ADORE707 (fwd)

Homer Wilson Smith HomerWSmith at lightlink.com
Mon Jul 17 00:38:12 EDT 2017


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


     SOLIPSISM

      Solipsism is the philosophical stance that all we can know for sure
is our consciousness and what we see in it as experience, not as implied
external objective objects which may or may not be out there.

In alt.clearing.technology Jommy Cross <jommycross@[127.1]> wrote:
>>     So a dreamball believes that the world is a dream now, a co dream
>>among many dreamers dreaming together about an external space and time
>>that doesn't actually exist, it just isn't out there.  It never has
>>been, and never will be, because it CAN'T BE.
>
> Writing it in all caps doesn't make it any less solipsist. It's not clear
> why you think it CAN'T BE?

      It is solipsism, what's the problem Sir?

> Who put the fixed stars where they are in the sky? Who agreed they'd go
> there?

      There are no stars, no space, no time just renditions of these
things in the render zone of our consciousness.

      We put those there.  Computer artistry every bit of it.

      When and why is lost in history to us, we wanted to be creature, so
have lost contact with being creator.

      What is the problem?

> I simply admit the dreamball theory is more desirable. Alas, passing a law
> to make the value of pi precisely 3.0, while desirable for a lot of
> reasons, really doesn't work.

      Passing a law that says that the physical universe is not a dream
doesn't work ether.  Either it is a dream or it isn't.  Either it is
ACTUALLY out there, or it is only a virtual projection in our minds, a
picture of being out there.

      Evidence please, for the existence of the physical universe.

      I can't give evidence of the non existence of something.

      It is up to you to give evidence of the existence of the physical
universe that would pass scientific muster.

> The theory that I'm God become Soul seems independent of the theory that
> the waking world (reality) is a dream, imho.

> What prevents the God of which I was theoretically part building an
> objective reality before becoming all those Souls?

      Very intelligent question, and it is in fact called the hybrid
theory between dreamball and meatball.

      I accept its possibility, as long as one does not then say that
consciousness is a process in the brain, as consciousness created
the brain.

      I would however accept that consciousness, which created the brain
long ago was INTERFACED with the brain in such a way as to receive
physical data from it.

      The hybrid theory philosophically depends on the idea that
something which was not space and time could nonetheless create space
and time and put objects in it.

      The pure dreamball theory says that consciousness exists as a zero
dimensional scalar entity, and that it operates by creating images in
its consciousness that render likenesses of space and time and objects,
which do not take up space or time themselves, because consciousness
does not change its spaceless timeless form to create images of space
and time.

      Consciousness can dream of space and time and it can believe it is
not dreaming, that is about it.

      Consciousness dreams things that it is not.

      Source sources what Source is not.

      Thus everything created is the opposite of the nature of the
creator.

> Why does reality being a dream make me part of a God?

      If there is no space or time between beings, then all beings are on
the same zero dimensional scalar 'point'.

      I hate to call it a point because people confuse a scalar point
with a 0x0x0 3 dimensional point which is a nothing.

      Since all beings are on the same point by definition of there being
no actual space and time, they must in some sense be all there is, and
at root they are all one, and the the same object.

      Incarnation is the process by which the One manifests as the Many.

      It's like the God side of each being is the same substrate, which
is the One that allows co communication between beings, and the Soul
side of each being is an individual operating Source.

      Since all beings are on the same point, something must be
connecting them so they can dream the same dream and communicate in
sync, resonance or unison with each other, otherwise everyone one would
be dreaming alone.

      So we call that one thing the One or the AllThatIs, of which there
can only be one of them.

      Space and time are separators, they put the apparency of separation
between things and make them two or more different objects.

      The absence of dimensionality does not produce a nothing, it
produces a scalar, which has no separation inside itself or outside
itself, as there is no outside to have another scalar.

      It is a conscious entity of some sort that can in apparency only
separate out many conscious subunits that can take on the apparency of
individuality.

      This multi I-AM being then we call God for lack of a better word.
It fits the bill, as creator, author, intelligent, sentient, except that
rather than being one being that 'creates' all other beings, this God is
a multi being that creates illusion in itself of being created for its
own enjoyment.

