is a horrible sight that only
the strong can behold, but it wasn't I who created it, it was Dufus, I
saw him do it." This is blame on the tone scale.
The police then apologize profusely and proceed to create decimation
after holocaust after nuclear anihilation trying to track Dufus down and
bring him to justice. The collateral damage is horrendous, the number
of "fully responsible" beings (not) lying on the ground belching smoke
and debris, becomes uncountable.
Finally the police have Dufus corralled in some smoking corner of
what is left of civilization, and they are about to take him down, when
he says "But Sirs, I have been framed, it was Goober indeed who did this
evil, thing, and here is proof..." as Dufus rolls out the video tape of
Goober doing his dastardly deed.
Well that's not absolute evidence, but it was good enough for a
jury, and the police go back to Goober and say "You lied to us, you are
AT FAULT for creating this evil thing".
Now Goober isn't at fault of creating the mess, but he is at fault
for trying to get someone else in trouble for it and denying full
responsibility for it.
Goober feels guilty and punish worthy. This is regret (guilt) on
the tone scale.
Goober knows he has been caught in a shunt trying to get another in
trouble for is own deeds.
He has poisoned his own awareness of the US by claiming he didn't
do it, and Dufus did, so that when it comes back to him, it comes back
to him as: he did it and Dufus didn't, as fault!
Goober in his guilt, misses that Dufus is now denying
responsibility for the mess just as Goober did, but Goober fails to
refuse it back making Dufus guilty too, and so it sticks to Goober.
What are these others doing blaming Goober?
Well Goober blamed them for a mess, so Goober's general postulate
that others can do something that Goober didn't do, now comes back on
him exactly as he postulated, namely that others can do something to
Goober that Goober doesn't agree with or want, and GOOBER CAN NO LONGER
VANISH IT BECAUSE HE ISN'T PUTTING THERE, namely *TAKING* full
responsibility for it regardless of who created it.
Goober now feels GUILTY, not for the evil mess mind you, no one
cares about that, but for trying to blame it on Dufus when it was his
own doing (ALSO).
THAT was not forgivable, particularly to a community of multi
beings that long ago stopped being able to take responsibility for
Taking responsibility for evil messes was one thing, but taking
responsibility for shunting responsibility? Shudder the thought.
And that includes Goober, who, because of his unspotted general
postulates about being an uncausing effect of others, still reigning,
now finds himself mysteriously unable to take full responsibility for
having shunted responsibility and the decimation, holocaust and nuclear
anihilation it caused while chasing down Dufus, and so he is stuck with
So the jury wants to take Goober out to crucify him, but Goober has
a bright idea. He has had this facsimile hanging around for a long time
of some really horrible thing that someone created that Goober had been
keeping as a souvenir of a good game.
Goober then wishes off the facsimile on the jurors hoping to stop
them in their tracks.
This is overt hate and murderous rage on the tone scale. Anything
to stop the jurors from acting against Goober.
This doesn't work however, as Goober no longer as the power to kill
with a wish or a glance, so instead Goober takes the facsimile on
Goober dons the facsimile and suddenly he looks all crumpled up,
and crippled, and cross eyed and incompetent, he can't think straight,
he is drooling out of both of eyes, and he walks into the jury and says
"See, I was incompetent due to this horrible abuse that was visited upon
me long ago, and I have suffered for years and years, please don't make
me suffer more, I apologize for the mess I made, please feel sorry for
me, and forgive me and let me go."
This is propitiation on the tone scale.
Well guess what, some of the jurors were the very people who
created the incident which Goober has a facsimile of, and they feel
sorry for Goober and let him go.
But notice Goober is now two deceits down, first he blamed Dufus
for his own doing (actually a co doing), and when he was caught with
that deceit, he blamed his facsimile for why he made the mess in the
first place, or why he blamed Dufus or for why he should be exonerated
One day a long time later, Goober meets one of the Jurors he
tricked, and he sees the Juror is really a good kind of guy and not
doing well, and Goober feels Sympathy for the Juror.
At that point Goober can no longer remember any part of this, and
becomes a human being in his next life being snide about auditing.
THE CYCLE OF BLAME AND BECOMING
So the cycle goes from Blame to Guilt (Failed shunt) to No Sympathy
(wishing off death or damnation on those that would punish him), to
covert hostility (covert effort to succumb with own facsimile in order
to get Sympathy or exoneration) to Sympathy for those who originally
wanted to crucify him, but who then later fell for his sympathy stance
or ploy, to Spiritual Death as a sovereign being as that is the final
nature of the facsimile he is wearing!
Spiritual Death is at -400.00 on the tone scale and can be measured
by the ratio between what you know for sure you are fully responsible
for, and everything else in the known AllThatIS.
