.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 118
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 368
Date:         Tue, 28 Mar 89 05:22:09 EST
From:         "Homer W. Smith" 
Subject:      Re: Exactly the subject this list was meant for
To:           Adore-l list 
In-Reply-To:  Message of Mon, 27 Mar 89 21:15:50 EST from 

>Homer,
>
>>     The hidden accusation here is that some people (me) attain
>>a certainty on some subjects from mere gut feelings.
>
>I thought that is exactly what you meant with your "bell ringing
>true" statements.  Weren't you saying that we should believe what
>*feels* right, not necessarily what we *perceive* as being right?
>

     How many times do I have to say this.

     BELIEF is for those who wish to die slowly and in pain.
     BELIEF is for those who wish to die slowly and in pain.
     BELIEF is for those who wish to die slowly and in pain.

     Do not ever BELIEVE ANYTHING.
     Do not ever BELIEVE ANYTHING.
     Do not ever BELIEVE ANYTHING.

     One follows the ringing bells to know where to LOOK further.

     The beauty principle is well known to theoretical physicists.

     They do not believe something just becuase it is beautiful,
but they do give it more attention and experimentation.

     However they DO tend to DISBELIEVE something if it is
ugly and unwieldly.

>In your message you seem to put down skeptics because they are
>wary to put certainty in things.  Here is one example:
>
>>     Your basic skeptic (not McCabe, but others) has the a priori
>>assumption that certainty on any important subject is not attainable,
>>which is why they are a skeptic in the first place.  It is one thing
>>to be in doubt about your Immortality or Responsibility, it is quite
>>another to be a professional skeptic.
>
>But later, you seem to be the perfect example of a skeptic!  Listen:
>
>>     Just because you SEE space does not mean there IS space.
>>     Your every peice of evidence about the physical universe is
>>taken from your conscious picture.  CONSCIOUSNESS is what you are
>>certain of.  Everything else is a theory to explain the
>>consistency and horror of your conscious experience.

     This is sound science, not skepticism.  Consciousness of
space and time does not prove space and time.
>
>This is exactly the reason behind the skeptic's attitude towards
>these phenomena.  How are we supposed to know whether we are
>really exteriorizing?  I think the skeptics have an extremely
>valid and important point here to make.  As you will agree,
>we are at the mercy of our senses.  What *appears* to be an
>exteriorization to you might actually be hallucination.  (Are
>you willing to admit this?)  This is one reason why I am
>personally a little apprehensive about OBE's and exteriorizations.
>Mind farts are easy to generate.  Drugs, isolation chambers, and
>deep relaxation are all easy ways to accomplish these.  In your
>own words:
>
     It is easy to tell a 'real' exteriorization from a fake one.
Its a matter of how accurately you can SEE the world without your
body.  If you can go into the Pentagon and read stuff in locked safes,
and save the world from war, you are out for real.

     So I agree with the point of view that verifying an exteriorization
might be difficult, but the point of view that says it is impossible
to verify and is unlikely to be true anyhow because the physical universe
certainly exists, is full of it.

>>But I have the feeling that most people that have Angels visit them
>>are hallucinating hallucinations rather than real encounters with
>>free beings.
>
>How are you so certain (there's that word again) that you aren't
>hallucinating too?  I have had some odd things happen while
>in meditation, but they were all clearly products of my imagination.
>Of course, I have not been doing it long enough to have had
>truely vivid experiences (yet) either, so maybe that's why I have
>a hard time understanding.

     How am I so CERTAIN about what?  Exteriorizing?  First you
got to tell me what would be a real honest to goodness being
out of your body.  If space and time are all illusions, then
there IS not OUT of your body, all places are HERE and NOW.

     In fact exteriorizing is just changing your point of view
around in the space/time continuum.  It is NOT a matter of MOVING
anywere.  There is no where to go.

     If someone SAYS they are viewing Washington from the top
of Mount McKinley, and what they report they are seeing is not
what everyone else is reporting is going on, then probably they
are hallucinating hallucinations rather than accurate viewpoints.

     But if they can SEE and report back accurately, if they
can move objects directly without their bodies, (I mean for real,
not the bullshit you see on tv) then they are out.
What more do you want.

      Why don't YOU start telling me what experiments YOU would want
to do to prove someone was out of their body.  Why the thwarp are
you asking ME to do YOUR work for you?  YOU are the one who wants proof.
If you want to test someone to YOUR satisfaction, YOU have to design
the experiments.  What would prove it to YOU that I was out?
>
>>     Why do you believe that the world is other than you WANT IT?
>
>Simply because I am bombarded with evidence in support of that
>idea every waking moment of my existance.  I am not entirely
>happy with this world, and I WANT it to be different, yet it
>isn't.   Doesn't that disprove your theory?

