> There is something important about being aware. I also agree that the only
> thing I can be certain of is my own existence. But though I have always
> known about your proof, I do not "feel" that its internal logic implies that
> it has also opened a window into the mystery. That is, the cornerstone
> of certainty may not be the cornerstone of truth. That is not to say that it
> in fact is not, nor that it might not be the first step along that path.

      Yes, certainty is probably a red herring, a secondary result of the
scalarness of consciousness, not the primary magic that is going on.

      Scientology's idea of the truth is the static before the creation
of any kinetic, they call it Native State or Basic Truth.

      Anything created then, kinetics, is all based in lies and
alter-isness, which takes the being away from as-isness (static) into
persistence of lies (kinetic, consequtiveness, here-thereness, cause
between objects out there etc.)

> Assuming there is such a thing as "truth", even if it is only a single
> solitary speck of certainty, or reality, I wonder if it can be proven, or
> even accessed in the way you do.

      One maybe able to BE it, I don't know about KNOW it.

      The whole point of the proof is to mock up Newtonian mechanics
so thoroughly that the being can see it is NOT what is going on
in consciousness, that breaks the fixation on maya, and allows the
being to ask well if not that, then what?

      So I am not so much interested in what is, but what isn't, to free
my mind from being sucked into the delusion about illusion of what is.

      The whole idea of question/answer is itself based in maya
mechanics, the mind is a Q&A machine based on Doing = Wanting + Knowing,
so perhaps transcendence of Q&A is necessary to become truth again.

      Hubbard said "There is BEING, but man thinks there is only

      So we are back to that timelessness again, that none the less can
perceive time, illusion or not, but can not easily see its own

      Albert Hoffman said he experienced the timelessness during his
first trip on LSD, but I never did, and never have.

      The idea that the thing which perceives time is itself timeless is
interesting, but like everything in this area is an oxymoron and open
only to direct perception, not think about to describe 'how it works'.

      We may see how timeless works, when we see it, but it may not be

      So don't expect to write it up for Nature Magazine.

Though there certainly seems to be
> something, (more than nothingness, that is) in existence, I wonder if it can
> be gleaned from thought at all. What if it cannot be, and the wonderful
> patterns that very intelligent people create are not really pertinent? What
> if the certainty itself is the only manifestation of itself, and the
> engineering and inclusion of the rest of the universe is only an engineered
> pattern?

      Not sure what you are saying, but seems like I have already said
that kinetics is all orchestrated illusion on the part of the static.

      It is a common idea that there might be something can not be known,
or understood, but if so how would one ever know?  So why assert it?

      An unknowable cause doesn't really help us understand anything, or
better our control over it so we aren't just tumble weeds in the wind of

      The other idea is that anything that can affect us can be known,
internal and external.  That means we can spot any cause that we need to
to explain anything going on.

      If something continues to exist that is not caused, then perhaps
that we will never know, because if there is no cause to it, then there
is no effect from it, and it can never be known and is completely
irrelevant to anything that exists because it isn't cause over it.

      External science is concerned with one subject and one subject
only, cause.  No cause, and science looks right by it as it might
as well not be there.

     Something that has no cause over anything might as well not exist.

     Same thing might apply to the scalar world, no cause, no

     In the end our understanding of WHAT CAUSE IS, is probably

     In the kinetic world we can define cause as NECESSARY dependable
followingness.  But asking why is it necessary is like asking
why is cause cause.

      We can see the end events that follow each other, we can even see
the dependability of the followingness, but not the NECESSITY in between
the events that makes them do so.

      In a scalar universe the whole concept of followingness is absurd,
let alone necessary followingness, but we still look for the necessity
between things that are and things that become, and we are still looking
for the cause of cause.

      Why is there cause?

      Have we even yet proven to ourselves that cause exists, I think so,
personal agency is part of the perfect certainty pallete, but what is
the anatomy of cause that allows it to be cause?