One runs this cycle of BLAME - GUILT - NOSYMPATHY - COVERT
HOSTILITY - SYMPATHY - BECOMING DEAD on all dynamics by running out all
times the being KNOWINGLY shunted responsibility for *ANYTHING*,
regardless of "who created it," whether it came back to him or not.
Shunting means NOT PUTTING IT THERE.
Blame can come back as fault and guilt in two ways.
The first is called failed by force, that means mother was bigger
and stronger, and the child could not effect justice against mother's
selfish intent to rip the baby off of basic needs.
The child will first use reason against mother, then will try force
( overt hostility out of valence in murder engram, attempted murder,
zap, beam or whatever), then will use deceit (covert hostility in
valence in murder engram to make self sick and elicit mother's
It does not matter at all whether the child is right or wrong about
his sense of injustice being violated, mother's refusal of the blame
will make the child feel guilty anyhow, not because of anything anyone
did to anybody, but because the child refused to take full
responsibility for mother's criminal intent and behavior.
Mother does wrong, and child feels guilty after blame doesn't work.
The worst mother gets out of it, is she feels smug.
The second is called failed by reversal, the child blames mother
for throwing out his favorite toy in the garbage pail, and mother says
"Oh but dear I didn't do that, it fell there accidentally when YOU
bumped the table, I would never throw out your precious toys." The child
has blamed and punished the wrong person unfairly, and now deserves
punishment back for punishing an innocent party.
Again the child will pull in a murder engram, and sit squarely in
it, in valence, so as to get VERY sick so mother will forget he just
tried to kill her for messing with his toys, and she will forget, and
nurse him through the sickness until everyone has forgotten everything
about what happened, and all is forgiven.
Whenever blame comes back to him as fault and guilt, then run out
the fair chosen use of the Service Facsimile to gain sympathy and
exoneration for his irresponsibility.
It doesn't matter whether mother threw away the toy or not, the
CHILD blamed mother for the missing toy rather than PUT IT THERE (the
missingness), and thus becomes liable to his own postulates that he can
be the unwanted effect of another.
Once the SPECIFIC irresponsibility is located, for mother and her
actions in the above, the preclear must then be taken back to the PRIOR
GENERAL irresponsibility for mothers and babies in general (I didn't
create or choose my mother or this baby body) and the dependency between
them and everything else involved in that incident and all earlier
similar incidents until such a thing could never happen again as the
preclear would be too fast to not take full responsibility for anything
any mother did to anybody before it could get to the guilt stage.
Here's another example.
Baby to Mother: I am starving to death, you failed to feed me this
morning (Blame, NO-Sympathy, shunted responsibility for needing food,
starving and mother's inattentive actions.)
Mother to Baby: Well you messed your pants and I had to change your
diapers, and the milk got over heated and burned so I had to throw it
away. (Fault and guilt on baby's part when mother refuses the shunted
responsibility and blames baby for messing pants. It's only reasonable
you know, if you are gonna mess your pants, you should expect to starve
Baby (to mother): I wish you were dead. (Overt hostility, out of
valence use of death or near death engram against mother, wishing off
death or damnation on mother, intended and attempted murder which fails
as mother doesn't die so the baby is suddenly sitting IN valence in a
near or actual death experience. If you conjure it up to wish on
another, and the wish fails, well there you are sitting in a time you
were murdered and feeling like it. Don't call up engrams to use on
others, unless you intend to win. Don't call up death or damnation on
others, unless you get them to walk away with it! Otherwise YOU get
stuck in it, until you decide to let bygones by bygones and let it go.)
Continuing to try to wish off an engram on another, that continues to
fail, leaves YOU continually sitting in the engram. Thus the only way
anyone can end up in death or hell forever is to continue and fail to
wish death and hell forever off on another. The second you give up
trying to USE the engram to harm another, you pop out of it. Thus no
hell can out last a true confession.)
Baby to Mother: See how near death I am, you should be ashamed of
yourself and feel sorry for me. (Baby now in own valence in near death
engram, uses it to make Mother feel Sympathy. Since near death engram
is Mother's attempted abortion against baby, or suicide attempts during
pregnancy, it works, and mother feels sorry for baby for a while.
But eventually it doesn't work any more.
Mother to Baby: "Oh you are always sick and dying, its all in your
head." Baby tries harder and harder and eventually becomes permanently
sick dead or dying.
Mother is stuck permanently in No-Sympathy (blame of baby), and
baby is stuck permanently in near death trying to make mother wrong and
Baby grown up: "Auditing costs too much and doesn't work".
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
======================= http://www.clearing.org ========================
Posted: Tue Oct 16 12:09:12 EDT 2012
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 v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the HomerWSmith-L