     Your whole life you have tried to understand the universe, no?
But you have always stated off with a framework that did NOT say that
YOU made it and YOU jumped into it and YOU forgot and if you re operate
these actions YOU will get back in/out.

     Instead you said, God made me, or the Universe made me, or I don't
know who made me, but I did not make me.  Since this attitude
causes bad things to persist like crazy, you eventually get covered
with a million bad things that you cant make go away.

     Pimples, colds, forgetfulness, ugliness, fat, you name it.

     You get stuck in a body that gets hungry, can be tortured, put
in jail, killed, robbed, lost and otherwise tormented.

    You are spirit.  You can move through solid steel walls.  But
you cant move out of your brain?  Well thats because you are not
thinking along the lines of moving IN deeper.  You see?

     You never once tried to make MORE of all the bad things.
You didn't try to give yourself MORE pimples, or bigger pimples,
you didn't try to make yourself fatter or OLDER or DEADER or any of
the things that you fear the most.  In stead you tried to will the bad thing
away. And it did not work.

     Thus you got your evidence, hook, line and sinker.

     But you cant get rid of them if you didn't put them there.

     If you don't even consider the possibility that YOU put them there
and forgot, and you don't ever practice doing it again, then you are
never going to be able to get rid of them.  The way to make the
alpha lock button come UP is to push it DOWN again.
>
>>     Why would you believe that a universe could create a creature
>>that was unhappy with the way the universe was?  Isn't this a kind
>>of philosophical morbidity?
>
>Sometimes life is morbid.  That's the way it is.  I don't feel
>that the universe CREATED anything.  Creation implies some sort of
>consious effort and premeditation, something which I am not sure
>the universe itself is capable of.  Besides, I find it perfectly
>plausable that creatures can be dissatisfied with their environment.
>When CS evolves far enough to implement artificial intelligence,
>I don't expect it would be difficult to create a "creature"
>(in software) that is quite unhappy with the way its universe is.

     Love and shame can not of force and mass be made.

     No computer will ever be conscious or need pain killers.

     Consciousness is not made of machine, space or time.

     In fact consciousness creates illusions of these things.
>
>>     Lots of bells ring.  Some ring better than others.
>>Maybe you haven't yet heard a bell ring better than the one you have.
>
>Maybe not.  Then again, just because an idea is pleasant and
>comforting, it doesn't mean it is true.  The idea that all
>women are uncontrollably attracted to me is one that I like a
>lot, but unfortunately it doesn't make it true.  This is another
>reason why I am being very careful with your philosophy.  It
>is a very appealing way to look at things.  I really do wish it
>were true!  But self-delusion is all to easy, and I would hate
>to jump on the bandwagon of the first attractive philosophy to
>stroll my way without testing the waters beforehand.
>
     Belief is for losers.  If you can not attain certainty as to
any matter then you should trash it.  Of course you should test
things out for yourself.  Please stop charging me with crimes
I have not commited.

     I am telling you certainty is possible, and I have told you
HOW to attain it.  Re operate not knowing.

>This brings me to another point.  One of the techniques you seem
>to use to bring about enlightenment is what you call "re operation":
>
>>     I am trying to show you HOW to know.  Re operate NOT knowing.
>>Then you can know for sure for yourself.
>
>From previous postings, it seems that you want us to keep telling
>ourselves that we really ARE gods and eventually we'll remember
>that we are.  Isn't this also auto-brain-washing?

     I have never said this.  In fact the way to find out that you
are a God, is to make yourself believe that you are NOT a god.
Then your god hood will come back to you  (Very slowly, there are
a LOT of beasts in the way.)

     From ADORE:

     The CREATOR can become the CREATURE at will.
     The CREATURE can become the CREATOR at will.

     The way for the CREATURE to become the CREATOR is
to be the CREATOR becoming the CREATURE.

     Practice becoming the CREATURE is practice BEING the CREATOR.

     Who is auto brainwashing who now?  YOU have brainwashed
yourself into thinking you are not a God.  I am telling you you can
erase this brainwashing by DOING IT AGAIN.

    Telling your self that you ARE a God will never change anything,
except you might begin to THINK you were a God but you would have
ZIP for powers.

We could use the
>same technique to "remember" that we have tiny brown rabbits living
>inside our heads controlling our every movement, couldn't we?
>How can you tell the difference between remembering and make-believe?
>
     This is your basic problem them.  You do not know how to tell
memory from imagination.  Create that condition, and it will begin
to vanish.  Remember there are times on all of our tracks when we
did something that we WANTED to forget, that we WANTED to believe
was imagination.  Thus the inability to tell memory from imagination
is a common problem to people who can not tolerate what they did.

     If they can claim it was imagination, they can say it never happened.
Poor soul.  If they cant take full reponsibility for what they did, they
will forever be trapped by their regret which 'never happened'.

