THE UNCERTAINTY OF CERTAINTY It's a common assertion by people that all certainties are untrustable. Like the certainty that certainty is impossible, the certainty that all certainties are untrustable is illogical. The certainty that all certainties are untrustable implies this certainty is untrustable. This opens the door to the possibility that some certainties are trustable. This is in fact the truth. It behooves the auditor to help the pc to a state where he knows what certainties are trustable and which aren't. Otherwise there is no personal integrity to be had. If the pc can't know what he knows and not know what he doesn't know, then what hope is there of him ever drawing a correct conclusion about anything? It is commonly accepted that being "certain" of various things is dangerous, because these 'certainties' turn out to be wrong. (This is true, meatballs claim certainty on all kinds of things that are in fact unknowable. Meatballs claim they are certain of THEORIES which can never proven 'right' and thus can never be called a perfect certainty. Only an untrained slob of a mind would make this mistake.) It is therefore considered 'best practice' to consider all certainties untrustable. This is called a safe solution. There is nothing more dangerous in the universe than a safe solution. Particularly when the light of consciousness is living certainty itself. In fact every consciousness-of is a perfect certainty. The perfect certainties of consciousness are perfect because they are continuously reverifiable, and thus can not be wrong. Does anything exist? Yes? Good. Now let's check it out again. Does anything exist? Yes? Good. Now let's check it out again. Does anything exist? Yes? Good. Now let's check it out again. Do you see two different colors in present time? Yes? Are you sure? Would you bet your eternity in hell on it? Easily? Good. Now let's check it out again... The fact that you see a car doesn't mean that there IS a car, you may be hallucinating. But the fact that you see a car does mean that you see a car. People have their symbols and referents confused. What you SEE is the symbol for a car in your consciousness. What you believe is out there is what you hope the symbol refers to, the referent, but there is no evidenced at all that such a thing actually exists beyond your personal dream of it, and everyone else's in sync with yours. That's not evidence of the objective external world, that's how mass hallucination works, and how the AllThatIS works, as actuality is virtual reality dream machine. It's easy and trivial to 'prove', just get out of your body. The fact of the hallucination and the hallucinators are not hallucinations. The LOOKER, the LOOKED THROUGH and the LOOKED AT are not hallucinations, they are actual. The existence of implied referents is always uncertain, and can not be otherwise. The external world is a theory. Consciousness however is not. The conscious experience of a car is a symbol for the referent which is the alleged actual car 'out there'. A hallucination is a symbol without a referent. The symbol is always perfectly certain as it is a conscious experience. The referent is never certain, as the existence of a symbol does not prove the existence of a referent. No one has ever seen an actual car, they have only ever seen their own personal conscious color form picture of a car. There is in fact no evidence at all that an actual car exists out there. Most people simply can't conceive of the alternative, that matter energy space and time are dreams in the self luminous light of an infinite number of consciousnesses. Its an emotional thing for them. No one wants to be the fool on the hill, and besides they enjoy the game of death. Only an Eternal sunk to the level of an Immortal could. A conscious unit, which thinks that all certainty is untrustable, is untrusting of its own existence, agency and care. This is called 'mind broke'. CERTAINTY OF CERTAINTY is sanity. CERTAINTY OF UNCERTAINY is sanity. UNCERTAINTY OF CERTAINTY is insanity. UNCERTAINTY OF UNCERTAINTY is more insanity. That last one is "I don't know if I don't know!" We are not talking about MEMORY here, "Well maybe I KNEW, I just can't remember. On the other hand maybe I never knew, I just don't know if I know!" All certainty and uncertainty is in present time. If you don't know something NOW, then you are certainly uncertain of it NOW. Now is a stream of conscious perfect certainties. A thetan however can doubt anything, even that he is doubting. This is willfull out integrity. Personal integrity is: "I doubt I am, therefore I am, for a nothing could never wonder if it was a nothing or a something." -- Descartes Homer - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Plate 1: Party Line A party line is a fixed idea, pet theory, or other philosophical vanity that when confronted by evidence or reason that it is wrong, over rules that evidence or reason. People may be stuck in one or more party lines. The core party line is the perfect certainty that perfect certainty is impossible, untrustable, undesirable, unimportant, dangerous or useless. We call this 'mind broke'. Perfect certainty of uncertainty is the beginning of personal integrity. #----------------------------------------------------------------------- Plate 2: Logic Logic is the ethics of language, a description of IS AND IS NOT. If you say "All dogs are animals, and Joey is an animal, but Joey is not a dog", what have you said? If you say "All that comes from God is good, and Man came from God, but Man is not all good," what have you said? It is good that Man is not all good? Logic means: IS is IS. IS means IS. IS is not IS NOT. IS does not mean IS NOT. IS NOT is IS NOT. IS NOT means IS NOT. IS NOT is not IS. IS NOT does not mean IS. Bi valued logic means: A is A. A is not not A. Its never the case that A and not A. It is always the case that A or not A. Any use of the word IS and all of its grammatical equivalents (namely all of the possible conjugations of the finitive TO BE) is a use and assertion of the validity of bi valued logic. For example the statement "Logic IS invalid", is nuts, as it is using logic to deny logic. Some would assert that multi or infinite valued logic IS a superset of bi valued logic, but the assertion that infinite valued logic *IS* anything, automatically makes it a subset of bi valued logic. To assert that infinite valued logic *IS* better than bi valued logic is to use bi valued logic to make the assertion. Homer Sat Sep 24 00:41:56 EDT 2016