>      Why is reality about desire?  See pi = 3 above.

      Desire needs to be unbiased in the investigation of the problem.

      When the square root of 2 was first proved to be irrational, those
who knew had a hell of a time getting those vested in rational numbers
to look at the problem, admit it was there, and actively pursue the
proof themselves.  They became Prove It!  cases, rather than trying to
prove it themselves.

      If the physical universe exists, there is no possible way for
anyone to prove it by merely using their consciousness of it, you can
not prove that A exists by looking at A through B.

      However if the world is a dream, it should be relatively easy to
demonstrate the truth of your choices in creating the world and choosing
to forget doing so and why.

      We can suggest a path towards that end, based on the way in is the
way out, and we can help in the matter with guiding style auditing.

      At which point the actuality of the unprovable physical universe
falls away as ludicrous.  We believe in its actuality only because we
wanted to, not because of any actual evidence for its existence.

      The vested interest case expects us to prove to him that the world
is a dream, when he hasn't proven to himself that we even exist, nor
that the alleged physical universe exists as more than a shared co
dream.

      No one can prove that to another, only to themselves.

      If one created something, and chose to forget having created it,
the way to undo that is to practice making choices and forgetting them,
until you get in sync with the big one.

      All he really knows is that he exists, and that is the first step
towards wisdom.

      A conscious unit can not prove the existence of anything
represented in the dream including the existence of other conscious
units, using only the images in his consciousness to do it, or the
pretended objects in space time that he thinks they represent.

      In other words anything you are conscious-of in the outside world is
useless to prove that the outside world exists, or that anyone else but
you exists.

      And that is solipsism.

      And a conscious unit can only prove its own existence through self
luminous self awareness.

      Conscious units can only become certain of each other, via the
inward mechanism that connects units at the scalar/static level, where
in he can see the oneness and the manyness of everyone at the same time.
and the on going choice to engage in illusions of space and time, from a
scalar source.

      Once he sees that, all questions of whether or not kinetics,
space and time, are illusions fall away as self obvious.

      As for desire, since the conscious unit created the kinetic
illusion, it must have come from his or someone's desire, and therefore
the illusion is as he wanted it to be no matter how much he protests it
now after the fact, he had to want that protest also.

>>     He will instead grab the first piece of anything that indicates
>>that the dreamball theory can't be true, and say 'See I told you so, you
>>dream balls are all delusional, I don't have to bother with you any
>>more.'
>
> Sweet Elvis, here I am bothering and what thanks do I get? I'm a
> "meatball", "carrion", a "hyena", a "basher".
>
> You guys have some serious aggression issues you need to address, imho.

      Uh, sorry it is the meatballs who told me I belong in a straight
jacket because I believe in OT powers.

      Anyhow may respect for you will go up, if you respond intelligently
to the above.

      But admit it, a mortal meatball is an incipient carrion dweller, no
way around it.

      I am not asking that anyone AGREE with the dreamball theory, only
to understand it thoroughly and to admit they really don't know which
theory is true or not, dreamball or meatball.

      Homer

> Incident zero: Ron trolled you
>
> Ever yours in fandom,
> Jommy Cross
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
> before you hallucinate
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>

- --
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith     The Paths of Lovers    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 KC2ITF        Cross            Internet Access, Ithaca NY
homer at lightlink.com    In the Line of Duty    http://www.lightlink.com
Wed Jan 27 23:29:37 EST 2010

================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Fri Jul 14 12:00:02 EDT 2017
WEB:  http://www.clearing.org
BLOG: http://adoretheproof.blogspot.org
FTP:  ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/homer/adore707.memo
Send mail to archive at lightlink.com saying help in body
=========== 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)

iD8DBQFZaOqCURT1lqxE3HERArHtAJ9TfIjGyLDHT7yYpCf+B5QCRYd2GwCglWfY
Vm0Fh/tmCXYhNF8T5yyANI8=
=EGaJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the HomerWSmith-L mailing list