>>     Now you might say, 'well I don't FEEL like a God'.  That's because
>>you ARE a God, asshole, and you can do some amazing stuff to yourself.
>
>Just as a matter of ettiquette, I see no reason to call names here.
>I've got no harsh feelings towards you, and I hope you don't feel
>any worse towards me.  A lot of my messages may sound like flames,
>but they really are not at all.  You must understand my purpose here.

     Dont take it personally, and don't go to an EST class.  They
will call you an asshole for 7 days straight, until you get it.

     From ADORE:

     As for ESTies, they are all ASSHOLES and KNOW it.
     They MAKE the GRADE.


     By the way, do you think it is the better side of you that
you cant remember the past 20 billion years of your life for?
It is the asshole you can not remember and wish you did not have.
No one is clean on planet Earth.  Those that are, are called
Masters of Source.

>See, I really like a lot of the ideas you are putting forth.  I've
>liked them since before I've known you or joined this list.
>However, before I can accept many of them I have to resolve the
>problems I can't help but notice.  If this isn't the proper forum
>for this discussion let me know, and I'll stop.  Until then,
>I don't see how name-calling is going to benefit anyone.

     I am well within the 50 percent rule.
>
>>     I wanted to EXPERIENCE it for myself.
>>     In the first place, getting out of one's body is insignificant
>>compared to exteriorizing from space and time totally.   THEN you get
>>some first hand knowledge of Divinity.  I am told.
>>     Maybe if you give me some idea of what you want to hear from me
>>I might be able to come up with something.
>
>THAT is exactly what I would like to hear.  You probably weren't
>born with your current philosophy, right?  You probably gradually
>progressed to the point where you are today.  I'd like to hear
>how you got where you are now, why you are certain of the things
>you are certain of, and what experiences helped you to learn
>the things you have learned.  I don't want a receipe that anyone
>can follow -- I just want to know the reasons behind WHY you believe
>what you do.  Even if I am not convinced that your experiences really
>happened, I would applaud you for relating what you personally
>went through.  I know the general outline of your philosophy, but
>I don't know why you believe it.  That is what I am after!

     Seems to me that you want me to tell you things that can not
possibly help you attain certainty.  If I tell you I had a talk
with an Angel the other night, would that help you?  Or me?
Are you even vaguely ready to know WHY I think the way I do?
Everyone thinks they are ready to meet God or attain Divinity.

     We all will be lucky to LIVE through it.

     If I start asserting I have powers that would prove my points,
don't you think that would put me on the spot to use them?
Would this not be dangerous?
>
>>     You know getting out of a body does not prove much in the way
>>of divinity.  Experiencing your CHOICE to be here does.
>
>Getting out of a body does not prove much in the way of divinity, no.
>BUT, getting out of a body would definately convince me that things
>are drastically different from the way I (and most of the rest of
>the planet) think they are!  That alone would drive me on to
>greater and greater exploration of what is possible.  But if I spend
>two or three years of continuous looking (to use your term), and
>never find anything out of the ordinary, I'm very likely not going
>to continue along that path.  So, although an OBE doesn't
>in itself prove the truth of your philosophy, it will sure as hell
>keep me searching in that direction!

    Yes, and 3 years of total failure would be enough to discourage
anyone.  It sometimes helps to have a one to one relationship with
someone who has attained the freedom you are looking for.
They can then constantly correct you and get you to walk a path that
will be fruitful.

     But in the absence of such things, you must do it alone.

     You have until the day you die, to find out you don't die.
If you die first, you will find out immediately afterwards.
And be kicking yourself forever afterwards for being such a dolt.
>
>>     Most of you who have done serious drugs know that there is
>>a kind of beauty called 'candyland'.
>>     Above that there is a kind of beauty called 'Stardrive'.
>>     Above that is something called 'Excaliper Beauty'.
>
>Oh?  I've never heard of any of those terms and I've done serious
>drugs in my time.  You tend to redefine a lot of words in
>your AVL's too, and it just seems to add to the confusion.  Not
>that I mind it, it's just that you probably shouldn't expect the
>rest of us to relate to your very personal terms so much.
>(The recent PLOP posting made a humorous satire on this, although
>it was probably a rather rude way to get the point across.)
>
     If you can not understand the AVL's, I will try to elucidate
on them.

     Most of the private mail I have recieved about them has
been highly laudatory.

     Possibly it is just you who has a hard time understanding.

>Well, I'm at the end of my spiel now...  ;)  I wish the rest of
>the list would jump in on this one...  It seems like the type of
>topic this group was designed for!
>
     Many people are silent listeners.  They are the silent part
of the signal to noise ratio, that makes the signal level
so much higher.

     The fact that they stay on the list to listen, even if they
do not say anything, means that something of worth must being being said.

 Homer W. Smith      Adore-l list         3/28/89*Exactly the subject this list