>      I will tell you about the time God spoke to me.  It was about three
> years ago.
>      I was getting my car from a garage in Manhattan.  The rest of my
> family was waiting for me.  We were going to a restaurant with friends a
> mile or so uptown on 3rd.  Ave..  The attendant was a nice guy who also
> was a pastor at a small local church in Harlem.  He had been there for
> months.  Why was this night different from every other night?  As I was
> about to get into the car, he told me out of the blue that God was going
> to speak with me.
>      I am smug about certain things, I am a dick, you know, After, all,
> I had been to college.  So I asked him such stupid questions as, "will
> he speak to me in English?".  He took no notice of the light sarcasm and
> condescension (I am not really cruel or mean-spirited), but simply said
> he did not know.  It did not register on me particularly at the time,
> but I was disconcerted.  I left.
>      We were late, as usual, so I dropped everyone off in front of the
> restaurant, and started looking for a parking space.  There one was, on
> the avenue, just up the block.  But then a car came around the corner
> and took the spot.  I did not register it as odd at the time, but that
> car simply turned the corner and shot into that spot.  Oh well, happens
> all the time.  There was a car just a little farther up pulling out, so
> I got behind it.  But it was a hydrant.  Oh well, happens all the time.
> I turned the corner at 77th St.  and at the corner of Lexington, saw
> another spot.  But just as the light changed, a car appeared and took
> the spot.
>      First profanity.
>      I went around the immediate neighborhood for the next five minutes,
> and this happened three more time in quick succession.
>      Second, third, fourth...  nineteenth profanities.
>      As I was steaming, I turned again onto 77th St from 3rd, and,
> midblock, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up.  A wave of hilarity
> washed over me, and I realized, I laughed out loud, "Oh, I see you are
> speaking to me" It was a real rush.  I was elated.  I was leaning
> forward, half out of the seat.  The light was green on Lex, and a spot
> was open right around the corner.
>      Now I understand that headlines are the talk of the town,
> especially when they tell a tale of remarkable events, or rather
> remarkable coincidences.  That these are merely the ones that do now and
> then happen and are thus noticed, among the billions that never do, and
> die unrequited.  The risen hackles, the joy, the parking spot.  All
> normal, or rather, unremarkable, eh?.  Including the fact that the
> number seven figures into it all.
>      But what about the pastor?

      Sure, so communication happens between us all at the inward scalar
level, not bound by the outward limitations of kinetic cause, speed of
light, particles, messenger waves etc.

      Scalar communication is more like two beings have the same idea at
the same time, because they ARE the same being in the scaler, with two
different instantiations in the kinetic.

      The whole idea that God is a multi being, a Multi I-AM being, and
everything kinetic is an avatar for one of those beings, has wild

      The only thing you can not know is something fundamentally
different than you at all levels, you and it are two different objects,
then you got theories to keep you warm in the night.

      So rather than thinking about God talking you, perhaps reword it
  into You/pastor/wholeshitloadofdrivers was talking to all of you,
  and you were the only one to pick it up.

      Don't know, I wouldn't presume to describe the paranormal beyond
the rudiments of Theory II which is more about what things are NOT than
what they are.

      Einstein was pacing the floor one day worried to his wits end about
the ridiculousness Special Relativity applied to QM entanglement, and
Occam's ghost visited him and said 'Albert, don't worry.  when you think
you have your theory all wrapped up and it all makes perfect sense, its
wrong.  Keep going until its all ludicrous and impossible, then you are
on the right track."

      The universe is like a Koan, its not meant to be understood, the
way kinetic mechanics and linear temporal cause is.  Our whole mind is
built to understand linear temporal cause because that's how our
survival in this universe works.  But the projector of the universe has
no concern with survival, it just is forever outside of time, and what
ever cause/mechanism there is to how or why it projects kinetics inside
of time is going to be just more oxymoronic nonsense to the kinetic

      The more oxymoronic it is, the more people will 'get it' and the
more Nature will refuse to publish it.

      So The Scientists of the Rock will be last to 'know' :)


Homer Wilson Smith   Clean Air, Clear Water,    Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959       A Green Earth, and Peace,  Internet, Ithaca NY  Is that too much to ask?
Mon Apr  6 19:29:16 EDT 2015