PERSISTERS AND VANISHERS
Homer Wilson Smith
HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Mon Apr 11 16:09:20 EDT 2016
Dirge for the damned...
PERSISTENCE AND VANISHMENT
ADO - 16
27 March 2005
Copyright (C) 2005 Homer Wilson Smith
Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes.
PERSISTENCE AND VANISHMENT
There are two broad goals that can be pursued in any universe.
The goal to create a persistence.
The goal to create a vanishment.
"What do you wish to make persist?"
"What do you wish to make vanish?"
(Don't run what questions. Use:
"Get the idea of making something persist."
"Get the idea of making something vanish.")
One then begins to dramatize these goals.
To dramatize means to "BRING DRAMA TO".
Drama means "seriousness, importance, *PERMANENCE* and pain."
"What do you wish to make persist *FOREVER*?"
"What do you wish to make vanish *FOREVER*?"
Forevers violate the space/time WHILES in which things are created
and are the sole source of aberration and charge.
The only things which are forever are people and peace.
Trying to make someone live forever or go to heaven or hell forever
is trying to make someone or something persist forever.
Trying to make someone die forever is trying to make someone vanish
"Everyone lives forever where there is no time.
No one lives forever where there is time. " - Adore
Eternality is timeless immortality, not temporal immortality, which
is a hell of magnitude, no eternal sleep.
PERSISTERS AND VANISHERS
In the beginning of a universe most beings are bent on making
things persist. It is hard to get things to persist and a lot of
effort, intelligence and beauty are invested in doing so.
They would consider themselves opposed by anyone trying to make
things vanish. Such a vanisher would be an SP (Suppressive Person) to
them, to whom they were PTS (Potential Trouble Source, roller coasters,
loses gain, dives down the tone scale to get better etc.) The vanisher
SP would be trying to unmock them and their persistences.
Later in the universe, people begin to change their minds, they
consider there is too much persistence, they may want to create some new
persistences but there is too much old persistence in the way, or maybe
they want to end it all and go back to Big Snooze (native state) for a
while, so they take up vanishing things.
Perhaps they join the Church of Scientology which was mocked up to
unmock things, and they audit people helping them to vanish old unwanted
persistences, they become Professional Class IV Vanishers.
It is hard to get things to vanish, and a lot of effort,
intelligence and beauty is invested in doing so.
Such people would consider themselves opposed by anyone trying to
make things persist. Such a persister would be an SP to them, and to
whom they were PTS. The SP would be trying to mock them up, get them to
remain stuck in mud etc.
Unmocking is only a problem to those trying to mock up.
Mocking up is only a problem to those trying to unmock.
During the change over period from universe creation to universe
removal or upgrade, a lot of people who were persisters become
vanishers, thus their concept of who or what an SP is changes with them.
This can have serious effects.
If a single person in a group changes from persister to vanisher,
he will suddenly find himself opposed by his whole group, and all his
prior friends become SP's to him.
But look at it from the group's point of view. They are all still
trying to persist, but their member is now trying to help them vanish
things, so the group considers the single member similar to the many
SP's on the track that have tried to unmock them early on.
Last thing you want to do is restimulate someone's Nemesis One and
have him overlay it on you!
He's been hunting his Nemesis One for *EONS* and now he's found it,
you! You want that?
Much of the disaffection between Scientologists and family members
can be explained in this way. The scientologist is trying to vanish,
but the family members are still trying to persist.
Vanishers give persisters the willies.
Persisters attribute the willies not only to the scientologist
trying to 'help' them, but to the whole oraganization behind him.
Offering to 'help' someone change from persistence to vanishment is
an insult, invalidation and wrong item for them. It will only make them
howling mad at you.
Now part of the problem is that Scientology was DEFINED as the
science of vanishing, of unmocking, to wit: "the science of knowing how
to know answers to questions." - PXL (Phoenix Lectures)
That's the science of how to unmock questions, or the ignoranace
between the question and the answer.
But during the earlier persistence phase, people don't want to
know, they don't want to vanish, they want to mockup unconfrontable
mysteries and unknowables so they can have a game and get sucked down to
the bottom of the tone scale in peace.
THEY WANT TO GET LOST, they are tired of seeing home around every
Vanishing something is an interruption, you see, of their sovereign
They are tired of waking up half way down the tone scale (fear)
thinking "Damn lost another one to as-isness!"
