CB Willis (cbwillis@adore.lightlink.com) wrote:
>Darkness is an absence of light.  

     *BLACKNESS* is not an absence of light.

     Unconsciousness of everything, sleep, is an absence of light.

     Consciousness is consciousness of SOMETHING, that something is
either WHITE light or BLACK light.  Black light is not nothing.
Darkness here means black light.

     Just so, conscious intent is either good or bad, good or evil,
light or dark, white or black, love or hate, beauty or ugly etc.

    Blackness is not the absence of whiteness.
    Darkness is not the absence of lightness.
    Hate is not the absence of Love.
    Ugly is not the absence of Beauty.

     The absence of Blackness, Whiteness, Darkness, Lightness, Hate,
Love, Ugly and Beauty is *STATIC VOID SLEEP*.
>Things can get so dark we forget the
>light and see darkness as something in its own right. 

     Again this is wrong.  Darkness is a presence that we create in
the absence of light.  Darkness is not itself an absence, it is a
conscious presence *THAT IS USED TO SIGNIFY AN ABSENCE*.

     The night sky is perceived as dark because there is no light.

     The static is not perceived as dark even though there is no

     Absence of light does not itself create presence of darkness.

     BEINGS create presence of darkness to SIGNIFY absence of light in
physical universe games.
>It's more workable for many purposes to stay oriented to light and good,
>not drop down to and become entangled or trapped in the level of
>dichotomies and opposition, not give darkness and evil the time of day as
>if they are normal or desirable, or GRANT them any ontological status. It

     There we go, 'nor grant darkness and evil any ontological

     "Some ontological status not being granted?"

>is a way of LOOKING at something that is more workable vs. less workable
>for the purpose of remaining oriented to light and good so as to
>accomplish constructive goals.


     Believe what one will so that one can only see what one can
tolerate seeing.

     The TRUTH is that light and dark, good and evil, love and hate,
beauty and ugly all have EQUAL ontological status, they both ARE and
they are both PERSISTING LIES, and choosing one's truth in order to
force orient oneself towards one Wing of the Dicom is suppressive to
one's self and to others and marks Koosies comments about you as spot
on as they come.

>We can talk about these things as if that's what they ARE, but we have a
>choice in how to look at them, frame them in language, how to model
>them, so they're most workable for us with regard to achieving worthy

     It is NOT a worthy goal to become good and oriented to the light.

     It is a worthy goal to become Master Weavers of Light and Dark,
Good and Evil, Love and Hate, Beauty and Ugly, to become Authors
again, and not good little creatures in an Author's play.

     YOUR goal is to become a better Creature.

     OUR goal is to become a better Creator.

     No *WONDER* your tech has nothing to do with clearing.

>To treat basic goodness as if it were evil, is also evil.

     To say that God is Good is evil.

     God is not a creature, God is the Creator of Good and Evil.

     Carol you still don't get it, what we are all about here.

     We been saying it for 6 years, and you been making nothing of it
as fast as we say it.

     No wonder you never run

    "Something been made nothing of".
    "Some ontological status not been granted".
     Not seeing the parity of ontological status between the wings of
the dicom IS what you are doing, either they are both true, or they
are both nuts, but never is one true and the other non existent.

     That's pitiful.
     Even the Monsters will spit you out.