Its like a dream ending right in the middle just when it was
getting good no matter how much of a nightmare it was.
That means during the persistence phase we don't need to know how
to unmock things, we need to know how to mock them up and get them to
persist like rock, tar, amber, obsidian glass and crazy glue, until we
can't get rid of them no matter what.
That's what most persisters are trying to do, HAVE *FOREVER*.
Their favorite havingness is Obsidian Glass.
But to complete the while, since nothing is forever in time, we
have to change from a persistence phase over to a vanishing phase so we
can end the while in peace and start a new one.
So during the vanishment phase we need to know how to undo all this
stuff we mocked up to persist forever during the persistence phase.
So no problem, Scientology actually encompases both sides of the
dicom, because if you know how to know answers to questions, you
certainly know how to NOT know answers to questions!
So if we define Scientology as the science of knowing how to not
know and know answers to questions, then we have a complete subject.
The point then is when you approach a particular person to 'help
them', you first have to determine which side of the fence they are on.
Are they a persister or a vanisher, or someone on the verge of
If they are a persister you help them persist.
If they are a vanisher you help them vanish.
If they are on the verge, you help them see both sides and make a
SELF DETERMINED decision about which side of the fence they really want
to be on, and then you help them accordingly.
Sometimes a persister no longer knows he could be a vanisher, and a
vanisher doesn't know he could be a persister. So giving them a little
education on the matter gives them a better view of their possibilities,
and they can determine for themselves which side they wish to befriend
at the time.
YOU NEVER TRY TO CHANGE WHICH SIDE OF THE DICOM THEY ARE ON,
because if you do, you can only do so by being on the other side of the
fence they are presently on.
You want someone who is a persister to become a vanisher? That
means YOU must already by a vanisher, you see?
That makes you their SP, which then makes them your SP.
PTSness results from trying to make the SP wrong.
PTSness is born of a NEED to change someone else who is being
suppressive to your goals. If you can't put them there and walk away
from them, then THEY are putting YOU into action using your need to
change them, and that is your PTSness to them.
The SP controls the PTS person by involving the PTSer endlessly in
trying to change, make wrong or destroy the SP.
PTSness results from trying to restore affinity with someone, the
perceived SP, by getting them to AGREE with you.
Affinity for disagreement is the only real freedom from PTSness
For a persister, making the SP wrong consists of trying to change a
vanisher into a persister like himself, thus restoring agreement across
all parties that things are better persisting.
For a vanisher, making the SP wrong consists of trying to change a
persister into a vanisher like himself, thus restoring agreement across
all parties that things are better vanishing.
Both merely end up howling mad at each other.
To run this, list for who or what makes you howling mad.
(Find it by running "Get the idea of being howling mad.")
Then spot in this conflict the various goals on either side to
persist or vanish, and how they are locking up with each other
You will come to know what charge is.
If you understand that BEINGness is vanishment out of time, and
BECOMINGness is persistence in time, then you can audit the conflicts
between BEING and BECOMING, ie the conflict between the goals to BE and
"The way to BE the Creator is to BE the Creator (out of time)
BECOMING the Creature (in time). Coming into time puts you out." -
The following is tech from 2014, so you will have to wait a bit to
get the full measure of it.
Since beingness has a natural affinity for itself, in self and in
others, and becomingness doesn't, when someone can't get others to like
him, he is usually trying to appeal to their becomingness, rather than
He finds their becomingness attractive, so he tries to attract them
with his becomingness. No matter how 'becoming' a young girl might
look, becomingness is filth on the face of Spirit.
Once one sees the beauty of being, one becomes abashed that one
ever tried to attract someone with becomingness.
Serious becomingnesses are created in order to break apart that
natural affinity between beingnesses so that serious games can take
place, those that try to make something or nothing of each other
Your body and its accoutrements are a BECOMINGNESS in time.
Your spirit is a BEINGNESS outside of time.
You may think you are BEING a body, but you aren't, you are
BECOMING a body, over and over, each moment of time, as each second
Sat Sep 27 23:35:43 EDT 2014
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Dec 27 03:06:01 EST 2014
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)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Sat Dec 27 12:50:03 EST 2014
More information about the HomerWSmith-L